In his foreword to the “United Nations Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction – Our World at Risk: Transforming Governance for a Resilient Future”, released on April 26, UN secretary-general António Guterres says that all too often after a major crisis, “we tend to go back to business as usual, leaving vulnerabilities in our societies unaddressed”.
This is also the sorry state in Malaysia. We rush to attend to a crisis and then relax into the “business as usual” mode. The most glaring and immediate example is that involving floods. I suppose we can take comfort in the fact that this is also happening in other nations.
However, the UN warns us, we cannot afford to relax too much as climate change is set to cause havoc if not addressed early. For years, researchers have been ringing the alarm bell about climate change – especially global warming – and its likely devastating effect on the Earth and human lives.
In earlier years, I was somewhat sceptical of the dire warnings about how climate change could upend our lives and leave tremendous devastation in its wake. I wondered, for instance, if it was selfish on the part of the West to tell Latin American and Asian nations to preserve their rainforests when the West had already chopped down most of the trees in its backyard for profit or to make way for housing and commercial development.
Today, due to the increasing research that points to the reality of the effects of climate change and the fact that I can actually see changes in the weather leading to, for instance, greater frequency of floods and hotter days, I am inclined to believe that climate change does pose a problem.
Although I don’t think it is as terrible as some environmentalists claim, the danger is real.
Having said that, I must admit that I can’t shake off the feeling – even now – that the West’s massive push for climate change action has some element of self-interest or gain.
Be that as it may, the UN’s “2020 Status Report on Disaster Risk Reduction in Malaysia”, released in January 2021, says the maximum annual rainfall intensity has increased substantially. Quoting researchers, it says: “For example, the 1-hour, 3-hour and 6-hour periods of rain between 2000 and 2007 have risen by 17%, 29% and 31%, respectively, compared with the period of 1970-1980.
“Alongside rainfall irregularities, a warming trend has been witnessed over the past decade, which may severely endanger the economic development alongside wellbeing of the people. For a country which draws 8.1% of its GDP from agriculture (rice, followed by palm oil), such changes may be detrimental in the longer-term without adequate adaptation measures.”
Malaysian researchers too have been warning us of the effects of climate change. In fact, Universiti Malaya professor Dr Rajah Rasiah actually put a figure on how much it would cost Malaysia if no climate control policies are put in place. His 2016 study estimated it could cost a mind-blowing cumulative RM40.1 trillion over a 100-year period from 2010 to 2110.
In her 2018 paper on “Climate Change Scenarios in Malaysia: Engaging the Public”, Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Haliza Abdul Rahman lists the potential impact of climate change on Malaysia.
It would include, Haliza says, a rise in sea levels, reduced crop yields, greater diseases among forest species, loss of biodiversity, erosion of shorelines, increased flood intensities, coral reef bleaching, tidal inundation of coastal areas, decreased water availability, more droughts and increased incidences of disease.
Quoting Malaysian researchers, the UN’s 2020 status report says approximately 29,800 square kilometres of land, within which 5 million people reside, feel the brunt of annual floods ((Taib, Jaharuddin, & Mansor, 2016). It warns that the area affected could increase due to rising sea levels, which may reach 0.25 to 0.5 metres by 2100 in Peninsular Malaysia and potentially exceed 1.06 metres in Sabah (Awang & Hamid, 2013).
The document says the impact varies “from prolonged water deficits for irrigation purposes (leading to significant crop losses in the northern regions, especially) to decreased river flows, 30% reduction in annual palm oil yields, major loss of biodiversity, and significant stress on public health due to diseases and heat (Syazwan & Mohd, 2014).” Similarly, rice yields are expected to be reduced by between 12 and 31.3% by 2030.
But how ready is Malaysia in facing the risks of climate change?
Haliza says Malaysia has in place a legal framework for the implementation of climate change mitigation and voluntary environmental disclosure. In 2010 itself, Malaysia had launched a National Policy on Climate Change and under the 10th Malaysia Plan (2011-2015) the government spent RM51 billion to “enhance resilience” against climate change.
Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob said on Feb 4 that the government would take a “whole of society approach” in tackling climate change. Among other things, he said, it would educate the people, cooperate with civil societies and organisations, and even introduce climate change education in schools and universities.
The 12th Malaysia Plan passed by Parliament last October, among other things, talks eloquently about fighting climate change. It highlights the government’s ambition of achieving carbon neutral status by 2050 at the earliest and its decision to overhaul its land use, energy and transportation sectors. Well and good.
Malaysia’s successive governments have always portrayed themselves as embracing climate change risk reduction and announced various plans, and funding, to tackle it. How are they going to resolve all the problems posed by climate change when they can’t even resolve the problem of floods?
Our successive governments, sad to say, have been good at hype but lagging in implementation.
Also, I doubt if the government and its profit-centred allies in business are going to embrace climate change policies that will almost certainly mean lesser profits for most. Do you think businesses will cut down on activities such as logging and mining to reduce the carbon footprint? Do you think the government will side with businessmen and developers or those wanting to preserve the Earth for generations to come?
Do you think government agencies and officials will take a stand in favour of environmental protection when faced with rich and connected businessmen dangling incentives to get approvals for their development projects?
Businesses, government-linked companies and even the government will give lip service to the principle of “do no significant harm to the environment” while continuing with their business as usual routine behind the backs of an unsuspecting or naïve public.
The UN’s 2020 status report on Malaysia gives an indication of how prepared Malaysia is. I’m going to quote it liberally here.
Referring to the National Disaster Management Agency (Nadma) and other agencies involved in handling disaster work and the system that is in place, the document says: “Among the most important challenges for Malaysia to tackle during the upcoming years are the inefficiencies within the rigid and hierarchical, top-down disaster management system.”
That is a gentle slap, but still a slap.
We saw this of course when the December 2021 floods struck the country. So much criticism was poured on Nadma and government officials, I thought they would all resign due to the shame. But they didn’t.
The UN says: “While standard operating procedures or robust command and control may be applicable to some situations, it is inevitable that their inflexibility renders them obsolete when facing the challenges of the 21st century where ‘bottom-up’ information plays an important role.” This is especially so with the emergence of social media and greater public awareness.
“Relying on top-down and response-oriented management models can be hazardous in the absence of strong local leadership, which should be developed constantly to strengthen decentralisation of disaster management efforts, in recognition of the fact that in any given event, the local capacities largely determine the success of immediate response.”
Talking about funding, it says: “As of now, it remains unclear how much is spent on DRR (disaster risk reduction) and CCA (climate change adaptation) mainstreaming. Increasing the transparency in public finance and guaranteeing adequate allocations to proactive measures remains a challenge to be addressed.” It adds that “budget measures for DRR are not properly established, and integration of DRR and CCA policies remain to be rooted into a coherent strategy”.
It calls on the government to involve representatives from all communities and villages and to take a whole-of-society approach to disaster and climate risk management.
Guterres says in his foreword that “being ready saves lives and money”. No one can dispute that. Is the Malaysian government ready? Are the people ready? I don’t think so. We’ll just have to wait and see, but I do hope we don’t live to regret not doing a better job of it.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not reflect those of FMT.