CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale of the Study

Natural disasters such as floods, storms, and earthquakes pose major threats
worldwide, disrupting livelihoods and jeopardizing sustainable development and
human security. Global climate change is increasing which is certain for disaster risks.
According to the UN, it estimates disasters affected 4.2 billion people worldwide from
2000-2019 (UNDRR, 2021). Developing countries are frequently hit hardest due to a
weakness of resilient infrastructure and governance capacities. Besides, many
countries are disaster-prone countries with their geographical conditions. The United
Nations found out 44% of the world’s population habitants within 150 km from the
coast without any other choice (Uitto & Shaw, 2016) since the coastal area is their
origin of habitation. Resilience building in rural areas needs to be more concentrated
than in urban areas as they lack resources, infrastructures, and awareness to be
resilient to disasters or crises. For that, vulnerable coastal areas should be provided
essential support for disaster resilience by respective authorities and organizations.
According to the international database EM-DAT, nearly 194 million people were
affected and the lives of 26,835 people were killed by 785 disasters only between
2019 and 2020 (Sen, 2021).
Myanmar is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to the various
hazards facing different disasters in all its regions including floods (most areas of
Myanmar and the central parts of Ayeyarwady regions), droughts (Magway,
Mandalay, and lower parts of Sagaing regions), earthquakes (middle parts of the
country), cyclones (coastal regions and its related areas), extreme temperatures
(almost
throughout the countries), forest fires (Yangon, Mandalay, Ayeyarwady, Sagaing, and Bago
regions), storm surges (coastal areas), landslides (the western ranges and the eastern highlands),
and also heavy rainfall events (Tun, 2020). As the past events, Myanmar experienced the very
first cyclone called Nargis in 2008 which the utterly devastating (more than 140,000 deaths)
(UNEP, 2009). Among them, Myanmar’s Ayeyarwady Delta is highly vulnerable to devastating
cyclones and storm surges with the evidence of Cyclone Nargis in 2008 which was highlighted
as a severe disaster causing over 130,000 deaths (Webster, 2008). The Ayeyarwady Basin is
home to 66% of Myanmar's population, it is also the agricultural heartlands of that people for
their economic and social concerns. Ayeyarwady Basin is the most important source of inland
fisheries, only with the Ayeyarwady Delta which represents 70% of all ponds in the country. One
of the risks of the basin is that, although it is also the main paddy-producing region of the
country's population, the climate change conditions of rainfall patterns lead to floodings, rising
sea levels, and related cyclones. (WWF, 2018)
Disasters are regarded as events due to the fact that people, material sudden, significant
disruptions to community or societal activities in terms of environmental or economic
impairments and unexpected progressive conditions. These incidents require immediate action to
stabilize the situation (Randolph, 2015). A disaster is a sudden event that results from a
combination of situations of threat arising from exposure to hazards and situations of
vulnerability that are insufficient to mitigate or deal with potential adverse effects (Bethel,
Foreman & Burke, 2011). The disaster effects include death, injuries, infections, and also
physical damage to people, other harmful effects on psychological and social well-being, damage
to their properties, loss of services including social harm, economic disruption, and
environmental degradation (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis and Wisner, 2014).
Disaster management is defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
(UNDRR) as ‘the organization, planning, and application of measures preparing for, responding
to, and recovering from disasters’ (ILO, 2020). To avoid natural disasters by disaster
management; before a disaster strikes, with the aim of reducing its impact or recovering from its
losses, there are various preparatory measures. All actions that may be taken during and after;
include a summary of programs and measures. Before a disaster: Disaster prevention measures to
reduce loss of life and property caused by potential hazards. For example, conducting awareness
activities; strengthening their existing weak structures; preparation for the disaster management
plan both at household and community levels. Risk reduction measures of this level are called
mitigation and preparedness of disaster management. During a disaster: take actions to ensure
affected people's needs and support are met and that suffering is minimized. Activities performed
at this level are called emergency response activities. After a disaster: In the immediate aftermath
of a disaster, there are initiatives to respond to natural disasters with the aim of recovery and
rehabilitation. This phase is regarded as the response and recovery of the disaster management.
(Khan, Vasilescu & Khan, 2008).
Likewise, resilience building in cyclone-prone areas like Ayeyarwady requires a
comprehensive and integrated approach to capacity building for disaster management to enhance
their resilience against disasters and to overcome shocks and stress with the collaboration of
government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders since it is the
closest region to cyclones and Tsunami with its coastal geography. Through such collaboration
efforts, stakeholders at all levels, including governments, organizations, and also individuals
need to work together to prioritize resilience building as one of the fundamental aspects of
disaster management and sustainable development efforts for rural communities in Ayeyarwady
region towards a safer, more sustainable and resilient future of the region. Recurrent floods also
severely impact agricultural livelihoods, human security, regional development, and
vulnerabilities.
These natural disaster events have a nature to threaten human lives, realties, foods, incomes,
pre-existing vulnerabilities, and the capacity of the community destroying their society and
environment in various forms of devastations and leading to instabilities of their lives.
Emphasizing human security is an easier way to prevent the effects of natural hazards than later
interventions (Hobson, Bacon, & Cameron, 2014). While these fundamental needs for human
security are under the threat of disaster events, their livelihoods to be sustainable have become
concerned with being able to withstand and recover from stress and shocks maintaining and/or
improving their capacities and assets in both present and future periods without jeopardizing
their natural base. Therefore, these considerations point out the need to enhance the country’s
disaster resilience through effective policies, action plans, and strategies which are crucial for
successful disaster management (Sen, 2021). If not, these natural disasters, poverty, health
pandemics, and other insecurities from economic and financial downturns will degenerate the
visions for sustainable development, stability, and peace (UN, 2016).
 Drawing on its extensive experience and deep understanding of the significance of disaster
reduction in the development of the country (JICA, 2007), Japan has actively contributed to
international cooperation efforts. Recognizing the essential role of development cooperation in
enhancing international security, Japan has prioritized supporting fragile and conflict-affected
countries (JICA, 2015) and Japan collaborates with the international community to mitigate the
impacts of disasters and to support humanitarian aid and disaster relief efforts (Lertsithichai,
2015). Furthermore, Japan’s engagement with Mekong region countries highlights its
commitment to international cooperation, recognizing that the development of these nations is
also integral to strengthening collective security and fostering inter-state collaboration.
Since 2009, Japan has actively pursued the development of the Mekong Region, as
demonstrated by the Mekong-Japan Exchange Year 2009, with the endeavor aimed at fostering
collaboration across a variety of fields with Mekong countries (MOFA, 2009). Specifically in
Myanmar, Japan demonstrated its dedication by providing a range of emergency relief supplies,
including tents, blankets, generators, and other vital aid as one of the multinational assistance to
the Nargis cyclone, through international channels and alongside the deployment of Japan
Disaster Relief medical teams to Myanmar (MOFA, 2009; Ehrenfeld & Aanenson, 2013) totaling
approximately US$ 266,000 to Myanmar Government ( Embassy of Japan in Myanmar, 2008)
and Japan also pledged 46 million dollars to assist in the aftermath of the cyclone, underlining its
ongoing commitment to humanitarian efforts in the region (MOFA, 2009c).
Following the devastating Nargis cyclone in 2008, the Government of Japan promptly
dispatched the Japan Disaster Relief Medical Team in response to a request from the
Government of Myanmar. The team was deployed to provide crucial medical assistance,
focusing their efforts on operating in the Labutta township of Ayeyarwady Delta Region for
medical examination and to offer vital healthcare services to those affected by the disaster
(Japan’s ODA White Paper, 2008). This proactive intervention underscored Japan’s commitment
to providing timely and effective humanitarian aid to regions in need.
As one of the regional cooperation for disaster management, Japan also initiated the Action
Plan for the Mekong region in 2009 in order to promote regional cooperation on the environment
including disaster management (MOFA Japan, 2010). In this research, theories of sustainable
development and human security are used to analyze Japan’s policy cooperation aimed at
strengthening Myanmar’s cyclone preparedness under this framework for the cyclone-prone
region of the Ayeyarwady Delta of Myanmar to understand the vulnerabilities of that region and
finding the gaps of their practices to be a more rebounded area for improving the integration of
dimensions into future disaster management policies by using qualitative approaches, secondary
data, and descriptive method.

1.2 Research Questions

1.2.1 How does Japan implement the “A Decade towards Green Mekong Initiative
Policy” in Myanmar in order to promote environmental resilience in the Ayeyarwady Delta area?
1.2.2 How does Japan’s “A Decade towards Green Mekong Initiative Policy” promote
environmental security in Myanmar?

1.3 Research Objectives

The study’s research objective is to analyze Japan’s policy cooperation for disaster
management in Myanmar under the Green Mekong Initiatives to identify policy gaps based on
their practices.

1.4 Scope of the Study

To provide an analysis of Japan’s policy cooperation for disaster management in the

disaster risk areas, the Ayeyarwady Delta region with its vulnerabilities and resilience building of
post-disaster events will be examined.

1.5 Research Outcomes

1.5.1 to identify gaps between policy formulation and implementation for the Green
Mekong Initiatives. It will investigate how policies contribute to environmental sustainability in
Myanmar and, based on the findings, will make recommendations for improving the integration
of dimensions into future disaster management policies.
1.5.2 Following an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of policies, the study
will make recommendations for improving the integration of flood risk reduction. It will suggest
changes to policy formulation and implementation to promote more sustainable practices.
 CHAPTER-2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides a review of literature relevant to the research objectives of analyzing
policy cooperation for disaster management under the Green Mekong Initiatives towards the
cyclone-prone coastal region of Myanmar, the Ayeyarwady Delta, to give the readers a clear
understanding of the concepts used in this research study. Besides, the respective theories such as
the Human Security Theory, Disaster Management Theory, and Policy Implementation Theory
are used to examine the aim of this research and create the conceptual framework with the
respective concepts of this study.

Theories

2.1 Environmental Security

The concept of human security originated in the 1990s as a response to the limitation of
traditional security paradigms with the release of the Human Development Report (1994) of the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (Paris, 2001). The human security approach
was also initiated in the post-Cold War era with globalization discourse emphasizing the
interconnection between nature and the consequences of human insecurities (Hobson, Bacon, &
Cameron, 2014). The application of human security has been significant by the consensus that
human security is an approach that will assist Member States in identifying and addressing their
challenges to the survival, livelihood, and dignity of their citizens, with the adoption of General
Assembly resolution 66/290 on the 10th September 2012 (UN, 2016). The traditional concern of
the Security Council was mainly the military threat to regional and global order, but, the non-
traditional security consists of health, environmental, and poverty issues (Thomas, 2001)
identifying ‘people as the primary referent for understanding security’ (Hobson, Bacon, &
Cameron, 2014).
According to the UNDP Report, it regarded that human security is a universal concern
with the people-centered approach through the seven components (Quinn, 2008) to embrace all
kinds of securities and as ‘the protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the pattern of our
daily lives’ (Hobson, Bacon, & Cameron, 2014). Even if the country can reduce the rate of
poverty, is it possible to enhance the rate of human security? When we think about human
security, beyond the military defense of the state for its interests and territory (Paris, 2001) are
needs to be considered. Therefore, the concept of human security has become “to protect people
as well as to safeguard the state” itself and it refers to a state of being in which basic material
needs are addressed. Insecurity comes from worries about daily needs rather than fears of
catastrophic world events, for example, income insecurity, health insecurity, and environmental
insecurity create concern for human security around the world (Thomas, 2001).

In the aspect of development and human security, humans can have sufficient income but
they have another human insecurity issues like environmental insecurity, insecurity from crime
(Thomas, 2001), and insecurity for sustainable development. Likewise, in developing or
underdeveloped countries, income poverty and lack of humanity are considered under the threat
of disasters in their regions, which are the essential issue of human security as the fundamental
need of human beings as the non-tradition human security. Human security emphasizes the
protection of individuals from stabilities (Paris, 2001), which are often threatened by natural
disasters hindering to be able to access basic needs, sustainability, and their development. In the
context of natural disasters, the seven components of human security such as economic security,
food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and
political security are a threat by poverty, food deprivation, infections, environmental depletion,
physical insecurity, etc. (Hobson, Bacon, & Cameron, 2014), therefore, they should be prevented
by the notion of human security (Mine, 2007), in the disaster management sector, to be able to
reduce the rate of casualties since natural disaster events cannot be entirety avoidable and they
are also the root causes of human insecurities (UN, 2016).

Human security is also one of the global concerns. It is essential to people both of rich
and poor countries since various kinds of disasters hit all countries in different forms. From this
perspective, natural disasters were regarded as one of the major threats to human security by the
Human Development Report and the Commission on Human Security (Hobson, Bacon, &
Cameron, 2014). There are three pillars of human security theory: (i) Freedom from fear which
focuses on the protection of individuals from violent threats such as conflicts, crime emphasizes
the importance of ensuring personal safety and security for all individuals, (ii) Freedom from
want which address the economic and social concerns, for example, such as poverty, hunger and
lack of access to basic needs aiming to the individual to be able to have an opportunities to live
in a proper lives and, (iii) Freedom form indignity that focus on to protect human rights
including political, economic, social, civil and cultural rights seeking to be able to uphold the
dignity and worth of individuals. (UN, 2016)

Although the definitions of human security are seen to be extensive and imprecise, it has
a strong, meticulous, and integrative framework with diverse perspectives for all well-being
(Paris, 2001). Some scholars argued that human security should be defined more narrowly, if so,
‘it would accrue greater analytical and policy value’ (Hobson, Bacon, & Cameron, 2014).
Human security components have interconnected relationships and it is about a people-centered
approach. Anthony Lake concluded that ‘nations are collections of human beings and it’s the
security of those human beings that defines whether or not a nation is secure’ (Hobson, Bacon, &
Cameron, 2014). According to the Report on Human Development of 1994, ‘Human security is
concerned with how people live and breathe in a society, how freely they exercise their many
choices, how much access they have to market and social opportunities and whether they live in
conflict or peace’ (Report on Human Development, 1994).

According to some scholars, “Human security calls for shifting attention from
government-centered to human-centered attitudes in security approaches” (Seifi, Razmkhah &
Pletnev, 2021). Human security is an approach to “survival, livelihood and dignity of their
people”, it is concerned with “the rights of people to live in freedom and dignity, free from
poverty and despair” (Gwiazdon, 2020). Human security means is that “understanding new
threats beyond traditional forms of violence”, “understanding new determinants of security” and
“understanding the interrelationship between development, human rights, and security” (Seifi,
Razmkhah & Pletnev, 2021). It is also considered as a way of prioritizing some kinds of threats,
that destroy human well-being as physical violence, such as economic, environmental, health
security, etc. A human security approach to natural disasters entails an understanding of how
important biological and sociological elements are to determine how safe people are and what
types of threats they are facing. (Hobson, Bacon, & Cameron, 2014)

Add details on Environmental Security

2.2 Disaster Management

 The United Nations defines Disaster as the severe disruption of the functioning of a
community or society through various human, material, economic, or environmental damages
(Chondekar, 2018; Khan, Vasilescu & Khan, 2008), the disaster management is the method of
organization and resources management to cope with these impacts of disaster for all
humanitarian aspects of emergencies through preparedness, response, and recovery to reduce the
disaster impacts (Chondekar, 2018; Sawalha, 2023) and defined as the dynamic process by many
authors (Sawalha, 2023). The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) defined disaster
management as ‘the body of policy and administrative decisions and operational activities which
pertain to the various stages of a disaster at all levels’ (USAID, 2011).

Disaster risk management is the systematic process of applying “decisions of

administration, operational skills, and capacities for the policies implementation and for the
society and communities to be able to deal with and lesson ‘the impact of natural hazards and
related environmental and technological disasters’ (Chondekar, 2018), and it organized with both
structural and non-structural measures to avoid or to mitigate adverse effects of hazards (USAID,
2011). Therefore, “disaster management effort is geared towards disaster risk management”
(Chondekar, 2018), in another way, it is “the application of disaster risk reduction” (USAID,
2011).

A disaster is caused by the combination of hazards, vulnerabilities, and insufficient

capacity or risk-reduction measures (Khan, Vasilescu & Khan, 2008). Modh (2010) argued again
that the disaster also creates opportunities to conduct development processes by changing society
and its characteristics through housing construction and reforming of lands (Modh, 2010) to
withstand the upcoming disaster impacts and, to adopt a new smarter framework based on the
present disasters (Sawalha, 2023), but sometimes, improper or poor management of disaster can
unfortunately exacerbate pre-existing vulnerabilities, affect victims, donors and relief agencies
(Chondekar, 2018) and increase to be more vulnerable to the future hazards (Modh, 2010).

The development process necessitates the transformation of institutions and structures to

enhance economic growth, eradicate poverty, and reduce the poverty rate of societies, on the
other hand, the country’s capacity is being degraded to sustain and modify the long-term
development of the country by the disaster impacts (Modh, 2010). Due to the fact that decision-
makers need to take the interconnection between disaster and development into account when
establishing development projects in the context of disaster mitigation and creating disaster
recovery programs for the sustainable development of all generations (Modh, 2010).

In the context of sustainable development, through the social dimension, these disaster
effects are the result of human behavior and actions but they disproportionately impact the poor
in real (Modh, 2010) even though disasters occur indiscriminately (Khan, Vasilescu & Khan,
2008) due to the lack of access to the sufficient resources to endure the impacts. Therefore,
disaster preparedness and prevention and mitigation processes need to welcome the participation
of risk communities to increase the resilience of socio-economic systems (Modh, 2010)
understating their experiences and nature, as the decentralized decision-making process (Modh,
2010). Not only evocating human resilience and reducing their improper actions, preserving the
ability of the ecosystem and enhancing physical adaptation to changes need to be performed to
increase their ‘resiliency to external shocks or extremes in the environment’ like natural disasters
as the prevention procedure of disaster management (Modh, 2010).

As the nature of the environment has continuously changed, the evidence of disaster
events, with 428 disasters between 1994 and 1998 and 707 disasters between 1999 and 2003
respectively (Khan, Vasilescu & Khan, 2008), therefore, disaster management to handle natural
changes are also developing over time. According to the literature, the earliest management of
disaster started in 1803 with a Congressional Act of the US Federal Government as the very first
disaster legislation to be able to provide financial assistance to a New Hampshire town that was
destroyed by fire, (Sawalha, 2023), the Flood Control Act of 1917 was another significant piece
of legislation due to the flood experiences on the Mississippi, Ohio and other rivers (Country,
2022).

In the late 1950s, “civil defense” became the popular term for disaster management
demonstrating higher levels of collaboration among different parties and levels of groups
(Sawalha, 2023) and centralized to safeguard their citizens (Rajabi et al, 2021), but it focused
only on the post-disaster response (Sawalha, 2023). Until the middle of the 20th century, modern
disaster management did not emerge (Rajabi et al, 2021). In 1966, the General Assembly of the
United Nations established the UNDP (United Nations Development Program) for the climate
and disaster resilience building measures for disaster-prone areas. During the 1970s, a process-
oriented approach to disaster management was conducted, later on, disasters were managed by
applying the disaster management cycle practically by researchers and practitioners (Sawalha,
2023) to measure the accomplishment of the disaster management process and also to design or
innovate their management plans based on the previous experiences.

At present time, the disaster management cycle is widely used and it is comprised of the
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery phases in order to define the stages of disaster
management. The disaster management cycle depicts the process of governments and civil
society attempting to decrease the impact of disasters including the policies and strategies to
transform the causes of disasters or mitigate consequences on individuals, property of people,
and their infrastructures (Khan, Vasilescu & Khan, 2008). It can be specifically divided into three
stages such as before, during, and after disaster strikes stages (Khan, Vasilescu & Khan, 2008;
Chondekar, 2018; Sawalha, 2023).

(1) Before disaster strikes - Activities are conducted to reduce the human and property
losses due to disaster events as the mitigation and preparedness phases (Khan,
Vasilescu & Khan, 2008).
(2) During a disaster occurrence- The performed activities ensure to meet the needs of
victims minimizing their losses and suffering, which are referred to as the emergency
response phase (Khan, Vasilescu & Khan, 2008).
(3) After a disaster- The affected communities are assisted in their rehabilitation and
restoration by local governments and respective agencies to be able to bounce back
their regular condition from social, physical, and economic damage and this phase is
defined as the recovery phase (Chondekar, 2018).

Review more on this part – you may add some pictures

2.2.1 Disaster Resilience

 As mentioned above, people are been risk of natural hazards for various reasons
worldwide, building and/or strengthening resilience to disasters is an essential part of societies
and also their future. The rising costs of disasters have led to a need for more efficient disaster
management and prevention methods, rather than simply responding to their adverse effects
(Coetzee, Niekerk & Raju, 2016). Disaster resilience can be identified through preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation regarding the management of disaster risks. The term
resilience has been popular in many disciplines since the 19 th century and resilience also has the
ability to enhance responses to disaster risks (Combaz, 2014).
Disaster resilience has been embedded in the disaster risk management history and it is
regarded as the essential capacity to overcome hazards under the disaster risk management topic
learning from risk reduction, prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery
(Combaz, 2014). Disaster resilience refers to a society's ability to endure disasters with minimal
harm while maintaining social, physical, and psychological capacity to jump back the pre-
existing conditions. It is also the “capacity of communities to mitigate, prepare, respond, recover
and adapt” to future situations with the experience of what they faced in the previous hazardous
events (Sen, 2021). The concept of resilience building focuses on the role of infrastructure,
community engagement, early warning system, and financial support which should be integrated
into the comprehensive disaster management strategies for the vulnerable communities to
enhance their abilities and systems to be able to withstand, respond to and recover from
upcoming adversities.
After the devastating Indian Ocean Tsunami (2004) and the World Conference on
Disaster Reduction in Hyogo, Japan (2005), the term “resilience” become popular in disaster risk
reduction discourse. The conference also underlined the importance of not only rebuilding
communities after disasters but also improving their resilience to prevent future disasters or
reduce their impact (Coetzee, Niekerk & Raju, 2016). The UN’s Hyogo Framework (2005-2015)
promoted the integration of “disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, good
governance, and sustainable development into a single framework for building resilience”
(Combaz, 2014). The concept of resilience has been involved in the disaster management sectors
by many researches and practices both for post- and pre-disaster times aiming to advocate the
communities to be more resilience to hazards by reducing them or by restoring their
vulnerabilities of the region (Graveline & Germain, 2022).
 The definition of resilience given by Holling (1973) is "a buffer capacity or the ability of
a system to absorb perturbation or the magnitude of the disturbance that can be absorbed before a
system changes its structure by changing the variables" (Ranjan & Abenayake, 2014). There are
a few common attributes that are shared by scholars with words such as robustness, efficiency,
diversity, redundancy, connectivity, adaptability, and transformability (Shao, Soda & Xu, 2016).
Bocchini et al. (2014) concluded the means of resilience as ‘(i) resistance to an annual external
shock and (ii) ability to recover quickly’ from the catastrophes (Rodriguez-Nikl, 2015).
Resilience defined by the Sendai Framework is ‘Resilience is the ability of a system, community
or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a
hazard in a timely and efficient manner’ (UNDRR, 2017) while the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change considered that ‘the resilience is the ability of a social or ecological system to
absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the
capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change’ (IPCC, 2007).
The concepts of resilience and sustainability are compatible with the comparisons of
scholars. Scholars noted that ‘the goals of resilience seem more limited than the goals of
sustainable development, decision makers often use resilience measure in the interest of reducing
social and economic impacts’ as a tool to implement the sustainable livelihood, environment or
community. Their relationship is clear: whereas resilience is important at the community and
network levels, sustainability assessments in the built environment are often undertaken for
specific facilities or buildings (Rodriguez-Nikl, 2015). Bocchini et al., 2014 concluded that
resilience and sustainability have numerous similarities and common characteristics and
therefore, they also should be considered as the integrated perspectives for the resilient and
sustainable built environment. Due to the absence of suitable resilience to climate change and its
effects, leads to the intensification of the poverty rate and threat to the food security of the rural
society (Tohidimoghadam et al, 2023).

Add more details

2.2.2 Measuring Resilience

Resilience can be recognized based on two categories: “the outcome-oriented definition”
(defined by results) and “the process-oriented definition” (defined by the degree of recovery and
time to recovery) (Gilbert, 2010). There are four common elements of disaster resilience
(Context, Disturbance, Capacity to respond, and Reaction) as below, illustrated by the
Department for International Development (DFID) (DFID, 2011), which can generally determine
different kinds of resilience and level of resilience:

(1) Context – Whose resilience is needed to build? – such as a social group, socio-
economic or political system, environmental context, or institution.
(2) Disturbance: What kind of shocks are doing to face (disaster-related shocks like
disaster outbreaks, landslides, droughts, floods, earthquakes, and conflict-related -
shocks like unstable economic and outbreaks of violence) and/or what kind of stresses
are going to suffer (long-term trends like resource degradation, urbanization,
economic decline, loss of agricultural productions or climate change), then need to
determine about the group which needs to be resilient to that shock. After analyzing
these two elements, the capacity and its reaction should be assessed.
(3) Capacity to respond: The ability of a system or process to deal with a shock or stress
depends on exposure (the magnitude of the shock or stress), sensitivity (the degree to
which a system will be affected by, or will respond to, a given shock or stress), and
adaptive capacity (how well it can adjust to a disturbance or moderate damage, take
advantage of opportunities and cope with the consequences of a transformation).
(4) Reaction: A range of responses are possible, including bounce back better, where
capacities are enhanced, exposures are reduced, and the system is more able to deal
with future shocks and stresses; bounce back to normal or pre-existing conditions; or
recover but worse than before, meaning capacities are reduced. In the worst-case
situation, the system collapses, leading to a catastrophic reduction in the capacity to
cope with the future.
Based on this framework, the resilience of the system or an individual can be considered
incorporated with both outcome and process-oriented definitions analyzing the case based on this
framework regarding their disaster risk performances, building resilience, and adaptation to
disturbances.
2.3 Policy Analysis

This section provides an overview of existing literature regarding the process of

developing, implementing and failure of disaster management policies. It invloves the multi-
dimensional, evolving nature of developing, implementing and assessing policies over time.

2.3.1 Introduction to Policy Process

The policy process aims to address issues in a systematic way through defining problems,
considering solutions, making decisions, implementation, and assessment (Howlett et al., 2017).
The policy process encompasses several key phases from agenda-setting to evaluation.
Nevertheless several studies have examined the factors that influence agenda-setting in disaster
and environmental policy, Collaborative Governance Theory is analyzed in this study.

Collaborative Governance Theory

The concept of collaborative governance highlights how crucial it is for different players
in the governance and development process to work together. Its implementation is subject to a
number of restrictions, with key considerations being the initial circumstances, the collaborative
process, the institutional design, the facilitative leadership, and the anticipated result. To begin
with, the starting circumstances involve assessing the power, resources, and asymmetric
knowledge, or any gaps in power, resources, or knowledge between the different parties involved
in the collaboration, as well as researching previous events in a setting that either encourages or
discourages collaboration. Large gap will prevent the collaborative process from operating at its
best from the starting conditions (Ruswandi et al. (2021)).
Both procedures involve working together to develop mutual trust and understanding
between stakeholders through in-person discussions. The three institutional designs are required
to promote openness and involvement in the collaborative approach. In order to accomplish the
five anticipated objectives, the collaborative approach also requires the four democratic and
facilitative leadership styles (Chris & Alison, 2008). The guidelines for collaborative governance
will follow a methodical approach, meaning that stakeholders involved in the phenomena must
work together to establish a common knowledge of the starting conditions and engage in a
collaborative process with state institutions.
 Collaborative governance refers to a form of governance where public and private actors
collaborate in a unique way. It emphasizes the significance of creating the right conditions for
actors to collaborate with specific procedures that will result in laws and policies that are
appropriate for the general public. Government and corporate entities are the actors, and they
cooperate for the good of society (Chris & Alison, 2008).
Based on the epistemological and sociological explanations of various definitions
associated with collaborative governance theory, it can be argued that the collaborative
governance theory ought to be applied to the analysis of disaster management policy
formulation.

2.3.2 Policy Implementation

Policy implementation includes the activities and processes involved in putting policy
decisions into effect on the ground (Howlett et al., 2019). This stage bridges the gap between
policy design and real-world outcomes. Successful implementation depends on factors like clear
objectives, adequate resourcing, and coordination between diverse actors.
Many important stakeholders, including the government, business community, academic
institutions, and media, worked together to manage the disaster and environmental issues. A
comprehensive approach to disaster management requires a variety of skills, knowledge, and
attitude, all of which are necessary for managing natural disasters. A disaster is an unforeseen
circumstance that throws the community into panic and anguish, such as when there are injuries
or fatalities, financial strain, family members are lost, or the environment or infrastructure is
damaged (Carter, 2008).
Close monitoring and mid-course corrections are also important as unexpected barriers
may emerge. To better understand the policy implementation process, it is useful to examine
relevant theoretical frameworks. Strategic analysis theory offers insights into how strategic
situational assessments, adaptive planning, and ongoing review can help policy implementation
navigate complex, dynamic environments..

Strategic Analysis Theory

 Environmental issues are becoming more and more visible in the public sphere, and while
some people are in favor of environmental rules, there are also growing numbers of people who
are demanding justice. Justice is related in a number of ways that often support all sides. When
there is an environmental crisis, there is typically a riot amongst groups due to the high level of
diversity. There are arguments on both sides of the environmental debate that are founded on the
ideas of procedural justice and accountability. The case for a pro-environmental stance is
comparatively greater since pro-environmental activists have a stronger position than anti-
environmental organizations (Clayton, 1994).

For example, forest fires can only be prevented by joint efforts between the public and
commercial sectors. In order to improve the outcome, which is influenced by a number of
variables including political will, the parties' commitment, capacity building, policy support, and
financial support, scaling up must be taken into consideration. Many chances exist for favorable
supportive policies to be duplicated and expanded to a larger geographic area. By launching
various kinds of forest fire management policies and initiatives, the community was recognized
as a part of the solution and became the catalyst for expansion (Purnomo et al., 2018).

Based on some land laws and supply chain aspect for strategic analysis, it can be
concluded that the development of multi-policies on natural disaster management can be
analyzed by strategic analysis theory. Strategic analysis theory provides a compelling lens for
analyzing implementation, as it focuses on navigating complexity through strategic thinking and
adaptation.

2.3.3 Policy Failure

There are challenges in putting the collaborative governance approach for regional
development into practice, as well as a connection to it. The community, the business sector, and
the government must work together to improve the area. Collaborative governance serves as the
basis for the cooperative process that takes place between the public, business, and governmental
sectors. Since the collaboration has moved through the movement of shared ideals, mutual drive,
and joint capacity building, the collaborative process in regional development is fairly good
(Ruswandi et al. (2021)).
The complexity and interdependence between institutions can lead to conflicts
between interests that are difficult to suppress. Thus, it is imperative to look for new approaches
to gaining political legitimacy. Decision-making can be hindered by high costs and the inability
of groups, primarily as a result of the separation of powers, to execute policies at the field level
(Chris & Alison, 2008). The failure of collaboration between the parties that are working on the
same goal is also caused by a lack of commitment from the political leadership.
The challenge of creating a legal entity group, the short lifespan of the cooperation
process, boosting productivity without offering marketing expertise, and the private sector's lack
of involvement in the collaboration are some of the barriers to its implementation (Ruswandi et
al. (2021)). The study of disaster and environmental issues should take into account measures
for disaster resilience, which boost long-term outcomes by enhancing the ability to deal with
major disasters.
Disaster management concepts including readiness, action, recovery, and prevention have
an impact on resilience in emergency management. It is necessary to research national
catastrophe resilience policies in order to determine which actions are associated with resilience.
It is necessary to investigate intervention strategies that can shift the greater cumulative risks
and consequences during disasters toward more desirable resilience. (Caroline, 2017). The
government and concerned stakeholders could manage natural disaster and environmental
problems by enforcing rules and standards to be implemented in laws.