Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami Southeast Asia - Case Study Example

Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami – Southeast Asia Name Institution Course Date Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami – Southeast Asia Introduction Early morning of Sunday 26th December, 2004 a huge earthquake gauging 9.0 on the Ritcher Scale struck the coast of Southeast Asia which resulted in serious loss of life and damage of properties (Strömberg, 2011). The earthquake and tsunami affected at least 5 million individuals in Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar, India, Thailand and Sri Lanka. It was considered the most dangerous tsunami tolling about 230,000 people killed and about 500,000 injured by the waves that basted the low-lying coast of Southeast Asia (Singh, 2012). There were reports that mentioned that the wave rose to about 15m at the coast of Sumatra, Thailand and Sri Lanka to name a few. In total, 14 nations were heavily impacted by the catastrophe. They included India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, The Maldives, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Madagascar, Seychelles and South Africa (The World Bank: News, 2012). The global response to the tragedy was exceptional since billions of funds were raised following the event that occurred backed up with Disaster emergency Committee which launched its petition from the British public which was mostly utilized in Sri Lanka (UN OCHA, 2012). This report will highlight the various disaster frameworks put in place following the disaster and also discuss the lessons learnt with regard to public health regarding the tragedy. Analysis of the Tragedy The National Response Framework is a type of framework that defines arrangements which are used in enforcing worldwide response policies as well as operational coordination for every kind of domestic or foreign circumstances (UN OCHA, 2012). It focuses on ensuring that a nation can be able to react appropriately towards any kind of occurrences ranging from those that can be taken care of by the local assets to those that require mobilizing the whole nation. Therefore, the main objective of this framework is to ensure that many lives are saved, provide basic needs and offer protection to both properties and the environment. In the case of the Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami incident, this framework was effectively used in saving lives. At this particular stage, the tragedy had already affected the areas. The responses stage occurred almost immediately the Tsunami waves started to recede (The World Bank: News, 2012). Emergency members commenced their work in a few hours after the tragedy. The first approach was to evaluate the integrity of the buildings and ascertaining whether they were habitable. In addition, emergency response teams attended to various victims who were drowning and also those stuck on rooftops. Aid workers began looking for habitable buildings where they would administer health care as well as shelter to those who were impacted. Various local and international organizations took part in the emergency responses (Featherstone, 2011). Applications such as the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) helped in giving answers to most of the above questions. For instance, ESRI in Thailand used video footages from vans as well as helicopters with GIS data to help in defining the impacted regions (ESRI, 2012). In addition, a quick capture of this information was significant in the response efforts. Furthermore, United States Geological Survey (USGS) used remotely sensed data obtained from their satellites so as to define the regions impacted by the tsunami. An email founded alert system was constituted to broadcast information to these regions affected by the tsunami (ESRI, 2012). Hyogo Framework for Action offers explanation and at the same time highlights the functions that are needed from various departments as well as actors in order to minimize disaster loss (UNHCR, 2014). It was created and agreed on with various partners such as governments, disaster experts as well as international agencies to name a few. Its main objective is to minimize tragedy losses by the year 2015 by building flexibility of both nations as well as communities to tragedies. In the case of Indian Ocean Tsunami, national health professionals were aided by both local as well as international NGO’s and other UN agencies responded immediately. Once World Health Organization (WHO) was cognizant about the disaster they concentrated mainly on the survivors who were faced with possible health risks (Leoni, 2014). WHO offered aid for a joint response and recognized as the main goal the help to national health authorities in order to take care of the survivors, especially the most vulnerable ones such as the very young, elderly and also pregnant women. Various health authorities paid attention to monitoring threats with regard to public health via prior warning of disease risks and the timely organization of any necessary response (Featherstone, 2011). Additionally, WHO instantly came up with the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) which prompted the surveillance and response of the diseases which was then sent to the Tsunami-impacted individuals within a matter of days (UNICEF East Asia & Pacific, 2014). Disease surveillance systems were put in place within a fortnight to investigate the outbreaks of dangerous diseases within the afflicted regions. They utilized GIS for health mapping as well as other health related databases. For instance, cases of serious diseases such as diarrhea, hepatitis, dysentery, measles and viral fever to name a few, were recognized and appropriately addressed (BBC News, 2005). Coordination mechanisms, joint planning and constant dissemination of information have been very significant during that time to avoid overlapping and also to ensure that health assistance is offered to those in need (Singh, 2012). World Health Organization functioned with NGO’s, IFRC, UNICEF as well as the ministry of health to offer help to every health sector so as to address the circumstance at a local level efficiently. Therefore, in all the affected nations, WHO organized all their responses. The WHO organized operations rooms, regional offices and HQ to trace the circumstances in real time and at the same time respond rapidly (UNHCR, 2014). The WHO remitted more than 200 experts specialized in communicable diseases surveillance, food and water safety, clinical management and injury treatment to name a few. Their responsibility was to address and offer advice with regard to particular health-related problems experienced by each nation (UNICEF East Asia & Pacific, 2014). The WHO made sure that 191 New Emergency Health Medicine and Dressing kits were issued. This was able to take care of the fundamental health care requirements of about 2 million individuals for a period of 3 months. In addition, they also offered 100 surgical kits which facilitates up to 10,000 surgical treatments. They also offered 40 diarrhea kits to take care of 4,000 severe cases. Additionally, 81 cars as well as telecommunication tools were distributed so as to be effectively utilized within the affected regions (UNHCR, 2014). More than 20 health logisticians made sure that people, materials as well as prescribed medications were accessible all over the affected region especially in areas where they were most needed. Public Health Lessons Learnt from the Disaster There are a number of lessons that were learned after the disaster. First and foremost, the accessibility of funding is not the chief obstruction to an effective response. The financial impact of the disaster a well as the consequent losses were approximately $9.9 billion especially in the affected areas (Jennings, 2011). Indonesia recorded almost half the total loss since it was the most affected. Although, the figures have less meaning with regard to humanitarian terms. Following the disaster, a total amount of about $13.5 billion was accumulated from foreign aid (UN OCHA, 2012). Despite of this overwhelming budget, the external reactions were affected by serious limitations proposing that the accessibility to both financial and technological resources were not a guarantee of effectiveness. In addition, another lesson learnt from the disaster was that few decisions are formulated on the basis of needs assessment. Within the first few months following the tsunami tragedy, numerous reports were documented detailing the magnitude of the tsunami, the approximate needs of the individuals affected and the gaps within the help offered (Strömberg, 2011). Although, the operations put in place of evaluating the circumstance were poorly implemented. Humanitarians were disinclined in sharing the information for instance, foreign donors admitted that the decisions were made on political basis rather than the fundamental needs and priorities (Strömberg, 2011). Furthermore, another lesson learned from the disaster is that public health authorities ought to know the difference between humanitarian responders. After the tsunami that severely struck Southeast Asian nations, various humanitarian boards such as the UN and the Red Cross Movement provided a rigorous effort that involved even the countries that were not affected (UNICEF East Asia & Pacific, 2014). In order to achieve effective response, both a selective as well as a closely synchronized utilization of this expertise was conducted in both India and Indonesia. Number of NGO’s were deemed unqualified within various technical arenas because they lacked the necessary expertise. Additionally, national authorities, especially the health ministries, were unacquainted to such assets as well as capabilities of each collaborator and hence failed to practice knowledgeable discrimination (Strömberg, 2011). Public health preparedness and planning for future occurrence of such incidence should be put in place to ensure that more lives are saved from the epidemic (UNHCR, 2014). Other than readying its own operational response, Ministry of Health should efficiently cover the authorization of coordinating as well as overseeing every responder at the sectorial degree. In addition, funding ought to be included in the development plans as well as a preset amount of humanitarian funding ought to be apportioned to the post-event evaluation so as to prepare the nation for the next emergency (Singh, 2012). Conclusion To sum up, Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in Southeast Asia affected 14 nations which are inclusive of Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Thailand, the Maldives, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Kenya, Somalia, Bangladesh, Seychelles, Madagascar and Tanzania. Although, the most struck countries of them all were Indonesia and India. This disaster called for a quick global response that would save more lives and provide shelter and health care services to the affected. The tragedy occurred in various stages with which different global agencies such as the UN, Red Cross Movement and WHO to name a few. They performed emergency responses by creating funding strategies to aid the afflicted. In addition, they used GIS systems to locate the areas that were most affected and offered help to the people. Furthermore, these global agencies controlled the spread of communicable diseases, assessed various health situations, coordinated health actors and filled in critical gaps. The lessons learnt from the disaster was that accessibility to funding is not the fundamental obstruction to an effective response. Also, few decisions were made on the basis of needs assessment. Finally, there was need for the public health authorities knowing the difference between humanitarian responders. Finally, recommendations included an improved coordination amongst the responders. Also, humanitarian funding ought to be apportioned to the post-event evaluation so as to prepare the nation for the next emergency. References BBC News 2005, "Indonesia quake toll jumps again". BBC News. Retrieved 18th May 2016 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4204385.stm ESRI 2012, GIS and emergency management in Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami disaster [White Paper]. Retrieved 18th May 2016 from http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/gis-and-emergency-mgmt.pdf Featherstone, A 2011, Bridging the gap between policy and practice: The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid and humanitarian principles, Brussels, Belgium: Caritas Europa, Retrieved 18th May 2016 from http://www.caritas.eu/sites/default/files/bridgingthegap_endefinite.pdf Jennings, S 2011, Times Bitter Flood: Trends in the Number of Reported Natural Disasters, Oxfam GB Research Report, Oxford: Oxfam GB. Retrieved 18th May 2016 from http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/times-bitter-flood-trends-in-the-number-of-reported-natural-disasters-133491 Leoni, B 2014, A Decade After Indian Ocean Tsunami, Lesson Learned. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Singh, D 2012, Indian Ocean tsunami early warning systems pass test, April 11, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction - Regional Office for Asia and Pacific (UNISDR AP). Retrieved 18th May 2016 from http://www.unisdr.org/archive/26170 Strömberg, D 2011, Natural disasters, economic development, and humanitarian aid, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 199–222. The World Bank: News 2012, Indonesia: a reconstruction chapter ends eight years after the tsunami. Retrieved 18th May 2016 from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/12/26/indonesia-reconstruction-chapter-ends-eight-years-after-the-tsunami UN OCHA 2012, World Humanitarian Data and Trends 2013. Retrieved 18th May 2016 from https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/WHDT_2013%20WEB.pdf UNHCR 2014, World Refugee Day: Global forced displacement tops 50 million for first time in post-World War II era. Retrieved 18th May 2016 from http://www.unhcr.org/53a155bc6.html UNICEF East Asia & Pacific 2014, Ten years after the tsunami in Indonesia. Retrieved 18th May 2016 from http://unicefeapro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/in-areas-of-indonesia-hit-hard-by-2004.html Read More