The most interesting disaster is the one that doesn’t happen

Climate extremes like floods, droughts, and landslides occur constantly around the world. Yet we very rarely hear about the instances when an extreme climate event happens, and there is no mass suffering or casualty.  

These “non disasters” are crucial moments in which we can learn more about what makes people resilient to climate shocks. By studying these non-disasters, we can better understand the social mechanisms, infrastructure, government programs, policies, or other coping mechanisms that make one population more resilient to climate shocks than another.

To exemplify how some populations are more resilient than others, consider the scenario in which two cities are hit with a rainfall of similar magnitude, but only one of them becomes devastated by flooding. This would be an opportunity to learn how the ability of people to anticipate, adapt to, and absorb climate shocks differs from place to place.

We have exactly this case study if we compare the floods earlier this summer in Brooklyn, New York and Nairobi, Kenya.

Although both floods received news coverage because they occurred in major cities, the coverage in Nairobi was more extensive, even attracting international media such as Al Jazeera and the BBC, and resulted in a rousing #Nairobifloods hashtag on twitter where residents shared information and their frustrations.

In Brooklyn, the news coverage was local, and relatively superficial because there was minimal damage and no casualties to talk about.

There was something missing in the coverage of these two events: why was the Brooklyn flood only a minor nuisance, and why wasn’t the Nairobi flooding an even bigger disaster?

One reason could be the early warnings issued in Brooklyn by the New York National Weather Service that were received by most cellphone users in the flash flood area and were accompanied by a loud piercing sound. The warnings urged residents to “move to higher ground now” and “act to quickly save your life.” Drivers were advised to “turn around, don’t drown” when faced with even shallow floodwaters.

In contrast, many Nairobians were stuck for hours in traffic while trying to return home after work during the floods. Some were forced to climb onto their car roofs as water started to enter their cars.

This is not to say that Nairobians didn’t employ coping mechanisms of their own that reduced the impact of the floods. People started tweeting with the hashtag #Nairobifloods, providing photos and information about which routes were passable or impassable. Ma3Route, a popular platform that is available via web, mobile and SMS, allowed Nairobians to share and access information about transport and current traffic conditions which may have helped inform residents about which routes to avoid due to flooding.

The Kenya Met Service also shared a warning on twitter about the flooding, but unfortunately this was after the initial flooding on the previous day, and may not have reached all residents. 

The lack of information about the coping mechanisms used by Nairobians or Brooklynites is a missed opportunity for different cities to learn from each other about what works to reduce casualty during extreme events.

In an effort to fill this need, the BRACED Knowledge Manager (KM) is piloting a program named “Reality of Resilience.” The program will monitor extreme climate events and attempt to learn more about how people cope during them. This includes projects within the BRACED program and beyond. The “Reality of Resilience” program is led by Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, which has a role within the BRACED KM to help generate evidence and facilitate an exchange of learning and dialogue on what works to strengthen resilience.

How does the program work?

Reality of Resilience uses satellite information and models to identify hazards such as floods and droughts shortly after they occur. We have identified a number of monitoring systems that provide near real-time data on rainfall and areas with extreme amounts of water that could be flooding, as well as areas that have seen depressed rainfall leading to unusually dry conditions.

This allows us to set threshold above which a notification is sent to BRACED Knowledge Manager members, including the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, the Thomson Reuters Foundation and the Knowledge Management Engagement Leaders  (in-country liaisons to BRACED projects). These members then work together with local contacts and interested BRACED implementing partners to tell the story of “what went right and what went wrong” before, during and after an extreme climate event. We intend to feature the impacts of both disasters and “non-disasters.”

Many of us can probably remember an instance where taking one action, like storing valuables in waterproof bags, or boarding our windows prior to a tropical cyclone, saved us from harm. These are exactly the stories that the Reality of Resilience program hopes to capture – emphasizing the fact that certain coping mechanisms may not be known to people outside of their own region. 

Learning by asking innovative questions

Instead of asking, “what happened”, the Reality of Resilience program asks, “what could have happened, but didn’t?”

The program will focus on learning more about coping mechanisms in East Africa, West Africa, and South – highlighting ones which others can learn more from. We will tackle not only BRACED project areas, but also non-BRACED areas, which presents opportunities for learning from indigenous knowledge or non-BRACED programming. (And though Reality of Resilience will not monitor the United States, even places as different as Brooklyn and Nairobi have something to learn from one another.)  

Information about what works and what does not work to maintain well-being in the face of an extreme weather event is useful in the following ways: it can be used to reflect on what is working well and perhaps less well in various contexts, it can help promote the implementation of certain policies which reinforce adaptation measures to climate extremes and disasters, and finally, it can highlight successful coping mechanisms to other programs and other parts of the world.

By reporting on “non-disaster” stories, we can contribute to the world’s understanding of coping mechanisms and help the world “brace” itself for impending climate extremes, and ideally come out on the other side saying, “nothing happened.”

The findings and conclusions detailed in this blog are those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, the IFRC or its National Societies. The blog and any links it may contain are offered to stimulate discussion and thinking on the humanitarian impacts of climate change and variability.