No abstract

The humanitarian aid distribution process is a broad activity for helping disaster victims at the right time, with the right needs and at the right place during a disaster. However, there are always issues that could interfere with the humanitarian aid distribution process such as cases of food redundancy, uneven distribution of food supply to disaster victims, food insecurity issues, and volunteers' redundancy during and post disasters. These issues prove that there are weaknesses in managing the humanitarian aid distribution process within disaster management teams. Generally, these issues should be taken care of when the disaster management team was formed either from government agencies or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Both work as the supporting team in giving aids and helping the disaster victims. Therefore, this research reviews the key issues in the humanitarian aid distribution process in Malaysian disaster management. Key findings show that there is no standard operating procedure (SOP) to explain the roles and responsibilities of NGOs that can be used by Government agencies to coordinate NGO contributions to a supporting team. There are five (5) categories of issues that can have a negative impact on the humanitarian aid distribution process and the disaster victims. The issues are information, communication, collaboration, cooperation, and coordination. All disaster management teams should emphasize these issues as they affect effectiveness in dealing with the humanitarian aid distribution process.

Malaysia as a tropical climate country is vulnerable to dreadful climate change events; particularly floods. These frequent occurrences of floods severely affect one or other parts of the country. In reducing disaster risk and strengthening local initiatives towards climate adaptation, vulnerable communities particularly in rural areas have developed valuable local knowledge for flood resilience. This local knowledge is continuously practiced in facing disasters and it is passed down to the next generations. This study aims to examine measures taken by communities based on local knowledge they possessed from the three stages of disaster management cycle namely, before, during and after disaster. Local knowledge as asserted by scholars could complement scientific knowledge and build a comprehensive disaster risk reduction approach for local context implementation. A mixed method approach was adopted; case study method and household survey involving 90 respondents for quantitative data collection and field observation for collecting qualitative data. Three case study areas in East Coast of Malaysia have been selected for further observation including; 1) Lubok Setol village in Kelantan state; 2) Teladas village in Terengganu state; and 3) Gajah Mati village in Pahang state. Findings from this study indicated that all study cases have developed and adopted local knowledge strategies for flood preparedness and responses including; 1) agriculture techniques and livestock trading; 2) stock piling of food and other necessities; 3) marking flood level as historical record; 4) floodproofing animal shelter; 5) constructing overhead storage cabinet and outdoor hut, and; 6) saving boats for emergencies. As a conclusion, it is proven that local community knowledge plays crucial roles in reducing disaster risks hence contributing towards building a resilient community.

Disaster is a major threat that could jeopardise the development of economic, social and physical elements of a nation as well as the well-being of its people. The damage and loss of property and life caused by disasters are overwhelming and least desired by any country. Review of literature as presented in this research indicated that by having a good disaster risk management (DRM) plan and well-coordinated efforts and commitment among related disaster management agencies at all levels and local stakeholders, would potentially lead to disaster risk reductions, increase preparedness and response, and reduction of damage to assets and loss of life. With a long list of agencies and aid bodies that are currently involved in various stages of DRM, putting the idea into reality has proven to be highly challenging particularly on establishing good coordination between agencies and with other stakeholders for a more effective DRM process. This paper identified three major issues and challenges in DRM in Malaysia, particularly from the perspective of agencies. These issues and challenges include (1) disaster management planning imbalanced between top-down and bottom-up approaches, (2) lack of coordination in disaster management cycle, with greater focus only on the disaster emergency response stage and, (3) lack of planning of long-term recovery (post-disaster) process, which resulted in low level community and stakeholders’ resilience to disasters.

Disaster is a major threat that could jeopardise the development of economic, social and physical elements of a nation as well as the well-being of its people. The damage and loss of property and life caused by disasters are overwhelming and least desired by any country. Review of literature as presented in this research indicated that by having a good disaster risk management (DRM) plan and well-coordinated efforts and commitment among related disaster management agencies at all levels and local stakeholders, would potentially lead to disaster risk reductions, increase preparedness and response, and reduction of damage to assets and loss of life. With a long list of agencies and aid bodies that are currently involved in various stages of DRM, putting the idea into reality has proven to be highly challenging particularly on establishing good coordination between agencies and with other stakeholders for a more effective DRM process. This paper identified three major issues and challenges in DRM in Malaysia, particularly from the perspective of agencies. These issues and challenges include (1) disaster management planning imbalanced between top-down and bottom-up approaches, (2) lack of coordination in disaster management cycle, with greater focus only on the disaster emergency response stage and, (3) lack of planning of long-term recovery (post-disaster) process, which resulted in low level community and stakeholders’ resilience to disasters.