Risks and Emergency Management in Climate Change

 

Risks and emergency management in climate change

Speed without “disaster capitalism”: designing controls that survive the rush

Pre-disaster contracts and vendor pools

The IFRC’s Emergency Response Framework and DREF guidance say rapid response means higher risk. But this risk can be managed. Pre-qualified vendor pools, framework agreements, and vetted specifications speed procurement while reducing collusion (IFRC, 2025; IFRC DREF, 2020).

Radical transparency defaults

Adopt a 10-day rule: Publish every emergency contract within ten days with the supplier, including unit prices, quantities, delivery evidence, and beneficial owners. Where countries adopted ProZorro-style open data and dashboards, competition widened and savings increased (OCP, 2024; OCP impact story: Ukraine). 

Emergency awards should auto-check ownership against sanctions and past performance. Blacklists should be centralized and public. Otherwise, suspended firms return under new names. The International Financial Institutions Act mandates these checks for transparency and accountability (EBRD on ProZorro’s data backbone).

Emergency awards should automatically check beneficial ownership against sanctions and past performance; blacklists must be centralized and publicly available. Otherwise, suspended firms simply reappear under new shells (EBRD on ProZorro’s data backbone) (ebrd.com).

Complaints that actually work

Sphere standards and modern Adaptive Social Protection (ASP) guidance require accessible complaints mechanisms such as SMS, hotlines, and local committees, with guaranteed response times and zero-retaliation policies (Sphere, 2018; World Bank, 2023).

Data responsibility for cash

CVA recipient data (names, numbers, GPS data, and transaction histories) are sensitive. The Humanitarian Centre for Humanitarian Data and CaLP propose practical controls—such as keeping only the minimum necessary data (data minimization), limiting use to specific purposes (purpose limitation), secure exchange, and community consent or the ability to opt out (CaLP/CHD, 2020).

Oversight blind spots

1. Fragmented disclosure: agencies scatter scanned PDFs across different web pages. No single list exists for emergency contracts or beneficiaries (a System issue).
2. Unlinked systems: budget lines do not match contract IDs or delivery receipts. Social registries lack sync with payment providers (a System issue).
3. Opaque criteria and no appeals: people are unaware of why they are excluded. There is nowhere safe to complain (a Power issue).
4. Capture of distribution points: local dealers or chairs control ration queues. Favoritism thrives (a Power issue) (TIB, 2020; The Daily Star, 2020).

The solution is simple and powerful. Use one public page for all contracts and vendors, one registry with anonymized beneficiary counts and criteria, one map with delivery milestones, and one complaints tracker with response times. Where open-contracting dashboards and ASP standards were implemented, both competition and trust improved (OCP; World Bank ASP).

Case Studies

This section highlights key examples from different countries to illustrate how specific practices in disaster relief and social fund management can be adapted across diverse global contexts. By understanding these cases, decision-makers can apply these principles to enhance their own disaster response mechanisms and improve integrity and efficiency.

Philippines — Haiyan/Yolanda Relief: Audits that Changed the Conversation

After Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda), the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a special audit of national relief operations. Findings included procurement anomalies—emergency awards to questionable suppliers, weak documentation of deliveries, and poor assurance of price reasonableness. These issues echoed risks flagged in many rapid procurements: limited competition and paperwork that cannot prove quality or delivery (COA, 2014; PhilStar, 2015) (coa.gov.ph).

Why it matters today. Subsequent flood-control scandals (2024–2025) reinforced the lesson that fragmented disclosure and emergency modes create openings for ghost projects and paper compliance, underscoring the need for a uniform emergency disclosure rule and beneficial-ownership checks, even in fast-tender situations (see Chapter 4). The same principles apply to relief kits: publish supplier, SKU, unit price, lot, delivery photos, and beneficial owner within 10 days of contract signature.

Citizen actions that work:

• Use the COA report as a template for local social audits: match invoices to truck logs and barangay receipts to ensure accuracy.
• Demand machine-readable contract/receipt data; scanned PDFs block analysis.
• Pair this with hotline/SMS grievance channels—people will report favoritism if they trust the channel (spherestandards.org 2018).

Bangladesh — Cyclone Amphan: selection politics and relief opacity

A national watchdog study on typhoon Amphan found a lack of transparency (ranging from 14% to 77% across indicators), political influence, poor coordination, and bureaucratic bottlenecks in disaster management. Respondents reported nepotism in beneficiary selection and irregular distributions—exactly the patterns that reappear, disaster after disaster, when targeting, and complaints aren’t public (TIB, 2020; Daily Star, 2020; Governance Paper, 2021) (Transparency International Bangladesh).

System fix: Bangladesh’s strong cyclone-shelter system shows what works when rules are clear and institutions are practiced. Apply that discipline to beneficiary lists: publish ward-level tallies by transparent criteria (e.g., house destroyed grade, disability, female-headed household), protect personal data by aggregating at the right level (CaLP/CHD), and commit to a 48-hour appeal window with public outcomes (Sphere; CaLP data responsibility) (spherestandards.org).

India — Shock-responsive social protection: building the “pipes”

India’s national and state systems (e.g., Aadhaar-linked payments, social registries, PDS staples) have supported large-scale crisis cash and in-kind response. Global evidence on Adaptive Social Protection suggests that when countries establish systems before a shock—such as eligibility rules, registries, digital payments, and grievance redress—cash can reach millions quickly while minimizing leakage (World Bank, 2023; IEG, 2025) (Open Knowledge World Bank).

Caution: speed is not the same as fairness. Without transparent inclusion and exclusion criteria and functional appeals, politically invisible groups may be left out. UNICEF and CaLP guidance on CVA targeting emphasizes equity, do-no-harm, and data protection—especially when piggybacking on government lists (UNICEF, 2021; CaLP/WVI, 2021). 

Marginalised Groups and Vulnerability to Climate Change Impacts: IP, Women, Fisherfolks

 

Marginalised groups' vulnerability to climate change impacts

At the margins of decision-making: women, IPs, and fisherfolk

Gendered vulnerability—and missing seats

IPCC AR6 and UN bodies underscore what practitioners observe daily: climate risks are differentiated by gender, wealth, location, and identity, and adaptation is more effective when governance is inclusive (IPCC AR6 WGII SPM; UNFCCC policy briefs). Yet, women remain underrepresented in environmental decision-making, from local councils to national planning (UN Women/UN factsheets). It is crucial to differentiate the types of representation women hold within these bodies. Whether women hold decision-making roles, advisory positions, or quota seats significantly affects their influence. Acknowledging and expanding their roles from token participation to effective involvement can substantially improve inclusivity and efficacy in environmental governance.

In the Philippines, the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act (RA 10121) established councils from national to barangay levels and created formal roles for CSOs (Nam, 2012); the national plan also allocates funds at the LGU level (LDRRMF). But practice still lags—participation varies, and women’s influence is often limited to token seats unless backed by rules, disclosure, and grievance routes (RA 10121 primer; UNDRR country status report).

India’s long-running reservation for women in panchayats demonstrates the impact of design: randomized quotas for female heads alter local investment patterns and public goods delivery (Chattopadhyay & Duflo, 2004), a finding later reinforced in broader reviews and policy debates. 

Indigenous Peoples and FPIC

For Indigenous territories, the default must be consent—not just consultation. The Philippines has a firm legal foundation in the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA, RA 8371). The NCIP Revised FPIC Guidelines (2012) require Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for projects that affect ancestral domains, with a defined process that includes community assemblies and decision-making according to customary law (RA 8371; NCIP AO 3/2012; GIZ/Oxfam FPIC primers).

To illustrate the cost of flawed FPIC, consider a recent infrastructure project in the Cordillera region where a hydroelectric dam was constructed without genuine consent from the local Indigenous communities. Despite attending formal consultations, community members were not fully informed of the project's impact on their lands and livelihoods. As a result, many families faced relocation without adequate compensation, losing both ancestral lands and traditional ways of life. This example underscores the crucial importance of each FPIC step in safeguarding community rights and fostering trust.

Internationally, IFC Performance Standard 7 also requires FPIC in specified circumstances (e.g., relocation, significant impacts on critical cultural heritage), making consent a condition for finance in many private projects (World Bank).

Reality check: FPIC is sometimes performed (papers signed, photos taken) without time, translation, or alternatives. “Prior” and “informed” collapse when notices are rushed, or technical impacts (e.g., saline intrusion, erosion, fisheries) are not explained in local terms. Genuine FPIC requires time, resources, and the option to say no—and it must publish minutes, attendance, independent facilitation, and grievance options (NCIP AO 3/2012; UN-REDD case writing) (chr-observatories.uwazi.io).

Fisherfolk: high exposure, low voice

Across Southeast Asia, women are central to small-scale fisheries (processing, trading), yet governance often renders their work and risks invisible (FAO evidence). It is estimated that women account for over 50% of the labor force in fisheries value chains, encompassing roles from processing to marketing, and that they significantly contribute to household incomes. However, where mangroves are cleared or ports expanded without user input, fisher livelihoods, mainly sustained by women, absorb the shock first (FAO small-scale fisheries reports; regional profiles).

FPIC done right vs. performative consultations

Done right

• Prior means calendars align with community seasons; it is time to consult with elders, women, youth, and fishers.
• Informed means bilingual, plain-language materials; 3-D maps, model cross-sections, and side-by-side designs showing with or without-project impacts.
• Consent means consensus or decision rules consistent with custom, documented and verifiable; participation logs published (names as appropriate) and minutes posted.
• Independence means facilitators and translators are not on the proponent’s payroll.
• Grievance means a reachable mechanism and no retaliation for dissent.

These elements align with NCIP AO 3/2012 and IFC PS7 expectations (WIPO). 

Performative FPIC

• Compressed timelines: a single meeting, one microphone.

• Gatekeeper selection: invitations filtered through local bosses; women, migrants, and fishworkers absent.

• Document dump: technical PDFs without translation or visuals.

• Pre-baked “agreements”: sign now; benefits later.

• No paper trail: attendance and minutes withheld.

GIZ/Oxfam reviews in the Philippines document both strong and weak practices, reinforcing that process design is the difference between rights realized and box-ticking.

Burning the Public Trust: Social Funds and the Politics of Disaster

 

Social funds and relief for climate change

Social Funds, Relief, and the Politics of Disaster

Why this chapter matters

When a cyclone hits or monsoon floods surge, the need for immediate aid is critical. Picture a mother, clutching her child, waiting on a flooded rooftop for tarps, safe water, and cash for food or transport. Her resilience demonstrates why speed and integrity in disaster relief are crucial. Governments and aid agencies must act quickly. However, speed without safeguards can lead to favoritism, kickbacks, and 'ghost' beneficiaries. Help gets diverted, trust erodes, and next time, fewer heed the siren's call (IFRC, 2025).

Relief leakage and procurement abuse are not victimless. They lead to hunger, untreated illness, polluted wells, and unsafe shelter. Audits and watchdog research from the Philippines and Bangladesh, along with open contracting reforms, demonstrate both the failures of relief and how social funds and rapid contracting can maintain integrity under pressure (COA, 2014; TIB, 2020; Open Contracting Partnership, 2024).

This chapter provides a roadmap for decision-makers. It first summarizes the main challenges to relief integrity, then outlines five actionable aims: 

(1.) Understand schemes such as beneficiary-list manipulation, ghost deliveries, and cartelized emergency buying. 

(2.) Weigh the tradeoffs between price and speed in relief, plus methods to mitigate issues. 
(3.) Spot oversight blind spots that threaten relief integrity. 
(4.) Review country-specific case studies, including those from the Philippines, Bangladesh, and lessons from India's shock-responsive social protection. 
(5.) Use a 'citizen checklist' to evaluate tenders or cash-transfer announcements once immediate disaster conditions subside. This brief clarifies and distills key insights to help officials and sets the stage for the upcoming discussion on the three main points where relief can leak.

Beneficiary targeting: lists, politics, and “ghosts”

When relief begins, who gets on the list matters as much as what is in the kit. Typical failure modes include:

• Ghost households—these are nonexistent or duplicate entries, often utilized to divert kits or cash away from intended recipients.
• Elite capture—this occurs when local leaders manipulate beneficiary lists to favor allies and marginalize critics.
• Opaque criteria—households are often left in the dark about the reasons for their inclusion or exclusion.

Watchdogs in Bangladesh documented these patterns precisely after Cyclone Amphan: allegations of nepotism in beneficiary selection and irregular relief distribution echoed those from prior disasters, with respondents reporting arbitrary inclusion and political favoritism (Amphan Governance Study, 2021). (ResearchGate)

Quantitatively, a 2021 corruption and anti-corruption overview tallied 218 media-reported incidents of relief corruption by June 2020 (COVID-19 and cyclone period), involving elected representatives, local political leaders, dealers, and businesspeople—an index of how quickly targeting can be captured when controls are weak (U4/CMI Helpdesk, 2021). 

Standard humanitarian guidance tries to prevent this. The Sphere Handbook requires transparent criteria, community participation in targeting, complaints mechanisms, and protection for at-risk groups (Sphere, 2018) (spherestandards.org).

Emergency procurement: price gouging, paper suppliers, and “rush to spend”

In the first weeks, agencies buy tents, tarps, water bladders, chlorine, ready-to-eat foods, generators, fuel, latrine hardware, and debris-removal services—often invoking emergency procedures. Abuse patterns include:

• Cartelized fast tenders (a system where the same firms take turns winning bids, reducing competition).
• Paper companies acting as fronts—these are companies that exist on paper only, with real owners hidden to avoid sanctions and blacklists.
• Copy and paste line items across dozens of locations at identical prices, without considering differences in logistics or quality.

The Philippines' experience after Super Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) is instructive. A national audit revealed procurement irregularities, including the use of questionable suppliers during emergency situations. These awards "gave no assurance" of price reasonableness or quality (COA, 2014; PhilStar, 2015). Analysis suggests that approximately 10,000 households missed timely aid, highlighting the importance of procurement integrity.

Open contracting reforms demonstrate alternatives: ProZorro in Ukraine (“everyone sees everything”) standardized data, widened competition, and measurably reduced corruption perceptions and single-bid rates—proof that even under stress, publishing structured data can defend value for money (OCP, 2024; OGP story, 2022; EBRD, 2025).

Cash assistance and social funds: speed vs. accountability

Cash and voucher assistance (CVA, which is relief provided as direct money or coupons instead of goods) has grown to roughly one-fifth of global humanitarian aid and is poised to expand further because it is flexible and fast (CaLP, 2024). But cash’s strengths demand rigor: accurate lists, reliable payment rails (the systems or channels used to transfer money), and data responsibility for sensitive personal information (CaLP Data Responsibility toolkit, 2020).

The World Bank’s work on Adaptive Social Protection (ASP) demonstrates that national social-protection systems can effectively deliver emergency cash to vulnerable individuals following shocks, provided reliable systems are in place. Pre-positioned registries (lists of beneficiaries created prior to a crisis), digital payments (the electronic transfer of funds), and grievance redressal mechanisms (facilitating individuals to submit complaints or appeals) enable aid to reach large numbers of people during crises (World Bank, 2023; IEG, 2025).

Return to Books Page

Return to Home Page

Turning Public Data Into Public Power

 

Turning public data into public power

Practical guide: turning public data into public power

This section serves as a guide for citizens, journalists, and civil society organizations to independently verify, analyze, and advocate for greater transparency in climate and environmental projects. Treat each step as part of an iterative learning loop—ask, test, refine, and repeat. By viewing these practical actions as a continuous process—from setting baselines to publishing replication files—you can transform open data into meaningful oversight and accountability, echoing the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) principles discussed earlier.

Step 1 — Pin down the baseline (don’t move the goalposts).

Before accepting “impact,” ask: Impact against what?

• For floods: historic water-level or depth maps per neighborhood; baseline water-logging days.

• For nature-based projects: initial canopy cover and species-site plan per plot; survival targets at 12 & 36 months.

• Document data sources and commit to the same method post-project (IPCC/UNFCCC MEL logic).

Ask the agency to publish CSV/JSON for the following: project plan, BoQ items, contract awards, beneficial owners, change orders, delivery notes, field tests, and as-built attributes—linked by a unique project/contract ID. Quote the Open Data Charter and OC4IDS: data should be timely, accessible, comparable, and interoperable. As advocates say, 'Data trapped in PDFs is data denied,' emphasizing the need for open and accessible information to ensure transparency and accountability (Open Data Charter/opendatacharter.org).

Step 3 — Verify event severity using open rainfall data.

Use GPM/IMERG to sum rainfall over your city for the flood week and compare it to the seasonal norm. If the event was moderate but damage was extreme, that’s a red flag for underbuilt or clogged systems (NASA GPM). 

Step 4 — Check the construction at the pixel level.

In Earth Engine, view Sentinel-2 imagery:

• Draw the dike/drain alignment and compare monthly composites throughout the construction period.

• Look for fresh earthworks, riprap texture, or canal widening.

• If the report says 'completed,' but the 10m imagery shows no change, it's essential to consider, 'what if the pixels lie?' This prompts a critical look into the reliability of satellite data. To avoid errors or misclassifications, cross-reference satellite cues with dated geotagged photos and as-builts. This combination ensures that on-ground realities match digital reports (ESA/NASA Sentinel-2 docs; Earth Engine).

Step 5 — Ground-truth nature claims.

For reforestation/mangroves, check whether land-cover shifted from bare/tidal to vegetation in the claimed polygons using Copernicus 100 m GLC and simple NDVI trends; cross-check with survival audits (Copernicus GLC). 

Step 6 — Tie money to milestones.

Cross-reference contract disbursements with physical proofs: test reports, delivery GRNs, milestone photos, and satellite evidence. If payments are 100% but pixels and tests are thin, it’s time for an audit.

Step 7 — Publish your replication file.

Whether you’re a newsroom or neighborhood association, release your method, code, and shapefiles. Public reproducibility pressures agencies to meet the same standard.

Minimum disclosure package for climate projects (win trust)

1. Plan: Define the problem being addressed, establish baselines for comparison, and set key performance indicators (KPIs) with clear methods and data sources to measure progress and impact. Benefit: This allows communities to understand where projects start, track how effectively issues such as flooding are mitigated, and hold project managers accountable by comparing planned goals with actual outcomes.
2. Procurement: Disclose procurement data in accordance with the Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS), including information on beneficial ownership, bidding processes, contract awards, and detailed line-item prices, to ensure transparency and accountability.
3. Progress: Track and share project milestones through tables, report on laboratory tests, document as-built project attributes, and publish open geospatial data to provide evidence of ongoing work.
4. Outcomes: Present indicators that account for real-world events (e.g., flood depth following similar rainfall) to show actual impact, and report survival rates at specified intervals for projects involving natural restoration.
5. Grievance: Maintain an online log that records complaints or issues, categorizes them, lists relevant dates, and documents outcomes, with weekly updates for ongoing transparency.
6. (Backed by ODC principles; CoST/OC4IDS; OCP evidence.) 

Why this is about justice, not just spreadsheets

When numbers are locked in PDFs, the poorest pay twice—first through projects that underdeliver, then through the next flood, heatwave, or landslide. Open, verifiable data is not a luxury; it’s a life-safety control. The evidence is clear: countries and cities that publish structured procurement and project data improve competition, value for money, and trust (OCP 2024; CoST). The tools to verify rainfall, land cover, and construction are free. What’s missing in many places isn’t technology—it’s political will (OCP).

To channel this moral drive into concrete action, I propose a single policy change: mandate the use of the OC4IDS for all climate-related contracts. This would ensure transparency, enable effective monitoring, and hold all stakeholders accountable, making data a tool for justice as much as for governance.

Return to Books Page

Return to Home Page