Preparing for catastrophes

In the midst of this pandemic, the question frequently asked is why was the world unprepared for such a catastrophe? The next question is why the world takes so long to react positively to this pandemic?

The common answer is that no one really predicted an epidemic of such global proportions. The topic now on the minds of most think tanks is whether there is a correct way of making predictions. Most people have the idea that predicting is a rare skill and is seldom used. Actually we all live in a world of daily predictions.

Every decision we make on what to do tomorrow is based on a prediction about tomorrow. Businesses and governments prepare budgets and targets based on what they foresee will happen in the coming months or years. However, most people are just too lazy to put any real effort into planning, which requires predicting. The result is that most people base their plans not on predictions, but on the assumption that conditions will remain the same as yesterday. Most of us assume that the dangers and problems we face tomorrow will basically be the same as yesterday. In spite of the annual recurrence of floods, we continue to see the need to evacuate people every time there is a flood warning.

Is there a better way? There was a time when scenario planning was very popular with government, businesses and even non-profit organizations. In the last few decades, it seems that this method was deemed as too long or too complicated. But now I have been reading more often that there has been a resurgence in scenario planning since the pandemic happened. This global catastrophe has made thousands of businesses and organizations bankrupt and now trying to plan for a post-pandemic world.

The easiest planning trap would be to assume that the “new normal” would actually be just a return to the pre-pandemic world. The RAND Corporation is one of the world’s biggest and most influential think tanks. Its formula for scenario planning begins by asking planners to arrive at four possible scenarios.

It recently used this method to try and predict China’s possible place in the world over the next 30 years. Here is a summary together with the four possible scenarios.

“Triumphant China” dominates the world stage in most domains, with a modern military and an innovative economy. “Ascendant China” is the preeminent power not only in Asia but in other regions as well. “Stagnant China” has suffered from low growth and faces social unrest. “Imploding China” experiences a crisis of existential proportions in which domestic instability undercuts the country’s international influence.

There is a clear divergence of the four possible scenarios. The next step then is “probabilistic forecasting,” or determining the probability of each scenario. The ideal planning calls for each nation to be prepared for all scenarios if that is possible.

However, one can arrive at a conclusion that different nations or groups believe is the most probable China scenario. Politicians calling for very close ties with China most probably see that the future will see an Ascendant or Triumphant China. In fact, some people think that this is a future that is inevitable.

Here is the interesting part of forecasting. The same four probabilities can apply to the United States. Under Trump, there were geopolitical experts who were warning that the United States was a declining power that was on the verge of “Imploding.” With Biden as president, there are now more geopolitical observers who believe that the United States can reverse its decline and avoid social implosion. Therefore, America will once again reassert itself as a “Triumphant America.”

The most interesting question now is whether the two nations who may be both “Ascendant” can co-exist or will there be an inevitable conflict between the two.

In planning, it is important to figure out how the opponent considers the future. If China considers its inevitable future as “Triumphant” and America has the same prediction about itself, then conflict seems inevitable.

Countries like the Philippines will be on the front lines of any conflict between world powers because of its geographical location. If there is going to be conflict, neutrality will not be an option for front line states.

There are two major problems in trying to make logical decisions even when the scenarios are clear. The first problem is that vested interests will not necessarily choose the direction that will benefit the country. The recent military takeover of Myanmar was a classic case of vested interests placing selfish goals ahead of the national interests. Even when the needed action is clear, vested interests may attempt to forestall the needed action by using their power or their money.

The second problem is that crises usually require trying to handle several risks at the same time. In this COVID-19 pandemic, decision makers must try to save lives and prevent an economic collapse at the same time.

There is also the fact that many people really do not make rational decisions based on scenario planning and probability forecasting. In the real world, in times of crisis humans act quickly and under stress.

Because humans may believe that they don’t have the time or the power to source information to allow them to decide rationally, they rely on their emotions or the expertise of people they trust. This is true of most leaders.

One exception was Chancellor Angela Merkel who combined the rationality of a scientist with the human touch of a politician.

*      *      *

An invitation to young writers:

Young Writers’ Hangouts via Zoom on Feb. 13 & 27 with Mailin Paterno and Rin Chupeco, 2-3 p.m. Contact [email protected].  0945.2273216

Email: [email protected]