NORTH
AMERICA: REPORT AND REGIONAL BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE
Part I: Draft Concepts of "Regional Blueprint for Change" Preamble: North America is comprised of three large, culturally different, countries, which have states, territories, provinces, districts, and counties that are the governmental equivalent of about 100 nations. Each has people, cities, megacities (e.g., Mexico City, Los Angeles, and New York), financial centers, international business enterprises, dwellings, low-and high-rise buildings, and infrastructure at risk from the full spectrum of slow- and rapid-onset natural hazards, technological hazards, and environmental impacts that are now happening every year with increasing social and economic tolls. The countries have political treaties, (e.g., the North American Trade Agreement), mutual aid pacts, and other agreements which tie governments, cities, organizations, universities, businesses, and people together. Because of Mexico, California and Puerto Rico, the North American region has a gateway with Latin America, and because of Canada, the region has a gateway with Europe. Because of ties between New York and Montreal and Settle and Vancouver, the USA and Canada have political and programmatic ties. North America also has ties with the Pacific and Asia through the Millennium program, the Crowding the Rim Initiative, and the World Seismic Safety Initiative. USA, Canada, and Mexico have each adopted national, state, provincial, district, and community programs to improve sustainability and reduce vulnerabilities as a result of past devastating disasters caused by floods, ice storms, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, landslides, loss of wetlands, global change, and release of hazardous materials. Property and casualty insurance is a major element of North American risk management programs, but it is a financial reality that the risks from catastrophes in the United States alone today greatly exceed the capacity of the insurance industry. For example, potential losses in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast communities of the United States alone could exceed $3.15 trillion (Institute for Property Loss Reduction and Insurance Research Council, 1996). The insurance industry’s consolidated surplus is estimated at less than $200 billion, which must cover all losses—not just catastrophe losses. Why is there such a large difference between potential loss exposure and insurance capacity? The answer is that more frequent and severe natural hazards (e. g., earthquakes, severe windstorms, floods) are combing with increasing population density and rapidly increasing property values in urban and coastal areas so as to cause major societal disruption and unprecedented potential economic loss. A single mega-catastrophe in the neighborhood of $100 billion is now considered likely from hurricanes striking large urban centers in Florida or from major earthquakes striking large urban centers in Southern or Northern California, Western Canada, and Mexico City. . For perspective, a $50-100 billion loss is roughly equivalent to a normal day’s loss in the stock market. Any one of these potential catastrophes could result in the failure of many insurers. Catastrophe losses are paid by some combination of insurers, reinsurers, insured, local, state, and federal agencies, businesses, and taxpayers. Other than reinsurance, most of these payments are not pre-arranged. Reinsurance, due to its limited capitalization, offers no protection when the losses exceed $5 billion. Regional Leadership Team Tri-Chair: John Ogren Tri-Chair: Christopher Tucker Tri-Chair: Vyacheslav M. Zobin Secretariat: Kathleen Boyer Secretariat: Tad Murty Secretariat: Claire Rubin Michael Cassaro Robert L. Chartrand John A. Clizbe W. Gene Corley James F. Davis Dennis Fasking Albert A. Grant John R. Harrald William Kelly Peter Kissinger Paul Kleindorfer Therese P. McAllister Jim Makris Avagene Moore Evan K. Paleologos Earnest Paylor William E. Roper Phillip Schneider Ray C. Simmons Archie B. Wainwright Lucy A. Wichlacz Jy S. Wu
I. INTRA-REGIONAL ACTIVITIES--2002-2007 A. Constitute an Ad-Hoc North American Team: Purpose: The current working group will become an ad-hoc committee and work within the same thematic framework and regional team structure to plan for the Congress, create "White papers," and to propose intra- and inter-regional activities that will benefit North America as well as all regions. The committee will develop a peer-review process for evaluating the first edition of the Global Blueprints for Change and for elaboration of a North American Blueprint Who Will Have Primary Responsibility: The North American Team will start the process, enlisting experts from within each country who were unable to participate in the Workshop, Strategy: Create a new North America Web Site and initiate internet-based interactions Organization sponsors and Key Co-Sponsors: The present eight organizational sponsors of the Workshop plus other organizations and their equivalent counterparts in USA, Mexico, and Canada
To be determined.
Immediate at our respective locations until the Congress
A. Publicize the Congress and Draft a North America Blueprint for Change Purpose: Communicate a common agenda of what we all know needs to be done in North America to reduce the potential losses from natural and technological hazards and environmental impacts. Elements of a North American Blueprint: Theme A "Living With---": · Siting Out of Harm’s Way/Land Use (A1, A9, A10, A12, A13) · Match Structural Design To Hazard Demand (A1, A2, A9, A10, A11, A13) · Improve Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (A6, A7, A8, A13) · Conduct Pre- and Post- Disaster Observations for Lessons Learned (A4) · Measure Success/Effectiveness Theme B, "Building to Withstand…" · Improving Hazard-Characterization Models and Maps (B1) · Reducing Vulnerabilities in Low-Rise Construction (with consideration of environmental factors, (B3) · Improve Vulnerability and Risk Assessment for the Environment (B6) · Managing Unacceptable Risk through Mitigation and Preparedness Models (B8) · Next Generation of Building Codes and Lifeline Standards (B10) · Improve Understanding of the Interaction Between the Built Environment and Natural Systems (B13) Theme C, "Learning From and Sharing…" · Increasing Knowledge Collection and Sharing (C1) · Data Collection, Integration, and Management (C2) · Sharing Knowledge and Emerging Technologies (C4) · Improving Risk Assessment Tools (C7)
·
Enhanced
Educational Efforts By Means of Universities, Professional Associations, and
Other A New Theme D, "Implementation" · Research and Outreach by Knowledge Institutions · Sustained Training of Responsible Parties · Public Awareness and Support for Implementation of Various Strategies · Business Policies and Practices · Government Policies and Practices, and Legislation Strategy: · Present drafts of themes and topics at annual meetings of various professional societies and international conferences in USA, Mexico, and Canada. · Invite trial use and evaluation by emergency response and disaster recovery organizations, building code officials, etc., in each country. · Enlist the Insurance Services Organization (ISO), which writes international standards and evaluates the effectiveness of building codes (i.e., Building Code Effectiveness Grading System--BCEGS) www.iso.org Purpose: Publicity for the North America Blueprint and the Congress, mutual aid, common knowledge, regional building codes and lifeline standards, etc. Strategy: Use ongoing programs and initiatives of each country's departments /ministries of transportation, emergency management agencies, societies of civil engineers, academies of sciences. engineering, and medicine, geological surveys, weather services, code and standards organizations, insurers, academic institutions, etc. Who Will Have Primary Responsibility: Potential candidates able to marshal equivalent counterparts in USA, Mexico, and Canada include principals and stakeholders of: a) the North America Free Trade Agreement, b) national weather services, national science foundations, national environmental protection agencies, national geological surveys, national forest services, World Federation of Engineering Organizations, national societies of civil engineers, national societies of architects, universities, consulting engineers, national leagues of cities, etc. Organizations and key people likely to co-sponsor: Red Cross Societies and Chapters, ,multinational businesses such as Motorola, General Motors, and IBM: Council of World Churches, structural engineering organizations, World Federation of Engineering Organizations, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, NCSEA Who are Likely Donors: Multinational companies such as IBM, energy companies such as Duke Energy, ,telecommunication companies such as Motorola, foundations such as Bill and Linda Gates Foundation, and others
Best Time
and Location: C. Refine the North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA (i.e., the La Paz Agreement) Purpose: to improve the capacity in the region to address integrated regional mitigation and emergency management issues that would ensure the continuity and resumption of trade between countries after future disasters II. INTER-REGIONAL ACTIVITIES--2002-2007 Strategic Considerations: Each of the following activities outlined below will be considered in a global perspective. The aim is to leverage the benefit of long-term policies, plans, and agreements already in place and to approach a consortium of traditional and non-traditional sponsors/investors/donors, such as those listed below who have a record of being supportive, to put innovative inter-regional programs in place. The North American region will use all of its gateways to connect with other regions. Each country's approach to potential sponsors/investors/donors will be different. For example, The Canadian Government historically provides most philanthropy, not private support. Potential Sponsors/investors/donors · USAID and OFDA · World Bank · Organization of American States · Regional development banks · United Nations Development Program · World Meteorological Organization · NATO · UNESCO · International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies · Computer companies such as IBM · Telecommunication companies such as Motorola · Oil companies such as Chevron
·
IBHS, an
umbrella organization for the insurance industry, focusing on constructing
"fortified dwellings
·
The Trade
Associations, which represent most insurers in the USA, dealing with such
issues as · NAII – National Association of Independent Insurers · NAMIC – National Association of Mutual Insurance companies · AIA – Association of Insurance · RAA – Reinsurance Association of America · Private foundations · National Science Foundation · Environmental Protection Agency · Department of Transportation · National Aeronautics and Space Agency · US Geological Survey · Federal Emergency Management Agency · National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration · The 26 agencies/organizations involved in the Federal Response Plan www.fema.gov Strategy: Coordinate each inter-regional activity with the policies and long-term plans of departments of state, offices of disaster assistance, regional and international development organizations, emergency management agencies, humanitarian assistance organizations, property and casualty insurance companies, businesses, etc.
A. Explore Commonality of Information Sharing Goals with Europe and Pacific Rim Regions Purpose: Look for commonality of hazards, vulnerabilities, and the socio-economic aspects of hazard--risk--finance--risk management. The common agenda will include insurance and reinsurance, catastrophe modeling, and emergency management. The goal is to understand the differences in cultural perceptions of risk and impacts on mitigation and to strengthen, through sharing of knowledge and information, hazard assessment, risk assessment, and risk management systems of all regions. Potential Co-Sponsors: OECD [Note: Groups in Europe including OECD are environmentally oriented concerned with "Man and Environmental Hazards" and have their own interconnections.] B. Explore Mechanisms for Knowledge Transfer Between Developed and Developing Regions Purpose: Deepen understanding of the differences in cultural perceptions of risk and impacts on mitigation. Examples of specific opportunities include the transformation of emergency management and mitigation systems in former east block countries from military to civilian systems. We may be able to offer lessons from our own defense conversion experiences. Because of California and Mexico, we also have ties with Latin America that need to be strengthened. Strategy: Share information and knowledge to improve the hazard assessment, risk assessment, and risk management systems of all regions. Potential Co-Sponsors: · NATO · Civil Emergency Preparedness Committee · Organization of American States · The World Bank · Government agencies/ministries · Insurance Industry · Oil companies · Utility and power companies (mix of public and private in Canada) · Home Depot, Lowes, and Wal-Mart were supporters of Project Impact. · Banks/Finance · Construction Companies · Ensearch
·
Foundations
supporting sustainability. Many give funds to relief – need to send message
that supporting · PERI – Public Entity Risk Institute www.riskinstitute.org How do we achieve intra-regional cooperation: · Engage private insurers and re-insurers in the development of strategies to reduce risk, not just redistribute risk (e.g., mitigate instead of redistribute). · Private Insurers: Could begin by approaching organizations like Institute Catastrophic Loss Reduction (Canada) and Institute for Business and Home Safety www.ibhs.org to coordinate on insurance. Also list biggest single insurers: Allstate, Nationwide, State Farm. Need to identify potential private insurer associations and private insurers in Mexico. · Private Re-insurers: Examine coordination of private reinsurance industry in North America. Munich Re www.munichre.com, Swiss Re www.swissre.com How do we achieve collaboration between science agencies and academics: Science Agencies: · Mexico: CONACYT – Science Ministry, CENAPRED – Center of Prevention of Disaster Need to be able to get them engaged to work on insurance industry initiatives to bring about mitigation. PART II: BACKGROUND A. GLOBAL BLUEPRINTS FOR CHANGE 1.
The North American region is living with the full spectrum of
natural and technological hazards and
2.
The North American region needs a regional Blueprint
having four themes and 21 topics, as noted
3.
The areas of difficulty in implementing each of the
most-needed/most wanted actions in the North
4.
A professional editorial process should be initiated to
make the first edition of the Global Blueprints for
5.
We request that current and new Blueprinters write the
second edition in terms of our region's needs, 6. Our suggestions for improving Theme A follow: · Topic A.3, Enhancing Continuing and Distance Education The work group suggested that that various educational organizations be involved, especially those providing initial professional education and also those providing continuing education: This would include governmental organizations at all levels, universities, and professional associations). These organizations would be involved in systematically collecting information about hazards and emergency management; organizing it into a knowledge base; and sharing it. · Topic A. 5, Improving Business Contingency and Business Recovery Planning The work group encourages the involvement of private sector organizations (contingency planners, risk managers, building owners, etc.) in generating awareness and support for mitigation actions and information sharing among peers. · Topic A.6, Improving Emergency Management The work group encourages the participation of governmental entities (especially national/Federal/state) and specialized national organizations (e.g., National Red Cross, and international Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) to participate and assist with the objectives of this topic. 7. Our suggestions for improving Theme B follow: · Topic B1: Improving Hazard-Characterization Models and MapsAn effort should be made to unify the hazard and environmental disaster models and mapping techniques for North America, to eliminate discontinuities at the borders. Develop models to predict the long-term effect of climate change on atmospheric and hydrological hazards. Identify dominant factors that contribute to the uncertainty in groundwater flow and contaminant transport predictions. · Topic B3: Reducing Vulnerabilities in Low-Rise Construction (with consideration of environmental factors) Unify classifications of low-rise construction across all three countries to facilitate comparison of damages. Improve roofing standards and materials to better reflect the required performance in natural events. Improve the quantity of low-rise buildings by promoting a requirement for continuous load path construction. Mitigate the hazard of old low-quality low-rise buildings in a modern city. Develop cost effective methods of retrofitting existing structures against hazards. Improve physical and economic uncertainty considerations in environmental models. Prioritize the dominant physical and economic parameters that affect environmental hazard prediction. Study the interaction of natural hazard events and environmental disasters to develop mitigation policies.
· Topic B8: Managing Unacceptable Risk through Mitigation and Preparedness ModelsOrganize virtual center/s that would facilitate the evaluation of new and innovative technologies for the full spectrum of disaster mitigation for natural and technological hazards and environmental impacts. Include tornado hazards and related design and construction requirements in standards and building codes. Include shelter design and construction in standards and building codes. · Topic B10: Next Generation of Building Codes and Lifeline StandardsSimplify the next generation of building codes and lifeline standards to facilitate their adoption across North America. · Topic B13: Improving Understanding of the Interaction Between the Built Environment and Natural Systems Study the risks and consequences of constructing facilities and communities in locations that (a) are vulnerable to extreme events or (b) may impact natural resources. 8. Our suggestions for Theme C follow: · Topic C.1,Laboratories for increasing knowledge, assessing preparedness, and evaluating public policy Generally, the work groups thought that actions related to Topic C.1 were its highest priority. For the countries represented, there was interest and need for various data sharing mechanisms, in order to replace informal, fragile highly personalized networks with more stable and robust means of exchanging information about hazards/disasters and emergency management. Once again the notion of a clearinghouse(s) for information was mentioned; this is a long-standing need which now can be accomplished more easily than in the past due to the availability of the Internet. It has been suggested that one or more networks of virtual libraries either be created, or to the extent they exist link them. For example, data and information about floods, earthquakes etc. The GDIN project has been trying to address some of these needs. The first step could be a modest one in that one could identify, organize, and maintain the various atomized small ponds of activity that now exist. The next step would be to develop national and then multi-national or regional networks of libraries and other sources. The issue of credibility and validity was raised. It would be necessary to have some form of expert peer review of the first editions of the Global blueprints for Change, Alliance members could contribute in the quality control and could post reviews before final reports were made available universally. . · Topic C.2, Data Collection, Integration, Management, and Dissemination Remote sensing and GIS systems are two of the mechanisms, but the needs of most end users need to be considered and offered extensive help in using both the new technology and the output from it. · Topic C.4, Sharing New knowledge and Emerging Technologies This topic is related to topic C.2. In both cases, extensive attention needs to be paid to interpreting, translating or otherwise facilitating the dissemination and utilization of the results obtained by end users, many of whom may not be well educated or formally trained for their jobs. "Technology leap frogging" is encouraged. The question was raised about how to supply information for citizens and for those interested in self-learning. This is quite feasibly for slow onset events, such as floods. Another question was raised about how to foster personal responsibility on the part of homeowners, business owners and other citizens and how to overcome the apathy of citizens to take protective actions. Perhaps more consulting with and research by social scientists could help with the needed understanding of behavioral considerations and decision making. · Topic C.7, Improving Risk Assessment Tools for Financial Risk Managers The work group suggested that it be revised to be more inclusive. Change the title and scope to encompass improvement of risk assessment tools and utilization of the output of such tools for use by emergency and risk managers. · Topic C. 8, Improving Public-Private Partnerships Again, this topic needs to be revised and broadened. Traditional educational institutions (universities) are not the only educational organizations, which could be helpful in this field. Professional associations, such as ASCE, EERI, etc. have and can be very important means of educating practitioners. They perform a very important continuing education function for those not likely to go back to the university setting. Several associations are in the process of offering professional certifications, such as IAEM, NEMA, and the Association of State Floodplain Managers. · Topic C.9, Centers of Excellence for Sustainable Development and Theme 4: Implementation The topic of centers of excellence came up several times. It was the general consensus of the work group that rather than encourage the creation of a few, large centers of excellence that numerous small centers be either encouraged, fostered or created. This would allow for more ingenuity and entrepreneurial activity to occur in many geographic locations, rather than allow all of the action and the funding to be channeled to a “favored few” organizations. The work group focused on the concept of a "Knowledge Portal." It was suggested that a “facilitating kiosk” or point of entry be created. It was suggested that resources first be organized on a national basis and go on to eventually to a bi- or tri-national basis. The notion of having intermediary portals – USA information-- could be reviewed, sifted and selected, and if need be translated by other countries as a service to their citizens and practitioner end users. B. PROPOSED "INTERNATIONAL MEETING" IN 2002 1. 2002 may be too early to convene a congress, we welcome the opportunity of an intermediate-type meeting and will help to design it so that we can highlight the goals and objectives of the North American blueprint, described above. 2. The priority themes and topics that our region would like to have included in such an international meeting are identified above. C. REGIONAL FORUMS, ONGOING PROJECTS, AND CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE 1.
We will seek opportunities to
undertake regional projects to contribute to hazard and risk assessments 2. Opportunities to establish multiple "Knowledge Portals" will be sought |