GLOBAL
BLUEPRINTS FOR CHANGE THEME
C: LEARNING FROM AND SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE GAINED FROM NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS 1.
Laboratories
for Increasing Knowledge, Assessing Preparedness, and Evaluating
Public Policy THEME C: LEARNING FROM AND SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE GAINED FROM STUDYING NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS Preamble:
The topics, scope of work, and a summary of the recommendations of the
Global Blueprints for Change for this theme are provided below. Topic C.1: Laboratories for Increasing Knowledge, Assessing Preparedness, and Evaluating Public Policy: This Blueprint for Change will provide guidance to government agencies, insurers, businesses, and professional and non-government organizations throughout the world that are seeking cost-effective ways to use natural and environmental disasters as laboratories to increase knowledge and to evaluate the effectiveness of existing public policies to control risk. Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation: · United States: Knowlton W. Johnson, Susan Olson-Allen, and David Collins We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below.
· Barrier: Until disaster emergency systems are strong enough to prove they are reliable, there will be reluctance to have confidence in and to make use of the data. People in the system tend to convey data by word of mouth, and it sometimes does not get recorded into the system. Solution: Younger people are more computer literate than older people are. In addition, programs are beginning to be written that interest others, such as HURREVAC, which tracks a hurricane in progress and offers probabilities about where the hurricane may strike land. · Barrier: Systems may be very good, but data transmitted from field personnel may not be in a uniform format. Data come into the Emergency Operations Center in a variety of different formats (e-mails, fax, phone reports, etc.); therefore it takes a great deal of effort to integrate and analyze the information. Solution: There is no solution thus far. E-mail and having field personnel enter data into a web site have been tried, but there doesn’t seem to be any hard and fast way to overcome communication problems following a disaster. ·
Barrier: The main barrier is that people
sometimes do not obtain the right data, or do not ask the right
questions. There are many
ways to analyze the data collected, but people need to ask the right
questions, and there is a lack of understanding about how databases
work. Solution: A possible solution to the database problem is
to educate management about how to use databases. · Barrier: The main barrier is getting people to use computers at all. This problem seems especially difficult to overcome in the emergency management field. Solution: Public relations are key. · Barrier: There have been problems in the past getting data from field personnel to the Emergency Operations Center. Solution: Satellite communications have begun to be used, which has helped to overcome the problem. · Barrier: The main barrier is lack of standardization of data collection systems. Solution: This has been partly overcome by theY2K situation, which created an influx of re-sources to standardize and update the data collection systems at both the state and local levels. ·
Barrier: The main barriers are lack of training
and lack of user acceptance of the system.
Solution: Continuous education and training are being
offered, for both people inside the agency and their state partners. · Barrier: The main barrier is insufficient funding for a data management system. Many states’ budgets do not allow for the kind of outlay required for these kinds of systems. Solution: One solution would be increased allocation by legislatures. · Barrier: The main issues are training personnel in the use of data systems and funding. Solution: Field personnel could use “palm pilots” to enter data; these are easier to use than laptop computers. Training must be continuous. · Barrier: The main issues are privacy of the victims and distrust of state government by local government. Solution: Implement a computer security system that prevents users from accessing one another’s data. The system should ensure that no personal data for victims is available to unauthorized people. · Barrier: The main issue is the reluctance of some people to trust technology. Solution: Conduct training and education to increase peoples’ comfort level with new technology. · United States: William Elliott and Curtis Edwards On the basis of world wide postearthquake investigations of community lifeline systems we recommend implementation of the actions outlined below. 1. Personal Preparedness: Continue
learning from both good and poor performances in a wide
range of situations. This
way, past mistakes can be avoided, and good practices can be
highlighted and learned. 4. Individual Readiness: Keep the concept of readiness on the minds of people. Publish news releases for disaster drills and follow up with news stories in the media. Ideas such as community cable television programs offer an opportunity to show teams in action and recruit others. 5. Mutual Aid: Develop inter-community and interagency mutual aid agreements. These can set requirements for emergency response teams from nearby, unaffected communities. This aid can provide for valuable materials and manpower in areas where resources are already spread thin.
1. After
developing final plans for the developed countries, we have to
establish OPTIONS for the developing countries in accordance with the
general level of development of each country. 2. Develop
sharing and cooperation at the Regional Risk Basin scale. In each main basin of
natural risk, - for example, Caribbean basin, Mediterranean basin,
Southeast Asia basin, Pacific Small Islands basin, etc., we suggest
the following: ·
Develop a regional risk observatory
having responsibility for
collecting and gathering data on natural disasters (memory feed-back)
as soon as possible after the event, by a multidisciplinary local team
of scientific experts, engineers, sociologists and economists, for
analysing the lessons of the events and recording past experiences. A
couple of coordinators (Administrator assisted by scientists and
engineers) should be in charge of the regional observatory, elected
for five years by the national “disaster committee”
of the concerned countries of each regional basin. · Create a network between
countries, working through the main cities of each regional
3. Establish Regional Roving Forums: The roving forums should
be organized each year as a · India: Ashok Jain On
the basis of experience in India, especially the Gujarat earthquake,
we recommend implementation of the actions outlined below. Although a
great tragedy that should have been avoided, the Gujarat earthquake
has provided an opportunity to start fresh with a clean slate.
But the politicians, bureaucrats, social organizations,
engineers and architects, and builders have to act forcefully and
credibly now to create and implement a comprehensive modern disaster
management program, taking advantage of the best past policies and
practices and discarding the worst ones. The steps for starting over after a disaster include the following: ·
Jordan/Mediterranean Region: Khaled Kahhaleh, Abdel
Qader Fandi Abdullah, Ramy We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below for the benefit of the hazard- and disaster-prone Mediterranean region. The goal is to acquire information and knowledge that will close gaps in knowledge and promote and foster national programs to close gaps in implementation. The mandates include actions to promote: 1) anticipation instead of reaction, 2) mitigation instead of relief, and 3) scenarios, forecasts, and avoidance strategies instead of construction without consideration of the risk. 1. Establish a Centre for Mediterranean Postearthquake Studies (CMPS), to be managed by the Building Research Centre of the Royal Scientific Society in cooperation with other regional centers, with the goal of providing leadership and coordination for postearthquake investigations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean region. 2. Cooperate with UNESCO, USGS, ASCE, and Imperial College in London, U.S. Agency for International Development and other national and international organizations throughout the world in the conduct of integrated field investigations by geologists, seismologists, architects, engineers, health care professionals, land-use planners, insurers, and social scientists. 3. Enlist and train professionals from within and without the Mediterranean region to implement four categories of studies (i.e., (earth science studies, engineering studies, health care studies, and social science studies) after damaging earthquakes occur in the region. 4. Use the Internet to facilitate communication and to share information, data, and knowledge before, during, and after the earthquake disaster. A server will be established after each notable earthquake disaster (such as that for the Gujarat, India earthquake in February 2001) to enhance the factual content of the information and the speed and cost effectiveness of technology transfer. ·
Taiwan:
Horng-Syi Shen and Cheng-Shang Lee 1. Collaborate with other countries. After national programs are
developed, an option should be established for international
collaboration. Implementation of a mitigation program has to take into
account the level of knowledge and awareness of both population and
decision makers. Then, the plans must be adjusted to the general level
of each concerned country. This plan includes, developing
observatories, for collecting and gathering data on natural hazards,
for analyzing the lessons from past experiences and creating a network
between countries, through the main cities of these basins, for
sharing of experiences and solidarity between the regional
authorities. 2.
We suggest that a seminar program be established to evaluate
the performance of hazard mitigation programs at the national scale.
It is to be implemented each year with the aim of sharing
experiences from major disasters. Each
city in turn will host the representatives of the other cities in the
network. So, the national actors in the mitigation programs, both
scientists and policy-makers, will meet and establish links with all
actors of the regional basin. · The topics should be related
to national mitigation programs that are in progress. for several
years. Dialogue on these topics will allow exchange of results and
sharing of new knowledge. Topic
C.2: Data Collection, Integration, Management, and Dissemination:
This Blueprint for Change provides guidance for government agencies,
businesses, and professional and non-government organizations
throughout the world who want to improve data collection, integration,
management, and dissemination.
Major improvements at minimal cost are now possible because
of the new and rapidly emerging technologies and the rapid infusion of
large quantities of new data collected after disasters.
Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation: · United States: Dorothy Tao · Taiwan: Chih-Hong Sun and Sheng-Ming Wang On the basis of experience in Taiwan, we recommend implementation of the
actions outlined below. They can be implemented under the umbrella of
the National Science and Technology Program
for Hazards Mitigation (NAPHM), which is an integrated and
inter-disciplinary program sponsored by NSC of Taiwan and operated by
National Taiwan University (NTU).
The goal is hazard
mitigation related research, and technical development. 1.
Implement the Haz-Taiwan Project, a
system based on HAZUS that integrates risk assessment · To improve decision making
before, during, and after emergencies through improved access to ·
To provide information
products that are specifically designed to meet the needs of users. · To promote efficiency and cost
effectiveness. ·
To stimulate and facilitate
mitigation. Topic C.3: Rapid Implementation of Knowledge into Practice: This Blueprint for Change will provide guidance to government agencies, businesses, and professional and non-government organizations throughout the world that are seeking cost-effective ways to accelerate the implementation of knowledge into practice. Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation: Topic
C.4: Sharing New knowledge and Emerging Technologies: This Blueprint for Change will provide
guidance to government agencies, businesses, and professional and
non-government organizations throughout the world that are seeking
cost-effective ways to stay abreast of new knowledge and emerging
technologies.
· United States: Chris Rojahn, Ian Friedland, Amy Sebring,
Topic C.5: Assisting the Municipal CEO in Directing the Development of
an Action Plan for Natural Disasters: This Blueprint for
Change will provide guidance to the Community’s Chief Executive
Officer and facilitate daily communication with community stakeholders
and leaders from the public and private sectors on social, technical,
administrative, political, legal, and economic barriers to achieving
sustainability. · United
States/International: Gene Lecomte, Patricia
A. Hatch), Anqi Liu), Robert Chartrand, and Barbara Yuhas We
recommend implementation of the actions outlined below. 1.
Development
of checklists and other easy-to-use tools that will assist the CEO in
coordinating a local mitigation and disaster response action plan. When creating the checklists, it is imperative that the focus
be on a limited number of selected “key components” intended to
assist the CEO in directing and carrying out his or her
responsibilities for pre- and post-disaster planning.
These components will concentrate on specific “key
elements”, and, do not embrace the complete list of elements needed
for a comprehensive disaster plan.
The myriad details are left to the emergency management
professionals that will be selected by the CEO to produce the plan.
The “components” of the checklists that will be identified
in this Blueprint include:
· Identification
of potential hazards and vulnerabilities facing the jurisdiction. Topic
C.6: Improving Participation and Accountability:
This Blueprint for Change will set out common principles that
underpin effective participation and accountability in all aspects of
disaster reduction, and identify and disseminate models of good
practice, drawing on experiences from different locations and contexts
worldwide. One of the
biggest obstacles to making disaster mitigation initiatives effective
and sustainable is lack of participation by, and accountability to the
communities that are at risk. Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation: · United States: Jasmin K. Riad On the basis
of past experience, we recommend implementation of the actions
outlined below. 2. At
the same time, find a way to encourage innovative additions to the
process, including cooperative · Help design a "Blueprint for Global Needs Assessment " regarding participation and accountability in mitigation programs. · Conduct a cross-cultural literature review on disaster programs, including articles not published in English. · Explore other incentives for participation. ·
Communicate all documentation for four reasons: What is participation for?
For these reasons, we recommend implementation of the actions outlined below 1. Develop case studies showing the range and nature of past participatory approaches. 2. Create a decision making tree for use when using a
participatory approach to disaster reduction.
3. Promote further development or application of participatory
approaches in disaster reduction by calling for concerted efforts to
fill gaps in knowledge or methods, create capacity, and resolve
problems. Topic
C.7: Improving Risk Assessment Tools for Financial Risk
Managers: This Blueprint for Change will
provide guidance for financial risk managers throughout the
world who are looking for new and improved dynamic financial analysis
tools to assess the full range of potential economic impacts of the
disaster agents generated by natural and environmental hazards.
Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation: · United States: Dennis Fasking On the basis of evolving experience in the insurance sector, we recommend implementation of the actions outlined below to improve capability for modeling natural phenomena such as earthquakes, severe windstorms, and floods. 1.
Learning from what already exists, then establishing objectives
· Convene workshops involving key participants, modelers, users, and stakeholders with the stated goal of accomplishing the following. The focus would be to bring key participants up to the same level of understanding of the latest developments and current usage of such models and financial risk management tools. They would accomplish the following steps: · Understand what has already been done and examine the paths followed by others who have gone before. · Understand the vast diversity of current usage and an evaluation of what can be expected for the future. · Identification of hidden obstacles and barriers to success. · Establishment of realistic long term, intermediate-term, and short-term goals and objectives
2.
Who’s who? Finding
potential partners - · Establish a working committee of key representatives from the key participant, modeler, user and stakeholder groups, who have a strategic understanding of their fields and what these financial tools can and do mean to progressive organizations and governments. This group will be needed both for the identification of the key change architects, but also to prioritize the opportunities and to address other considerations such as those below, which probably will not be found to be exhaustive once the working committee meets and has a chance to consider what needs to be done and how to do it. · Identify the best user, stakeholder, modeling groups with whom to work to bring about efficacious change. · Identify the ultimate key users and stakeholders and how to involve them. · Who owns the current processes and tools? · Who is willing to collaborate and how? 3.
Prioritizing the work/opportunities · Prioritize the opportunities by peril, by hazard challenge, by concentration of exposures, by type of exposure (single family homes, small businesses, multi-location large commercial, etc.) rather than addressing at random 4.
Evaluate other considerations - · Understand the consequences – How good is "good enough? " Not acting may not cripple the user, but it does limit the breadth and depth of how far they can go with the results of improved catastrophe models and other financial risk analysis tools. · Identify the risk versus reward equations for as many of the users and stakeholders as possible. Identifying what’s in it for key users and stakeholders is a key outcome. · Form smaller action teams, as needed, to address various task-oriented activities, such as those described in the sample applications that follow. Topic
C.8: Improving Public-Private
Partnerships: This Blueprint for Change will provide guidance to
government agencies, businesses, and professional and non-government
organizations throughout the world in forming and sustaining effective
public-private Partnerships. Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation: · United States/International: Suzanne Frew On the basis of the "Crowding the Rim" Initiative, which began in May 2000, we recommend implementation of the actions outlined below. Crowding the Rim is a work in progress. Consensus recommendations to be developed in an international meeting scheduled for August 1-3, 2001 are expected to encompass the following actions: 1. Decision makers must become aware of the dependencies and vulnerabilities that arise from the overlap of populations, infrastructure, resources and hazards around and across the Circum-Pacific. Information from the scientific, economic and humanitarian communities must be widely understood and believed by decision-makers as well as the general population. Increasing the knowledge of these spatial relationships—particularly their areas of intersection—is a critical step in understanding the nature of regional risk. This understanding, along with a palpable sense of personal involvement, are the prerequisites for insuring commitments by everyone to address these issues. 2. Decision makers must find ways to deepen their understanding of how the occurrences and consequences of natural hazards can reverberate through the Pacific Basin. The Pacific Rim is inherently dangerous. The region is characterized by rapid growth in population and infrastructure as well as collision of tectonic crustal plates and their contingent hazards: earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and such sequelae as typhoons, landslides, floods, fires and tsunamis. As a coastal zone, the Rim is especially vulnerable to disasters associated with extreme weather events. From the Americas around the Rim to New Zealand, coastal lands often feature extreme vertical topography vulnerable to landslides or extensive lowlands vulnerable to flooding from tidal and storm surge. The changing global climate will increase the frequency of unusually intense episodes of rainfall or windstorms, placing these areas under even greater risk of catastrophe 3. In parallel with
focused and coordinated efforts to increase understanding, awareness,
and education through the use of HAZPAC AND RIM-SIM, a
major collaborative effort between stakeholders and decision makers
must be made to introduce relevant scientific tools and technology
that will support cost- and resource-effective risk-reduction
decisions in every community and every nation of the Pacific Rim. · United States: Walter Hays and Harvey Ryland On the basis of past experience in the United States, we recommend implementation of the actions outlined below. 1. Each of the Nation's 30,000 local jurisdictions should develop a public private partnership to meet its specific needs and to sustain it for at least five years. Public Private Partnerships were an option in the past; now they are essential for every community that wants to reduce its potential losses from natural hazards in a timely and cost-effective way. Other communities throughout the world are invited to tailor this model to meet their needs, as well. The process should include: · Formation of a public private partnership. At the minimum, it is a social experiment to test the possibility of effecting a paradigm shift. At the maximum, it is a tool to effect change · Creation of Forums to increase understanding of the needs of the community and the social, technical, administrative, political, legal, and economic issues that impede implementation. · Development of ongoing dialogue on risk assessment, the scientific basis for all mitigation strategies, and collaboration, the social basis for all implementation. A risk assessment is an objective scientific assessment of the chance of experiencing loss or adverse consequences when physical and social elements are exposed to potentially harmful natural and technological hazards. environmental impact, morbidity, and mortality. · Organizing to take advantage of the opportunities to use each natural disaster throughout the world as a scientific and social laboratory to accelerate the awareness of policy makers and the continuing education of professionals on the consequences of natural disasters (e.g., damage, loss of economic value, loss of function, loss of natural resources, loss of ecological systems, adverse environmental impact, deterioration of health, morbidity, and mortality) and the options for preventing them (i.e., mitigation and preparedness measures).
· United States: Jim Wilkinson On the basis of experience in the Central United States, we recommend implementation of the actions outlined below. The Central U. S. has had to learn how to deal with issues such as: 1) apathy 2) forming a partnership to deal with a low-probability-high consequence event, 3) developing the goals and objectives of a common agenda, 4) developing human and fiscal resources for accomplishing these goals and objectives, and 5) sustaining the joint actions and activities over a long period of time. 1. Forge a Central United States Partnership. The seismic hazard in the Central U.S. is unlike any other area of the United States in that an earthquake in this region would have a multi-state impact, both directly and indirectly. Because of this diffuse geographic vulnerability, it is impossible for any one organization to address all the problems, but it becomes manageable if addressed in a partnership fashion. · Asia/Pacific: David Hollister The Asian Disaster Prevention Center (ADPC), an independent, non-profit foundation registered in Thailand, recommends implementation of the actions outlined below to meet the needs of the Asia- Pacific region, one of the most disaster-prone regions of the world. 1. Regional Initiatives · Mapping Strengths and Capacities of Regional
Consultative Committee on Regional Cooperation in Disaster Management
(RCC) comprising ADPC's Board of Trustees /
Advisory Council members working in key Government positions in the
National Disaster Management Systems of the countries of the Asian
region. As of this date,
26 members comprising the heads of National Disaster Management
Offices from 17 countries and regions
of Asia have accepted the invitation of membership to the committee.
RCC Member Countries. Each of the participant countries has areas of strengths,
which could be utilized to build a better complementary relationship
in the region. The RCC proposed to undertake a stocktaking of
capacities of all member countries · Periodic Information Dissemination in the Region. ADPC
was requested to initiate the operation of regional information
documentation and dissemination center for better information exchange
on-line and through other media. ADPC should initiate dialogue with
member countries to send policy, plans, and reports as inputs.
· Asian Ministerial Meeting on Disaster Management. The
meeting recognised that relief activities have always received
political attention, but it is necessary to create awareness among the
political class about the risk and vulnerability to natural hazards
and importance of pro-active disaster management and mitigation. The
RCC meeting represents the first formal effort in the direction of
creating a political constituency for disaster management in the
Asia-Pacific region. Dialogues should
be initiated among parliamentarians through sessions on disaster
management at meetings of International Parliamentary Union, Asian
Parliamentarian Forum, consider induction sessions for
parliamentarians in country and and
conduct study tours and involve politicians and senior administrators
in all the important disaster management activities so as to orient
them to the subject and have their support. The meeting recommended
organizing a high level Asian Ministerial Meeting on Disaster
Management in about 2 years time to secure political support for
disaster management. ·
Multi Stakeholder Conference. The meeting recognized the benefit of holding a large multi stakeholder
conference at the Asian
level with cross-sectoral participation from Government, UN Agencies,
NGOs, Scientific and Technical Organizations, donors and regional
bodies. This could be similar to the IDNDR Asia Workshop held in
Bangkok in February 1999. ·
Asian State of Disaster Management Report 2002.
The meeting endorsed the concept of the publication of an Asian
State of Disaster Management
Report 2002 and requested ADPC to place a concept paper for its
consideration at the next meeting. It was recognized that this
effort should build on current international initiatives such
as the World Vulnerability Report being prepared by UNDP and ISDR and
the World Disasters Report published annually by IFRC. The need to
support publication of national disaster management reports was
emphasized. ·
Vulnerability Atlas for Asia. Members recommended
preparing a Vulnerability Atlas for Asia mapping hazards,
vulnerabilities and risks in countries of the Asian region. This would
be similar to the Vulnerability Atlas of India and the Hazard Atlas of
China. 2.
Capacity Building of National Systems · National Disaster Management Agencies/Committees (NDMCs).
Disaster management capability
building requires building a national disaster management agency in
every country, developing human resources and enacting national
disaster management legislation. National Disaster Management Committees
and regional and local Disaster Management Committees can be
strengthened by locating them in the office of Prime Minister, Mayor,
Governor, or important departments
at the national, regional and provincial levels. These committees
should meet on a regular basis, and discuss programs and technical
cooperation. Disaster Management Committees at the local and district
levels need to be established formally,
and have an institutional sanctity, through force of mandate
through law or administrative order, and strengthened through the
participation of NGOs, voluntary groups, extension workers, and mass
media. ·
Legal and Institutional Arrangements. In
the last few years significant institutional restructuring and reform
is being undertaken in several Asian countries including Philippines,
Cambodia, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh to develop new or modified
legislation or institutional arrangements. It is important to compile
lessons so as to learn from the positive and negative experiences of
others. ·
Development of Disaster Management Plans (DMP). The
development of a National Disaster Management Plan (DMP) is the
cornerstone of a national disaster management system and must be
backed up by national legislation and prepared at different levels:
national, state and district level. The NDMC should play a leading
role in developing guidelines and reviewiing the plans, as well as
holding periodic exercises. Plans should be realistic and consistent
with institutional and technological capabilities. ·
National Disaster Management Information Systems.
Each country should have a
Disaster Management Information System. Data collection and updating
must be undertaken on a regular basis. All the data related to hazards
and vulnerabilities, resources and organizations must also be included
in the information system. ADPC was requested to develop a generic
DMIS and assist member countries in development of DMIS. · Disaster Management Training and Capacity Building.
The members recognized that each country has its own specific training
needs, depending upon the nature of hazards and regulatory and legal
aspects of disaster management. Weaknesses in national training
systems need to be
addressed through initiatives in country and at the regional level.
Curriculum for disaster management needs to be developed at the level
of schools, communities, public/private officials, journalists, and
NGOs, and needs to be revised periodically.
· Public Awareness and Media. A greater constituency for disaster preparedness and mitigation need to be mobilized through public awareness campaigns. The media coverage of disaster management must be improved by imparting training to the print and audio-visual journalists. · Disaster Mitigation in National Planning. To integrate disaster management and mitigation focus into the regular national development process it is necessary to constitute expert groups on disaster management to influence decisions of the planning |