Toolbox for Global Disaster Reduction
Executive Summary The Alpha edition of the Toolbox (a CD-ROM) was prepared in AD 2002 to assist professionals throughout the world in ongoing endeavors to reduce the socio-economic impacts of natural and technological disasters in their communities, nations, and geographic regions. The "tools" in the Toolbox will help researchers, practitioners, stakeholders, and policy makers find the common agenda of political and technical solutions. The "tools" can be adapted for application to the specific situations and complex problems caused by natural and technological hazards in the respective communities, nations, and geographic regions of these professionals. They include: · Power point files: Original, animated power point files are included. They can be used for strategic and tactical planning and program development, in a generic sense as well as for site-specific, community-specific, nation-specific, and region-specific applications. · Global Blueprints for Change: Blueprints are original "works in progress," which were developed by some 300 Blue printers, working either as individuals or as teams to integrate knowledge. They reflect the state-of-the-art and consensus views based on experience in their countries and regions of the most appropriate strategic and tactical plans to effect change. The Blueprints address most of the 42 important technical topics that are acknowledged to be directly related to the overarching themes of: "Living with…," Building to withstand…," "Learning from…," and "Implementation." References in the literature and biographical sketches of experts are also included. Collectively, these Blueprints contain over 300 new ideas on strategic and tactical plans to close gaps in knowledge and to overcome barriers to implementation. All Blueprints are “works in progress” and candidates for updating, when appropriate, for the Beta edition of the Toolbox. · Seven Regional Blueprints for Change: Annotated working outlines (and seven power point files), are included and serve as the "starting points” for seven original Regional Blueprints for Change. The Regional Blueprints are now under development for Europe, Asia, Pacific, Mediterranean, Sub-Sahara Africa, Latin America and Caribbean, and North America. The outlines and the arguments in support for them were developed through a consensus process carried out during the August 19-22, 2001 International Workshop, which was attended by representatives from 31 countries. · Reports and Corresponding Power Point Files: These "Tools" provide a permanent memory of the August 19-22, 2001 International Workshop, which was attended by 125 representatives from 31 countries. The singular focus of the Toolbox is on improving the strategic and tactical interface between those developing technical solutions and those crafting political solutions. The aim is to accelerate the adoption and implementation of cost-effective solutions that will prevent, mitigate, and reduce the impacts of natural and technological disasters. The toolbox contains information on past disasters (e.g., statistical data and information acquired from studies of past disasters), present goals (e.g., the goals of professional education, disaster technical assistance, and sustainability), and future objectives (e.g., preparatory meetings for a World Congress on Disaster Reduction). Researchers, practitioners, stakeholders, and policy makers will find useful information on items such as the following: · The Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction: The goals and objectives and benefits of belonging to the Alliance, the Strategic Leadership Council of the Alliance, and the Advisory Committee to the Strategic Leadership Council are described. · The Global Institute for Energy and Environmental Systems: GIEES, a part of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, is providing administrative leadership for the Global Alliance. · Executive Briefing and Strategic Planning Event: This event, which is scheduled for April 10-12, 2002 in Charlotte, NC, will focus on new ways to accelerate the realization of the goals and objectives of the Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction. PREFACE Differences in the Perspectives of Those who Create Technical Solutions and Those who Craft Political Solutions Peter Szanton[1] showed in 1981 that the community stakeholders who create technical solutions have different perspectives than the community policy makers who craft political solutions. These differences are the primary reasons that community stakeholders and community policy makers need to find a common agenda, which will cause technical solutions and political solutions to merge into ONE. When this happens, both the community stakeholders and the community policy makers have worked together to devise the strategic and tactical elements of the implementation plan Failure to do this is the reason that technical solutions, no matter how elegant they may be, often are not adopted, and political solutions, no mater how clever they may be, often are not implemented. Salient points of Szanton’s findings about these differences are summarized below in a context that can be related to the goals and objectives of the Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction: · The political solution (i.e., mitigation, preparedness, emergency response, recovery) is based on the principle of LEAST REGRETS; whereas, the scientific solution (i.e., probabilistic hazard and risk assessments) is based on the principle of BEST SCIENCE and BEST ENGINEERING. · The political solution seeks to balance at least six factors: Social, TECHNICAL, Administrative, Policy, Legal, and Economic (STAPLE factors); whereas, the TECHNICAL solution seeks to integrate the best available scientific knowledge, which typically ignores or minimizes most of the STAPLE factors. · The most valued outcome of the political solution is RELIABILITY; whereas, the most valued outcome of the technical solution is ORIGINAL INSIGHT. · A political solution is "good" if it engenders the APPROVAL of the various publics comprising the community that placed the policy maker in his or her position, whereas, the technical solution is "good" if it engenders the RESPECT of peers. · The political solution is crafted by policy makers who want a reliable solution NOW; whereas, the technical solution is created by stakeholders who want a sound solution based on studies conducted over a LONGER TIME HORIZON. · The political solution is crafted by policy makers who want a solution that minimizes or submerges the uncertainties; whereas, the technical solution is created by stakeholders who feel that emphasizing the uncertainties reflects reality.
[1] Peter Szanton, 1981, Not Well Advised, Russell Sage Foundation and Ford Foundation, 81 p. |