Chapter 3 - Section 1drr.upeace.org/english/documents/References/Topic 1... · Chapter 3 Policy and commitment: the foundation of disaster risk reduction 3.1 National institutional

78

79

3ChapterPolicy and commitment:

the foundation of disaster risk reduction3.1 National institutional frameworks:

policy, legislation and organizationaldevelopment

3.2 Municipal authorities3.3 Regional cooperation, interaction

and experience3.4 Community action

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

80

3.1 National institutional frameworks: policy, legislation and organizational development

Disaster risk management must be the responsibility of governments. However, its success alsodepends on widespread decision-making and the participation of many others. Policy direction andlegal foundations assure legitimacy but it is the professional and human resources available, on theground, that are a true measure of success.

There must be a systematic approach to relate local decision-making processes with largeradministrative and resource capabilities such as those devised in provincial or national disasterplans and risk reduction strategies.

The various roles which policy, law and organizations play in creating a sustained publicadministration environment sensitive to the identification and management of risk are reviewed inthis section.

As both conditions and needs vary with geography, as well as with a wide range of professionalinterests involved, some examples of selected institutional frameworks are presented regionally whileothers are presented according to subject matters.

In each case, the institutional processes involved and organizational lessons cited may hold a muchwider appeal and relevance to emerging initiatives elsewhere. This chapter will discuss thefollowing:

• introduction to institutional frameworks for disaster reduction;• policy frameworks in practice;• national planning processes, with multisectoral responsibilities;• risk reduction plans linked to specific responsibilities, policies and practices;• some important limitations in institutional and policy frameworks; and• means for overcoming limitations.

Introduction to institutional frameworksfor disaster reduction

The programme of the InternationalDecade for Natural Disaster Reduction(IDNDR) not only provided aninstitutional framework for countries, butalso introduced basic concepts of disasterreduction to administrators and otherspecialists who may not have identifiedtheir work within the larger context ofdisasters. It began to shift policy emphasisfrom post-disaster relief and rehabilitationto a more proactive approach of disasterpreparedness and mitigation.

This began a new era in disaster and riskreduction concepts, with an important role

assigned to national planning andlegislation. Many countries preparednational action plans for disaster riskmanagement and presented them to theWorld Conference on Natural DisasterReduction held in Yokohama, Japan, in1994. Subsequently, countries have beenable to report on their activities at regionalor sectoral meetings and at the concludingIDNDR Programme Forum in 1999.

For a long time, the state was consideredthe centre of all authority as well as actionin dealing with disasters. Communitieswere considered generally unaware of thehazards they faced. As a result, disastermanagement was most often understood asproviding relief to victims, aiding recovery

"The world is increasinglyinterdependent. All

countries shall act in anew spirit of partnership

to build a safer worldbased on common interestsand shared responsibility

to save human lives, sincenatural disasters do not

respect borders."

Yokohama Strategy andPlan for Action for a

Safer World, 1994

3Policy and commitment: the foundation of disaster risk reduction3.1 National institutional frameworks: policy, legislation and organizational development

81

following an event, and rebuilding damagedinfrastructure. This modus operandi was perpetuatedby those international funds and local emergencyallocations that typically became available morereadily after a disaster rather than before.

Historically, few resources have been devoted toroutine hazard identification or to support sustainedrisk management strategies in areas prone to naturalhazards. This may result from an institutionaldisregard of the economic value of risk reduction incontrast to the cost of replacing lost assets.

Alternately, it may reflect the persistent difficulty indemonstrating cost-efficiencies involved in savinglives and public property from disasters before theyoccur. Nonetheless, it remains that the relativeeconomies of disaster reduction are most commonlyaired in public discussions following disasters.

While disaster management and responsecoordination can benefit from centralizedcommand, there is a need to decentralize disasterrisk reduction efforts. Where the decentralization ofpower and devolution of governing authority ispursued, risk reduction at the local level also needsto be encouraged and supported. Responsibility forrisk reduction has to be coordinated bymunicipalities, townships, wards or localcommunities.

This may require altered structural arrangementsin which the mutual understanding of rules andregulations should be explicit, transparent and

uniform. National authorities, UN anddevelopment agencies and financial institutionsneed to implement projects in risk reduction notonly with national governments but also those inwhich local authorities, the private sector,academic institutions and community-basedorganizations have major roles to play.

However, in many countries there are currently fewlocal institutions engaged in or which have adequatecapacities to oversee risk reduction strategies on acontinuous basis. Almost all countries and mostlocal communities have a designated authorityresponsible for responding to crisis situations whenthey happen; many fewer have a recognized officemonitoring potential risks and motivating publicand private action to minimize their possibleconsequences before they occur.

A change in the emphasis of government functionsrequires that a consensus be developed on the rolesof government agencies, technical institutions,commercial interests, communities and individualsthemselves. Governments have vital roles to play indisaster risk management, ideally serving as a“central impulse” and serving to supportsustainable efforts, but there is now widespreadrecognition that they also must focus their limitedresources and serve as coordinating bodies if theyare to become more effective. If they are to berelevant in such a role, there is a correspondingresponsibility for subsidiary competencies andincreasingly localized capabilities to come intoforce.

The following functions are important means by which governments can integrate disaster risk awareness into officialresponsibilities:

• Disseminate basic public information about the most likely hazards to affect a country or community, along with measureson how to reduce risk.

• Develop integrated institutional capacities to assess and respond to risk in the context of social, economic andenvironmental considerations of the society.

• Support opportunities that enable scientific and academic institutions to contribute to risk management policies in a mannerthat is accessible to the whole community.

• Initiate partnerships with local networks, community organizations and advocacy groups knowledgeable about how toorganize locally to reduce hazards and increase resilience.

• Encourage the combined participation of government agencies, technical specialists and local residents in the conduct ofrisk assessments.

• Ensure public understanding of standards and codes designed for the protection of private and public assets and criticalinfrastructure.

• Promote and encourage public participation in the design and implementation of risk and vulnerability strategies at localand national levels.

Box 3.1Risk reduction and government action


82

Policy frameworks in practice

Asia

Disaster risk management is aconcept that is interpreteddifferently in various Asiancountries. This reflects either thepredominant hazards threateningindividual countries or stemsfrom an historical outlook of what has commonlyconstituted disaster management responsibilities.For example, in India, the national authority fordisaster management had been with the Ministry ofAgriculture for many years, reflecting that country’shistorical concerns with flood, drought and famine.Elsewhere other government institutions tended toconcentrate on the emergency services associatedwith post-disaster rescue, relief, reconstruction andrehabilitation, as well as maintaining public law andorder during times of crisis.

Broader concepts of risk management have begunto take hold more recently in some Asian countriesat national levels. Thailand has revamped itsdisaster management system in 2002 and set up anew department of disaster management in theMinistry of Interior.

In addition to Viet Nam, discussed below, elsewherein South-East Asia both Cambodia and Lao People’sDemocratic Republic have established orreconfigured their national disaster managementoffices with support from the UNDP. Cambodiaparticularly has made considerable progress instructuring national policies increasingly focused ondisaster risk awareness and management, withaccompanying national training programmes led bythe Cambodian Red Cross Society.

The Philippines is considering new legislation towiden the scope of its Office of Civil Defence andthe National Disaster Coordinating Council.Following the establishment of its DisasterManagement Bureau in the renamed Ministry ofDisaster Management and Relief in 1992, thegovernment of Bangladesh implemented acomprehensive disaster management programme in2000-2002.

Increasingly, more Asian countries are alsoincluding some reference to disaster risk reductionin their national development plans. Over the last

decade, UNDP has supported capacity-building projects for disaster risk managementin more than ten Asian countries.

Case: Viet Nam

Viet Nam provides a particularly useful exampleof a sustained commitment to improving itsattention to disaster risk reduction. Since 1993,it has pursued a methodical strategy ofenlarging its consideration of hazard and riskfactors in relationship to national developmentobjectives. At the same time it has proceeded toexpand its institutional capabilities.

Proceeding from the recognition that itsgeography will continue to expose the countryto floods, storms, tropical cyclones, marinehazards and less frequent inland droughts, thecountry has done an admirable job of creatingand continually expanding the capabilities of anational Disaster Management Unit (DMU).

While the DMU is entrusted with theresponsibilities of emergency warning andmanagement, the overall strategy is motivatedby a foremost consideration of identifying,preparing for, and managing hazardous risks.It is no accident that these most commonhazards are associated with water, as historicallywater both on land and off-shore, has been acritical resource for centuries of Vietnamesesociety.

The country has more recently made asustained commitment in formulating a 20-yearstrategic plan for disaster risk management. Ofparticular note it has embarked on a strategy forinhabitants of the Mekong River delta to “livewith the floods”. A series of measures has beenemployed that range from relocating particularlyvulnerable communities to safer ground, toaltering the cropping calendar.

An innovative programme that is possiblyunique in the world introduced the concept ofopening temporary “emergency kindergartens”where parents can leave their children undersupervision at the time of emergency, whenparents are otherwise preoccupied with securingpersonal possessions and other resources crucialfor their livelihoods.


83

These efforts are showing positive results,encouraging the government and the people tocontinue working in this direction. They havebeen largely influenced by in-country expertiseand analysis following each hazardous event withadditional encouragement being provided byinternational support. These increasinglysophisticated activities have been supported overseveral years by international organizationsincluding UNDP and the InternationalFederation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties (IFRC), bilateral assistance organizationsincluding the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID), and in thecase of environmental measures, by NGOs suchas the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Many ministries have been involved too, includedthose of agriculture and rural development,defence, police, fisheries, construction,transportation, health, as well as the nationalcommittee for search and rescue. Meetings areorganized to exchange and integrate the benefitsof their experiences and to plan for future floodand storm preparedness and mitigation practices.

Further measures are planned to develop thepolicy of Living with Floods to be implemented inassociation with the socio-economic developmentunderway in the Mekong River delta. While localauthorities will be constructing more residentialareas, particularly attention is being given crucialto infrastructure of water supply, drainage andsanitation.

Flood-prone provinces are now required to planfor the more appropriate use of land and to takeaccount of crop schedules better suited to thelikelihood of floods. This approach is a good

example of the beneficial effects of combiningnatural resource management activities withagricultural, forestry and fisheries initiatives toreduce flood damage at the same time asenhancing local production, sustainable livelihoodsand development.

A further developmental benefit of this approach isthat both local authorities and the generalpopulation have become more aware of how closelyrelated flooding is to the socio-economic conditionsthat determine their well-being. The previouslymore vulnerable population is now beginning tochange their earlier reliance on responsecapabilities to ones now motivated more bypreventing the damaging consequences of floods.

They are even seeking to benefit from the naturaloccurrence of annual floods along the MekongRiver. In addition to restructuring productionactivities and making improvements in physicalinfrastructure to minimize flood damage,additional plans are underway to take advantage offlooding by expanding aquatic methods ofproduction and increasing fishing and relatedmarketing opportunities. The social sector has notbeen overlooked as efforts have also been made toinstitute various collective community services tomeet people’s immediate needs during the time ofthreat or crisis.

Case: Republic of Korea

In 1997, the government of the Republic of Koreacreated the National Institute for DisasterPrevention (NIDP), to update its national disastermanagement and prevention policies. Organizedunder the Ministry of Government

"Flood waters have indundated the [Cuu Long (Mekong)delta] area for the past three seasons - this is a long enoughperiod to review our approach. We need to reconsiderpolicies related to security and food security for people livingin flood stricken areas. If we make local people dependent onrelief, we'll kill their self-reliance which in turn will destroydevelopment."

Lê Huy Ngo, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development,Viet Nam, 2002


84

Administration and Home Affairs, the primarymission of NIDP has been to perform its ownresearch and then to apply those findings todevelop independent design capabilities fordisaster management and prevention systems.

With 30 full-time researchers, NIDP isresponsible for collecting, compiling, andanalysing information on disasters. This materialthen provides the basis for improved disasterimpact assessment, improved mitigation practices,better integrated disaster management policies,and the promotion of wider internationalcooperation.

Activities have included the development of anonline management system for areas exposed tospecific hazards, evaluating recovery and responsesystems and developing a comprehensivemanagement system. NIDP has also completedthe compilation of disaster impact assessment

standards, and conducts an annual InternationalDisaster Prevention Cooperation Seminar tomaintain public, policy and professional interestsin disaster risk reduction.

In order to illustrate some of the strategic changesand favourable developments in disaster riskreduction in Asia, both India and China haveembarked on comprehensive nationalprogrammes. Together these countries account foralmost one-third of the world’s population, andthey also share many of the same hazards. Forcenturies they have taken risk into account in avariety of technical and administrative ways. Morerecently, both countries have reoriented nationaldisaster management strategies to take greateraccount of disaster risk reduction. Their effortsare summarized in the following case examples.

Case: India

The Indian government has shown great interestin strengthening organizational planning to lessendisaster impacts. It is dedicated to developing amore comprehensive national strategy to link riskswith development objectives and environmentalconcerns that go far beyond more effective reliefservices.

The severe repercussions of the 1999 cyclone inthe state of Orissa and the 2001 earthquake in thestate of Gujarat have intensified commitments toalter the long-standing relief commissioner systemand to revise national policies of risk reduction.Technical agencies, educational institutions,commercial interests, international finance andinsurance investors are all being included in thedevelopment of a major reorientation of how thecountry perceives risk and intends to monitor andmanage it in the future.

Initiatives have been continuing to revise disasterpolicies and to adopt more comprehensiveapproaches to identifying and managing risks invarious state governments. Following thedevastating Latur earthquake in 1993, andsupported in part by the World Bank, the state ofMaharashtra totally revamped its disaster riskmanagement policies by drawing on bothinternational and national expertise in the designof improved administrative legislation andbuilding standards.

Box 3.2Learning the lessons, after Typhoon Rusa

In one day from August 31 to September 1, 2002,Typhoon Rusa devastated the middle and easterncoastal areas of the Korean peninsula. It was the mostsevere natural disaster in the modern era of Koreanhistory causing more than US$ 4.3 billion of propertydamage, with more than 27,000 buildings destroyedand 31,000 hectares of agricultural land inundated.Nearly 250 people were dead or missing.

Most of the casualties were caused by slope failures,landslides and flash floods. In addition toextraordinarily heavy rainfall, equal in some places toalmost two-thirds of the average annual, recklessdevelopment was considered to be one of the primaryfactors that increased the prevailing conditions ofvulnerability in the urban areas affected.

The government of the Republic of Korea amended theNatural Disaster Countermeasures Act within a matterof days to provide the basis for the declaration of aspecial disaster area. Subsequently, the governmenthas drawn on the experience of Typhoon Rusa tomake several improvements in its disastermanagement system.

Significantly, a task force was established under theoffice of the prime minister to undertake the planning ofcomprehensive flood mitigation countermeasures.Additional measures were employed by thegovernment to introduce a natural disaster insuranceprogramme. Recognizing the relationship betweenlocal development over recent years and the changingnature of risks, it was decided essential to strengthenthe national disaster impact assessment procedureswhich had been in force since 1996.


85

Having also suffered badly from earlierearthquakes in the mid-1990s, the state of UttarPradesh embarked on a similar programmeencouraged by the Asian Development Bank in1999. The creation of the new state of Uttaranchalin 2000 has provided the opportunity to considerthe most appropriate forms of disastermanagement structures for its mountainoustopography.

State governments are being encouraged to updatetheir legislation, strategic plans, disastermanagement codes, manuals and procedures onthe basis of experience gained and taking accountof technological developments.

Most notably, a tangible result of this process hasbeen the decision taken by the Indian governmentin 2002 to alter almost 50 years of practice byrelocating all disaster and risk management issues,with the sole exception of drought concerns, fromthe Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry ofHome Affairs.

This reflects an important departure from theprevious association of natural disasters only withthe more narrowly focused concerns of foodsecurity. While droughts still occur, to a significantextent through practiced management capabilities,India has banished the likelihood of famine fromthe country.

The important Ministry of Home Affairs isdirectly responsible for the coordination of theoperational aspects of government. Its influenceproceeds from the national direction of the civilservice, through various state jurisdictions, downto local government’s implementation of policies.As such, in broadening its responsibilities toinclude the many other risks that threaten thecountry and peoples’ livelihoods the relocation isan important step to integrate disaster and riskmanagement more fully into the national, state andlocal planning and administrative processes.

A High Powered Committee on DisasterManagement (HPC) was constituted by thenational government to review all existingpreparedness and mitigation arrangements initiallyfor natural risks and subsequently for human-induced risks. With a broad multidisciplinaryapproach, the committee includes technical

specialists, respected academics and key civilservants, in addition to eminent public andpolitical figures. It was mandated to recommendmeasures for strengthening organizationalstructures, as well as to propose comprehensivemodels for all aspects of disaster managementresponsibilities at national, state and district levels.

The HPC has made many wide-rangingrecommendations that deal with the constitutionaland legal frameworks of disasters in the country.They range from matters of creating neworganizational structures and institutionalmechanisms, and means to promote the realizationof cultures of preparedness, quick response,strategic thinking and prevention.

The organizations responsible for implementationhave been identified and time frames proposed forthe realization of each recommendation. TheHPC has dealt with a wide spectrum of issues thathinge directly on disaster management aimed atbringing about measures that ultimately become apart of the national psyche. Importantrecommendations of the HPC include:

Source: Vulnerability Atlas, India


86

• Identify disaster management as a listedresponsibility in the national constitution to beshared by national and state governmentauthorities.

• Legislation at the national and state levels –drafts of a national act for calamitymanagement and a model state disastermanagement act have been prepared andsubmitted to the government forconsideration.

• Maintain a sustained focus by constituting aCabinet Committee on DisasterManagement.

• Create an all-party national committee fordisaster management, chaired by the primeminister, renamed the National Council onDisaster Management with an expandedscope to include human-induced disasters.The council and its designated workinggroup will be institutionalized as permanentstanding bodies of government.

• Create a nodal Ministry of DisasterManagement for sustained and focusedefforts in the areas of disaster preparedness,mitigation and management.

• Establish a National Centre for CalamityManagement (NCCM) for strategic andpolicy formulation at the earliest opportunity,with a structure as evolved as HPC.

• Establishing a National Institute for DisasterManagement as a national centre for thecreation of knowledge and its dissemination,working through complementary linkageswith other institutions for the purposes oftraining and capacity-building.

• Establish state of the art emergency controlrooms, linked in a network between nationaland state capitals, with additionalheadquarters placed in particularly disaster-prone or vulnerable districts.

• Integrate disaster reduction strategies withdevelopment plans.

• Designate at least 10 per cent of budgetedreserved funds at the national, state anddistrict levels be earmarked and apportionedfor schemes that specifically address disasterprevention, and preparedness measures oractivities.

• Develop and provide precision GeographicInformation Systems (GIS) and digital mapsof all states, districts and urban centres withessential spatial and non-spatial data atappropriate scales.

Reports of the HPC and its National DisasterResponse Plan have been circulated widelythroughout India and among many internationalorganizations, already triggering additional actionby them. The state governments of MadhyaPradesh and Gujarat have developedcomprehensive policies on disaster management, inthe latter case backed up by the passage of an act ondisaster management.

Additionally, the states of Assam, Bihar, Karnataka,Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, and someothers also are finalizing legislative bills relating tolocal frameworks for disaster management.Elsewhere, at local levels of administration, statesare undertaking exercises for capacity-building andthe greater involvement of community participationthrough the local Panchayati Raj which are electedorganizations working at the grass-roots level.

The HPC has now been converted into the workinggroup on disaster management, envisaged to providebackground material and analyses to enable theNational Committee to formulate recommendationsafter taking account of many viewpoints. Three sub-committees were constituted to:

• formulate a national policy framework anddetermine an agenda for priority initiatives overthe next few decades;

• establish immediate actionable points for both thenational and state governments, includinglegislative and institutional measures; and

• develop the defining parameters of a nationalcalamity.

Two additional sub-committees were convened toprovide specific recommendations on themanagement of trauma and the development ofdisaster management plans at community levels.

The process outlined here has acted as a veryeffective catalyst, and has generated importantdevelopments in many states. It has defined thefunctions and responsibilities of variousauthorities, official agencies and professionalorganizations. The methodical approach toimplementation provides the basis for a structuredsystem of accountability related to theresponsibilities of all participants.

In this spirit, the National Committee on DisasterManagement has been constituted with members of


87

major political parties to suggest thenecessary institutional and legislativemeasures needed for a mutually agreednational strategy for effective and long-term disaster management.

In addition to addressing the specific stepsrequired for the reconstruction andrehabilitation in Gujarat following the2001 earthquake, this effort marks amilestone in broadening nationalconsensus among all the political partieswith the intended goals of dealing withmajor future disasters and settingparameters to define a national calamity.

The driving motivation has become one tostem the premature and needless loss offinancial and social capital, which setsback national development by years. Thesemeasures require that more time andenergy be devoted to prevention andmitigation measures, in order to preparethe country to face disasters without lossof precious resources and social capital.

In 2003, the National Committee onDisaster Management prepared anagenda note and submitted it for theconsideration of the prime minister. Thepresentation noted that there wereunattended issues in disastermanagement which required immediateattention for a comprehensive disastermanagement strategy to be in force. Thiscollective policy highlighted pathsleading towards comprehensive disastermanagement, and emphasized theimportance of transcending reactiveresponse to more proactive preventionand mitigation strategies, given theincreasing frequency, complexity andintensity of disasters.

The prime minister has been urged toconsider disaster management as anagenda of the entire government, and forit to become a movement across thecountry. Recommendations need to beimplemented to inculcate a culture ofprevention and to proceed towardsrealizing the objective of a disaster-freeIndia.

Case: China

During the course of the IDNDR, theChinese government recognized thatworking for disaster reduction wouldrequire a long-term commitment and ithas worked with dedication and politicalcommitment at the highest levels ofresponsibility to fulfil those objectives.

Following the introduction of ISDR inOctober 2000, the Chinese governmentestablished the Chinese NationalCommittee for International DisasterReduction (CNCIDR), consisting of 30agencies. These included representativesfrom the state council, ministries, nationalcommittees and bureaus, the militaryservices and additional social groups.

As an inter-ministerial coordinatinginstitution headed by a state councillor,CNCIDR is responsible for designing anational disaster reduction framework. Inthis capacity it develops guiding policies,coordinates relevant departments in theconduct of specific programmes andsupervises disaster reduction workundertaken by local governments. Theoffice of CNCIDR and its secretariat arelocated in the Ministry of Civil Affairs.

An additional advisory group of 28 seniorspecialists in related fields has beenformed to provide guidance to the nationalcommittee. Particular attention has beengiven to applying science and technologyin disaster reduction initiatives.

By embracing the importance of disasterreduction activities, China has proceededto integrate the subject into overallnational economic and social developmentplanning. The core element of this processis the progressive implementation of theNational Disaster Reduction Plan of thePeople’s Republic of China (NDRP),scheduled to run from 1998 to 2010.

The NDRP was launched by the Chinesegovernment, formulated on the basis ofthe overall national development policiesreflected in the Ninth Five Year Plan for

It is very important forChina to form an overalllegislative system thatrelates to disasterreduction, and theexperience of othercountries would beinvaluable. To do thiswill require financial andtechnical support fromUNDP and otherchannels.

China response to ISDRquestionnaire, 2001.


88

National Economic and Social Development, andthe 2010 Prospective Target Outline for nationalaccomplishments. The design of the plan receivedimportant support and technical assistance fromUNDP, further demonstrating the essential linksbetween disaster risk reduction and nationaldevelopment interests.

The NDRP was based on several fundamentalpolicies that demonstrate both the breadth and thedepth of interests that have been marshalled toimplement a national strategy for disasterreduction. The primary one is to serve theadvancement of national economic and socialdevelopment. In this respect, the top priority isassigned to disaster reduction activities, whilerecognizing that there will still be the requirementto combine these with disaster response andemergency relief efforts at the time of crisis.However, the measure of success can only begauged by an obvious reduction in the directeconomic losses caused by natural disasters.

The roles of science, technology and education areconsidered to be of particular importance inworking together to build disaster reduction into anational concept. Public awareness and knowledgeabout disaster reduction are an importantcomponent in realizing this aim. It also remains

important for China to be involved closely withinternational developments in the subjectsconcerned, and therefore it must strive tostrengthen its own efforts of internationalexchange and multinational cooperation.

Objectives outlined by the NDRP include efforts to:

• develop projects that advance the social andeconomic development in China;

• increase the application of scientific andtechnical experience in disaster reduction work;

• enhance public awareness about disasterreduction;

• establish comprehensive institutional andoperational structures to realize disaster riskmanagement; and

• reduce the direct economic losses associatedwith natural hazards.

The NDRP has also outlined key activities thatshould be pursued nationwide. One of these is toimplement the plan at provincial levels and then atlocal levels of responsibility. The provinces ofGuangdong, Jiangxi, Yunnan, and Shanxi have allissued plans for disaster reduction. In others, suchas in Heilongjiang, the national government isworking closely with the provincial authorities toinitiate a local strategy.

Table 3.1Administrative and legal arrangements for disaster risk management in Asia

Country Focal point for disaster management

National action plans State and provincial disaster reduction plans

Bangladesh Ministry of DisasterManagement and Relief,Disaster ManagementBureau

• National Disaster ManagementPlan

• Standing Orders on Disaster

• Operation Sheba: relief andrehabilitation plan for districts ofChittagong, Cox's Bazar, Noakhali,Feni, Laxmipur, Rangamati,Khagrachhari, Bandarban.

• Flood Action Plan

Bhutan Ministry of DisasterManagement and Relief,Disaster ManagementBureau

• No plan exists. Disastermanagement issues arecontained to a limited extent inthe National EnvironmentalStrategy of 1989 and in BhutanBuilding Rules of 1983.

Cambodia National Committee for Disaster Management

• No plan exists except the fiveyear strategy plan for thedevelopment of the NationalCommittee for DisasterManagement.


89



China China NationalCommittee forInternational DisasterReduction

• The National Natural DisasterReduction Plan of the People'sRepublic of China

• Laws of People's Republic ofChina on Protecting against andMitigating Earthquake Disaster

• Hong Kong Contingency Plan forNatural Disasters

India National Committee onDisaster Management,Ministry of Home Affairs

• High Powered CommitteeDisaster Management Plans

• National Contingency Action Plan• Drought Contingency Plan 2000

• Action plan for reconstruction inearthquake affected Maharashtra.

• Anti-disaster plan for the State ofTamil Nadu.

• Cyclone contingency plan of actionfor the State of Andhra Pradesh.

• Action plan for reconstruction inearthquake-affected State ofGujarat.

• Contingency plan for floods andcyclones in Chennai.

• District disaster managementaction plan for Nainital.

• Village Contingency Plan, 2002(OXFAM Trust, Hyderabad).

Indonesia National Natural DisasterManagementCoordinating Board(BAKORNAS PB),Ministry of Peoples'Welfare and PovertyAlleviationFocal point for disaster management

• National Action Plan • Forest fire and haze disaster inMount Merapi disastermanagement.

• Tsunami disaster in Banuwangi.

Iran Ministry of the Interior • UN System Disaster ResponsePlan (involves several ministriesand the Red Cross & RedCrescent).

Japan Cabinet Office • Disaster Countermeasure BasicAct, (basic plan for disasterreduction)

• Operational plans for disasterreduction, local plans for disasterreduction.

Kazakhstan Emergency Agency of theRepublic of Kazakhstan

• National Plan

Korea, DPR Ministry of GovernmentAdministration and HomeAffairs

Korea, Rep of Korean National DisasterPrevention andCountermeasuresHeadquarters

• Natural Disaster CountermeasureAct

• Fifth Basic Disaster PreventionPlan

Kyrgyzstan

Lao PDR National DisasterManagement Office,Ministry of Labour andSocial Welfare

• Disaster Risk Management Plan


90



Malaysia Central DisasterManagement and ReliefCommittee, Inter-Ministerial Committee

· National Haze Action Plan· Flood Action Plan

Maldives Ministry of Home Affairs,Housing and Environmentand National Council forProtection andPreservation of theEnvironment

· National Action Plan

Mongolia State PermanentEmergency Commission

· Civil defence law· Law on environmental protection· Law on water· Law on air· Law on hydrometeorological and

environmental monitoring

Myanmar Central Committee forDisaster Prevention andRelief, Ministry of Homeand Religious Affairs

Nepal Ministry of Home Affairs · National Action Plan for DisasterManagement

· Emergency preparedness anddisaster response plan for thehealth sector

Pakistan Disaster Preparednessand Relief Cell in Cabinet

· National Disaster Plan· Karachi Emergency Relief Plan

· Model district plan - disaster reliefcell

· Punjab provincial flood action plan· Earthquake plan for towns and

cities in the seismic regions· Sind provincial disaster plan· Disaster preparedness plan Kasur

Tehsil

Philippines National DisasterCoordinating Council,Office of Civil Defence,Ministry of Defence

· National Calamities and DisasterPreparedness Plans

· Contingency plan for Taal volcano· Regional disaster preparedness

plan for Tacloban City· Contingency plan for Mayon

volcano

Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs,Singapore Civil DefenceForce and SingaporePolice Force

· Civil Defence Act· Emergency or Contingency Plan· Fire Safety Act· Civil Defence Shelter Act

Sri Lanka National DisasterManagement Centre,Ministry of SocialServices and HousingDevelopment

· National Disaster ManagementPlan

· Coastal environmentalmanagement plan for the westcoast of Sri Lanka

· Major disaster contingency plan

Tajikistan Ministry or Emergency Situations and CivilDefence

· Joint plan with RussianFederation until 2005

Thailand National Civil DefenceCommittee, Ministry ofInterior

· National Civil Defence Plan

The Americas

Prior to 1990, both official andpublic opinion about disasters inLatin America and theCaribbean concentrated almostexclusively on developing humanitarian responseand improving preparedness capacities linked tocivil defence or military institutions. In NorthAmerica, the predominant activity was forgovernment agencies to provide funds for localcommunities and individual residents to rebuildafter a disaster had occurred.

Several important institutional changes inemphasis and priorities started to develop though.This began in 1985 in Mexico following the majorearthquake that badly damaged parts of thecapital, Mexico City. In Colombia in the sameyear, a major volcanic eruption obliterated thetown of Amero with the loss of 25,000 people.

From this time until the mid-1990s, some officialdisaster organizations created prevention offices inname, but their roles were still largely limited tostrengthening efforts in disaster preparedness,conducting basic hazard mapping and promotingearly warning systems at the national level. Fewhuman or financial resources were committed andexisting legal and institutional arrangementsimpeded any major changes.

It was also during this time that the US FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA)

departed from its earlier preoccupations ofproviding emergency assistance and reoriented itsown activities towards vulnerability and risks. Itbegan to give more attention to providing disastermitigation information and to seeking incentivesfor making safer and more disaster-resilientcommunities.

A major shift is now taking place in many othercountries in the Americas, from the north to thesouth, and throughout the Caribbean. Thechanges have also been supported by a process ofregional cooperation. Even more impetus wasprovided by the combination of extremely severesocial, economic and environmental consequencesof several disasters in the final years of the 1990s.Taken together, these events provided stark andunavoidable lessons to leaders in the region.

Linking risk reduction with development policiesand environmental concerns is becoming morecommon in several Central American countries,especially where the severe effects of Hurricane


91



Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan · Disaster Management Plan

Vietnam Department of DykeManagement and FloodControl of the Ministry ofAgriculture and RuralDevelopment.Secretariats of theCentral Committee forFlood and Storm Controlresponsible foremergency responses todisastrous events.

· Strategy and Action Plan forMitigating Water Disasters inVietnam

Source: Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, Bangkok.

Box 3.3A shift in political approach

Following the eruption and mudslide of Nevado delRuiz in 1985, Colombia has been a pioneer inpromoting a systematic approach to integrated disastermanagement. The 1989 creation of a National Systemfor Prevention and Response to Natural Disastersdemonstrated a shift in institutional responsibility fornatural disasters, from a strong focus on response toone of more preventive action.


92

Mitch decimated earlier investments made innational development. Some of these are reflectedin the policy frameworks outlined in the followingcase examples.

Case: Guatemala

In 1996, Guatemala reformed its disasterlegislation and created the National Coordinatorfor Disaster Reduction (CONRED) with anexpanded range of responsibilities. Comprising asupervisory council of representatives fromdifferent development departments, disasterresponse agencies, and civil society it has provideda better sense of focus on risk issues for a widercircle of interests.

By working with the Ministry of Planning, anational risk reduction system is beingestablished and efforts are underway toincorporate multisectoral risk reductionstrategies into the country’s National PovertyReduction Plan. These activities complement alongstanding disaster response division ingovernment and the maintenance of anemergency operations centre.

Case: Nicaragua

More recently, Nicaragua too, has expanded itsnational programme for risk reduction. Aided byUNDP, it has designed a new disaster riskmanagement strategy. Studies have beencommissioned to analyse the suitability of theNicaraguan legal framework for disastermanagement requirements and to evaluate theimplications for the government, municipalities,the private sector and citizens.

Early in 2000, the Nicaraguan NationalLegislative Assembly passed a new law creatingthe National System for Disaster Prevention,Mitigation and Attention and officially establishedthe National Risk Reduction Plan as a primaryoperational instrument.

The institutional concept is built upon a broad andcomprehensive approach to risk reduction issuesand is intended to be implemented on adecentralized basis. The strategy and thelegislation are considered by some commentators

to be the most advanced examples for disasterreduction in the region at the present time,drawing as they do on both the administrativeauthorities of the national civil defenceorganization as well as the more analytical andtechnical capabilities of the professionally-regardedNicaraguan Institute for Territorial Studies.

Both Swiss bilateral development assistance andWorld Bank support have been enlisted tostrengthen the provision of technical abilities andto augment human resources. The key to futuresuccess will be the extent to which productiverelationships can be forged among othergovernment departments and developmentagencies to highlight their respective roles in riskreduction.

Case: Costa Rica

In 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture in CostaRica created the Risk Management Program inthe Agricultural Planning Secretariat. Concern foragricultural losses increased with the impacts of ElNiño in 1997-1998, and with the recurrence offlooding and drought. The creation of theprogramme was also motivated by decisions takenat the Central American Presidential Summit heldin 1999, where disaster and vulnerability reductiondominated the agenda.

This development reflects the importance given todisaster and risk reduction by the CentralAmerican Integration System’s (SICA) specializedagricultural sector organizations, the RegionalAdvisory Board for Agricultural Cooperation andthe Central American Agriculture and LivestockAdvisory Board.

Case: Dominican Republic

Following the destruction caused by HurricaneGeorges across the Caribbean in 1998, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) and theWorld Bank provided almost US$ 100 million tothe Dominican Republic for reconstruction work.After the further severe social and economicconsequences of Hurricane Mitch, in 2000 theIADB provided an additional US$ 12 million tothe Office of the Presidency specifically for thedevelopment of disaster reduction programmes.


93

These funds were targeted to help modernize thecountry’s strategic approach and institutionalframeworks for disaster risk management. Thefollowing year, three consulting consortiumsdeveloped a national hazard and vulnerabilityinformation system, trained trainers incommunity-level risk and environmentalmanagement, and conducted training in modernrisk management techniques for civil servants.

They also advised on the development of nationalpublic awareness campaigns and on the design ofrevised legal and institutional frameworks for riskmanagement. Finance was provided to acquirematerials and equipment needed by risk anddisaster management organizations and associatedscientific institutions.

Case: Canada

Following an assessment of the nationalconsequences of a particularly severe ice storm in1998, and other events which highlighted seriousquestions about the vulnerability of the country’sinfrastructure, in 2001, Canada created the Officeof Critical Infrastructure Protection andEmergency Preparedness (OCIPEP).

The office was established to enhance theprotection of Canada’s critical infrastructure fromdisruption or destruction and to act as thegovernment’s primary agency for ensuring civilemergency preparedness. The minister of nationaldefence is responsible for this organization whichsupersedes Emergency Preparedness Canada(EPC). With a necessarily broader mandate thanthe EPC, OCIPEP takes an all-hazardsapproach, recognizing that different hazardousevents can have similar impacts.

OCIPEP provides national leadership to enhancethe capacity of individuals, communities,businesses and governments to manage risks totheir environment, including cyberspace. Throughthe former EPC, a great deal of experience inpreparedness, response and recovery activities hasbeen gained, resulting in Canada’s increasinglycomprehensive ability to cope with emergencysituations.

There have always been efforts across the nation tomitigate disasters, including land-use zoning

guidelines and structural protective features suchas the Red River Floodway in Manitoba.However, it was recognized that a need existed toaddress hazard mitigation in Canada in a moresystematic way.

A National Mitigation Workshop was hosted byEPC and the Insurance Bureau of Canada in1998, attended by academic, private sector andgovernment representatives. It concluded that acomprehensive national mitigation initiative wouldbe a positive step towards the long-term goal ofreducing vulnerabilities to, and losses from,disasters.

These ideals have been reinforced by participantsof the ongoing Canadian Natural HazardsAssessment Project (CNHAP) in which acommunity of scientists, scholars and practitionersin the natural hazards and disasters field cametogether in 2000 to conduct a major newexamination of the national understanding aboutthe causes and consequences of natural hazardsand disasters.

As a part of the process of such multidisciplinarydiscussions regarding emergency management anddisaster reduction, the government announced inJune 2001 that OCIPEP would lead consultationson the development of a National DisasterMitigation Strategy (NDMS). Theseconsultations have similarly included all levels ofgovernment, private sector and non-governmentalstakeholders, in order to solicit their input andparticipation in defining the framework for thisnew national strategy.

OCIPEP has used discussion papers to stimulatea national dialogue about the NDMS in order tosolicit views from various stakeholders about thebest-suited scope, policies and mechanisms forcoordinating and implementing a nationalstrategy.

Meanwhile, the federal government continues toconduct interdepartmental discussions aboutfederal mitigation activities, through anInterdepartmental Mitigation CoordinatingCommittee. Participants include representativesfrom all relevant federal departments who arereviewing preparedness and mitigation initiativesand conducting analysis to identify areas whereadditional attention is needed.


94

Case: Colombia

The National Plan for the Prevention of Disasters,released in Colombia in 1998, gave little attentionto risk reduction practices during non-crisissituations. More recently, however, the NationalCouncil for Social and Economic Policy hasincorporated disaster reduction measures explicitlyinto individual sector responsibilities of theNational Development Plan.

The 1999 earthquake in the coffee belt ofColombia, and the creation of the Fondo para laReconstrucción y el Desarrollo Social del EjeCafetero (FOREC) for the reconstruction effort,provided the opportunity to further enhanceinstitutional and technical capabilities. FOREC isa relevant model and success story useful as areference for similar situations in other places.

The National Council then proceeded in 2001 todevelop a strategy for the short- and medium-termimplementation of the National DisasterPrevention and Management Plan. By citing thework to be accomplished during the next threeyears and outlining the first steps for theconsolidation of the National Plan in the medium-term, the resulting strategy has become animprovement to the earlier National Plan for thePrevention of Disasters.

This national effort also seeks to meet the goals ofISDR and to comply with the initiatives expressedin the Meeting of the National Council for Socialand Economic Policy. It cites four goals that haveto be met if the strategy is to be implementedsuccessfully:

• strengthen public awareness campaigns onnatural disasters;

• initiate regional and sectoral planning fordisaster prevention;

• institutionalize the national disaster preventionand management plan; and

• communicate the national plan to the public andto the authorities.

By identifying explicit objectives of work to bedone and indicating the individuals responsible fortheir achievement, it is anticipated that the strategy

will expedite the mitigation of natural disasterrisks in Colombia. This national effort seeks toaccomplish the goals of ISDR and to comply withthe initiatives expressed in the Meeting of theAmericas conducted in the Framework of theAndean Community.

Case: Bolivia

In Bolivia too, a comprehensive national policy forprevention and risk management has beenestablished. Consistent with the intentions of theAndean Regional Programme for Risk Preventionand Reduction (PREANDINO), the minister ofsustainable development and planning iscommitted to incorporating disaster prevention inthe planning system through the National Plan forPrevention and Risk Mitigation.

It is anticipated that necessary legislation willenable the introduction of risk reduction factorsinto various sectoral initiatives. This can thenenable a more readily perceived relationshipbetween the objectives of risk reduction andsustainable development. The government hasalready been pressing ahead with several nationalprogrammes aimed at incorporating riskmanagement practices into development activities.

These include a Programme for Risk Preventionand Reduction financed by UNDP and the WorldBank. Another programme, financed by theGerman Agency for Technical Cooperation(GTZ), is the Local Risk ManagementProgramme. In the housing sector, the NationalHousing Subsidy Programme financed byemployer contributions includes a prevention andrisk mitigation component.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and RuralDevelopment is implementing a national foodsecurity monitoring and early warning systemwhich will monitor the impact of natural hazardson agricultural production. UNESCO, workingjointly with the same ministry, is also progressingin its support for a programme that linksdevelopment and risk issues with the El Niñophenomenon.


95

Table 3.2Disaster institutional frameworks in Andean countries of Latin America

Country Institutional Framework High-level programmes forpromoting prevention

Prevention plans Prevention indevelopment plans andcontrol mechanisms

Bolivia A national policy for preventionand risk management wasestablished in 1999 and modifiedin 2003. The new law stablishesthe execution of preventionmeasures to the Minister ofDefense (MD). At the same time,Ministry of SustainableDevelopment is responsible forformulating prevention policies andincorporating them in the planningprocesses. Prevention policiesand Official statements onprevention at national level are adhoc and relate mainly toprevention programmes duringrainy periods or associated withhealth and agricultural campaigns.With reference to the RegionalAndean Programme for RiskPrevention and Mitigation(PREANDINO), the minister ofsustainable development andplanning (MDS) has announcedthe government's commitment toformulate policies and strategiesthat incorporate prevention into theplanning system. Formaldecisions: The MDN has beenmade legally responsible forexecution of prevention measuresand MDS for development ofprevention policies and theincorporation of them withinplanning and investmentprocesses.

The government has recently advancedseveral national programmes toincorporate prevention into developmentpractices, such as the Programme forRisk Prevention and Reduction financedby UNDP and the World Bank.AnotherProgramme financed by GTZ is the"Local Risk Management Programme".In housing, the National HousingSubsidy Programme, financed with 2per cent of employer contributions,includes the Prevention and RiskMitigation Sub-Programme. The Ministryof Agriculture, Livestock and RuralDevelopment is implementing theNational Food Security Monitoring andEarly Warning System, which isresponsible for monitoring the impact ofnatural disasters on agriculturalproduction. PREANDINO promotes thecoordination of all initiatives, for which itis supposed to establish frames ofreference through the national plan, byidentifying policies, programmes andprojects of national interest and definingpolicies to frame national measures.Actually, PREANDINO-CAF, GTZ andMDS have signed an agreement todevelop these processes at national,sectoral and local level.UNESCO, jointlywith the MDS, is supporting aprogramme in connection with El Niñophenomenon. Recently has beenaproved an important BID preventionloan that includes prevention planselaboration.

There are plans in thehealth and agriculturalsectors but they arefocussed mainly onrelief. In the healthsector, there is apreparedness andresponse plan and inagriculture, the ministryhas drawn up anagricultural emergencyplan. National andsectoral plans initiatedwithin the context ofPREANDINO are beingprepared. UnderPREANDINO-GTZ-MDSagreement, sectoral andlocal pilots preventionand mitigation plans arein process. Thisprogramamme includesdevelopment ofmethodologies for theelaboration ofprevention andmitigation plans atnational, sectoral andlocal level.

Proposals for preventionhave been incorporated inthe ComprehensiveNational Plan fordevelopment(encompassing theeconomic and Socialdimensions) and inNational Plan to reducedesertification. There is adraft of the NationalPlanning System standardsthat includes risks reduction.Guidelines are beingprepared to incorporateprevention into localdevelopment plans.Also,there has been progresswith land use plans. MDShas prepared policyguidelines for land use withrisk consideration. ThisMinistry developsmethodological guides forregional and local land useplans considering riskreduction.Some sectoralmeasures, as in agriculture,include proposals forreducing vulnerability. Theyhave not, however, beenintegrated into plans fordevelopment..Thedevelopment of theagreement betweenPREANDINO, GTZ andMDS includes thestrengthening of this kind ofincorporation processes.

Colombia Official statements: There hasbeen a national policy onprevention and risk managementsince 1989, encompassed inPresidential Directive No. 33 of1990 and Education and HealthMinistry Orders No. 13 of 1992and No. 1 of 1993.

Formal decisions: The NationalPlan for Disaster Prevention andManagement was established inDecree 919 of 1989 and Decree93 of 1998. The preventiondecision is a state decision. Thepolicy is maintained even thoughnational governments change.Land use plan for municipalities(Law 388) stablishes the dueconsideration to prevention.

Until very recently there was nocommitment at high political levels topromote the preparation ofdepartmental and municipal disasterprevention and management plans.Presently, in the context ofPREANDINO, there is considerablecommitment by the National PlanningDepartment and some deputyministers. This is reflected in theNational Economic and Social PolicyCouncil and in plans which willprovide for a national effort toconsider prevention in developmentplans and actions. In highereducation, risk management issuesare being promoted as an element ofthe basic syllabus.

Colombia has preparedthe first prevention planin the AndeanSubregión, but it wasnot implemented duringmore than adecade.There arespecific plans, such asthe pan for the El Niñophenomenon andspecific contingencyplans. Little attention isgiven to undertakingplanning exercisesduring periods of noapparent threat. Plansare more typicallyconsidered in newsituations when aphenomenon isimminent.Some cities,such as Bogota,Medellín and other havedeveloped a bigexperience inprevention plans.

The present government'snational development planincludes a chapter onprevention and riskmitigation. Within individualsectors, energy and healthhas been shown progress,in the latter case, mainly atdecentralized levels. Mostdepartments and capitalcities included the subject inthe government plansduring changes ofadministration in 2001.Many references are,however, strictly rhetoricaldeclarations. Presently allthe institutions areimplementing the NationalEconomic and Social PolicyCouncil, with specificprevention proposals beingconsidered in eachdevelopment area.Municipal land use plansinclude risk consideration.Recently more than 60plans were review toimprove the critiria forelaboration.


96



Ecuador Official statements: In recentyears, official statements havebeen made showing thegovernment's commitment tofurthering prevention and riskmanagement policies, mainly atpresidential, vice-presidential andsome decentralized levels, inconnection with the problems ofdisasters and within the context ofPREANDINO.Formal decisions:There are no formal decisions onprevention, but there are decisionsassociated with PREANDINOinitiatives. Within that framework,the national government hasdecided to strengthen the processof incorporating prevention indevelopment through theparticipation of national, sectoraland decentraliced working groups.

There has been no official promotionof prevention programmes but onlydirect action of the National Planningoffice. However, there is support forhigh-level initiatives promoted byinternational organizations, includingPREANDINO.

Under PREANDINOframework, thePresident's PlanningOffice has finished adraft of NationalPrevention Plan. TheHealth, Water Suplyand Energy sectorshave also prepared apreliminary version of itsprevention plans.Actualy they have beenreviewed.At thismoment other fivesectors are starting theprocess of planelaboration.

The President's PlanningOffice has integratedprevention issues into thenational planning system.Although the NationalPlan was drawn up priorto these efforts, itsincorporation is beingpromoted for inclusion inthe plans of decentralizedjurisdictions. This includesterms of reference forprovincial developmentplans, which alreadyinclude risk preventionaspects in the strategicplanning process.However, plans are yet tobe finalized.Decentrralized piltot areadvancing in this matter(Quito)

Peru Official statements: There have beenno official statements on preventionduring the past decade. Only prior tothe 1997-98 El Niño episode were afew statements issued about actionstaken to prevent damage. Currently,the subject has not been mentionedin official speeches.

Formal decisions: There is not a legalframework for disaster reduction buta proposal for a General riskmanagement law has beenprepared. Official decision has beentaken for prevention withinsustainable development. UnderPREANDINO framework, thegovernment has created TheMultisectoral Comision of theNational Strategy for DevelopmentRisk Reduction (CMRRD) in 2002,dependig of the Chair of the Councilof Ministers, which is in charge of theelaboration of the national strategyfor disaster reduction withindevelopmentprocesses.Organizations in ninesectors have been invited toparticipate, and individual sectorsformally decided to establish sectoralcommittees. There has been aNational Civil Defense System(INDECI) since 1972 withresponsibility for prevention,emergencies and rehabilitation. In1997, the government decided toreactivate the multi-sectoral ENPStudy Committee, a body thatcoordinates scientific institutions. Thishas been maintained and thedecision has proven to be a goodone. In 1998, the governmenttransferred responsibility formitigation work on rivers fromINDECI to the ministry of agriculture.After this INDECI recovered its initialresponsibilities.

The Executive Committee for El NiñoReconstruction launched an UrbanMitigation Study Programme.Although lacking in legalendorsement, fifteen cities werestudied with UNDP support untilFebruary 2001. This programme wastransferred to INDECI. PREANDINOalso aims to incorporate preventionin national and sectoral developmentplanning. Due to the fact that there isnot a Ministry in charge of Planning,the Chair of the Council of Ministersleads PREANDINO in Perú.CMRRD,GTZ, PREANDINO-CAF and BIDhave made an agreetment to makesinergies supporting the activities ofCMRRD under a commonprogramme at national, regional andlocal levels.

CMRRD has beenadvancing in theelaboration of thenational strategy forrisk reduction intodevelopment process.Actually this Comisionhas finished thediagnosis of hazard,vulnerabilities andrisks and haveidentified somepolitical proposals.PREANDINOcommittees are alsopreparing diagnosticsfor sectoral plans.

There have been somevery limited attempts toincorporate preventionissues within specificsectors. An institutionallimitation is the country'slack of national planningbodies, although otherchannels have beenidentified through thepublic investmentstructures working withindividual projects. Thereare local experiments inplanning and thedevelopment of projects,for example, in the basinof the River Rimac whereLima and eight otherdistrict municipalities havemitigation plans,emergency contingencyplans and risk studieswith microzoning maps.These municipalitiesregularly update theirplans and keep the publicinformed in what is themost advancedexperiment in localwork.Actually, CMRRD,PREANDINO and GTZdecentraliced pilotsoriented to incorporaterisk reduction in localplans are in progress.


97



Venezuela Official statements: Following thedevastating mudslides in VargasState in 1999, reference toprevention concepts are beingincorporated as part ofdevelopment policy. It began toappear in national and municipalstatements. The subject was alsoone of the main concerns of seniorgovernment spokesmen involvedwith reconstruction programmes.

Formal decisions: Important stepsare being taken to incorporateprevention in developmentprocesses. This is most evident inthe Education sector which hasbeen attentive to these matters forsome time, and has set up amaintenance programme forincorporating changes in schoolbuildings. Immediately after theVargas events in 1999, theministry of science and technology(MCT) formally institutionalized adisaster risk management policywith tools for its implementation.Financing was provided to supportrisk management, preparednessand disaster relief strategies. Thenational government joinedPREANDINO to coordinate andpromote these activities at alllevels, and is now working withinthat framework to definestrategies. The informal NationalCommittee for prevenction andMitigation has prepared a legalproposal for risk managementwhich has been summitted to theNational Assembly . Somemunicipal bodies, such as those ofChacao, Sucre, Baruta,Maracaibo, Valencia and AlcaldiaMayor, as pilots of thePREANDINO, have formallydecided to proceed with theincorporation of prevention indevelopment management.

The MCT has set up the RiskManagement and DisasterReduction Programme which takesan integral approach to support theinclusion of risk management intodevelopment planning and sectoraland local actions, despite itsemphasis on scientific developmentand the introduction of technologiesinto all risk management anddisaster relief processes.PREANDINO implemented a globalprogramme in December 2000 withobjectives to coordinate the handlingof disaster risks, to incorporate riskreduction issues into developmentpolicies and to support national,sectoral and local exchanges amongcountries. There are other sectoralprogrammes such as one to reducevulnerability to socio-naturaldisasters in the education sector andanother in the ministry of theenvironment and natural resourcesto prepare risk maps for land useplanning.

There are no preventionplans but national andsectoral plans are in theprocess of beingcompleted with thesupport of CAFcooperation. There aresome territorialinitiatives atPREANDINO pilots butno prevention plansexist for manymunicipalities.OnlyVargas state haselaborated studies andproposals for disasterrisk reduction in thearea supported bynational and localinstitutions.

A start has been toincorporate preventionissues in the NationalDevelopment and SocialSector Plan as well as ina few regional plans.Initiatives in the utilitiessector have partiallyincorporated preventionwithin certain subsectorssuch as hydroelectricpower generation and inthermal power generation.Only very fewmunicipalities haveseismic microzoning andgeodynamic risk maps foruse in new techniques formunicipal planning.JICAis supporting aninteresting study for threemunicipalities of CaracasMetropolitan Areaoriented to mitigation andprepardeness. It has beencoordinated withPREANDINO Pilot.


98

Africa

The African continent is highlyvulnerable to disasters fromnatural causes, particularly fromhydrometeorological ones thatregularly result in drought andfloods. Equally important, thevulnerability to hazards is high, and rising. Withthe exception of a few examples, such as theEthiopian Disaster Prevention and PreparednessCommission, historically throughout much of thecontinent, disaster management has focused onresponding to recurrent emergency conditions anddisasters rather than engaging in more sustainedprevention activities

A major shift is now taking place in manycountries, particularly in those that have beenaffected seriously, again, by drought or floods.The increasing impacts of climate change andvariability on both the social and economicdimensions of African societies have alsodemanded more political attention.

The severe earthquake that shocked Algeria inMay 2003 is a reminder of the real threats posedby earthquakes, especially in Northern Africa.This event particularly highlighted the necessity ofa sustained risk management strategy composed oflegislation and building codes that can reduce theimpact of such a rapid-onset event that is not soeasily predictable.

Despite their irregular frequency and relativelylow level of impact, volcanic risks in Africa havedemonstrated complex emergency situations. Inthe case of Nyiragongo in the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, the consequences of thevolcanic eruption were compounded by conflictsand political instability among the affectedpopulation. This very complex situationhighlighted the need for disaster preparedness andprevention measures.

However following the event, a contingency planhas been prepared in collaboration between theprovincial authorities in the Democratic Republicof the Congo and officials in neighbouringRwanda. The municipal authorities of the city ofGoma have also started thinking about creating alocal civil protection capability, backed up by alegal framework in the immediate region. UNDP,

the UN Office for the Coordination ofHumanitarian Affairs (OCHA), ISDR and theCouncil of Europe are all working towardsdeveloping interagency collaborative efforts toaddress the most critical medium to long-termdisaster reduction needs of Goma.

Other issues in disaster risk management stillremain major challenges for many Africancountries. These include the need to decentralizethe authority and the operational capabilities todeal with hazards and risks at the sub-national andlocal levels. There is a continuing requirement toengage public participation and the social orinstitutional elements of civil societies in thedecision-making and implementation of riskreduction practices, especially within localcommunities. At most national levels ofresponsibility, there is much that can be done tointegrate disaster risk management into countries’social and economic development plans.

Subregional organizations can be very useful insupporting national initiatives to build capacity toidentify and manage risks. They can beinstrumental in sharing experiences amongcountries, as well as developing practical means ofbuilding cooperation among the variousprofessional and academic institutions throughsharing information, undertaking joint activities,and by complementing each other’s professionalabilities.

East Africa

Throughout many parts of East Africa, and moreespecially in the area of North-Eastern Africa,sometimes referred to as the Greater Horn ofAfrica, drought and famine are common. As aresult, strategies to provide protection from faminethrough drought-resistant forms of foodproduction and other related forms of technicalassistance and emergency aid characterized the1970s and 1980s. Currently emphasis is given tofood security through agricultural production,improved rural access to food and markets, andthe protection or management of pastoral animalherds. Taken together these measures strive tofocus on developmental issues and seek broadlybased forms of economic activity that can makelivelihoods more sustainable in an often harsh andchallenging environment.


99

Limitations remain with often absent and evenexisting legislation in many of the countriesconcerned. One major drawback in dealing withrecurrent hazards is that much of the attentiongiven to severe or threatening conditions focusesheavily on responding to already bad situations,rather than implementing strategies that anticipatepossible risks and seek to minimize or prevent theworst consequences of a disaster.

Uncertainty may also be created within existinglegal frameworks because of the different levels atwhich decisions can be made, or without aconsistent application of coordination.

While efforts are underway to varying extents,countries can promote the adoption of nationalpolicies, update or expand legislation, andconstruct financial modalities and agreements. Itmay be an even more productive use of scarceresources if these issues can be undertakenincreasingly on a regional basis to supportcommon policies and mechanisms, especially asthe hazardous events and many of the inhabitantstoo, often range beyond a single country’s borders.

The experiences of two countries in the GreaterHorn of Africa – Ethiopia and Kenya –demonstrate how each has managed past disastersand the initiatives they have taken based on thatexperience to improve their respective capacities indisaster risk management. In both cases thesubjects of hazards and risk management havebecome associated much more closely withnational development goals, objectives andprogramming initiatives, backed up with legislatedframeworks.

Case: Ethiopia

As droughts and famines have been recurringphenomena in Ethiopia for many years, thecountry has developed a notable system of hazardmonitoring and emergency response capabilities.In the wake of the famine episodes of 1970s thegovernment established its Relief andRehabilitation Commission (RRC) in 1974. Anearly warning system was created in 1976 thatinitially concentrated on relief efforts related tofood security. Later, having recognized thelimitations, the RRC broadened its approach toaddress the management of additional risk factors.

The highly centralized nature of the system wasalso seen to hamper its early warningeffectiveness.

However, even with its own organizationalmodifications and improvements over ten years,the country still suffered immense losses fromdrought conditions in 1984-1985. The problemsencountered highlight the importance of a widerset of relationships essential to disaster riskmanagement. There was a failure to respond toearly warning reports which had been publicized,because of mistrust between the government andinternational donors about the authenticity andaccuracy of the information. This led to multiple,uncertain or disputed interpretations of conditions,and resulted in inaccurate estimates of bothconsequences and immediate needs byinternational agencies. While delays worsened theextent of the crisis, there was also a protractedrecognition of the inadequate logistical capacityavailable to respond to the ever more pressingneeds.

Based on these past experiences and mindful ofthe linkages between drought, food shortages andfamine, the government established a morecomprehensive strategy. The National Policy onDisaster Prevention and Management (NPDPM)was created in 1993 with a primary focus onsustained economic and agricultural development.Attention was also given to the practical details ofcoping with food scarcity, relief procedures,decentralized early warning systems, andmaintaining seed and fund reserves, schemes forefficient food deliveries to those most in need, andprogrammes for livestock preservation.

A key feature of the Ethiopian NPDPM was itslinkage of relief issues to more basic and ongoingdevelopment activities. All line ministries wererequired to incorporate disaster reductionmeasures into their development goals andprogrammes, as well as to relate them to anyeventual relief operations. The policy assignedspecific responsibilities to various officials atdifferent levels.

These policies evolved into the National DisasterPrevention and Preparedness Commission(DPPC) in 1995, addressing the wider aspects ofdisaster prevention, preparedness, emergencyresponse and rehabilitation. It was established at


100

national level, having overall coordination ofdisaster prevention and preparedness activities.There are committees established at various levelsof administration through which disaster tasks areperformed.

Ethiopia has constructed an elaborateinstitutional framework for natural disaster andrisk management, incorporating preparedness,prevention and mitigation measures. This is amajor departure from the past, when reliefoperations were the dominant focus of disastermanagement. The country has established fourlevels of focal points for coordination of disasterand risk management through disasterprevention and preparedness committees, atnational, provincial, zone, and local (Woreda)levels.

The National Disaster Prevention andPreparedness Committee (NDPPC) is the overallbody charged with the responsibilities at thenational level for all matters regarding disasterprevention and management. The national office isreplicated at the other levels and contains a similarmembership composed of the followingrepresentatives:

• a chairperson designated by the government;• Ministry of Finance;• Ministry of Agriculture;• the head of the regional affairs sector in the

office of the Prime Minister;• Ministry of Health;• Ministry of Defence; and• Ministry of Planning and Economic

Development and External EconomicCooperation.

Other members include the presidents of regionalcouncils (or provincial, zone councils atsubordinate levels) and the Disaster Preventionand Preparation Commission (DPPC). Otheragencies drawn from donors and civil society areincluded on an ad hoc basis depending on thenature of the disaster.

Four other government bodies are also associatedwith the work of the NDPPC at national level:

• Emergency Food Security ReserveAdministration;

• National Disaster Prevention andPreparedness Fund;

• National Early Warning Committee(replicated at the provincial, zone and Woredalevels); and

• Crisis Management Group (replicated at theprovincial, zone and Woreda levels).

Box 3.4Ethiopian National Policy on DisasterPrevention and Management

The regard for the Ethiopian National Policy onDisaster Prevention and Management (NPDPM)achievements was based on the driving principles of itspolicies:

• No human life shall perish for want of assistance intime of disaster.

• Provision of relief shall protect and safeguardhuman dignity and reinforce social determination fordevelopment.

• Relief efforts shall reinforce the capabilities of theaffected areas and population, and promote self-reliance.

• Adequate income shall be assured to disaster-affected households through employmentgenerating programmes that provide access to foodand other basic necessities.

• Contribution to sustainable economic growth anddevelopment shall be given due emphasis in allrelief efforts.

• All endeavours in relief programmes shall be gearedto eliminate the root causes of vulnerability todisasters.

• Disaster prevention programmes shall be given dueemphasis in all spheres of developmentendeavours.

• The quality of life in the affected areas shall beprotected from deterioration due to disaster.

• The assets and economic fabric of the affectedareas shall be preserved to enable speedy post-disaster recovery.

• Best use of the natural resources of the area shallbe promoted.

The ways by which NPDPM worked illustrates theimportance given to maintaining a strong relationshipwith the social and economic values of the community.The community was encouraged to play the leadingrole in the planning, programming, implementation andevaluation of all relief projects. The role of linedepartments in this regard was to be subservient.Clearly defined focal points for action for different taskswere distributed among different levels. Suchcoordination centres needed to be properlyempowered and to have necessary resources toundertake their responsibilities.

Precedence was given to areas where lives andlivelihood were more seriously threatened. Relief wasdirected to the most needy at all times, and no freedistribution of aid was to be allocated for able-bodiedmembers of the affected population.


101

Case: Kenya

More recent developments in Kenya havemotivated a similar approach, but with differentemphasis to reflect the needs of the country. Thedevastating impact of floods during the El Niñoclimatic variation in 1997-1998 re-emphasizedthe need for a disaster management coordinationagency in Kenya. This led to strengthening of aNational Disaster Operations Centreadministered by the office of the president. Aseries of coordinated activities has beenconsidered, and currently the followinginstitutions operate in association with the officeof the president:

• National Disaster Operations Centre;• Arid Lands Resource Management Project;• Department of Relief and Rehabilitation; and• National AIDS Control Council.

In addition, there are other units which operatewithin various government ministries which havespecialized roles. These include such functions asrescue and evacuation, fire fighting, contingencyplanning and management, research, crowdcontrol and conflict resolution, and activities tocombat terrorism.

A national policy on disaster management hasbeen drafted and proposes a framework tocoordinate all of these institutions dealing with thedifferent aspects of disaster and risk management.Following extended consultations, a final draftpolicy framework proposes several newinstitutions.

The National Disaster Management Authority(NADIMA) would become a crucial coordinatingbody, with members drawn from relevantministries and departments, the private sector,NGOs, social and religious bodies. Someinternational agencies may also be invited toparticipate. NADIMA’s major functions andpowers would include:

• authority over disaster management throughoutthe country;

• reviewing and updating all relevant policies;• creating and managing a national disaster trust

fund; and• establishing special committees.

A secretariat would be composed to collaboratewith sectoral ministries, local governmentauthorities, district committees, and partneragencies. It would service the various committeesof NADIMA and conduct the daily activities ofthe authority. The secretariat would be responsiblefor consolidating all disaster management relatedinformation, and then plan and coordinate allaspects of disaster management. This would entailthe preparation of disaster management plans andtheir related budgets, as well as drafting individualcontingency plans for specific types of hazards andrisks. It is also anticipated that ongoing roleswould include monitoring, evaluating anddocumenting of lessons learned and applying themto improve performance.

A department of planning and research is expectedto undertake the crucial function of advising onfuture policies and areas that have a bearing on thebroader aspects of disaster and risk management.It would pursue programmes for preparedness,early warning, prevention, research, andinformation management. A different but relateddepartment of operations would address theoperational aspects of providing relief assistance,responding to acute phases of an emergency,mitigation of hazards, mobilizing resources,monitoring and evaluation.

Southern Africa

In general, Southern Africa has not regularlyrecorded massive losses from sudden-onsetdisasters besides periodic floods that have howeverbrought considerable localized losses. Primarily,the major risks that have affected the region havebeen slow-onset disasters related to drought,epidemic and food insecurity.

In addition, prior to the early 1990s, perceptionsof risk in the region were shaped predominantlyby armed conflicts and their destabilizingconsequences. As a result, the first politicalengagements with natural disaster reduction inSouthern African countries were driven by theprotracted ravages of drought or the disruption oflivelihoods caused by other emergencies.

To a significant extent since that time prevailingdisaster management capabilities have been more


102

narrowly focused on monitoring agriculturalconditions and food availability, or planningemergency relief contingency measures focusedalmost exclusively on droughts. There are a fewregional disaster reduction initiatives now in place,with their antecedents dating back to the 1980s(see chapter 3.3).

Presently, concern is now being expressed morewidely across the region about the persistence ofdrought conditions, unusually heavy precipitationand flooding at other times, and a renewedconsideration of climatic variation on livelihoodsand food security. As a result, individual countriesin Southern Africa are reassessing national needsrelated to disaster risk management and reorientingearlier national strategies more closely todevelopmental objectives.

Case: South Africa

A methodical, if protracted, effort to develop acomprehensive national strategy for disaster riskmanagement has been pursued in South Africa byreforming organizational structures and creatingnew legislation concerning disaster riskmanagement.

As so often happens, it was after a severe crisis –flooding in the Cape Flats of Capetown in 1994 –that the government resolved to assess SouthAfrica’s ability to deal with disaster riskmanagement. This initially involved a completereview of disaster management structures andpolicies.

One year later, the cabinet recommended that aformal structure for disaster management beestablished. An initial National DisasterManagement Committee was formed in 1996 withthe intended function of coordinating andmanaging national disaster management policy. Asthat body never came into being, in mid-1997 thegovernment approved the formation of analternate Inter-Ministerial Committee for DisasterManagement (IMC).

A Green Paper on disaster management wasproduced as the first tangible step to establish aformal disaster management policy for thecountry. It was tabled in February 1998 andprovided an important conceptual framework for

public dialogue about disaster management andrisk reduction at local, provincial and nationallevels of interest.

A year later, a policy White Paper was developedby South Africa within the framework of theIDNDR. Key policy proposals included:

• integration of risk reduction strategies intodevelopment initiatives;

• development of a strategy to reduce communityvulnerability;

• legal establishment of a national disastermanagement centre;

• introduction of a new disaster managementfunding strategy;

• introduction and implementation of a newdisaster management act;

• establishment of a framework to enablecommunities to be informed, alert and self-reliant; and

• establishment of a framework to coordinatetraining and community awareness initiatives.

Importance was also given by South Africa tocontributing to joint standards and commonpractices along the same lines with neighbouringcountries and other member states of the SouthernAfrica Development Community (SADC).

Meanwhile, in order to address South Africa’simmediate needs, an interim disaster managementauthority was composed with representatives fromten national departments. This was later convertedinto a National Disaster Management Centre(NDMC). However, despite the fact that it hasbeen operational since 1999, it has yet to become astatutory institution.

An Inter-Departmental Disaster ManagementCommittee (IDMC) was also established in thesame year to ensure better coordination amonggovernment departments at national level. This,however, was intended as an interim measure untilsuch time when the planned statutory structuresbecame functional under a disaster management act.

In 2000, the first disaster management bill waspublished for public comment. However, theinitial enthusiasm and momentum shown by thegovernment seemed to decline with numerouspostponements of the tabling of the bill. Afteranother severe crisis – this time, the devastating


103

floods in parts of Southern Africa in 2000 –political priorities changed as the importance ofdisaster management policy and legislationresurfaced. The National Council of Provincescalled a disaster management conference toconsider disaster risk management issues on aregional basis in May 2000, and following that thebill was finally tabled.

During the review process the disaster managementbill moved away somewhat from the earlier policyemphasis expressed in the Green and White Papersand focused more attention on intra-governmentalinstitutional relationships and related operationalarrangements. The rationale behind the bill was toensure that unambiguous guidelines could be giventhrough regulations once the legislation waspromulgated. The bill provided guidance withrespect to the legal establishment of the NDMC,the duties and powers of national, provincial andlocal instruments of government and funding forpost-disaster recovery and rehabilitation.

The bill also provided for an Inter-GovernmentalCommittee on Disaster Management to consist ofcabinet members involved in disaster management,members of the executive councils from the nineprovinces of the country and representatives oflocal government.

A further structure proposed in the bill was that ofthe National Disaster Management Framework, tooutline coherent, transparent and inclusive policieson all aspects of disaster management includingtraining and capacity-building.

The bill stipulated the establishment of disastermanagement centres at all levels of government. Asone of the primary functions of the centres would bethe assessment of disaster risks, the bill alsoestablished procedures for the collection anddissemination of risk assessment information.Emphasis has also been given to measures that couldreduce the vulnerability of people in disaster-proneareas. The final disaster management bill wasunanimously accepted by parliament and theNational Council of Provinces in their final sitting atthe end of 2002 and was enacted by the president inJanuary 2003. Following its promulgation, thedisaster management act is expected to generategreater involvement by provincial and localgovernment authorities to undertake risk assessmentactivities.

Case: Mozambique

One of the principal challenges for consecutivegovernments in Mozambique has beenresponding to disaster emergencies. Since itsindependence in 1975, considerable resourceshave been used for disaster management andinstitutions have continually evolved to deal withnew and challenging conditions. This hard-wonexperience has produced numerous seasoneddisaster and risk management officials throughoutdifferent government departments and a well-developed inter-ministerial structure for thecoordination of disaster and risk management.

It is much to the government’s credit that forsome time it has recognized the importance ofshifting its emphasis in disaster management fromimmediate response to long-term mitigation andrisk reduction. In the last few years, there has beena dedicated effort by the highest levels ofgovernment to establish formal arrangements andprocedures that can build capacities for improveddisaster risk management in the future.

From as early as 1981, the government wasattentive to the need to address the consequencesof risk on the society. A Department for thePrevention and Combating of Natural Calamities(DPCCN) was established with the objective ofpromoting early warning and mitigation activities.During a period of complex national emergencyfrom 1982-1994, DPCCN became a principalconduit for international aid to people displaced byconflict and the victims of repeated floods anddroughts, with logistics becoming its predominantactivity.

Following improved conditions and changingneeds of the country, in 1996 a process began withthe support of the World Food Programme(WFP) to formulate a coherent national disastermanagement policy and to reorient disastermanagement towards risk reduction activities.During the closing years of the 1990s, thisinvolved sustained efforts to reinvent institutionsand revise policies created in the prolonged periodof permanent emergency.

As expressed in current national policies, theprimary objective has been to break the viciouscycle of continually expending scarce resources foremergency response and reconstruction, only then


104

the effects of disasters”. In particular, it gives theNational Disaster Management Plan, as approvedby the Council of Ministers, the force of law.

The national policy entails a framework for thecoordination of government entities, theparticipation of civil society and collaboration withthe private sector in all aspects of disaster and riskmanagement. In addition, the law will establishsanctions for individuals or organizations violatingthe provisions of a declared state of emergency.

The CTGC has a mandate to ensure that nationalpolicies are translated into concrete actions andthat norms are codified in the disastermanagement legislation. The members of theCTGC are expected to carry out historical analysisof disaster vulnerability and assessments of currentconditions of risk in an annual process ofcontingency planning. This exercise, led by theINGC, is intended to assure that authorities areaddressing risk concerns throughout the planningcycle. At the national level, a report is producedwhich focuses on preparedness and preventionmeasures in vulnerable areas.

While the expressed intentions have been clear,institutions are not easily reformed and individualsnot so readily retrained, as future events were toillustrate equally among international agencies andlocal NGOs. In October 1999, the government ofMozambique released its contingency plan for theup-coming rainy season, noting the highprobability of floods in the southern and centralregions of the country. At that time it requestedinternational assistance of US$ 2.7 million forimmediate preparedness and mitigation activities.

The response to this appeal was poor with lessthan half of the requested funds pledged by theinternational community. Yet only six months later,in the wake of terrible flooding, the internationalcommunity and NGOs gave US$ 100 million inemergency assistance and relief. Subsequently,international pledges for rehabilitation activitiesfollowing the floods exceeded US$ 450 million.

Beyond the international dimensions, there may bereasons for concern at the individual levels too.There is some indication that some segments ofthe population have become dependent onemergency assistance and therefore have a strongincentive to maintain their vulnerability. Given

to become vulnerable and unprepared for the nextcatastrophic event. This has required particularefforts to stimulate a change of attitudes bothwithin government and in the population as awhole.

In 1999, the government created new institutionsto give greater coherence and a clear mandate forgovernment structures dealing with disasters. TheCoordinating Counsel for Disaster Management(CCGC) was composed at ministerial level as theprincipal government body for coordinatingdisaster management in all its phases. A NationalInstitute for Disaster Management (INGC) was

created to serve as its permanent technical supportunit, with the director of INGC chairing anadditional multisector Technical Committee forDisaster Management (CTGC) to assure strongcoordination and collaboration in planning,mitigation and response activities.

A proposed law on disaster management will serveas a legal mandate for the implementation ofpolicy, with the principal objective stated in thefirst article, “to avoid the occurrence or minimize

Source: Instituto Nacional de Gestão de Calamidades, Maputo, 1999


105

such a disproportionate application of availableresources historically between relief assistance andrisk reduction, it is not difficult to see whyeffective reform may prove difficult to sustain.

West Africa

In terms of policy and public commitment todisaster risk management, some nationalcapabilities exist in West Africa to varying degrees.However, as occurs elsewhere, much of theattention is given to responding to singleemergency or crisis events, and too often, only atthe immediate time when they occur. There isconsiderably less attention or resources committedto sustained disaster reduction strategies, whetherthey pertain to the prevention, preparedness ormitigation of hazards.

The efforts demonstrated in disaster managementso far involve inter-ministerial and cross-sectoralinteraction throughout the area, and to a lesserdegree the participation of civil society or localcommunities. However, with a single exception,no other countries in West Africa incorporatedisaster risk management in their povertyreduction programmes. Ghana recently developedexplicit programmes to mitigate the impact ofhazards and to prevent disasters affecting the poor,having included them in its 2002-2004 povertyreduction strategy for the vulnerable and theexcluded.

The aftermath of the Jola boat capsizing disasteroff the coast of Senegal in 2002 has raised theawareness of the importance of disasterprevention. Several initiatives have ensued, as theMinistry of Interior has developed guidelines forprevention by all sectors and levels of society fromthe national level to local communities.

Case: Senegal

Statutory responsibility for managing nationalinstitutions for disaster management in Senegallies with an inter-ministerial committeecoordinated by the Ministry of Interior. There isalso an office of civil protection, acting throughthe Superior Council for Civil Protection,established in February 1999 responsible forprevention. Emergency response is managed

under the Organization des Secours (ORSEC)National Plan for Organizing Assistance in Caseof Catastrophes, established in March 1999.

Civil protection activities in risk reduction anddisaster management are decentralized in all 11regions and 34 departments of the country withthe regional commissions headed by thegovernors, while the prefects head the localdepartment commissions. ORSEC is alsodecentralized to the regional level and operatesthrough four committees: assistance and safety;police and information; medical and self-help; andworks and transport.

Historically there had been several pieces oflegislation for the different agencies involved indisaster management. However, these variouslegal instruments had not been harmonized, norwas there a more integrated approach to disasterand risk management in the country. As severalNGOs seemed unaware of their existence and didnot participate in their development, they do notseem to have particularly wide public exposure.

Separate plans for prevention and protection havebeen developed at the national level, as well as forindividual functions or components of agencies,such as contingency plans for responding toindustrial accidents or hazardous materialaccidents.

The aftermath of the Jola boat disaster hasgenerated an increased awareness of theimportance of disaster prevention. This hassparked a flurry of activity within the government,but also in the familiarity of safety and protectionoutlooks among the public.

The Ministry of Interior has compiled a risk mapand composed a menu of prevention measures foreach department and region in the country. Theseare important steps in that they identify thelocation, nature, means of prevention andresponsible institutions for each type of risk thathas been identified. The Ministry has alsodeveloped guidelines for prevention action thatcan be taken by all sectors and levels of societyfrom the national level down to localcommunities.

Each of the ministries, as well as the office of thepresident, has newly-designated responsibilities for


106

disaster risk prevention and management. Inaddition, a programme is being developed toorganize sensitization and training courses ondisaster protection in educational institutionsthroughout the country.

A unified plan is being formulated for preventionthat consolidates earlier regional and departmentalplans. Under the new guidelines for ministries, theMinistry of Finance and Economy is tasked withintegrating disaster prevention in social andeconomic planning policies to ensure sustainabledevelopment. This includes endeavouring toprovide adequate financing to reinforce theadministrative structures and local capacities forrisk prevention. Resources are also being allocatedfor the development of a facility to train civilprotection staff and functionaries in disastermanagement and, especially, risk preventionpractices.

The Senegal experience demonstrates how anational tragedy can motivate renewedcommitment and broader political, professionaland public involvement in creating a safer andmore disaster resistant society.

North Africa

Attention to natural hazards and the related risksthey pose to Northern African countries istypically focused on managing the acute phases ofan emergency, or the need for emergency reliefassistance after the declaration of a disaster, suchas a drought or famine.

Natural disasters most often figure in nationalgovernmental socio-economic planning in terms ofdrought. Most of the countries in Northern Africaconsider that drought is a structural feature oftheir socio-economic profiles affecting livelihoods,as well as the national economies.

There are some technical structures in place andinstitutions dedicated to drought and monitoringspecific food security indicators throughout mostof the countries of Northern Africa and the aridSahel region that runs across the continent.

At national levels of interest, there are examplesof government institutions involved in thehydrometeorological aspects of hazardmonitoring. Typically these include authoritiesresponsible for meteorology, water resourcesmanagement, agriculture, environment andnatural resources.

Similarly, legislation relating to hazard and riskissues is frequently fragmented over differentdomains such as those of land planning, publicworks, environmental management, and variousother government institutions in charge of singlesectoral interests.

There is evidence of some general awarenesssuch as the design and construction oftransportation infrastructure in zones vulnerableto flooding and desertification or themanagement of hydraulic works and river basinsin the public domain. However, morefundamental practices related to natural disasterrisk management such as risk assessment andearly warning systems are not yet routinelyintegrated into existing legislation.

Most countries have some form of a civilprotection authority, but none of the NorthernAfrican countries has a national authority dealingspecifically with the management of risks overall,nor of natural disasters. Such a limitedinstitutional approach can impede a sustainedcommitment to managing risks before an acuteemergency occurs, or can limit the possibilitiesfor effective coordination at times of seriousneeds.

The integration of more comprehensive strategiesto identify and then monitor risk factors inassociation with national development objectivesremains in early stages in almost all of thesecountries. Since 2002, several devastating stormsor floods have occurred in Morocco, Algeria,Mauritania and Sudan, while severe earthquakeshave affected Cairo, most recently in 2002, andAlgiers quite seriously in May 2003. These eventsdemonstrate that there is justifiable concern for amore systematic approach to disaster riskmanagement.


107

Pacific

Pacific small islanddeveloping states(SIDS) are diverse intheir physical andeconomic characteristicsand exemplify manydifferent cultures, languages andtraditional practices. Most of these islandstates comprise tiny areas of land widelydispersed throughout the Pacific Ocean,so that even within single countries, thedistance between islands can be enormous.

Their small size, scattered distribution andrelative isolation of many communitiescharacterize development activitydifferently from that in other parts of theworld, and further result in it being quitecostly. Human settlements range fromtraditional rural villages where most peoplelive, to rapidly growing commercial cities.

While there are many forms of land tenurethroughout the region, most are based oncommunal land ownership through whichjoint community control is exerted over theuse of land and many of the decisions thatregulate the exploitation of naturalresources.

Despite a popular portrayal of the SouthPacific as a region of islands with serenebeaches, blue lagoons, and an idylliclifestyle, SIDS have very fragileecosystems. There is great concern aboutthe consequences of climate change andrising sea levels.

For these reasons, Pacific SIDS arecommitted to the implementation ofdevelopment projects to reduce risks topeople and property. They have worked tostrengthen their national and regionalresilience to hazard impacts. The historicalrecord of specific disaster reductioninitiatives also shows that Pacific islandstates have adopted positive approaches inboth traditional and more contemporaryways to enable Pacific islanders tomaintain a respect for their chosen culturalvalues.

However, as some major hazards occuronly rarely, governments and communitiescan find it difficult to maintain a high levelof awareness and preparedness for specificor individual events alone. The resourcesavailable for disaster mitigation havechanged over time, too.

In Tonga, localcommunities need theinitial support anddirection of government tobe active in disasterreduction. They areaware of what is at riskbut cannot implementmeasures on a communitybasis because of a lack ofresources.

Tonga response to ISDRquestionnaire, 2001.

Box 3.5Capacity-building in Pacific islandstatesA foundation of disaster risk reductionthroughout the Pacific is that islandcommunities have inherited a resilient socialsystem. The strength of this system is in itsextended family values and communalmechanisms that link to national systems. Itrequires only a little restructuring andadvocacy to integrate these into a practicalorganizational framework that will fosterownership and promote joint participatoryapproaches to mitigation managementbetween government and other stakeholders.

The challenges for island states arise fromthe expanding progress of development onan essentially limited volume of naturalresources. This has forced development toencroach on the environment, rapidlyincreasing community vulnerability to naturaldisasters. Increasing awareness of mitigationmeasures through science and technologyalone cannot foster preparedness. Linksbetween science and society have to beforged.

Mitigation for Pacific disaster managersmeans being good facilitators. It calls forskills to build operational networks to makeeffective use of local resources. It requiresbuilding collaboration and technicalcompetence. It means partnership amongstakeholders.

In the past years, Pacific island statesestablished strong national coordinationunits. Importantly, each state has developeda national disaster management plan thatestablishes the management structures andallocates responsibilities among keyorganizations. The support plans andoperational procedures are critical forincluding the community in a system thatworks in partnership with government.

Mitigation pilot projects that can be conveyedthrough this management approach areproviding the building blocks that successfullyincorporate mitigation planning into nationalsystems.

Source: A. Kaloumaira, 1999.


108

Governments became involved in disasterassistance early in the colonial era, taking overresponsibilities at independence, often byproviding relief assistance and rehabilitationmaterials following a disaster. Such aid came to beunderstood by both donors and recipients asunencumbered assistance. As the amount ofexternal or official disaster relief assistance hasincreased sharply over recent years, so too hascommunity dependency.

A study by a Fijian, A. Kaloumaira (SOPAC-DMU, 1999), illustrates the state of capacity-building for Pacific island states in terms thatreflect the basis for the incorporation of disastermitigation frameworks into national policyoutlooks and popular understanding. Therelevance and therefore the efficacy of disaster riskreduction is heavily dependent upon the extent to

which it reflects prevailing social, cultural andenvironmental interests of the people it is intendedto serve.

Case: Cook Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu

Examples of the ways in which some Pacific smallisland developing states have sought to incorporatedisaster risk management measures into theirnational development strategies are summarized inTable 3.3. The examples drawn from the CookIslands, Fiji and Vanuatu focus on theorganizational frameworks and policy aspectsthose countries have pursued with respect toincorporating disaster risk reduction into largernational interests. These indicative examplesshould not be considered as being eithercomprehensive or exhaustive in themselves, nor ofthe region as a whole.

Table 3.3Disaster institutional frameworks in the Pacific

Country Institutional frameworks High-level programmes forpromoting prevention


CookIslands

NDMO coordinates disastermanagement.

National and Island DisasterManagement Plans call for theNational Disaster ManagementCouncil to be responsible forpolicy issues.

Establishment of a US $30,000disaster reserve within theMinistry of Finance.

The Island DisasterManagement Plan stipulateslocal government to beresponsible for local disastermanagement activities.

Red Cross disasterpreparedness programme andfirst-aid training goes hand inhand with broaderpreparedness plans.

Introduction to disastermanagement training courseimplemented in every island ofthe Cooks reaching at least 35per cent of the population of eachisland.

Principles of disastermanagement integrated in thesocial science curriculum of theeducation system, so each childlearns of these principles in theirschool years.

Coastal Protection Unitsprotecting the airport from beinginundated and minimize tidalenergy from surging into hotelson the beaches.

Radios placed in emergencycentres in the northern islandsreceive national broadcasts fromRarotonga, enabling communitiesin the Northern Cook Islands tomonitor weather and emergencywarnings for the first time.

Foreshore Protection Committee.

EMWIN early warning system fortropical cyclones is in operation.

Rarotonga Tourism VulnerabilityPilot Project

Cook Islands BuildingCode: a report onpromoting codes, andtheir application wascompleted in April1999.

A Building ControlUnit has been set upfor compliance andenforcement by theintroduction ofcommerciallyexperiencedconstructionpersonnel.

Disaster ManagementWork Plan:

• National Disaster• Management Plan

for CycloneResponse Procedures

• Tsunami Response Procedures.

Development is beingundertaken at thenational and politicallevels through anadvocacy strategy, withcomprehensive sectoraland societal involvement:

• Ministry of Transport inthe prevention andresponse to oil pollution

• GovernmentEnvironment ServicesUnit in climate change

• Natural Heritage Unitresponsible forcommunity consultationand promotion ofbiodiversity

• NDMO in prevention,mitigation andpreparedness activities.

Outer IslandDevelopment Projects(forestry on MangaiaIsland, water reticulationsystems, communicationsystems).

Cook Islandsgovernment has ratifiedat least 25 environmentalglobal conventions.

Policy and commitment: the foundation of disaster risk reduction3.1 National institutional frameworks: policy, legislation and organizational development

109

3Country Institutional frameworks High-level programmes for

promoting preventionPrevention plans Prevention in

development plans andcontrol mechanisms

Fiji In 1990, the governmentdesignated the Ministry ofRegional Development andMulti-Ethnic Affairs responsiblefor natural disasters and theMinistry of Home Affairs forhuman-caused disasters.

NADMO at the Ministry ofRegional Development andMulti-ethnic Affairs, managesand coordinates all activities.

The national coordinationpolicy is documented in the

National Disaster ManagementPlan 1995 and the NaturalDisaster Management Act1998.

Established a National TrainingAdvisory Committee.

Fiji Meteorological Service,Mineral Resource Departmentand the Public WorksDepartment are responsible formonitoring and detectinghazards affecting Fiji.

The National DisasterManagement Councilestablished the DisasterManagement Committee atNational Divisional and Districtlevels (DISMAC).

Suva Earthquake RiskManagement Scenario PilotProject (SERMP).

Taveuni Volcano Risk Project:updates eruption information foruse in preparing risk maps and indeveloping guidelines fordevelopment planning andemergency risk planning.

Volcano Hazard Risk Mitigation inFiji: mapping and understandingvolcano hazards on the islands ofKadavu, Koro and Rotuma to

develop risk maps, developmentplanning and volcano responseplans.

Ba Flood Preparedness:providing flood information andpreparing flood response plans,conducting local education andawareness activities.

National DisasterManagement Plan

Disaster ManagementWork Plan

A National BuildingCode formulated in1990, but yet to belegislated andimplemented. Work isunderway toaccomplish.

Support plans forCyclone

Operational SupportContingency Plan forTaveuni Volcano.

CyclonePreparedness atCommunity Level:Foundation for thePeoples of the SouthPacific "Fiji'sAwarenessCommunity TheatreCyclonePreparednessProgramme" usesvideo and drama tobetter inform villagecommunities.

A proactive approach todisaster reductioncontinues to be thecornerstone of Fiji'snational effort.

A major issue is therestructuring of theNDMO within theMinistry of RegionalDevelopment and Multi-Ethnic Affairs.

Construction of disasterresistant infrastructure:mitigation measures andstrategies are consideredat national level (Ministryof Regional Developmentand Multi-ethnic Affairs),and local levels (Districtand DivisionalDevelopmentCommittees). This riskmanagement approachadopted throughout thecountry.

PICCAP: GreenhouseGas Inventories andVulnerability andAdaptation Assessments.Climate change isintegrated into disasterreduction agenda.

Vanuatu National Disaster ManagementAct No. 31 of 2000.

The National DisasterManagement Act providesmore power for NDMO toundertake its nationalresponsibilities and for the sixprovincial councils to becomemore proactive in disastermanagement.

NDMO coordinates disastermanagement. It is aninformation resource for thecountry at all levels ofgovernment (national,provincial, municipal councils,village councils), NGOs, theprivate sector andcommunities.

Provincial governments musthave disaster mitigation as apolicy as per the NationalManagement Act.

Professional developmentprogramme.

Community resilienceprogrammes (CHARM)

Community-based volcanic riskreduction.

Involvement of the private sector(Telecom Vanuatu, Unelco -power and water facilities).

Building cyclone preparedness.

Flood mitigation projects.

NDMO have initiated a veryactive program on publiceducation through the TeachersCollege in Port Vila and severalhigh schools.

National DisasterManagement Plan.

Disaster ManagementWork Plan.

National BuildingCode (not yetenacted).

Support plan forAmbae VolcanoOperations.

In conjunction with theSOPAC-DMU CHARMProgramme, Vanuatu isdeveloping a newstructure for its NDMOoffice.

In 2002 the NDMO officewill be relocated from theDepartment of Policeand linked with the lineministries of theGovernment.

Further important areasof public policy are nowin progress, including thereview and revision ofthe National DisasterEmergency Plan,development of supportplans, institutionalsupport for the NDMOand training andeducation programmes.


110

National planning processes withmultisectoral responsibilities

Authority and external resources normallyflow from the apex of political power, whileknowledge of the situation, information, localresources, and leadership all rise from thelocal community. Disaster planning willalways be ineffective if confined strictly to aprocess of central planning and commandand control practices. However, it mustequally be recognized that various nationalapproaches have to be tailored to thestructures and practices prevailing withindifferent countries’ needs and conditions.

In order to achieve effective local disaster plansit is essential that provincial, district and locallevel officials be given power and resources tomanage disaster protection activities. However,such systems require national disaster riskreduction plans that are fully compatible withlocal level provisions. In many countries wherepower has been devolved to local levels ofadministrative responsibility, there can beunhelpful discrepancies between policies andpractices at various levels of government.

Tools are required to create a culture ofprevention against all forms of hazardswithin local communities. This requires theknowledge of practical and low-costmethods which address hazards that can beconveyed to participants including localleaders, community groups, merchants,commercial and financial interests and localgovernment employees.

Europe

Case: Switzerland

In Switzerland, a long-standing federal forestlaw recognized the importance of forestswith respect to reducing water runoff.Forests also were recognized as a means ofprotection against avalanches as early as the19th century, when extreme events revealedthe catastrophic effects of large-scale timbercutting, especially in the pre-alpine andalpine regions.

The unhindered felling of trees came toan abrupt end. Simultaneously, manymajor river training works werecommenced, completed or renewed as anemphasis was then placed on protectivemeasures of river engineering.

Natural hazards continued to play animportant role in modifying Swisspolicies in the 20th century. The risksituation was aggravated further bydevelopment in hazardous areas. Thesocial and economic consequences ofavalanches, floods and windstormsexerted an impact on policyconsiderations, but Switzerland has alsorecognized that absolute safety cannot beachieved by any means.

Great strides have been made in the pastyears as the country has proceeded fromthe earlier conventional protection fromhazards to develop more integrated riskmanagement. This approach is based ona balanced equilibrium of disasterprevention, response and reconstructionmeasures. Residual risk which is basedon social, economic and ecologicalcriteria must therefore be deemed to beaccepted.

In order to establish coherent proceduresthat take account of the country’scultural, geographical and linguisticdiversity, Switzerland gives considerableimportance to the “subsidiary principle”.This principle is constituted as one onthe inviolable rights of the lowerhierarchies of official authority andpublic responsibility.

It establishes that the upper hierarchicallevels only exert a degree of politicalpower and only take over thoseadministrative duties that the lowerlevels of responsibility are not able tocope with, or accept, themselves. Hazardand risk management in Switzerlandfollows this subsidiary principle also inthe political sphere, as there is adistribution of responsibility betweenfederal, cantonal (state) and communalauthorities. This equally extends to

In Canada, provincialand municipal

jurisdictions havelegislation, programmesand activities that maynot necessarily interface

with national leveldisaster reduction issues.

However, theimplementation of disaster

reduction measures islikely to occur at the

municipal level, includinglegislation and

enforcement.

Canada response toISDR questionnaire,

2001.

In Germany, the mostimportant risk reduction

issue to be addressedconcerns the

harmonization of duties,responsibilities and

legislation between thestate government and thedifferent local bodies. The

key national issues are:

stronger commitment ofthe federal government to

the coordination of civilprotection activities;

stronger integration ofdisaster mitigation inregional planning by

legislation; and

stronger support forinterdisciplinary scientific

research centres fordisaster prevention.

Germany response toISDR questionnaire,

2001.


111

individual land and property owners as well as toother various public institutions andorganizations.

While the three cornerstones of prevention,response and reconstruction have comparableimportance in Swiss disaster managementstrategies, they relate in a somewhat reversesubsidiary relationship to each other. Greatemphasis is placed on prevention. Response mustbe efficient and smooth in the face of catastrophicevents. Reconstruction has to take placesubsequently, and to a degree which is necessary,feasible and compatible with far-reachingconsiderations about the environment. Theultimate aim of the Swiss strategy has been toachieve sustainable development in all aspects ofnatural disaster reduction.

Beyond its own borders, Switzerland maintainsand promotes the exchange of experience withother countries in regard to disaster reduction. Itsupports international collaboration in sustainabledevelopment and the provision of humanitarianassistance when required.

Guided by these principles, the National Platformfor Natural Hazards (PLANAT) was created bythe Swiss Federal Council in 1997. This extra-parliamentary commission is made up ofrepresentatives of the federal government, thecantons, research and professional associations andthe economic and insurance sectors. The terms ofreference for the first period of its activities from1997-2000 were to:

• develop a national strategy for dealingsuccessfully with natural hazards;

• coordinate all parties involved in disasterreduction; and

• create more awareness about natural hazardsand replace the conventional approach toprotection with an enlarged understanding ofrisk management.

Plans for the second period of activities from2001- 2003 gave priority to:

• promotion of public relations;• initiation and support for projects which further

integrated risk management;• support for third party projects that share

similar aims; and

• better utilization of synergies among varioussectors.

Building awareness about risk reduction throughinformation exchange and education isincreasingly considered important by virtually allplayers in Swiss risk management. Aninteresting development in this field is thevirtual campus initiated by several Swissuniversities and research institutes, called theCentre of Competence on Natural DisasterReduction. Students, researchers and otherpractitioners working with natural hazards canaccess courses and risk-related information ontheir website (also see chapter 4.4).<http://www.cenat.ch>

Moves are also underway to upgrade the SwissNational Alarm Centre, recognizing thatcommunications are important for the routineexchange of information in times of calm as well asduring times of crisis.

It is recognized that more finances need to beallocated to build greater awareness for disasterrisk reduction among the public and policymakers. It is a bitter fact that individuals andpoliticians have a short memory, which explainswhy things normally only start to move in thewake of a disaster such as occurred during thesevere winter storms at the end of 1999. As financial resources are always limited, theymust be allocated in the most productive manner.Several changes are underway to ensure their mosteffective use. These include:

• giving preference to non-structural preventivemeasures, such as the maintenance ofwatercourses rather than river-engineering;

• shifting resources from reconstruction topreventive measures;

• reallocating resources to increase inter-cantonalcollaboration and to avoid duplication; and

• improving the coordinated use of governmentsubsidies and similar incentives for localauthorities and communities.

In other cases of national frameworks and policycommitments, impetus may come from differentsources. Risk reduction plans may be linked tospecific events or designated responsibilities,policies and practices as the following examplesdrawn from elsewhere in Europe illustrate.


112

Case: Russian Federation

Russia has a comparatively long history ofdisaster reduction and emergency responsewith a set of institutional initiativesintroduced during the past decade.During 1992-1993 the national UnifiedState System of Early Warning andDisaster Mitigation, subsequently, theRussian System on Disaster Management(RSDM) was established.

In 1994 the status of the State Committeeon Emergencies and Natural Disasterswas elevated and became a federalministry, the Ministry of the RussianFederation for Civil Defence,Emergencies and Elimination ofConsequences of Natural Disasters(EMERCOM). The institutionalcoordination of government efforts indisaster reduction was provided throughan interagency commission for disasterreduction organized in 1995.

Since its creation, EMERCOM hasdemonstrated its expanding activities inthe field, simultaneously recognized as astate authority in the Russian Federationthat has been able to acquire public respectwhile gaining prestige among othergovernment institutions. It has worked todevelop and install a national institutionalframework for natural disaster reductionin Russia. It encompasses major elementsof legislation, administrative structures atthe national level, coordination andimplementation mechanisms, and nationalprogrammes aimed at emergencyprevention and mitigation.

As Russia proceeded into a new period ofeconomic and political developmentmarked by an extended transition to amarket economy and democracy, thecountry has redefined its approaches toenvironmental security. It has designed newschemes for responding to environmentalchange and insecurity. In the latter half ofthe 1990s, Russia adopted a broaderconcept of national security that shiftedfrom a more traditional security perspectivefocused mainly on military defence, to a

more integrated concept reflecting a greateremphasis on human security.

The revised concept included a wider andmore dynamic approach to consideringnational risks, such as those emanatingfrom economic instability, organizedcrime, nuclear contamination, infectiousdiseases, or food and water insecurity. Themitigation of natural hazards orprevention of potential disasters became anintegral part of Russia’s national policiesfor enhancing environmental and humansecurity. These issues were unambiguouslyplaced at the forefront of national agendasafter the consequences of the Chernobyldisaster were fully recognized.

New and additional commitments weremade to increase the capacity-buildingprocess for performance of nationalpolicies for natural disaster reduction.This resulted in constructing a diversifiedinstitutional framework, includinglegislation, administrative structures,national programmes, responsecapabilities, and specific practices in themitigation of hazards.

Current national disaster reductionpolicies emphasize three relateddimensions: monitoring, forecasting andrisk assessment of natural hazards;measures to prevent associated risk ofnatural hazards; and disaster riskmanagement practices that can mitigatethem or alleviate eventual damages thatmay be associated with them.

Major commitments of national policyinclude the compilation of an inventoryand related databanks on territorialvulnerability to individual natural risks, aswell as monitoring and forecasting theirpotential occurrence. This requirescoordination and close cooperation amongexisting national hydrometeorological,seismological, agricultural, environmentaland space monitoring networks. Majorproblems remain to be tackled to fullysynthesize a variety of earlier monitoringnetworks and to improve the quality,quantity and regularity of data

In Portugal we should beprepared for disaster and

thus develop adequatepolicies, including:

defining safety policies;

informing and educatingthe public concerning risksand the development of a

civil protection culture;

improving risk mapping;

promoting the study ofseismic impact and otherrisks facing communities

and their social economicpatterns;

improving the scope ofemergency planning;

defining a national land-use policy;

developing a strategy tostrengthen building

structures;

providing the financialresources to facilitate

compliance with existingcodes; and

protecting cultural assets.

Portugal response toISDR questionnaire,

2001.

• realization of state policy and undertakingmeasures to protect the population andterritories from emergencies;

• provision of regulation, licensing, control andverification in emergencies prevention andmitigation;

• government management and coordination ofactivities of federal executive authorities indisaster reduction; and

• collection and processing of information fordisaster reduction.

A Commission on Emergencies of the RussianAcademy of Sciences elaborates strategies anddetails specific measures for the assessment ofrisks and disaster reduction. There is also a specialworking group on emergencies under theauthority of the national president. EMERCOM


113

measurement. Although crucial, monitoring andthe related aspects of forecasting have remainedweak elements in the national strategy.

National prevention and mitigation policiesenvisage that physical adaptation measures beundertaken in the areas vulnerable to particularrisks, such as the use of hydro-engineeringprotective measures and by reinforcing seismicstability of buildings. Similarly, the expandedapplication of zoning measures, improved earlywarning practices, increased public awareness andmore direct public participation in risk reductionare important policy or procedural actions beingpursued.

Shifts in national disaster reduction policies havetaken place as lessons have been learned from theeffectiveness of recent experience with naturaldisaster mitigation. There is a strong requirementto move from the historical priority of emergencyresponse towards potential risk identification,assessment and the reduction of risks bymanagement and operational practices that canalleviate the severity of potential disaster impacts.There is a growing understanding that it is moreeconomical to prepare properly for the inevitablehazards so as to prevent disasters.

The focal point to accomplish this strategy fordisaster reduction in the Russian Federation isEMERCOM. It is a federal body of the executivegovernmental authority responsible for theimplementation of official policy in disasterprevention and mitigation. It is also responsiblefor the operational management and coordinationof government actions in case of emergency.

As technological hazards also constitute a threat tohuman security in addition to natural hazards,EMERCOM combines responsibilities for theprevention and mitigation of both natural andtechnological risks, commonly referred togenerically as emergencies.

EMERCOM combines a broad range ofcompetences that pertain to national policyformulation. It manages the operational aspects ofemergency response, undertakes disaster reductionmeasures, forecasts and monitors natural andtechnological risks. Its major goals are thefollowing:

Box 3.6Ministry of the Russian Federation for CivilDefence, Emergencies and Elimination ofConsequences of Natural Disasters

The main functions of the Ministry of the RussianFederation for Civil Defence, Emergencies andElimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters(EMERCOM) include:

• elaboration of proposals and initiatives for nationaldisaster reduction policy and legislation;

• maintenance of the Russian System on DisasterManagement (RSDM);

• coordination of activities of governmental authoritiesat all levels in disaster reduction, including control andsupervision of their efforts in emergency response;

• coordination of activities for emergencies forecasting,event modelling, and regional risk assessment;

• public education and training, training of governmentofficers in disaster prevention and response,organization of public information and warning,control over establishment of warning systems;

• research on disaster reduction, development ofseismic monitoring and forecasting;

• operational management and coordination ofemergency rescue operations and application ofdisaster response methods in large-scale disastersand catastrophes;

• management of rescue forces, of civil defence andtheir training;

• coordination of rehabilitation of locations affected bydisasters, enhancing social support and publicsecurity for the affected population, and provision ofhumanitarian support;

• management of reserve funds, including governmentreserves for emergency responses; and

• international cooperation in disaster reduction andhumanitarian assistance.

Source: <http://www.emercom.gov.ru>.


114

coordinates horizontal and vertical relationshipswithin the Russian government in disaster and riskmanagement. A sophisticated communications andreporting structure is maintained among the variousoperational bodies.

Working across sectors, EMERCOM supervisesactivities of the various line ministries and agenciesby working through a coordination body, theInteragency Commission on EmergenciesPrevention and Mitigation. This includesrepresentation from various government agencies,including the hydrometeorological service, Ministryof Natural Resources, Ministry of Fuel and Energy,Ministry of Nuclear Energy, Ministry ofAgriculture, Ministry of Health, and the statetechnical inspection service.

This commission exercises major responsibilities toensure the operational capabilities of the RSDM. Ithas sectoral and regional branches in all Russianregions. It combines a management structure withemergency task forces and the resources of bothfederal and territorial executive bodies designated tobe responsible for emergencies and disasterreduction.

EMERCOM’s vertical structure incorporates sixregional centres (central, north-west, northernCaucuses, Volga-Ural, Siberian, and Far-East) withthe territorial disaster management bodies in 89subordinate jurisdictions. According to nationallegislation, it is the responsibility of territorialauthorities to elaborate their respective regional lawsto comply with national policies in maintaining taskforces for emergencies mitigation and enhancinghuman security and performing rescue operations.They are also required to provide necessaryresources and an accompanying permanentmanagement structure to address disaster and riskmanagement within their respective territories.

National legislation of the Russian Federation indisaster reduction consists of the basic federal lawon the protection of population and territories fromnatural and technological emergencies, adopted in1994. This is elaborated further by a set ofcorresponding federal legislation consisting ofdirectives and regulations, as well as laws and actsof subordinate jurisdictions.

The basic federal law provides the legalfoundation for disaster prevention andmitigation efforts. It defines the main notion ofemergency situations and a set of expectedresponse measures that incorporate principlesof protection for the population and territorialassets. It stipulates the expected competenciesof state authorities and governmental bodies intaking actions to avoid or limit adverse effectsof natural hazards and to enhance humansecurity. It further provides detailed division ofresponsibilities between federal, regional andmunicipal authorities. It regulates activities ofthe public and official rescue forces inemergency activities, and provides additionaldirection for public preparedness.

Disaster reduction legislation has been expandedconsiderably at both national and regional levelsin Russia during recent years. In 2001, federalauthorities introduced four federal laws, 24governmental legal acts, and 55 directives forfederal ministries that directly or indirectly relateto disaster reduction. These have beensupplemented by the adoption of additionalmeasures, including 23 legal acts and 1,024normative regulations and directives.

Most of the regions throughout Russia haveadopted territorial legislation that consiststypically of general legal frameworks onpreparedness, disaster mitigation andprevention. Additional acts have also beenpromulgated in specific sectors of disastermanagement and to promote various elementsof human safety.

Special federal and regional programmes forpublic protection and disaster reduction areamong the main instruments of governmentalpolicies. The federal programme for natural andtechnological risks reduction and alleviatingtheir impacts is in place until 2005. It isconducted jointly by EMERCOM; theministries of industry, science and technologies,natural resources and nuclear energy; theRussian Academy of Sciences; and other bodies.In 2002, about 22 coordinating organizationsand 73 participating institutions took part in itsimplementation.

The main goals of this programme include:

• elaborating measures to counteract natural andtechnological emergencies;

• creating methodological basis for disaster riskmanagement;

• developing norms and directives for enhancinggovernmental control and institutionalresponsibilities in disaster reduction;

• improving systems for emergency riskidentification, prediction and monitoring;

• developing information management,communication and early warning systems;

• designing measures to enhance human securityand risk alleviation; and

• improving public education and specialisttraining for hazard and risk mitigation.

The programme has elaborated governmentconcepts that are conducive to implementstrategies for disaster risk reduction. This hasinvolved efforts to compile regional inventoriesand databases on technical and financial resourcesnecessary for mitigation, the introduction of newinformation and communication techniques, anddeveloping improved methods for the forecastingand monitoring of hazards. Additional technicalactivities have addressed technology foratmospheric monitoring, means for breaking iceobstructions, and advanced technologies that canmeasure the seismic stability and resistance ofbuildings and infrastructure.

A recent assessment conducted by the governmentnoted activities devoted to emergency services and

the practical measures employed to identifyemergency risks to the national system were quiteeffective. However, it also underlined that therewere still some shortcomings in terms of developingbroader institutional frameworks in natural disasterrisk management (M. Kasianov, speech at themeeting of the high-level officials of EMERCOM,20 November 2002).

One particular area noted for further attention wasthe persistent underestimation of the need forpreventive measures, and a corresponding level ofmore limited attention to preparedness, monitoringand emergency warning among local populations.Further clarification and division of responsibilitiesbetween federal and local authorities wasrecommended. The situation was aggravated due tothe violation of standards, and construction permitsbeing issuing by local administrations andmunicipalities with insufficient regard given todisaster-prone zones, regardless of existing legislation.

As a result of such ongoing assessment of nationalpolicies, renewed emphasis is now being placed onimproving monitoring capabilities, and seeking toincrease the effectiveness of natural hazardforecasts. The overriding goal is to strengthen thecommunication of information, forecasts andpreparedness components within the context of alldisaster risk management activities. This shouldspur greater attention to structured programmes ofpublic awareness and more local participation.There is also a demonstrated need to develop moreopportunities for insurance and similar risk-sharingstrategies to be employed.


115

Table 3.4Legal acts and directives on disaster reduction adopted by regions of the Russian Federation in 2001

Main subjects of legal acts and directives Number oflaws, directives

General issue of preparedness and mitigation of natural and technological hazards 334Target science and technology programmes and strategies on disaster reduction 38Maintenance of administrative structures, emergency response and rescue task forces, and publicpreparedness

297

Development of evacuation schemes and rescue operations, and liquidation of hazards impacts 41Maintenance of information, communication and early warning systems 63Formation of financial and material resources and supplies, of special reserves (material, food, medical)

180

Government control, verification, and impact assessment 60Social support for affected population, humanitarian actions in the areas of emergencies 11Total 1024

Source: State report on protection of population and territories of the Russian Federation from natural andtechnological disasters in 2001, EMERCOM.


116

Further information on the nature of problemsencountered, as well as measures being taken inthe Russian Federation to update nationalcapabilities in disaster risk management can bereviewed on the EMERCOM web site.<http://www.emercom.gov.ru>

Case: Greece

Like several other European countries, Greece hasmanaged emergency and preparedness plansunder the framework of civil protectionresponsibilities. A new law on civil protection wasadopted in 2002, however, to take account of theexperiences following recent disasters in thecountry. This law increases the responsibilities oflocal authorities and municipalities in disastermanagement, promotes the wider integration anduse of scientific and technical knowledge, andplaces greater emphasis on the role of publicparticipation in civil protection activities.

Specific national prevention measures have alsobeen adopted, directed primarily towards reducingearthquake risks. Seismic codes that have been inplace and periodically updated have become themain tools of earthquake prevention and aremandatory for all new construction. However,despite national efforts for land-use and urbanplanning that have been expressed for disasterprotection and specifically earthquake safety since1983, the pressure of rapid urbanization hascontributed to a lower degree of implementationthan expected in some areas.

Against such a background, the lessons learnedfrom the 1999 earthquake which struck Athensand the nearby Attica region of Greece havereceived considerable public and therefore politicalattention. They have been drafted within theframework of the Natural and EnvironmentalDisaster Information Exchange Systems(NEDIES) project of the European Union JointResearch Centre, and can be reviewed in full onthe Internet. <http://nedies.jrc.it>

Political leaders took notice of this particular eventbecause it was the most expensive earthquake inmodern Greece, with losses estimated at 3 per centof the country’s GDP. While many buildingsperformed relatively well in the earthquake, otherimportant lessons were drawn for the future.

Seismic risk assessment would have to becomemore widely used in order to obtain a betterunderstanding of the possible effects of futureearthquakes and to support a viable decision-making system for earthquake protection.

While this applied particularly to the economicallyimportant area of Attica, more effort needs to beexpanded for land-use and urban planning withrespect to seismic safety. This necessarily wouldhave to include geological and geotechnical analysisas well as micro-zoning studies, which are well-established in the technical disciplines concerned.

A project on establishing criteria and proceduresfor vulnerability assessment of public buildingsand bridges was in progress when the earthquakeoccurred. It continues, focusing on existingbuildings of critical or public use. A database willbe created regarding the characteristics of morethan 200,000 buildings as the earthquakeconfirmed that future consideration must be givento retrofitting existing buildings.

The earthquake also confirmed that seismic safetyhas much to do with the overall design ofbuildings. Thus, requirements in respect toseismic safety should be included in the generalbuilding code and related codes for the design ofnon-structural elements.

The earthquake opened a window of opportunityfor upgrading the built environment and topromote other measures for seismic safety, butthere was also strong pressure for quickreconstruction and a rapid return to pre-earthquake conditions. Municipalities with pre-existing plans and projects are better equipped totake advantage of such opportunities. Specialmeasures for land-use planning and the protectionof industries and businesses have beenimplemented after the earthquakes, including geo-technical studies of the Attica Basin, urbanplanning, and a proposed relocation scheme.

Earthquake education also pays dividends. Manytraining and public awareness initiatives were setup after the earthquake. Training seminars wereconducted for teachers and public volunteers.Training materials such as CD-ROMs and booksabout earthquake protection were distributed, andweb sites created, in local communities and amongthe youth of the area.


117

In many cases children reacted better than theirparents during the aftershocks, thanks to thetraining they had received at school. Therefore,more public education is required involving allmembers of the community.

Informing the media is especially important,with further encouragement needed for closerwork between the media and the scientificcommunity on an ongoing basis, before anydisaster occurs.

Risk reduction plans linked to specificresponsibilities, policies and practices

Case: Iran

Iran is highly exposed to seismic hazardsthroughout the country. It became evident that along-term vision was required to reduce the levelof risk for the population. The development of anational policy of disaster risk reduction waspromoted largely by scientific groups andtechnical interests.

Their example demonstrates that the evolution ofrisk reduction frameworks need not originate onlyfrom civil administration or political initiatives.Scientific interest groups exerted a major role indriving policy relevance and were able toimplement actions in different segments of thesociety.

There were a number of problems to be tackledbefore a comprehensive and sustainable nationalframework to reduce seismic risk could be created.Following the 1990 Manjil earthquake, theInternational Institute of Earthquake Engineeringand Seismology (IIEES), located in Teheran,began work with other technical institutions todevelop a multidisciplinary strategic nationalresearch and mitigation plan for seismic riskreduction.

The resulting Iran Earthquake Risk MitigationProgram (IERMP) has been implemented byIIEES, the Building and Housing ResearchCentre, the Geophysics Institute of TeheranUniversity and the Geological Survey of Iran.

With the added support of the EarthquakeCommittee of the Iran Research Council and

Iran’s national IDNDR committee, theprogramme members adopted the followingobjectives:

• increase the scientific knowledge required forearthquake risk mitigation;

• reduce the risk of all structures by promotingthe need to build safer structures;

• increase public awareness and promote acollective prevention culture; and

• develop plans for post-earthquake activities.

Politically, the first need was to promote a betterunderstanding of seismic risk among senior policymakers and to translate that awareness intopolitical commitment at all levels of government.This was pursued by emphasizing that elements ofa risk reduction strategy were integral to nationaldevelopment objectives. Resources had to bereoriented from a predominant use in respondingto immediate needs towards their investment inlong-term objectives. Importantly, policy makershad to be encouraged to accept a policy ofdeferred benefits.

In an operational and technical context, emphasiswas given to strengthening, and where necessary,retrofitting structures with particular attentiongiven to lifeline facilities and the physicalinfrastructure. This became particularly crucial inhighlighting a challenging incompatibility thatexisted between a developmental perspective thatencouraged investment in seismic design, incontrast to the more prevalent thinking in theprivate and public sectors of incurring lessexpenditure on construction.

With the involvement of the engineeringprofession, backed up by its code of professionaltraining, opportunities were identified to usetechnical knowledge in everyday life. Thisincluded a wider use of seismic design andconstruction techniques and a more seriousapproach to the implementation and enforcementof building codes. Perhaps most importantly, theengineering profession became an institutionalchampion to promote risk reduction.

IERMP developed a plan for governmentofficials, scientists, engineers, builders and thepublic to define acceptable and achievable levels ofrisk by working together. This led to two parallelrequirements, making seismic safety a priority


118

policy through revised legislation, and creatinginternal mechanisms to change existingengineering practices.

A High Council on Risk Reduction was createdin the Ministry of Planning and Management tosupervise the implementation of the newprogramme. It concentrated on preparing theproper frameworks, budgeting, coordinating, andtaking necessary decisions to ensure that theobjectives were achieved.

The following are some of the actions pursuedthrough the IERMP in policy areas:

• Shifting attention from responding toearthquake damage to introducing means thatreduce the risk of damage to vulnerablestructures and lifelines before earthquakesoccur.

• Establishing a special government fund tostrengthen important public buildings,including schools and hospitals, publicinfrastructure and lifeline facilities.

• Providing financial incentives for private andcommercial sectors interested in upgrading theirexisting structures.

• Encouraging more industrialization in theconstruction field so as to ensure better qualitycontrol.

The following are some of the actions pursuedthrough the IERMP in technical matters:

• Translating scientific knowledge into a usableformat, using practical knowledge to promoterisk reduction.

• Developing guidelines for conductingvulnerability assessments.

• Establishing detailed technical databases todocument the necessary requirements tostrengthen public buildings, setting priorities todo so, based on available resources.

• Determining the most appropriate and cost-effective means of strengthening different typesof masonry, concrete and steel buildings.

• Promoting the use and enforcement of codes,quality control and inspection for all types ofconstruction.

The following are some of the actions pursuedthrough the IERMP to increase publicunderstanding:

• Increasing public awareness and motivationusing an earthquake information system.

• Motivating the participation of the public inprevention and mitigation activities.

• Promoting the use of do-it-yourself constructiontechniques suited for simple dwellings in ruralareas.

Table 3.5Iran Earthquake Risk Mitigation Program

Type of resource Before (1980-1989) After (1990-2000)

Seismic researchers Less than 40 More than 265Seismic graduate students Less than 20355 Seismic stations1545Strong motion stations 270 Approx. 1000Research laboratories 2 7Books and technical reports Less than 100 More than 460Budget Over 10 years, less than 700 million

Rials (US$ 402,000)

In 1989 alone, about 104 millionRials (US$ 59,727)

Over 10 years, more than 128,000million Rials (US$ 73.5 million)

In 2000 alone, more than 37,000million Rials (US$ 23.3 million)

Investment for laboratories US$ 3.1 million US$ 11.5 million

The following table summarizes the increase in resources allocated to seismic risk reduction during thecourse of the Iran Earthquake Risk Mitigation Program.


119

Case: Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan often experiences earthquakes,floods, landslides and coastal floods. Onlyrecently has the importance of natural disasterreduction been recognized officially. In May2000, Kazakhstan’s Emergency SituationAgency published the Plan of Preparedness ofKazakhstan for Natural Disasters with thecooperation of the Kazakhstan Red Cross andUNDP.

The plan cites the considerable financial lossesincurred by the country because of disasters andurges all organizations to take proper action toreduce their negative impact on the country’sdevelopment. The report provides guidance onpreparedness activities for disaster reduction,response scenarios for disasters, legislation, andimplementation of measures to reduce risk.

The last earthquake to devastate Kazakhstan tookplace in 1911, less than 30 kilometres south ofAlmaty. The memory of this event has fadedfrom the country’s collective consciousness.Recognizing that the Armenian earthquake of1988 occurred along seismic faults that hadshown little movement for over 3,000 years, theEmergency Situation Agency has worked toincrease public awareness about earthquake risks.

This activity is deemed to be crucial as mostapartment blocks in Kazakhstan are similar tothose that collapsed in the Armenian earthquakeand in the Sakhalin earthquake of 1995. Eventhough the government’s Institute of Seismologyhas been working since 1976 to monitor seismicmovement, the institute also undertakes riskassessments, evacuation scenarios, and theanalysis of ground conditions as part of itsresearch activities.

The country also faces other risks. Due to therising water levels of the Caspian Sea over thepast 20 years, the Kazakh shoreline has grownby 20-40 kilometres and water has encroachedabout 70 kilometres inland. The national WaterResource Committee has reported that total costsfor preventing losses from these increasing waterlevels will exceed US$ 3-5 billion.

The northern slope of the Tengshan range nearAlmaty is exposed to floods, mud and debris

flows, avalanches and landslides. In particular,landslides threaten areas where more than 150,000people live. In May 2002, southern parts ofKazakhstan were affected by storms and heavyrainfall that caused serious flooding in cities.

Although disaster awareness issues are beingraised in scientific and official circles, there is stilla lack of general public awareness. TheEmergency Situation Agency has prepared manybrochures, pamphlets and videos to expandawareness of these hazards, and the public seemsto be responsive.

A newspaper advertisement for a new apartmentbuilding referred to the structure as being seismic-resistant, a comment that evoked noticeableinterest. On the other hand, people have not yetunderstood that investment in disaster reduction isa sound long-term investment.

Case: Romania

With its geographical diversity, Romania has manynatural hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides,floods and weather extremes, especially in theCarpathian Mountains. The floods of 2002seriously affected more than half of the country’sterritory. Technological hazards also are frequent,as demonstrated by the cyanide pollution of therivers Somes, Tisa and Danube in January 2000,or the pollution two months later in the Vaser andTisa rivers.

Each of these incidents has underlined the factthat an entire range of social and human factorsinfluence the occurrence, nature and severity ofnatural hazards. Because of this, more attention isbeing given to assessing unacceptable stressexerted on the environment through deforestation,improper land use and the unsuitable location ofindustrial activities.

The focal point for disaster management inRomania is the Civil Protection Command withinthe Ministry of Interior. Several plans relevant todisaster reduction exist within civil protectionarrangements. These include the operational plansand regulations for defence in the event of floods,severe weather and accidents of a hydrotechnicalnature in the context of hydrographical basins,hydrotechnical works or within local communities.


120

While two dated laws and several governmentaldecisions define the Romania national policy forrisk reduction and seismic resistance, currentactions are framed by a government ordinance thatprovides measures for the mitigation of the seismicrisk on existing buildings. There is also a planningframework to reduce, or where possible to preventseismic effects and landslides.

A government committee for disaster defence isled by the prime minister, and an operationalcentre for the notification, warning andintervention is part of the Civil ProtectionCommand structure. Notification and warningprocedures are established by the disaster defenceregulations and are implemented by the centraland local public administration. In addition, ninecentral committees strive to apply the variouspolicies for different types of hazards, and relatedtechnical secretariats also form part of the system.

In recognizing the threat posed by technologicalhazards on the environment, the RomanianNational Committee for Global EnvironmentalChange and the Ministry of Waters andEnvironmental Protection conducted a workshopon the subject in 2002. Particular attention wasgiven to the long-term impacts of mining in theSomes and Tisa river basins, with the intention todevelop environmental protection andmanagement strategies. The meeting discussedrisk factors associated with floods and drought butalso considered the rehabilitation of waterwayswith a view to striking a balance betweensustainable economic development andenvironment protection.

Case: Algeria

In November 2001, unusually heavy rain fell inthe Algerian capital, Algiers. Flash floods andmudslides swept through many parts of the city,killing more than 800 people. At the time it wassuggested that disaster management structuresand the population were woefully unprepared forsuch an event.

It turned out that some common public practicesand unsuited official policies with regard tohuman settlements may have contributed to theseverity of the disaster. Due to the scope of thedisaster and its location in the centre of the capital,

all levels of government were seriously shaken.Senior officials experienced, first hand, the lack ofcoordination of the various parties concerned withemergency response, as well as having to accepttheir own failure of foresight.

Since this disaster, there has been a new way ofthinking about disaster management in Algeria,particularly in urban areas. This has beendemonstrated through several initiatives thatstarted only months after the disaster. For the firsttime ever, the head of state ordered all theministries to consider risk factors in their workand to include disaster risk reduction measures intheir programmes.

The prime minister also discussed the matterduring the council of the government, and calledfor a permanent coordinating structure of all theactors involved in disaster management. TheMinistry of Interior is developing a permanentstructure which will coordinate all phases ofdisaster management including risk reductionmeasures, response and rehabilitation.

The General Directorate of Civil Protection isshifting its attention towards prevention activities.Senior party officials are soliciting expert advicefrom scientific and technical advisors in preparingtheir programmes.

Since the floods, international organizations havejoined forces to help in risk reduction projects.The mayor of Paris paid a visit to the affectedareas and signed a memorandum of cooperationbetween the Wilaya (province) of Algiers andthe Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme for aprogramme to promote better urban planning inAlgiers. Early in 2002, another Frenchorganization, Architecture-Urgence, signed aconvention for cooperation with the Wilaya ofAlgiers to work together on urban planning toreduce disasters.

The UN office in Algiers is also working ondisaster reduction and engaged an Italianspecialist to discuss the matter with Algerianauthorities. UN-HABITAT proposed acooperation project in disaster reduction with theAlgerian government. A World Bank delegationhas also visited Algeria to discuss a long-termproject in disaster risk management.


121

An expert in urban planning from USAID visitedAlgiers less than a month after the disaster todiscuss eventual cooperation in disaster reductionin urban areas with many Algerian institutions.USAID expressed an interest in preparing aproject proposal for that purpose.

Within the first six months after the disaster,several seminars or conferences related to disasterreduction were either held or being planned. AnAlgerian-French colloquium on sustainabledevelopment and disaster reduction took place inAlgiers only weeks after the disaster. Similarcolloquiums were planned for other regions of thecountry. All of these actions demonstrate thatAlgerian authorities at all levels have become moreaware about the risks they face.

Some important limitations in institutional and policy frameworks

Administrative arrangements and legislation onlyprovide a basic framework for disaster riskreduction. Despite the implementation of policies,acts and regulations by official departments, theydo not alone reduce the vulnerabilities of peopleexposed to the risk of natural hazards.

Challenges remain to provide a widerunderstanding of the risks, and the coordination ofmultidisciplinary efforts needed to manage them atnational, provincial, district or even municipal andvillage levels. Crucially, members of the publicalso have to become involved themselves, in theirown interest.

In terms of policies, many countries assuredlyadvise that they have prepared various emergencycontingency plans, while some do not have anynational disaster risk management strategy at all.In others, disaster management is still conductedon an ad hoc basis, sometimes even overridingexisting contingency procedures at the time ofcrisis “because of the seriousness of the situation”,too often voiced from political corners.

In some countries, disaster and risk managementinformation has been classified or restricted as amatter of public security. Even when informationmay be accessible generally, it still may not passeasily from one group of people to another. Thereare few standard criteria by which to document the

consequences of disasters, and even fewer meansto record or monitor progress towards reducingrisk factors.

Competitive interest or different priorities caneasily characterize the work of various ministries.Specialized and sometimes isolated departmentsmaintain a persistent emphasis on emergencyresponse capabilities.

Senior positions of authority in matters of riskreduction, in contrast to emergency assistance, arefrequently occupied by career administrators whomay or may not have any professional expertise inrisk management. Frequent inter-agency transfersof civil service officials further impedeopportunities for national organizations to developinstitutional memories, resulting in the loss ofvaluable experience.

In recent years, national building codes have beendrafted in some countries for the first time. Yet,there and in other countries with long-standingcodes, compliance and enforcement may remainproblematic. Thousands of buildings areconstructed annually in known seismic or flood-prone areas without incorporating any establishedappropriate resistance techniques. Populationpressures or economic necessities, too easilytransformed into contentious local political issues,can impede the consistent application of flood orlandslide protection zoning.

Incidence of corruption or the lack of enforcementof existing policies and regulations are moreevident than officially acknowledged, even thoughsuch administrative laxity has an importantbearing on the effectiveness of any risk reductionprogramme. It is only when legislation can placelegal responsibility on specific officials whosedecisions or lack of effective action perpetuatecontinuing conditions of vulnerability that riskreduction will be measured meaningfully.

A lack of uniformity in policy approachesregarding the various aspects of disaster and riskmanagement among adjacent countries also posesadditional hindrance for improving regional orsub-regional cooperation. This represents a seriousand growing impediment as many natural hazardsaffect more than one country, or involve the skillsand technical abilities of many professions whichnot all countries may possess. This underlines the


122

challenges posed when decisions taken in onelocation can easily impact the scale ofconsequences in neighbouring countries.

In many countries, more informed and consideredefforts are required to bring various professionalspecialists and civil authorities together, other thanthrough occasional international meetings, if acoherent disaster risk management strategy withlocal public relevance is to be realized in practice.

Means for overcoming limitations

A useful summary of disaster risk managementfunctions that can be structured within a nationalpolicy framework was presented in the Pacificregional report prepared for the ISDR Secretariat.It quotes the work of Te’o I.J. Fairbairn (UNDHA-SPO, 1997) as it illustrates the key issuesinvolved when trying to assimilate disasterreduction into accepted government policy. Theactions cited were originally drawn with specificreference to island state requirements, but as theyare presented with a conceptual clarity theyderived may prove useful for other states as well.

The following paragraphs are taken fromFairbairn’s material cited in the Pacific regionalreport. Supplemental listed information that hasbeen added by the editors of this publicationappears in square brackets.

There must be a commitment to implementationof particular measures of risk reduction measuresincorporated within the ongoing practices ofnational economic planning and development.

Certainly a major requirement, if not even theprimary one, is to promote a clearer understandingamong policy makers – and the general public –of the often severe and potentially far-reachingeconomic consequences of natural disasters. It iscrucial that policymakers in particularcomprehend how such events seriously canundermine longer-term growth prospects andthreaten the social dimensions of individuals’ well-being. Failure to appreciate these consequencescan exact eventual or irreparable political costs.

A second crucial prerequisite is to ensure thatdisaster management issues are integrated withinthe overall national development planningframework. Such an embodiment of riskawareness and evaluation can ensure that thoseissues are applied across sectoral, ministerial, andjurisdictional lines of interest or responsibility, aremultidisciplinary in nature, and are properlyincluded in the design of major developmentprojects. Taken together, the interaction ofmultiple commitments can also contribute to riskreduction becoming a non-partisan issue, with itsconstituencies transcending any short-termpolitical interests or the lifespan of individualgovernments.

Other major requirements for enhancing acountry’s commitment to disaster mitigationcapabilities include the following mechanisms:

• Strengthen the institutional and organizationalframeworks at both national and communitylevels for managing and coordinating disaster-related issues.

• [Strengthen national institutions by increasingtheir exposure to, and collaboration with,relevant regional and international entities].

• Adopt appropriate procedures for monitoringand evaluating disaster events, especially inrelation to analysing their social and economic[and environmental] consequences over time.

• [Adopt appropriate procedures for monitoringand evaluating the consequences ofdevelopmental choices on disaster impacts].

• Increase available information and facilitatedatabase access about the social and economic[and environmental] aspects of naturaldisasters, as a potentially valuable tool forplanning and management purposes.

• Promote greater uniformity in the methodologyand techniques used to assess both the directand longer-termed economic [andenvironmental] costs of disasters to countriesthroughout the region.

• Develop comprehensive and integrated land useand water management strategies capable ofalleviating flooding, promoting waterconservation and environmentally sound land-use practices.


123

• Diversify agriculture through such practices asplanting hardy crop varieties, early maturingcrops, and encouraging the continuedcultivation of various traditional root crops.

• Encourage the [identification and] use oftraditional mitigation and coping practices asmeans for achieving greater community self-reliance in dealing with disasters.

• Facilitate the post-disaster recovery of theprivate commercial sector through measuresthat provide tax and related financial incentives.

• Establish effective mechanisms for enlisting thejoint support of external donors to strengthennational disaster reduction capacities, inaddition to assisting with post-disaster relief andrehabilitation needs.


124

Chall

enge

s Future challenges and prioritiesNational institutional frameworks: policy, legislation and organizational development

Comprehensive approaches to building coherent institutional frameworks at national and other levelsof responsibility are essential if one is to speak of a sustained commitment to disaster risk reduction.This includes the need for collaboration among different sectors of society, and particularly theengagement of a wide circle of people with skills and attributes ranging from educational practices tomany forms of technical expertise.

While governments need to direct and support these efforts, the vitality and effectiveness of theorganizational frameworks and operational capabilities remain based on the understanding andmotivation of public interests.

Acceptance of the necessity of risk management, coupled with coordination and backed by resources,are the hallmarks of institutionalized capabilities. Following are some primary criteria to accomplishthese goals:

• Government authorities must understand the distinctiveness of disaster risk management and thevalue of investing in risk reduction to protect the well-being and the assets of society.

• It is essential that resources be allocated based on collective judgment. Understanding the relativecosts and benefits of anticipatory protection must be emphasized in contrast to sustaining muchgreater avoidable losses.

• The primary challenge is to begin by assessing national capacities at all levels of interest. While thiscan be done by using self-determined criteria, abundant expert guidance and specialist knowledge isavailable throughout the world.

• Communities need to assess variations in the intensity and the extent of hazards, evaluate localpriorities and determine the relative degrees of risk involved. This in turn will determine therequirements for sound institutional frameworks.

• Examples cited display the importance of transcending the theoretical expression of policyframeworks and legal instruments and realizing their effects, in practice.

• National authorities and local leaders need to embrace policies that

- are realistic for the case at hand;- are linked to regulatory mechanisms that are enforced or effect change;- have an obvious benefit understood by local communities;- have obvious political advantages for the politically influential;- have economic advantages for the private and commercial sectors; and- can be implemented with available resources.

The extent to which disaster risk reduction is identified as integral to fundamental politicalresponsibility can encourage greater sustained commitment in support of long-term nationaldevelopment objectives. It is essential that policy direction and operational capabilities be developed inmultiple areas of governance and civil society if a culture of prevention is to be cultivated and extendedto future generations.

Documents

Chapter 3 - Section 1drr.upeace.org/english/documents/References/Topic 1... · Chapter 3 Policy and commitment: the foundation of disaster risk reduction 3.1 National institutional