Asia

Disaster risk management is a concept that is interpreted differently in various Asian countries. This reflects either the predominant hazards threatening individual countries or stems from an historical outlook of what has commonly constituted disaster management responsibilities. For example, in India, the national authority for disaster management had been with the Ministry of Agriculture for many years, reflecting that country’s historical concerns with flood, drought and famine. Elsewhere other government institutions tended to concentrate on the emergency services associated with post-disaster rescue, relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation, as well as maintaining public law and order during times of crisis.

Broader concepts of risk management have begun to take hold more recently in some Asian countries at national levels. Thailand has revamped its disaster management system in 2002 and set up a new department of disaster management in the Ministry of Interior.

In addition to Viet Nam, discussed below, elsewhere in South-East Asia both Cambodia and Lao People’s Democratic Republic have established or reconfigured their national disaster management offices with support from the UNDP. Cambodia particularly has made considerable progress in structuring national policies increasingly focused on disaster risk awareness and management, with accompanying national training programmes led by the Cambodian Red Cross Society.

The Philippines is considering new legislation to widen the scope of its Office of Civil Defence and the National Disaster Coordinating Council. Following the establishment of its Disaster Management Bureau in the renamed Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief in 1992, the government of Bangladesh implemented a comprehensive disaster management programme in 2000-2002.

Increasingly, more Asian countries are also including some reference to disaster risk reduction in their national development plans. Over the last decade, UNDP has supported capacity-building projects for disaster risk management in more than ten Asian countries.

Case: Viet Nam

Viet Nam provides a particularly useful example of a sustained commitment to improving its attention to disaster risk reduction. Since 1993, it has pursued a methodical strategy of enlarging its consideration of hazard and risk factors in relationship to national development objectives. At the same time it has proceeded to expand its institutional capabilities.

Proceeding from the recognition that its geography will continue to expose the country to floods, storms, tropical cyclones, marine hazards and less frequent inland droughts, the country has done an admirable job of creating and continually expanding the capabilities of a national Disaster Management Unit (DMU).

While the DMU is entrusted with the responsibilities of emergency warning and management, the overall strategy is motivated by a foremost consideration of identifying, preparing for, and managing hazardous risks. It is no accident that these most common hazards are associated with water, as historically water both on land and off-shore, has been a critical resource for centuries of Vietnamese society.

The country has more recently made a sustained commitment in formulating a 20-year strategic plan for disaster risk management. Of particular note it has embarked on a strategy for inhabitants of the Mekong River delta to “live with the floods”. A series of measures has been employed that range from relocating particularly vulnerable communities to safer ground, to altering the cropping calendar.

An innovative programme that is possibly unique in the world introduced the concept of opening temporary “emergency kindergartens” where parents can leave their children under supervision at the time of emergency, when parents are otherwise preoccupied with securing personal possessions and other resources crucial for their livelihoods.

These efforts are showing positive results, encouraging the government and the people to continue working in this direction. They have been largely influenced by in-country expertise and analysis following each hazardous event with additional encouragement being provided by international support. These increasingly sophisticated activities have been supported over several years by international organizations including UNDP and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), bilateral assistance organizations including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and in the case of environmental measures, by NGOs such as the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Many ministries have been involved too, included those of agriculture and rural development, defence, police, fisheries, construction, transportation, health, as well as the national committee for search and rescue. Meetings are organized to exchange and integrate the benefits of their experiences and to plan for future flood and storm preparedness and mitigation practices.

Further measures are planned to develop the policy of Living with Floods to be implemented in association with the socio-economic development underway in the Mekong River delta. While local authorities will be constructing more residential areas, particularly attention is being given crucial to infrastructure of water supply, drainage and sanitation.

Flood-prone provinces are now required to plan for the more appropriate use of land and to take account of crop schedules better suited to the likelihood of floods. This approach is a good example of the beneficial effects of combining natural resource management activities with agricultural, forestry and fisheries initiatives to reduce flood damage at the same time as enhancing local production, sustainable livelihoods and development.

A further developmental benefit of this approach is that both local authorities and the general population have become more aware of how closely related flooding is to the socio-economic conditions that determine their well-being. The previously more vulnerable population is now beginning to change their earlier reliance on response capabilities to ones now motivated more by preventing the damaging consequences of floods.

They are even seeking to benefit from the natural occurrence of annual floods along the Mekong River. In addition to restructuring production activities and making improvements in physical infrastructure to minimize flood damage, additional plans are underway to take advantage of flooding by expanding aquatic methods of production and increasing fishing and related marketing opportunities. The social sector has not been overlooked as efforts have also been made to institute various collective community services to meet people’s immediate needs during the time of threat or crisis.

Case: Republic of Korea

In 1997, the government of the Republic of Korea created the National Institute for Disaster Prevention (NIDP), to update its national disaster management and prevention policies. Organized under the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, the primary mission of NIDP has been to perform its own research and then to apply those findings to develop independent design capabilities for disaster management and prevention systems.

With 30 full-time researchers, NIDP is responsible for collecting, compiling, and analysing information on disasters. This material then provides the basis for improved disaster impact assessment, improved mitigation practices, better integrated disaster management policies, and the promotion of wider international cooperation.

Activities have included the development of an online management system for areas exposed to specific hazards, evaluating recovery and response systems and developing a comprehensive management system. NIDP has also completed the compilation of disaster impact assessment standards, and conducts an annual International Disaster Prevention Cooperation Seminar to maintain public, policy and professional interests in disaster risk reduction.

In order to illustrate some of the strategic changes and favourable developments in disaster risk reduction in Asia, both India and China have embarked on comprehensive national programmes. Together these countries account for almost one-third of the world’s population, and they also share many of the same hazards. For centuries they have taken risk into account in a variety of technical and administrative ways. More recently, both countries have reoriented national disaster management strategies to take greater account of disaster risk reduction. Their efforts are summarized in the following case examples.

Case: India

The Indian government has shown great interest in strengthening organizational planning to lessen disaster impacts. It is dedicated to developing a more comprehensive national strategy to link risks with development objectives and environmental concerns that go far beyond more effective relief services.

The severe repercussions of the 1999 cyclone in the state of Orissa and the 2001 earthquake in the state of Gujarat have intensified commitments to alter the long-standing relief commissioner system and to revise national policies of risk reduction. Technical agencies, educational institutions, commercial interests, international finance and insurance investors are all being included in the development of a major reorientation of how the country perceives risk and intends to monitor and manage it in the future.

Initiatives have been continuing to revise disaster policies and to adopt more comprehensive approaches to identifying and managing risks in various state governments. Following the devastating Latur earthquake in 1993, and supported in part by the World Bank, the state of Maharashtra totally revamped its disaster risk management policies by drawing on both international and national expertise in the design of improved administrative legislation and building standards.

Having also suffered badly from earlier earthquakes in the mid-1990s, the state of Uttar Pradesh embarked on a similar programme encouraged by the Asian Development Bank in 1999. The creation of the new state of Uttaranchal in 2000 has provided the opportunity to consider the most appropriate forms of disaster management structures for its mountainous topography.

State governments are being encouraged to update their legislation, strategic plans, disaster management codes, manuals and procedures on the basis of experience gained and taking account of technological developments.

Most notably, a tangible result of this process has been the decision taken by the Indian government in 2002 to alter almost 50 years of practice by relocating all disaster and risk management issues, with the sole exception of drought concerns, from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

This reflects an important departure from the previous association of natural disasters only with the more narrowly focused concerns of food security. While droughts still occur, to a significant extent through practiced management capabilities, India has banished the likelihood of famine from the country.

The important Ministry of Home Affairs is directly responsible for the coordination of the operational aspects of government. Its influence proceeds from the national direction of the civil service, through various state jurisdictions, down to local government’s implementation of policies. As such, in broadening its responsibilities to include the many other risks that threaten the country and peoples’ livelihoods the relocation is an important step to integrate disaster and risk management more fully into the national, state and local planning and administrative processes.

A High Powered Committee on Disaster Management (HPC) was constituted by the national government to review all existing preparedness and mitigation arrangements initially for natural risks and subsequently for human-induced risks. With a broad multidisciplinary approach, the committee includes technical specialists, respected academics and key civil servants, in addition to eminent public and political figures. It was mandated to recommend measures for strengthening organizational structures, as well as to propose comprehensive models for all aspects of disaster management responsibilities at national, state and district levels.

The HPC has made many wide-ranging recommendations that deal with the constitutional and legal frameworks of disasters in the country. They range from matters of creating new organizational structures and institutional mechanisms, and means to promote the realization of cultures of preparedness, quick response, strategic thinking and prevention.

The organizations responsible for implementation have been identified and time frames proposed for the realization of each recommendation. The HPC has dealt with a wide spectrum of issues that hinge directly on disaster management aimed at bringing about measures that ultimately become a part of the national psyche. Important recommendations of the HPC include:

• Identify disaster management as a listed responsibility in the national constitution to be shared by national and state government authorities.
• Legislation at the national and state levels – drafts of a national act for calamity management and a model state disaster management act have been prepared and submitted to the government for consideration.
• Maintain a sustained focus by constituting a Cabinet Committee on Disaster Management.
• Create an all-party national committee for disaster management, chaired by the prime minister, renamed the National Council on Disaster Management with an expanded scope to include human-induced disasters. The council and its designated working group will be institutionalized as permanent standing bodies of government.
• Create a nodal Ministry of Disaster Management for sustained and focused efforts in the areas of disaster preparedness, mitigation and management.
• Establish a National Centre for Calamity Management (NCCM) for strategic and policy formulation at the earliest opportunity, with a structure as evolved as HPC.
• Establishing a National Institute for Disaster Management as a national centre for the creation of knowledge and its dissemination, working through complementary linkages with other institutions for the purposes of training and capacity-building.
• Establish state of the art emergency control rooms, linked in a network between national and state capitals, with additional headquarters placed in particularly disaster-prone or vulnerable districts.
• Integrate disaster reduction strategies with development plans.
• Designate at least 10 per cent of budgeted reserved funds at the national, state and district levels be earmarked and apportioned for schemes that specifically address disaster prevention, and preparedness measures or activities.
• Develop and provide precision Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and digital maps of all states, districts and urban centres with essential spatial and non-spatial data at appropriate scales.

Reports of the HPC and its National Disaster Response Plan have been circulated widely throughout India and among many international organizations, already triggering additional action by them. The state governments of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat have developed comprehensive policies on disaster management, in the latter case backed up by the passage of an act on disaster management.

Additionally, the states of Assam, Bihar, Karnataka, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, and some others also are finalizing legislative bills relating to local frameworks for disaster management. Elsewhere, at local levels of administration, states are undertaking exercises for capacity-building and the greater involvement of community participation through the local Panchayati Raj which are elected organizations working at the grass-roots level.

The HPC has now been converted into the working group on disaster management, envisaged to provide background material and analyses to enable the National Committee to formulate recommendations after taking account of many viewpoints. Three sub-committees were constituted to:

• formulate a national policy framework and determine an agenda for priority initiatives over the next few decades;
• establish immediate actionable points for both the national and state governments, including legislative and institutional measures; and
• develop the defining parameters of a national calamity.

Two additional sub-committees were convened to provide specific recommendations on the management of trauma and the development of disaster management plans at community levels.

The process outlined here has acted as a very effective catalyst, and has generated important developments in many states. It has defined the functions and responsibilities of various authorities, official agencies and professional organizations. The methodical approach to implementation provides the basis for a structured system of accountability related to the responsibilities of all participants.

In this spirit, the National Committee on Disaster Management has been constituted with members of major political parties to suggest the necessary institutional and legislative measures needed for a mutually agreed national strategy for effective and long-term disaster management.

In addition to addressing the specific steps required for the reconstruction and rehabilitation in Gujarat following the 2001 earthquake, this effort marks a milestone in broadening national consensus among all the political parties with the intended goals of dealing with major future disasters and setting parameters to define a national calamity.

The driving motivation has become one to stem the premature and needless loss of financial and social capital, which sets back national development by years. These measures require that more time and energy be devoted to prevention and mitigation measures, in order to prepare the country to face disasters without loss of precious resources and social capital.

In 2003, the National Committee on Disaster Management prepared an agenda note and submitted it for the consideration of the prime minister. The presentation noted that there were unattended issues in disaster management which required immediate attention for a comprehensive disaster management strategy to be in force. This collective policy highlighted paths leading towards comprehensive disaster management, and emphasized the importance of transcending reactive response to more proactive prevention and mitigation strategies, given the increasing frequency, complexity and intensity of disasters.

The prime minister has been urged to consider disaster management as an agenda of the entire government, and for it to become a movement across the country. Recommendations need to be implemented to inculcate a culture of prevention and to proceed towards realizing the objective of a disaster-free India.

Case: China

During the course of the IDNDR, the Chinese government recognized that working for disaster reduction would require a long-term commitment and it has worked with dedication and political commitment at the highest levels of responsibility to fulfil those objectives.

Following the introduction of ISDR in October 2000, the Chinese government established the Chinese National Committee for International Disaster Reduction (CNCIDR), consisting of 30 agencies. These included representatives from the state council, ministries, national committees and bureaus, the military services and additional social groups.

As an inter-ministerial coordinating institution headed by a state councillor, CNCIDR is responsible for designing a national disaster reduction framework. In this capacity it develops guiding policies, coordinates relevant departments in the conduct of specific programmes and supervises disaster reduction work undertaken by local governments. The office of CNCIDR and its secretariat are located in the Ministry of Civil Affairs.

An additional advisory group of 28 senior specialists in related fields has been formed to provide guidance to the national committee. Particular attention has been given to applying science and technology in disaster reduction initiatives.

By embracing the importance of disaster reduction activities, China has proceeded to integrate the subject into overall national economic and social development planning. The core element of this process is the progressive implementation of the National Disaster Reduction Plan of the People’s Republic of China (NDRP), scheduled to run from 1998 to 2010.

The NDRP was launched by the Chinese government, formulated on the basis of the overall national development policies reflected in the Ninth Five Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development, and the 2010 Prospective Target Outline for national accomplishments. The design of the plan received important support and technical assistance from UNDP, further demonstrating the essential links between disaster risk reduction and national development interests.

The NDRP was based on several fundamental policies that demonstrate both the breadth and the depth of interests that have been marshalled to implement a national strategy for disaster reduction. The primary one is to serve the advancement of national economic and social development. In this respect, the top priority is assigned to disaster reduction activities, while recognizing that there will still be the requirement to combine these with disaster response and emergency relief efforts at the time of crisis. However, the measure of success can only be gauged by an obvious reduction in the direct economic losses caused by natural disasters.

The roles of science, technology and education are considered to be of particular importance in working together to build disaster reduction into a national concept. Public awareness and knowledge about disaster reduction are an important component in realizing this aim. It also remains important for China to be involved closely with international developments in the subjects concerned, and therefore it must strive to strengthen its own efforts of international exchange and multinational cooperation.

Objectives outlined by the NDRP include efforts to:

• develop projects that advance the social and economic development in China;
• increase the application of scientific and technical experience in disaster reduction work;
• enhance public awareness about disaster reduction;
• establish comprehensive institutional and operational structures to realize disaster risk management; and
• reduce the direct economic losses associated with natural hazards.

The NDRP has also outlined key activities that should be pursued nationwide. One of these is to implement the plan at provincial levels and then at local levels of responsibility. The provinces of Guangdong, Jiangxi, Yunnan, and Shanxi have all issued plans for disaster reduction. In others, such as in Heilongjiang, the national government is working closely with the provincial authorities to initiate a local strategy.

The Americas

Prior to 1990, both official and public opinion about disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean concentrated almost exclusively on developing humanitarian response and improving preparedness capacities linked to civil defence or military institutions. In North America, the predominant activity was for government agencies to provide funds for local communities and individual residents to rebuild after a disaster had occurred.

Several important institutional changes in emphasis and priorities started to develop though. This began in 1985 in Mexico following the major earthquake that badly damaged parts of the capital, Mexico City. In Colombia in the same year, a major volcanic eruption obliterated the town of Amero with the loss of 25,000 people.

From this time until the mid-1990s, some official disaster organizations created prevention offices in name, but their roles were still largely limited to strengthening efforts in disaster preparedness, conducting basic hazard mapping and promoting early warning systems at the national level. Few human or financial resources were committed and existing legal and institutional arrangements impeded any major changes.

It was also during this time that the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) departed from its earlier preoccupations of providing emergency assistance and reoriented its own activities towards vulnerability and risks. It began to give more attention to providing disaster mitigation information and to seeking incentives for making safer and more disaster-resilient communities.

A major shift is now taking place in many other countries in the Americas, from the north to the south, and throughout the Caribbean. The changes have also been supported by a process of regional cooperation. Even more impetus was provided by the combination of extremely severe social, economic and environmental consequences of several disasters in the final years of the 1990s. Taken together, these events provided stark and unavoidable lessons to leaders in the region.

Linking risk reduction with development policies and environmental concerns is becoming more common in several Central American countries, especially where the severe effects of Hurricane Mitch decimated earlier investments made in national development. Some of these are reflected in the policy frameworks outlined in the following case examples.

Case: Guatemala

In 1996, Guatemala reformed its disaster legislation and created the National Coordinator for Disaster Reduction (CONRED) with an expanded range of responsibilities. Comprising a supervisory council of representatives from different development departments, disaster response agencies, and civil society it has provided a better sense of focus on risk issues for a wider circle of interests.

By working with the Ministry of Planning, a national risk reduction system is being established and efforts are underway to incorporate multisectoral risk reduction strategies into the country’s National Poverty Reduction Plan. These activities complement a longstanding disaster response division in government and the maintenance of an emergency operations centre.

Case: Nicaragua

More recently, Nicaragua too, has expanded its national programme for risk reduction. Aided by UNDP, it has designed a new disaster risk management strategy. Studies have been commissioned to analyse the suitability of the Nicaraguan legal framework for disaster management requirements and to evaluate the implications for the government, municipalities, the private sector and citizens.

Early in 2000, the Nicaraguan National Legislative Assembly passed a new law creating the National System for Disaster Prevention, Mitigation and Attention and officially established the National Risk Reduction Plan as a primary operational instrument.

The institutional concept is built upon a broad and comprehensive approach to risk reduction issues and is intended to be implemented on a decentralized basis. The strategy and the legislation are considered by some commentators to be the most advanced examples for disaster reduction in the region at the present time, drawing as they do on both the administrative authorities of the national civil defence organization as well as the more analytical and technical capabilities of the professionally-regarded Nicaraguan Institute for Territorial Studies.

Both Swiss bilateral development assistance and World Bank support have been enlisted to strengthen the provision of technical abilities and to augment human resources. The key to future success will be the extent to which productive relationships can be forged among other government departments and development agencies to highlight their respective roles in risk reduction.

Case: Costa Rica

In 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture in Costa Rica created the Risk Management Program in the Agricultural Planning Secretariat. Concern for agricultural losses increased with the impacts of El Niño in 1997-1998, and with the recurrence of flooding and drought. The creation of the programme was also motivated by decisions taken at the Central American Presidential Summit held in 1999, where disaster and vulnerability reduction dominated the agenda.

This development reflects the importance given to disaster and risk reduction by the Central American Integration System’s (SICA) specialized agricultural sector organizations, the Regional Advisory Board for Agricultural Cooperation and the Central American Agriculture and Livestock Advisory Board.

Case: Dominican Republic

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

These funds were targeted to help modernize the country’s strategic approach and institutional frameworks for disaster risk management. The following year, three consulting consortiums developed a national hazard and vulnerability information system, trained trainers in community-level risk and environmental management, and conducted training in modern risk management techniques for civil servants.

They also advised on the development of national public awareness campaigns and on the design of revised legal and institutional frameworks for risk management. Finance was provided to acquire materials and equipment needed by risk and disaster management organizations and associated scientific institutions.

Case: Canada

Following an assessment of the national consequences of a particularly severe ice storm in 1998, and other events which highlighted serious questions about the vulnerability of the country’s infrastructure, in 2001, Canada created the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP).

The office was established to enhance the protection of Canada’s critical infrastructure from disruption or destruction and to act as the government’s primary agency for ensuring civil emergency preparedness. The minister of national defence is responsible for this organization which supersedes Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC). With a necessarily broader mandate than the EPC, OCIPEP takes an all-hazards approach, recognizing that different hazardous events can have similar impacts.

OCIPEP provides national leadership to enhance the capacity of individuals, communities, businesses and governments to manage risks to their environment, including cyberspace. Through the former EPC, a great deal of experience in preparedness, response and recovery activities has been gained, resulting in Canada’s increasingly comprehensive ability to cope with emergency situations.

There have always been efforts across the nation to mitigate disasters, including land-use zoning guidelines and structural protective features such as the Red River Floodway in Manitoba. However, it was recognized that a need existed to address hazard mitigation in Canada in a more systematic way.

A National Mitigation Workshop was hosted by EPC and the Insurance Bureau of Canada in 1998, attended by academic, private sector and government representatives. It concluded that a comprehensive national mitigation initiative would be a positive step towards the long-term goal of reducing vulnerabilities to, and losses from, disasters.

These ideals have been reinforced by participants of the ongoing Canadian Natural Hazards Assessment Project (CNHAP) in which a community of scientists, scholars and practitioners in the natural hazards and disasters field came together in 2000 to conduct a major new examination of the national understanding about the causes and consequences of natural hazards and disasters.

As a part of the process of such multidisciplinary discussions regarding emergency management and disaster reduction, the government announced in June 2001 that OCIPEP would lead consultations on the development of a National Disaster Mitigation Strategy (NDMS). These consultations have similarly included all levels of government, private sector and non-governmental stakeholders, in order to solicit their input and participation in defining the framework for this new national strategy.

OCIPEP has used discussion papers to stimulate a national dialogue about the NDMS in order to solicit views from various stakeholders about the best-suited scope, policies and mechanisms for coordinating and implementing a national strategy.

Meanwhile, the federal government continues to conduct interdepartmental discussions about federal mitigation activities, through an Interdepartmental Mitigation Coordinating Committee. Participants include representatives from all relevant federal departments who are reviewing preparedness and mitigation initiatives and conducting analysis to identify areas where additional attention is needed.
Case: Colombia

The National Plan for the Prevention of Disasters, released in Colombia in 1998, gave little attention to risk reduction practices during non-crisis situations. More recently, however, the National Council for Social and Economic Policy has incorporated disaster reduction measures explicitly into individual sector responsibilities of the National Development Plan.

The 1999 earthquake in the coffee belt of Colombia, and the creation of the Fondo para la Reconstrucción y el Desarrollo Social del Eje Cafetero (FOREC) for the reconstruction effort, provided the opportunity to further enhance institutional and technical capabilities. FOREC is a relevant model and success story useful as a reference for similar situations in other places.

The National Council then proceeded in 2001 to develop a strategy for the short- and medium-term implementation of the National Disaster Prevention and Management Plan. By citing the work to be accomplished during the next three years and outlining the first steps for the consolidation of the National Plan in the medium-term, the resulting strategy has become an improvement to the earlier National Plan for the Prevention of Disasters.

This national effort also seeks to meet the goals of ISDR and to comply with the initiatives expressed in the Meeting of the National Council for Social and Economic Policy. It cites four goals that have to be met if the strategy is to be implemented successfully:

• strengthen public awareness campaigns on natural disasters;
• initiate regional and sectoral planning for disaster prevention;
• institutionalize the national disaster prevention and management plan; and
• communicate the national plan to the public and to the authorities.

By identifying explicit objectives of work to be done and indicating the individuals responsible for their achievement, it is anticipated that the strategy will expedite the mitigation of natural disaster risks in Colombia. This national effort seeks to accomplish the goals of ISDR and to comply with the initiatives expressed in the Meeting of the Americas conducted in the Framework of the Andean Community.

Case: Bolivia

In Bolivia too, a comprehensive national policy for prevention and risk management has been established. Consistent with the intentions of the Andean Regional Programme for Risk Prevention and Reduction (PREANDINO), the minister of sustainable development and planning is committed to incorporating disaster prevention in the planning system through the National Plan for Prevention and Risk Mitigation.

It is anticipated that necessary legislation will enable the introduction of risk reduction factors into various sectoral initiatives. This can then enable a more readily perceived relationship between the objectives of risk reduction and sustainable development. The government has already been pressing ahead with several national programmes aimed at incorporating risk management practices into development activities.

These include a Programme for Risk Prevention and Reduction financed by UNDP and the World Bank. Another programme, financed by the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), is the Local Risk Management Programme. In the housing sector, the National Housing Subsidy Programme financed by employer contributions includes a prevention and risk mitigation component.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Rural Development is implementing a national food security monitoring and early warning system which will monitor the impact of natural hazards on agricultural production. UNESCO, working jointly with the same ministry, is also progressing in its support for a programme that links development and risk issues with the El Niño phenomenon.

Africa

The African continent is highly vulnerable to disasters from natural causes, particularly from hydrometeorological ones that regularly result in drought and floods. Equally important, the vulnerability to hazards is high, and rising. With the exception of a few examples, such as the Ethiopian Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission, historically throughout much of the continent, disaster management has focused on responding to recurrent emergency conditions and disasters rather than engaging in more sustained prevention activities

A major shift is now taking place in many countries, particularly in those that have been affected seriously, again, by drought or floods. The increasing impacts of climate change and variability on both the social and economic dimensions of African societies have also demanded more political attention.

The severe earthquake that shocked Algeria in May 2003 is a reminder of the real threats posed by earthquakes, especially in Northern Africa. This event particularly highlighted the necessity of a sustained risk management strategy composed of legislation and building codes that can reduce the impact of such a rapid-onset event that is not so easily predictable.

Despite their irregular frequency and relatively low level of impact, volcanic risks in Africa have demonstrated complex emergency situations. In the case of Nyiragongo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the consequences of the volcanic eruption were compounded by conflicts and political instability among the affected population. This very complex situation highlighted the need for disaster preparedness and prevention measures.

However following the event, a contingency plan has been prepared in collaboration between the provincial authorities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and officials in neighbouring Rwanda. The municipal authorities of the city of Goma have also started thinking about creating a local civil protection capability, backed up by a legal framework in the immediate region. UNDP, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), ISDR and the Council of Europe are all working towards developing interagency collaborative efforts to address the most critical medium to long-term disaster reduction needs of Goma.

Other issues in disaster risk management still remain major challenges for many African countries. These include the need to decentralize the authority and the operational capabilities to deal with hazards and risks at the sub-national and local levels. There is a continuing requirement to engage public participation and the social or institutional elements of civil societies in the decision-making and implementation of risk reduction practices, especially within local communities. At most national levels of responsibility, there is much that can be done to integrate disaster risk management into countries’ social and economic development plans.

Subregional organizations can be very useful in supporting national initiatives to build capacity to identify and manage risks. They can be instrumental in sharing experiences among countries, as well as developing practical means of building cooperation among the various professional and academic institutions through sharing information, undertaking joint activities, and by complementing each other’s professional abilities.

East Africa

Throughout many parts of East Africa, and more especially in the area of North-Eastern Africa, sometimes referred to as the Greater Horn of Africa, drought and famine are common. As a result, strategies to provide protection from famine through drought-resistant forms of food production and other related forms of technical assistance and emergency aid characterized the 1970s and 1980s. Currently emphasis is given to food security through agricultural production, improved rural access to food and markets, and the protection or management of pastoral animal herds. Taken together these measures strive to focus on developmental issues and seek broadly based forms of economic activity that can make livelihoods more sustainable in an often harsh and challenging environment.

Limitations remain with often absent and even existing legislation in many of the countries concerned. One major drawback in dealing with recurrent hazards is that much of the attention given to severe or threatening conditions focuses heavily on responding to already bad situations, rather than implementing strategies that anticipate possible risks and seek to minimize or prevent the worst consequences of a disaster.

Uncertainty may also be created within existing legal frameworks because of the different levels at which decisions can be made, or without a consistent application of coordination.

While efforts are underway to varying extents, countries can promote the adoption of national policies, update or expand legislation, and construct financial modalities and agreements. It may be an even more productive use of scarce resources if these issues can be undertaken increasingly on a regional basis to support common policies and mechanisms, especially as the hazardous events and many of the inhabitants too, often range beyond a single country’s borders.

The experiences of two countries in the Greater Horn of Africa – Ethiopia and Kenya – demonstrate how each has managed past disasters and the initiatives they have taken based on that experience to improve their respective capacities in disaster risk management. In both cases the subjects of hazards and risk management have become associated much more closely with national development goals, objectives and programming initiatives, backed up with legislated frameworks.

Case: Ethiopia

As droughts and famines have been recurring phenomena in Ethiopia for many years, the country has developed a notable system of hazard monitoring and emergency response capabilities. In the wake of the famine episodes of 1970s the government established its Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) in 1974. An early warning system was created in 1976 that initially concentrated on relief efforts related to food security. Later, having recognized the limitations, the RRC broadened its approach to address the management of additional risk factors. The highly centralized nature of the system was also seen to hamper its early warning effectiveness.

However, even with its own organizational modifications and improvements over ten years, the country still suffered immense losses from drought conditions in 1984-1985. The problems encountered highlight the importance of a wider set of relationships essential to disaster risk management. There was a failure to respond to early warning reports which had been publicized, because of mistrust between the government and international donors about the authenticity and accuracy of the information. This led to multiple, uncertain or disputed interpretations of conditions, and resulted in inaccurate estimates of both consequences and immediate needs by international agencies. While delays worsened the extent of the crisis, there was also a protracted recognition of the inadequate logistical capacity available to respond to the ever more pressing needs.

Based on these past experiences and mindful of the linkages between drought, food shortages and famine, the government established a more comprehensive strategy. The National Policy on Disaster Prevention and Management (NPDPM) was created in 1993 with a primary focus on sustained economic and agricultural development. Attention was also given to the practical details of coping with food scarcity, relief procedures, decentralized early warning systems, and maintaining seed and fund reserves, schemes for efficient food deliveries to those most in need, and programmes for livestock preservation.

A key feature of the Ethiopian NPDPM was its linkage of relief issues to more basic and ongoing development activities. All line ministries were required to incorporate disaster reduction measures into their development goals and programmes, as well as to relate them to any eventual relief operations. The policy assigned specific responsibilities to various officials at different levels.

These policies evolved into the National Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission (DPPC) in 1995, addressing the wider aspects of disaster prevention, preparedness, emergency response and rehabilitation. It was established at national level, having overall coordination of disaster prevention and preparedness activities. There are committees established at various levels of administration through which disaster tasks are performed.

Ethiopia has constructed an elaborate institutional framework for natural disaster and risk management, incorporating preparedness, prevention and mitigation measures. This is a major departure from the past, when relief operations were the dominant focus of disaster management. The country has established four levels of focal points for coordination of disaster and risk management through disaster prevention and preparedness committees, at national, provincial, zone, and local (Woreda) levels.

The National Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Committee (NDPPC) is the overall body charged with the responsibilities at the national level for all matters regarding disaster prevention and management. The national office is replicated at the other levels and contains a similar membership composed of the following representatives:

• 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 Economic Cooperation.

Other members include the presidents of regional councils (or provincial, zone councils at subordinate levels) and the Disaster Prevention and Preparation Commission (DPPC). Other agencies drawn from donors and civil society are included on an ad hoc basis depending on the nature of the disaster.

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

• Emergency Food Security Reserve Administration;
• National Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Fund;
• National Early Warning Committee (replicated at the provincial, zone and Woreda levels); and
• Crisis Management Group (replicated at the provincial, zone and Woreda levels).
  

Case: Kenya

More recent developments in Kenya have motivated a similar approach, but with different emphasis to reflect the needs of the country. The devastating impact of floods during the El Niño climatic variation in 1997-1998 re-emphasized the need for a disaster management coordination agency in Kenya. This led to strengthening of a National Disaster Operations Centre administered by the office of the president. A series of coordinated activities has been considered, and currently the following institutions operate in association with the office of 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 operate within various government ministries which have specialized roles. These include such functions as rescue and evacuation, fire fighting, contingency planning and management, research, crowd control and conflict resolution, and activities to combat terrorism.

A national policy on disaster management has been drafted and proposes a framework to coordinate all of these institutions dealing with the different aspects of disaster and risk management. Following extended consultations, a final draft policy framework proposes several new institutions.

The National Disaster Management Authority (NADIMA) would become a crucial coordinating body, with members drawn from relevant ministries and departments, the private sector, NGOs, social and religious bodies. Some international agencies may also be invited to participate. NADIMA’s major functions and powers would include:

• authority over disaster management throughout the 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 collaborate with sectoral ministries, local government authorities, district committees, and partner agencies. It would service the various committees of NADIMA and conduct the daily activities of the authority. The secretariat would be responsible for consolidating all disaster management related information, and then plan and coordinate all aspects of disaster management. This would entail the preparation of disaster management plans and their related budgets, as well as drafting individual contingency plans for specific types of hazards and risks. It is also anticipated that ongoing roles would include monitoring, evaluating and documenting of lessons learned and applying them to improve performance.

A department of planning and research is expected to undertake the crucial function of advising on future policies and areas that have a bearing on the broader aspects of disaster and risk management. It would pursue programmes for preparedness, early warning, prevention, research, and information management. A different but related department of operations would address the operational 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 regularly recorded massive losses from sudden-onset disasters besides periodic floods that have however brought considerable localized losses. Primarily, the major risks that have affected the region have been slow-onset disasters related to drought, epidemic and food insecurity.

In addition, prior to the early 1990s, perceptions of risk in the region were shaped predominantly by armed conflicts and their destabilizing consequences. As a result, the first political engagements with natural disaster reduction in Southern African countries were driven by the protracted ravages of drought or the disruption of livelihoods caused by other emergencies.

To a significant extent since that time prevailing disaster management capabilities have been more narrowly focused on monitoring agricultural conditions and food availability, or planning emergency relief contingency measures focused almost exclusively on droughts. There are a few regional disaster reduction initiatives now in place, with their antecedents dating back to the 1980s (see chapter 3.3).

Presently, concern is now being expressed more widely across the region about the persistence of drought conditions, unusually heavy precipitation and flooding at other times, and a renewed consideration of climatic variation on livelihoods and food security. As a result, individual countries in Southern Africa are reassessing national needs related to disaster risk management and reorienting earlier national strategies more closely to developmental objectives.

Case: South Africa

A methodical, if protracted, effort to develop a comprehensive national strategy for disaster risk management has been pursued in South Africa by reforming organizational structures and creating new legislation concerning disaster risk management.

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 South Africa’s ability to deal with disaster risk management. This initially involved a complete review of disaster management structures and policies.

One year later, the cabinet recommended that a formal structure for disaster management be established. An initial National Disaster Management Committee was formed in 1996 with the intended function of coordinating and managing national disaster management policy. As that body never came into being, in mid-1997 the government approved the formation of an alternate Inter-Ministerial Committee for Disaster Management (IMC).

A Green Paper on disaster management was produced as the first tangible step to establish a formal disaster management policy for the country. It was tabled in February 1998 and provided an important conceptual framework for public dialogue about disaster management and risk reduction at local, provincial and national levels of interest.

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

• integration of risk reduction strategies into development initiatives;
• development of a strategy to reduce community vulnerability;
• legal establishment of a national disaster management centre;
• introduction of a new disaster management funding strategy;
• introduction and implementation of a new disaster management act;
• establishment of a framework to enable communities to be informed, alert and self-reliant; and
• establishment of a framework to coordinate training and community awareness initiatives.

Importance was also given by South Africa to contributing to joint standards and common practices along the same lines with neighbouring countries and other member states of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC).

Meanwhile, in order to address South Africa’s immediate needs, an interim disaster management authority was composed with representatives from ten national departments. This was later converted into a National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC). However, despite the fact that it has been operational since 1999, it has yet to become a statutory institution.

An Inter-Departmental Disaster Management Committee (IDMC) was also established in the same year to ensure better coordination among government departments at national level. This, however, was intended as an interim measure until such time when the planned statutory structures became functional under a disaster management act.

In 2000, the first disaster management bill was published for public comment. However, the initial enthusiasm and momentum shown by the government seemed to decline with numerous postponements of the tabling of the bill. After another severe crisis – this time, the devastating floods in parts of Southern Africa in 2000 – political priorities changed as the importance of disaster management policy and legislation resurfaced. The National Council of Provinces called a disaster management conference to consider disaster risk management issues on a regional basis in May 2000, and following that the bill was finally tabled.

During the review process the disaster management bill moved away somewhat from the earlier policy emphasis expressed in the Green and White Papers and focused more attention on intra-governmental institutional relationships and related operational arrangements. The rationale behind the bill was to ensure that unambiguous guidelines could be given through regulations once the legislation was promulgated. The bill provided guidance with respect to the legal establishment of the NDMC, the duties and powers of national, provincial and local instruments of government and funding for post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation.

The bill also provided for an Inter-Governmental Committee on Disaster Management to consist of cabinet members involved in disaster management, members of the executive councils from the nine provinces of the country and representatives of local government.

A further structure proposed in the bill was that of the National Disaster Management Framework, to outline coherent, transparent and inclusive policies on all aspects of disaster management including training and capacity-building.

The bill stipulated the establishment of disaster management centres at all levels of government. As one of the primary functions of the centres would be the assessment of disaster risks, the bill also established procedures for the collection and dissemination of risk assessment information. Emphasis has also been given to measures that could reduce the vulnerability of people in disaster-prone areas. The final disaster management bill was unanimously accepted by parliament and the National Council of Provinces in their final sitting at the end of 2002 and was enacted by the president in January 2003. Following its promulgation, the disaster management act is expected to generate greater involvement by provincial and local government authorities to undertake risk assessment activities.

Case: Mozambique

One of the principal challenges for consecutive governments in Mozambique has been responding to disaster emergencies. Since its independence in 1975, considerable resources have been used for disaster management and institutions have continually evolved to deal with new and challenging conditions. This hard-won experience has produced numerous seasoned disaster and risk management officials throughout different government departments and a well-developed inter-ministerial structure for the coordination of disaster and risk management.

It is much to the government’s credit that for some time it has recognized the importance of shifting its emphasis in disaster management from immediate response to long-term mitigation and risk reduction. In the last few years, there has been a dedicated effort by the highest levels of government to establish formal arrangements and procedures that can build capacities for improved disaster risk management in the future.

From as early as 1981, the government was attentive to the need to address the consequences of risk on the society. A Department for the Prevention and Combating of Natural Calamities (DPCCN) was established with the objective of promoting early warning and mitigation activities. During a period of complex national emergency from 1982-1994, DPCCN became a principal conduit for international aid to people displaced by conflict and the victims of repeated floods and droughts, with logistics becoming its predominant activity.

Following improved conditions and changing needs of the country, in 1996 a process began with the support of the World Food Programme (WFP) to formulate a coherent national disaster management policy and to reorient disaster management towards risk reduction activities. During the closing years of the 1990s, this involved sustained efforts to reinvent institutions and revise policies created in the prolonged period of permanent emergency.

As expressed in current national policies, the primary objective has been to break the vicious cycle of continually expending scarce resources for emergency response and reconstruction, only then to become vulnerable and unprepared for the next catastrophic event. This has required particular efforts to stimulate a change of attitudes both within government and in the population as a whole.

In 1999, the government created new institutions to give greater coherence and a clear mandate for government structures dealing with disasters. The Coordinating Counsel for Disaster Management (CCGC) was composed at ministerial level as the principal government body for coordinating disaster management in all its phases. A National Institute for Disaster Management (INGC) was created to serve as its permanent technical support unit, with the director of INGC chairing an additional multisector Technical Committee for Disaster Management (CTGC) to assure strong coordination and collaboration in planning, mitigation and response activities.

A proposed law on disaster management will serve as a legal mandate for the implementation of policy, with the principal objective stated in the first article, “to avoid the occurrence or minimize the effects of disasters”. In particular, it gives the National Disaster Management Plan, as approved by the Council of Ministers, the force of law.

The national policy entails a framework for the coordination of government entities, the participation of civil society and collaboration with the private sector in all aspects of disaster and risk management. In addition, the law will establish sanctions for individuals or organizations violating the provisions of a declared state of emergency.

The CTGC has a mandate to ensure that national policies are translated into concrete actions and that norms are codified in the disaster management legislation. The members of the CTGC are expected to carry out historical analysis of disaster vulnerability and assessments of current conditions of risk in an annual process of contingency planning. This exercise, led by the INGC, is intended to assure that authorities are addressing risk concerns throughout the planning cycle. At the national level, a report is produced which focuses on preparedness and prevention measures in vulnerable areas.

While the expressed intentions have been clear, institutions are not easily reformed and individuals not so readily retrained, as future events were to illustrate equally among international agencies and local NGOs. In October 1999, the government of Mozambique released its contingency plan for the up-coming rainy season, noting the high probability of floods in the southern and central regions of the country. At that time it requested international assistance of US$ 2.7 million for immediate preparedness and mitigation activities.

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

Beyond the international dimensions, there may be reasons for concern at the individual levels too. There is some indication that some segments of the population have become dependent on emergency assistance and therefore have a strong incentive to maintain their vulnerability. Given such a disproportionate application of available resources historically between relief assistance and risk reduction, it is not difficult to see why effective reform may prove difficult to sustain.

West Africa

In terms of policy and public commitment to disaster risk management, some national capabilities exist in West Africa to varying degrees. However, as occurs elsewhere, much of the attention is given to responding to single emergency or crisis events, and too often, only at the immediate time when they occur. There is considerably less attention or resources committed to sustained disaster reduction strategies, whether they pertain to the prevention, preparedness or mitigation of hazards.

The efforts demonstrated in disaster management so far involve inter-ministerial and cross-sectoral interaction throughout the area, and to a lesser degree the participation of civil society or local communities. However, with a single exception, no other countries in West Africa incorporate disaster risk management in their poverty reduction programmes. Ghana recently developed explicit programmes to mitigate the impact of hazards and to prevent disasters affecting the poor, having included them in its 2002-2004 poverty reduction strategy for the vulnerable and the excluded.

The aftermath of the Jola boat capsizing disaster off the coast of Senegal in 2002 has raised the awareness of the importance of disaster prevention. Several initiatives have ensued, as the Ministry of Interior has developed guidelines for prevention by all sectors and levels of society from the national level to local communities.

Case: Senegal

Statutory responsibility for managing national institutions for disaster management in Senegal lies with an inter-ministerial committee coordinated by the Ministry of Interior. There is also an office of civil protection, acting through the Superior Council for Civil Protection, established in February 1999 responsible for prevention. Emergency response is managed under the Organization des Secours (ORSEC) National Plan for Organizing Assistance in Case of Catastrophes, established in March 1999.

Civil protection activities in risk reduction and disaster management are decentralized in all 11 regions and 34 departments of the country with the regional commissions headed by the governors, while the prefects head the local department commissions. ORSEC is also decentralized to the regional level and operates through four committees: assistance and safety; police and information; medical and self-help; and works and transport.

Historically there had been several pieces of legislation for the different agencies involved in disaster management. However, these various legal instruments had not been harmonized, nor was there a more integrated approach to disaster and risk management in the country. As several NGOs seemed unaware of their existence and did not participate in their development, they do not seem to have particularly wide public exposure.

Separate plans for prevention and protection have been developed at the national level, as well as for individual functions or components of agencies, such as contingency plans for responding to industrial accidents or hazardous material accidents.

The aftermath of the Jola boat disaster has generated an increased awareness of the importance of disaster prevention. This has sparked a flurry of activity within the government, but also in the familiarity of safety and protection outlooks among the public.

The Ministry of Interior has compiled a risk map and composed a menu of prevention measures for each department and region in the country. These are important steps in that they identify the location, nature, means of prevention and responsible institutions for each type of risk that has been identified. The Ministry has also developed guidelines for prevention action that can be taken by all sectors and levels of society from the national level down to local communities.

Each of the ministries, as well as the office of the president, has newly-designated responsibilities for disaster risk prevention and management. In addition, a programme is being developed to organize sensitization and training courses on disaster protection in educational institutions throughout the country.

A unified plan is being formulated for prevention that consolidates earlier regional and departmental plans. Under the new guidelines for ministries, the Ministry of Finance and Economy is tasked with integrating disaster prevention in social and economic planning policies to ensure sustainable development. This includes endeavouring to provide adequate financing to reinforce the administrative structures and local capacities for risk prevention. Resources are also being allocated for the development of a facility to train civil protection staff and functionaries in disaster management and, especially, risk prevention practices.

The Senegal experience demonstrates how a national tragedy can motivate renewed commitment and broader political, professional and public involvement in creating a safer and more disaster resistant society.

North Africa

Attention to natural hazards and the related risks they pose to Northern African countries is typically focused on managing the acute phases of an emergency, or the need for emergency relief assistance after the declaration of a disaster, such as a drought or famine.

Natural disasters most often figure in national governmental socio-economic planning in terms of drought. Most of the countries in Northern Africa consider that drought is a structural feature of their socio-economic profiles affecting livelihoods, as well as the national economies.

There are some technical structures in place and institutions dedicated to drought and monitoring specific food security indicators throughout most of the countries of Northern Africa and the arid Sahel region that runs across the continent.

At national levels of interest, there are examples of government institutions involved in the hydrometeorological aspects of hazard monitoring. Typically these include authorities responsible for meteorology, water resources management, agriculture, environment and natural resources.

Similarly, legislation relating to hazard and risk issues is frequently fragmented over different domains such as those of land planning, public works, environmental management, and various other government institutions in charge of single sectoral interests.

There is evidence of some general awareness such as the design and construction of transportation infrastructure in zones vulnerable to flooding and desertification or the management of hydraulic works and river basins in the public domain. However, more fundamental practices related to natural disaster risk management such as risk assessment and early warning systems are not yet routinely integrated into existing legislation.

Most countries have some form of a civil protection authority, but none of the Northern African countries has a national authority dealing specifically with the management of risks overall, nor of natural disasters. Such a limited institutional approach can impede a sustained commitment to managing risks before an acute emergency occurs, or can limit the possibilities for effective coordination at times of serious needs.

The integration of more comprehensive strategies to identify and then monitor risk factors in association with national development objectives remains in early stages in almost all of these countries. Since 2002, several devastating storms or floods have occurred in Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania and Sudan, while severe earthquakes have affected Cairo, most recently in 2002, and Algiers quite seriously in May 2003. These events demonstrate that there is justifiable concern for a more systematic approach to disaster risk management.

Pacific

Pacific small island developing states (SIDS) are diverse in their physical and economic characteristics and exemplify many different cultures, languages and traditional practices. Most of these island states comprise tiny areas of land widely dispersed throughout the Pacific Ocean, so that even within single countries, the distance between islands can be enormous.

Their small size, scattered distribution and relative isolation of many communities characterize development activity differently from that in other parts of the world, and further result in it being quite costly. Human settlements range from traditional rural villages where most people live, to rapidly growing commercial cities.

While there are many forms of land tenure throughout the region, most are based on communal land ownership through which joint community control is exerted over the use of land and many of the decisions that regulate the exploitation of natural resources.

Despite a popular portrayal of the South Pacific as a region of islands with serene beaches, blue lagoons, and an idyllic lifestyle, SIDS have very fragile ecosystems. There is great concern about the consequences of climate change and rising sea levels.

For these reasons, Pacific SIDS are committed to the implementation of development projects to reduce risks to people and property. They have worked to strengthen their national and regional resilience to hazard impacts. The historical record of specific disaster reduction initiatives also shows that Pacific island states have adopted positive approaches in both traditional and more contemporary ways to enable Pacific islanders to maintain a respect for their chosen cultural values.

However, as some major hazards occur only rarely, governments and communities can find it difficult to maintain a high level of awareness and preparedness for specific or individual events alone. The resources available for disaster mitigation have changed over time, too.

Governments became involved in disaster assistance early in the colonial era, taking over responsibilities at independence, often by providing relief assistance and rehabilitation materials following a disaster. Such aid came to be understood by both donors and recipients as unencumbered assistance. As the amount of external or official disaster relief assistance has increased sharply over recent years, so too has community dependency.

A study by a Fijian, A. Kaloumaira (SOPAC-DMU, 1999), illustrates the state of capacity-building for Pacific island states in terms that reflect the basis for the incorporation of disaster mitigation frameworks into national policy outlooks and popular understanding. The relevance and therefore the efficacy of disaster risk reduction is heavily dependent upon the extent to which it reflects prevailing social, cultural and environmental interests of the people it is intended to serve.

Case: Cook Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu

Examples of the ways in which some Pacific small island developing states have sought to incorporate disaster risk management measures into their national development strategies are summarized in Table 3.3. The examples drawn from the Cook Islands, Fiji and Vanuatu focus on the organizational frameworks and policy aspects those countries have pursued with respect to incorporating disaster risk reduction into larger national interests. These indicative examples should not be considered as being either comprehensive or exhaustive in themselves, nor of the region as a whole.

Europe

Case: Switzerland

In Switzerland, a long-standing federal forest law recognized the importance of forests with respect to reducing water runoff. Forests also were recognized as a means of protection against avalanches as early as the 19th century, when extreme events revealed the catastrophic effects of large-scale timber cutting, especially in the pre-alpine and alpine regions.

The unhindered felling of trees came to an abrupt end. Simultaneously, many major river training works were commenced, completed or renewed as an emphasis was then placed on protective measures of river engineering.

Natural hazards continued to play an important role in modifying Swiss policies in the 20th century. The risk situation was aggravated further by development in hazardous areas. The social and economic consequences of avalanches, floods and windstorms exerted an impact on policy considerations, but Switzerland has also recognized that absolute safety cannot be achieved by any means.

Great strides have been made in the past years as the country has proceeded from the earlier conventional protection from hazards to develop more integrated risk management. This approach is based on a balanced equilibrium of disaster prevention, response and reconstruction measures. Residual risk which is based on social, economic and ecological criteria must therefore be deemed to be accepted.

In order to establish coherent procedures that take account of the country’s cultural, geographical and linguistic diversity, Switzerland gives considerable importance to the “subsidiary principle”. This principle is constituted as one on the inviolable rights of the lower hierarchies of official authority and public responsibility.

It establishes that the upper hierarchical levels only exert a degree of political power and only take over those administrative duties that the lower levels of responsibility are not able to cope with, or accept, themselves. Hazard and risk management in Switzerland follows this subsidiary principle also in the political sphere, as there is a distribution of responsibility between federal, cantonal (state) and communal authorities. This equally extends to individual land and property owners as well as to other various public institutions and organizations.

While the three cornerstones of prevention, response and reconstruction have comparable importance in Swiss disaster management strategies, they relate in a somewhat reverse subsidiary relationship to each other. Great emphasis is placed on prevention. Response must be efficient and smooth in the face of catastrophic events. Reconstruction has to take place subsequently, and to a degree which is necessary, feasible and compatible with far-reaching considerations about the environment. The ultimate aim of the Swiss strategy has been to achieve sustainable development in all aspects of natural disaster reduction.

Beyond its own borders, Switzerland maintains and promotes the exchange of experience with other countries in regard to disaster reduction. It supports international collaboration in sustainable development and the provision of humanitarian assistance when required.

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

• develop a national strategy for dealing successfully with natural hazards;
• coordinate all parties involved in disaster reduction; and
• create more awareness about natural hazards and replace the conventional approach to protection with an enlarged understanding of risk management.

Plans for the second period of activities from 2001- 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 various sectors.

Building awareness about risk reduction through information exchange and education is increasingly considered important by virtually all players in Swiss risk management. An interesting development in this field is the virtual campus initiated by several Swiss universities and research institutes, called the Centre of Competence on Natural Disaster Reduction. Students, researchers and other practitioners working with natural hazards can access courses and risk-related information on their website (also see chapter 4.4). <http://www.cenat.ch>

Moves are also underway to upgrade the Swiss National Alarm Centre, recognizing that communications are important for the routine exchange of information in times of calm as well as during times of crisis.

It is recognized that more finances need to be allocated to build greater awareness for disaster risk reduction among the public and policy makers. It is a bitter fact that individuals and politicians have a short memory, which explains why things normally only start to move in the wake of a disaster such as occurred during the severe winter storms at the end of 1999.

As financial resources are always limited, they must be allocated in the most productive manner. Several changes are underway to ensure their most effective use. These include:

• giving preference to non-structural preventive measures, such as the maintenance of watercourses rather than river-engineering;
• shifting resources from reconstruction to preventive measures;
• reallocating resources to increase inter-cantonal collaboration and to avoid duplication; and
• improving the coordinated use of government subsidies and similar incentives for local authorities and communities.

In other cases of national frameworks and policy commitments, impetus may come from different sources. Risk reduction plans may be linked to specific events or designated responsibilities, policies and practices as the following examples drawn from elsewhere in Europe illustrate.


Case: Russian Federation

Russia has a comparatively long history of disaster reduction and emergency response with a set of institutional initiatives introduced during the past decade. During 1992-1993 the national Unified State System of Early Warning and Disaster Mitigation, subsequently, the Russian System on Disaster Management (RSDM) was established.

In 1994 the status of the State Committee on Emergencies and Natural Disasters was elevated and became a federal ministry, the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM). The institutional coordination of government efforts in disaster reduction was provided through an interagency commission for disaster reduction organized in 1995.

Since its creation, EMERCOM has demonstrated its expanding activities in the field, simultaneously recognized as a state authority in the Russian Federation that has been able to acquire public respect while gaining prestige among other government institutions. It has worked to develop and install a national institutional framework for natural disaster reduction in Russia. It encompasses major elements of legislation, administrative structures at the national level, coordination and implementation mechanisms, and national programmes aimed at emergency prevention and mitigation.

As Russia proceeded into a new period of economic and political development marked by an extended transition to a market economy and democracy, the country has redefined its approaches to environmental security. It has designed new schemes for responding to environmental change and insecurity. In the latter half of the 1990s, Russia adopted a broader concept of national security that shifted from a more traditional security perspective focused mainly on military defence, to a more integrated concept reflecting a greater emphasis on human security.

The revised concept included a wider and more dynamic approach to considering national risks, such as those emanating from economic instability, organized crime, nuclear contamination, infectious diseases, or food and water insecurity. The mitigation of natural hazards or prevention of potential disasters became an integral part of Russia’s national policies for enhancing environmental and human security. These issues were unambiguously placed at the forefront of national agendas after the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster were fully recognized.

New and additional commitments were made to increase the capacity-building process for performance of national policies for natural disaster reduction. This resulted in constructing a diversified institutional framework, including legislation, administrative structures, national programmes, response capabilities, and specific practices in the mitigation of hazards.

Current national disaster reduction policies emphasize three related dimensions: monitoring, forecasting and risk assessment of natural hazards; measures to prevent associated risk of natural hazards; and disaster risk management practices that can mitigate them or alleviate eventual damages that may be associated with them.

Major commitments of national policy include the compilation of an inventory and related databanks on territorial vulnerability to individual natural risks, as well as monitoring and forecasting their potential occurrence. This requires coordination and close cooperation among existing national hydrometeorological, seismological, agricultural, environmental and space monitoring networks. Major problems remain to be tackled to fully synthesize a variety of earlier monitoring networks and to improve the quality, quantity and regularity of data measurement. Although crucial, monitoring and the related aspects of forecasting have remained weak elements in the national strategy.

National prevention and mitigation policies envisage that physical adaptation measures be undertaken in the areas vulnerable to particular risks, such as the use of hydro-engineering protective measures and by reinforcing seismic stability of buildings. Similarly, the expanded application of zoning measures, improved early warning practices, increased public awareness and more direct public participation in risk reduction are important policy or procedural actions being pursued.

Shifts in national disaster reduction policies have taken place as lessons have been learned from the effectiveness of recent experience with natural disaster mitigation. There is a strong requirement to move from the historical priority of emergency response towards potential risk identification, assessment and the reduction of risks by management and operational practices that can alleviate the severity of potential disaster impacts. There is a growing understanding that it is more economical to prepare properly for the inevitable hazards so as to prevent disasters.

The focal point to accomplish this strategy for disaster reduction in the Russian Federation is EMERCOM. It is a federal body of the executive governmental authority responsible for the implementation of official policy in disaster prevention and mitigation. It is also responsible for the operational management and coordination of government actions in case of emergency.

As technological hazards also constitute a threat to human security in addition to natural hazards, EMERCOM combines responsibilities for the prevention and mitigation of both natural and technological risks, commonly referred to generically as emergencies.

EMERCOM combines a broad range of competences that pertain to national policy formulation. It manages the operational aspects of emergency response, undertakes disaster reduction measures, forecasts and monitors natural and technological risks. Its major goals are the following:

• realization of state policy and undertaking measures to protect the population and territories from emergencies;
• provision of regulation, licensing, control and verification in emergencies prevention and mitigation;
• government management and coordination of activities of federal executive authorities in disaster reduction; and
• collection and processing of information for disaster reduction.

A Commission on Emergencies of the Russian Academy of Sciences elaborates strategies and details specific measures for the assessment of risks and disaster reduction. There is also a special working group on emergencies under the authority of the national president. EMERCOM coordinates horizontal and vertical relationships within the Russian government in disaster and risk management. A sophisticated communications and reporting structure is maintained among the various operational bodies.

Working across sectors, EMERCOM supervises activities of the various line ministries and agencies by working through a coordination body, the Interagency Commission on Emergencies Prevention and Mitigation. This includes representation from various government agencies, including the hydrometeorological service, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Fuel and Energy, Ministry of Nuclear Energy, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health, and the state technical inspection service.

This commission exercises major responsibilities to ensure the operational capabilities of the RSDM. It has sectoral and regional branches in all Russian regions. It combines a management structure with emergency task forces and the resources of both federal and territorial executive bodies designated to be responsible for emergencies and disaster reduction.

EMERCOM’s vertical structure incorporates six regional centres (central, north-west, northern Caucuses, Volga-Ural, Siberian, and Far-East) with the territorial disaster management bodies in 89 subordinate jurisdictions. According to national legislation, it is the responsibility of territorial authorities to elaborate their respective regional laws to comply with national policies in maintaining task forces for emergencies mitigation and enhancing human security and performing rescue operations. They are also required to provide necessary resources and an accompanying permanent management structure to address disaster and risk management within their respective territories.

National legislation of the Russian Federation in disaster reduction consists of the basic federal law on the protection of population and territories from natural and technological emergencies, adopted in 1994. This is elaborated further by a set of corresponding federal legislation consisting of directives and regulations, as well as laws and acts of subordinate jurisdictions.

The basic federal law provides the legal foundation for disaster prevention and mitigation efforts. It defines the main notion of emergency situations and a set of expected response measures that incorporate principles of protection for the population and territorial assets. It stipulates the expected competencies of state authorities and governmental bodies in taking actions to avoid or limit adverse effects of natural hazards and to enhance human security. It further provides detailed division of responsibilities between federal, regional and municipal authorities. It regulates activities of the public and official rescue forces in emergency activities, and provides additional direction for public preparedness.

Disaster reduction legislation has been expanded considerably at both national and regional levels in Russia during recent years. In 2001, federal authorities introduced four federal laws, 24 governmental legal acts, and 55 directives for federal ministries that directly or indirectly relate to disaster reduction. These have been supplemented by the adoption of additional measures, including 23 legal acts and 1,024 normative regulations and directives.

Most of the regions throughout Russia have adopted territorial legislation that consists typically of general legal frameworks on preparedness, disaster mitigation and prevention. Additional acts have also been promulgated in specific sectors of disaster management and to promote various elements of human safety.

Special federal and regional programmes for public protection and disaster reduction are among the main instruments of governmental policies. The federal programme for natural and technological risks reduction and alleviating their impacts is in place until 2005. It is conducted jointly by EMERCOM; the ministries of industry, science and technologies, natural resources and nuclear energy; the Russian Academy of Sciences; and other bodies. In 2002, about 22 coordinating organizations and 73 participating institutions took part in its implementation.

The main goals of this programme include:

• elaborating measures to counteract natural and technological emergencies;
• creating methodological basis for disaster risk management;
• developing norms and directives for enhancing governmental control and institutional responsibilities in disaster reduction;
• improving systems for emergency risk identification, prediction and monitoring;
• developing information management, communication and early warning systems;
• designing measures to enhance human security and risk alleviation; and
• improving public education and specialist training for hazard and risk mitigation.

The programme has elaborated government concepts that are conducive to implement strategies for disaster risk reduction. This has involved efforts to compile regional inventories and databases on technical and financial resources necessary for mitigation, the introduction of new information and communication techniques, and developing improved methods for the forecasting and monitoring of hazards. Additional technical activities have addressed technology for atmospheric monitoring, means for breaking ice obstructions, and advanced technologies that can measure the seismic stability and resistance of buildings and infrastructure.

A recent assessment conducted by the government noted activities devoted to emergency services and the practical measures employed to identify emergency risks to the national system were quite effective. However, it also underlined that there were still some shortcomings in terms of developing broader institutional frameworks in natural disaster risk management (M. Kasianov, speech at the meeting of the high-level officials of EMERCOM, 20 November 2002).

One particular area noted for further attention was the persistent underestimation of the need for preventive measures, and a corresponding level of more limited attention to preparedness, monitoring and emergency warning among local populations. Further clarification and division of responsibilities between federal and local authorities was recommended. The situation was aggravated due to the violation of standards, and construction permits being issuing by local administrations and municipalities with insufficient regard given to disaster-prone zones, regardless of existing legislation.

As a result of such ongoing assessment of national policies, renewed emphasis is now being placed on improving monitoring capabilities, and seeking to increase the effectiveness of natural hazard forecasts. The overriding goal is to strengthen the communication of information, forecasts and preparedness components within the context of all disaster risk management activities. This should spur greater attention to structured programmes of public awareness and more local participation. There is also a demonstrated need to develop more opportunities for insurance and similar risk-sharing strategies to be employed.

Further information on the nature of problems encountered, as well as measures being taken in the Russian Federation to update national capabilities in disaster risk management can be reviewed on the EMERCOM web site.
< http://www.emercom.gov.ru>

Case: Greece

Like several other European countries, Greece has managed emergency and preparedness plans under the framework of civil protection responsibilities. A new law on civil protection was adopted in 2002, however, to take account of the experiences following recent disasters in the country. This law increases the responsibilities of local authorities and municipalities in disaster management, promotes the wider integration and use of scientific and technical knowledge, and places greater emphasis on the role of public participation in civil protection activities.

Specific national prevention measures have also been adopted, directed primarily towards reducing earthquake risks. Seismic codes that have been in place and periodically updated have become the main tools of earthquake prevention and are mandatory for all new construction. However, despite national efforts for land-use and urban planning that have been expressed for disaster protection and specifically earthquake safety since 1983, the pressure of rapid urbanization has contributed to a lower degree of implementation than expected in some areas.

Against such a background, the lessons learned from the 1999 earthquake which struck Athens and the nearby Attica region of Greece have received considerable public and therefore political attention. They have been drafted within the framework of the Natural and Environmental Disaster Information Exchange Systems (NEDIES) project of the European Union Joint Research Centre, and can be reviewed in full on the Internet. <http://nedies.jrc.it>

Political leaders took notice of this particular event because it was the most expensive earthquake in modern Greece, with losses estimated at 3 per cent of the country’s GDP. While many buildings performed relatively well in the earthquake, other important lessons were drawn for the future. Seismic risk assessment would have to become more widely used in order to obtain a better understanding of the possible effects of future earthquakes and to support a viable decision-making system for earthquake protection.

While this applied particularly to the economically important area of Attica, more effort needs to be expanded for land-use and urban planning with respect to seismic safety. This necessarily would have to include geological and geotechnical analysis as well as micro-zoning studies, which are well-established in the technical disciplines concerned.

A project on establishing criteria and procedures for vulnerability assessment of public buildings and bridges was in progress when the earthquake occurred. It continues, focusing on existing buildings of critical or public use. A database will be created regarding the characteristics of more than 200,000 buildings as the earthquake confirmed that future consideration must be given to retrofitting existing buildings.

The earthquake also confirmed that seismic safety has much to do with the overall design of buildings. Thus, requirements in respect to seismic safety should be included in the general building code and related codes for the design of non-structural elements.

The earthquake opened a window of opportunity for upgrading the built environment and to promote other measures for seismic safety, but there was also strong pressure for quick reconstruction and a rapid return to pre-earthquake conditions. Municipalities with pre-existing plans and projects are better equipped to take advantage of such opportunities. Special measures for land-use planning and the protection of industries and businesses have been implemented after the earthquakes, including geo-technical studies of the Attica Basin, urban planning, and a proposed relocation scheme.

Earthquake education also pays dividends. Many training and public awareness initiatives were set up after the earthquake. Training seminars were conducted for teachers and public volunteers. Training materials such as CD-ROMs and books about earthquake protection were distributed, and web sites created, in local communities and among the youth of the area.

In many cases children reacted better than their parents during the aftershocks, thanks to the training they had received at school. Therefore, more public education is required involving all members of the community.

Informing the media is especially important, with further encouragement needed for closer work between the media and the scientific community on an ongoing basis, before any disaster occurs.

Case: Iran

Iran is highly exposed to seismic hazards throughout the country. It became evident that a long-term vision was required to reduce the level of risk for the population. The development of a national policy of disaster risk reduction was promoted largely by scientific groups and technical interests.

Their example demonstrates that the evolution of risk reduction frameworks need not originate only from civil administration or political initiatives. Scientific interest groups exerted a major role in driving policy relevance and were able to implement actions in different segments of the society.

There were a number of problems to be tackled before a comprehensive and sustainable national framework to reduce seismic risk could be created. Following the 1990 Manjil earthquake, the International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), located in Teheran, began work with other technical institutions to develop a multidisciplinary strategic national research and mitigation plan for seismic risk reduction.

The resulting Iran Earthquake Risk Mitigation Program (IERMP) has been implemented by IIEES, the Building and Housing Research Centre, the Geophysics Institute of Teheran University and the Geological Survey of Iran.

With the added support of the Earthquake Committee of the Iran Research Council and Iran’s national IDNDR committee, the programme members adopted the following objectives:

• increase the scientific knowledge required for earthquake risk mitigation;
• reduce the risk of all structures by promoting the need to build safer structures;
• increase public awareness and promote a collective prevention culture; and
• develop plans for post-earthquake activities.

Politically, the first need was to promote a better understanding of seismic risk among senior policy makers and to translate that awareness into political commitment at all levels of government. This was pursued by emphasizing that elements of a risk reduction strategy were integral to national development objectives. Resources had to be reoriented from a predominant use in responding to immediate needs towards their investment in long-term objectives. Importantly, policy makers had to be encouraged to accept a policy of deferred benefits.

In an operational and technical context, emphasis was given to strengthening, and where necessary, retrofitting structures with particular attention given to lifeline facilities and the physical infrastructure. This became particularly crucial in highlighting a challenging incompatibility that existed between a developmental perspective that encouraged investment in seismic design, in contrast to the more prevalent thinking in the private and public sectors of incurring less expenditure on construction.

With the involvement of the engineering profession, backed up by its code of professional training, opportunities were identified to use technical knowledge in everyday life. This included a wider use of seismic design and construction techniques and a more serious approach to the implementation and enforcement of building codes. Perhaps most importantly, the engineering profession became an institutional champion to promote risk reduction.

IERMP developed a plan for government officials, scientists, engineers, builders and the public to define acceptable and achievable levels of risk by working together. This led to two parallel requirements, making seismic safety a priority policy through revised legislation, and creating internal mechanisms to change existing engineering practices.

A High Council on Risk Reduction was created in the Ministry of Planning and Management to supervise the implementation of the new programme. It concentrated on preparing the proper frameworks, budgeting, coordinating, and taking necessary decisions to ensure that the objectives were achieved.

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

• Shifting attention from responding to earthquake damage to introducing means that reduce the risk of damage to vulnerable structures and lifelines before earthquakes occur.
• Establishing a special government fund to strengthen important public buildings, including schools and hospitals, public infrastructure and lifeline facilities.
• Providing financial incentives for private and commercial sectors interested in upgrading their existing structures.
• Encouraging more industrialization in the construction field so as to ensure better quality control.

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

• Translating scientific knowledge into a usable format, using practical knowledge to promote risk reduction.
• Developing guidelines for conducting vulnerability assessments.
• Establishing detailed technical databases to document the necessary requirements to strengthen public buildings, setting priorities to do so, based on available resources.
• Determining the most appropriate and cost-effective means of strengthening different types of masonry, concrete and steel buildings.
• Promoting the use and enforcement of codes, quality control and inspection for all types of construction.

The following are some of the actions pursued through the IERMP to increase public understanding:

• Increasing public awareness and motivation using an earthquake information system.
• Motivating the participation of the public in prevention and mitigation activities.
• Promoting the use of do-it-yourself construction techniques suited for simple dwellings in rural areas.

Case: Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan often experiences earthquakes, floods, landslides and coastal floods. Only recently has the importance of natural disaster reduction been recognized officially. In May 2000, Kazakhstan’s Emergency Situation Agency published the Plan of Preparedness of Kazakhstan for Natural Disasters with the cooperation of the Kazakhstan Red Cross and UNDP.

The plan cites the considerable financial losses incurred by the country because of disasters and urges all organizations to take proper action to reduce their negative impact on the country’s development. The report provides guidance on preparedness activities for disaster reduction, response scenarios for disasters, legislation, and implementation of measures to reduce risk.

The last earthquake to devastate Kazakhstan took place in 1911, less than 30 kilometres south of Almaty. The memory of this event has faded from the country’s collective consciousness. Recognizing that the Armenian earthquake of 1988 occurred along seismic faults that had shown little movement for over 3,000 years, the Emergency Situation Agency has worked to increase public awareness about earthquake risks.

This activity is deemed to be crucial as most apartment blocks in Kazakhstan are similar to those that collapsed in the Armenian earthquake and in the Sakhalin earthquake of 1995. Even though the government’s Institute of Seismology has been working since 1976 to monitor seismic movement, the institute also undertakes risk assessments, evacuation scenarios, and the analysis of ground conditions as part of its research activities.

The country also faces other risks. Due to the rising water levels of the Caspian Sea over the past 20 years, the Kazakh shoreline has grown by 20-40 kilometres and water has encroached about 70 kilometres inland. The national Water Resource Committee has reported that total costs for preventing losses from these increasing water levels will exceed US$ 3-5 billion.

The northern slope of the Tengshan range near Almaty is exposed to floods, mud and debris flows, avalanches and landslides. In particular, landslides threaten areas where more than 150,000 people live. In May 2002, southern parts of Kazakhstan were affected by storms and heavy rainfall that caused serious flooding in cities.

Although disaster awareness issues are being raised in scientific and official circles, there is still a lack of general public awareness. The Emergency Situation Agency has prepared many brochures, pamphlets and videos to expand awareness of these hazards, and the public seems to be responsive.

A newspaper advertisement for a new apartment building referred to the structure as being seismic-resistant, a comment that evoked noticeable interest. On the other hand, people have not yet understood that investment in disaster reduction is a sound long-term investment.

Case: Romania

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

Each of these incidents has underlined the fact that an entire range of social and human factors influence the occurrence, nature and severity of natural hazards. Because of this, more attention is being given to assessing unacceptable stress exerted on the environment through deforestation, improper land use and the unsuitable location of industrial activities.

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

While two dated laws and several governmental decisions define the Romania national policy for risk reduction and seismic resistance, current actions are framed by a government ordinance that provides measures for the mitigation of the seismic risk on existing buildings. There is also a planning framework to reduce, or where possible to prevent seismic effects and landslides.

A government committee for disaster defence is led by the prime minister, and an operational centre for the notification, warning and intervention is part of the Civil Protection Command structure. Notification and warning procedures are established by the disaster defence regulations and are implemented by the central and local public administration. In addition, nine central committees strive to apply the various policies for different types of hazards, and related technical secretariats also form part of the system.

In recognizing the threat posed by technological hazards on the environment, the Romanian National Committee for Global Environmental Change and the Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection conducted a workshop on the subject in 2002. Particular attention was given to the long-term impacts of mining in the Somes and Tisa river basins, with the intention to develop environmental protection and management strategies. The meeting discussed risk factors associated with floods and drought but also considered the rehabilitation of waterways with a view to striking a balance between sustainable economic development and environment protection.

Case: Algeria

In November 2001, unusually heavy rain fell in the Algerian capital, Algiers. Flash floods and mudslides swept through many parts of the city, killing more than 800 people. At the time it was suggested that disaster management structures and the population were woefully unprepared for such an event.

It turned out that some common public practices and unsuited official policies with regard to human settlements may have contributed to the severity of the disaster. Due to the scope of the disaster and its location in the centre of the capital, all levels of government were seriously shaken. Senior officials experienced, first hand, the lack of coordination of the various parties concerned with emergency response, as well as having to accept their own failure of foresight.

Since this disaster, there has been a new way of thinking about disaster management in Algeria, particularly in urban areas. This has been demonstrated through several initiatives that started only months after the disaster. For the first time ever, the head of state ordered all the ministries to consider risk factors in their work and to include disaster risk reduction measures in their programmes.

The prime minister also discussed the matter during the council of the government, and called for a permanent coordinating structure of all the actors involved in disaster management. The Ministry of Interior is developing a permanent structure which will coordinate all phases of disaster management including risk reduction measures, response and rehabilitation.

The General Directorate of Civil Protection is shifting its attention towards prevention activities. Senior party officials are soliciting expert advice from scientific and technical advisors in preparing their programmes.

Since the floods, international organizations have joined forces to help in risk reduction projects. The mayor of Paris paid a visit to the affected areas and signed a memorandum of cooperation between the Wilaya (province) of Algiers and the Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme for a programme to promote better urban planning in Algiers. Early in 2002, another French organization, Architecture-Urgence, signed a convention for cooperation with the Wilaya of Algiers to work together on urban planning to reduce disasters.

The UN office in Algiers is also working on disaster reduction and engaged an Italian specialist to discuss the matter with Algerian authorities. UN-HABITAT proposed a cooperation project in disaster reduction with the Algerian government. A World Bank delegation has also visited Algeria to discuss a long-term project in disaster risk management.

An expert in urban planning from USAID visited Algiers less than a month after the disaster to discuss eventual cooperation in disaster reduction in urban areas with many Algerian institutions. USAID expressed an interest in preparing a project proposal for that purpose.

Within the first six months after the disaster, several seminars or conferences related to disaster reduction were either held or being planned. An Algerian-French colloquium on sustainable development and disaster reduction took place in Algiers only weeks after the disaster. Similar colloquiums were planned for other regions of the country. All of these actions demonstrate that Algerian authorities at all levels have become more aware about the risks they face.