IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Chapter 6National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and Disastersexposed developing and transition government portfolios against therisks imposed by disasters.6.5.4. Managing the ImpactsEven in the rare circumstances where efforts outlined previously are allin place, there still needs to be investment in capacities to managepotential disaster impacts as risk cannot be reduced to zero (Pelling,2003; Wisner et al., 2004; Coppola, 2007). The scale of the disasterimpact should ideally dictate the level and extent of response. Individualhousehold capacities to respond to disasters may be quickly overwhelmed,requiring local resources to be mobilized (del Ninno, 2001). Whencommunity-level responses are overwhelmed, regional or centralgovernments are called upon (Coppola, 2007). Some events mayoverwhelm national government capacities too, and may requiremobilization of the international community of humanitarian responders(Fagen, 2008; Harvey, 2009). International responses pose the mostcomplex management challenges for national governments, because ofthe diversity of actors that are involved and the multiple resources flowsthat are established (Borton, 1993; Bennett et al., 2006; Ramalingam etal., 2008; ALNAP, 2010a). However, although humanitarian principlescall for a proportionate and equitable response, in practice there are a fewhigh-profile disasters that are over-resourced, with many more that are‘forgotten or neglected emergencies’ (Slim, 2006). Despite the definition ofinternational or national disasters as those where immediate capacitiesare overwhelmed, evaluations routinely find that most of the vital lifesavingactivities happen at the local level, led by households, communities,and civil society (see Sections 5.1 and 5.2; Smillie, 2001; Hilhorst, 2003;ALNAP, 2005; Telford and Cosgrave, 2006).In terms of how responses are managed nationally, there are differentmodels to consider (ALNAP, 2010b). Many countries now have somestanding capacity to manage disaster events (Interworks, 1998) and thisshould be considered distinct from national systems for managingdisaster risk, commonly associated with ‘national platforms’ detailed inSection 6.4.2. Examples of standing disaster management capacityinclude the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the UnitedStates, Public Safety in Canada, the National Commission for DisasterReduction in China, the National Disaster Management Authorities inIndia and Indonesia, National Disaster Management Offices (NDMO) inmany Pacific island countries, and the Civil Contingencies Secretariat inthe United Kingdom. Comparative analysis of these structures showsthat there are a number of common elements (Interworks, 1998;Coppola, 2007). Countries with formal disaster management structurestypically operate a system comprised of a National Disaster Committee,which works to provide high-level authority and ministerial coordination,alongside an NDMO to lead the practical implementation of disasterpreparedness and response (Interworks, 1998). National Committeesare typically composed of representatives from different ministries anddepartments as well as the Red Cross/Red Crescent. They might alsoinclude donor agencies, NGOs, and the private sector. The committeeworks to coordinate the inputs of different institutions to provide acomprehensive approach to disaster management. NDMOs usually actas the executive arm of the national committee. Focal points for disastermanagement are usually professional disaster managers. NDMOs maybe operational, or in large countries they may provide policy andstrategic oversight to decentralized operational entities at federal orlocal levels. Where formal structures do not exist, national ministerialoversight is provided to the efforts of the NDMO in times of nationaldisasters.Government ownership of the national disaster management functioncan vary, with three models evident: it may reside with the presidentialor prime ministerial offices; it may sit within a specific ministry; or it maybe distributed across ministries (Interworks, 1998). The way in which theinternational community is engaged in major emergencies is shaped byexisting national capabilities and social contracts, with four possibleresponse approaches (Chandran and Jones 2008; ALNAP, 2010b; seeTable 6-4). Analysis based on these broad categories helps clarify theways in which international agencies are mobilized to manage disasterimpacts, following from national structure and capabilities.There may be states where there is an existing or emerging socialcontract with its citizens, by which the state undertakes to assist andprotect them in the face of disasters, and there is a limited role forinternational agencies, focusing on advocacy and fundraising. Bycomparison, there are states that have a growing capacity to respondand request international agencies to supplement their effort in specificlocally owned ways, through filling gaps in national capacities orresources. Next, there are states that have limited capacity and resourcesto meet their responsibilities to assist and protect their citizens in theface of disasters, and which request international assistance to copewith the magnitude of a disaster, resulting in a fully fledged internationalresponse. Finally, there are states that lack the will to negotiate aresilient social contract, including assisting and protecting their citizensTable 6-4 | Activities associated with managing the impacts of disasters. Adaptedfrom Coppola (2007) and ALNAP (2010a).Pre-disaster• Public education• Awareness raising• Warning andevacuation plans• Pre-positioning ofresources andsupplies• Last minutealleviation andpreparednessmeasuresImmediatepost -disaster• Search and rescue• Emergency medicaltreatment• Damage and NeedsAssessment• Provision of services –water, food, health,shelter, sanitation,social services,security• Resumption of criticalinfrastructure• Coordination ofresponse• Coordination /Management ofdevelopment partnersupportRecovery• Transitional shelter in form oftemporary housing or longtermshelter• Demolition of criticallydamaged structures• Repair of less seriouslydamaged structures• Clearance, removal, anddisposal of debris• Rehabilitation of infrastructure• New construction• Social rehabilitation• ‘Building back better’ to reducefuture risk• Employment schemes• Reimbursement for losses• Reassessment of risks373