risk awareness and assessment 3 - eird. · pdf filerisk awareness and assessment 3 3.3...

3Risk awareness and assessment3.3 Regional cooperation, interaction and experience

155

The centre provides opportunities to develop thetechnical and analytical abilities of staff, drawnfrom meteorological and hydrological services inthe region through a secondment programme. Italso manages meteorological and climatedatabanks for the region.

SADC programmes in water resources,environment and land management all havecrucial roles to play in developing policies thattake account of risk in their respective areas ofexpertise in all SADC countries. These include anumber of projects related to land-use practicesand conservation of environmental conditions,which can reduce both flood and drought-proneconditions.

Various SADC programmes also relate to the risksposed by climate change, and this places it in theforefront of inter-agency cooperation andcollaboration to reduce the risk of futurehydrometeorological hazards.

The water sector has long given attention to thedevelopment of cooperative agreements on sharedriver basins, but the floods of 2000 and 2001

underlined the need for greater attention toregional flood risk, in addition to recurrentdrought. The need for inter-state cooperationassociated with water-related hazards isparticularly acute as there are more than tenshared watercourses in the region, with the largest,the Zambezi River flowing through ninecountries.

The successful implementation of the SADCdisaster reduction strategy rests on interactionbetween different technical and administrativenetworks across Southern Africa. In May 2001, anintegrated Strategy for Flood and DroughtManagement in SADC countries was approvedfor implementation over a four-year period. Thestrategy focuses on preparedness and contingencyplanning, early warning and vulnerabilityinformation systems, mitigation measures,response activities and recovery strategies.

The process involves regular consultations throughwhich the national directors of disaster management,early warning, meteorological and water authoritiesmeet with SADC counterparts to monitor progressand address impediments to reduce drought and

Figure 3.1Southern African Development Community strategy for floods and drought management in the region

Source: SADC Water Sector Coordination Unit, 2001.

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

156

flood-related disasters. This process has beenassisted by USGS support for the development offlood and drought maps for the region.

Another example of regional technical cooperationis demonstrated by the coordinated use of 50 real-time data collection stations installed in 11 countriesunder the SADC Hydrological Cycle ObservingSystem. These stations and the information theygather are expected to make major improvements inthe availability of data for trans-boundaryhydrological information for flood forecasting. ThisEuropean Union funded project is implemented bySADC in association with the national hydrologicalservices of the participating countries.

In addition, the Zambezi River Authority (ZRA)was established by Zambia and Zimbabwe in 1998to coordinate their decisions on water use, powergeneration, as well as upstream and downstreamrisk consequences of their water managementpolicies.

Following the 2000 floods, the ZRA formed aJoint Operations Technical Committee withHidroeléctrica de Cabora Bassa in Mozambiqueto share data and technical information about theoperations of the Kariba and Cabora Bassareservoirs. Cooperation is furthered by a weeklyexchange of data and monthly meetings during thecritical rainy season.

SADC’s health sector works closely with theWHO Inter-Country Office for Southern Africa;WHO has long recognized the public healthconsequences of disasters. The WHO SouthernAfrica Malarial Control Programme addresses thecausative factors of hazards in creating epidemics.The very close correlation that exists betweentemperature, precipitation and the incidence ofmalaria in specific locations underlines theessential cooperation between all sectors relating towater, climate, land, environment, health anddisaster risk management.

Figure 3.2A comparison of rainfall and malaria by year in Zimbabwe

Source: WHO Southern Africa Malarial Control Programme, WHO Inter-Country Office for Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe.


157

West Africa

The Economic Community of West African States

The Economic Community of West African States(ECOWAS) is composed of 16 countries with theobjective of promoting cooperation and integrationleading to an economic union in West Africa. Thecommunity of interests has progressed in phases toimplement its agenda, leading from the foundationof its organizational structures and relatedprotocols, through efforts in conflict managementto a current focus on regionalization activities.

Against this background, environment and naturalresource management issues pertaining to riskfactors cover four areas in ECOWAS. There areregional meteorological and water resourcemanagement programmes, subregionalprogrammes for desertification control, and aprogramme to control floating weeds.

The meteorological initiative is supported by theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF) and theAfrican Development Bank (AfDB) with recentactivities focusing on revising regional applicationsof meteorological programme applications inenvironmental management and agriculturalsectors. Attention has also been given tomonitoring the implementation of theMETEOSAT information and datacommunications project in member states.

There is presently no subregional activity onnatural disaster reduction nor a consolidatedregional strategy of risk management activitiesdesignated as such within the programme portfolioof the ECOWAS Secretariat. The subregionalprogramme for desertification control of theSubregional Action Programme for West Africaessentially functions as a disaster reduction andrisk management initiative, but it is not regardedas such by the ECOWAS Secretariat. Howeverdiscussions were initiated among some ECOWASmembers late in 2003 about the possiblydesirability of formulating a regional strategy fordisaster risk reduction.

Both the desertification control and themeteorological information programmes offerpossibilities for the inclusion of any futuresubregional disaster reduction initiatives that may

be devised. There are also elements in theECOWAS organizational framework that wouldallow for the development of a comprehensivedisaster reduction and risk management initiative,such as a protocol relating to the mechanism forconflict prevention, management, resolution,peacekeeping and security.

There are other activities which can provide someassociated benefits and collaboration to themanagement of risk issues throughout the area,despite their largely singular concerns. Some ofthese are outlined below.

The Sub-Regional Action Programme to CombatDesertification in West Africa and Chad providesa strategic and programmatic framework forintegrating any disaster reduction and riskmanagement initiatives into poverty reduction,environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment planning in the subregion. It alsoprovides a basis for cooperation among variousinter-governmental organizations, such as theWest Africa Economic and Monetary Union,CILSS and the Niger Basin Authority.

Other subregional technical institutions that couldbe involved in this process are ACMAD inNiamey, Niger and AGRHYMET, also located inNiger. These institutions provide a basis for theengagement of scientific and technicalhydrometerological inputs to disaster reductionand risk management strategies in the subregion.Their activities contribute to fulfilling roles similarto those provided by the Drought ReductionCentres in East and Southern Africa.

The Sahel Institute in Bamako, Mali and both theRegional Remote Sensing Centre and the AfricanCentre for Studies on Rural Radio located inOuagadougou, Burkina Faso, are other examplesof subregional institutions pertinent to disasterrisk management in West Africa. Unrealizedopportunities remain, that could be augmented byinternational organizations and UN agencies, tolink these various institutional and technicalcapabilities for a more structured regionalapproach to monitor hazards to reduce disasterrisks in West Africa.

Despite its seeming distanced subject, theECOWAS Ceasefire Monitoring Group couldprovide a system of potential strategic and


158

contingency planning, communications,information and operational capabilities that couldserve as a backbone for any eventual subregionaldisaster reduction and risk management initiatives.

It could provide the principles for collaboration inareas including early warning, disastermanagement focused at both subregional andnational levels. It could be employed to encouragea consistent approach to coordinating nationaldisaster management strategies or allocatingresources. In terms of potential, such a forcecapability in West Africa is an advantage notequally evident in other African regions.

In this respect, ECOWAS is currently developingcommunication and information managementcapability for early warning and other sharedinformation needs in collaboration with externalpartners. It is also anticipated that ECOWAS willplay a leading future role in the implementation ofthe New Partnership for Africa’s Development(NEPAD), where growing involvement withenvironmental management can provide a relevantlink to risk management in practice.

Asia

In contrast to Latin Americaand the Caribbean andresponding to differentconditions than those in Africa,regional collaboration in Asia stems less from theconsequences of a single devastating disaster.Rather, it results more from shared outlooksemerging from various professional interests.

It is difficult to identify a single approach todisaster risk reduction among the many cultural,social, and political distinctions in Asian societies.Yet, there is a clear movement to identify andaddress disaster risks. People involved in widerissues of development are emerging as potentialcollaborators in reducing disaster risk. Theseinclude policy makers involved in environmentalmanagement, climate variation, natural resourceutilization, regional planning, the construction orprotection of infrastructure, education,communications and public administration.

In many of the examples reviewed here, a growinginvolvement with risk issues is a feature of

regional forums that previously adopted morenarrow concepts of crisis or in some cases may nothave discussed risk in explicit terms.

A multi-donor funded partnership to mitigatenatural hazards in central Viet Nam bringsgovernment agencies together with internationaland regional NGOs to address the issues ofdisaster risks at both national and district levels.The partnership tackles such concerns as disasterpreparedness, water resource management,community relocation and rehabilitation,environmental management and livelihood issuesof vulnerable communities through specificprojects.

Over the past several years, a RegionalConsultative Committee on Regional Cooperationin Disaster Management (RCC) has beenconvened by the Asian Disaster PreparednessCenter (ADPC) with support from the AustralianAgency for International Development (AusAID).The committee comprises heads of nationaldisaster management authorities from 24 countriesin Asia.

Members have endorsed the importance of theRCC as a forum to exchange information andexperience regarding national disaster riskmanagement systems. Annual meetings held in2000, 2001 and 2002 addressed capacity-buildingand reviewed experiences of new legislation, policyand institutional reform, and related planningprocesses.

These meetings recommended more informationexchange to enable countries developing new ormodified legislation or institutional arrangementsto learn from the experiences of others in theregion. Countries were also encouraged by other’sexamples to develop disaster risk managementplans at national, provincial and local levels.Through these actions, the RCC has served toconsolidate and strengthen regional initiatives,even though the various priorities and interests ofthe individual countries may vary.

The second RCC meeting urged countries toadopt a total disaster risk management strategythat would represent “a comprehensive approachto multi-hazard disaster risk management andreduction, which includes prevention, mitigationand preparedness in addition to response and


159

recovery”. The following areas of action wereidentified:

• developing community programmes forpreparedness and mitigation;

• building capacity within national disastermanagement systems;

• promoting cooperation and enhancing themutual effectiveness of programmes ofsubregional organizations, such as those of theAssociation of South East Asian Nations(ASEAN), the South Asian Association forRegional Cooperation (SAARC), the SouthPacific Applied Geoscience Commission(SOPAC), the Mekong River Commission(MRC), and the International Centre forIntegrated Mountain Development(ICIMOD); and

• creating awareness and promoting politicalcommitment through regional initiatives.

The 2002 meeting was attended by the heads ofnational disaster management offices of 23 Asiancountries and included a special session aboutdrought management and mitigation in Asia. Themeeting endorsed the adoption of comprehensivedisaster management approaches by all membercountries and called for capacity-buildingprogrammes catering to different audiences.

Information on these and other initiatives as wellas the experiences of several countries in theregion were shared in regional workshops oninstitutional frameworks and planning for disasterrisk management. One, organized in Bangkok inApril 2002 by ADPC with the support of theEuropean Community Humanitarian Aid Office(ECHO), OFDA/USAID and the AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB) provided additionalopportunities to establish links and developrelationships among individuals and institutionsinvolved in disaster risk management planning inthe region. Another conducted under the auspicesof the Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Programin Bali, Indonesia in October 2002 reviewed theaccomplishments and the new organizational andoperational relationships that have been developedover the past seven years of disaster risk reductionactivities in ten countries.

The Asian Disaster Reduction Centre (ADRC) isa multilateral organization for disaster reductionbased in Kobe, Japan. Composed of 23 member

countries plus four additional advisory countries,ADRC engages focal points in participatinggovernments to facilitate the exchange ofinformation. It strives to identify acute needs andto develop human resources dedicated to disasterreduction.

ADRC also works with other disastermanagement organizations engaged in Asia, suchas OCHA, UN Centre for RegionalDevelopment (UNCRD), ADPC, andOFDA/USAID. It conducts studies andencourages research that will contribute to puttingdisaster management technologies to practical use.This includes the use of geographic and satelliteinformation systems. It also maintains a web siteof products and techniques that are useful fordisaster reduction practices such as methods forstructural reinforcement against earthquakes andpreventing landslides.

ADRC provides financial and technical supportfor activities and disseminates beneficialexperience around the world. By using these toolsand based on specific requests, it has launchedcooperative projects to develop disaster riskmanagement capacities of its member countries.These projects include the promotion ofeducational programmes to develop disasterreduction capacities, (community-based flooddisaster mitigation project in Indonesia, schooleducational programme for disaster reduction inthe Philippines); and activities that increaseprofessional skills (urban search and rescuetraining in Singapore).

The centre also encourages operational analysisand the circulation of technical knowledge byinviting visiting researchers from membercountries to ADRC, and by conducting short-term visitor training programmes.

Regional cooperation is promoted further byADRC’s management of an information databaseon natural disaster reduction in Asia. With aparticular focus on matters of legislation, disastermanagement, training and country reports, theweb site shares lessons for disaster reductionamong Asian countries.

ADRC organizes international conferences andworkshops to discuss the status of disasterreduction activities in Asia. In 2002, it held the


160

Fourth ADRC International Meeting in NewDelhi, followed immediately by a second meetingof the same regional participants to discuss ISDRinvolvement in Asia. Later in the year, ADRC andOCHA jointly conducted the Regional Workshopon Networking and Collaboration among NGOsof Asian Countries in Disaster Reduction andResponse, in Kobe, Japan.

The Fifth ADRC International Meeting wasconvened in Kobe, Japan in 2003 where particularemphasis was given to reviewing the achievementsand challenges in disaster reduction in Asia as abasis to develop the paradigm of related regionaland international cooperation further. This seriesof annual meetings continues a process to builddisaster reduction capacities and the evolution ofguidelines that can improve its effectiveness inAsia, in the process serving as a contribution tothe review of the Yokohama Strategy and Plan ofAction for a Safer World.

With common objectives but different emphasis,both ADPC and ADRC have cooperated withOCHA to organize consultative meetingsinvolving regional institutions, UN agencies andmultilateral development assistance organizations.Such meetings were held in Kathmandu in 2001and Bangkok in June 2002.

This second meeting discussed emerginginternational partnerships for reduction of riskand vulnerability to natural hazards withadditional partners in the region focused on totaldisaster risk management. These included thelongstanding interaction with UNDP andIFRC, and also marked the productiverelationships maintained with the USAIDRegional Office in Manila and the EuropeanCommission’s regional Disaster PreparednessECHO (DIPECHO) programmes based inBangkok, among others.

ADRC maintained other interests in regionalcooperation for total disaster risk managementwith the Asian Development Bank, theInternational Institute of Disaster RiskManagement (IDRM), Emergency ManagementAustralia (EMA), ICIMOD and ASEAN.

The ASEAN Secretariat is another regionalinstitution that has linked disaster risk issues withother programme interests. The ASEAN

Secretariat and member countries have reached anadvanced stage of planning for disastermanagement. With technical support from ADPCand additional assistance from the EuropeanUnion they have developed a new ASEANRegional Programme on Disaster Management toguide cooperative action among the membercountries in the following areas:

• planning and conducting joint projects;• collaborating on research and encouraging

networks among member countries;• building capacities and developing human

resources in areas of priority concern;• sharing information, best practices, and disaster

management resources;• promoting partnerships among various

stakeholders including government authorities,NGOs, community and internationalorganizations; and

• promoting advocacy, public awareness andeducation programmes related to disastermanagement.

The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) is anotherplatform composed of the ASEAN countries and13 additional dialogue partners: Australia,Canada, China, European Union, India, Japan,Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand,Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation and theUnited States.

Under its umbrella, several groups have beenestablished to promote cooperation in specificareas including disaster relief and marine searchand rescue. Achievements of ARF include a seriesof training activities, developing a matrix of pastcooperation in disaster relief among membercountries, conducting an inventory of earlywarning systems and drafting guidelines for post-disaster responsibilities. Annual meetings havebeen held since 1997 and by drawing participationfrom senior levels of ministries of foreign affairs,defence, disaster management and others theyhave provided a unique platform to considermultiple aspects of disaster management.

Elsewhere in Asia, the South Asia Association forRegional Cooperation (SAARC) consists of sevenmember countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India,Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. At ameeting of the SAARC Technical Committee on


161

Environment, Meteorology and Forestryin January 2002, reference was made to“the need for mechanisms to promotecapacity-building and technology transferto support natural disaster management”.

It was further stressed that together withconcerns about the negative impacts whichclimate change exerts in the region, acommon South Asian position should bedeveloped on these issues in internationalforums.

At the 11th Summit Meeting of SAARCheld in Kathmandu in 2002, the consensusview was that “the Heads of State orGovernment felt a strong need to devise amechanism for cooperation in the field ofearly warning, as well as preparedness andmanagement of natural disasters, alongwith programmes to promote theconservation of land and water resources”.

As all SAARC member countries areexposed to similar hazards, they havemuch operational experience in disasterrisk management that could be exchanged.Possibilities include the sharing of moreinformation in training, operational andtechnical professional information. Otherinitiatives could further the exchange ofgovernment officials, and morecoordination in policy formulation andimplementation, especially in efforts toreduce risks associated with trans-boundary hazards and to increaseoperational cooperation in disasters thataffect neighbouring countries.

There are other technical frameworks inAsia that focus increasing attention on theconsequences of natural hazards. Asclimate has become accepted as a majordeterminant in contributing to recurrentrisks, the meteorological services of theregion have worked in close partnershipwith an increasingly wide range of sectoralagencies. The unprecedented breadth ofimpacts associated with the El Niño/LaNiña events during 1997-1998 acrossSouth East Asian countries underlined theneed for effective and continuing riskassessments.

The application of seasonal climateforecasting is now considered increasingly asan integral part of comprehensive riskmanagement. Regional institutions such asADPC have also become more involved inworking with national agencies andtechnical institutions to study the impacts ofpast extreme climate events in order toanticipate and mitigate the impacts of futureoccurrences.

In May 2002, a two-week training courseon the applications of climate informationwas organized jointly by ADPC and theThai Meteorological Department. Itbrought together, for the first time,meteorological forecasters, water resourcemanagers, agriculture sector managers andfood logisticians. The participants assessedthe risks posed by climate variability in theregion and worked to develop strategies tominimize those risks.

Such activities illustrate a movementtowards the introduction of riskmanagement concepts in other resourcemanagement sectors beyond traditional orsingular disaster management organizations.

International relationships at the regional levelare a key requirement in the development ofeffective flood early warning systems as riverspass from one country to another. Thedevelopment of expanded institutionalcapacities of the Mekong River Commission(MRC) over recent years is another fineexample of good regional cooperation. TheMRC has developed a long-term floodmanagement programme that was givenimpetus by the devastating floods of 2000 inthe Mekong Delta.

The programme reflects the prioritiesidentified by MRC member countries andis being implemented by them over the six-year period, 2002-2008, in association withtheir respective national disastermanagement agencies and NGOs active inthe region. Activities include floodemergency management and mitigationprojects, land-use management,transboundary flood issues and thedissemination of early warnings.

Although there is a systemfor tracking river levels,there is still no properearly warning system thatwill provide informationto disaster-pronepopulations, and there isno centralized informationcentre. To address this andother issues, the UNDisaster ManagementTeam in Cambodia iscurrently supporting thedevelopment of a regionalnetwork for disastermanagement andmitigation in the Mekongcountries. This is to reducethe vulnerability of thepoorest residents to thenegative impacts ofdisasters and to protectbroad based developmentgains.

Cambodia response toISDR questionnaire,2001.

The extent of cultural variation and politicaldiversity across Asia can work against regionalcooperation. However, at least some of theselimitations can be overcome, or measures takento resolve them if the international donorcommunity and regional organizations alikework towards a more consistent understandingthat accords disaster risk reduction an explicitand visible role in development strategies (seebox 3.8).

The extent of cultural variation and politicaldiversity across Asia can impede regionalcooperation. However, by focusing on commoninterests through a more coherent approachpursued by the international donor communityand regional organizations, disaster riskreduction can assume a more distinctive andvisible role in development strategies.

Pacific small islanddeveloping states

The management of disasters iswidely recognized in the Pacificas a national concern, althoughin a reflection of deeply held cultural attributes, itis equally understood that strengthening regionallinkages and fostering a sense of common purposeimproves overall disaster and risk managementcapabilities for all.

The similarity of hazards that Pacific small islanddeveloping states (SIDS) face, the sharedproblems they experience, and a generallycommon approach adopted in their institutionalarrangements have provided a fruitful basis forregional cooperation.

Regional organizations have buttressed theseattributes further by working through theprinciples of partnership in development efforts inthe individual Pacific SIDS. Regional cooperationalso has been demonstrated by the multilateral andbilateral technical assistance organizations thathave long been active in disaster relief andrehabilitation work in the region.

During the past 25 years though, people in thePacific have displayed a consistent regionalapproach of transforming policy objectives, publicunderstanding and practical implementationrelated to disaster management. This hasproceeded from the prior concentration on theneeds for urgent disaster assistance during a crisis,to the ongoing identification and management ofrisks experienced by local communities, integratedinto overall national development strategies.

The emphasis has changed now to a moreproactive approach of increasing awareness aboutnatural hazards and preparing for them. Themajor challenge in this respect for the Pacificregion has been to formulate and implementstrategies to reduce community vulnerability.Throughout the region, governments have beenencouraged to develop risk reduction strategiesand local communities are becoming motivatedthrough ongoing and consistent public educationcampaigns.

There has been an admirable progression of well-structured programmes for disaster risk

Box 3.14Challenges for regional interaction in Asia

• Tunnel vision that considers risk awarenessmarginal and places greater importance on politicalvisibility in responding to disasters that haveoccurred.

• Different constituencies and mandates pertainingto various sectors of disaster risk management.

• Scarcity of resource allocations for risk reduction incontrast to emergency response.

• Weak or inconsistent use of dynamic riskassessments in national development strategies.

• No single umbrella organization representative ofregional interests and priorities related to disasterrisks.

• Lack of awareness, policy or economic motivationto include disaster risk impact analysis in projectdesigns.

• Different, overlapping or overlooked geographicalcoverage of countries where donor interests areconcerned.

• Lack of programmatic mechanisms for matchingregional providers with local needs – decisionsoften influenced more by political affinities thanpotential disaster risks.

• Nationalist motivation or competing initiatives andduplication among donor interests.

• Bilateral versus multilateral initiatives, donor orsupply-side influenced projects.

• National policy objectives contrasting with broaderregional collaboration.

·• Insufficient working-level cooperation andknowledge transfer, duplication of informationcollection and dissemination.

• Limited opportunities for dialogue on a regionallevel. Lack of structured communication andknowledge of other agency programmes.


162


163

management in the Pacific. Throughout, it has beenguided by the political practice of regional consensus,with each stage championed by respected regionalorganizations. The consistency of approach andcontinuity that has been provided by national,regional and international partners alike has been ahallmark of successful regional collaboration.

During the 1980s, the Office of the UN DisasterRelief Coordinator (UNDRO) supported disasterpreparedness and response activities in the Pacificby providing technical and financial assistance fordisaster management seminars, workshops andplanning exercises. In October 1990, a SouthPacific Programme Office (SPPO) was establishedin Suva, Fiji to act as the coordination centre forthese activities.

During the next ten years SPPO evolved inresponse to altered UN organizationalresponsibilities, successively pursued by the UNDepartment of Humanitarian Affairs (UNDHA),and then by UNDP South Pacific Office (UNDP-SPO). Their joint and proactive approach createdthe evolution of a regional strategy known as theSouth Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme(SPDRP) which had two phases: from 1994-1997and 1998-2000. This sustained common effortgreatly aided the development of individual nationalplans for disaster risk management.

During much of the 1990s SPDRP pursuedobjectives to:

• strengthen human resources and institutionalcapacity to manage the effects of natural disasterseffectively and rapidly;

• provide appropriate technical support materialsfor disaster management at all levels ofresponsibility;

• establish a disaster management informationsystem;

• achieve an acceptable and sustainable level ofregional cooperation and collaboration;

• empower communities to reduce theirvulnerability to natural disasters;

• establish training capacities at regional andnational levels;

• increase national capabilities through mitigationmeasures and development activities; and

• strengthen sustainability through improvedregional and national coordination and mutualsupport.

Activities were clustered under six relatedprogramme components that provided auniform and consistent focus throughout theregion:

• in-country training and technical assistance;• regional training;• disaster mitigation activities;• development and use of regional support

materials;• information management; and• regional cooperation and coordination.

Although SPDRP was planned and coordinatedon a regional basis, much of the activity wasdemonstrated by individual Pacific island states.The collective programme provided amechanism for international donors to targetassistance for the region that avoided duplicationof effort and inter-agency competition. Supportwas channelled through SPDRP by Australia,China, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, NewZealand, United Kingdom and United States.

An integral part of the SPDRP was the Pacificregional IDNDR programme, greatly facilitatedby the Australian National CoordinationCommittee for IDNDR, which funded 31country projects. It also supported several otherregional projects, conducted both regional andinternational meetings and maintained an activeprogramme to disseminate information.

By a decision taken by all the Heads of Statethrough the Pacific Forum, a DisasterManagement Unit was established within theSouth Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission(SOPAC-DMU) in July 2000. SOPAC-DMUwas created to provide an institutionalizedregional approach to disaster risk managementwhile drawing upon the accomplishments ofSPDRP from the 1990s.

The annual Pacific Regional DisasterManagement Meetings and other activitiesinitiated by SPDRP continue in the SOPAC-DMU programme. Information is disseminatedregularly through the publication of quarterlySOPAC-DMU reports and a newsletter. Othermajor efforts continue to engage the commitmentof international agencies and to developexpanded partner relationships through formalmemorandums of understanding with foreign


164

government agencies and internationalinstitutions.

The goal of SOPAC-DMU is tostrengthen national disaster managementprogramming capacities and to integraterisk management practices within theeconomic strategies of countries in orderto achieve long-term communityresilience.

The current strategy for improving Pacificregional collaboration rests on two primaryobjectives: to establish a highly functionalcoordinating body (SOPAC-DMU), andto strengthen the capacity of national riskofficials to accomplish effective disastermanagement programmes domestically.

This will be implemented through theComprehensive Hazard and RiskManagement (CHARM) programme, acomprehensive strategy based on sustainablehazard and risk management. The approachis based on the Australia/New Zealand RiskManagement Standard and will allowPacific island states to clearly identify,prioritize and then manage communityrisks. It also seeks to achieve greatereffectiveness in disaster response andrecovery practices.

It is expected that CHARM strategies willlead to a redefinition of national disastermanagement office (NDMO)responsibilities in a number of countries, asdisaster risk management is integrated ingovernment planning. Therefore, advocacyat senior levels of government and theinvolvement of professional developmentstrategies are also priorities.

There are many government ministries andregional organizations undertaking riskmanagement projects. Many of these areconducted in isolation, with little sharedinformation which can lead easily toduplication. Officials need to have acomprehensive understanding of all thehazards and the risks that exist, togetherwith an overview of projects beingundertaken elsewhere in the region, if theyare to have a clear picture of remainingneeds.

The CHARM approach is based oncoordinated efforts and familiarity with allrisk-related projects that are underway andtheir respective linkages. By integrating avariety of professional disciplines frommany different sectors CHARM works toassimilate risk awareness into the nationalplanning processes. This process equally

In the South Pacific, arisk assessment project,

known as the Pacific CityProject, is being

implemented by the SouthPacific Applied GeoscienceCommission (SOPAC) in

the capitals of Pacificsmall island developingstates. The project was

originally based onearthquake related

hazards, but it will nowbe extended to include

other hazards. A micro-zoning map is now in

place for the seismichazard maps.

Tonga response to ISDRquestionnaire, 2001.

Box 3.15Progress in the Pacific

There has been admirable progress of well-structured programmes for disaster risk management amongPacific small island developing states (SIDS). Programmes are guided by regional consensus andchampioned by respected regional organizations:

• From 1990-1999, IDNDR provided a common purpose and an international structure to address ashared need for disaster reduction across Pacific SIDS.

• In 1993-1994, Pacific SIDS developed a common programme on Natural Disaster Reduction in PacificIslands Countries, presented at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Yokohama, Japan, 1994.

• From 1994-2000, UNDP South Pacific Office supported the South Pacific Disaster ReductionProgramme (SPDRP), which proceeded in two phases from 1994-1997 and 1998-2000.

• A tripartite review conducted by the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs-South Pacific Office(UNDHA-SPO) and SPDRP, led to a Regional Disaster Management Framework being formulated inSeptember, 1997.

• The Alafua Declaration was adopted by the Pacific Islands Forum in September 1999 to institutionalizea collective regional strategy for disaster reduction.

• In July 2000, the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission-Disaster Management Unit (SOPAC-DMU) replaced SPDRP.

• With the design and official endorsement of a Regional Programme Plan, SOPAC-DMU embarked on athree year implementation process from 2001-2004.

• Future directions will be guided by the innovative Comprehensive Hazard and Risk Management(CHARM) project, an integrated risk management framework and practice to manage unacceptablerisks in Pacific SIDS, in the context of national development planning, encompassing both regional andindividual country initiatives.


165

needs to be supported by developing skills,training continuously and advocating forrisk reduction measures to be implemented.

In order to institutionalize these principlesby translating concepts into activities,CHARM has identified the followingstrategic elements:

• Creation of a regional CHARMdevelopment strategyAs a new concept, CHARM requiresinvestment in the professionaldevelopment of senior officers fromstakeholders’ agencies. It also requiresclose collaboration with the region’straditional donors and other regionalorganizations.

• Foster national development strategiesWith linked programmes that canoptimize technical assistance and futureplanning, CHARM provides an inter-agency basis for sustained commitmentsby government and non-governmentplayers.

• TrainingAs CHARM will require time and thecollaborative effort of all majorstakeholders for it to be fullyimplemented, in-country trainingcapacities need to be developed andstrengthened to drive this process.

• Strengthen information technology capabilitiesA critical factor is to ensure thatNDMOs throughout the region areequipped with human and technicalcapacities to manage multidisciplinaryinformation resources. This will requireappropriate technological tools andcomputer-based information andcommunication systems.

Another example of regional collaborationelsewhere in the Pacific has been driven bya specific intention to assess the potentialeffects of climate change and variability onthe US-affiliated Pacific islands. ThePacific assessment was a regionalcontribution to the first US NationalAssessment of the Consequences ofClimate Change and Variability,coordinated by the East-West Center inHonolulu, Hawaii.

It was accomplished between 1998-2000through the collaboration of partners fromthe region and representatives from allUS-affiliated islands; namely FederatedStates of Micronesia, Northern MarianaIslands, Hawaii, Marshall Islands,American Samoa, Palau and Guam.

The initiative sought to nurture the criticalpartnerships necessary to develop and useclimate related information to understandand respond to the challenges andopportunities presented by climatevariability and change. Based on extensiveinvolvement of experts and stakeholdersfrom diverse knowledge groups, theassessment combined research and analyseswith dialogue and education.

In the end, the assessment was an excitingand highly interactive process involvingmore than 200 participants who wereengaged through small discussion groupsand two key workshops organized toencourage and accommodate widespreadregional participation in research anddialogue.

“Disaster management iseveryone’s business. It is afundamental component ofindividual, community,business, NGO andgovernment safety andwell-being. It is anessential pre-requisite forthe achievement ofcommunity resilience andsustainable development.[To] ensure an integratedand sustainable approachto comprehensive hazardand risk management isachieved, a majorfunction of the DisasterManagement Unit willbe to act as a coordinatorto bring together majorstakeholder groupsrepresenting regional,governmental, community,corporate and NGOinterests. In this brokerand facilitator role, theDMU will play apivotal part inidentifying, encouragingand assisting in disasterreduction and riskmanagement activitiesthroughout the region andwithin Pacific islandcountries.”

Source: SOPAC, 2000;and SOPAC-DMU,2001.

Box 3.16Comprehensive Hazard and RiskManagement

The key elements of the ComprehensiveHazard and Risk Management (CHARM)process carried out in the Pacific are:

• identifying known hazards;• analyzing each hazard against national

development priorities;• identifying vulnerable sectors in relation to

hazards;• identifying risks and determining the most

appropriate ways to manage those riskswithin realistic time and resourceframeworks;

• identifying what activities or projects arealready being implemented or proposed,both at the country level and by regionalorganizations;

• identifying programming gaps;• identifying possible options for altered

development priorities in light of impactscenarios; and

• determining lead responsibilities andagencies for managing the implementationof the risk reduction strategy.

The assessment supported exploration of climatevulnerability in a number of key sectors. Inconsidering the challenges of ensuring public safetyand protecting community infrastructure, anumber of climate-related hazards of concern wereidentified. These included droughts, fires, tropicalcyclones and other severe storms, floods, mud andlandslide hazards, episodic high surf conditions,sea-level variation (on various time scales), andlong-term sea-level rise (with coastal inundationhazards).

The full report documents the potential impacts,sensitivity and resilience in the context of providingaccess to fresh water, protecting public health, andensuring public safety and protecting communityinfrastructure. It also looks at the economic andsocial considerations of climate change and

variability in sustaining agriculture, tourism andpromoting the sustainable use of marine andcoastal resources.<www2.eastwestcenter.org/climate/assessment>

Europe

Risk reduction is not a subjectthat has yet stimulated acomprehensive institutionalarrangement throughoutEurope, although there are a number of individualinitiatives which do contribute to increasingopportunities of collaboration within specificpolitical or subject matter contexts. However, assevere climate events, and notably recent storms,floods and coastal pollution have occurred withconsiderable social and economic ramifications ina number of European countries, there may begrowing political stimulus for more regionalcooperation related to disasters. It remains to beseen, however, the extent to which more resourcesmay be allocated for disaster risk reduction, incontrast to recovery and rehabilitation after socialassets and critical infrastructure are destroyed.

The most significant example of Europeancooperation relating to hazards and riskmanagement is the EUR-OPA Major HazardsAgreement of the Council of Europe, which hasthe objective of enhancing multidisciplinarycooperation between member states to ensurebetter prevention, protection and relief in the eventof major natural or technological disasters.

Box 3.17Shared principles for adaptation to a changing climate in the Pacific

• Responding to climate variability is an information-intensive endeavour that requires a continuing dialogue amongscientists and decision makers.

• Research results must be transformed into useful and usable information for any productive action to result.• The effects of climate need to be considered on multiple, interacting sectors and activities of the society.• Integrate science and decision-making across sectors and among the different levels of government responsibility.• Address current deficiencies in reliable baseline information and island-specific vulnerability studies (one size does not fit

all in either science or decision-making).• Enhance and strengthen programmes of education, training and public outreach.• Pursue proactive, forward-looking approaches, emphasize precautionary approaches that enhance flexibility and reduce

the adverse effect of unanticipated consequences.• Improve climate monitoring and prediction by integrating climate information, such as El Niño forecasts. • Monitor changes in sea level, periodically updating inundation maps and related planning assumptions.• Identify, evaluate and utilize more sustainable approaches to water resource management, agricultural practices, and

other types of natural resource management activities including forests, wetlands and foreshores.• Enhance consideration and integration of traditional knowledge and practices.• Embed disaster risk management, preparedness and response activities in sustainable development planning processes.


166

Box 3.18Implementing CHARM

There are several key principles for implementing theComprehensive Hazard and Risk Management:

• Ensure ownership by the country;• Ensure links with national strategic plans;• Ensure harmony with existing systems;• Ensure appropriate communication and

consultation with communities, stakeholders,donors and development partners;

• Establish the principle that risk reduction is vital tonational development and that CHARM is apowerful tool in the reduction of risk; and

• Ensure CHARM is promoted as a public safetytool, a risk reduction change driver, as cost-effective and as part of an agreed regionalprogramme with donor support.


167

This intergovernmental European Open PartialAgreement (hence, EUR-OPA) was establishedby the Council of Europe in 1987 and providesthe opportunity for any other non-member state ofthe European Council to accede to itsarrangements and terms for collaboration. As ofAugust 2002, it had 28 members, including 14Mediterranean countries (Albania, Algeria,France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco,the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Monaco and SanMarino).

The agreement is conducted in collaboration withthe European Union, other European institutions,such as the European Space Agency (ESA), andinternational organizations. Specialized UNagencies including the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA), the International LabourOrganization (ILO), ISDR, OCHA, UNESCO,and WHO, as well as IFRC and NATO, are alsoaffiliated. There are two aspects to cooperation:political, and scientific and technical.

Politically, decisions are taken by governmentministers, following guidelines and priorities foraction that are defined at ministerial sessions andtransmitted to the Committee of PermanentCorrespondents and its various sub-committees. Aplatform for concerted action and cooperation wasformulated through these measures wherebycountries were placed on an equal footing todesignate representation from Europe for theInter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction(IATF/DR). This common approach alsoembarked on a comparative analysis of nationallegislation relating to risk management in Europe.

In the scientific and technical domain, researchand coordination efforts are encouraged throughthe European Network of Specialized Centres.Twenty-three technical institutions sharefunctions in research, training and expertise ondifferent, but often linked issues of riskimportant to European and Mediterraneancountries. The centres are situated in Western,Eastern and Central European countries, as wellas in other countries that share theMediterranean basin.

Several important recommendations for enhancedcooperation in matters of risk reduction wereadopted at the Ninth Ministerial Session of the

EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement inBandol, France in October 2002. One called forthe development of increased European-Mediterranean collaboration particularly throughthe exchange of information, and anotheridentified the first phase of implementing riskreduction policies and procedures that couldfurther ISDR objectives.

The major decisions taken are summarized below:

• Establish Euro-Mediterranean Synergy tostrengthen disaster reduction and preparednessby establishing a network focusing onprocedures and protocols for more onlineexchange of information and data concerningthe occurrence and effects of disasters, as well asthe use of uniform terminology and definition ofrisk management concepts. Risk assessmentprocedures and techniques likewise could bebetter harmonized to consider such areas as thestability of buildings and civil engineeringworks, and the safety of chemical, radiologicaland other hazardous facilities such as pipelines.Early warning systems for natural andtechnological hazards were similarly identifiedas areas for future commitments. Throughout, acommon commitment was acknowledged thatthe agreement’s undertakings must address thenature of hazards and their prevention and thatall information, knowledge and scientificexpertise should facilitate risk managementdecision-making.

• Association with the objectives and activities ofISDR was encouraged by calling for theestablishment or consolidation of nationalprogrammes or platforms for disaster reductionin the Euro-Mediterranean region and that theybe accorded recognition and support by nationalgovernments. The integration of riskmanagement into planning and land-use policywas highlighted as having particular potentialimpact. While these and related measures couldbe pursued in cooperation with the Council ofEurope and the European Commission, it wasnoted that it should also be developed with thesupport of the ISDR Secretariat, in particularfor the benefit of developing countries.

• To further these intentions, interest wasexpressed in sponsoring a joint regionalconference by EUR-OPA Major Hazards


168

Box 3.19Major Hazards Agreement of the Council of Europe (EUR-OPA) Specialized Centres

European Centre for Disaster Medicine (CEMEC), San Marino promotes the prevention and mitigation of the effects ofnatural and technological disasters.<http://www.diesis.com/cemec>

European University Centre for Cultural Heritage (CUEBC) in Ravello, Italy. CUEBC is an experimental laboratory thatconducts scientific research and specialist matters. It is part of the European University for Cultural Heritage.<http://www.cuebc.amalficoast.it/>

European Natural Disasters Training Centre (AFEM) in Ankara, Turkey. Its main goal is to reduce the destructive effects ofhazards through research, training and education at all levels, from policy makers to field workers associated with disasterpreparedness and response.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/afem50.htm>

European Centre for Prevention and Forecasting of Earthquakes (ECPFE), in Athens, Greece, is involved in all aspects ofprevention as well as in the development of practical ways of managing earthquakes.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/ecpfe50.htm>

European Centre on Geomorphological Hazards (CERG) in Strasbourg, France. CERG is concerned with studying the majorhazards associated with earthquakes and landslides.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/cerg50.htm>

Euro-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (CSEM) in Bruyères-le-Châtel, France. CSEM members are devoted to thepromotion of seismological research.<http://www.emsc-csem.org/> and <http://www.csem.bruyeres.cea.fr>

European Centre for Geodynamics and Seismology (ECGS), in Walferdange, Luxemburg, acts as a link between scientificresearch and its application to the prevention and interpretation of hazards.<http://www.ecgs.lu>

European Centre on Training and Information of Local and Regional Authorities and Population in the Field of Natural andTechnological Disasters (ECMHT) in Baku, Azerbaijan. It provides training and information of local and regional authorities inthe field of major hazards.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/ecmht50.htm>

Euro Mediterranean Centre on Evaluation and Prevention of Seismic Risk (CEPRIS) in Rabat, Morocco. It works to developa unified strategy and common frameworks for coordinating regional seismo-tectonic zoning and assessment of seismichazards and risks in the Mediterranean region.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/cepris50.htm>

European Centre for School Training in Risk Prevention (CSLT) in Sofia, Bulgaria. It develops and promotes general andpartial educational policies, training concepts and teaching methods in the field of risk prevention training in schools.<http://www.bg400.bg/cslt>

Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Research on Arid Zones (CRSTRA) in Algiers, Algeria, conducts scientific and technicalresearch programmes on arid zones and zones threatened with desertification and drought.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/crstra50.htm>

European Centre of Technogenic Safety (TESEC) in Kiev, Ukraine, is a scientific research and educational organization.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/tesec50.htm>

European Centre for Vulnerability of Industrial and Lifeline Systems (ECILS) in Skopje, the Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia. It promotes programmes for theoretical and applied research of urban vulnerability.<http://www.iziis.ukim.edu.mk>

European Centre on Urban Risks (CERU) in Lisbon, Portugal. Its principal functions are to provide a framework forcoordinating relief and natural and technological hazard management and for devising a common strategy to combat urbanhazards.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/ceru50.htm>

European Centre on Floods (AECF) in Kishinev, Moldova concentrates on proposals to prevent the risk of flooding.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/aecf50.htm>


169

Program, which also includes the Sismo SchoolProgramme, an awareness initiative for studentsthat will place working seismic stations inschools.

• Strengthened measures for implementation ofrisk reduction initiatives should be pursued bythe Executive Secretary of the EUR-OPAMajor Hazards Agreement developingcooperation further with the EuropeanCommission. This could be developedparticularly with the Directorate General of theEnvironment, leading to the implementation ofexisting EUR-OPA initiatives in risk reduction.

Several developments within the European Unionhave begun to draw the European Commission’sattention to the need to elaborate a moreintegrated approach to vulnerability and riskreduction. While within the commission itself,there is not yet an overall strategy, funding hasbeen committed to support some specific activitiesrelated to disaster reduction.

Agreement, the ISDR Secretariat and thegovernment of Spain within two years to reviewand consolidate the work accomplished and tomake specific proposals for the improvement ofrisk management in the Euro-Mediterraneanregion. Specific problems of individualsubregions were identified as involving aspectsof international cooperation within and outsidethe Euro-Mediterranean area including thetransboundary aspects of risk management, andthe contribution of science and technology todisaster management.

• Information and awareness of disaster reductionand preparedness could be improved inEuropean and Mediterranean countries by theimplementation of a radio and Internet riskinformation broadcast (IRIS project), andthrough the continuation of training andresearch programmes in universities as well asby creating national observatories to monitorsafety in schools and higher education. Theselatter activities form part of the FORM-OSE

Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Insular Coastal Dynamics (ICOD) in Valletta, Malta. ICOD's brief is to work in three mainareas of education, applied research and information activities related to coastal dynamics.<http://www.icod.org.mt/IcoD/ICoD main.htm>

Scientific Centre of Monaco, European Oceanological Observatory (OOE) in Monaco, conducts research with the objective ofevaluating major ecological risks and restoring degraded habitats.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/ooe50.htm>

European Centre of New Technologies for the Management of Major Natural and Technological Hazards (ECNTRM) inMoscow, Russian Federation. One of its primary objectives is the use of space technologies for the forecasting, preventionand relief in major natural and technological disasters.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/ecntrm50.htm>

Higher Institute of Emergency Planning (ISPU) in Archennes, Belgium, organizes specific courses concerning problems ofemergency planning for officials in public office.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/ispu50.htm>

European Centre for Research into Techniques for Informing Populations in Emergency Situations (CEISE) in Madrid, Spain.Its work concerns methods of informing the public in emergency situations.<http://www.proteccioncivil.org>

European Inter-regional Centre for Training Rescue Workers (ECTR) in Yerevan, Armenia, provides training of rescueworkers and related instructors for humanitarian assistance.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/ectr50.htm>

European Centre on Geodynamical Hazards of High Dams (GHHD) in Tbilisi, Georgia, was created to develop multinational,multidisciplinary approaches to the problems of geodynamic hazards, generated by high dams.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/ghhd50.htm>

European Advisory Evaluation Committee for Earthquake Prediction (EAECEP) is a committee of the Council of Europe. Thisinstitution of 13 specialists was established in 1993 by the Committee of Ministers and works closely with the EUR-OPASpecialized Centres. It is responsible for giving advice on earthquake prediction made by scientists.<http://www.europarisks.coe.int/eaecep.htm>


170

In terms of research related to natural hazards anddisaster risk issues, there are two differentDirectorates General (DG) involved. Directresearch explicitly earmarked as a percentage ofthe overall European Commission (EC) budgetfor research is undertaken by the DG JointResearch Centre (JRC) to support policy-makingwithin the EC. Considerably more additionalresearch funds are managed by the DG Research.Even though it does not conduct research itself,the DG Research does allocate funds among manyprofessional, commercial and academic bodies tostudy hazard and risk subjects, and is equallyresponsible for the management and supervisionof specific framework programmes.

These commitments underwrite a variety ofprogramme activities by which the EuropeanUnion expresses its overall research agenda, andboth the DG JRC and DG Research are involvedwith advancing those objectives through theirrespective activities. The DG JRC has beencarrying out research in the field of naturalhazards over many years, while in parallel the DGResearch has been funding many initiatives acrossEurope that enhance collaboration in the field.

In both these related research aspects, as well aswith the additional interests particularly of the DGfor the Environment, it is evident that throughoutEurope individual countries address hazard andrisk factors through their respective national,regional, and local projects. Furthermore, there area variety of consortiums that also collaborate onjoint projects in areas such as floods, wildfires, andtrans-national collaboration as in river basininitiatives for the Danube, Rhine and Elbe rivers,among others.

The EC position on disaster management andcivil protection matters is more explicit andfocused than the overall understanding of disasterreduction as a strategy involving the managementof risks and vulnerability as components of long-term development planning. Several EU countriesparticipating in the ISDR programme havedisplayed a broader understanding of these issuesand the related complementary associations.

These countries, together with those due to jointhe EU in 2004, are working with ISDR tofurther develop the process underway within theEuropean Commission to enable vulnerability and

risk considerations to find their appropriateposition and profile among the strategic agenda ofthe EU.

Two legislative measures adopted in recent yearsillustrate efforts that can lead to a more holisticapproach to disaster risk management andvulnerability reduction. However, a strong civilprotection connotation remains present in both. AEuropean Council decision of October 2001supported “establishing a Community mechanismto facilitate reinforced cooperation in civilprotection assistance intervention”. While the textmentions prevention, it does so with no furtherelaboration nor does it provide any practicaldetails.

An earlier decision in December 1999, about“establishing a Community action programme inthe field of civil protection” makes reference torisk awareness and assessment as well as thegeneral context of sustainable development. In anannex, reference is also made to potential projectsof general interest which may draw attention to“prevention, preparedness, detection and study ofthe causes of disasters (analysis of risks andvulnerability)”, and “analysis of the socio-economic implications of disasters”.

The first community action programme in thefield of civil protection (1998-1999) defined ageneral framework for community involvementand expressed the commitment to initiate long-term programmes. A subsequent programmerunning from 2000-2004 identifies five majorprojects, including a new one relating to theprevention of natural and technological disasters.This anticipates the implementation of commonprinciples and guidelines for disaster prevention atall levels in the European Union. Three fields areconsidered: risk assessment procedures; theprevention of flash floods and the mitigation oftheir impact; and the reduction of fire risks.

Concerning specific experiences accumulated inthis field, a report on risk assessment proceduresused in civil protection and rescue services indifferent EU countries was prepared from datacollected by questionnaire in 1998. The reportdescribes the use of risk assessment methods inthese countries and provides examples of bestpractices. Several other projects have beencompleted, which relate to floods.


171

Guidelines for the prevention of flash floods havealso been prepared in anticipation of elaborating apan-European flood forecasting and modellingsystem to provide the basis for an early warningsystem. Other important programmes exist inEurope to facilitate the exchange of informationand to guide European organizations and EUmember states in identifying hazards andmanaging hazards and disaster risks.

A special unit of targeted research for decisionsupport within the Joint Research Centre’sInstitute for the Protection and Security of theCitizen, Technological and Economic RiskManagement Unit serves as a useful facility fordisaster risk reduction. There, the Major AccidentHazards Bureau (MAHB) is dedicated toproviding scientific and technical support for theactions of the European Commission incontrolling major industrial hazards.

MAHB endeavours to assist other EC, and inparticular the DG of Environment to implementEU policies on the prevention, mitigation andcontrol of major hazards or technologicalaccidents. It conducts scientific and technicalactivities related to the daily implementation ofrelevant EC legislation, such as the original SevesoDirective which was approved by the Council ofMinisters in 1982 after the chemical accident atSeveso, Italy. <http://mahbsrv.jrc.it/>

Another DG supported service is the Natural andEnvironmental Disaster Information ExchangeSystem (NEDIES). It has a primary objective tosupport European Commission services,governments and EU organizations in their effortsto prevent and prepare for natural andenvironmental disasters and to manage theirconsequences.

The project has been launched to supply updatedinformation about the occurrence of natural andenvironmental disasters and their management, aswell as to supply information on past disasters andmain consequences, methods and techniquesrelevant for the prevention of disasters, preparednessand response for civil protection services.

It also provides an interdisciplinary platform fordialogue among all actors in natural andenvironmental disaster management, creating thepossibility of a common European repository of

disaster experience, with a particular focus onmitigation of disaster consequences.<http://nedies.jrc.it>

The European Environment Agency’s (EEA)core task is to provide decision makers with theinformation needed for creating sound policies toprotect the environment and to support sustainabledevelopment. In the area of disaster riskreduction, it conducts studies on issues such as theimpact of extreme hydrological hazards in relationto Europe’s water resources. It also supports theEC in diffusing information on the results ofenvironmental research.

European cooperation for internationaldevelopment assistance

Another important dimension of Europeancooperation is the European Union’s commitmentto support disaster risk management activitiesthrough international development assistance. Inthis respect the primary instrument is theEuropean Community Humanitarian Aid Office(ECHO). As a service of the EuropeanCommission, ECHO’s primary mandate is toprovide emergency assistance and relief to thevictims of natural disasters and conflicts outsidethe European Union.

However, in following earlier IDNDR andYokohama strategy recommendations, it also worksto ensure disaster prevention and preparedness.This includes funding community-oriented pilotprojects. From 1994-1997, ECHO financedprevention and preparedness projects in variouslocations totalling about US$ 20 million. Aspecific programme for disaster preparedness wascreated within ECHO in 1996 for that purpose.

DIPECHO is a regional programme toimplement ECHO-financed activities, initially inCentral America, the Caribbean and South-EastAsia, plus Bangladesh. The operating criteria is tofinance projects which promote better integrationbetween disaster prevention and sustainabledevelopment, rather than to finance those projectactivities which are already considered a part ofexisting development programmes.

Additionally, 17 projects totalling more than US$5 million were financed in the First Action Plan


172

for the Andean Community, targeting vulnerable,disadvantaged urban and rural communities,municipal agencies and local disaster-relatedorganizations. Through these projects, training,planning and prevention works have beenimplemented.

DIPECHO now allocates about US$ 7 millionworldwide each year. The programme’s principalobjective is focused on reducing the impact ofnatural disasters by strengthening local physicaland human resources in high-risk areas.<http://www.disaster-info.net/dipecho>

ECHO is committed to increasing its support fordisaster preparedness in Central Asia. Over thepast decade, natural hazards such as landslides,floods and earthquakes have killed about 2,500people and affected 5.5 million people, or 10 percent of the total population in Tajikistan,Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan andTurkmenistan. ECHO has provided nearly US$ 1million for ad hoc disaster preparedness activitiesin Central Asia since 1998.

Greater attention is now considered to bewarranted by the high frequency and seriousimpact of natural disasters, and the low responsecapacity in many of the vulnerable areas. Early in2003, the European Commission approved a US$2.75 million action plan to help vulnerablepopulations in Central Asia prepare for andrespond to natural disasters.

The money will support small-scale infrastructureprojects, disaster preparedness initiatives andresponse mechanisms. Funds will be allocated tointernational agencies operating in the region, viaECHO. The decision marks an extension ofDIPECHO to Central Asia.

The action plan’s specific objectives are tostrengthen the capacity of local communities toforesee, respond to and cope with disasters, and toprotect vulnerable groups from likely naturaldisasters through small-scale infrastructure works,early warning systems, disaster preparednesstraining, radio communication systems and publicawareness campaigns.

Local response capacities will also be strengthenedthrough local disaster management plans.Structural measures will be employed to protect

vulnerable communities from avalanches,mudslides and flooding through the constructionof protection barriers, the reinforcement ofmountainsides and by strengthening the banks offlood-prone rivers.

Most of the approximately US$ 3 million will beallocated for operations in Tajikistan, the mostvulnerable of the five countries. Disaster-proneregions in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan will also betargeted.

European subregional frameworks

Within Europe, there are emerging initiativesstriving to adopt a broader professionalcommunity of interests to a subregionaloperational framework that relate to disaster riskreduction. Some examples, with origins provokedby a specific type of hazard or technicalconsideration and the need to seek broader trans-state policy commitments, are presented below.

Case: Central and Eastern Europe

The Central European Disaster Prevention Forum(CEUDIP) was established in 1999 through theefforts of the national committees for IDNDRfrom the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary,Poland and Slovakia. The motivation was toformulate an institutional mechanism that couldincrease the collaboration in disaster reductionrelated to all types of hazards, particularly floods,often experienced simultaneously by theseneighbouring countries.

Following the shared experience of the Oder Riverfloods early in 1999, the initial interest thatstimulated the participating countries was acommon desire to improve early warningcapabilities. Other issues have since emerged, suchas the role of the media in disaster reduction,national legislation about declared emergencies,the participation of civil society in disasterreduction activities, and the preparation of trainingmaterials.

Since 1999, the forum has conducted annualmeetings in Prague, Warsaw, Bratislava and Bonn.The members of CEUDIP agreed at theirmeeting in 2000 that closer cooperation would be


173

required with EU policies related to civilprotection and disaster reduction. As four of theCEUDIP countries have been accepted for futuremembership in the EU, they have assignedparticular relevance to assess their presentcapabilities in relation to EU norms.

The participants of CEUDIP have recognized thegrowing importance of strong and activeparticipation of the public, working through civicgroups and NGOs to supplement the efforts ofgovernment institutions and agencies. AtCEUDIP’s meeting in Bratislava in 2001, it wasagreed to improve common regional standards andto develop a project of cooperation with EUinstitutions involved in emergencies, risk anddisaster reduction issues.

In 2002, unusually heavy rainfall provoked recordfloods in the major rivers of Central Europe withextremely high water levels recorded on the Elbe,Danube and Vltava rivers. Much of the CzechRepublic and Slovakia and parts of Germany andAustria were affected, with record water levelsrecorded in the centres of Prague and Dresden.Elsewhere in Europe, Italy, Spain, the RussianFederation, Romania and Hungary also sufferedrepercussions from the heavy rainfall.

About 100 people died, hundreds of thousandswere evacuated, and tremendous damage wascaused, including the loss of much physicalinfrastructure. Munich Re. estimated the losses asmore than US$ 15 billion.

The EU has few means to help member statesaddress such losses in the short term. After thesevere consequences of the 2002 floods, this lackof capacity was widely criticized. The EuropeanCommission has since been forced throughpolitical pressure to consider several propositions,including the re-establishment of a previouslymaintained contingency solidarity fund.

Originally conceived to assist member statesrespond to losses from extraordinarily severenatural disasters, defined as causing damages ofmore than 1 billion Euros or 0.5 per cent of acountry’s GDP, the fund is expected to befinanced from various sources, includingstructural and regional funds. While initiallyintended to be re-capitalized in the amount of 500million Euros, strong political imperatives have

boosted the amount to 1 billion Euros followingthe effects of the Central European floods. Itremains to be seen to what extent such resourceswill be committed to risk identification, assessmentand protection, in contrast to replacing orrepairing assets only after they become lost ordamaged.

Additionally, in responding to the Vltava and Elbefloods, the United States Trade and DevelopmentAgency (USTDA) sponsored a symposium inPrague in December 2002 that brought US andCzech experts together. This meeting on FloodManagement Strategies: Recovery and Preventiondiscussed ways that US public and private sectorscould assist in reconstruction efforts and developstrategies to prevent future flood damage,including flood risk management. A US$ 395,000grant was offered by USTDA to the RegionalGovernment of Central Bohemia to set up anemergency management system.

The Swiss government provided about US$ 25million in a similar initiative to spur regionalcooperation in flood-stricken regions in Austriaand Slovakia, although it was directed mainlytowards immediate recovery needs rather than tomotivate prevention activities.

By contrast, the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF) called for European prevention policiesto work with nature by implementing wetlandsand floodplains protection as well as soil, forestand water ecological management. This wouldprevent future extreme events, as was the case insome parts of Bratislava where floodplains wereable to absorb the Danube floodwaters.

Aside from specific flood-induced initiatives, thereare other subregional associations that have beenestablished through the creation of the CentralEuropean Initiative (CEI) CooperationAgreement on the Forecast, Prevention andMitigation of Natural and TechnologicalDisasters. An agreement was concluded in 1996between Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Polandand Slovenia, with the European Commissionmaintaining observer status for improvedcooperation in matters of civil protection anddisaster management.

Areas identified for specific attention include theexchange of scientific and technical information or


174

data on a regular basis, as well as improving thecommunications links among national institutionsinvolved with earthquakes. Common researchprogrammes have been identified and joint effortspursued for the training of specialists that wereconducive for setting up joint programmes. Acommon operational manual comprising data fromthe five countries has also been compiled tofurther this objective. <http://www.ceinet.org>

Within a more of a regional security context,driven by common political interests, the South-East European Stability Pact has developed a rolein disaster management issues with the creation ofa Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative(DPPI). This framework was initiated in March2000 with 12 Eastern European countriesparticipating with international organizationsincluding OCHA, IFRC and NATO, to fosterregional cooperation and coordination in disasterpreparedness and prevention for natural andhuman-induced disasters. Initially a regional riskassessment and capabilities survey was carried outin the 12 countries of Eastern Europe.

In particular, the DPPI encourages thedevelopment of environmental regulations andcodes that can contribute to the prevention andmitigation of disasters. Additional attention hasbeen given to facilitate operational matters ofdisaster preparedness like advance negotiation onborder crossing procedures and the agreement onsubregional disaster management standards. Moreinformation is available online.<http://www.stabilitypact.org>

Within the subregion, there have been antecedentsfor civilian-military programmes within individualcountries that serve a variety of interests.Bulgaria’s State Agency for Civil Protectionparticipated, since April 1998, in the activities ofthe Black Sea Economic Cooperation Framework,under an agreement directed at protecting thepopulation from natural and human-induceddisasters. It then became associated with the CEIcooperation agreement in 1999.

Since then, the same civil protection agency signedan agreement in April 2001 in Sofia, Bulgaria toestablish a Civil-Military Emergency PlanningCouncil (CMEPC) for South-Eastern Europe bycooperating with Croatia, the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia and Slovenia. While

Albania, Greece, Turkey and Romania wereparticipating in the CMEPC initiatives, they alsohad the option to join the agreement as fullmembers if they wished.

Case: Mediterranean countries

Within the technical and scientific community,countries throughout the Mediterranean basin arebenefiting from the Programme for ReducingEarthquake Losses in the Eastern Mediterranean(RELEMR).

Initially organized by UNESCO, the USGS, andEuropean and other US earth scienceorganizations, RELEMR is based on an earliersuccessful joint endeavour, the Programme forAssessment and Mitigation of Earthquake Risk inthe Arab Region (PAMERAR).<http://www.unesco.org/science/earthsciences/disaster/disasterPAMERAR.htm>

Both of these programmes have concentrated onactivities designed to “establish or reinforceseismic and strong motion networks, promote theformulation of seismic building codes and providetraining in seismology, earthquake engineering andcivil defence”.

The reduction of earthquake losses in RELEMRis pursued through seismic-technical frameworkstudies, earthquake monitoring and assessment,risk assessments and the implementation of relatedrisk reduction measures. These will beaccomplished by participating countries in areasincluding the expansion of urban planning,building codes, strengthening and rehabilitatingexisting buildings, and improving poor foundationsoils. <http://www.unesco.org/science/earthsciences/disaster/disasterRELEMR.htm>

Case: Russian Federation andCommonwealth of Independent States (CIS)

Traditionally, the Russian Federation has beeninvolved in international cooperation in naturaldisaster reduction. Currently, about 30intergovernmental agreements on disasterreduction are in effect with other countries, withanother dozen or so cooperative agreements undervarious stages of negotiation.


175

Regional multilateral cooperation is growingwithin the CIS Intergovernmental Council forNatural and Technological Emergencies. In 2002,a code for interaction in natural and technologicalhazard mitigation was adopted by the CIS. Thisfollowed the creation of a joint intergovernmentalscientific programme on risk reduction in 2001.One of its goals was the design of unified legaland technical norms for disaster management. In1998, an intergovernmental science andtechnology programme for seismic monitoring ofthe CIS territory was adopted. It aimed to developregional monitoring and warning systems.However, effort to motivate local communityaction remains an area where much more attentionand commitment is necessary.

Since 1998, several measures were adopted toorganize the regional intergovernmentalprogramme for development of a joint CIS corpsfor emergencies, with additional efforts envisaged

to improve related information use,communication and warning systems.

Regional interactions also take place in the borderareas of the Russian Federation and neighbouringcountries. Recently, joint efforts were undertakenwith China in flood prevention and preparedness;with Kazakhstan in locust mitigation; and inMongolia to halt the spread of foot and mouthepidemics.

The Russian Federation is also participating inbilateral cooperation in natural disastermanagement. Special bilateral cooperationagreements on emergency mitigation have beenconcluded with France, Spain, Viet Nam andIndia. Bilateral projects have also beenimplemented in particular areas of emergencyforecasting and mitigation of natural hazards inGreece, and in the management of forest fireselsewhere.


176

Chall

enge

s Future challenges and prioritiesRegional cooperation, interaction and experience

In reviewing the accomplishments of regional cooperation in different parts of the world, two factorsstand out. Institutionally, the sustained commitment of permanent facilities and institutions are integralto promoting multidisciplinary approaches to disaster risk management. More fundamental, it iscrucial that there is understanding that leads to the acceptance of countries in the same region sharingboth their information and their concerns in various forums, so that they may collaborate moreeffectively in their activities.

It is clear that both policy interests and material resources must transcend strictly national outlooks.Regional efforts must support both the human growth and organizational development that areessential for strengthening national as well as local capacities. The examples cited demonstrate that insome instances such recognition is thrust upon a region abruptly, such as Hurricane Mitch on CentralAmerica, or it may evolve more methodically through shared orientations as has been the case forPacific island states.

In all cases there needs to be an established and consistently supported apolitical institutional hub thatcan promote as well as respond to multidisciplinary and multi-state issues related to disaster riskreduction.

The function which these institutions serve as a dissemination vehicle, acting as clearing houses fordiverse material that merges political, professional and public interests should not be overlooked inbuilding regional collaboration. There is little doubt that the momentum and resulting success inregional cooperation also is due to the efforts of regional and international organizations.

While organizations such as IFRC, UN agencies and the development banks are working throughoutthe world to encourage more productive forms of collaboration, the regional emphasis provided byorganizations such as PAHO, OAS, UNDP, CEPREDENAC, PREANDINO in the Americas;ADPC and ADRC in Asia; SADC, IGAD, WMO, UNDP and UNEP in Africa; and OCHA,UNDP and SOPAC in the Pacific, has proven to be of unparalleled importance

In 2003, both ISDR and UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery opened African regionaloffices in Nairobi, Kenya. Increased policy interest and new initiatives also are emerging in Africa.SADC has been working to provide policy impetus for disaster risk awareness in Southern Africa.IGAD is increasingly seeking to promote a fuller engagement in Eastern Africa. However, in moregeneral terms, the realization of practical forms of institutional commitment in Africa overall, continuesto be a challenge.

It is hoped that through more guidance to ECOWAS member states in West Africa, as well as withinthe countries of Northern and Central Africa, a greater awareness of shared consequences of riskfactors with the environment, sustainable development, livelihoods and government policies will result.NEPAD too, offers a promise for more cooperation among African countries to give enhancedvisibility to disaster risk issues through its specific commitments to environmental concerns.

Throughout the Arabic-speaking world and among European countries too, there is an absence ofconsolidated recognition or material support for a sustained regional focus on disaster risk reduction.

An international framework of regionally focused institutions should be created and sustained,dedicated to the various aspects of disaster risk management practice. The wider dissemination ofinformation about hazards and risk management and the purposeful sharing of experience are thelifeblood of more regional cooperation.

risk awareness and assessment 3 - eird. · pdf filerisk awareness and assessment 3 3.3...

Documents