Book Review: The Consequences of Disasters: Demographic, Planning, and Policy Implications

Review of The Consequences of Disasters: Demographic, Planning, and Policy Implications, by James, Helen and Douglas Paton. Charles C Thomas, Publisher Ltd, Springfield, IL, 2016. ISBN: 978-0-398-09097-5 (paper); ISBN 978-0-398-09098 (e-book); 414 pp.; $ 62.95

Reviewed by Donald Watson, who is the author of Design for Flooding: Resilience to Climate Change (Wiley 2011)

This book is a collection of short chapters and case studies, originating from an international conference at Australian National University September 2013. The editors state their intention to connect scholarship with policymaking by documenting lessons from disaster response and recovery… “to make a contribution to fostering greater knowledge of how natural disasters impact on people, their livelihoods, health, family dynamics, migration patterns, coping capacities, and evolving models of social capital as survivors recovery.” [p. 7]

The 26 contributors to this volume support this intention by showing the value of enlarging disaster recovery from a sole focus on physical rebuilding, giving equal and prime focus to social and cultural recovery.

The chapters of the book provide data on a range of natural disasters, including earthquake, tsunami, and flood. The emphasis is upon cross-cultural factors, supported by a key finding that, “social capital and leadership…[are] the most effective elements to mobilize collection actions to promote recovery after a disaster.” [p. 9]

Ch. 3 “Climate-Change Resilience, Poverty Reduction, and Disaster Risk Management” by Mark Pelling and Daanish Mustafa offer ten “resilience pathways” for disaster management, including: Diversity, Governance, Flexibility, Localism, Preparedness, Equity, Social Capital, Non-linearity (aiming to improve not only to replace), Process learning, Co-responsibility. The chapter notes that hazard mitigation can often be found as part of ongoing local projects, but that some conventional development practices undermine livelihoods and environmental integrity, and thus increase risk.

The one U.S. example in the volume is Chapter 4 by Susan L. Cutter, “Demographic Change after Hurricane Katrina: A Tale of Two Places,” which documents the population decline and demographic changes after Katrina.

Chapter 5 “Long-term Community Recovery: Lessons from Earthquake and Typhoon Experiences in Taiwan,” by Douglas Paton, Li-Ju Jang, and Li-Wen Liu describe the great range of social and cultural values at play in disaster recovery. They offer a clear process to measure social capital as the sum of “community consciousness, community trust, community participation, and organizational networks.” [p.77]

Chapter 5 authors also define a “strengths-based approach” to community recovery, to encouraged residents to understand their own communities, to enable community members to take active roles in obtaining resources and to manage the relevant local public affairs. That is, as reported widely in the literature, both community engagement and governance prove to be necessary ingredients to community resilience.

Chapter 10 “The Discourse of Disasters in Philippine Festivals,” (Philippines) by Cecilia S. De La Paz and Chapter 11 “Saving Folk Performing Arts for the Future” (Japan) by Ken Miichi document how historical festivals and improvising upon oral and performance traditions can assist in community recovery.

The publisher’s website states that, “This book provides many innovative insights which will be of value to disaster policy experts, practitioners in the humanitarian field, civil society and government sectors and researchers engaged in disaster recovery and reconstruction practice and research.”

The book does deliver on this claim. The authors of the assembled case studies make valuable contributions in documenting social and cultural lessons from the tragedy of natural disasters.

Two New GAO Reports on FEMA – updated

GAO. DISASTER RESPONSE:FEMA Has Made Progress Implementing Key Programs, but Opportunities for Improvement Exist.  Feb. 2016. 

GAO. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Strengthening Regional Coordination Could Enhance Preparedness Efforts. GAO-16-38: Publicly Released: Feb 4, 2016.

GAO found that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has taken some steps, but has not fully addressed, preparedness grant management coordination challenges between headquarters and its regions. For several preparedness grant programs, FEMA headquarters and regions share management and monitoring responsibilities. Assessments by FEMA and others since 2009 have recommended that FEMA regions manage and monitor preparedness grants to avoid confusion and duplication and strengthen coordination with state and local grantees. However, in 2012 FEMA changed course and decided to continue sharing grant management between headquarters and regions. Since then, FEMA officials said they are taking steps to address coordination challenges that exist in this structure. However, GAO found that challenges continue to exist. For example, states and FEMA regional officials told GAO that FEMA headquarters and regions did not always coordinate monitoring visits and provided inconsistent guidance to grantees. Further, while FEMA officials identified some steps to address the challenges, FEMA lacks a plan with time frames and goals for addressing them. Doing so will better enable FEMA to effectively address the long-standing challenges in managing preparedness grants.

Wildfires = “wicked” problem

From the Homeland Security News Wire: WildfiresU.S. must address the “wicked problem” of wildfire.

U.S. wildfires burned more than 10.1 million acres in 2015 — a new record. Wildfire suppression costs the United States, on average, $2.9 billion a year. Researchers say that the United States must make preparing for and adapting to wildfire a top national priority, recognizing that widfire is a “wicked problem” — one so complex that a one-size-fits-all solution does not exist.

Book Review: Cassandra’s Curse: the Law and Forseeable Future Disasters

Book Review by Edward A. Thomas Esq., President of the Natural Hazards Mitigation Association.

Special Issue Cassandra’s Curse: The Law and Foreseeable Future Disasters (Studies in Law, Politics and Society, Volume 68) edited by Surat, Austin; Burton, Lloyd and Sun, Lisa; Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2015) ISBN: 978-1-78560-299-3

This excellent, must read book is part of an interdisciplinary series designed to look at legal issues across the normal silos of scholarship. This volume thoughtfully examines the root causes of our growing toll of disaster damages following foreseeable events. The concept behind the book was conceived by a network of scholars following the Workshop on Disasters and Sociological studies put on by the International Institute for the Sociology of the Law.

The book is essentially a series of interconnected essays built around a theme from Greco-Roman mythology of the curse of Cassandra. Cassandra was a Trojan Princess, to whom the God Apollo granted a gift of always being able to correctly prophesy the future; yet, he later cursed her that her correct prophecies would never be believed.
The Disaster Risk Reduction community owes a tremendous debt to the authors and publisher for developing the concepts in thus book. Cassandra’s Curse serves as an excellent part of our foundation for constructing a path forward towards Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience.

Justin Pidot’s chapter focuses on diagnosing the many obstacles to Disaster Risk Reduction, including: a) our own mental limitations for dealing with low probability, high consequence events; b) the frequent thought that disasters are some sort of battle against Nature to be addressed as fight we need to win rather than a natural occurrence to which we need to adapt; and c) the economic and thus political obstacles to safer building and development practices. Professor Pidot does not, however, present a comprehensive solution to the impediments, but he and his co-authors do point us in some directions for a safer future through both morality and the law.

Brigham Young Law School Associate Professor Lisa Grow Sun and her co-authors Lloyd Burton and Sabrina McCormick brilliantly flesh out the concept that Cassandra’s Curse also seems to afflict those of us who warn of a toll of increasing disasters as more and more improperly designed and sited homes and businesses are located in areas subject to foreseeable natural events. Yet, the authors beautifully argue that society must believe the warnings and do a much better job of preparing to deal with more and more disastrous consequences as the climate changes. The authors clearly indicate the alternative to doing a better job or disaster planning, hazard mitigation and climate adaptation most likely will be an increasing incidence of litigation as disasters grow worse.

The book also weaves in an international perspective of how and why the tragedy of the Fukushima nuclear plant releases took place, as well as how Australia and the European Union, especially Spain, are somewhat successfully adapting to increased incidents of wildfire.

The Epilogue of this book would be much more useful a guide for further action had it clearly set forth the many causes and responsibilities for the problems of preparedness, response and recovery before, during and after Hurricane Katrina, rather than laying responsibility solely at the feet of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ten full years prior to Hurricane Katrina making landfall, the myriad problems with federal, state and local plans and preparedness were made manifest during the multi-million dollar “Response 95” national exercise of a hurricane strike on New Orleans.

I hope that future researchers will use this book as a foundation for fuller explanation of why “The Powers That Be,” as the book calls decisionmakers, generally follow the demand of the public to live and work in hazardous locations. In addition, future research should focus much more on proposing comprehensive approaches to truly achieve Disaster Risk Reduction in the United States and throughout the world.

“Smarter Disaster Management”- updated

About a week ago, I did a posting that indicated that major changes to FEMA’s public assistance program was underway — see Jan. 22 posting.

Also on that topic see the article in The Street titled Winter Storm Jonas Aftermath: FEMA Considers Plan to Tighten Disaster Funds Faucet. The article notes a report (and link) to an article titled Smarter Disaster Management, by Juliette Kayyem, in the Journal of Democracy. She discusses going beyond the need to repair the public assistance program and argues for major changes in the Stafford Act, the enabling legislation for FEMA.

Update: the Diva received a number of comments from readers, all of which were quite positive about Ms Kayyem’s recommendations.

And Quin Lucie provided some background, via a post on Homeland Security Watch, on the need for changes in the declaration process and reform of the Stafford Act. See that posting from 2013:  Where The Heck’s My Declaration?

 

World Economic Forum Report

New release: the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2016. The report, undertaken in conjunction with the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center of the University of Pennsylvania, reports opinions of 750 experts who assessed 29 global risks for both impact and likelihood over a 10-year time horizon and is being released today in advance of the Forum’s annual meeting taking place in Davos.

• Chiefly, the report finds an increased likelihood of all risks – environmental, geopolitical, societal, economic, and technological, looks set to shape the global agenda in the coming year.
• Failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation is the number one global risk in terms of impact.
• Large-scale involuntary migration tops the list of risks in terms of likelihood and is the fastest rising in terms of both impact and likelihood.
• Cyberattacks are now considered the greatest risk to doing business in North America.

For more information:
• Read the Report at http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2016/
• Read the Executive Summary at http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2016/executive-summary/

FEMA’s Public Assistance Program Change Out for Review

 

FEMA Public Assistance Program Proposal: 60 Day Comment Period: Closes March 21

“The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is considering the establishment of a disaster deductible, requiring a predetermined level of financial or other commitment from a Recipient (Grantee), generally the State, Tribal, or Territorial government, before FEMA will provide assistance under the Public Assistance Program when authorized by a Presidential major disaster declaration. FEMA believes the deductible model would incentivize Recipients to make meaningful improvements in disaster planning, fiscal capacity for disaster response and recovery, and risk mitigation, while contributing to more effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars. For example, Recipients could potentially receive credit toward their deductible requirement through proactive pre-event actions such as adopting enhanced building codes, establishing and maintaining a disaster relief fund or self-insurance plan, or adoption of other measures that reduce the Recipient’s risk from disaster events. The deductible model would increase stakeholder investment and participation in disaster recovery and building for future risk, thereby strengthening our nation’s resilience to disaster events and reducing the cost of disasters long term. FEMA seeks comment on all aspects of the deductible concept.” More details are available here.

____________________
Thanks to Ed Thomas, President of the Natural Hazards Mitigation Association, for the information. He noted that his associations hopes to assemble a group to make comments on this proposal which has tremendous potential for promoting hazard mitigation/climate adaptation at the local level. And he commented that Craig Fugate is scheduled to be doing outreach to the Governors and NEMA.