{"title":"Policy forum: human rights to disaster assistance and mitigation","authors":"J. K. Mitchell","doi":"10.3763/ehaz.2001.0311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The pages that follow contain a variety of challenging opinions about proposed modifications of the international system for addressing problems of natural disaster. These are organized around a call for an international treaty on human rights to disaster assistance. One commentator wants the United Nations to spearhead a drive for the adoption of low cost available hazard management measures by vulnerable populations (Wisner). Another advocates replacing the present narrow attack on disasters with a broader strategy for dealing with environmental hazards (Doran). A third calls on hazard scientists to take the lead in formulating new institutions of public policy (Burton). Yet, others advocate the professionalization of emergency management (Alexander), the adoption of new treaties and standards of performance (Kent), and the empowerment of women (Enarson and Fordham). That the authors speak in support of calls for reform, but emphasize different recommendations is deliberate and appropriate because many alternative policy choices are possible and now is the time for debate as a prelude to informed action. In assessing these critiques and recommendations it may be helpful to remember that international disaster policies have come under fire frequently over the past 30 years and there have been a number of attempted reforms. The fact that major disasters still occur (and may be growing worse), suggests that these efforts have fallen well short of success. Each round of criticism has taken place against a backdrop of specific disasters and particular societal contexts, both of which have varied from decade to decade. Calls for reform in the 1970s were made in the context of unprecedently large disasters like the Bangladesh cyclone (1970) and the Sahelian drought (1970–1976). Structural changes in global institutional arrangements were also under way as a result of Cold War tensions, rising concern about human-caused environmental degradation, a vast increase in the number of poor newly independent states and growing disillusionment with the role of governments as catalysts for societal change. This round of criticism produced a spate of influential books, government reports and press accounts that called for thoroughgoing reforms of what was then unapologetically labelled the international disaster relief system. These focussed particularly on two shortcomings: (1) an emphasis on short-term postdisaster recovery tasks that ignored long-term predisaster development needs; and (2) poor coordination of the many private organizations and public agencies involved in the relief system. Many of the suggestions for improvement—especially those pertaining to better coordination—were subsequently adopted. International economic and political arrangements continued to shift dramatically in the 1980s. The trends included: a precipitous decline in the importance of European state socialist governments; a resurgence of free-market capitalism; and the emergence of three global economic powerhouses centered on the United States, Japan and Europe. Disaster management reforms proposed in the 1970s had little impact on the drought-related disasters and economic crises which beset much of Africa during this period. Emergency responses in the form of international celebrity fundraising concerts gained more visibility. There were few very large sudden-onset disasters. Those that did occur (e.g. a volcanic eruption in Colombia, 1985; an earthquake in Armenia, 1988), seemed particularly amenable to technology-driven solutions (e.g. improved warning technologies and better building practices). Among hazard scientists and engineers there was considerable optimism that it would be possible to make headway against the toll of disaster impacts. Discussions about the feasibility of a global program for reducing losses by improving the application of existing hazard science and management knowledge eventually produced a UNsponsored International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR, 1990–1999). In the past 10 years, specific large disasters once again concentrated the minds of experts and laypersons; this time most notably Hurricane Mitch in Central America (1998) and earthquakes in Kobe, Japan (1995), Eastern Turkey (1999) and Western India (2001). As in the 1970s and the 1980s, international systems of governance and public accountability are in turmoil but this time the forces at work (e.g. global economic restructuring, post Cold War politics, new information technologies, massive urban–rural population shifts, and post-modern culture among others) seem to be more deep-seated and far-reaching than those of 20 and 30 years ago. Yet, Due to unavoidable delays in the editorial process this Forum is appearing later than originally intended. The editors would like to thank the authors for their patience.","PeriodicalId":100587,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards","volume":"83 1","pages":"123 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2001.0311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
The pages that follow contain a variety of challenging opinions about proposed modifications of the international system for addressing problems of natural disaster. These are organized around a call for an international treaty on human rights to disaster assistance. One commentator wants the United Nations to spearhead a drive for the adoption of low cost available hazard management measures by vulnerable populations (Wisner). Another advocates replacing the present narrow attack on disasters with a broader strategy for dealing with environmental hazards (Doran). A third calls on hazard scientists to take the lead in formulating new institutions of public policy (Burton). Yet, others advocate the professionalization of emergency management (Alexander), the adoption of new treaties and standards of performance (Kent), and the empowerment of women (Enarson and Fordham). That the authors speak in support of calls for reform, but emphasize different recommendations is deliberate and appropriate because many alternative policy choices are possible and now is the time for debate as a prelude to informed action. In assessing these critiques and recommendations it may be helpful to remember that international disaster policies have come under fire frequently over the past 30 years and there have been a number of attempted reforms. The fact that major disasters still occur (and may be growing worse), suggests that these efforts have fallen well short of success. Each round of criticism has taken place against a backdrop of specific disasters and particular societal contexts, both of which have varied from decade to decade. Calls for reform in the 1970s were made in the context of unprecedently large disasters like the Bangladesh cyclone (1970) and the Sahelian drought (1970–1976). Structural changes in global institutional arrangements were also under way as a result of Cold War tensions, rising concern about human-caused environmental degradation, a vast increase in the number of poor newly independent states and growing disillusionment with the role of governments as catalysts for societal change. This round of criticism produced a spate of influential books, government reports and press accounts that called for thoroughgoing reforms of what was then unapologetically labelled the international disaster relief system. These focussed particularly on two shortcomings: (1) an emphasis on short-term postdisaster recovery tasks that ignored long-term predisaster development needs; and (2) poor coordination of the many private organizations and public agencies involved in the relief system. Many of the suggestions for improvement—especially those pertaining to better coordination—were subsequently adopted. International economic and political arrangements continued to shift dramatically in the 1980s. The trends included: a precipitous decline in the importance of European state socialist governments; a resurgence of free-market capitalism; and the emergence of three global economic powerhouses centered on the United States, Japan and Europe. Disaster management reforms proposed in the 1970s had little impact on the drought-related disasters and economic crises which beset much of Africa during this period. Emergency responses in the form of international celebrity fundraising concerts gained more visibility. There were few very large sudden-onset disasters. Those that did occur (e.g. a volcanic eruption in Colombia, 1985; an earthquake in Armenia, 1988), seemed particularly amenable to technology-driven solutions (e.g. improved warning technologies and better building practices). Among hazard scientists and engineers there was considerable optimism that it would be possible to make headway against the toll of disaster impacts. Discussions about the feasibility of a global program for reducing losses by improving the application of existing hazard science and management knowledge eventually produced a UNsponsored International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR, 1990–1999). In the past 10 years, specific large disasters once again concentrated the minds of experts and laypersons; this time most notably Hurricane Mitch in Central America (1998) and earthquakes in Kobe, Japan (1995), Eastern Turkey (1999) and Western India (2001). As in the 1970s and the 1980s, international systems of governance and public accountability are in turmoil but this time the forces at work (e.g. global economic restructuring, post Cold War politics, new information technologies, massive urban–rural population shifts, and post-modern culture among others) seem to be more deep-seated and far-reaching than those of 20 and 30 years ago. Yet, Due to unavoidable delays in the editorial process this Forum is appearing later than originally intended. The editors would like to thank the authors for their patience.