Policy forum: human rights to disaster assistance and mitigation

J. K. Mitchell
{"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.
政策论坛:援助和减轻灾害的人权
接下来的几页包含了对解决自然灾害问题的国际体系的拟议修改的各种具有挑战性的意见。这些活动是围绕一项关于灾难援助的人权国际条约的呼吁而组织起来的。一位评论员希望联合国带头推动弱势群体采用成本低廉的灾害管理措施(Wisner)。另一个主张用更广泛的策略来处理环境危害,取代目前对灾害的狭隘攻击(多兰)。第三种方法呼吁危害科学家带头制定新的公共政策制度(Burton)。然而,其他人主张应急管理专业化(亚历山大),采用新的条约和绩效标准(肯特),以及赋予妇女权力(埃纳森和福特汉姆)。报告作者支持改革呼吁,但强调不同的建议是深思熟虑和适当的,因为有许多备选政策选择是可能的,现在是辩论作为知情行动前奏的时候了。在评价这些批评和建议时,也许有必要记住,国际救灾政策在过去30年中经常受到抨击,并进行了一些改革尝试。重大灾难仍在发生(而且可能变得更糟)的事实表明,这些努力远远不够成功。每一轮的批评都是在特定的灾难和特定的社会背景下进行的,这两者在十年之间都有所不同。1970年代要求改革的呼声是在孟加拉国旋风(1970年)和萨赫勒干旱(1970 - 1976年)等前所未有的大灾害的背景下提出的。由于冷战的紧张局势、对人为造成的环境退化的日益关注、贫穷的新独立国家数量的大量增加以及对政府作为社会变革催化剂的作用的日益幻灭,全球制度安排的结构性变化也在进行中。这一轮的批评催生了大量有影响力的书籍、政府报告和媒体报道,它们呼吁对当时被贴上无可辩驳标签的国际救灾体系进行彻底改革。这些建议特别侧重于两个缺点:(1)强调短期灾后恢复任务,忽视了长期的灾前发展需求;(2)参与救援系统的许多私人组织和公共机构协调不力。许多改进建议,特别是关于更好协调的建议,后来被采纳。国际经济和政治安排在1980年代继续发生巨大变化。这些趋势包括:欧洲国家社会主义政府的重要性急剧下降;自由市场资本主义的复苏;以及以美国、日本和欧洲为中心的三大全球经济强国的出现。1970年代提出的灾害管理改革对这一时期困扰非洲大部分地区的与干旱有关的灾害和经济危机影响不大。国际名人筹款音乐会形式的应急响应获得了更多的关注。很少有非常大的突发灾难。那些确实发生过的(例如,1985年哥伦比亚的火山爆发;(1988年亚美尼亚地震),似乎特别适合技术驱动的解决方案(例如改进的预警技术和更好的建筑实践)。在灾害科学家和工程师中,有相当多的人乐观地认为,有可能在减少灾害造成的损失方面取得进展。关于通过改进现有灾害科学和管理知识的应用来减少损失的全球方案的可行性的讨论最终产生了一个无赞助的国际减少自然灾害十年(减灾十年,1990-1999年)。近10年来,具体的特大灾害再次集中了专家和非专业人士的注意力;这一次最著名的是中美洲的米奇飓风(1998年)、日本神户地震(1995年)、土耳其东部地震(1999年)和印度西部地震(2001年)。与20世纪70年代和80年代一样,国际治理体系和公共问责制正处于动荡之中,但这一次,起作用的力量(如全球经济结构调整、后冷战政治、新信息技术、大规模城乡人口转移和后现代文化等)似乎比二三十年前的力量更根深蒂固、影响更深远。然而,由于编辑过程中不可避免的延误,本论坛的出现时间比原计划晚。编辑们要感谢作者们的耐心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信