Assignment
DUBSTER
Coppola-28201529Chapter1.pdf
Introduction to International Disaster Management
Third Edition
Damon P. Coppola
AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON
NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier
1Introduction to International Disaster Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801477-6.00001-0 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
CHAPTER
THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS 1 CHAPTER SUMMARIES
Disasters have adversely affected humans since the dawn of our existence. In response, individuals and societies
alike have made many attempts to decrease their exposure to the consequences of these disasters. All of these
efforts have the same goal: disaster management. The motivating concepts that guide disaster management—the
reduction of harm to life, property, and the environment—are largely the same throughout the world. Whether due
to political, cultural, economic, or other reasons, the unfortunate reality is that some countries and some regions
are more capable than others at addressing the problem. Furthermore, the emergence of a global economy makes
it increasingly difficult to contain the consequences of any disaster within one country’s borders. This chapter
examines basic concepts of disaster management and expands upon those concepts to specifically address the
management of international disasters, which is a complex discipline. Like disaster management on the national
level, it involves actions that seek to mitigate the effects of hazards, ensures that populations are prepared for
disasters should they occur, facilitates the response to disasters that do occur, and helps nations and people recover
in the months and years following disaster events. The chapter provides a brief history of disaster management. To
illustrate the disparity in the effects of disasters around the world, an examination of the global impact of disasters
has also been carried out.
Key Terms: civil defense; complex humanitarian emergency; disaster; disaster management; disaster trends;
emergency management; history of emergency management; mitigation; preparedness response; recovery.
INTRODUCTION
Disasters have adversely affected humans since the dawn of our existence. In response, individuals
and societies alike have made many attempts to decrease their exposure to the consequences of these
disasters, developing measures to address initial impact as well as post-disaster response and recov-
ery needs. Regardless of the approach adopted, all of these efforts have the same goal: disaster
management.
The motivating concepts that guide disaster management—the reduction of harm to life, property,
and the environment—are largely the same throughout the world. However, the capacity to carry out
this mission is by no means uniform. Whether due to political, cultural, economic, or other reasons,
the unfortunate reality is that some countries and some regions are more capable than others at
addressing the problem. But no nation, regardless of its wealth or influence, is advanced enough to
be fully immune from disasters’ negative effects. Furthermore, the emergence of a global economy
makes it more and more difficult to contain the consequences of any disaster within one country’s
borders.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS2
This chapter examines basic concepts of disaster management and expands upon those concepts to
specifically address the management of international disasters. A brief history of disaster management
is provided for context. To illustrate the disparity in the effects of disasters around the world, an exami-
nation of the global impact of disasters follows. Finally, several relevant terms used throughout this text
are defined.
DISASTERS THROUGHOUT HISTORY
Disasters are not merely ornamental or interesting events that adorn our collective historical record—
these disruptions have served to guide and shape it. Entire civilizations have been decimated in an
instant. Time and time again, epidemics and pandemics have resulted in sizable reductions of the
world’s population, as much as 50 percent across Europe during the fourteenth century bubonic plague
(Black Plague) pandemic. Theorists have even ventured to suggest that many of history’s great civiliza-
tions, including the Mayans, the Norse, the Minoans, and the Old Egyptian Empire, were ultimately
brought to their knees not by their enemies but by the effects of floods, famines, earthquakes, tsunamis,
El Niño events, and other widespread disasters (Fagan 1999). A worldwide drought in the eighth and
ninth centuries, caused by shifts in the yearly monsoons and resulting in mass crop failure and subse-
quent starvation, is now believed to have been behind the fall of both the Mayan empire in Mexico and
the Tang dynasty in China (Sheridan 2007). From a modern perspective, each of the catastrophic events
that has occurred as of late, including the December 26, 2004, earthquake and tsunami (over 230,000
killed), the 2005 Kashmir earthquake (80,000 killed), the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China (68,000
killed), the 2008 Cyclone Nargis (135,000 killed), the 2010 Haiti earthquake (perhaps as many as
200,000 killed), and the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake (16,000 killed) might seem anomalous, but
these disastrous events are not close to record-breaking, or even unique, in the greater historical context.
(See table 1.1.)
Table 1.1 Selected Notable Disasters throughout History
Disaster Year Number Killed
Mediterranean earthquake (Egypt and Syria) 1201 1,100,000
Shaanxi earthquake (China) 1556 830,000
Calcutta typhoon (India) 1737 300,000
Caribbean hurricane (Martinique, St. Eustatius, Barbados) 1780 22,000
Tamboro volcano (Indonesia) 1815 80,000
Influenza epidemic (world) 1917 20,000,000
Yangtze River flood (China) 1931 3,000,000
Famine (Russia) 1932 5,000,000
Bangladesh cyclone (Bangladesh) 1970 300,000
Tangshan earthquake (China) 1976 655,000
Source: St. Louis University, 1997; NBC News, 2004.
3 THE HISTORY OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT
THE HISTORY OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT
ANCIENT HISTORY
Hazards, and the disasters that often result, have not always existed. To qualify as a hazard, an action,
event, or object must maintain a positive likelihood of affecting humans or possibly have a consequence
that may adversely affect humans’ existence. Until humans existed on the planet, neither the likelihood
nor the consequence factors of hazards were calculable; thus their presence is negated.
With the appearance of humans, however, followed the incidence of hazards and disasters. Archeo-
logical discovery has shown that our prehistoric ancestors faced many of the same risks that exist today:
starvation, inhospitable elements, dangerous wildlife, violence at the hands of other humans, disease,
accidental injuries, and more. These early inhabitants did not, however, sit idly by and become easy
victims. Evidence indicates that they took measures to reduce, or mitigate, their risks. The mere fact
that they chose to inhabit caves is testament to this theory.
Various applications of disaster management appear throughout the historical record. The story of
Noah’s ark from the Old Testament, for example, is a lesson in the importance of warning, prepared-
ness, and mitigation. In this tale, believed to be based at least partly on actual events, Noah is warned
of an approaching flood. He and his family prepare for the impending disaster by constructing a floating
ark. The protagonist in this story even attempts to mitigate the impact on the planet’s biodiversity by
collecting two of each species and placing them within the safety of the ark. These individuals are
rewarded for their actions by surviving the disastrous flood. Those who did not perform similar actions,
the story tells us, perished.
Evidence of risk management practices can be found as early as 3200 BC. In what is now modern-
day Iraq lived a social group known as the Asipu. When community members faced a difficult decision,
especially one involving risk or danger, they could appeal to the Asipu for advice. The Asipu, using a
process similar to modern-day hazards risk management, would first analyze the problem at hand, then
propose several alternatives, and finally give possible outcomes for each alternative (Covello and
Mumpower 1985). Today, this methodology is referred to as decision analysis, and it is key to any
comprehensive risk management endeavor.
Early history is also marked by incidents of organized emergency response. For example, when in
AD 79 the volcano Vesuvius began erupting, two towns in its shadow—Herculaneum and Pompeii—
faced an impending catastrophe. Although Herculaneum, which was at the foot of the volcano and
therefore directly in the path of its lava flow, was buried almost immediately, the majority of Pompeii’s
population survived. This was because the citizens of Pompeii had several hours before the volcano
covered their city in ash, and evidence suggests that the city’s leaders organized a mass evacuation. The
few who refused to leave suffered the ultimate consequence, and today lie as stone impressions in an
Italian museum.
MODERN ROOTS
All-hazards disaster and emergency management, wherein a comprehensive approach is applied to
address most or all of a community’s hazard risks, are relatively new. However, many of the concepts
that guide today’s practice can be traced to the achievements of past civilizations. While the manage-
ment of disasters during the past few thousand years was limited to single acts or programs addressing
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS4
individual hazards, many of these accomplishments were quite organized, comprehensive, and surpris-
ingly effective at reducing both human suffering and damage to the built environment. See the follow-
ing examples.
Floods have always confounded human settlements. However, archeologists have found evidence in
several distinct and unrelated locations that early civilizations made attempts to formally address the
flood hazard. One of the most celebrated of these attempts occurred in Egypt during the reign of
Amenemhet III (1817–1722 BC). Amenemhet III created what has been described as history’s first
substantial river control project. Using a system of over 200 “water wheels,” some of which remain to
this day, the pharaoh effectively diverted the annual floodwaters of the Nile River into Lake Moeris. In
doing so, the Egyptians were able to reclaim over 153,000 acres of fertile land that would have otherwise
served no use (Quarantelli 1995; ESIS n.d.).
The roots of the modern fire department trace back 2,000 years to when the city of Rome was nearly
destroyed by fire. Before this event, slaves had been tasked with fighting fires, and their poor training, lack
of equipment, and understandable lack of motivation made them highly ineffective. Following the great
fire, Emperor Augustus established a formal, city-wide firefighting unit from within the Roman army
called the Corps of Vigiles. As a result, the firefighting profession became highly respected and, likewise,
highly effective, and was emulated throughout the vast Roman Empire for 500 years. The structure of this
organization was quite similar to many fire departments today, with members filling job-specific roles.
(See exhibit 1.1.) With the fall of Rome, however, came the disappearance of the Corps of Vigiles, and
organized firefighting did not appear anywhere in the world for another 1,000 years.
The Incas, who lived throughout the Andes region in South America during the thirteenth to fif-
teenth centuries, practiced a form of urban planning that focused on their need to defend themselves
from enemy attack. Many of the Incan cities were located at the peaks of rugged, although easily defen-
sible, mountains. The prime example of their architectural achievement is the fortress of Machu Picchu.
However, in locating their cities upon mountaintops and other similar areas, the Incas merely replaced
one man-made hazard with a whole range of environmental hazards. To facilitate life on this extreme
terrain, the Incas developed an innovative form of land terracing that not only conserved water in their
unpredictable climate but also protected their crops—and thus their existence—from the landslides that
occurred during periods of heavy precipitation.
As later eras are examined, still more examples of methods created to address specific hazards
and their consequences emerge. One of the greatest and most effective forms of disaster mitigation
in history is the collective effort of the British and Indian governments, which sought to reduce
Indians’ annual suffering and starvation that occurred as a result of regular drought patterns. These
famines became so devastating during the late nineteenth century that up to a million people were
dying of starvation each year. A government study found that sufficient food existed throughout
EXHIBIT 1.1 JOB TITLES WITHIN THE ROMAN CORPS OF VIGILES
Aquarius: The firefighter whose main duties were the supply of water to the siphos or pumps and the organization of
“bucket chains.”
Siphonarius: The firefighter who was responsible for the supervision and operation of the water pumps.
Uncinarius: The firefighter who was a “hook” man, who carried a large fire hook for pulling off burning roofs.
Source: FFCA, 2014.
5 THE HISTORY OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT
the country to feed the nation’s entire population at all times, but insufficient capacity to distribute
these resources led to location-specific shortages. To address these problems, planning committees
were formed to develop various preventive measures, including a rapid expansion of the extensive
railway system that crisscrosses the country (to quickly transport food), the adoption of a method
by which indicators of emerging needs were identified and logged in a central repository, and
greater monitoring of public health. So effective at controlling famine were these measures that
many remain in force today. How much of a positive role was played by India’s acclaimed railroad,
which connects almost every settlement nationwide, continues to be debated. (Keniston 2007;
Sweeney 2008).
CIVIL DEFENSE: THE BIRTH OF MODERN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
There is no global formula that explains how the countries of the world developed their disaster
management capacities. However, there is one particular period in recent history that witnessed the
greatest overall move toward a centralized safeguarding of citizens—the Civil Defense era. (See
figure 1.1.)
FIGURE 1.1
Civil defense era poster, Pennsylvania, United States.
Source: Library of Congress, 2000.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS6
Modern disaster management, in terms of the emergence of global standards and organized efforts
to address preparedness, mitigation, and response activities for a wide range of disasters, did not begin
to emerge until the mid-twentieth century. In most countries, this change materialized as a response to
specific disaster events. At the same time, it was further galvanized by a shift in social philosophy, in
which the government played an increasing role in preventing and responding to disasters. The legal
foundation that allowed for such a shift was the result of advances in warfare technology.
In response to the threat posed by air raids and the ever-present and dreadful prospect of a nuclear
attack, many industrialized nations’ governments began to form elaborate systems of civil defense.
These systems included detection mechanisms, early warning alarms, hardened shelters, search and
rescue teams, and local and regional coordinators. Most nations’ legislatures also established legal
frameworks to guide both the creation and maintenance of these systems through the passage of
laws, the creation of national-level civil defense organizations, and the allocation of funding and
personnel.
Despite these impressive efforts, surprisingly few civil defense units evolved over time into more
comprehensive disaster or emergency management organizations (Quarantelli 1995). But the legal
framework developed to support them remained in place and formed the basis for modern disaster and
emergency management as we know it today. For example:
• Great Britain’s disaster management agency traces its roots to the Civil Defense Act of 1948.
• Canada’s Office of Critical Infrastructure Preparedness and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP)
grew out of the Canadian Civil Defense Organization created in 1948.
• The United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grew out of the Federal
Civil Defense Act of 1950.
• France’s civil protection is a product of that nation’s 1950 Ordinance and the 1965 Decree Relat-
ing to Civil Defense.
• Algeria Civil Protection grew out of the 1964 Decree on the Administrative Organization of Civil
Defense.
CAPACITY BY DEMAND: THE 1970S AND ‘80S
National emergency management capacity began to take a more centralized role in the 1970s and ‘80s
as countries focused on the creation of national-level emergency management systems. Many devel-
oped their disaster management capabilities out of necessity and an acceptance of the need to formalize
both the authority and budget for an agency to address blatant disaster risk. Other countries formed
their disaster management structures not for civil defense, but after being spurred into action by popular
criticism for poor management of a natural disaster (e.g., Peru in 1970, Nicaragua in 1972, and
Guatemala in 1976 following destructive earthquakes in each country).
And yet others, to a diminishing degree, still have no real emergency management structure to speak
of, irrespective of their disaster history.
THE INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR NATURAL DISASTER REDUCTION
On December 11, 1987, the United Nations General Assembly declared the 1990s to be the “Interna-
tional Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction” (IDNDR). This action was taken to promote internation-
ally coordinated efforts to reduce material losses and social and economic disruption caused by natural
7 CAPACITY BY DEMAND: THE 1970S AND ‘80S
disasters, especially in developing countries, through capacity building. On December 22, 1989,
through UN Resolution 44/236, the General Assembly set forth the goals they wished to achieve during
the Decade. In addition to establishing a special UN office in Geneva to coordinate associated activi-
ties, the resolution directed the various UN agencies to:
• improve the capacity of each country to mitigate the effects of natural disasters expeditiously and
effectively, paying special attention to assisting developing countries in the assessment of disaster
damage potential and in the establishment of early warning systems and disaster-resistant struc-
tures when and where needed;
• devise appropriate guidelines and strategies for applying existing scientific and technical knowl-
edge, taking into account the cultural and economic diversity among nations;
• foster scientific and engineering endeavors aimed at closing critical gaps in knowledge in order to
reduce loss of life and property;
• disseminate existing and new technical information related to measures for the assessment, pre-
diction, and mitigation of natural disasters;
• develop measures for the assessment, prediction, prevention, and mitigation of natural disasters
through programmes of technical assistance and technology transfer, demonstration projects, and
education and training, tailored to specific disasters and locations, and to evaluate the effective-
ness of those programs. (United Nations 1989)
It was expected that all participating governments would, at the national level:
• formulate national disaster-mitigation programmes, as well as economic, land use, and insurance
policies for disaster prevention, and particularly in developing countries, to integrate them fully
into their national development programmes;
• participate during the [IDNDR] in concerted international action for the reduction of natural disas-
ters and, as appropriate, establish national committees in cooperation with the relevant scientific
and technological communities and other concerned sectors with a view to attaining the objective
and goals of the Decade;
• encourage their local administrations to take appropriate steps to mobilize the necessary sup-
port from the public and private sectors and to contribute the achievement of the purposes of the
Decade;
• keep the Secretary-General informed of the plans of their countries and of assistance that can
be provided so that the United Nations may become an international centre for the exchange of
information and the coordination of international efforts concerning activities in support of the
objective and goals of the Decade, thus enabling each State to benefit from the experience of other
countries;
• take measures, as appropriate, to increase public awareness of damage risk probabilities and of the
significance of preparedness, prevention, relief, and short-term recovery activities with respect to
natural disasters, and to enhance community preparedness through education, training, and other
means, taking into account the specific role of the news media;
• pay due attention to the impact of natural disasters on healthcare, particularly to activities to
reduce the vulnerability of hospitals and health centres, as well as the impact on food storage
facilities, human shelter, and other social and economic infrastructure;
• improve the early international availability of appropriate emergency supplies through the storage
or earmarking of such supplies in disaster-prone areas. (United Nations 1989)
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS8
THE YOKOHAMA STRATEGY – GLOBAL RECOGNITION OF THE NEED FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT
In May 1994, UN member states met at the World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction in
Yokohama, Japan, to assess the progress attained by the IDNDR. At this meeting, they developed the
Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World. Through this document, the UN affirmed that:
1. Impact of natural disasters in terms of human and economic losses has risen in recent years, and
society in general has become more vulnerable to natural disasters. Those usually most affected
by natural and other disasters are the poor and socially disadvantaged groups in developing
countries, as they are least equipped to cope with them.
2. Disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and relief are four elements which contribute to
and gain from the implementation of sustainable development policies. These elements, along
with environmental protection and sustainable development, are closely interrelated. Therefore,
nations should incorporate them in their development plans and ensure efficient follow-up mea-
sures at the community, national, subregional, regional, and international levels.
3. Disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness are better than disaster response in achiev-
ing [disaster reduction] goals. . . . Disaster response alone is not sufficient, as it yields only
temporary results at a very high cost. We have followed this limited approach for too long. This
has been further demonstrated by the recent focus on response to complex emergencies, which,
although compelling, should not divert from pursuing a comprehensive approach. Prevention
contributes to lasting improvement in safety and is essential to integrated disaster management.
4. The world is increasingly interdependent. All countries shall act in a new spirit of partnership to
build a safer world based on common interests and shared responsibility to save human lives, since
natural disasters do not respect borders. Regional and international cooperation will significantly
enhance our ability to achieve real progress in mitigating disasters through the transfer of technol-
ogy and the sharing of information and joint disaster prevention and mitigation activities. Bilateral
and multilateral assistance and financial resources should be mobilized to support these efforts.
5. The information, knowledge, and some of the technology necessary to reduce the effects of
natural disasters can be available in many cases at low cost and should be applied. Appropriate
technology and data, with the corresponding training, should be made available to all freely and
in a timely manner, particularly to developing countries.
6. Community involvement and their active participation should be encouraged to gain greater
insight into the individual and collective perception of development and risk, and to have a clear
understanding of the cultural and organizational characteristics of each society as well as of its
behaviour and interactions with the physical and natural environment. This knowledge is of the
utmost importance to determine those things which favour and hinder prevention and mitigation
or encourage or limit the preservation of the environment for the development of future genera-
tions, and in order to find effective and efficient means to reduce the impact of disasters.
7. The adopted Yokohama Strategy and related Plan of Action for the rest of the Decade and
beyond:
a. Will note that each country has the sovereign responsibility to protect its citizens from natu-
ral disasters;
b. Will give priority attention to the developing countries, in particular the least developed,
land-locked countries and the small island developing States;
9 CAPACITY BY DEMAND: THE 1970S AND ‘80S
c. Will develop and strengthen national capacities and capabilities and, where appropriate,
national legislation for natural and other disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness,
including the mobilization of non-governmental organizations and participation of local
communities;
d. Will promote and strengthen subregional, regional, and international cooperation in activities
to prevent, reduce, and mitigate natural and other disasters, with particular emphasis on:
- Human and institutional capacity-building and strengthening;
- Technology sharing, the collection, the dissemination, and the utilization of information;
- Mobilization of resources.
8. The international community and the United Nations system in particular must provide adequate
support to [natural disaster reduction].
9. The Yokohama Conference is at a crossroad in human progress. In one direction lie the
meagre results of an extraordinary opportunity given to the United Nations and its Member
States. In the other direction, the United Nations and the world community can change
the course of events by reducing the suffering from natural disasters. Action is urgently
needed.
10. Nations should view the Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World as a call to action, individually
and in concert with other nations, to implement policies and goals reaffirmed in Yokohama, and
to use the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction as a catalyst for change. (ISDR
1994)
The participating member states accepted the following principles to be applied to disaster manage-
ment within their own countries. The tenth and final principle formalized the requirement that each
nation’s government accept responsibility for protecting its people from the consequences of
disasters:
1. Risk assessment is a required step for the adoption of adequate and successful disaster reduction
policies and measures.
2. Disaster prevention and preparedness are of primary importance in reducing the need for disaster
relief.
3. Disaster prevention and preparedness should be considered integral aspects of development
policy and planning at national, regional, bilateral, multilateral, and international levels.
4. Development and strengthening of capacities to prevent, reduce, and mitigate disasters [are] top
priority area[s] to be addressed during the Decade so as to provide a strong basis for follow-up
activities [after that period].
5. Early warnings of impending disasters and their effective dissemination using telecommu-
nications, including broadcast services, are key factors to successful disaster prevention and
preparedness.
6. Preventive measures are most effective when they involve participation at all levels, from the
local community through the national government to the regional and international levels.
7. Vulnerability can be reduced by the application of proper design and patterns of development
focused on target groups by appropriate education and training of the whole community.
8. The international community accepts the need to share the necessary technology to prevent,
reduce, and mitigate disaster; this should be made freely available and in a timely manner as an
integral part of technical cooperation.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS10
9. Environmental protection as a component of sustainable development consistent with poverty
alleviation is imperative in the prevention and mitigation of natural disasters.
10. Each country bears the primary responsibility for protecting its people, infrastructure, and other
national assets from the impact of natural disasters. The international community should dem-
onstrate strong political determination required to mobilize adequate and make efficient use of
existing resources, including financial, scientific, and technological means, in the field of natural
disaster reduction, bearing in mind the needs of the developing countries, particularly the least
developed countries. (ISDR 1994)
THE UN INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY FOR DISASTER REDUCTION
The international community, through the efforts of the UN, named the 1990s the International Decade
for Natural Disaster Reduction to increase awareness of the importance of risk reduction. Following the
positive advances by the UN and member governments during this time, the UN General Assembly
voted in December of 1999 to further their successes by creating the International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction (ISDR).
ISDR was created to help create nations, organizations, and communities that are “disaster resil-
ient” by espousing the idea that disaster reduction must be fully interlinked with development. The
ISDR sought to reduce disasters’ human, social, economic, and environmental toll, which was plaguing
rich and poor countries alike (and continues to). To achieve these goals, the ISDR promoted four objec-
tives as tools toward reaching “disaster reduction for all”:
• Increase public awareness about risk, vulnerability, and disaster reduction. The more people,
regional organizations, governments, NGOs, UN entities, representatives of civil society, and
others know about risk, vulnerability, and how to manage the impacts of natural hazards, the more
disaster reduction measures will be implemented in all sectors of society.
• Obtain commitment from public authorities to implement disaster reduction policies and actions.
The more decision makers at all levels commit themselves to disaster reduction policies and
actions, the sooner communities vulnerable to natural disasters will benefit from applied disaster
reduction policies and actions. This requires, in part, a grassroots approach where communities at
risk are fully informed and participate in risk management initiatives.
• Stimulate interdisciplinary and intersectoral partnerships, including the expansion of risk-
reduction networks. The more disaster reduction entities share information on their research and
practices, the more the global body of knowledge and experience will progress. By sharing a
common purpose and through collaborative efforts, the world’s nations will be more resilient to
natural hazards impacts.
• Improve scientific knowledge about disaster reduction. The more we know about the causes
and consequences of natural hazards and related technological and environmental disasters
on societies, the better prepared we are to reduce risks. Bringing the scientific community
and policymakers together allows them to contribute to and complement each others’ work.
(UNISDR 2001)
The ISDR worked with many different UN agencies and outside organizations, as administered by
the IATF/DR and the Inter-Agency Secretariat of the ISDR. These two bodies were formed by the UN
General Assembly through UN Resolutions 54/219 and 56/195 to implement ISDR.
11 THE POST-2015 FRAMEWORK
THE HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION (HFA)
In 2005, at The World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Kobe, Japan, the 168 countries in
attendance adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations
and Communities to Disasters. This action was endorsed by the General Assembly in UN Resolution
60/195. The HFA outlined a 10-year plan that reflected the intention of the global community to take a
more comprehensive, holistic approach to disaster risk reduction. The HFA called for nations to pursue
three strategic goals during the decade of action in order to bring about a substantial and measurable
reduction of disaster losses (fatalities and social, economic, and environmental losses). These goals
were intended to be aligned with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), signifying a recognition
that disaster risk reduction was closely connected with overall national development. The goals included:
• The integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and planning;
• Development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms, and capacities to build resilience to
hazards; and
• The systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the implementation of emergency
preparedness, response, and recovery programs.
The Hyogo Framework also defined five priorities for action and identified the collective and indi-
vidual roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders in its implementation and follow-up. These priori-
ties include:
1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis
for implementation;
2. Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks—and enhance early warning;
3. Use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels;
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors; and
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.
Following the WCDR, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs (USG)
launched a consultative process to consider practical ways of strengthening the ISDR system, building
on existing mandates, institutions, partnerships, and mechanisms, with the key purpose of implementing
the Hyogo Framework for Action. The rationale for strengthening the ISDR and describing it as a sys-
tem of partnerships was based on the need for making substantial progress in implementing a world-
wide disaster risk reduction agenda, which calls for concerted efforts by all stakeholders. The UN Office
for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR; see chapter 10) developed a standard set of comprehensive
indicators against which regions, nations, and local governments could plan for and measure their
actions. In two-year increments, nations self-assessed their progress against the defined measures of
success, and reported this progress to the world community. The tool was called the HFA Monitor, and
the reports that were submitted were (and remain) available on the UNISDR (http://bit.ly/1mK0Rwe).
THE POST-2015 FRAMEWORK
In March of 2015 the global community again meets in Japan—this time in the tsunami-impacted city
of Sendai—to look for a way forward in managing global disaster risk. The Third World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction will see the culmination of years of preparation for the follow-up to the Hyogo
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS12
Framework for Action in the development of a new global framework. While at the time of publication
this framework had yet to be given a formal title, it is referred to as the post-2015 framework for disas-
ter risk reduction, or more simply as post-HFA.
The post-2015 framework was called upon by UN General Assembly Resolution 66/199. When
nations meet in Sendai, their actions will represent the culmination of hundreds of meetings held in all
regions of the world and scores of reports drafted to define the outstanding needs. The intention is to
continue progress that has been achieved thus far in international cooperation toward achieving disaster
risk reduction. It will build on the knowledge and practice accumulated through the implementation of
each of the previous efforts, including the IDNDR, the Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action, the
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and the HFA.
In June of 2014, the UN General Assembly released a document entitled “Suggested Elements for
the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction” that addressed the structure and content of the
framework to be developed and released in March of 2015. Understandably, the proposed purpose of
the future framework was described as being “to manage disaster and climate risk in development at
local, national, regional, and global levels for the resilience of people, communities, and countries”
(United Nations General Assembly 2014). This document proposes several recommendations for the
new framework inclusive of guiding principles, implementation measures, areas of focus (including
public awareness and education, international cooperation, monitoring, reporting, and reviewing), as
well as how to perform the transition between the existing and the new framework. But perhaps most
telling are the global targets and indicators for the new framework, which include:
• Reducing disaster mortality by half by 2025 (or by a given percentage in a given period of time);
• Reducing disaster economic loss by a given percentage by 2025; and
• Reducing disaster damage to housing, educational, and health facilities by a given percentage by 2025.
MODERN DISASTER MANAGEMENT – A FOUR-PHASE APPROACH
Comprehensive disaster management is based upon four distinct components: mitigation, prepared-
ness, response, and recovery. Although a range of terminology is often used in describing them, effec-
tive disaster management utilizes each component in the following manner:
1. Mitigation. Also called Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), mitigation involves reducing or eliminat-
ing the likelihood or the consequences of a hazard, or both. Mitigation seeks to “treat” the hazard
such that it impacts society to a lesser degree. See chapter 4 for more information.
2. Preparedness. This involves equipping people who may be impacted by a disaster or who may be
able to help those impacted with the tools to increase their chances of survival and to minimize
their financial and other losses. See chapter 5 for more information.
3. Response. This involves taking action to reduce or eliminate the impact of disasters that have
occurred or are currently occurring, in order to prevent further suffering, financial loss, or a
combination of both. Relief, a term commonly used in international disaster management, is one
component of response. See chapter 6 for more information.
4. Recovery. This involves returning victims’ lives back to a normal state following the impact of
disaster consequences. The recovery phase generally begins after the immediate response has
ended, and can persist for months or years thereafter. See chapter 7 for more information.
13 WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT?
Various diagrams illustrate the cyclical nature by which these and other related factors are per-
formed over time, although disagreement exists concerning how such a “disaster management cycle” is
visualized. These diagrams, such as the one in figure 1.2, are generalizations, and it must always be
understood that many exceptions can be identified in each. In practice, all of these factors are inter-
mixed and are performed to some degree before, during, and after disasters. Disasters tend to exist in a
continuum, with the recovery from one often leading straight into another. And while response is often
pictured as beginning immediately after disaster impact, it is not uncommon for the actual response to
begin well before the disaster actually happens.
WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT?
Two separate but interrelated concepts are represented by the term “international disaster manage-
ment”: (1) the study of the diverse emergency and disaster management systems and structures that
exist throughout the world; and (2) the study of disaster management in scenarios where the capacity
of a single nation’s response mechanisms are overwhelmed.
Every country, every government, and every society is unique regarding
• its vulnerabilities and the root causes of such;
• the perception of risk and the methods used to identify and analyze it;
• the institutions, systems, and structures created to manage risk;
• the statutory authorities that guide the management of risk and the management of events that do
actually occur; and
• the mechanisms developed to respond to disaster events and the response capacity of those
mechanisms.
FIGURE 1.2
The disaster management cycle.
Source: Alexander, 2002.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS14
Several times each year, the response requirements of disaster events exceed the disaster manage-
ment abilities of a single nation or several nations. In these instances, the governments of the affected
countries call upon the resources of the international response community. This cooperative interna-
tional response is, by definition, international disaster management.
Over time and through iteration, a recognized and systemic process for responding to interna-
tional disasters has begun to emerge. Standards for response have been developed by multiple
sources, and a recognized group of typical participants has been identified. (See exhibit 1.2.) Through
practice and study, formulaic, methodical processes for assessing both the affected nations’ damage
and their various response needs have been identified, tried, and improved on. What was only 30
years ago a chaotic, ad hoc reaction to international disasters has grown with astounding speed into
a highly effective machine.
It is important to add that disasters do not become international just because they have overwhelmed
a country’s capacity to respond. There must be a commitment on the participants’ part to recognize the
need for international involvement and to accept the appeal made by the host nation’s government. The
sad truth is that, in practice, not all disasters elicit the same level of international interest and response,
whether because of donor fatigue (see chapter 11), media interest, diverted priorities, or other events
that may dilute public interest. The Mozambique floods of 2000 are but one example of a situation in
which the international community was accused of sitting idly by as hundreds of people died. (See
exhibit 1.3.)
Response and recovery alone, however, are not effective means of managing disasters if they are
performed in the absence of a comprehensive regimen of preparedness and mitigation activities.
(See table 1.2.) An important focal shift among the world’s international disaster management
organizations, agencies, and interest groups from disaster response to disaster prevention is evi-
dence of widespread recognition and acceptance of this. Although many national governments,
especially in the developing world, have yet to make a dedicated effort toward initiating or improv-
ing their pre-disaster management activities, many international development and disaster manage-
ment agencies are working to address this issue. The UN, whose members consist of almost every
country in the world, has made a sustained effort to lead its member nations in addressing their
shortfalls: first by dedicating the 1990s to the IDNDR (producing the Yokohama Strategy and the
Plan of Action for a Safer World), and then by following up with the International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (ISDR) and the Hyogo Framework for Action to ensure that forward momentum
is maintained.
EXHIBIT 1.2 INTERNATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT PARTICIPANTS
• Victims
• Local first responders
• Governments of the affected countries
• Governments of other countries
• International organizations
• International financial institutions
• Regional organizations and associations
• Nonprofit organizations
• Private organizations—business and industry
• Local and regional donors
15 WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT?
EXHIBIT 1.3 2000 MOZAMBIQUE FLOODS TIMELINE
February 9 Heavy rain begins falling across most of southern Africa, with Mozambique hit the hardest. The capital,
Maputo, is submerged. Throughout the country, hundreds of thousands of families are left homeless and
stranded. Damage to crops and infrastructure is severe.
February 11 At least 70 people have died due to the flooding. The UN reports that 150,000 people are in immediate
danger from starvation and disease. Dysentery outbreaks are reported outside the capital.
February 22 Tropical cyclone Eline makes a direct hit on the country, worsening the condition in many areas already sub-
merged by the floods. The South African Air Force begins making airlifts to over 23,000 desperate victims.
February 24 The UN makes an appeal for $13 million in immediate relief and $65 million for recovery assistance.
The appeal goes unanswered. Rainfall draining from other parts of southern Africa begins to flow into
Mozambique, worsening already poor conditions.
February 27 More rainfall causes flash floods throughout the country, destroying much of the remaining farmland.
March 2 Floodwaters have risen by up to 26 feet (8 m) in many parts of the country. International aid workers report that
100,000 people are in need of immediate evacuation, and over 7,000 are trapped in trees and need to be rescued
(many have been trapped in the trees for several days without food or clean water). Finally, more than three weeks
after the crisis began, international disaster management agencies begin to send responders and relief assistance.
Source: BBC News, 2000.
Table 1.2 Response and Recovery-Based Management versus Prevention and Risk Reduction-
Based Management
Response and Recovery-Based Efforts Prevention and Risk Reduction-Based Efforts
Primary focus on disaster events Focus on vulnerability and risk issues
Single, event-based scenarios Dynamic, multiple-risk issues and development scenarios
Basic responsibility to respond to an event Fundamental need to assess, monitor, and update expo- sure to changing conditions
Often fixed, location-specific conditions Extended, changing, shared or regional, local variations
Responsibility in single authority or agency Involves multiple authorities, interests, actors
Command and control, directed operations Situation-specific functions, free and open association and participation
Established hierarchical relationships Shifting, fluid, and tangential relationships
Often focused on hardware and equipment Dependent on related practices, abilities, and knowledge base
Dependent on specialized expertise Focused on aligning specialized expertise with public views and priorities
Urgent, immediate, and short timeframes in outlook, planning, attention, and returns
Moderate and long timeframes in outlook, planning, values, and returns
Rapidly changing, dynamic information usage, which is often conflicting or sensitive in nature
Accumulated, historical, layered, updated, or compara- tive use of information
Primary, authorized, or singular information sources; need for definitive facts
Open or public information; multiple, diverse, or chang- ing sources; differing perspectives and points of view
In-out or vertical flows of information Dispersed, lateral flows of information
Relates to matters of public security, safety Matters of public interest, investment, and safety
Source: Adapted from Jeggle, 2001.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS16
Today, the United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) guides the efforts of the inter-
national community’s overall disaster management mission. (See chapter 10.) Specifically, the UNISDR
seeks to build “disaster resilient communities by promoting increased awareness of the importance of
disaster reduction as an integral component of sustainable development, with the goal of reducing
human, social, economic, and environmental losses due to natural hazards and related technological
and environmental disasters” (UNISDR n.d.).
In January 2005, in Hyogo, Japan, the UN held the first World Conference on Disaster Reduc-
tion. More than 4,000 participants attended, including representatives from 168 governments, 78
UN specialized agencies and observer organizations, 161 non-governmental organizations, and
562 journalists from 154 media outlets. The public forum attracted more than 40,000 visitors. The
outcome of the conference was the twenty-four-page Hyogo Framework for Action, adopted by all
member countries, that outlined members’ resolve to pursue “the substantial reduction of disaster
losses, in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of communities and
countries.”
With the adoption of this framework, which coincided with some of the most devastating hazards
and disasters in recent memory, international disaster management climbed to the forefront of the inter-
national policy agenda. UNISDR, through the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, has
increased and maintained international activity to address our growing hazard risk. (See exhibit 1.4.)
For years, the nations of the world have watched as country after country, both rich and poor, have
EXHIBIT 1.4 GLOBAL PLATFORM FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
The Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (GP) was established by mandate of the UN General Assembly. The GP
is an international meeting that occurs every two years and is attended by the international disaster risk reduction com-
munity, which includes governments, international organizations (including the UN and other regional organizations and
institutions), NGOs, scientific and academic institutions, and the private sector. By mandate, the GP
• assesses progress made in the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action.
• enhances awareness of disaster risk reduction.
• enables the sharing of experiences and lessons from good practice.
• identifies remaining gaps and recommends targeted action to accelerate national and local implementation.
The first and second sessions of the GP, which occurred in 2007 and 2009, respectively, were attended by more than
152 governments and 137 organizations. These sessions helped to build momentum for national commitments to perform
disaster risk reduction, culminating with the May 2011 GP meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. The benchmarks set out in the
first two meetings focused on five main areas, including the goals to:
1. harmonize disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the broader context of poverty reduction and sus-
tainable development;
2. reduce community- and local-level risk through partnerships that better recognize the mutual dependence of govern-
ments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and to promote the role of women as drivers of action (with
special consideration to youth and children’s roles);
3. move toward full implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action through several action targets (e.g., assessments
of and mitigation for educational and health facilities);
4. increase the disaster risk reduction component of national budgets and international development funding (including
humanitarian relief and recovery expenditures), and to improve measurements of the effectiveness of investment in risk
reduction; and
5. continue the efforts of the ISDR in supporting governments and NGOs in their disaster risk reduction efforts.
Based on: PreventionWeb, 2011.
17 DISASTERS, POVERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT
suffered the consequences of terrible disasters. However, it has not been until recently that world lead-
ers have begun to fully grasp that many of these consequences could have been reduced through better
mitigation and preparedness efforts and more effective response capabilities. As a result, the field of
international disaster management is now in a position to influence these leaders in a way not previ-
ously possible.
DISASTERS, POVERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT
Research and practice support the theory that there exists a strong correlation between disasters and
poverty. It is well documented that those developing countries repeatedly subject to disasters experi-
ence stagnant or even negative rates of development over time. (See figure 1.3.) Hurricane Mitch,
which destroyed as much as 70 percent of the infrastructure in Honduras and Nicaragua (UNISDR
2004), is a prime example, having been blamed with reversing the rates of development in these and
other Central American countries by at least a decade (and as much as 20 and 30 years in some areas;
Oxfam 1998). The same effect has also been witnessed in many of the areas affected by the 2004 tsu-
nami and earthquake events in Southeast Asia and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. (See exhibit 1.5.) For
countries with developing economies, the financial setbacks these events inflict can be ruinous, in con-
trast to their industrialized counterparts, where a robust economy absorbs such impacts. In 2001, for
example, earthquakes occurred in both El Salvador and the United States (Seattle), each causing
approximately $2 billion in damages. While this amount had little or no noticeable impact on the US
economy, the financial consequences in El Salvador amounted to 15 percent of that country’s GDP
(UNDP 2004a).
The aftermath of a disaster exacerbates the debilitating causes of poverty in developing countries.
Each disaster is unique in its consequences, so there is no single formula that can be used to character-
ize precisely how these problems will play out. The following list, however, provides a general
FIGURE 1.3
Impact of disasters on development.
Adapted from ADRC, 2005.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS18
overview of the many ways in which disasters harm poor countries beyond the initial death, injury, and
destruction:
• National and international development efforts are stunted, erased, or even reversed.
• Sizable portions of GDP often must be diverted from development projects, social programs, or
debt repayment to manage the disaster consequences and begin recovery efforts. (See figure 1.4.)
• Vital infrastructure is damaged or destroyed—including roads, bridges, airports, sea ports, com-
munications systems, power generation and distribution facilities, and water and sewage plants—
requiring years to rebuild.
• Schools are damaged or destroyed, leaving students without an adequate source of education for
months or even years.
• Hospitals and clinics are damaged or destroyed, resulting in an increase in vulnerability to disease
of the affected population.
• Formal and informal businesses are destroyed, resulting in surges in unemployment and decreased
economic stability and strength.
• Reconstruction efforts result in shortages of materials and labor, which in turn drive up construc-
tion costs, inflate salaries, and draw workers away from other sectors where they are needed.
• Residents are forced or impelled to leave the affected zone, often never to return, extracting
institutional knowledge, cultural and social identity, and economic viability from areas that cannot
afford to spare such resources.
• Desperation and poverty lead to a rapid upsurge in crime and insecurity.
• A general feeling of hopelessness afflicts the affected population, leading to increased rates of
depression and a lack of motivation to regain independence from outside assistance.
DISASTER TRENDS
Increased accuracy in the reporting of disaster statistics has helped to provide both greater visualization
and confirmation of something many scientists and disaster managers have been warning of for decades:
the nature of disasters is rapidly changing. These changes are generally regarded as a result of human
EXHIBIT 1.5 TSUNAMI SETS BACK DEVELOPMENT 20 YEARS IN MALDIVES
Within minutes of the December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, much of the economic and social progress in the
Maldives was washed away.
According to government officials, the tsunami caused a 20-year setback in the development of this small country, an
island nation off the coast of India, which only six days before the disaster had been removed from the UN’s list of least-
developed countries. In particular, the tsunami and its resulting floodwaters dealt a serious blow to the tourism sector, the
country’s main source of income. Nearly one-fourth of the 87 resorts in the Maldives were severely damaged and declared
unable to operate. Tourism directly accounts for one-third of the country’s economy, with the resorts alone providing
between 25,000 and 30,000 jobs. When tourism-related tax and customs revenues are included, tourism contributes up to
70 percent of the economy, with the sector expanding each year. These earnings had helped to improve living standards in
the Maldives, including increased school enrollment, lower unemployment, and more students seeking higher education
abroad.
Based on: UNDP, 2005.
19 DISASTER TRENDS
FIGURE 1.4
Selected natural disasters: total damage and share of the GDP between 1991 and 2005.
Source: EM-DAT – International Disaster Database.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS20
actions and development patterns. What is troubling is that these trends indicate that more disasters are
occurring each year, with greater intensity, and that a great many more people are affected by them,
either indirectly or directly. And while these disasters are becoming less deadly worldwide, they are
causing a much greater financial impact on both affected and unaffected nations. Finally, and what may
be the most disturbing of these trends, is that the poor countries of the world and their citizens are
assuming a much greater proportion of the impacts of disasters. In sum, recent trends indicate that
• the number of people affected by disasters is rising.
• overall, disasters are becoming less deadly.
• overall, disasters are becoming more costly.
• poor countries are disproportionately affected by disaster consequences.
• the number of disasters is increasing each year.
TREND 1: THE OVERALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED BY DISASTERS IS RISING
Human settlement has always been directed by the needs of individuals and societies, such as the need
for food, water, defense, and access to commerce. Almost without exception, increased natural hazard
risk has been assumed in favor of these needs, often as result of a confidence that hazard risk can be
accepted as “part of life” or can be effectively managed. Evidence of such behavior is apparent in
almost any example of previous human settlement: communities along rivers build levees; those located
along the sea coasts construct sea walls and jetties; farmers place their houses and sow their crops upon
the fertile slopes of active volcanoes.
However, as the population and size of these settlements grow, the assumed risk becomes more and
more concentrated. The overall rates by which people have relocated from rural areas into cities (urban-
ization) have continued to increase over time. Rising populations in almost all countries of the world
amplify the urbanization effect. In 1950, less than 30 percent of the world’s 2.5 billion people lived in
an urban setting. By 1998, the number of people on earth had grown to 5.7 billion, and 45 percent of
them lived in cities. UN estimates state that by 2025 there will be 8.2 billion people on earth, and more
than 60 percent of them will live in cities (UNFPA 2013; WHO 2014).
When humans settle in high-risk urban areas, the hazard risks they face as individuals increase. As
of the year 2000, it was estimated that at least 75 percent of the world’s population lived in areas at risk
from a major disaster (UNDP 2004a). And because these high-risk areas periodically experience major
disasters, it logically follows that the number of people who are annually affected by disasters (defined
as having their homes, crops, animals, livelihoods, or health impacted) is equally high (UNISDR 2004).
Figures 1.5 and 1.6 display the observed total number of people annually affected by disasters dur-
ing the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Note that, beginning in 1954, there is a significant rise
in the number of people affected. It was during the decade of the 1950s that the mass transition toward
urbanization began in the industrialized nations, a trend that most other nations of the world followed
soon after.
TREND 2: OVERALL, DISASTERS ARE BECOMING LESS DEADLY
The seismic, meteorological, hydrological, and other forces that result in natural hazards are natural
processes that occur irrespective of the actions or existence of humans. Water has overflowed the banks
of rivers since before humans lived beside them. Archeologists and geologists have unearthed evidence
21 DISASTER TRENDS
that earthquake events occurred during every era of the planet’s history. Volcanic activity has been
given as much credit for its role in generating life on earth as it has for destroying it. Natural disasters,
it has therefore been suggested, are merely the result of humans placing themselves directly into the
path of these normal events. (See figures 1.7 and 1.8.) United States Geological Survey (USGS) scien-
tists Susan Hough and Lucile Jones aptly captured this line of thought when they wrote that “earth-
quakes don’t kill people, buildings do” (Hough and Jones 2002).
Humans are adaptable and quickly adjust to the pressures exerted upon them by nature. People have
modified their behaviors and their environments to accommodate their surrounding climate and topog-
raphy, often proving successful at counteracting the negative consequences of common daily hazards
such as rain or extreme temperatures. For less common events, such as earthquakes and hurricanes,
humans have had lower levels of success. Fortunately, modern science has helped to change this fact
significantly, at least in those countries in which the technology and technical expertise is within reach.
Table 1.3 illustrates the success achieved by the United States in adjusting to hurricane risk during the
course of the twentieth century, where death rates fell steadily until the end of the century as explained
Number of people reported affected by natural disasters 1900–2011
7 0 0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
6 0 0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
5 0 0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
4 0
0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
3 0
0 ,0
0 0
,0 0
0 2
0 0
,0 0
0 ,0
0 0
N u m
b e r
o f
p e o p le
r e p o
rt e
d a
ff e
c te
d
1 0 0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 19901980 2000 2010
Year
FIGURE 1.5
Total number of people affected by disasters worldwide from 1900 to 2011.
Source: EM-DAT – International Disaster Database.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS22
by several driving forces (including better preparedness, storm tracking, public education, response,
etc.). What is most interesting about this trend is that as we move into the second decade of the twenty-
first century, there is an obvious trend reversal, with the number of US hurricane fatalities reaching
levels that exceed the aggregate of the preceding 60 years. While there are varied theories to explain
such a change, what draws the most support is the belief that this is an unintended consequence of a
post-9/11 shift in US emergency management policy that boosted terrorism prevention at the cost of
natural hazard mitigation and preparedness. Such a consequence only reinforces the theory that global
disaster fatality reduction is the result of our risk reduction efforts.
Globalization and increased international cooperation have helped the world community to more
effectively address risk reduction and limit the human impacts of disasters. Although the number of
disasters has more than tripled since the 1970s, the number of people worldwide who have perished has
fallen by 50 percent (UNISDR 2004). Greater recognition of the importance of emergency management
Number of people reported affected by natural disasters 1975–2011
7 0 0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
6 0 0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
5 0 0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
4 0
0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
3 0
0 ,0
0 0
,0 0
0 2
0 0
,0 0
0 ,0
0 0
1 0 0 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
0
N u m
b e r
o f
p e o p le
r e p o
rt e
d a
ff e
c te
d
Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20102005
FIGURE 1.6
Total number of people affected by disasters worldwide from 1975 to 2011.
Source: EM-DAT – International Disaster Database.
23 DISASTER TRENDS
and sustainable development is turning the tide on disasters. The efforts of the United Nations, the many
non-governmental agencies involved in development and disaster preparedness and response, and the
efforts of individual governments have shown that humans can effectively influence their vulnerability.
There are several explanations for the falling fatality rates of disasters. These include:
• More organized and comprehensive preparedness campaigns are helping individuals and commu-
nities to decrease their vulnerability and to react more appropriately in the face of disaster.
• Early warning systems are giving potential victims more time to leave the dangerous situations
associated with impending disasters.
• Special disaster-specific protection structures, such as tornado safe rooms, are mitigating the
impact that disasters have on human life.
• Building code creation and enforcement are helping to increase the resilience of the various struc-
tures and systems upon which humans depend.
N u m
b e r
o f
p e o p le
r e
p o
rt e
d k
il le
d
Number of people reported killed by natural disasters 1900–2011
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 19901980 2000 2010 Year
5 0 0 ,0
0 0
1 ,5
0 0 ,0
0 0
1 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
2 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
2 ,5
0 0 ,0
0 0
3 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
3 ,5
0 0 ,0
0 0
4 ,0
0 0 ,0
0 0
0
FIGURE 1.7
Total number of natural disaster-related deaths reported in the world from 1900 to 2011.
Source: EM-DAT – International Disaster Database.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS24
FIGURE 1.8
Total number of natural disaster-related deaths reported in the world from 1975 to 2011.
Source: EM-DAT– International Disaster Database.
Table 1.3 Deaths Attributed to Hurricanes in the United States, 1900–2010
Period Number Killed
1900–1919 10,000 (approximate; exact 1900 Galveston death toll is unknown)
1920–1939 3751
1940–1959 1119
1960–1979 453
1980–1999 82
2000–2014 2200
Source: Thoreau Institute, 2005; FEMA, 1997 (along with other multiple dates).
25 DISASTER TRENDS
• Secondary, post-disaster consequences, such as famine and disease, are more effectively managed
by modern public-health response mechanisms.
• Proper zoning procedures and enforcement are helping to prevent people from moving into the
paths of disasters and helping to remove those who are already there.
• Sustainable development processes are helping to reduce population movement into areas of high-
est risk.
TREND 3: OVERALL, DISASTERS ARE BECOMING MORE COSTLY
The cost of disasters worldwide is increasing at an alarming rate. Twenty-five years ago, the eco-
nomic damage from any given disaster rarely topped the billion-dollar mark, even after accounting
for inflation. Now, several disasters top this mark each year. (See figure 1.9.) By the year 2000, the
FIGURE 1.9
Total amount of reported damages (billion USD at 2009 prices) in the world from 1900 to 2012.
Source: EM-DAT – International Disaster Database.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS26
cost of disasters worldwide had topped $60 billion per year, as measured by the international rein-
surance firm Munich Re. In 2013, a new record was set when 41 disasters exceeded $1 billion in
damages worldwide, with all disasters totaling $125 billion. In 2012, while there were fewer bil-
lion-dollar disasters, the total impact of all disasters combined exceeded $175 billion (World Post
2014).
There are many reasons disasters are getting more expensive, including several of the previous
explanations: there are more people in the world, there are more disasters, people are more concentrated
together, and so forth. The fact remains that people continue to move toward urban centers, build
expensive structures and infrastructure in the path of hazards, and try to overcome the risk of disaster
by building structures designed to resist damage. Again consider hurricanes in the United States. Their
basic power and natural characteristics have not changed significantly over time. However, human
settlements in high-risk coastal areas have increased. The result of this human behavior is the rising
costs of hurricane damage during the past 20 years (Riebeek 2005).
There are several explanations for the global increase in financial disaster cost, which include:
• Increasing urbanization in high-risk zones is occurring throughout the world, concentrating
wealth, physical structures, and infrastructure together in high-risk zones.
• Economies are much more dependent upon technologies that tend to fail in times of disaster; one
example is the 2003 northeastern US/Canadian electrical blackout, which resulted in as much as
$6 billion in damages.
• Areas not directly affected are experiencing secondary economic consequences of disaster, as with
many world economies following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.
• A greater number of less deadly but financially destructive disasters are occurring throughout the
world as a result of climate change or other factors.
• Increasing population; the US Census Bureau estimates that the world’s population grew from 3.8
to 6.8 billion between 1950 and 2010.
TREND 4: POOR COUNTRIES ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED BY DISASTER CONSEQUENCES
Disasters of all kinds strike literally every nation of the world; they do not differentiate between rich
and poor countries. However, developing countries suffer the greatest impact and also most often expe-
rience subsequent internal civil conflict that leads to complex humanitarian emergencies (CHEs; see
Definitions). The United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported in 2011 that 95
percent of the deaths caused by disasters occur in poor countries—a figure that has been steadily rising
for decades. (Lim 2011). What is troubling about this statistic is that the UNDP estimated that only 11
percent of the world’s “at-risk” population can be accounted for in these countries (UNDP 2004a; see
figure 1.10). In fact, on average, 90 percent of disaster-related injuries and deaths are sustained in coun-
tries with per-capita income levels that are below $760 per year (Jha 2010; see figure 1.11).
Based on these facts, inferences can be drawn about a nation’s disaster risk by considering its devel-
opment status. Public health expert Eric Noji identified four primary reasons why the poor in general
are often most at risk.
They (1) are least able to afford housing that can withstand seismic activity; (2) often live along
coasts where hurricanes, storm surges, or earthquake-generated [tsunamis] strike live in
FIGURE 1.10
Total number of deaths and people affected by natural disasters per 100,000 inhabitants from 1974 to 2003.
Source: EM-DAT – International Disaster Database.
FIGURE 1.11
Total amount of economic damages reported in major world aggregates from 1991 to 2005 (billion USD, 2006).
Adapted from EM-DAT – International Disaster Database.
CHAPTER 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF DISASTERS28
floodplains subject to inundation; (3) are forced by economic circumstances to live in substandard
housing built on unstable slopes that are susceptible to landslides or are built next to hazardous
industrial sites; and (4) are not educated as to the appropriate lifesaving behaviors or actions that
they can take when a disaster occurs. (Noji 1997)
There are also many secondary reasons that contribute. For instance, injuries sustained in disasters,
and the disease that often follows, are much more likely to lead to death in poor countries, where acute
care may be substandard or nonexistent and the control of disease outbreaks more difficult. The poor
are also likely to suffer greater disaster consequences as the result of minimal or nonexistent enforce-
ment of safety standards, building codes, and zoning regulations. (See figure 1.12.) The full range of
explanations is both extensive and diverse.
Although the importance of disaster preparedness and mitigation is widely recognized by almost all
of the world’s countries, and although these principles are widely applied on a growing basis by inter-
national development agencies, it still comes as no surprise that countries ranking lower on develop-
ment indices place disaster management very low in budgetary priority. These nations’ resources tend
to be focused on social interests such as education and infrastructure or on their military, instead of on
projects that serve a preparatory or mitigation need, such as retrofitting structures with hazard-resistant
construction. Because all disasters, even those that tend to repeat, are chance events and thus not guar-
anteed to happen, disaster management programs in poor countries tend to be viewed as a luxury or
OECD member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United
States.
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries: Albania, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
Developing countries: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia,
Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana,
Honduras, Hong Kong, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia,
Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea,
Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Palestinian Territories, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts
and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea,
Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab
Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.
Least-developed countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia,
Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial
Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar,
Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa (Western), São Tomé
and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu,
Yemen, Zambia.
Source: UNDP, 2004b.
29 DISASTER TRENDS
even superfluous. Compounding this situation, poverty and uncontrolled urbanization force large popu-
lations to concentrate in perilous, high-risk areas that have little or no defense against disasters. Thus,
the difference in the effect of a disaster’s impact in a rich versus poor country is remarkable. Table 1.4
illustrates these differences.
FIGURE 1.12
Number of people killed by disasters by income class between 1991 and 2005 (Note that drought includes
extreme temperature hazards.).
Source: EM-DAT – International Disaster Database.
Table 1.4 Differences in Disaster Impact between Rich and Poor Countries
Rich Countries Poor Countries
Tend to suffer higher economic losses, but have mecha- nisms in place to absorb these costs.
Have less at risk in terms of financial value, but maintain little or no buffer to absorb even low financial impacts. Economic reverberations can be significant, and social development ultimately suffers.
Employ mechanisms that reduce loss of life, such as early warning systems, enforced building codes, and zoning.
Lack the resources necessary to take advantage of advanced technologies, and have little ability to enforce building codes and zoning even if these mechanisms do exist.
Have immediate emergency and medical care that increase survivability and contain the spread of disease.
Sustain massive primary and secondary casualties.
Transfer much of personal, private, and public risk to insurance and reinsurance providers.
Generally do not participate in insurance mechanisms. Divert funds from development programs to emergency relief and recovery.
