Discussion 2
Mitigation Rules and Regulations
A. Disaster Legislation 101
In the United States prior to 1950, Congress provided funding for disaster relief
and recovery efforts on a case-by-case basis. That meant that each time there was a major
disaster in the United States, the legislative branch of government would have to
convene, draft, propose, and pass into law a bill that would provide funds for the relief
effort. This cumbersome and time-consuming process was put to rest by the Federal
Disaster Relief Program (FDRP). The FDRP, established in September 1950, authorized
the government to provide disaster response assistance for state and local governments.
However, a far greater and more costly task in the wake of a major disaster is long-term
recovery, which is needed to reestablish a community. The FDRP did not cover such
efforts.
Actually, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, also known as the Stafford Act, is the
legislation that significantly augmented federal assistance in disaster recovery efforts.
This act replaced the Disaster Relief Act of 1950 and expanded the scope of federal
involvement in disaster response and recovery. Prior to the Stafford Act, federal disaster
assistance primarily focused on providing relief to affected communities during the
immediate aftermath of a disaster. The Federal Disaster Relief Program (FDRP),
established in 1950, offered financial assistance to state and local governments to help
cover the costs of emergency response activities such as search and rescue, temporary
shelter, and debris removal.
However, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 represented a significant shift in federal
disaster policy by authorizing additional assistance for long-term recovery and
reconstruction efforts. Under the Stafford Act, the President was granted the authority to
issue major disaster declarations, which unlock a range of federal assistance programs to
support state and local governments, as well as certain private nonprofit organizations
and individuals, in rebuilding and recovering from the impacts of disasters.The Stafford
Act expanded the types of assistance available to include public infrastructure repair and
replacement, hazard mitigation measures to reduce the risk of future disasters, and
financial assistance to individuals and households affected by disasters. This marked a
significant expansion of federal involvement in disaster recovery efforts and represented
a recognition of the need for comprehensive, coordinated assistance to support
communities in their long-term recovery efforts.Overall, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974,
also known as the Stafford Act, represented a landmark piece of legislation that
significantly augmented federal assistance in disaster recovery efforts, building upon the
foundation established by the earlier Disaster Relief Act of 1950. By providing a
framework for comprehensive, coordinated assistance to support communities in their
recovery efforts, the Stafford Act has played a central role in enhancing the nation's
ability to respond to and recover from disasters and emergencies of all types and sizes.
In the mid-1970s, U.S. governors discussed their concerns about the fractal nature
of disaster relief operations spread about over numerous federal agencies. In addition,
they expressed a need for a new federal agency that would be responsible for
comprehensive emergency management, which would include preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery. The National Governors Association (NGA) met in August 1978
and produced a report requesting this action, which was sent to President Jimmy Carter.
President Carter agreed with the NGA, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) was created under Executive Order 12148 on March 31, 1979. As such, FEMA
became responsible for disaster-related “functions from the Departments of Defense
(civil defense) and Housing and Urban Development (federal disaster assistance), [the]
General Services Administration (federal preparedness), and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (earthquake hazards reduction).”
Indeed, as part of the broader efforts to consolidate authority for disaster
management within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), President
Jimmy Carter's administration took steps to transfer disaster-related legal authority
inherent in the presidency and other federal agencies to FEMA. This move aimed to
centralize and streamline the federal government's approach to emergency management
by vesting FEMA with the necessary legal powers and responsibilities to effectively
coordinate disaster preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.
One of the key elements of this transfer of authority involved granting FEMA the
legal authority to coordinate federal disaster response efforts under the auspices of the
Stafford Act. The Stafford Act, enacted in 1988, serves as the primary federal law
governing disaster relief and emergency assistance in the United States. It provides the
legal framework for federal assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments in
response to disasters and emergencies, authorizing the President to issue major disaster
declarations and emergency declarations to unlock federal resources and support.
By delegating authority to FEMA to administer the provisions of the Stafford Act
and coordinate federal disaster response efforts, President Carter's administration
empowered the agency to play a central role in coordinating interagency cooperation,
resource allocation, and assistance delivery in the aftermath of disasters. This included
streamlining the process for requesting and receiving federal disaster assistance,
clarifying the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies, and ensuring a more
coordinated and effective response to disasters and emergencies nationwide. In addition
to the transfer of legal authority under the Stafford Act, President Carter's administration
also consolidated various disaster-related functions and responsibilities from other federal
agencies and departments into FEMA. This included transferring civil defense and
emergency preparedness functions from the Department of Defense and other agencies,
as outlined in Executive Order 12148.
Overall, the transfer of disaster-related legal authority to FEMA under President
Carter's administration represented a significant step toward centralizing and
strengthening the federal government's ability to prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and
recover from disasters and emergencies. By consolidating authority within a single
federal agency, the administration sought to improve coordination, efficiency, and
effectiveness in addressing the nation's emergency management needs and enhancing the
resilience of communities across the United States.
Executive Orders 12127 and 12148, issued in the late 1970s, indeed played a
significant role in consolidating authority for disaster preparation, mitigation, response,
and recovery within a single federal agency, thereby streamlining and enhancing the
nation's ability to manage both natural and manmade disasters effectively. Executive
Order 12127, titled "Federal Emergency Management," was signed by President Jimmy
Carter in 1979. This order established the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) as the primary federal agency responsible for coordinating disaster
preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery efforts across the United States. By
consolidating various disaster-related functions and authorities previously scattered
across multiple federal agencies, Executive Order 12127 aimed to centralize and
streamline the federal government's approach to emergency management.
Executive Order 12148, titled "Federal Emergency Management Agency," was
signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 as well. This order further strengthened
FEMA's role as the lead federal agency for disaster management by consolidating
additional responsibilities and authorities under its purview. Specifically, Executive
Order 12148 transferred to FEMA the functions and authorities related to civil defense
and emergency preparedness previously held by the Department of Defense and other
federal agencies.
Together, Executive Orders 12127 and 12148 marked a significant milestone in
the evolution of the federal government's approach to emergency management. By
consolidating authority for both natural and manmade disaster preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery within a single federal agency, these orders sought to improve
coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness in addressing the nation's emergency
management needs.
Under FEMA's leadership, the federal government has developed comprehensive
policies, programs, and capabilities to enhance the nation's resilience to a wide range of
threats and hazards, including hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, and pandemics.
FEMA works closely with state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as with
private sector partners, non-profit organizations, and international partners, to build and
sustain a national framework for disaster preparedness and response.
B. History of the Stafford Act
Robert Theodore Stafford (19132006) was a Republican U.S. senator from
Vermont. Before becoming a senator in 1971, he served twice as an army officer during
World War II and the Korean War. He was elected to serve as attorney general and
lieutenant governor for the state of Vermont before being elected governor in 1958.
Senator Stafford is well known for sponsoring and proposing legislation in support of
educational and environmental issues. Indeed, Stafford loans have helped millions of
Americans attend institutes of higher learning. Senator Stafford is also known for
sponsoring the Clean Air Act (CAA), which was voted into law in 1963. However, what
he is probably best known for is the Stafford Act (whose full name is the Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988), a key piece of legislation passed in 1988. The
Stafford Act, still the major legislation under which FEMA operates, provides a
framework for continued disaster relief.
When a disaster strikes, response and relief efforts begin locally. Emergency
workers will be tasked and local resources depleted. By definition, a disaster will
overwhelm a community and its internal resources to the point where assistance will be
needed. The municipality may request assistance using mutual aid agreements. Requests
for support will be sent to the state emergency management agency (EMA) if mutual aid
by itself is insufficient. The state EMA may request assistance from neighboring states as
well. If the mayor of the affected community believes that federal assistance will be
needed, he or she will make a formal request to the governor, who will assess the
situation and determine what action to take. Yes, exactly. When a disaster occurs within a
state, the governor typically initiates the process of assessing the extent of the damage
and determining the need for additional assistance. This often involves conducting a
thorough damage assessment to evaluate the impact of the disaster on affected
communities, infrastructure, and essential services.
The governor may deploy teams of experts, including emergency management
personnel, engineers, and other specialists, to survey the damage and assess the needs of
affected areas. These assessment teams conduct on-the-ground inspections, collect data,
and document the extent of the damage, including structural damage to buildings, roads,
bridges, and other infrastructure, as well as the impact on public utilities, such as water
and power systems. The purpose of the damage assessment is to provide the governor
with accurate and timely information to inform decision-making and response efforts. By
evaluating the severity and scope of the damage, the governor can determine the level of
resources and assistance needed to support state and local response and recovery efforts
effectively.
Based on the findings of the damage assessment, the governor may then declare a
state of emergency and request federal assistance by submitting a formal request for a
Presidential Disaster Declaration to the President through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). This request outlines the governor's assessment of the
situation, including the extent of the damage, the needs of affected communities, and the
state's response efforts to date, and serves as the basis for federal consideration of disaster
assistance. The damage assessment process is a critical step in the disaster response and
recovery process, as it provides decision-makers with the information they need to
allocate resources, prioritize response efforts, and coordinate assistance effectively. By
conducting thorough damage assessments and promptly requesting assistance when
needed, state and local officials can ensure a timely and coordinated response to disasters,
helping to mitigate the impact on affected communities and facilitate the recovery
process.
Exactly. When a disaster occurs within a state and overwhelms the state's
resources and capabilities, the governor has the authority to declare a state of emergency.
This declaration allows the governor to mobilize state and local resources, activate
emergency response plans, and take necessary measures to protect public safety and
property. Following the declaration of a state of emergency, the governor may then
request federal assistance by submitting a formal request for a Presidential Disaster
Declaration to the President through the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). This request is made under the provisions of the Stafford Act, which is the
primary federal law governing disaster relief and emergency assistance in the United
States.
The governor's request for a Presidential Disaster Declaration typically includes a
thorough assessment of the situation, including information on the extent of the damage,
the needs of affected communities, and the state's response efforts to date. This
information helps FEMA and the federal government evaluate the severity and scope of
the disaster and determine the appropriate level and type of federal assistance needed to
support state and local response and recovery efforts. Once the governor submits a
request for a Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA and other federal agencies work
closely with state and local officials to assess the situation, review the governor's request,
and determine whether the criteria for federal assistance outlined in the Stafford Act have
been met. This process may involve additional assessments and consultations to ensure
an accurate and thorough understanding of the situation on the ground.
If FEMA determines that the criteria for federal assistance have been met, the
agency forwards the governor's request, along with its recommendation, to the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for consideration. The Secretary of DHS
then makes a recommendation to the President on whether to issue a Presidential Disaster
Declaration based on the assessment of the situation and the needs of affected
communities. Ultimately, the decision to issue a Presidential Disaster Declaration rests
with the President, who considers the recommendation from the Secretary of DHS, along
with any supporting documentation and input from other federal agencies and advisors,
before making a final determination. Once a Presidential Disaster Declaration is issued,
federal assistance becomes available to support state and local response and recovery
efforts, helping communities rebuild and recover from the impacts of the disaster.
Absolutely, you're correct. Once a governor submits a request for a Presidential
Disaster Declaration to FEMA, the process involves a thorough review of the damage
assessment and the governor's request. The FEMA Administrator leads this review
process, examining the documentation provided by the state and conducting additional
assessments as necessary to evaluate the severity and scope of the disaster. After
reviewing the information and conducting any necessary assessments, the FEMA
Administrator makes a recommendation to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), under which FEMA operates. This recommendation includes an
assessment of whether the criteria for federal assistance outlined in the Stafford Act have
been met, as well as the level and type of assistance requested by the governor. The
Secretary of DHS then considers the recommendation from the FEMA Administrator,
along with any additional information or input from other federal agencies, and makes a
determination on whether to recommend to the President that a Presidential Disaster
Declaration be issued. This decision is based on a careful evaluation of the severity and
magnitude of the disaster, the impact on affected communities, the availability of state
and local resources, and the demonstrated need for federal assistance.
Once the Secretary of DHS makes a recommendation, it is forwarded to the
President for consideration. The President then reviews the recommendation, along with
any supporting documentation and input from other advisors and agencies, and makes the
final decision on whether to issue a Presidential Disaster Declaration. The process of
reviewing and approving a Presidential Disaster Declaration is designed to ensure that
federal assistance is provided in a timely and efficient manner to support affected
communities in their response and recovery efforts. By following established procedures
and criteria, FEMA and DHS can help ensure that federal resources are allocated
effectively and equitably to address the needs of communities impacted by disasters of all
types and sizes.
In the United States, the decision to issue a Presidential Disaster Declaration is
indeed a significant step in the federal government's response to a disaster, as it unlocks a
range of federal assistance programs and resources to support state and local
governments, as well as certain private nonprofit organizations and individuals, in
responding to and recovering from the impacts of the disaster. The process for issuing a
Presidential Disaster Declaration typically begins with a request from the governor of the
affected state. When a disaster overwhelms the state's resources and capabilities, the
governor may formally request federal assistance by submitting a request for a
Presidential Disaster Declaration to the President through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). This request is typically accompanied by a thorough
assessment of the situation, including information on the extent of the damage, the needs
of affected communities, and the state's response efforts to date.
Upon receiving a request for a Presidential Disaster Declaration, the President and
FEMA evaluate the information provided by the governor and assess whether the criteria
for federal assistance have been met. These criteria typically include the severity and
magnitude of the disaster, the impact on public infrastructure and essential services, the
availability of state and local resources, and the demonstrated need for federal assistance
to supplement state and local efforts. In making the decision to issue a Presidential
Disaster Declaration, the President considers various factors, including the immediate
needs of affected communities, the potential for additional hazards or impacts, and the
overall impact on public safety, health, and welfare. The decision-making process may
also take into account political considerations, media coverage, and public perception,
particularly in high-profile or high-impact disasters that garner significant attention and
scrutiny.
In many cases, true disasters that meet the criteria for federal assistance receive a
Presidential Disaster Declaration in a relatively short period, often within days of the
governor's request. This rapid response reflects the federal government's commitment to
supporting affected communities and facilitating a coordinated, effective response to
disasters of all types and sizes. Once a Presidential Disaster Declaration is issued, FEMA
and other federal agencies work closely with state and local partners to coordinate
response and recovery efforts, provide financial assistance and technical support, and
help communities rebuild and recover from the impacts of the disaster. This collaborative
approach reflects the shared responsibility of all levels of government, as well as the
private sector and the public, in preparing for and responding to disasters and
emergencies to ensure the safety and well-being of all Americans.
Absolutely, the concept of "leaning forward" in disaster preparedness and
response refers to the proactive positioning and deployment of state and federal assets in
anticipation of a foreseeable disaster, such as a hurricane, wildfire, or severe weather
event. By pre-positioning resources, personnel, and equipment in strategic locations
ahead of an impending disaster, emergency managers and response agencies aim to
accelerate response efforts, reduce response times, and mitigate the impact of the event
on affected communities.
Hurricanes, in particular, are notorious for their predictability to some extent.
Meteorologists can track the development, trajectory, and intensity of hurricanes days or
even weeks in advance, providing valuable lead time for emergency managers to prepare
and mobilize resources. In the days leading up to a hurricane's landfall, state and federal
agencies often "lean forward" by deploying assets such as search and rescue teams,
medical personnel, National Guard units, and supplies such as food, water, and generators
to areas expected to be most heavily impacted.
This proactive approach allows responders to be poised to rapidly deploy
assistance as soon as conditions permit, rather than waiting until after the disaster strikes
to mobilize resources. For example, search and rescue teams may be positioned in areas
likely to experience storm surge or flooding, medical teams may be stationed at hospitals
or temporary medical facilities, and logistical support units may be positioned to facilitate
the transportation and distribution of essential supplies.
Moreover, "leaning forward" enables state and federal agencies to coordinate
more effectively with local jurisdictions and other response partners, ensuring a seamless
and coordinated response effort. By pre-establishing communication channels, command
structures, and mutual aid agreements, emergency managers can streamline coordination
and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, maximizing the efficiency and
effectiveness of response operations.
However, it's important to note that while proactive positioning of assets can
enhance response capabilities, it's not always possible to predict every aspect of a disaster
with certainty. Some disasters, such as earthquakes or terrorist attacks, may occur
suddenly and without warning, requiring a more adaptive and dynamic response
approach. In such cases, responders must be prepared to rapidly mobilize resources and
adjust response strategies based on evolving conditions and needs.
The Stafford Act gives the federal government the authority to assist states during
a state of emergency. FEMA coordinates these financial, logistical, and technical
resources. Funds have already been appropriated by Congress. After the state has
activated its emergency response plan and help is requested, FEMA determines whether
to issue the declaration. The president may make one of two declarations, a major
presidential disaster or an emergency. An emergency may be granted even if the federal
government has not been contacted. If the president determines that the incident can
cause consequences for the nation and lives need to be saved quickly, he can declare an
emergency. Normally, this is short-term (in days) and requires a 10% match by the state.
This is also appropriate if the disaster occurs on federal property. A major disaster
declaration may be granted only if requested by the state. It is a long-term resource that
requires up to a 25% match in funding by the state. Congress has the authority to provide
additional funds if needed.
C. Disaster Mitigation Act
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) was signed into law in October
2000. It was used to override some of the mitigation requirements previously established
in the Stafford Act. The DMA 2000 allows local governments to obtain funding from the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) when mitigation planning is conducted before
a disaster occurs. To obtain funding, jurisdictions must prove that mitigation activities
being conducted are based on the planning activities and identified risks. DMA 2000
changed the environment of mitigation activities by taking the mitigation planning
requirements to the local level and working to ensure that all levels of government are
included in the planning process. Prior to the DMA, only state jurisdictions were required
to have mitigation plans. Indeed, one of the fundamental requirements for jurisdictions to
access grant funding and disaster assistance is the establishment of an approved
mitigation plan before a disaster event takes place. This prerequisite underscores the
proactive approach to disaster preparedness and risk reduction that funding agencies
prioritize.
Mitigation plans serve as comprehensive strategies aimed at reducing the
vulnerability of communities to the impacts of disasters. They typically involve
identifying potential hazards, assessing the risks associated with these hazards, and
outlining specific actions and measures to mitigate or minimize those risks. These
measures may include structural improvements to infrastructure, land-use planning and
zoning regulations, public education and outreach initiatives, and policy development to
enhance resilience.
By establishing a mitigation plan before a disaster occurs, jurisdictions
demonstrate a proactive commitment to reducing the potential impacts of hazards on their
communities. This proactive approach emphasizes the importance of prevention and
preparedness in minimizing the loss of life, property, and economic disruption associated
with disasters. Funding agencies typically require jurisdictions to have an approved
mitigation plan in place as a condition for eligibility to receive grant funding and disaster
assistance. This requirement ensures that resources are allocated to communities that
have taken proactive steps to identify and address their disaster risks and vulnerabilities.
Without an approved mitigation plan, jurisdictions may be ineligible to receive critical
funding for mitigation projects and other preparedness activities.
Mitigation plans help jurisdictions prioritize and allocate resources effectively by
identifying the most significant hazards and vulnerabilities facing their communities. By
having a clear understanding of their risks and mitigation priorities, jurisdictions can
target funding and resources to areas where they are most needed, maximizing the impact
of investments in disaster resilience. Mitigation plans promote long-term resilience by
integrating risk reduction measures into community planning and development processes.
By incorporating mitigation strategies into land-use decisions, building codes, and
infrastructure investments, jurisdictions can reduce the future risk of disasters and
minimize the need for costly post-disaster recovery and rebuilding efforts.
Absolutely, the requirements for conducting regular reviews of emergency plans
and demonstrating progress toward mitigation activities not only serve to enhance
preparedness and resilience but also incentivize jurisdictions to prioritize and invest in
mitigation efforts. By tying funding opportunities and incentives to these requirements,
policymakers and funding agencies aim to encourage proactive risk reduction measures
and promote a culture of resilience within communities. Mitigation activities, which aim
to reduce the risk and impact of disasters, encompass a wide range of measures, including
structural improvements, land use planning, public education, and policy development.
These activities not only help to minimize the loss of life, property, and livelihoods but
also contribute to long-term cost savings and sustainability by reducing the need for post-
disaster response and recovery efforts.
By requiring jurisdictions to demonstrate progress toward mitigation activities as
part of the emergency planning process, funding agencies create a strong incentive for
communities to prioritize and invest in risk reduction measures. Grants, funding
programs, and other financial incentives may be tied to specific mitigation goals,
performance metrics, or milestones, encouraging jurisdictions to develop and implement
comprehensive mitigation plans and strategies. Furthermore, by linking funding
opportunities to the completion of plan reviews and progress toward mitigation activities,
policymakers and funding agencies promote accountability, transparency, and results-
driven decision-making in the allocation of resources. Communities that actively engage
in preparedness, planning, and mitigation efforts are more likely to receive support and
assistance from federal, state, and local funding sources, enabling them to build capacity,
enhance resilience, and better protect their residents and assets from the impacts of
disasters. In addition to financial incentives, funding opportunities may also provide
technical assistance, training, and other resources to support jurisdictions in their
mitigation efforts. Absolutely, funding agencies play a crucial role in supporting
communities as they work to implement mitigation activities and enhance their resilience
to disasters. By offering expertise, guidance, and support, funding agencies can help
communities overcome barriers and challenges that may hinder their efforts to address
their unique risks and vulnerabilities effectively.
One of the key ways in which funding agencies support communities is by
providing technical assistance and expertise to help them navigate the complexities of
mitigation planning and implementation. This may involve offering guidance on best
practices, methodologies, and approaches to identifying and assessing hazards,
conducting risk assessments, and developing mitigation strategies. By leveraging their
expertise in disaster risk management, engineering, urban planning, and other relevant
fields, funding agencies can empower communities to make informed decisions and
develop effective mitigation plans tailored to their specific needs and circumstances.
In addition to technical assistance, funding agencies may also offer financial
support to help communities implement mitigation activities. This may include grants,
loans, and other funding mechanisms designed to support a wide range of mitigation
projects, such as infrastructure improvements, retrofitting of buildings, floodplain
management, wildfire mitigation, and community education and outreach initiatives. By
providing financial resources, funding agencies can help communities overcome financial
barriers and invest in measures that reduce their vulnerability to disasters over the long
term.
Furthermore, funding agencies can play a critical role in facilitating collaboration
and coordination among stakeholders involved in mitigation efforts. By convening
meetings, workshops, and training sessions, funding agencies can foster partnerships and
knowledge-sharing among government agencies, non-profit organizations, academia,
private sector entities, and community groups. This collaborative approach enables
communities to leverage diverse expertise, resources, and perspectives to develop
comprehensive and integrated mitigation plans and strategies. Moreover, funding
agencies can help communities navigate the administrative and regulatory requirements
associated with mitigation planning and implementation. This may involve providing
guidance on compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, assisting with the
preparation of grant applications and funding proposals, and facilitating communication
and coordination with regulatory agencies and other stakeholders. By streamlining
administrative processes and providing support with regulatory compliance, funding
agencies can help communities overcome bureaucratic hurdles and expedite the
implementation of mitigation activities.
Overall, by offering expertise, guidance, and support, funding agencies play a
vital role in helping communities overcome barriers and challenges to implementing
mitigation activities. By empowering communities with the tools, resources, and
knowledge they need to enhance their resilience to disasters, funding agencies contribute
to building safer, more resilient communities that are better prepared to withstand and
recover from the impacts of disasters and other hazards.
Any jurisdiction wanting reimbursements for disasters must have a preestablished
mitigation plan approved before the disaster occurs. That being said, jurisdictions are
allowed to submit multijurisdictional plans when the submitting jurisdiction has
participated in the development of the plan. The public must be given the opportunity to
provide input into the plan. In addition to the public being allowed to participate,
neighboring jurisdictions must be given the opportunity to take part in the planning
process. The plan must include documentation of the planning process, a risk assessment,
and a mitigation strategy. The final element of plan content is that there must be
documentation related to the formal adoption of the plan.
Indeed, conducting regular reviews of emergency plans is a fundamental aspect of
emergency management to ensure their effectiveness, relevance, and alignment with
evolving risks, capabilities, and priorities. The requirement for plan reviews, typically
mandated at least every three years, underscores the importance of maintaining readiness
and resilience in the face of dynamic and evolving threats.
By conducting periodic reviews, emergency management agencies can assess the
performance of existing plans, identify areas for improvement, and incorporate lessons
learned from past incidents, exercises, and real-world events. This continuous
improvement process helps to enhance the overall effectiveness and adaptability of
emergency plans, ensuring that they can effectively address a wide range of potential
threats and hazards. Furthermore, the requirement for plan reviews, typically mandated at
least every three years or as specified by regulatory standards, underscores the
importance of ongoing preparedness and proactive risk management. In a constantly
changing environment, where new hazards emerge, existing hazards evolve, and
community needs and resources shift, regular reviews help to ensure that emergency
plans remain responsive to current conditions and capable of addressing emerging
challenges.
Moreover, plan reviews provide an opportunity for stakeholders to collaborate,
communicate, and coordinate efforts to enhance preparedness and resilience. By
engaging with partners from diverse sectors and disciplines, including government
agencies, non-profit organizations, private sector entities, and community groups,
emergency management agencies can leverage collective expertise, resources, and
perspectives to strengthen emergency plans and build a more resilient community. In
summary, conducting regular reviews of emergency plans is a fundamental aspect of
emergency management that helps to ensure readiness and resilience in the face of
dynamic and evolving threats.
Absolutely, you've highlighted a crucial aspect of emergency management: the
continuous process of assessing, improving, and engaging stakeholders in emergency
planning and response efforts. By systematically evaluating the effectiveness of
emergency plans, identifying areas for improvement, and fostering collaboration among
stakeholders, emergency management agencies can enhance their ability to prepare for,
respond to, and recover from disasters and emergencies effectively, ultimately
safeguarding lives, property, and livelihoods within their communities.
Assessing the effectiveness of emergency plans involves evaluating how well they
perform in various scenarios, including simulated exercises and real-world events. This
assessment may include reviewing response times, coordination among agencies,
communication protocols, resource allocation, and overall effectiveness in achieving
response objectives. By identifying strengths and weaknesses in emergency plans,
agencies can pinpoint areas for improvement and implement corrective actions to
enhance preparedness and response capabilities.
Identifying areas for improvement is a critical step in the continuous improvement
process of emergency planning and response. This may involve conducting post-incident
debriefings, soliciting feedback from stakeholders, analyzing lessons learned, and
incorporating recommendations into updated emergency plans. By addressing
deficiencies and building upon successes, emergency management agencies can
strengthen their overall readiness and resilience to future disasters and emergencies.
Engaging stakeholders in the emergency planning and response process is
essential for building trust, fostering collaboration, and ensuring that plans reflect the
needs and priorities of the community. This may include involving representatives from
government agencies, non-profit organizations, private sector entities, community groups,
and the public in the development, review, and implementation of emergency plans. By
soliciting input, feedback, and buy-in from diverse stakeholders, agencies can develop
more robust and inclusive plans that are better aligned with community needs and
resources.
Ultimately, the goal of assessing plan effectiveness, identifying areas for
improvement, and engaging stakeholders in the process is to enhance the overall
effectiveness and resilience of emergency management efforts. By continuously striving
to improve preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities, emergency management
agencies can better protect and serve their communities, mitigating the impact of
disasters and emergencies and safeguarding the well-being of residents, businesses, and
institutions.
One study that proves that there is a return on investment associated with hazard
mitigation and hazard mitigation grants is a benefit-cost analysis of FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grants. This research project revealed that the most cost-effective mitigation
activity is flood mitigation. In addition to flood mitigation being most effective, the study
showed that the most grant funding mitigation activity is flood mitigation, followed by
wind and tornado mitigation activities.
D. Requirements, and Procedures for State, Local, and Tribal Mitigation Plans
State, local, and Indian tribal governments are required to develop a hazard
mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of nonemergency disaster
assistance, including funding for mitigation projects from the federal government. The
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288),
as amended by DMA 2000, provides the legal basis for developing these plans, which
were described earlier in this chapter. The requirements and procedures for state, local,
and tribal mitigation plans are explained in detail in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) at Title 44, Chapter 1, Part 201.
States are required to have an approved standard state mitigation plan following
the criteria established in Section 201.4 of the CFR. Section 203 of the Stafford Act
authorizes mitigation planning grants provided through the Predisaster Mitigation (PDM)
program. According to the CFR, “[t]he mitigation plan is the demonstration of the State’s
commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards and serves as a guide for State decision
makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards.” The
mitigation planning process is essential to developing and maintaining a good state
mitigation plan and should include coordination with other state agencies, appropriate
federal agencies, interested groups, and be integrated to the extent possible with other
ongoing state planning efforts, as well as other FEMA mitigation programs and
initiatives.
In a “Risk Assessments” section, it must provide a statewide overview of natural
hazards and risks that should allow the state to compare potential losses and to prioritize
mitigation measures and jurisdictions for receiving technical and financial assistance. The
plan should provide a blueprint of mitigation strategy for the state for reducing the losses
identified in the risk assessment. This section must include a description of state goals
and objectives to mitigate and reduce potential losses; a discussion of the state’s
predisaster and postdisaster hazard management policies, programs, and capabilities to
mitigate the hazards in the area; a discussion of state funding capabilities for hazard
mitigation projects; and a general description and analysis of the effectiveness of local
mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities. Certainly, within the emergency plan, it's
imperative to incorporate a thorough identification, evaluation, and prioritization of
mitigation actions and activities that are not only cost-effective but also environmentally
sound and technically feasible. This holistic approach ensures that mitigation efforts align
with broader sustainability goals and contribute to the overall resilience of the
community.
The process of identifying mitigation actions involves identifying specific
measures or interventions that can reduce the risk and impact of disasters. These actions
may include structural measures, such as retrofitting buildings or infrastructure, as well as
non-structural measures, such as land-use planning, public education campaigns, and
ecosystem restoration projects. By evaluating the effectiveness, feasibility, and
environmental implications of each potential action, emergency management agencies
can determine which strategies are most suitable for implementation.
Once identified, mitigation actions should be evaluated based on their cost-
effectiveness, environmental impact, and technical feasibility. This evaluation process
involves assessing the upfront costs, long-term benefits, and potential environmental
consequences of each action, as well as considering factors such as resource availability,
technical expertise, and regulatory requirements. By prioritizing actions that offer the
greatest return on investment in terms of risk reduction and resilience enhancement,
agencies can optimize the allocation of limited resources and maximize the impact of
mitigation efforts.
Furthermore, the emergency plan should provide a clear explanation of how each
mitigation activity contributes to the overall mitigation strategy. This includes
articulating the rationale behind the selection of specific actions, as well as describing
how they align with broader mitigation goals and objectives. By demonstrating the
linkages between individual activities and the overarching mitigation strategy, the plan
helps to ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment of efforts across stakeholders.
Incorporating these elements into the emergency plan facilitates a comprehensive
and systematic approach to mitigation planning, ensuring that efforts are targeted,
strategic, and effective in reducing disaster risk and enhancing community resilience. By
prioritizing cost-effective, environmentally sound, and technically feasible mitigation
actions and activities, emergency management agencies can optimize their resources and
make meaningful progress toward building safer, more resilient communities.
Indeed, within the framework of emergency planning, it's imperative to identify
and catalog both existing and potential sources of funding to support the implementation
of mitigation activities. Mitigation activities are vital components of disaster
preparedness, aimed at reducing the vulnerability of communities to hazards and
enhancing their resilience. However, these efforts often require financial resources to be
effectively executed.
By delineating federal, state, local, and private funding sources within the
emergency plan, emergency management agencies can ensure that mitigation initiatives
are adequately supported and sustained. This proactive approach allows agencies to
leverage available resources, seek additional funding opportunities, and prioritize
mitigation projects based on their funding feasibility. Additionally, identifying potential
sources of funding enables agencies to plan strategically for the long-term sustainability
of mitigation efforts, ensuring that critical activities are not hindered by financial
constraints.
Incorporating funding considerations into the emergency plan underscores the
importance of financial preparedness in disaster management. It enables agencies to
allocate resources efficiently, maximize funding opportunities, and optimize the impact
of mitigation activities on community resilience. Ultimately, by identifying and
leveraging diverse funding sources, emergency management agencies can enhance their
capacity to implement effective mitigation measures, safeguarding lives, property, and
livelihoods within their jurisdictions.
The plan should include a maintenance process describing the method and
schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. Also, the plan must be
formally adopted by the state prior to submittal for final review and approval. The plan
must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development, progress in statewide
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and resubmitted for approval to the
appropriate regional administrator every five years.
Local mitigation plans usually serve as the basis for a state to provide technical
assistance and prioritize project funding. According to CFR Title 44, Chapter 1, y201.6,
“[t]he local mitigation plan is the representation of the jurisdiction’s commitment to
reduce risks from natural hazards, serving as a guide for decision makers as they commit
resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards.” A local government must have a
mitigation plan approved in order to receive HMGP project grants. A local government
must have an approved mitigation plan to apply for any mitigation project grants. To be
eligible for Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) project grants, plans only need to address
the requirements related to flood hazards and must be clearly identified as being flood
mitigation plans. These plans will not meet the eligibility criteria for other mitigation
grant programs unless flooding is the only natural hazard that the jurisdiction faces.
For small and impoverished communities, regional administrators may grant an
exception to the plan requirement. In these cases, a plan will be completed within 12
months of the award of the project grant. Multijurisdictional plans may be accepted so
long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process. Statewide plans will not be
accepted as multijurisdictional plans. Documentation of the planning process (e.g., how it
was prepared, the agencies involved in the process, and how the public was involved) In
the “Risk Assessments” section, sufficient information should be provided to enable the
jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from
identified hazards. A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes
in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and
resubmit it for approval within five years in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation
project grant funding.
Similar to state and local mitigation plans, the requirements and procedures of the
Indian tribal mitigation plan are described in CFR, Title 44, Chapter 1, y201.7. According
to the CFR, “[t]he Indian Tribal Mitigation Plan is the representation of the Indian tribal
government’s commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards, serving as a guide for
decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards.”
Indian tribal governments applying to FEMA as a grantee must have an approved tribal
mitigation plan meeting the requirements of Section 201.7 as a condition of receiving
nonemergency Stafford Act assistance and FEMA mitigation grants. An Indian tribal
government applying to FEMA as a grantee may choose to address severe repetitive loss
properties in their plan to receive the reduced cost share for the FMA and Severe
Repetitive Loss (SRL) programs. ndian tribal governments applying through the state as a
subgrantee must have an approved tribal mitigation plan meeting the requirements of this
section in order to receive HMGP project grants and may require a tribal mitigation plan
for the RFCP.
Indeed, it's essential for tribes to have an approved tribal mitigation plan in place
to access various FEMA mitigation grant programs. These plans serve as critical
blueprints for tribes to identify, assess, and prioritize mitigation actions aimed at reducing
the risk and impact of disasters within their communities. By requiring tribes to have an
approved mitigation plan, FEMA ensures that mitigation efforts are systematically
planned and implemented, ultimately enhancing the resilience of tribal nations to natural
hazards and other disasters.
Moreover, FEMA recognizes the importance of collaboration and coordination
among tribal governments and other jurisdictions in addressing shared disaster risks. As
such, FEMA may accept multijurisdictional plans that involve the participation of Indian
tribal governments, provided that each tribal government has actively participated in the
planning process and officially adopted the plan. This approach acknowledges the
interconnected nature of disaster risk and underscores the need for inclusive and
collaborative planning efforts to effectively address complex challenges.
By requiring tribes to have approved mitigation plans and facilitating
multijurisdictional planning efforts, FEMA promotes a proactive and integrated approach
to disaster risk reduction. These plans not only help tribes access critical funding
opportunities for mitigation projects but also empower them to take ownership of their
resilience efforts and build stronger, more resilient communities. Additionally, by
fostering collaboration and partnership among tribal governments and other stakeholders,
FEMA facilitates the sharing of resources, expertise, and best practices, leading to more
effective and sustainable mitigation outcomes for all involved.
The mitigation planning process should include coordination with other tribal
agencies, appropriate federal agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and interested groups, and
be integrated to the fullest possible extent with other ongoing tribal planning efforts, as
well as other FEMA mitigation programs and initiatives. The sections concerning
mitigation strategy, plan maintenance, and review and updates in tribal plans are the same
as in local mitigation plans. According to the CFR, a plan must be formally adopted by
the governing body of the Indian tribal government prior to submittal to FEMA for final
review and approval. Plans must be submitted to the appropriate FEMA regional office
for formal review and approval. Indian tribal governments who would like the option of
being a subgrantee under the state must also submit their plan to the SHMO for review
and coordination.
E. Other Important Rules and Regulations Affecting Hazard Mitigation
The following rules and regulations are not directly related to emergency
management, but they can result in reducing hazard vulnerability as a byproduct of their
main objectives. The programs and activities derived from these acts affect hazard
mitigation indirectly, and we can refer to these as indirect mitigation programs. Federal
programs such as the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provide financial
incentives that encourage building in areas that are prone to repeated natural hazards,
such as flooding, hurricanes, and coastal erosion. Previously, coastal areas, especially
barrier islands, were under increased risk due to such federal activities. The Coastal
Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, also called Public Law 97348, is an innovative
federal law that made federal expenditure and financial assistance ineligible for relatively
undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The U.S. Congress
passed CBRA in 1982 and established the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
System (CBRS), which consists of 584 units comprised of nearly 1.3 million acres of
land and associated aquatic habitats. The act made these areas ineligible for most new
federal expenditures and financial assistance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, n.d.a).
In 1990, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) reauthorized the CBRA
and expanded the CBRS to include undeveloped coastal barriers along the Florida Keys
and Great Lakes, in Puerto Rico, and in the U.S. Virgin Islands. An additional 271 units
of coastal barriers, called otherwise protected areas (OPAs) and comprising 1.9 million
acres of land and associated aquatic habitats, were added as a new category for
conservation purposes to the CBRS. Although CBRA prevents federal funds being spent
on these islands in the CBRS system, it does not restrict activities of the private sector or
the local or state governments to facilitate coastal development. As a result, large
infrastructure projects such as bridges and causeways are built by many states and local
communities to connect these barrier islands to mainland, which encourages private
developers to build multistory condominiums, beach houses, and other infrastructure on
these islands. However, studies have shown that areas that are not eligible for federal
funding and value-added programs are developed much more slowly than other areas, if
at all.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was passed in 1972 by Congress to
encourage coastal states to develop and implement coastal zone management plans (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, n.d.b). Congress recognized the importance of coastal zones to
the entire nation and wanted to meet the challenges of continued growth in coastal zones.
Therefore, the act establishes a national policy to “preserve, protect, develop, and where
possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.” The CZMA is
administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and applicable to states
along the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Gulf Coast, and the Great Lakes.
The Clean Water Act (CWA), passed in 1972 as the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, is the primary federal law in the U.S. governing water pollution, and it also
helps reduces the impacts of hazards in communities. The objective of the CWA is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the
United States by reducing and removing pollutants discharged into them. The CWA
pollution control programs include both point sources (i.e., pollution discharged from a
specific source, such as a pipe) and nonpoint sources (e.g., urban or agricultural runoff).
Section 404 of the CWA contains provisions to prohibit the discharge of dredged
or fill materials into waters unless a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). In addition to the permit, Section 404 requires that the impacts from dredge
and fill activities should be mitigated through restoration or through the creation of new
wetlands. The 404 permit is required only for discharging dredged and fill materials.
There is no requirement or restriction for other ways of damaging or destroying the
wetlands, and many wetlands are disappearing without any discharge taking place. The
definition of wetland is not clearly defined in Section 404. For instance, USACE does not
have the authority to issue permits for isolated wetlands, as they are not adjacent to a
navigable waterway. There have been criticisms regarding the issuance of permits that
they are not rigorously enforced and almost readily granted without considering the
wetland mitigation and restoration requirements.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in 1969 in response
to public concerns about the degradation of the quality of the human environment (i.e.,
physical, biological, social, and cultural) in the United States and to consider the
environmental impacts of major federal projects. NEPA establishes a national policy for
the protection and maintenance of the environment by providing a process which all
federal agencies must follow. The act has also established the President’s Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), which creates regulations for implementing NEPA. The
CEQ requires each federal agency, including FEMA, to write their own NEPA
compliance regulations to fit their particular programs. FEMA’s regulations at 44 CFR
Part 10, DHS’s Management Directive 5100.1, and the Council on Environmental
Quality regulations at 40 CFR Part 15001508 implement the NEPA requirements for
FEMA. There are three levels of analysis that a federal agency may undertake to comply
with the law: categorical exclusion (CE), environmental assessment (EA) and Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI), and environmental impact statement (EIS).
Environmental assessments (EAs) are used to determine if significant
environmental impacts would occur as a result of a proposed action or a project funded
by a federal agency. EAs are concise public documents that include evidence and analysis
regarding the significance of environmental impacts of the proposed action, a listing of
alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. An EA concludes with one
of two decision documents—either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A FONSI is part of
the EA and presents the reasons why an action will not have a significant effect on the
human environment.
An environmental impact statement (EIS) is a critical examination of any
potential impacts from the proposed project and proposed alternatives. The EIS process
starts with a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS and concludes with a Record of Decision
(ROD), a document that explains the reasons for selecting a certain action. Frequent
flooding along the Mississippi River and widespread flood damages from Hurricane
Betsy in 1965 prompted Congress to pass the National Flood Insurance Act in 1968. Prior
to this act, private insurance companies were reluctant to cover flood damages. The act
created the Federal Insurance Administration (which at that time was in the Department
of Housing and Urban Development) and made flood insurance available for the first
time through the NFIP.
The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (Reform Act)
comprehensively revised the federal flood insurance statutes. “The purpose of the Reform
Act is to increase compliance with flood insurance requirements and participation in the
NFIP in order to provide additional income to the National Flood Insurance Fund and to
decrease the financial burden of flooding on the federal government, taxpayers, and flood
victims.” The Reform Act also applied flood insurance requirements directly to the loans
purchased by agencies that provide government insurance or guarantees, such as the
Small Business Administration, Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the
Veterans Administration.
On July 6, 2012, President Barack Obama signed into law the Biggert-Waters
Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12), which reauthorized the NFIP and made a
number of reforms aimed at making the program more financially and structurally sound.
One of the objectives of this legislation was to increase the rates to reflect true flood risk,
as well as make the program more financially stable. However, on March 21, 2014,
President Obama signed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 into
law, which repealed and modified certain BW-12 provisions and lowered the rate
increases on some policies, prevented some future rate increases, and implemented a
surcharge on all policyholders. It also repealed certain rate increases that have already
gone into effect and provided refunds to those policyholders.
F. Rules and Regulations in Other Countries Japan
In Japan, the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act of 1961 (Act No. 223) provides
the institutional framework for disaster prevention and management. The act was passed
in 1961 in response to repeated typhoons and earthquakes that occurred during the 1940s
and 1950s. The act established the Central Disaster Management Council (CDMC) as the
national coordinating body for disaster management that formulates the overall policy for
disaster risk management. It also establishes guidelines for the organization, functioning,
powers, and responsibilities of central and local disaster management councils. The
CDMC is chaired by the prime minister, and its members come from line ministries;
semipublic organizations such as NHK, the national public broadcasting organization; the
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, commonly known as NTT; the Japanese
Red Cross; the Bank of Japan; and representatives from academia. The act was revised
following the occurrence of the Hanshin Awaji Earthquake in 1995, resulting a new
version that passed in June 1997.
The CDMC prepares the Basic Disaster Management Plan in accordance with the
Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act, which is the master plan and the basis for disaster
risk management activities in Japan. The plan clarifies the duties of the central
government, public corporations, and local governments in implementing measures. The
plan also describes the sequence of disaster countermeasures such as preparation,
emergency response, recovery, and reconstruction for various types of disasters. The
municipal government plays a fundamental role in disaster management according to the
Disaster Countermeasure Basic Act and is responsible for establishing a local disaster
management plan, emergency operations such as warning systems, issuing evacuation
recommendations and orders, and flood fighting and relief activities.
Similar to the United States, the evolution of emergency management in the
United Kingdom (UK) took its first steps with the passage of the Civil Defense Act of
1948 during the Cold War due to the growing risk of nuclear attack. The central
government did not put any mandatory requirements for local government agencies and
organizations in requesting regional and national resources to manage emergencies. In
1986, the Civil Defense in Peacetime Act was passed, which recognized a central and
local government approach to disaster relief. Following numerous reviews of the
emergency management system, the Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) was started in
July 2001 under the Ministry of the Interior. The CCS established a central focus and
framework for responding and preparing for emergencies at the national, regional, and
local level.
Although central government plays a significant role, the structure of emergency
management in UK is decentralized. Most emergencies or incidents, such as road
accidents, small impact floods, and other events, are mainly handled by local agencies
and first responders. Central government can engage in emergencies only based on three
different levels of significance; i.e., Level 1 as significant emergency, Level 2 as serious
emergency and Level 3 as catastrophic emergency. It depicts the Cabinet Office Briefing
Room (COBR, or COBRA), is a dedicated crisis management facility of the UK
government, which is activated in the incidents or events of national significance. A
Level 1 emergency, such as a riot or a severe natural disaster, does not necessarily require
activation of the COBR rather the support of central government is provided through
Lead Government Departments (LGDs). Any disaster with Level 2 impact, such as a
major terrorist attack or outbreak of disease, requires support and coordination of
government and other departments and is coordinated from COBR by the LGD. Finally, a
Level 3 catastrophic emergency, such as a nuclear attack or a terrorist attack with the
scale and size of 9/11, requires immediate involvement of central government and is led
by COBR/Civil Contingencies Committee (CCC). The Cabinet Office is responsible for
overall disaster management and LGD.
Although Australia was not directly threatened from World War II, it established
a nationwide air-raid protection program in 1938, later known as civil defense during the
Cold War. These programs were run by the states, and they developed their own
volunteer civil defense or air-raid precaution organizations. By constitution, states were
responsible for the protection and preservation of civilian life and property; and there was
no national policy in place. The air-raid protection programs were disbanded by 1954, but
as trained and organized community “public safety assets,” the volunteer civil defense
units were increasingly called on to respond to natural disasters by states.
However, the Black Tuesday fires of Tasmania in February 1967 were the
seminal point for the development of structured national emergency management sector
in Australia. The disaster initiated a call for the establishment of a national disaster fund
and a national disaster organization in the federal parliament by the newly appointed
deputy leader of the Federal Labor Party, Lance Bernard (Peters & McEntire n.d.). In
February 1974, the Natural Disasters Organization (NDO) was established within the
Department of Defence. The NDO served Australia for a number of decades after its
creation. In January 1993, the NDO was replaced by an agency named Emergency
Management Australia (EMA). EMA is the agency currently responsible for planning and
coordinating the commonwealth’s physical assistance to the states and territories under
the Commonwealth Government Disaster Response Plan (COMDISPLAN).
In New Zealand, the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(MCDEM) is the central government agency responsible for emergency management. It
was established in July 1999 within the Department of Internal Affairs. In 2002, the Civil
Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act was passed (replacing the Civil Defence
Act of 1983), which provided more significant statutory powers and duties to the
MCDEM. Through the CDEM Act, the central government has established a
comprehensive, risk-based approach to the management of all hazards, with a primary
goal being to support communities to be resilient and self-reliant. The act establishes
structures at the local, regional, and national level to support the management of
hazardous disasters at the local level.
The CDEM Act of 2002 requires the establishment of CDEM groups, which are a
consortium of local authorities working in partnership with emergency services, lifeline
utilities, local businesses, community groups and others to deliver CDEM at the local
level. Each group is required to prepare a CDEM Group Plan consistent with the National
CDEM Strategy. The CDEM Act of 2002 and the National CDEM Strategy including
other national strategies and legislation such as the Resource Management Act (RMA),
the National CDEM Plan, the Guide to the National CDEM Plan, and CDEM Group
plans including government agency (e.g., Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF))
and non-govt agency (e.g., Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA))
operational plans, all form part of the New Zealand CDEM framework.
On December 26, 2005, the first anniversary of the devastating Indian Ocean
tsunami of 2004, the parliament of India passed the Disaster Management Act 2005. The
act provides a legal and institutional framework for “the effective management of
disasters and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” It provides the legal
framework to establish the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), State
Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) and District Disaster Management Authorities
(DDMAs) at the National, state and District levels. The act also establishes the National
Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) to undertake training and capacity building,
and to provide assistance to state governments and state training institutions. In addition,
the act provides guidelines for the creation of the National Disaster Response Fund,
National Mitigation Fund, and establishment of funds by State Government and
Ministries and Departments for emergency procurement.
In 2009, the government approved the National Policy on Disaster Management,
which aimed to minimize the losses to lives, livelihoods, and property caused by natural
or manmade disasters developing a holistic, proactive, integrated, multidisaster-oriented
and technology-driven strategy. The themes associated with the policy include
community-based disaster management, capacity development in all spheres,
consolidation of past initiatives and best practices, and cooperation with agencies at
national and international levels with multisectoral synergy.
The Stafford Act is the principal authority governing federal emergency and
disaster response in the United States. The act authorizes the president to issue three
categories of declaration: major disasters, emergencies, and fire assistance declarations in
response to incidents that overwhelm the resources of state and local governments. Once
a declaration is issued, a wide range of federal disaster assistance becomes available to
eligible individuals and households, public entities, and certain nonprofit organizations.
Disaster assistance authorized by the Stafford Act is appropriated by Congress and
provided through the Disaster Relief Fund. Emergency declarations supplement and
promote coordination of local and state efforts, such as evacuations and protection of
public assets. They may also be declared prior to the impact of an incident to protect
property, public health, and safety and to reduce or avert the threat of a major disaster or
catastrophe. Major disaster declarations are issued after an incident and constitute broader
authority to help states and localities, as well as families and individuals, recover from
the damage caused by the event. Fire assistance declarations provide grants to state and
localities to manage fires that threaten to cause major disasters.
The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000, which amended the Stafford Act,
made federal requirements for local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans.
Prior to this act, there was not a defined structure for mitigation development and
planning on the local level, nor was there any set of standards for anyone to follow. This
act assisted the large and small communities to not only become aware of their
challenges, but forced them to see what they were not expecting and plan for it. Another
key point of the DMA is that it encourages cooperation between the state and local
governments and also sometimes state to state.
In Japan, the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act of 1961 (revised in 1997)
provides the institutional framework for disaster prevention and management. The act has
established the CDMC as the national coordinating body for disaster management that
formulates the overall policy for disaster risk management. The CDMC prepares the
Basic Disaster Management Plan in accordance with the Disaster Countermeasures Basic
Act, which is the master plan and the basis for disaster risk management activities in
Japan. In the United Kingdom, the Civil Contingencies Secretariat is the lead emergency
management organization, which functions under the Minister of the Interior and
provides the framework for responding and preparing for emergencies at the national,
regional, and local levels. The CCA is the primary regulation that establishes a single
framework for civil protection in the UK. Although the central government plays a
significant role, the structure of emergency management in the UK is decentralized. The
central government can engage in emergencies only based on different levels of
significance.
The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act of 2002 is the key law of the
New Zealand CDEM framework. The MCDEM under the Department of Internal Affairs
is the central government agency responsible for emergency management. Other
legislation, regulations, and policies that contribute to hazard risk reduction and
emergency management in New Zealand include the Biosecurity Act of 1993, Building
Act of 2004, Epidemic Preparedness Act of 2006, Health Act of 1956, Local Government
Act of 2002, Policing Act of 2008, and the Resource Management Act of 1991. In India,
the Disaster Management Act of 2005 provides a legal and institutional framework for
the effective management of disasters and establishes the National Disaster Management
Authority, State Disaster Management Authority, and District Disaster Management
Authorities at the national, state, and district levels.
