“From Diamonds to Despair: crafting a new fate for developing
nations and emerging markets in the advent and aftermath of hazard events”
Authors:
Richard Hazel, and in collaboration with Charles D. Sharp, CEO Black Emergency Managers
Association International
October 22, 2017
Reality, Disasters Are Increasing on Communities
One of
the more active and destructive hurricane seasons to visit the Atlantic in
recent decades has once again cast a spotlight on the lacking readiness of
developing nations geographically located in high-risk, impact zones for one
of nature’s most destructive windstorm seasons that occurs six months of
every year. Under normal blue sky conditions these nations exist at fragile
economic, political and social vulnerability intersects of people, places and
things. The inhabitants of the provinces, towns and parishes on these islands
know well the daily lessons of hardship and making hard decisions- as borne
out in the narratives and histories of their journeys from emancipation
toward independence.
Political Landscape in Risk
Decisions
Repetitive
and increasing losses and costs of disasters cannot be wholly blamed on
variability in cyclic climatic conditions, forces of nature, nor the divine
wrath of any deity’s fury. The destruction and despair facing these nations
are direct consequences of risk decisions, non-decisions and deferrals made
during times of plenty, by key institutions, leaders and stakeholders
contemplating the question of how much time and effort should be expended
towards mitigating pre-existing conditions and developing resilient
communities in preparation for the coming times of need. The forces of nature
have scant regard for electoral boundaries and voting blocks, but the usual suspects
that adorn the political landscape often lack the intestinal fortitude to
articulate, lead and craft a better fate or new normal for their populace.
Comforting lies are easier pathways to landslide re elections than hard - but
truthful- conversations with their electorate.
The
inconvenient truth for many small nations is that one or more years of little
to no direct impact from hazard events, breeds contempt amongst elected
officials for a continued budget investment in readiness and response initiatives.
For too
long there has been insufficient investment in tangible pre-disaster
activities or initiatives to match continued post disaster cap in hand
approaches. Such hollow affirmations to potential donors betray a chronic
pre-disaster posture demonstrating greater willingness to co mingle or divert
potential homeland security and emergency management funding towards more
‘significant and pressing’ fiscal concerns.
The
ability of G20 countries to continually provide unprecedented levels of post
disaster response assets and financial recovery assistance to developing
nations will be severely tested. Larger countries are themselves battling a
multiplicity of natural and human adversaries unlike anything our hemisphere
has seen in recent times.
It has
been 12 years since Katrina, 7 years since Tomas and 5 years since Sandy. If
there was any lesson to be learned from these focusing events, one should
have been abundantly clear to a region unable to reasonably absorb its own
risks and that is far too often characterized for its seemingly complacent,
easy-going approach: No more waiting for and blaming Superman – resilience is
symbiotic and a shared responsibility. In keeping with a whole community approach, individuals must be willing to accept
the challenge of playing an active role in their own readiness and recovery
planning. Similarly, external agencies and elected governments must commit to
crafting, implementing or revising policies in a way that better address and
support improvements to the current state of readiness, response and recovery
gaps.
IMF Resiliency Dividend
Institutions
such as the International Monetary Fund which has a long and often negatively
storied relationship with developing countries, also has a role it can play. When
it comes to assessing developing county risks, the protracted ripple effect
that exogenous events such as climatic forces have on the economies of
developing nations, may warrant a re-examination of not just the amount of
weight assigned to climatic shock variables; but also the weighting assigned
to – and need for – the introduction of a counterbalancing resilience
variable. Such an added variable could capture into the rating or scoring
assessment any pre-disaster investments in focused risk reduction initiatives
within education, industry and critical infrastructure arenas, and a
factoring of the data analysis and reporting of defined, measurable outputs
and outcomes of such project and programmatic activities.
There is
need for targeted investment in disaster education initiatives and critical
infrastructure. These areas can improve risk decision making and
post-disaster recovery time objectives across market sectors, thereby driving
investor confidence in the capacity and capability mechanisms within a nation
to rapidly respond to such adversities. The economic variable is but one of
six critical interrelated, macro-environment factors that spur productivity,
business investment, stabilization and overall growth.
Countries
with continued low to negative post disaster declines in operational
recovery, falling investor and public confidence and exponential increases in
repetitive losses over a specified period of time - despite multi-year donor investment initiatives designed to reduce
such impacts - could potentially see an added increase in their
resilience risk rating while those with demonstrable improvements in
vulnerability areas, recovery time objectives and confidence levels could see
a reduction in overall risk rating. Notwithstanding the persistent need for
the IMF to advocate right-sizing of government, emancipation of industry
sectors from their “death by a thousand regulations”, and significant cuts in
tax burdens placed on the average individual; encouraging the preservation
and advancement in pre-disaster mitigation focus areas should be part and
parcel of the discussion when designing or proposing austerity measures and
structural adjustment policies.
Sustainable Growth and Economic
Resiliency
Disaster Management
as a key component to sustainable growth and economic resiliency should be as
much as practicable, insulated from draconian cuts. This can serve as a boon
for potential creditors and investors as they themselves prospect and assess
the ability of a nation to persist, rebound and thrive in the advent and
aftermath of crisis and emergency events. International institutions and
researchers over the years have observed that fractional
investments towards pre-disaster risk reduction strategies could avert the
hundreds of billions of dollars typically expended on resultant losses.
How well
have local governments and global institutional leaders walked the decades of
talk and international speeches about strategizing, prioritizing,
implementing and sustaining disaster risk reduction initiatives across
developing nations? Has the pre and post disaster fate of the elderly and
persons with functional and access needs improved by any significant measure?
Or are they still society’s bastard orphans when it comes to their inclusion
and engagement in readiness, response and recovery activities. Independent
oversight, tracking and measuring the outcomes of external financial injects
for the purposes of executing projects designed to improve readiness and resilience
remains an unfortunate but necessary rehabilitative imposition. To do less provides ample opportunity for
donor dollars to be diverted into public sector pork barrels of those
determined to maintain their partisan political hegemonies. A nation that lapses
in establishing and investing in a culture of readiness amongst its general
populace and key industry sectors, is one that also lays itself open as a
welcome nesting ground for terrorism, drug trafficking, political corruption
and other visceral threats that continually stymie economic growth and
homeland security.
CDEMA Meeting Regional Needs
The
Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA) is one such regional
entity that has taken up the challenge and embraced this mandate. Over the past
quarter century, CDEMA has undergone transformation from a posture primarily
focused on post-incident response and relief; to one that embraces an
all-hazards full cycle approach to comprehensive disaster management. Steady
advancement toward the regional goals and objectives set by CDEMA requires
the continued, demonstrable non-partisan support of participating
governments, private sector interests, extra regional stakeholders and the
active engagement of at-risk communities.
Approaches for the Future
Now more
than ever, a three pronged strategic approach of information, education and
participation needs to be the mantra embraced by all. These facets must be implemented not only
across the various levels of the education system, but even more critically -
in the communities themselves via local community centers, libraries, faith
based institutions and those non-profit organizations that while lacking the
cosmetic luster of a brand name logo, are instead focused on project and
program integrity, being good stewards of donated funding and evaluating and
demonstrating impact of disaster based financial and social service
activities.
As we look toward the uncertainties of
another year, power still rests with each individual to recognize, be willing
and able to become an active participant in building resilience within their
community which can redound to society as a whole. Two decades have already
passed since the ’94 Global Conference for the Sustainable Development of
Small Island Developing States. The
final critique of our collective success or failure to pursue practicable,
credible, risk reduction initiatives hinges on the lessons relearned and
milestone objectives set and achieved well in advance of the next disaster
event.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and other contributors; they do not reflect the official policy or position of any agency or non-governmental organization.
Bios
Richard Hazel
Richard Hazel is a graduate of the George Washington
University School of Engineering and Applied Science. There he pursued
studies in Engineering Management with a specialized focus on Crisis,
Emergency and Risk Management. He has been involved in the design and
implementation of community disaster education initiatives, emergency
preparedness programs and has served in various roles on local, regional and
international response efforts while serving with public and non-profit
organizations. He is an honors graduate of the University of the West Indies
and a national development scholar. His family originates from the islands of
Barbados and Dominica.
Charles D. Sharp
Charles D. Sharp is the Chief Executive Officer of the
Black Emergency Managers Association International (BEMA International). Association of homeland security, emergency
management professionals and as part of its’ mission and vision includes
members of the community from individuals, nonprofit, faith-based, private
sector, and other professionals from each of the critical infrastructure
sector as part of its’ whole community participation for awareness,
education, and training for disasters and community engagement and resiliency
building.
|
Report Corruption, Fraud, Waste, Abuse, Mismanagement or Misconduct
What is the DHS OIG Hotline?
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) Hotline is a resource for Federal employees and the public to report allegations of employee corruption, civil rights and civil liberties abuses, program fraud and financial crimes, and miscellaneous criminal and non-criminal activity associated with waste, abuse or fraud affecting the programs and operations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
What should I report?
- Employee Corruption involving bribery, embezzlement, espionage and smuggling;
- DHS Program Fraud / Financial Crimes involving blackmail, contract fraud, grant fraud, immigration fraud and program theft;
- Civil rights or civil liberties abuses involving custodial deaths, denial of rights, profiling and use of force concerns;
Criminal and non-criminal misconduct within DHS involving abuse and violence, child pornography, unauthorized use of DHS Information Technology systems, suspicious activity, ethics violations, and prohibited personnel practices such as Whistleblower retaliation.
Why should I contact the OIG?
All Americans have a stake in the success and effectiveness of DHS and DHS employees are required to report alleged wrongdoing. OIG also protects reporting DHS employees from becoming victims of retaliation. For more information, please refer to our Whistleblower Resources.
What should my report include?
Give as much information as possible (i.e., names of alleged offenders, victims, witnesses, etc., and leads on any applicable data, documentation or other evidence).
How can I report an allegation?
Online: Allegation Form (Recommended)
Call: 1-800-323-8603 toll free
TTY: 1-844-889-4357 toll free
Fax: 202-254-4297
U.S. Mail:
DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 0305
Attn: Office of Investigations - Hotline
245 Murray Lane SW
Washington, DC 20528-0305
Attn: Office of Investigations - Hotline
245 Murray Lane SW
Washington, DC 20528-0305