MUST READ
Below is an excerpt from upcoming
publication collaborative article from BEMA International.
Article will focus on regional approaches
to disaster\crisis\emergency management development within the U.S., Caribbean,
and Africa.
CDS.
CEO BEMA International
|
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.
Charles D. Sharp, CEO Black Emergency
Managers Association International
October 2017.
………Excerpt……………….
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 comingle 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.
|
