Part 3 Three Steps Towards Global Disaster Resilience

353 views
301 views

Published on

TOWARDS GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE:
Step 1: Integrating Today’s Global Knowledge Into Global Books of Knowledge
Step 2: From Today’s Books of Knowledge to Innovative Capacity Building
Step 3: From Today’s Paradigm to Tomorrow’s

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
353
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Part 3 Three Steps Towards Global Disaster Resilience

  1. 1. •MONITORING •HAZARD MAPS •INVENTORY •VULNERABILITY •LOCATIONR DATA BASES AND INFORMATION ACCEPTABLE RISK RISK UNACCEPTABLE RISK YOUR BOOKS OF KNOWLEDGE NATION 5 PILLARS OF DISASTER RESILIENCE HAZARDS: GROUND SHAKING GROUND FAILURE SURFACE FAULTING TECTONIC DEFORMATION TSUNAMI RUN UP AFTERSHOCKS •PREPAREDNESS •PROTECTION •EARLY WARNING •EM RESPONSE •RECOVERY
  2. 2. GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE The Paradigm for 2014 That Makes Our Tomorrows Better STEP 2
  3. 3. TOWARDS GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE • Step 1: Integrating Today’s Global Knowledge Into Global Books of Knowledge • Step 2: From Today’s Books of Knowledge to Innovative Capacity Building • Step 3: From Today’s Paradigm to Tomorrow’s
  4. 4. STEP 2: To Move From Today’s Books of Knowledge to Innovative Capacity Building For Disaster Resilience
  5. 5. LET’S REVIEW THE FACTS FROM STEP 1 FIRST Integrating Today’s Global Knowledge Into Global Books of Knowledge
  6. 6. FACT 1: THE PROBLEM IS NOT A LACK OF DISASTER KNOWLEDGE • ALL 200 NATIONS HAVE A HISTORICAL RECORD OF THEIR OWN DISASTERS
  7. 7. THE PROBLEM IS NOT A LACK OF DISASTER KNOWLEDGE (Continued) • MANY NATIONS, BUT NOT ALL, HAVE ALSO LEARNED FROM OTHER NATION’S DISASTERS
  8. 8. FACT 2: THE PROBLEM IS NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO • ALL 200 NATIONS HAVE ADOPTED POLICIES FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE
  9. 9. FACT 3: THE PROBLEM IS AN IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEM • KNOWING WHAT TO DO TECHNICALLY AND HOW TO DO IT POLITICALLY ARE DIFFERENT PROCESSES
  10. 10. FACT 4: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION • TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL CAPACITY ARE NEEDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF EACH OF THE FIVE PILLARS OF DISASTER RESILIENCE
  11. 11. •MONITORING •HAZARD MAPS •INVENTORY •VULNERABILITY •LOCATIONR DATA BASES AND INFORMATION ACCEPTABLE RISK RISK UNACCEPTABLE RISK YOUR BOOKS OF KNOWLEDGE NATION 5 PILLARS OF DISASTER RESILIENCE HAZARDS: GROUND SHAKING GROUND FAILURE SURFACE FAULTING TECTONIC DEFORMATION TSUNAMI RUN UP AFTERSHOCKS •PREPAREDNESS •PROTECTION •EARLY WARNING •EM RESPONSE •RECOVERY
  12. 12. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • TURKEY: PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  13. 13. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • HAITI: PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  14. 14. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • KAZAKJSTAN: PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  15. 15. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • RUSSIA: PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  16. 16. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • RUSSIA: PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  17. 17. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • THE PHILIPPINES: PROPER PRIOR PRE-PAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  18. 18. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • THE PHILIPPINES: PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  19. 19. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • BOLIVIA: PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  20. 20. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • CARIBBEAN (SAINT LUCCIA): PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  21. 21. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • ARIZONA (USA): PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  22. 22. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS” • EGYPT: PROPER PRIOR PREPAREDNESS PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  23. 23. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION” • EGYPT: PROTECTION PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  24. 24. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION” • CHINA:PROPER PRIOR PROTECTION PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  25. 25. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION” • ALGERIA:PROPER PRIOR PROTECTION PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  26. 26. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION” • ITALY: PROPER PRIOR PROTECTION PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  27. 27. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION” • OKLAHOMA, USA: PROPER PRIOR PROTECTION PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  28. 28. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION” • JAPAN: PROPER PRIOR PROTECTION PREVENTS POOR PERFORMANCE
  29. 29. FACT 7: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EARLY WARNING” • INDONESIA: PROPER PRIOR WARNING PRECEDES PEOPLE EVACUATIONS
  30. 30. FACT 7: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EARLY WARNING” • CHILE: PROPER PRIOR WARNING PRECEDES PEOPLE EVACUATIONS
  31. 31. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE” • PERU: PROPER PRIOR PLANNING ASSURES TIMELY EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SEARCH AND RESCUE)
  32. 32. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE” • JAPAN: PROPER PRIOR PLANNING ASSURES TIMELY EMERGENCY RESPONSE
  33. 33. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE” • NORTH DAKOTA, USA: PROPER PRIOR PLANNING ASSURES TIMELY EMERGENCY RESPONSE
  34. 34. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE” • CHINA: PROPER PRIOR PLANNING ASSURES TIMELY EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SEARCH AND RESCUE AFTER LANDSLIDE)
  35. 35. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE” • NEW ZEALAND: PROPER PRIOR PLANNING ASSURES TIMELY EMERGENCY RESPONSE
  36. 36. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE” • PAKISTAN: PROPER PRIOR PLANNING ASSURES TIMELY EMERGENCY RESPONSE
  37. 37. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE” • CHINA: PROPER PRIOR PLANNING ASSURES TIMELY EMERGENCY RESPONSE (EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE)
  38. 38. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE” • UNITED NATIONS DISTRIBEUTING FOOD NEEDS TO BE TIMELY AND COSTEFFECTIVE DURING EM. RESPONSE
  39. 39. FACT 9: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “RECOVERY” • LOS ANGELES: PROPER PRIOR PLANNING PROMOTES TIMELY AND COSTEFFECTIVE RESTORATION OF SERVICES AND RECOVERY
  40. 40. FACT 9: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF CAPACITY FOR “RECOVERY” • VENICE: PROPER PRIOR PLANNING PROMOTES TIMELY AND COSTEFFECTIVE RESTORATION OF SERVICES AND RECOVERY
  41. 41. CONCLUSION FACT 10: DISASTER RESILIENCE REQUIRES THE INTEGRATION OF “POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS” FOR A COMMON AGENDA
  42. 42. STEP 2 From Today’s Books of Knowledge to Innovative Capacity Building For Disaster Resilience
  43. 43. THE GOAL NO DISASTERS: DEMANDS ON COMMUNITY CAPABILITIES OF COMMUNITY
  44. 44. REALITY A DISASTER: INSUFFICIENT CAPABILITIES OF COMMUNITY INCREASED DEMANDS ON COMMUNITY
  45. 45. EVERY YEAR, EVERY NATION HAS DOZENS OF “WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY” AFTER A NEW DISASTER TO USE THE UPDATED BOOKS OF KNOWLEDGE FOR INNOVATIVE CAPACITY BUILDING
  46. 46. THE CAPACITY BUILDING PROCESS PERIOD OF INTEGRATION WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY PERIOD OF IMPLEMENTATION PERSONALIZE ACT HEAR UNDERSTAND IDENTIFY
  47. 47. THE GOAL: CREATING A COMMON AGENDA FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
  48. 48. ELEMENTS OF RISK IN EVERY NATION HAZARDS EXPOSURE RISK VULNERABILITY LOCATION
  49. 49. TOWARDS INCREASED CAPACITY FOR GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE GOAL: TO FIND THE COMMON AGENDA (CA) OF TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL SOLUTIONS POLITICAL SOLUTIONS TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS CA
  50. 50. TOWARDS GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE FACT: THE COMMON AGENDA IS BASED ON EACH NATION’S STAPLE FACTORS POLITICAL SOLUTIONS TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS CA STAPLE FACTORS S O P T
  51. 51. EACH NATION’S STAPLE FACTORS WILL VARY WITH • TIME • PLACE • CIRCUMSTANCES
  52. 52. SOCIAL SYSTEMS SOCIAL (ARE THE PEOPLE AWARE OF WHAT THEY NEED?) TECHNICAL (IS THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE BEING APPLIED?) ADMINISTRATIVE (WHO IS RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE?) COMMUNITY POLITICAL (ARE PUBLIC POLICIES RELEVANT IN TERMS OF THE THREAT?) STAPLE FACTORS LEGAL (ARE EXISTING LEGAL MANDATES ENFORCED?) ECONOMIC (WILLINGNESS AND CAPACITY TO PAY FOR SAFETY?) GOAL: COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
  53. 53. DIFFERENCES IN PERSPECTIVES OF POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS BASED ON “NOT WELL ADVISED,” SZANTON (1981)
  54. 54. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL THINKING • POLITICAL • TECHNICAL • THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR THE BEST POLITICAL DECISION IS TO HAVE THE “LEAST REGRETS” • THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR THE TECHNICAL DECISION IS TO HAVE THE “BEST SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY”
  55. 55. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL THINKING • POLITICAL • THE DESIRED OUTCOME IS APPROVAL OF THE DECISIONMAKER’S CONSTITUENTS (ELECTORATE, STOCK HOLDERS) • TECHNICAL • THE DESIRED OUTCOME IS RESPECT OF THE SCIENTIST’S OR ENGINEER’S PEERS
  56. 56. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL THINKING • POLITICAL • THE TIME HORIZON IS SHORT AND A SOLUTION IS WANTED NOW • TECHNICAL • THE TIME HORIZON IS LONG AND “THE BEST SOLUTION” TAKES A LITTLE MORE TIME
  57. 57. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL THINKING • POLITICAL • THE MOST VALUED OUTCOME IS A RELIABLE SOLUTION WITH NO UNCERTAINTIES • TECHNICAL • THE MOST VALUED OUTCOME IS SCIENTIFIC INSIGHT WITH UNCERTAINTIES EMPHASIZED
  58. 58. DECISIONS FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE • INTEGRATE THE STAPLE FACTORS • BALANCE THE COMMUNITY’S STAPLE FACTORS • DETERMINE BENEFIT/COST
  59. 59. BENEFITS OF A COMMON AGENDA FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE • REDUCTION OF VULNERABILITY • REDUCTION OF UNACCEPTABLE RISK • POLITICAL SUCCESS (No Regrets) • ENHANCED DISASTER RESILIENCE
  60. 60. STEP 3 From Today’s Paradigm to Tomorrow’s SEE NEW FILE

×