{"id":3217,"date":"2011-06-16T08:21:24","date_gmt":"2011-06-16T08:21:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/?p=3217"},"modified":"2011-06-16T08:22:37","modified_gmt":"2011-06-16T08:22:37","slug":"responding-effectively-to-disasters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/2011\/06\/16\/responding-effectively-to-disasters\/","title":{"rendered":"Responding effectively to disasters"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>At the start of its term a little over a year ago, the new UK government commissioned a review by Lord Ashdown into the UK’s response to humanitarian disasters, with a strong emphasis on those associated with natural hazards (especially earthquakes, floods and tropical cyclones).\u00a0 A few months ago the review team produced what is a surprisingly sensible and logical document<\/a> (NB pdf), which addressed many of the concerns that those of us who work in this area have long felt.\u00a0 Yesterday, the UK Government produced its response, which is outlined in detail here<\/a> (NB pdf), although the top level summary<\/a> is more digestible.<\/p>\n

I am pleased to say that there is much to applaud here – indeed, in my opinion this is a key step forward.\u00a0 I am not going to discuss every aspect of the report, but thought that I’d highlight soe of the most interesting points:<\/p>\n

1. There is a commitment to using science to predict and prepare for disasters<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>This is a very promising step forward.\u00a0 There has been an immense amount of frustration in the science community that we can see disasters coming, but no-one listens.\u00a0 This operates on multiple temporal timescales, from anticipation of a potential devastating earthquake in Nepal<\/a> to a recognition that the flood waves travelling down the Indus were likely to cause mass flooding downstream<\/a>.\u00a0 There is an emphasis on slow onset disasters too (e.g. drought).<\/p>\n

Of course the devil will be in the detail – i.e. how will the government join up organisations like the Department for International Development (DfID) and the science and practitioner communities?\u00a0 There is the opportunity to set up for example regional and\/or event specific groups of scientists and civil servants to provide this input, perhaps making use of social networking technologies to streamline the process.<\/p>\n

2. Resilience is a key theme<\/strong><\/p>\n

The term resilience means different things to different people, but it has been deeply frustrating to watch development programmes proceeding without adequate consideration of the development of communities that are able to cope with and rebound from shocks.\u00a0 Indeed, often aid agency funded development work appears to render communities less rather than more resilient.\u00a0 The increased occurrence of devastating landslides as a result of road building in Nepal is a key example.\u00a0 Thus, the intention of embedding resilience at the core of the work of DfID is very welcome, and the tangible process of developing regional resilience plans is an important step along the way.<\/p>\n

3. Innovation is encouraged<\/strong><\/p>\n

For me perhaps the most startling statement in the document is that DfID will “make humanitarian research and innovation a core part of DFID research and evidence work”.\u00a0 This is startling because it is obvious that this should be the case – in other words, did this really not happen before?\u00a0 Anyway, it is pleasing to see a commitment in this direction.\u00a0 There are many innovative approaches and technologies that can greatly assist in the understanding of disasters, and in delivery of an effective response.\u00a0 This will require thinking outside the normal boundaries – I continue to be hugely impressed by the crowd-sourced work that we undertaken to map building damage in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake<\/a>, and on a different scale I undertook my own analysis of damage to the dockyard facilities at Port-au-Prince<\/a>.\u00a0 DfID should aim to create networks that allow such things to occur – it is an extraordinarily efficient and effective way to work.<\/p>\n

4. Search and rescue or surgical and scientific capability?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Hidden away on page 18 of the report is a very interesting section, which says that the UK Government will:<\/p>\n

Develop and deploy niche capabilities, focusing on UK added value, and widen the \u2018tools\u2019 in our direct response \u2018toolbox\u2019 to:<\/p>\n