Natural Disasters and Govermental Interventions

Index

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, I wrote a short historical study of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The narrative read like a tale of two agencies: a largely ignored and inept FEMA during the worst of times under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr. and a revitalized and reorganized FEMA during the best of times under President Clinton and up through the September 11th disaster. The aim of the study was to glean insight into the relationship between the internal organization of FEMA and its perceived performance. This paper shows that when FEMA is internally divided—its national security and domestic emergency missions are under separate directorates without much contact or communication with one another—and there exist heightened pressures for FEMA to divert resources and attention to its national security programs, the Agency’s overall performance in response and recovery efforts appears to suffer. With these findings I had hoped to make a conjecture about how the transfer of FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) might adversely affect the Agency’s overall mission. As it happened, the negative attention paid FEMA in the months following its response to the 2004 Hurricanes seemed to bolster the hypothesis that a divided and militarized FEMA would not be able to respond to non-national security emergencies with the success exhibited by an integrated and demilitarized FEMA. The Agency’s recent response to the disaster in New Orleans has rendered the question considered in this paper both timely and important and, regrettably, has seemed to reinforce its conclusions.

Introduction, theoretical constructs, and conceptual foundations Development and Disaster Preparedness: The Delusion of Preparedness in the Face of Overwhelming Forces, J. Pinkowski Rising Disasters and their Reversal: An Identification of Vulnerability and Ways to Reduce It, R. Misomali and D. McEntire The Politics of Disaster Management: The Evolution of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, M.R. Daniels Katrina and her Waves: Presidential Leadership, Intergovernmental Disaster Management, and Hurricane Response and Recovery, B. Gerber and D.B. Cohen The Role of Coordination in Disaster Management, R. Prizzia CASE STUDIES AND LESSONS LEARNED: U.S. NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS A Different Approach to Disaster Recovery: Alaskan Earthquake Disaster Recovery, D. Ink Hurricane Hugo: Two States' Responses to the Disaster, N.S. Lind and P. Lafeber Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: The Critical Role of the Nonprofit Community in the San Antonio Disaster Response, S.A. Palomo-Gonzalez and D. Rahm Small Town Disaster Management: Lessons Learned from Katrina in Mississippi, J. Pinkowski and G. Bass Emergency Contracting for Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans Gulf Area, M.M. Dickens Johnson Debris Disposal and Recycling for the Cedar and Paradise Wildfires in San Diego, O. Debraal and W.T. Williams CASE STUDIES AND LESSONS LEARNED: INTERNATIONAL DISASTERS Disaster in the United States and Canada: The Case of the Red River, D.R. Kemp Variability of Natural Hazard Risk in the European Alps: Evidence from Damage Potential Exposed to Snow Avalanches, S. Fuchs and M. Keiler Disaster Management Structure in Turkey: Away from a Reactive and Paternalistic Approach? N.E. Ganapati HIV/AIDS in Africa: Botswana's Response to the Pandemic, K.C. Sharma and T. Seleke Toward Disaster Resilient Communities: A New Approach for India, Africa, and South Asia, U. Medury FIRST RESPONSE AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT National Incident Management System: Bringing Order to Chaos, B.J. Moeller Hospital Emergency Preparedness, N.V. Cagliuso, E.J. Lazar, A.N. Lazar, and L.J. Berger Media Relations and External Communications during a Disaster, M. Lee Responding to Natural Disasters: An Increased Military Response and Its Impact on Public Policy Administration, D.S. Miller, M. Pavelchak, R. Burnside, and J.D. Rivera Military Involvement in Disaster Response, J. Levinson HUMAN, PERSONAL, AND INTERPERSONAL ISSUES Disaster Management and Populations with Special Needs, S.J. Penner and C. Wachsmuth Disaster Psychology: A Dual Perspective, G. Coultman-Smith Managing the Spontaneous Volunteer, B.J. Gallant First Responders and Workforce Protection, P.J. Havice-Cover Disaster Rehabilitation: Towards a New Perspective, A. Dhameja The Half-Full Glass: How a Community Can Successfully Come Back Better and Stronger Post-Disaster, D.W. Sears and J.N. Reid PLANNING, PREVENTION, AND PREPAREDNESS The Role of Training in Disaster Management: The Case of Hawaii, R. Prizzia Disaster Management and Intergovernmental Relations, P. LaFeber and N.S. Lind Issues in Hospital Preparedness, R. Powers Strategic Planning for Emergency Managers, R. Sturgis Index

The earthquake that struck the Japanese port city of Kobe on January 17, 1995, was the most severe quake ever to strike a modern urban area. It has become the most studied, analyzed, and discussed natural disaster in history. What I propose to add to this dialogue is an economist's overview of what he saw in Kobe 19 months after the event and what he learned during the ensuing 6 months.

Lessons argues persuasively that the shift in policy focus from natural disasters to terrorism and the rise of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which absorbed and subsumed the Federal Emergency Man agement Agency (FEMA), has significantly weakened the latter agency's ability to address disasters. Birkland is not alone in making such claims, echoing the con cerns of Donald Kettl (2007), Kathleen Tierney (2005), and George Haddow and Jane Bullock (2006) that the transformation has severely undermined U.S. capacity to respond to its own natural disasters. Birk land's assertion may still be valid despite the establish ment of a so-called new FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security in 2007.

The U.S. government has debated eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and redirecting its funds to state immigration enforcement efforts, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), despite FEMA’s ongoing support for states in building resilience and speeding up disaster recovery, technically and financially. This study examines how FEMA assists states through three disaster phases: before (mitigation), during (response), and after (recovery), using a qualitative approach that highlights intergenerational environmental justice and equity, including vulnerable groups, environmental protection, and climate change. The study’s findings show FEMA’s effectiveness in reducing losses and the need for recovery funding, which not only lowers current disaster risks but also helps create a safer and more sustainable environment for future generations. The findings demonstrate FEMA's ongoing efforts to enhance its policies, promoting equity and inclusivity, and ensuring that minority and low-income communities receive equal assistance in disaster recovery. The analysis also reveals that FEMA helps protect local ecosystems and preserve wildlife habitats through its buyout program, which converts disaster-prone land into open space. This research contributes to the ongoing debate about integrating climate change considerations into disaster mitigation plans, thereby helping to safeguard future generations from the increasingly severe effects of disasters. Recommendations include passing new laws, dividing duties and funding between FEMA and ICE, creating an alternative funding source for ICE, and improving oversight and transparency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It is essential to maintain FEMA because disaster funding continues to be a joint effort between FEMA and the states

The Impact of FEMA Reorganization: Implications for Policy

A Comparative Study of the Disaster Management Organizations in the Philippines, South Korea, and the United States

Catastrophic natural disasters have served as reminders of the connection between fragile governments and human losses. Developing economies are impacted most from natural as well as anthropogenic hazards. For example, the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004) claimed 227,898 lives, primarily in three politically fragmented countries with developing economies: Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India; and the 2010 Haiti earthquake affected more than 3 million people and killed between 46,190 and 316,000. According to EM-DAT, the cumulative number of global disaster deaths over the past 30 years was 1,677,000, with an annual average of 54,082 deaths. According to Swiss reinsurance companies, the average global natural disaster insurance loss for the last 10 years (2009–2018) was $67 billion, and global insurance losses accounted for 0.09% of global GDP on average. Over the past decade, “natural” disasters have caused more than 780,000 fatalities and destroyed physical properties worth a minimum of $960 billion. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) initiated the international disaster governance agenda for the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) global blueprint in 2005 and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) in 2015. Since the HFA, the international disaster risk reduction (DRR) community is increasingly viewing disaster risk management (DRM) as a governance concern. Governments are not a single structure; they are divided into various functions, hierarchies, policies, and responsibilities in working to create resilient communities at various levels (national and subnational). In countries with developing economies, government agencies have a significant role in DRM, which includes community-based organizations, science and technology research institutes, environmental protection agencies, and finance ministries. The existence of disaster management systems able to integrate vertical and horizontal coordination efforts is a critical weakness. Although there has been significant improvement globally in government capacities as well as institutional frameworks and legislative provisions for DRR in recent years, progress has been uneven. National-level policy formulation in a top-down model has often not made a significant impact at lower levels of government, where awareness-raising, training, and capacity-building likely would be significantly addressed. An extensive literature review is provided to help understand decentralized governance and its efficacy for local-level risk management of natural hazards for developing economies. Community risk perceptions and ways to respond to disasters vary from location to location; thus, it is important to implement decentralized policies and customize them to local needs and priorities to achieve low-impact sustainable development.

Gaston Armour is the statewide emergency preparedness coordinator in the Illinois Department of Human Services, Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness. He can be reached at gaston.armour Illinois.gov. M y intention in writing this article is to highlight the need for using traditional and nontraditional methods in communicating vital information within the community day-to-day as well in times of an emergency. For many of us life has changed in many ways since we were teenagers. Going to and from work, family errands, church, school and other daily routines are so very different. Today we must be aware of our surroundings and the constant threat of natural and man-made incidents that could happen at any time. Extended families no longer live in the same block or neighborhood today as they once did. Many family members live in different parts of the country or other parts of the world. Family and community existence is very different and challenging when it comes to virtually every aspect of life’s daily activities. The events of 9/11, the Virginia Tech shootings and Hurricane Katrina have changed our worldview. We must constantly be prepared to meet life’s challenges for ourselves and for those close to us. Family members, friends, neighbors and colleagues – many of them may have to depend on us to help out in times of an emergency or disaster. Such incidents can include, for example, fires, floods, tornados or man-made threats. As Heartland Alliance disaster expert Charna Epstein recently remarked to the author, Your true first responder is not going to be the police or fire department; it most likely will be the person sitting next to you on the bus, the person who shares your work cubicle or your next door neighbor.” Since 9/11 the federal government through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has required states to develop additional protocols as well as special teams to work directly with faith and community-based organizations (FBOs and CBOs) to communicate more directly with government entities when incidents occur. Today businesses, local governments and citizens are more aware of the impact that natural and man-made disasters can have on our daily lives and activities within a few hours or even a few minutes. Over the last five to seven years Illinois agencies have developed special units to coordinate, collaborate and work with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in times of a disaster. In 2008 the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) created the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness (OSEP). IDHS normally serves hundreds of thousands of individuals each year in a state with a population of over 13 million people. The agency understands the impact on millions of individual lives through the services they provide to their customers at 95 offices around the state. Before IDHS created OSEP, the agency was part of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. The agency housed and provided services such as food stamps and mental health services that helped over 9,000 Katrina victims get their lives back to normal over a three-year period. The individuals and families served during this relief effort were not IDHS’s regular customers. On the basis of this experience the agency realized the importance of having a unit specifically assigned the task of coordinating emergency preparedness activities intrastate and interstate, along with FEMA, the other units of the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies. IDHS, led by this new unit for preparedness (OSEP), understands the need for individuals

Always Be Prepared

Disaster Management in the Era of Lean Healthcare

Many conceptualizations of homeland security posit a rigid division between national security, which focuses on global threats and challenges at the systemic level, and homeland or domestic security, which focuses on internal threats and challenges inside a state. Thus, in the United States, Iran is a national security threat, while human trafficking or natural disasters are homeland security threats and challenges. The American conceptualization has come to dominate much of the academic literature and curriculum on homeland security. Analysis of courses in domestic and homeland security in the Middle East shows that an American model of homeland security is a frequent export of American-style education. However, this artificial division is not relevant for small states, even aspiring regional powers, because their security priorities overlap the domestic and international. A case study of the United Arab Emirates demonstrates that its key security priorities are shaped by both domestic and global inputs, and require solutions at both levels. However, many courses on domestic and homeland security in the Emirates do not reflect this reality. In studying and teaching security in non-superpowers, the homeland security concept should be updated to properly fit the strategic context of a small state in theory and practice.

In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) partnered with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) to investigate the potential for extreme space weather conditions to impact National Security/Emergency Preparedness communications—those communications vital to a functioning government and to emergency and disaster response—in the United States. Given the interdependencies of modern critical infrastructure, the initial systematic review of academic research on space weather effects on communications expanded to other critical infrastructure sectors, federal agencies, and private sector organizations. While the effort is ongoing, and despite uncertainties inherent with this hazard, FEMA and the SWPC did draw some conclusions. If electric power remains available, an extreme space weather event will result in the intermittent loss of HF and similar sky wave radio systems, minimal direct impact to public safety line‐of‐sight radio and commercial cellular services, a relatively small loss of satellite services as a percentage of the total satellite fleet, interference or intermittent loss of satellite communications and GPS navigation and timing signals, and no first‐order impact to consumer electronic devices. Vulnerability of electric power to an extreme geomagnetic storm remains the primary concern from an emergency management perspective, but actual impact is not well understood at present. A discussion of potential impacts to infrastructure from the loss of electric power from any hazard is provided using the 2011 record tornado outbreak in Alabama as an example.

For the past two decades, the Department of Homeland Security has housed both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This article discusses two ways that DHS’s structure has impaired FEMA’s ability to equitably provide disaster aid: the historical refusal to guarantee undocumented people that FEMA would not share their information within DHS for removal purposes, and DHS’s reprogramming of appropriated funds from FEMA to ICE. This article frames these issues in the context of climate change, arguing for legislative solutions to ensure that ICE’s immigration enforcement functions do not overwhelm FEMA’s disaster relief mission.