Dear Ana and List,

Some random thoughts on European-wide disaster management based on the
recent discussion through this list.  Any further thoughts, critiques, or
suggestions are, of course, welcome.

Ana mentioned that a single European directive on such issues would not be
possible due to differences in institutions and institutional
responsibilities amongst the European countries.  Would this statement
perhaps be a call to propose more standardisation?  While I recognise that
the politics would be challenging to overcome, a recommendation to DG
Environment might be to consider the feasibility of creating similar
structures for the agencies which deal with disaster management--not just
civil protection and disaster response, but over the entire disaster
management cycle.

The anglophone Caribbean has an interesting organisational model.  One
agency (CDERA, www.cdera.org) coordinates regional activities but each
territory has its own National Disaster Organisation.  Perhaps the EU and
the rest of Europe could consider such an approach.  Critiques of the
Caribbean model and its implementation undoubtedly exist, but Europe could
develop its own version, altered to avoid any pitfalls encountered in the
Caribbean and adapted for the differences between the two regions.

With respect to aspects where a European-wide approach would be beneficial,
rather than focussing on tourism, we could perhaps consider a more
encompassing term such as "transients", "travellers", or "temporary
residents".  Whether travelling for business, pleasure, or to escape
persecution, similar vulnerabilities emerge.  Business and pleasure
travellers may have less vulnerability than other categories as they often
have money, insurance, embassies, and relatives at home which assist in
extracting oneself from a difficult situation.  Newly arrived refugees and
immigrants (legal or illegal) rarely have such safety nets and would need
greater assistance during a disaster.

Ana commented "in my opinion, it is essential to promote legislation that
will help protect the lives of any citizen of the world, wherever they may
be."  The Radix Network (www.anglia.ac.uk/geography/radix/index.html) has
plenty information on this topic which could be applied to the European
context.

Similarly, the principles behind most disaster management activities are
relevant to any country and would lend themselves to a European-wide
approach.  A clear declaration from the appropriate EU body articulating
such principles and how they would be applied to the EU would be helpful,
but would serve as only a starting point.  A clear scope exists for moving
beyond more paper and speeches, to support specific strategies which would
work in any EU country, even when the implementation must be local.

One example is relying too much on structural flood defences to deal with
slow-rise floods.  The EU should be promoting to all member states the vast
literature on "soft" floodproofing measures and integrating flood management
strategies with sustainable environmental management.  A specific principle
would be that permitting flood water to enter residences is not necessarily
detrimental provided that the residence is constructed appropriately and
that the population is aware of how to avoid substantial losses in such a
situation.  For implementation, construction techniques and education
strategies must obviously be tailored to the exact locality and culture.

Other examples arise from the previous discussion.  Ana mentioned
multilingual 112 operators, but the principle could be more detailed, first
by defining the target audience.  Would "multilingual" be focussed on the EU
or internationally?  For the EU, an operator speaking English, French,
German, and the local language would be adequate for a substantial portion
of the population.  Replacing French with Spanish (and/or Mandarin and/or
Hindi?) and removing German would be more appropriate if considering
international travellers.  Less regionally, should all operators in Ireland
speak Gaelic and English or would it be better to have operators who speak
French, German, and English?

The emergency number is an interesting issue too.  The U.K. promotes 999,
but 112 works and I am told that 911 also works.  Should Europe promote 112
but ensure that 999 and 911 also work?  If so, should the 999 countries
shift to 112?  How should travellers from other countries, such as New
Zealand (emergency number 111) and Barbados (emergency number 119 plus
specific numbers for specific services) be considered?  Would a small
information card handed out at customs at all European entry points be
appropriate?  Some American cities have been experimenting with 911 for
emergency calls and 311 for non-emergency calls.  This system has received
plenty criticism, so the EU could have a policy stating that all member
countries should have only one emergency number and the operator's primary
goal is to determine the nature of the emergency and the service required.

One final example of European-wide disaster initiatives relates to
development activities, international and regional.  ECHO
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/en/index_en.html) is an EU organisation
focussing on humanitarian aid.  It is certainly time to consider an EU
Disaster Reduction Organisation (and strategy) for both the EU and for
EU-supported work in developing countries.  Some issues which need to be
addressed at the European regional level are:
-the impact of disaster on regional development, particularly in border
regions.
-using pre-disaster activities for regional development, particularly in
border regions.
-accessing a remote disaster site in border regions.
-fatality identification, survivor support, and repatriation.
-complex transportation incidents across borders (e.g. tunnel fires).
-volcanic ash drifting across borders.
See also the Disaster Diplomacy case studies at www.disasterdiplomacy.org
which could form the basis for hypothesising cross-border European disasters
in the future.

I believe that scope for European directives and for much more harmonisation
of all disaster management activities exists.  See, for example, the
brochure at http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/leaflets/disasters/en/ which
is also available in ten other languages.  Providing information at an EU
scale to all residents is happening, but I believe that other, substantial
actions would be feasible.

Some countries, most notably the U.K., would not respond well to yet more
Europeanisation of what they consider to be national responsibilities.  The
rather unfortunate management of recent disasters in the U.K. indicates how
much help they need, especially with respect to pre-disaster activities.
Such help could come from other European countries.  The potential benefits
of closer European collaboration for disasters is immense.  Realising these
benefits, without becoming mired in the bureaucracy which Ana mentions, is
the immense challenge we face.

Due to my substantial ignorance, however, I have plenty to learn on this
topic, so contrary viewpoints are welcome (and please point out any errors
in the above comments), but I hope that I have provided some material for
further discussion.

Thank you for your time,
Ilan

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp