Many thanks for the comments and interest.
>As prevention largely rests on land planning...
I am not certain that I would agree. I would suggest that--in addition to
planning, land use, urban design, and infrastructure design--disaster
prevention may be achieved through education, awareness, risk communication,
insurance policies and regulations, training, and warning systems amongst
many other solutions. To me, disaster prevention (and the entire disaster
management cycle) is about multiple, integrated solutions, not focussing on
any single aspect. Not every solution is applicable to every case, but
complementary strategies are needed and, as can be seen from the list above,
they often overlap and reinforce each other.
Thus, Gérard Brugnot's approach to comparing different countries and drawing
up minimal proposals or standards seems to be a relatively efficient and
practical approach to achieving results at the European-wide scale.
Precedents exist for this approach and have been critiqued, such as the
Sphere Project for Minimum Standards in Disaster Response
(www.sphereproject.org) which has led to suggestions through Radix
(www.anglia.ac.uk/geography/radix/index.html) for Minimum Standards in
Disaster Prevention/Reduction/Protection. James Lewis' suggestion for "a
cross-European study of the causes of vulnerability - to accompany other
aspects of natural disaster management" fits in with this suggestion, as it
would provide a solid basis for any proposed standards.
Trying to avoid Eurolaws or European Directives may well be appropriate--at
least at this stage.
Any further thoughts on clarifying this idea or suggestions on how to move
it forward? Perhaps it could be a good Ph.D. project or various
institutions in EU Member States might consider a funding proposal?
Best wishes,
Ilan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|