In this regard, I would draw everyone's attention to the recent discussion
in Eos on the subject of cost-benefit analysis of seismic retrofitting of
buildings in the New Madrid seismic zone of Central USA. The argument on one
side is approximately as follows:

Suppose you have $N billion to spend on some public project. (A) Assess how
many lives you will save by retrofitting buildings against a strong
earthquake the occurrence of which is uncertain. (B) Assess how many lives
you would save by spending the same amount on new hospitals to treat people
who would otherwise die of disease. Is A greater than B? If not,
retrofitting may not be the best use of the money.

This was hotly contested.

Roger Musson
BGS

-----Original Message-----
From: John Twigg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 November 2003 14:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ?MEASURING MITIGATION?: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW ? AND A REQUEST
FOR ASSISTANCE


Although those working on natural disaster reduction believe that disaster
mitigation 'pays' - in the broadest sense of the word - there is
surprisingly little hard evidence in support of this statement.  This is a
critical gap in risk management. Many agencies remain reluctant to commit
significant funds to risk reduction until it can be proved that it is a
cost-effective use of resources.

Planning and appraisal methods used in development and mitigation projects
tend to by-pass the question. For example, although structural mitigation
measures usually undergo cost-benefit (CBA) and related analysis, the costs
and benefits of incorporating a wider range of mitigation features into
development projects more generally are often ignored. Similarly,
environmental impact assessment (EIA) guidelines used in development
projects do not require assessment of the potential impact of natural
hazards on a project, and so do not identify possible mitigation needs that
should be addressed.

Monitoring and evaluation of risk reduction initiatives tends to be short-
term, tied to project cycles. It focuses on the initiatives' outputs (e.g.
numbers trained in disaster planning, area sown with drought-resistant
seeds), rather than their impact (e.g. the extent to which lives, assets
and livelihoods are better protected during disasters).

A new project managed by the ProVention Consortium
(http://www.proventionconsortium.org/) seeks to address these problems by
developing guidelines on how project appraisal methodologies can be adapted
to consider risks from natural hazards, and on appropriate ways of
monitoring the impact of risk reduction.

The first stage of the project is a review of existing methodologies and
practices across a range of agencies, geographical locations, scales of
operation and development/disaster contexts.  It comprises desk research,
interviews and surveys.

This work is being carried out by two independent researchers, who would
welcome any help that development and disaster management agencies can
give.  They are particularly keen to obtain:
(1) copies of project planning and evaluation methodologies
(2) 'good practice' examples of hazard risk appraisal in project
planning
(3) 'good practice' examples of evaluations of the impact of risk
reduction measures

If you can provide such material, know where it might be found, or have
other ideas about information that might benefit the project, please
contact the research team: Charlotte Benson ([log in to unmask]) or John
Twigg ([log in to unmask]).


*********************************************************************
This  e-mail  message,  and  any  files  transmitted  with  it, are
confidential  and intended  solely for the  use of the  addressee. If
this message was not addressed to  you, you have received it in error
and any  copying,  distribution  or  other use  of any part  of it is
strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solely those
of the sender and do not necessarily represent  those of the British
Geological  Survey. The  security of e-mail  communication  cannot be
guaranteed and the BGS accepts no liability  for claims arising as a
result of the use of this medium to  transmit messages from or to the
BGS. .                            http://www.bgs.ac.uk
*********************************************************************