I join Fred in a call to break free from a disaster-centric discussion on accountability complete with its characterizations, culprits, and moral codes.  Certainly since the beginnings of the conversations in the 1980s leading up to the formation of the IDNDR, there have been calls to focus on the risk from a specific hazard, focus on the specific population at risk in their physical setting, and focus on measures to lessen vulnerability while at the same time preparing for response to an event.  The profile of successful vulnerability reduction has been shaped as part of ongoing "development" processes that create homes, schools, hospitals, villages, towns and urban places.  Those attempts to set up changes in behavior towards risk outside of those processes of development or by those whose main interest is in the response to the event have routinely failed.  Most often those most concerned about "disasters" have little knowledge of and no role in the creation of vulnerability of the built environment.  While driven by concern for human safety, the discussions on disasters have mainly led in the recent decades to assuring financial solvency of borrowers and lenders alike while doing little or nothing about the creation of risk, most often to those who have little or no control over issues that shape their physical surroundings.
 
The lack of regulatory capacity at whatever level wherever also reflects development processes which lack investment, as Fred points out, in regulatory practices by the actors who certainly have pronounced influence on development. These actors include sovereign states, banking and commercial interests, private sector participants of all types, NGOs and PVOs and donor agencies.  (Specifically who they are and why they act in the manner they do is beyond the discussion at hand),  We dearly need linking effect with cause as in the forensics of disaster events.  Notwithstanding what such efforts can contribute to law and order in civil society, they are necessary for the continual articulation of the use of resources in specific contexts (hazard, population and place) to ever reduce vulnerability of the built environment.
 
Steve
 
 
On 12/01/13, Dr. Frederick Krimgold<krimgold@VT.EDU> wrote:
 
Accountability may not be the issue. We might look to examples of success in loss reduction.
In the 19th century and earlier urban conflagration was a wide-spread threat even in the now industrialized countries, With the introduction of regulatory mechanisms to limit fire ignition and fire spread urban conflagration has bean largely brought under control. This effort has been accomplished through a combination of public understanding, research, insurance and regulation.
These mechanisms have evolved over time. Mrs. O’Leary’s cow might be held accountable for the Chicago fire along with the culture that created the tinderbox of crowded flammable buildings. It may not be so useful to hold any particular individual responsible for the cumulative exposure of a city.
Rather we have to understand the broad long-term collaboration necessary to change the character of planning and construction to reduce the likelihood of ignition and spread of distraction. The most important work of the modern fire department is prevention through inspection and enforcement of fire codes and maintenance of hydrant systems. Not so much the red trucks, blaring sirens and spotted dogs. In most disaster-prone cities of the developing world there is minimal regulatory capacity and neither the local governments, the donor agencies or the NGO have offered any significant attention or assistance to the evolution of efficient and effective regulatory capacity where it is most needed. As Ian has suggested consequences need to be linked to causes and causes need to be dealt with systematically and consistently. For many hazards the mapping of exposure and the engineering for survival is available but the critical mechanisms of implementation are stunted or non-existant. Investment in regulatory capacity can create the administrative machinery and the qualified manpower to initiate the evolution of systems appropriate to specific conditions of risk and resources. Where is the investment in regulatory capacity?


----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Frederick Krimgold
Director
Disaster Risk Reduction Program (DRR)
Virginia Tech
Advanced Research Institute (ARI)
900 North Glebe Road, Room 5014
Arlington, VA 22203 USA
Main: 571-858-3300
Direct: 571-858-3307
Email: krimgold@vt.edu
Web: www.ari.vt.edu

On Dec 1, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Paul Barbier paul@INSECTSOLUTIONS.CO.UK> wrote:

All this talk of holding people /institutions/companies/ government agencies responsible is all very well.
However in reality most societies are governed by quasi democratic or autocratic institutions that only serve their own self interests generally.
Thus no matter what is discussed will boil down ultimately to being dependent on these same self serving institutions to become more accountable thorugh self regulation.
This is something I cannot see happening.
Of course the UN or other could adopt resolutions but again the ability of any international organisation to affect the political course of any particular country or to intervene when people accountability is required for the actions of said countries governments and institutions is pretty restricted.
All this talk is merely academic whilst democratic nations stand by  and leave the less democratic nations to wage war their populations ( e.g Syria, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan etc). leaving them vulnerable and without recourse to help. If we can't even help where there is a clear chain of command and responnsibility involved what hope is there of getting involved to hold anyone / anything accountable for the destruction caused by natural hazard events of an extreme nature.


On 01/12/2013 06:21, Dilruba Haider wrote:
[log in to unmask] type="cite">
I guess just the way, we have set parameters/indicators to label a natural hazard a disaster, we can set some criteria to say what kind of destructions at what level of disasters under what circumstances would enable the people (affected, disaster managers, government) to hold which sections of society/institutions responsible. For instance, in case of earthquake of the magnitude of 10 in richter scale, it probably would be unfair to hold the construction companies responsible for building collapse, but when it's 5 or 6 magnitude EQ, we can probably do so. Similarly, in cyclones like Haiyan with 387 kmph wind speed and 5/6 meter stormsurge it probably is unfair to hold builders responsible for house collapse, but in case of cyclones with 150 kmph windspeed we could probably hold the local authorities/engineers, who are responsible to oversee and approve house contructions, responsible. We could, perhaps need to set up many such detail parameters for: embankment failures, inadequate warning lead time as well as dissemination to the grass root levels, lack of on time evacuation measures, and so on.    

 

However, first as James said, we (society and institutions) have to agree that disasters are not natural events, hazards are. An impediment towards that is our humaniatrain community who are so busy and complacent 'saving lives' that they neither have the time or the inclination to look beyond humanitarian operation, therefore delve into the accountability issue. In a post disaster scenario they run the show, mobilise millions of dollars, run 'feel good' emergency operations for months, by which time society forget who was responsible.

 

Really, something should be done! We must do something to make accountability an integral part of post HFA DRR framework. Ben, the leaders of Radixers, please do something, plan something well ahead with a finishing showdown in 2015 Sendai WCDR, making sure that accounatbility is indeed included in the post 2015 DRR framework.

 

With you

 

Dilruba

 

 

 

 

 

From: Radix [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Dr. Frederick Krimgold [krimgold@VT.EDU]
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Accountability for Disaster

James,
Who is “society” and how do we influence its or their behavior if not through individual action. Isn’t collective action the combination of individual actions. Who or what can we hold to account for the consequences of ignorance or greed?


----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Frederick Krimgold
Director
Disaster Risk Reduction Program (DRR)
Virginia Tech
Advanced Research Institute (ARI)
900 North Glebe Road, Room 5014
Arlington, VA 22203 USA
Main: 571-858-3300
Direct: 571-858-3307
Email: krimgold@vt.edu
Web: www.ari.vt.edu

On Nov 30, 2013, at 6:10 AM, James Lewis [log in to unmask]> wrote:

I want to ask who, or what, is 'we'?

Prefererably, 'we' is society at large, not some select part of it; surely then it is 'we' as society at large that is responsible for the causes of catastrophes as well as for removing or ameliorating those causes.

Is the impressive focus of attention displayed by this exchange, for example, on this relatively small and basicaly technological failure because larger 'failures' are deemed to be beyond us - 'us' being society at large again. Whilst most technological failures attract post-event inquiries and reports into their causes, eg: aircraft, train and industrial accidents, large fires, building collapses and supermarkets wanting roof gardens, what of Katrinas, Sandys and Haiyans? Where is similar concern for accountability regarding the causes of the impacts of those, where are the in-depth inquiries and reports? The last I read of Sandy was that there was strong opposition to the then mayor of New York City's proposal to prevent reconstruction in the same highly vulnerable locations. Also, would Japan have instituted its impressive inquiry into the impacts of its tsunami if a nuclear power station had not been a casualty and exacerbator of that catastrophe?

One reason, surely, is that we recognise technology and its applications as products of our own 'society at large' and therefore it is that same society that should be able to spot the causes and put things to rights. Therefore, surely also, as soon as the impacts of Katrinas, Sandys and Haiyans are recognised not as 'natural' but as products of society at large, then the sooner will society take control of those events as well.

Meanwhile, we will toy with

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6880 - Release Date: 11/30/13