Print

Print
RADIX..
                   I substantially agree with  Paul Barbier. But he seems to leave us in a pretty defeatist position. Is there no hope or way forward? Societies do change and can be changed, including all their self-serving components like public agencies, NGOs, private sector, professional organizations, civil society etc.. There has been substantial progress in the areas of smoking (not everywhere) and diet, and exercise, and food standards. None of these changes were initiated by those with vested interests in the status quo. but nevertheless when then saw the writing on the wall they (sometimes slowly and kicking and  screaming) did come on board. So where did the writing on the wall come from? i think it depends and it varies. In this case it has to come from us and then through the "education/information" system including especially the media. The standard reporting of disasters rarely deals with root causes, and when these are mentioned they are usually passed over lightly.  We hear all about the physical hazard events, the damage, the rescues, the humanitarian assistance, the emergency responses, the reconstruction, the use and misuse of aid ... and so forth. We need to create and provide the information about underlying causes and processes and be able to do this quickly and in usable form. Some official status and recognition of such a process would be helpful and  will eventually happen, but not easily or quickly. but maybe some media outlets looking for a new angle on the familiar and  repetitious disaster stories could be encouraged and shown how to take the lead. The resistance would be strong in some quarters. In my view it can and must be done. Ian
 


On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Paul Barbier <[log in to unmask]> 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:

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 [[log in to unmask]]
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: [log in to unmask]
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