 |
 |
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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Web: www.ari.vt.edu<http://www.ari.vt.edu> On Nov 30, 2013, at 6:10 AM, James Lewis <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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