TOWARDS GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE:
Step 1: Integrating Today’s Global Knowledge Into Global Books of Knowledge
Step 2: From Today’s Books of Knowledge to Innovative Capacity Building
Step 3: From Today’s Paradigm to Tomorrow’s
3. TOWARDS GLOBAL
DISASTER RESILIENCE
• Step 1: Integrating Today’s Global
Knowledge Into Global Books of
Knowledge
• Step 2: From Today’s Books of
Knowledge to Innovative Capacity
Building
• Step 3: From Today’s Paradigm to
Tomorrow’s
4. STEP 2: To Move
From Today’s Books of
Knowledge to Innovative
Capacity Building For
Disaster Resilience
5. LET’S REVIEW THE FACTS
FROM STEP 1 FIRST
Integrating Today’s Global
Knowledge Into Global Books of
Knowledge
6. FACT 1: THE PROBLEM IS NOT A LACK
OF DISASTER KNOWLEDGE
• ALL 200
NATIONS HAVE
A HISTORICAL
RECORD OF
THEIR OWN
DISASTERS
7. THE PROBLEM IS NOT A LACK OF
DISASTER KNOWLEDGE (Continued)
• MANY
NATIONS, BUT
NOT ALL, HAVE
ALSO LEARNED
FROM OTHER
NATION’S
DISASTERS
8. FACT 2: THE PROBLEM IS NOT
KNOWING WHAT TO DO
• ALL 200
NATIONS HAVE
ADOPTED
POLICIES FOR
DISASTER
RESILIENCE
9. FACT 3: THE PROBLEM IS AN
IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEM
• KNOWING WHAT
TO DO TECHNICALLY AND
HOW TO DO IT
POLITICALLY
ARE DIFFERENT
PROCESSES
10. FACT 4: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION
• TECHNICAL AND
POLITICAL
CAPACITY ARE
NEEDED FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF
EACH OF THE FIVE
PILLARS OF
DISASTER
RESILIENCE
11. •MONITORING
•HAZARD MAPS
•INVENTORY
•VULNERABILITY
•LOCATIONR
DATA BASES
AND INFORMATION
ACCEPTABLE RISK
RISK
UNACCEPTABLE RISK
YOUR
BOOKS OF
KNOWLEDGE
NATION
5 PILLARS OF DISASTER
RESILIENCE
HAZARDS:
GROUND SHAKING
GROUND FAILURE
SURFACE FAULTING
TECTONIC DEFORMATION
TSUNAMI RUN UP
AFTERSHOCKS
•PREPAREDNESS
•PROTECTION
•EARLY WARNING
•EM RESPONSE
•RECOVERY
12. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• TURKEY: PROPER
PRIOR PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
13. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• HAITI: PROPER
PRIOR PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
14. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• KAZAKJSTAN:
PROPER PRIOR
PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
15. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• RUSSIA: PROPER
PRIOR PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
16. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• RUSSIA: PROPER
PRIOR PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
17. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• THE PHILIPPINES:
PROPER PRIOR
PRE-PAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
18. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• THE PHILIPPINES:
PROPER PRIOR
PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
19. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• BOLIVIA: PROPER
PRIOR
PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
20. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• CARIBBEAN
(SAINT LUCCIA):
PROPER PRIOR
PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
21. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• ARIZONA (USA):
PROPER PRIOR
PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
22. FACT 5: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PREPAREDNESS”
• EGYPT: PROPER
PRIOR
PREPAREDNESS
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
23. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION”
• EGYPT: PROTECTION
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
24. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION”
• CHINA:PROPER
PRIOR PROTECTION
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
25. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION”
• ALGERIA:PROPER
PRIOR PROTECTION
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
26. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION”
• ITALY: PROPER
PRIOR PROTECTION
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
27. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION”
• OKLAHOMA, USA:
PROPER PRIOR
PROTECTION
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
28. FACT 6: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “PROTECTION”
• JAPAN: PROPER
PRIOR
PROTECTION
PREVENTS POOR
PERFORMANCE
29. FACT 7: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EARLY WARNING”
• INDONESIA:
PROPER PRIOR
WARNING
PRECEDES
PEOPLE
EVACUATIONS
30. FACT 7: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EARLY WARNING”
• CHILE: PROPER
PRIOR WARNING
PRECEDES
PEOPLE
EVACUATIONS
31. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE”
• PERU: PROPER
PRIOR PLANNING
ASSURES TIMELY
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
(SEARCH AND
RESCUE)
32. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE”
• JAPAN: PROPER
PRIOR PLANNING
ASSURES TIMELY
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
33. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE”
• NORTH
DAKOTA, USA:
PROPER PRIOR
PLANNING
ASSURES TIMELY
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
34. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE”
• CHINA: PROPER
PRIOR PLANNING
ASSURES TIMELY
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
(SEARCH AND
RESCUE AFTER
LANDSLIDE)
35. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE”
• NEW ZEALAND:
PROPER PRIOR
PLANNING
ASSURES TIMELY
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
36. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE”
• PAKISTAN:
PROPER PRIOR
PLANNING
ASSURES TIMELY
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
37. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE”
• CHINA: PROPER
PRIOR PLANNING
ASSURES TIMELY
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
(EMERGENCY
HEALTH CARE)
38. FACT 8: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “EM. RESPONSE”
• UNITED NATIONS
DISTRIBEUTING
FOOD NEEDS TO BE
TIMELY AND COSTEFFECTIVE DURING
EM. RESPONSE
39. FACT 9: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “RECOVERY”
• LOS ANGELES:
PROPER PRIOR
PLANNING
PROMOTES TIMELY
AND COSTEFFECTIVE
RESTORATION OF
SERVICES AND
RECOVERY
40. FACT 9: THE PROBLEM IS A LACK OF
CAPACITY FOR “RECOVERY”
• VENICE: PROPER
PRIOR PLANNING
PROMOTES TIMELY
AND COSTEFFECTIVE
RESTORATION OF
SERVICES AND
RECOVERY
46. EVERY YEAR, EVERY NATION HAS
DOZENS OF “WINDOWS OF
OPPORTUNITY” AFTER A NEW
DISASTER TO USE THE UPDATED
BOOKS OF KNOWLEDGE FOR
INNOVATIVE CAPACITY BUILDING
48. THE GOAL: CREATING A
COMMON AGENDA FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF
TECHNICAL AND
POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
49. ELEMENTS OF RISK IN EVERY
NATION
HAZARDS
EXPOSURE
RISK
VULNERABILITY
LOCATION
50. TOWARDS INCREASED CAPACITY FOR
GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE
GOAL: TO FIND THE COMMON AGENDA
(CA) OF TECHNICAL
AND POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS
TECHNICAL
SOLUTIONS
CA
51. TOWARDS GLOBAL DISASTER
RESILIENCE
FACT: THE COMMON AGENDA IS BASED
ON EACH NATION’S STAPLE FACTORS
POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS
TECHNICAL
SOLUTIONS
CA
STAPLE
FACTORS
S
O
P
T
53. SOCIAL
SYSTEMS
SOCIAL (ARE THE PEOPLE AWARE
OF WHAT THEY NEED?)
TECHNICAL (IS THE STATE OF
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE
BEING APPLIED?)
ADMINISTRATIVE (WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE AND
ACCOUNTABLE?)
COMMUNITY
POLITICAL (ARE PUBLIC
POLICIES RELEVANT IN TERMS
OF THE THREAT?)
STAPLE
FACTORS
LEGAL (ARE EXISTING LEGAL
MANDATES ENFORCED?)
ECONOMIC (WILLINGNESS AND
CAPACITY TO PAY FOR SAFETY?)
GOAL: COMMUNITY DISASTER
RESILIENCE
55. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL
THINKING
• POLITICAL
• TECHNICAL
• THE GUIDING
PRINCIPLE FOR THE
BEST POLITICAL
DECISION IS TO HAVE
THE “LEAST
REGRETS”
• THE GUIDING
PRINCIPLE FOR THE
TECHNICAL DECISION
IS TO HAVE THE
“BEST SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY”
56. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL
THINKING
• POLITICAL
• THE DESIRED
OUTCOME IS
APPROVAL OF THE
DECISIONMAKER’S
CONSTITUENTS
(ELECTORATE,
STOCK HOLDERS)
• TECHNICAL
• THE DESIRED
OUTCOME IS
RESPECT OF THE
SCIENTIST’S OR
ENGINEER’S
PEERS
57. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL
THINKING
• POLITICAL
• THE TIME HORIZON
IS SHORT AND A
SOLUTION IS
WANTED NOW
• TECHNICAL
• THE TIME HORIZON
IS LONG AND “THE
BEST SOLUTION”
TAKES A LITTLE
MORE TIME
58. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL
THINKING
• POLITICAL
• THE MOST VALUED
OUTCOME IS A
RELIABLE
SOLUTION WITH
NO
UNCERTAINTIES
• TECHNICAL
• THE MOST VALUED
OUTCOME IS
SCIENTIFIC
INSIGHT WITH
UNCERTAINTIES
EMPHASIZED
60. BENEFITS OF A COMMON AGENDA
FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE
• REDUCTION OF
VULNERABILITY
• REDUCTION OF
UNACCEPTABLE
RISK
• POLITICAL
SUCCESS (No
Regrets)
• ENHANCED
DISASTER
RESILIENCE