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

1. •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

2. GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE
The Paradigm for 2014
That Makes Our Tomorrows Better
STEP 2

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

41. CONCLUSION
FACT 10: DISASTER
RESILIENCE REQUIRES THE
INTEGRATION OF “POLITICAL
AND TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS”
FOR A COMMON AGENDA

42. STEP 2
From Today’s Books of
Knowledge to Innovative
Capacity Building For
Disaster Resilience

43. THE GOAL
NO DISASTERS:
DEMANDS ON
COMMUNITY
CAPABILITIES OF
COMMUNITY

44. REALITY
A DISASTER:
INSUFFICIENT
CAPABILITIES OF
COMMUNITY
INCREASED
DEMANDS ON
COMMUNITY

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

47. THE CAPACITY BUILDING
PROCESS
PERIOD OF
INTEGRATION
WINDOW OF
OPPORTUNITY
PERIOD OF
IMPLEMENTATION
PERSONALIZE
ACT
HEAR
UNDERSTAND
IDENTIFY

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

52. EACH NATION’S STAPLE FACTORS
WILL VARY WITH
• TIME
• PLACE
• CIRCUMSTANCES

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

54. DIFFERENCES IN PERSPECTIVES
OF POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL
PROFESSIONALS
BASED ON “NOT WELL ADVISED,”
SZANTON (1981)

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

59. DECISIONS FOR DISASTER
RESILIENCE
• INTEGRATE THE
STAPLE FACTORS
• BALANCE THE
COMMUNITY’S
STAPLE FACTORS
• DETERMINE
BENEFIT/COST

60. BENEFITS OF A COMMON AGENDA
FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE
• REDUCTION OF
VULNERABILITY
• REDUCTION OF
UNACCEPTABLE
RISK
• POLITICAL
SUCCESS (No
Regrets)
• ENHANCED
DISASTER
RESILIENCE

61. STEP 3
From Today’s Paradigm to
Tomorrow’s
SEE NEW FILE