Title: Disasters as Politics – Politics as Disaster

Introduction:
A disaster is a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or
society and causes human, material, and economic or environmental losses that exceed the community’s
or society’s ability to cope using its own resources. Though often caused by nature, disasters can have
human origins. A disaster occurs when a hazard impacts on vulnerable people. The combination of
hazards, vulnerability and inability to reduce the potential negative consequences of risk results in
disaster.

Politics refer to the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially
the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

Issues:
We have to look into the following areas of concern:
1. The relationship between politics and disaster preparedness, recovery and response.
2. The role of legislature in mitigating the risks of disaster and anticipating the needs of disaster
victims by laying out policies.
3. The changing needs of the people as to their environment.

Discussion:

There are basic reasons why disasters are political in nature. One is that disasters affect people.
The Basic Management doctrine states that the determination of what constitutes a disaster is the impact
it has on people. In other words, no impact results to any disaster. An example is when an extremely
violent and large tornado hit a totally uninhabited area of the country. The probability and vulnerability are
requisites in hazard analyses. Second, disaster involves public policy. Politics, as defined, is the process
of establishing and carrying out public policy. In the event of failures in a policy, there will be debates in
the legislature and consequently the officials’ future endeavour in politics will be adversely affected. They
will be criticized during their campaigns and the problems during their term will be brought up. Third,
disasters invite public interest. Now that almost all Filipino household have access to various media
platforms for current events and the citizens at present are more concerned and watchful of the
administration. Here are the events that resulted from political-related dilemmas: Oklahoma City bombing,
9/11, Three-mile island, and Bohpal chemical release.
In order to understand the nature of the political environment in the community, take for example
the national administration was republican and the city of San Francisco was democrat. There was
significant conflict regarding response and recovery issues attributable to this political reality. Conversely,
when the Republican Mayor of New York City, Republican Governor of New York and the republican
president were from the same party, that fact also had an impact on the aftermath of the World Trade
Center attack.
According to the principle that the disaster policy is difficult to create and maintain, conflicts of
interest in the upper and lower management happen. Beverly Cigler stated that the government least
likely to perceive emergency management as a key priority – local government – are at center stage in
terms of responsibility for emergency management. It is impossible to design policies and programs that
meet all needs and satisfy all of the competing interest.
A disaster can alter the public’s perceptions about the ability and concern of the political players.
It also causes them to be more sensitive to criticism of response or relief effects. There are political
impacts to executors and legislators. Sometimes decisions necessary to a good response must infringe
upon the rights, convenience and interests of the members of the public like imposition of curfew, limit
sales of certain items, force evaluation or closure of business, and involuntary quarantine. Consequences
can range from mere inconvenience, like tours by elected officials of disaster sites, to major interference
in the accomplishment of response and recovery objectives like lack of funds, refusal to grant necessary
authority.

Conclusion:

It is clear that politicking creates chaos. This triggers insurgencies and thus tragedy results. The
disaster is already turmoil for the affected households and politicking will only aggravate their grievance.
The politicians must be well aware of their duties and responsibilities. They can be effective and efficient
if only they stay away from conflicting interests and being professional in serving the public.

Recommendation
There is a necessity to continuously develop frameworks of coordination and undertaking before
disaster strikes. It should be congruent to the current needs of the victims.
Title: Disaster Governance social, political, and economic dimensions

Introduction:
Disaster governance is an emerging concept in the disaster research literature that is closely
related to risk governance and environmental governance. Disaster governance arrangements and
challenges are shaped by forces such as globalization, world-system dynamics, social inequality, and
sociodemographic trends. Governance regimes are polycentric and multiscale, show variation across the
hazards cycle, and tend to lack integration and to be formulated in response to particular large-scale
disaster events. Disaster governance is nested within and influenced by overarching societal governance
systems. Although governance failures can occur in societies with stable governance systems, as the
governmental response to Hurricane Katrina shows, poorly governed societies and weak states are
almost certain to exhibit deficiencies in disaster governance. State-civil society relationships, economic
organization, and societal transitions have implications for disaster governance. Various measures can be
employed to assess disaster governance; more research is needed in this nascent field of study on
factors that contribute to effective governance and on other topics, such as the extent to which
governance approaches contribute to long-term sustainability.
Disaster governance has emerged in recent years as a potential avenue for risk reduction
(Ammann et al. 2006; Renn 2008) and has also been enshrined in the five key priority areas of the Hyogo
Framework for Action (HFA) (UNISDR 2005). However, the 2011 Global Assessment Report (UNISDR
2011, 116) concluded that “aside from reducing disaster mortality, existing risk governance capacities and
arrangements generally fail to achieve their aims.” This statement coupled with escalating losses driven
by increases in exposure and vulnerability reveals shortcoming in current disaster governance. Such
failures in governance structures point to the need for reflecting on the range of currently available
institutional, policy, administrative and regulatory mechanisms for managing risks. According to Tierney
(2012, 344), “disaster governance consists of the interrelated sets of norms, organisational and
institutional actors, and practices (spanning pre-disaster, trans-disaster, and post-disaster periods) that
are designed to reduce the impacts and losses associated with disasters arising from natural and
technological agents and from intentional acts of terrorism.” Disaster governance goes beyond
governmental settings, powers, processes and tools by encouraging collective actions through the
engagement of all stakeholders (e.g., governmental, private businesses, non-governmental entities,
academia) operating at all scales—from local to global. Disaster risk governance has traditionally been
fragmented between local, state, and national entities and between sectors, and compartmentalised in
highly variable bureaucratic structures. Risk governance is mostly viewed through the lens of disaster or
emergency management departments, agencies, or organisations, which often have little interaction
among other governmental, civil society, or corporate entities. Visible in times of crises, risk governance is
rarely seen as part of everyday public or private functions such as planning, social welfare, investments
or fiscal responsibilities.
Issues:
1. The principal drivers of changes in disaster risk governance characteristics
2. Is disaster risk governance a separate and autonomous concern/theme or is it a component of
sustainable development at local to national scales, and how do international governance frameworks
influence it?
3. How is the linkage between climate change adaptation and disaster risk management established and
how does this influence the present governance of risk?

Discussion:

Disaster governance is the way society as a whole manages its full array of disaster risks, which
may be triggered by geological hazards (such as earthquakes); climate change and hydro-meteorological
hazards (such as floods and cyclones); and conflict and war, in order to sustain development, human
welfare, and dignity. It promotes the notion that there are many overlapping arenas (or centers) of
authority for decision making and responsibility for disaster risk reduction. These arenas exist at all scales
and levels, from individuals and local community groups to national governments (executive and
legislative) and international institutions and organizations.

Disaster governance sometimes also called adaptive (disaster) governance or disaster risk
governance emerged as a theme related to the management of complex social environmental problems
and associated risks. It is situated within the broader context of risk governance (Renn 2008) considering
all types of risks, not just disasters. It also includes institutions, organisations, laws, regulations and
contributions from civil society and private sector actors that influence risk management (Brunner et al.
2005; Holley et al. 2011). Disaster governance often is characterised as a risk management system,
which is collaborative, multi-party, and multi-level. Risk governance is seen as a more innovative and
accountable approach in dealing with environmental problems „ because of its flexible, adaptive, and
learning- based orientation to problem solving (Holley et al. 2011). Given the broadening notion of
governance, considerable research effort has focused on characteristics defining governance.

Conclusion:

Recommendation:

References:
Tierney, K. Disaster Governance social, political, and economic dimensions. Retrieved from
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-095618#article-denial.
Annualreviews.org
Lassa, J. Disaster Governance. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/disasterrelief/n49.xml.
Sagepub.com
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)