Response by Larry Minear

Figure

It is more productive to focus on the obstacles - institutional, political, financial, or professional - which complicate putting such eminently praiseworthy objectives into practice.

Most disaster organizations and managers probably accept at a theoretical level the many goals enumerated in “Ethical Dilemmas in Disaster Declaration and Response.” In an ideal world, they would seek to implement them all. When major disasters are involved, however, the world is anything but ideal. The situation is difficult enough in “natural disasters.” Complex emergencies escalate the challenges further still.

It may be tempting to debate overarching objectives such as empowering people “to participate fully in planning and decision-making,” adopting an inclusive approach to the special needs of “minorities, women and poor,” or functioning according to “the highest ethics of human values.” However, it is more productive to focus on the obstacles - institutional, political, financial, or professional - which complicate putting such eminently praiseworthy objectives into practice.

In the area of empowerment, for example, agencies firmly committed to strengthening local institutions frequently mount programs first and address empowerment issues later. In practical terms, they give higher priority to saving lives than to institution-building. But are the trade-offs as stark as frequently presented? Could more ingenuity not produce the best of both worlds, or at least do better by both?

As regards neutrality, the materials suggest that “it is not sufficient to be a neutral intermediary.” Disaster managers, we are told, must be concerned about underlying causes of emergencies and become advocates for durable solutions. What about those who believe that being other than a neutral intermediary can undercut effective disaster response? How can shared concerns about the underlying causes of disasters and shared desires to see changed government policies be most effectively expressed?

Concerning objectivity, the Cold War which infiltrated the declaration of and response to disasters is now past. However, as the materials suggest, the international community still lacks uniform and consistent ways of proceeding to establish and respond to such crises. What are the sources - political, commercial, or otherwise - which continue to impede responses based on the severity of the need? What criteria can be agreed upon to help assure more businesslike action in the future?

There are probably divergent views about what constitute the “purest ethical standards” of accountability. The idea that disaster assistance should be accountable to the beneficiaries suggests that it may be more than “gifts” bestowed by outside “donors.” The new approach, in addition to shifting greater power to disaster-prone areas and institutions, would demand better performance from outsiders. The suggestion that funds should seek out organizations “which focus on the above priorities” also raises questions, given the multiple sources of existing funds and the diverse agendas of those who provide them.

Action in these areas would have wide-ranging implications for the current disaster management system as we know it. The existing division of labor, for example, would be overturned. Such implications deserve review.

Practitioners are more aware now than a decade or two ago about ethical dilemmas in disaster management such as these. Perhaps a I discussion of the various factors which have produced that greater awareness would be illuminating. Based on the progress of the past decade, where would the profession like to be ten years from now, and how might it get there from here?

Q. Respondent, Larry Minear, identifies four points to keep in mind as ethical issues of disaster management are deliberated, decisions made and strategies implemented. What are those points?

A.______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

ANSWER

1. Empowerment
2. Neutrality
3. Objectivity
4. Accountability