Tools, powers and budgets

From the hazard profiles and the descriptions of actions that may be possible to reduce their effects, it is evident that protection is complex and needs to be built up through a range of activities undertaken at the same time. Protection cannot be simply provided by any single authority or agency. A government cannot provide housing that is wind-resistant for every citizen in cyclone-prone areas. Governments can and do, however, influence individuals towards protecting themselves and the rest of the community. Governments can employ a wide range of tools and use their powers in many ways to influence the safety of the community. Legislative powers, administrative functions, spending and project initiation are all tools they can employ to bring about change. Powers of persuasion are sometimes classified into two types: Passive and Active. These are summarized below.

Safety standards, construction codes and building regulations form part of the normal apparatus that government use to help a community protect itself. One of the simplest measures for national authorities to take is to pass legislation for a national building code that requires new buildings and infrastructures to be resistant to the various hazards prevalent in that country. Some 40 earthquake-prone countries currently have seismic building codes for new construction. However, codes themselves are likely to have little effect unless the building designers are aware of them and understand them, and unless the community considers them necessary, and unless they are enforced by competent administrators.

The multiplicity of hazards and the different ways of reducing their various effects on the elements at risk is further compounded by the type of community powers and budgets available to the decision-makers. There is no standard solution to mitigating a disaster risk. The construction of large-scale engineering projects in Japan and other high-income countries to give protection against floods and volcanic debris flows, is not appropriate to mitigating similar hazards in developing countries. The enforcement of town planning regulations, and what is considered an acceptable level of interference by an authority on individual's right to build, varies considerably from one country to another, it varies from rural to urban situations and from one community and culture to the next.

The prohibition of building houses on hazardous slopes may seem sensible but is unenforceable in cities where economic pressures to locate on such locations outstrip concerns of illegality. The right of a municipal engineer to inspect the seismic resistance of a building under construction may be accepted in major cities of a country but would be objected to in the more remote villages of the same province.

Q. A distinction is made in the text between passive and active mitigation measures. What are the arguments for using active measures over passive ones? Does this hold true for your community and the hazards that you expect might occur there?

A._______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

ANSWER Although they may cost more to initiate, active measures may produce better results in some communities because they: tend to promote a self-perpetuating safety culture do not rely on the economic capability of the affected community do not rely on the ability of the local authorities to enforce controls