![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | PREFACE |
![]() | ![]() | INTRODUCTION |
![]() | ![]() | I. Aims of and background to the diagnostic study |
![]() | ![]() | II. Methodology and scope |
![]() | ![]() | III. General characteristics of the study region |
![]() | ![]() | IV. Study plan |
![]() | ![]() | V. Participants |
![]() | ![]() | FIRST PART - NATURAL DISASTERS IN CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN: CONSEQUENCES AND RISKS |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | I. CONSEQUENCES OF NATURAL DISASTERS IN CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 1. A general assessment |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Natural disasters: A brake on development |
![]() | ![]() | Conclusions |
![]() | ![]() | II. NATURAL DANGERS AND DISASTERS: DISTRIBUTION AND FREQUENCY |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 1. The uneven distribution of natural dangers |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Frequency and distribution of disasters |
![]() | ![]() | Conclusions |
![]() | ![]() | III. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY CRITERIA |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 1. 1992 population densities set against annual population growth rate (1960-1993) |
![]() | ![]() | 2. The 1993 Human Development Indicator (HDI) set against urban population growth rate (1960-1993). |
![]() | ![]() | 3. Real adjusted 1993 GDP per inhabitant set against 1993 adult literacy or child mortality rates |
![]() | ![]() | IV. CONCLUSIONS: RISK LEVELS |
![]() | ![]() | SECOND PART - ACHIEVEMENTS AND NEEDS AS REGARDS REDUCING THE RISKS AND CONSEQUENCES OF NATURAL DISASTERS |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | I. ASSESSMENT OF ACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE REGION IN THE FIELD OF RESEARCH |
![]() | ![]() | 1. Identification and analysis of hazards |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Vulnerability and risk |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | a. Vulnerability (the technical approach) |
![]() | ![]() | b. Vulnerability (the social approach) |
![]() | ![]() | 3. Conclusion: Assessment of actions carried out in the region in the field of research |
![]() | ![]() | II. ASSESSMENT OF ACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE REGION IN THE FIELD OF PREVENTION ITSELF |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 1. Preventive planning of land occupation |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Reduction of the probability of events and especially the effectiveness of a natural disaster phenomenon: Actions targeted at the causes of such phenomena |
![]() | ![]() | 3. Reduction of the effectiveness of a natural disaster phenomenon: Technological protection |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | a. Actions aimed at containing or deviating the disaster phenomenon |
![]() | ![]() | b. Actions aimed at making buildings resistant to potential disaster phenomena |
![]() | ![]() | 4. Conclusion: Assessment of actions carried out in the region in the field of prevention itself |
![]() | ![]() | III. ASSESSMENT OF ACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE REGION IN THE FIELD OF PREPAREDNESS |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 1. Warning preparedness |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | a. Hurricane warning |
![]() | ![]() | b. Flood warning |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Preparedness of protection |
![]() | ![]() | 3. Preparedness of the relief phase |
![]() | ![]() | 4. Emergency plans |
![]() | ![]() | 5. Conclusion: Assessment of actions carried out in the region in the field of preparedness |
![]() | ![]() | IV. ASSESSMENT OF ACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE REGION IN THE FIELD OF PROVIDING INFORMATION AND TRAINING |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 1. Production and circulation of information at regional and national levels |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | a. Through discussions, seminars and workshops |
![]() | ![]() | b. Through publications and the Internet |
![]() | ![]() | c. Through documentation centres |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Information/training for local communities |
![]() | ![]() | 3. Information/training of target sectors of the public |
![]() | ![]() | 4. Conclusions: Assessment of actions carried out in the region in the field of providing information and training |
![]() | ![]() | V. CURRENT APPLICATION METHODS OF RISK REDUCTION POLICIES: FROM THE SECTOR-BASED APPROACH TO THE INTEGRATED APPROACH |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 1. The sector-based approach |
![]() | ![]() | 2. The overall approach based mainly on the question of risks |
![]() | ![]() | 3. The integrated approach based on sustainable development |
![]() | ![]() | 4. Current application methods of risk reduction policies: Main conclusions |
![]() | ![]() | VI. CONCLUSION: SUMMARY OF NEEDS AS REGARDS REDUCING THE RISKS AND CONSEQUENCES OF NATURAL DISASTERS |
![]() | ![]() | In the field of scientific and technical research |
![]() | ![]() | In the field of prevention itself |
![]() | ![]() | In the field of preparedness |
![]() | ![]() | In the field of information/training |
![]() | ![]() | Application methods |
![]() | ![]() | THIRD PART - CURRENT FRAMEWORK AND CONDITIONS FOR A COHERENT, WORKABLE AND EFFECTIVE DIPECHO PROGRAMME |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | I. REGIONAL AND NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS |
![]() | ![]() | II. INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AT THE VARIOUS GEOGRAPHICAL LEVELS |
![]() | ![]() | 1. At a regional level: The case of CEPREDENAC and CDERA |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | CEPREDENAC |
![]() | ![]() | CDERA and also OECS and CARIFORUM |
![]() | ![]() | 2. At a national level: The problem of national organisations or assimilated structures |
![]() | ![]() | 3. At a local level: Current need for strengthening local structures |
![]() | ![]() | III. ORGANISATIONS LIKELY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIPECHO AND THEIR PROSPECTS |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 1. Large international organisations working in the field of prevention/preparedness |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | a. IDNDR Regional Office |
![]() | ![]() | b. Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO/WHO) |
![]() | ![]() | c. International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) |
![]() | ![]() | d. Organisation of American States (OAS) |
![]() | ![]() | e. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Other partners or possible contributors |
![]() | ![]() | a. In Central America |
![]() | ![]() | b. In the Caribbean |
![]() | ![]() | IV. CURRENT ROLE AND PROSPECTS FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE MEMBER STATES |
![]() | ![]() | 1. Unequal involvement of Member States and the European Community |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | a. The role of Sweden |
![]() | ![]() | b. The roles of Denmark, France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands |
![]() | ![]() | c. The emergence of Germany |
![]() | ![]() | d. The other European countries |
![]() | ![]() | e. Prospects |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Links between ECHO and the other EC Directorate Generals towards more efficient preventive activity |
![]() | ![]() | V. CURRENT FRAMEWORK AND EFFICIENCY CONDITIONS: CONCLUSIONS |
![]() | ![]() | GENERAL CONCLUSION |
![]() | ![]() | I. MAIN LESSONS DRAWN FROM THE DIAGNOSTIC STUDY |
![]() | ![]() | 1. Disasters and risks in Central America and the Caribbean: Risks unevenly distributed but present everywhere |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Achievements and needs regarding risk reduction: Significant efforts made but actions still too isolated and limited |
![]() | ![]() | 3. Conditions for implementing the DIPECHO programme |
![]() | ![]() | II. PRIORITY LINES OF ACTION FOR DIPECHO |
![]() | ![]() | 1. Common recommendations for Central America and the Caribbean |
![]() | ![]() | 2. Special recommendations for Central America |
![]() | ![]() | 3. Special recommendations for the Caribbean |
![]() | ![]() | BIBLIOGRAPHY |
![]() | ![]() | ANNEXES |