86 Aligning International Strategy to Standards in Emergency Management: Current and Emerging Issues – TWO
Aligning International Strategy to Standards in Emergency Management: Current and Emerging Issues
Marcelo M. Ferreira, PhD, CEM, PMP
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6176-1725
Author
Marcelo M. Ferreira, PhD, Arkansas State University
Keywords
Abstract
This chapter explores the alignment of international strategy in disaster risk reduction and standards for emergency (and disaster) management programs. International strategies and frameworks have provided a foundation to strategically handle the impacts of hazard events across nations while highlighting the importance of proactively working toward reducing risk, enhancing preparedness, and strengthening resilience. Standards have emerged to provide benchmarks for applications of emergency and disaster management programs and influence policies, laws, regulations, and guidance. However, adherence to standards is limited, and clarity over the alignment of core concepts, strategies, frameworks, and standards in the field remains elusive. Without clear and consistent boundaries for the body of knowledge, the potential grows for external influences to shape practices rather than research and best practices. This study aims to present the evolution of international disaster risk reduction strategy and the emergence of emergency management program standards and explore related key terms, core concepts, and priority areas.
Introduction
International strategy has endeavored to coalesce global efforts towards reducing risk, enhancing preparedness, and promoting effective response and recovery from disaster. Frameworks established by the United Nations were developed to share strategies and provide guidance to nations in their holistic disaster risk reduction and emergency (and disaster management) efforts. Alongside international strategy, standards have arisen as benchmarks for emergency management programs across levels of governance (e.g., federal, state, local) and sectors (e.g., public, private, nonprofit, infrastructure). However, alignment between international strategies and standards in emergency management remains challenging, as there is limited adherence to benchmarks, confusion regarding core concepts, and few studies on the topics. Furthermore, a lack of clarity and consistency in core concepts in the field can make it difficult to compare and learn from different approaches (Wisner & Alcántara-Ayala, 2023). This study is to explore key terms, core concepts, and priority areas related to alignment of international strategy in disaster risk reduction and standards in emergency management.
An international focus has raised awareness of the importance of proactively addressing disaster risk. However, variations in core concepts have led to challenges in achieving consistency in practice and research across the globe. It is important to address challenges and strive for consistency to improve the effectiveness of emergency management and disaster risk reduction efforts globally (Burkle et al., 2001; Delshad et al., 2020). As disasters do not recognize borders and have the potential to cause widespread impacts, international cooperation and collaboration are necessary for effective research and practice related deliverables. The interdisciplinary nature of the topic further applies across sectors (e.g., public, private, and nongovernmental), levels (e.g., local, state, federal), and disciplines (e.g., public administration, engineering, social sciences, public health, urban planning).
Emergency management programs have emerged within organizations and agencies to organize and coordinate related efforts toward addressing the impacts of emergencies and disasters. Comparatively, “international disaster management” applies to coordination efforts to support the response when a nation’s capacity has been exceeded, which relates to humanitarian relief (Bullock, Haddow, & Coppola, 2020). While it is widely acknowledged that “all emergencies start and end locally,” global coordination has strived to address growing global impacts beyond the capacity of any one nation to address. However, conceptual confusion and lack of clarity in defined key concepts in emergency (and disaster) management and disaster risk reduction hinder effective international cooperation and implementation of strategies and standards.
The body of knowledge widely recognizes the diversity of definitions among key concepts in the field. For example, the terms “emergency management” and “disaster management” are often used interchangeably (United Nations, 2016). McEntire (2018) highlights challenges in coalescing around one definition of “emergency management,” describing how a common definition has yet to be established for research and practice. Thus, it is necessary to further explore and analyze the common foundations for fostering the exchange of knowledge and benchmarking success.
Standards in Disaster Risk Reduction
Strategy established at the international level has led to a global focus on the importance of proactively addressing the impacts of disasters. Frameworks have raised awareness of strategies and provided guidance for nations based on best practices and, unfortunately, common lessons learned. During this time, standards have emerged to benchmark programs and efforts across the international disaster risk reduction strategic umbrella, including emergency management. Standards are “defined loosely as a set of tools that embodies national and/or international best practices in any given field…standards are by definition not mandatory” (Jachia, 2014, pg.2). The implementation of standards may be voluntarily adopted by organizations and jurisdictions, and may also be incorporated into policy, laws, regulations, national frameworks, and grant requirements. Standards related to disaster risk reduction encompass a wide range of interrelated areas, including emergency management, resilience, sustainable development, and climate change (Jachia, 2014).
An analysis of voluntary standards related to disaster risk reduction is provided in a background paper, “Standards and Normative Mechanisms for Disaster Risk Reduction,” for the 2015 Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (Jachia, 2014). Standards are categorized as 1) risk prevention, 2) risk reduction, and 3) strengthening crisis management capacity (see Table 1). Emergency management-related standards, which “enable businesses and communities to be better prepared to crisis, to absorb shocks and to rebuild better,” are included within the category “strengthening crisis management capacity” (Jachia, 2014, pg. 4). While there are many standards related to international disaster risk reduction across these categories, this study specifically focuses on the alignment of standards related to emergency management programs.
[TABLE]
Standards provide a benchmark for applications of emergency management programs across public and private sectors and influence policies, laws, regulations, and guides. Standards related to emergency management programs continue to evolve, initially emerging from a focus on incident response to a more holistic focus on organizing and managing across the disaster cycle (e.g., mitigation, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery) (Coppola, 2021; Jachia, 2014). These standards and frameworks attempt to increase consistency and coherence in implementing strategies, enabling countries and organizations to effectively coordinate efforts in emergency management. However, adherence to standards is not widely observed, and clarity over standards used in the field remains elusive (Bowen, 2008; Jensen & Ferreira, 2023). Furthermore, implementing these strategies and frameworks across sectors and nations is not always consistent, leading to variations in applying concepts in practice. Without clear and consistent boundaries for the body of knowledge, the influence of acute crisis and politics to shape practices grows (McEntire, 2007).
This chapter explores the current and emerging issues in aligning international disaster risk reduction strategy with internationally recognized emergency (and disaster) management standards. An introduction presents concepts related to strategy and standards in emergency management and disaster risk reduction. A literature review follows, which provides a narrative of the evolution of international approaches to disaster, applications of international strategies, current internationally recognized emergency management program standards, and research on standards in the topic. The chapter then presents the methodology for analyzing the research question: How do internationally recognized standards for emergency management programs align with international strategy in disaster risk reduction? The findings and solutions follow, which lead to a discussion of the analysis of findings and recommendations.
Literature Review
Modern approaches to international disaster risk reduction and emergency management have been influenced by research and practice from disparate efforts of nations and disciplines, each attempting to implement the latest best practices and lessons learned from their unique perspective and context (McEntire, 2008). Global strategies and models have aimed to serve as a basis for establishing strategies in countries worldwide, emphasizing the need to proactively reduce risk and improve preparedness for increasing hazards. However, the consistent implementation of these strategies and frameworks across nations varies, resulting in differences regarding how concepts and practices are applied. These variations stem from factors such as differing political will, resource availability, institutional capacities, and cultural contexts. Nevertheless, these variations in fundamental principles hinder achieving uniformity and effectiveness in regional disaster management practice and research (Bullock, Haddow, & Coppola, 2020; Coppola, 2021). A better understanding of how international frameworks and standards are aligned is needed to tackle these challenges and promote a more unified approach toward reducing disaster risk.
Evolution of the International Approach to Disasters
The evolution of strategy in international disaster risk reduction and disaster management has been influenced by the transition from a reactive response to the recognition of a comprehensive and integrated proactive approach (Coppola, 2021; McEntire, 2008; Wisner and Alcántara-Ayala, 2023). Strategically and in line with this shift, the international community has developed frameworks and initiatives that aim to address various aspects of disaster risk reduction and management across nations, with the understanding of the greater need to support developing nations in building capacity for disaster resilience (Coppola, 2021; UNDRR, n.d.) However, despite the efforts to develop global strategies and frameworks, the field’s evolution has led to challenges in aligning concepts.
Evolving from the Civil Defense era in the 1950s, emergency management had initially focused on responding to attacks within nations (Coppola, 2021) but expanded to encompass an all-hazards approach and “comprehensive emergency management” by the 1980’s. In the international community, as a reaction to the increasing impacts of hazard events and the recognized need for coordinated international efforts, an initial initiative was developed in the 1980s by the United Nations, leading to a series of strategies and frameworks designed to promote international cooperation in disaster risk reduction. The driving force for international cooperation and strategy has been the recognition of the increasing hazard events and the ability of humans to proactively prevent impacts from occurring and to effectively manage them when they do occur (Coppola, 2021; Delshad et al., 2020; United Nations, 1987).
In 1987, the UN General Assembly Resolution 42/169 designated the 1990s as the “International Decade for Natural Disaster Risk Reduction,” resulting in a series of international conferences and agreements to develop strategies and frameworks for disaster risk reduction and encourage global cooperation (see Table 2). The objective was to engage in focused international action to establish strategies to reduce the loss of life, property damage, and social and economic disruption caused by natural disasters; a focus on preparedness, prevention, and mitigation was emphasized (United Nations, 1987). The Yokohama Strategy, adopted in 1994 (United Nations, 1994), resulted from this 1987 initiative.
[TABLE]
The “Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World” coalesced international efforts toward a common set of principles, suggested a basis for a strategy, and provided recommended actions for nations to take to reduce risk as the first comprehensive guidelines for disaster risk reduction and established the foundation for a cooperative approach. The Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World” also emphasized the importance of local action and community participation. It recognized the crucial role of risk assessment, disaster prevention, and preparedness in reducing the need for disaster relief. The strategy highlighted the need for integrating disaster risk reduction into development planning and emphasized the importance of knowledge sharing, education, and awareness-raising (Coppola, 2021; Delshad et al., 2020; United Nations, 1994).
Building upon the foundations of the Yokohama Strategy, the “Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015) focused on building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters (United Nations, 2005). Signed and adopted by 164 nations, the Hyogo Framework for Action emphasized the development of national action plans by all countries (Coppola, 2021). The Hyogo Framework for Action aimed to 1) strengthen disaster risk reduction as a priority at the national and local levels, 2) improve early warning systems, 3) utilize knowledge and innovation for safety and resilience, 4) reduce underlying risk factors, and 5) strengthen preparedness against disasters (United Nations, 2005). However, despite these efforts, the social, cultural, and economic damages caused by disasters continued to grow. To formulate a strategy for the next 15 years, and in recognition of a changing risk profile globally, the international community came together again in 2015 in Sendai, Japan, to adopt the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030 (United Nations, 2015).
The Sendai Framework broadened the scope of disaster risk reduction, focusing on both natural and man-made hazards and related environmental, technological, and biological hazards and risks (Coppola, 2021; United Nations, 2015). There was also an emphasis on the need for an improved 1) understanding of disaster risk, 2) strengthening of disaster risk governance, 3) investing in disaster risk reduction, and 4) preparedness to “Build Back Better” in recovery (United Nations, 2015). Today, the Sendai Framework guides the international community’s efforts in disaster risk reduction, marking a significant evolution in global disaster management standards since the initial iterations of international strategies to address global disaster risk. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is the most recent and comprehensive international framework for disaster risk reduction (Coppola, 2021; Delshad et al., 2020).
The Sendai Framework strongly emphasizes the need to understand and manage disaster risk. Seven global targets and four priorities for action are included in the framework (see Textbox 1). In addition, the Sendai Framework recognizes the importance of stakeholders and their roles in disaster risk reduction through an integrated and inclusive approach across “economic, structural, legal, social, health, cultural, educational, environmental, technological, political and institutional measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to disaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery, and thus strengthen resilience” (United Nations, 2015, pg. 12). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, adopted in 2015, is the most recent and comprehensive international framework for disaster risk reduction (Delshad et al., 2020). However, despite the progress in international frameworks, their implementation and adherence are still not widely observed (Wisner and Alcántara-Ayala, 2023).
