FEMA's Integration of Preparedness and Development of Robust Regional Offices

In October 2006, Congress enacted major legislation to reform the function and organization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in response to the recognized failures in preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) focused national preparedness responsibilities within FEMA and directed additional resources and responsibilities to FEMA's ten regional offices. Directed by Congress, in October 2008 a National Academy Panel began an independent assessment of FEMA's integration of preparedness functions and progress in development of robust regional offices.Main FindingsOver the past three years, FEMA has taken significant steps in an effort to integrate preparedness and develop more robust regional offices. These efforts, undertaken by both the previous and current Administrations, are documented throughout this report and should be recognized and applauded. However, FEMA has yet to define specific goals and outcomes that would permit it, Congress or the public to determine when preparedness has been fully integrated into all aspects of FEMA's work and whether the development and ongoing operation of robust regional offices has been achieved. In the absence of well-defined, measurable outcome indicators, the National Academy Panel relied upon the assessments of FEMA leaders and staff, documentation provided by FEMA, and a review of secondary sources material to inform its findings and recommendations. Based upon this evidence, the Panel has concluded that, while progress has been made: (1) preparedness is not fully integrated across FEMA, (2) FEMA's regional offices do not yet have the capacity required to ensure the nation is fully prepared, (3) stakeholders are not yet full partners with FEMA in national preparedness, and (4) FEMA has ineffective internal business practices, particularly with regard to human resource management. The Panel made seven recommendations for FEMA:Establish a cross-organizational process, with participation from internal and external stakeholders, to develop a shared understanding of preparedness integrationEstablish a robust set of outcome metrics and standards for preparedness integration, as well as a system to monitor and evaluate progress on an ongoing basisWork to eliminate organizational barriers that are adversely impacting the full integration of preparedness across the agencyContinue to build regional office capacity and monitor implementation consistent with the Administrator's recent policy guidanceUndertake steps to improve the ongoing working relationship between headquarters and the regions in accord with Panel-identified principlesTake steps to improve stakeholder engagement and relationships at all levels in accord with Panel-identified principles; andStrengthen internal business practices, especially in the area of human capital planning

Study on cash transfers for seed security in humanitarian settings

This study examines the barriers and opportunities for cash transfers to be used to address seed security in humanitarian situations. Cash, while not a new approach, has gained momentum in recent years, especially with the emergence of the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP) and humanitarian organizations’ commitments through the Grand Bargain.2 Historically, direct seed distribution (DSD) has dominated agricultural responses in emergencies. While effective in many situations, other modalities of addressing farmers’ needs have also proven to be effective, including seed and voucher fairs and, increasingly, cash transfer responses. The latter response typically provides farmers greater choices to make decisions about their seed needs and preferences. However, as with direct distribution and vouchers, cash can be a viable option but may not always be appropriate in every situation. The quality of seed is of paramount importance in choosing a response and has been an ongoing (and often contentious and political) discussion for decades. The results of this study advocate for a multi- stakeholder perspective on the quality of seed, while offering farmers the most flexible and most appropriate response possible for their given situation. In some cases, this will be cash transfers, but certainly not in all cases. A range of options offers the best chance for a successful, responsive, and appropriate program. The evidence base on outcomes from using cash for seed in humanitarian contexts is limited, however, reviewing a series of examples shows the breadth and range of options that are being explored. The cases from an array of organizations and countries including Iraq, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Madagascar, and Guatemala, show that understanding the context is key to the response analysis and the choice of modality. Organizational approaches and previous experience also played a role in the choice of modality. The evidence to date shows that cash, in addition to complementary programming such as technical or business training, offers promise for seed security interventions. In addition, initiatives to support both the demand and supply side of the market have proven to be effective. Key findings include: 1. Market and needs assessments must include a seed component or SSSA to ensure a response designed to address the right problem, not the assumption. For markets, both informal and formal seed markets need to be included. 2. Good needs assessments, response analysis and program design help ensure participants’ spending cash on what implementers anticipate they will. 3. Program participants’ preferences on modalities are not consistently included in response analysis. 4. Mixed modalities (cash and vouchers, or cash and DSD) can broaden crop choices. 5. Quality screenings for seed are taking place; the quality of seed is important to organizations and project participants. 6. Cash for seed security interventions are limited, but growing in prevalence. 7. Providing cash plus complementary support is a promising practice for fostering seed security. 8. The nexus between relief and development is critical—designing projects with a longer-term development view: cash can prepare the way for farmers to continue true market engagement post-relief, spur business development in subsequent seasons, and offer opportunities for financial inclusion. 9. Supporting supply side to bring quality seed markets ‘closer’ to project participants should be considered along with demand-side interventions (cash, voucher and other). 10. Investment in preparedness provides a better foundation to implement impactful cash for seed security response. The risks, mitigating actions, opportunities and enablers for cash and seed security response are also explored. The study concludes with actionable and practical recommendations for further advancing the evidence base, as well as implementation suggestions. Continuous collaboration of key stakeholders in seed systems is essential to advance the discussions and action on the way forward with cash and seed systems

Handbook of Emergency Management For State-Level Transportation Agencies, MTI Report 09-10

The Department of Homeland Security has mandated specific systems and techniques for the management of emergencies in the United States, including the Incident Command System, the National Incident Management System, Emergency Operations Plans, Emergency Operations Centers, Continuity of Government Plans and Continuity of Operations Plans. These plans and systems may be applied to the state-level transportation agency�s disaster response systems to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. Specific guidance and management techniques are provided to aid emergency planning staff to create DHS-compliant systems

Disaster response and climate change in the Pacific

AbstractDisasters, and therefore disaster response, in the Pacific are expected to be affected by climate change. This research addressed this issue, and focused on the immediate humanitarian needs following a disaster, drawing upon adaptive capacity as a concept to assess the resilience of individual organisations and the robustness of the broader system of disaster response. Four case study countries (Fiji, Cook Islands, Vanuatu and Samoa) were chosen for deeper investigation of the range of issues present in the Pacific. The research process was guided by a Project Reference Group, which included key stakeholders from relevant organisations involved in Pacific disaster response to guide major decisions of the research process and to influence its progression.Given the complexity of issues involved, including the contested definitions of adaptive capacity, the research team developed a conceptual framework to underpin the research. This framework drew upon concepts from a range of relevant disciplines including Earth System Governance, climate change adaptation, health resources, resilience in institutions and practice theory. Objective and subjective determinants of adaptive capacity were used to assess the ‘disaster response system’, comprised of actors and agents from government and non-government sectors, and the governance structures, policies, plans and formal and informal networks that support them.Results revealed the most important determinant of adaptive capacity in the Pacific to be communications and relationships, with both informal and formal mechanisms found to be essential. Capacity (including human, financial and technical); leadership, management and governance structures; and risk perceptions were also highly important determinants of adaptive capacity. The research also found that in small Pacific island bureaucracies, responsibility and capacity often rests with individuals rather than organisations. Leadership, trust, informal networks and relationships were found to have a strong influence on the adaptive capacity of organisations and the broader disaster response system.A common finding across all four case study countries affecting adaptive capacity was the limited human resources for health and disaster response more generally, both in times of disaster response and in day-to-day operations. Another common finding was the gap in psychosocial support after a disaster. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) as an immediate post-disaster humanitarian need was relatively well established amongst responding organisations (although long term WASH issues were not resolved), while other humanitarian needs (health care, and food and nutrition) had varying stages of capacity – often limited by human, financial and technical resources. Adaptive capacity was therefore constrained by current gaps which need addressing alongside a future focus where risk is changing.Drawing on these and other findings, recommendations for addressing key determinants of adaptive capacity were developed for relevant stakeholder groups including policy makers and practitioners in the disaster and emergency response sectors in Australia and the Pacific

Training of Crisis Mappers and Map Production from Multi-sensor Data: Vernazza Case Study (Cinque Terre National Park, Italy)

This aim of paper is to presents the development of a multidisciplinary project carried out by the cooperation between Politecnico di Torino and ITHACA (Information Technology for Humanitarian Assistance, Cooperation and Action). The goal of the project was the training in geospatial data acquiring and processing for students attending Architecture and Engineering Courses, in order to start up a team of "volunteer mappers". Indeed, the project is aimed to document the environmental and built heritage subject to disaster; the purpose is to improve the capabilities of the actors involved in the activities connected in geospatial data collection, integration and sharing. The proposed area for testing the training activities is the Cinque Terre National Park, registered in the World Heritage List since 1997. The area was affected by flood on the 25th of October 2011. According to other international experiences, the group is expected to be active after emergencies in order to upgrade maps, using data acquired by typical geomatic methods and techniques such as terrestrial and aerial Lidar, close-range and aerial photogrammetry, topographic and GNSS instruments etc.; or by non conventional systems and instruments such us UAV, mobile mapping etc. The ultimate goal is to implement a WebGIS platform to share all the data collected with local authorities and the Civil Protectio

APFIC/FAO Regional Consultative Workshop: Securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: Bringing together responsible fisheries and social development, Windsor Suites Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand 68 October 2010

In the Global Overview, we attempt to view reefs in terms of the poor who are dependent on reefs for their livelihoods, how the reefs benefit the poor, how changes in the reef have impacted the lives of the poor and how the poor have responded and coped with these changes. It also considers wider responses to reef issues and how these interventions have impacted on the lives of the poor

Heritage and Resilience: Issues and Opportunities for Reducing Disaster Risks

This paper examines the unique role of cultural heritage in disaster risk reduction. Itintroduces various approaches to protect heritage from irreplaceable loss and considers ways to draw upon heritage as an asset in building the resilience of communities and nations to disasters. The paper proposes ways forward and builds on the current momentum provided by the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters” (HFA) and the advancement of a post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction (HFA2) and the post-2015 development agenda. Cultural heritage is often associated with grandiose monuments and iconic archaeological sites that can hold us in awe of their beauty, history and sheer scale. However, the understanding of cultural heritage has undergone a marked shift during the last few decades in terms of what it is, why it is important, why it is at risk and what can be done to protect it. Cultural heritage today encompasses a broader array of places such as historic cities, living cultural landscapes, gardens or sacred forests and mountains, technological or industrial achievements in the recent past and even sites associated with painful memories and war. Collections of movable and immoveable items within sites, museums, historic properties and archives have also increased significantly in scope, testifying not only to the lifestyles of royalty and the achievements of great artists, but also to the everyday lives of ordinary people. At the same time intangibles such as knowledge, beliefs and value systems are fundamental aspects of heritage that have a powerful influence on people’s daily choices and behaviors. Heritage is at risk due to disasters, conflict, climate change and a host of other factors.At the same time, cultural heritage is increasingly recognized as a driver of resilience that can support efforts to reduce disaster risks more broadly. Recent years have seen greater emphasis and commitment to protecting heritage and leveraging it for resilience;but initiatives, such as the few examples that are presented here, need to be encouraged and brought more fully into the mainstream of both disaster risk reduction and heritage management. These are issues that can be productively addressed in a post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction and, likewise, in the post-2015 development agenda