Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

Policy responses to disaster risk
209
Protecting critical infrastructure and services against all
conceivable sources of harm is prohibitively expensive,
especially so for countries and cities with small economies.
Resilience targets can be used in planning to act as goalposts
when determining a minimum level of capacity to be
protected in the case of a disaster. These are rough guidelines;
but they enhance transparency in priority setting. Such
a target could be that for a city there should be a 95 per cent
chance that 80 per cent of hospitals can operate at 90 per
cent of their capacity within 24 hours of an earthquake of a
particular severity. Monitoring performance can include
simple metrics. In the case of transport infrastructure, for
example, possible criteria could include total vehicle hours
travelled post- and pre-earthquake (congestion); total vehicle
kilometres travelled post- and pre-earthquake (detour length);
time delay between critical origin/destination pairs (e.g. from
damaged areas to emergency hospitals); and restoration time
to, say, 80 per cent of pre-earthquake capacity. 63
Critical infrastructure and services share a reliance on
networks that allow for the movement of information and
commodities. These networks are fundamental in ensuring
the health and safety of the population and the functioning
of the urban economy. They are interdependent so that a
failure in one system can lead to repercussions in associated
systems. The links that unite life-support networks and
convey vulnerability can also be a source of resilience, offering
alternative routes for information flow and feedback in
the system or for overlapping functions and spare capacity.
In any system, it is important that both direct and indirect
links are made visible. Indirect links are those that cascade
through intermediary networks and are often hardest to
perceive. For example, storm winds toppling power cables
will lead to blackouts with direct impacts on business; but
business will also be affected if the blackout cuts off power
to public mass transport.
There is a large technical literature on risk management
for critical infrastructure and services. The majority
concerns risk management procedures to be undertaken as
part of good management practice. There has been relatively
little work on linkages with the urban planning community.
The majority concerns internal risk management, with only a
relatively small part oriented towards the urban planning
community. As shown in Box 8.13, a review of this literature
from the perspective of natural disasters argues that risk
communication should be a central pillar for building
resilience and response capacity. 64
PAHO has been a leading organization pushing for
health services to be incorporated within disaster
planning. It has produced a number of studies on protecting
health services through appropriate construction,
design and management of health facilities. For example,
in Peru, legislation has been drawn up to encourage the
inclusion of disaster reduction activities in health-sector
action plans. 65
In the education sector, the goal of meeting the
education targets of the MDGs has raised the political impor-
Protecting critical
infrastructure and
services against all
conceivable sources
of harm is
prohibitively
expensive
Box 8.13 Risk communication for critical infrastructure and services
A communication system is needed to ensure the transfer of information
between linked critical infrastructure and services. It should
aim to help in the coordination of risk reduction, the containment
of disaster impacts and in speedy recovery. It is recommended that
a formally constituted risk management committee (RMC) should
be established with representatives from all linked networks and
associated local stakeholders who would be affected by decisions,
as well as municipal and national authorities with responsibility for
overseeing operations in these life-support systems. The RMC
would have subcommittees for particular domains of expertise and
be driven by four areas of work:
Risk prevention
The first responsibility of the committee is to ensure that vulnerability
is adequately reduced to provide an acceptable level of risk.
Any residual risk with implications for the population will require a
policy on disclosure.
Risk preparation
Each life-support network has the responsibility of reaching a level
of preparedness that permits it to maintain or re-establish, in the
shortest possible time, the functions that allow it to fulfil its
mission during a disaster. Certain elements will need to be planned
jointly with the RMC, including early warning criteria; a protocol
for exchanges between networks; channels for communication or
exchanges; agreements on encoding and decoding transmitted
information, as well as feedback processes; the implementation of
mitigation measures at the level of operations and infrastructure;
and decision-making levels required and involved in these information
exchanges.
Risk intervention
Direct links between managers and experts of linked life-support
systems must be established for use during a crisis. Preferred
channels of communication must transport high-quality, concise,
precise and tangible information; transmit information quickly and
without distortion; transmit information that sets mitigation
measures in motion; transmit information that integrates with the
operations of the destination networks, and establish a direct link
between personnel of the hierarchical and operational levels; and
create robust, redundant and compatible links between the
networks. All mechanical and electronic means can be considered.
The RMC can provide a review for the system or a reference point
for networks seeking advice on how to connect to the system.
State of readiness
The RMC has responsibility for maintaining the system. It must
agree on responsibility for maintenance of the communication
channels; verification of the robustness of these channels; training
of personnel who intervene in emergency situations; and preparation
of joint exercises, allowing the readiness of all participants to
be verified.
Source: Robert et al, 2003