International Symposium on Mitigative Measures against Snow ...

<strong>International</strong> <strong>Symposium</strong> on Mitigative Measures against Snow Avalanches
Egilsstaðir, Iceland, March 11–14, 2008
The perception of risk by the public can determine the extent to which they will accept
the planned level of the approach set by the authorities.
Society’s tolerance levels tend to fluctuate with the occurrence of disasters impacts. A serious
catastrophe that causes widespread casualties and losses will create an upsurge of opinion in
favour of renewed mitigation effects. It will thus reduce the tolerance level. But a long and
peaceful period may allow other priorities to replace hazard mitigation and disaster
preparedness, and thus increase the tolerance level (Alexander, 2000).
This tendency was clear during Parliamentary debate about snow avalanche disasters in
Iceland, first in 1974, then in 1983, and again in 1994-5 (Parliamentary debate 1974/-
1983/1994-5).
3. THE COLLABORATION OF CIVIL PROTECTION AND THE
METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE
Following a snow avalanche disaster in the town of Neskaupstaður 1974, it was clear that
increased work in avalanche risk research was an urgent requirement, and an amendment was
needed in the legislation. Monitoring, risk assessments, data gathering and research were
incomplete. Debate in the Parliament demands improvement. In 1978, the Prime Minister´s
Office assigned the matter of snow avalanche prevention to the Ministry of Communication
which gave the Meteorological Office the project. In 1979−80 a Parliament resolution
proposed “that of all natural disasters in Iceland mitigation for snow avalanches could be the
most successful of all because of their specific location and their meteorological nature that is
easy to monitor” and “Mitigative measures are the only long lasting investment and the most
profitable” (P.r. 1980-03-18). Still there was no permanent action taken by the Parliament.
After a snow avalanche disaster in the village of Patreksfjordur in 1983, the government
decided to form a snow avalanche expert committee to coordinate this work, and to try to
prevent accidents due to snow avalanches and landslides. The committee proposed the
strengthening of the work of the Meteorology Office and the Civil Protection Unit (AVRIK)
and gave the local government increased authority. Then the work of the committee was
terminated due to savings in the national economy. The only legislation until 1985 that
stipulated preparedness and response to natural disaster was in the Civil Protection Act and
the Act on Natural Catastrophe Insurance (52/1975 article 19). The legislation for the
Meteorological Office 1958 stipulated warning against harmful weather in article 4. The first
law on preventive measures against snow avalanches took effect in 1985.
One key provision in the 1985 legislation was the role of the Civil Protection in the risk
assessment process, classification and utilization of hazard zones while the Meteorological
Office focus was on monitoring, data gathering, research and warnings. Individual local
government and the Civil Protection had to give the risk assessment their consent and then the
Ministry of Social Affair made the final decision. Local governments could make
recommendation for structural barriers and planning in their community but the Civil
Protection and the Ministry of Social Affairs had to agree. The warning procedure became
collaboration between the Icelandic Civil Protection, the Icelandic Meteorological Office and
the Civil Protection Committees in each district (Hilmarsson, 1999).
Before the snow avalanche disasters in the villages of Súðavík and Flateyri in 1995, it was
again clear that more effective measures in avalanche prevention preparedness and response
were needed. Increased amendments were made; the snow avalanche preventive measures
184 Non-structural mitigation in areas of high snow avalanche frequencies in Iceland