The cycle depicted in Figure 1 shows the breakdown of the general
disaster management phases i.e. Prevention and mitigation, Preparation,
Response and Recovery, into more concrete activities, including
Reconstruction, Risk Assessment and Planning. Figure 1 shows the
interaction between these activities. Access to valid knowledge from
different information sources is necessary to accomplish the activities
in a timely fashion with a high level of quality in the results.
Another complication not depicted in the diagram is the interaction
between different stakeholders and decision makers on different
administrative levels and territorial boundaries (Atkinson et al, 2006).
Figure 1: The disaster risk
management cycle
The management of natural risks is a public task for which governments
at all levels hold a certain amount of responsibility. The management
of risk involves a wide range of actions and activities that fall
within one of the following four activities:
- Prevention;
- Preparation;
- Response (example in Poland of evacuation, and conflict
resolution);
- Recovery (example in Poland of post-crisis management).
Evacuation management is an activity that
forms part of the response to
a flood emergency. As such it is one of the many options decision
makers have available for dealing with floods. Other possible options
could be the construction of structural measures such as emergency
barriers or flood storage areas and non-structural measures such as the
implementation of flood forecasting schemes.
| Country |
Main
conclusions |
|
The UK
|
- The emergency response to incidents
in the UK is governed by the Civil
Contingencies Act 2004;
- It is not the Environment Agency’s
responsibility to
organise evacuation as a part of an emergency response to flooding;
- Timing, speed and method of
communication of reports are critical to
effective emergency
management during a flood;
- More robust and integrated
communication links between the
organisations involved in the response during a flood helps to ensure
an effective response;
- Organised evacuation is only used
as a form of emergency
response in very rare circumstances.
The authorities have no powers to forcible evacuate people from their
houses during floods. In terms of evacuation normally people
“self-evacuate”;
- The response to flood risk
management in the UK has mainly
focused on flood defence asset management, and forecasting and warning
to reduce flood risk rather
than on organised evacuation.
|
|
The Netherlands
|
Most
of the preventative measures for floods taken in the Netherlands are
related to infrastructure.
There are a number of structures that need to be closed to prevent
flooding. If such devices were only used during actual emergency
situations, there is a fair chance that the closure may fail. Therefore
most management plans of hydraulic structures contain prescribed test
closures, for instance once per year.
Preventive evacuation is a quite drastic measure that often affects
many people. The decision to evacuate must be based on reliable data
that are available at the right
time to the right people. After the 1995 flood emergency the managing
authorities made great efforts in
the development of decision support systems and tools (e.g. ESCAPE,
Evacuation Calculator, Fliwas). However, they have not yet been applied
to an actual flood emergency. To date these tools have only been used
in exercises. The main lesson identified from the exercise was that
effective communication between the many parties involved is difficult
in flood incident management. It appeared that
sometimes information was not shared or not transmitted via the
prescribed channels. |
|
Germany
|
In
Germany, there are three disaster protection
authorities on different levels: the highest, the higher and the lower
Disaster Protection Authority. The highest disaster
protection authority arranges the contacts with the other federal
states. If necessary, the highest disaster protection authority takes
over responsibility for
the emeregency.
|
|
France
|
The
new law on the prevention of technological and natural catastrophes
(2003), led to changes in the French flood forecasting
system. It
also reaffirmed the necessity to raise the population risk awareness.
It placed an obligation on mayors
to regularly inform the population about the existing
risks, the prevention measures and the risk management
procedures, and the obligation to make an inventory of existing flood
level indications of previous major floods and mark these levels on a
permanent support.
Evacuation is generally not recommended in France and considered as a
very last resort.
If
evacuation is considered necessary, the procedure should be described
in the municipal
safeguard plan (Plan communal de sauvegarde). |
|
Hungary
|
Together
with taking full responsibility for protecting the Hungarian public
from flood risks, the hungarian government is held accountable for any
water that comes through or over the flood defences. Although there is
no statutory requirement for the Hungarian Government to compensate
flood victims, the national authorities almost always take full
liability for private damages in the event of a breach of flood
defences, and compensate victims for other types of flood damage such
as
groundwater inundation.
Although
evacuation and rescue modelling is not carried out in Hungary
evacuation and rescue plans are prepared regularly. These plans cover
all types of emergency situations including flooding, chemical spills,
terrorist attacks etc.
|
|
General overview of Europe
|
The
main conclusions relating to flood event management practice are as
follows:
- Most countries within the European
Union make a distinction between the
organisations that are responsible for water management and the
organisations that are responsible for emergency management;
-
Responsibility for developing and implementing emergency plans often
takes place at a local authority or local government level;
- There
is limited experience within the European Union of employing systematic
approaches and modelling tools to develop evacuation plans for flood
event management. If the tools do exist then and are employed in
practice they are often very generic and only applicable at a
macro-level;
- There is a need for more training
and a focus on “interoperability”
between different agencies;
-
Good co-ordination and communication between the organisations that are
responsible for responding to floods is important for good flood event
management and effective evacuation;
- The costs of evacuation are not
well reported nor easy to quantify.
|
More
information is available in the following project documents:
|
