As we saw in Chapter 2, models and characterizations of policy processes are to be treated with care; however, they are very useful tools to structure and make more comprehensive the description, analysis and (with even greater care) prescription of policy. They are also often generic and simple – applying the same thinking and concepts to any policy sector and categorizing a small number of ‘stages’ in the policy process. A little later we will present a framework (rather than a model) that is considerably more detailed, and which is better suited to a policy sector characterized by complexity and uncertainty, such as emergencies and disasters. It also pays more attention to what happens before and after the ‘policy’, and to general principles that should inform policy-making and the institutional settings within which policy is made. It was developed specifically for the not dissimilar domain of environment and sustainability, drawing on traditional public policy literature and practice (see Figure 3.1(a)). The choice of environment and sustainability as a domain for lesson drawing is based on shared problem attributes with emergencies and disasters: policy challenges arising at the intersection of natural and human systems; extended spatial and temporal scales; complexity and connectivity; pervasive uncertainty; demands and justification for community participation; ill-defined policy and property rights;
and so on.
In Chapter 1, we observed that the bulk of thinking to do with disasters has – often with very positive impact – largely concerned emergency management, focusing on the operational challenges of preparedness, response and recovery.
While vitally necessary, here we wish to extend thinking more towards the policy processes and institutional settings within which emergency and disaster manage- ment operates, and to expand and detail the array of actors involved. As a starting point, we consider an expanded version of the Emergency Risk Management (ERM) framework developed in Australia from the internationally regarded Australian–New Zealand Risk Management Standard (EMA, 2000; Standards Australia, 2004) (see Figure 3.1(b)). As explained below, the extended framework expands the scope of traditional emergency management thinking to incorporate considerations essential to the intent and scope of this book.
The two frameworks in Figure 3.1 provide a detailed basis for considering the key issues for policy and institutional development in emergencies and disasters.
They allow us not to simply contain the drawing of insights and lessons from one field or perspective, but from multiple sources that are relevant. The basis of each – traditional public policy and traditional emergency management – however, is not fully sufficient, as the frameworks still do not cover some aspects that Chapters 1 and 2 identified as critically important. The following are not so much criticisms of public policy and emergency management as statements of understandable limita- tion, recognizing that, when combined, these two frameworks may offer more:
• Traditional policy cycles are focused on public policy – that is, on the actions and imperatives of government. They tend to compress the problem-framing dimen- sion of policy to the appearance of issues on the government agenda, downplay the complexity and dynamics of non-government interests, fail to consider insti- tutional aspects in sufficient detail, and ignore uncertainty. They are also generic, and inevitably require adjustment to the specific character of policy sectors and substantive issues where they might be applied. The framework summarized in Figure 3.1(a) addresses such shortcomings in the context of interactions between human and natural systems (where both disasters and issues of sustainability arise), and extending more into the complex realm of problem framing.
• Traditional emergency management focuses on precisely that: operational issues and procedures of management. The Emergency Risk Management (ERM) proc- ess is, in many people’s view, an improvement on the preparedness–response–
recovery conceptualization, but nonetheless similarly downplays matters such as residual uncertainty, problem framing, strategic policy choice and coordina- tion, and organizational and institutional settings. The extended ERM process summarized in Figure 3.1(b) explicitly incorporates these considerations.
Even so, neither framework in Figure 3.1 is by itself sufficient, not surprisingly as both have been developed for purposes different than that here. For example, the policy framework has less attention placed on the crucial issue of risk and uncertainty, whereas the extended ERM process overlooks policy framing and implementation.
However, in combination, they cover a wide range of elements of a potential guiding framework for considering policies and institutions for emergencies and disasters.
In institutional settings: general elements – persistence, purposefulness, information richness, inclusiveness and flexibility In policy processes: general elements – coordination/integration, communication, participation, transparency and accountability
Problem framing and agenda-setting:
• negotiation of social goals;
• monitoring of linked natural–human systems;
• identification of problematic change;
• identification of direct and underlying causes;
• assessment of uncertainty;
• assessment of other policy settings;
• definition of policy problems.
Policy framing and strategic choice:
• identification of policy principles;
• strategic policy choices (policy style);
• definition of policy goals.
Policy design and implementation:
• selection of policy instruments;
• planning implementation, information and communication;
• resource provision (statutory, information, institutional, financial);
• enforcement/compliance mechanisms;
• establishment of policy monitoring and review processes.
Policy monitoring and evaluation:
• ongoing policy monitoring and routine data capture;
• mandated evaluation process;
• extension, adaptation or cessation of policy and/or goals.
Figure 3.1 (a) Framework for environment and sustainability policy Source: (a) Dovers (2005), drawing on Howlett and Ramesh (2003), Bridgman and Davis (2004) and other sources
Monitor and review
Communicate and negotiate (include fringe elements)
What are we concerned about? What do we want to achieve?
• Develop a problem-framing process.
• Define desired outcomes and expectations.
• Develop risk evaluation.
How serious is the problem? Can knowledge help?
• Identification: this comprises a plurality of definitions and the inclusion of fringe elements.
• Analyse vulnerabilities and resilience;
consider fairness and outrage issues.
• Evaluate risk: include incommensurate criteria.
What can be done?
• Treat risk: gain stakeholder commitment;
assess and, if necessary, reform implementing environment.
What is left over?
• Residual risk: how dangerous and how large is the residual risk?
• How uncertain are the answers?
• What can be done about residual risk?
Figure 3.1 (b) The extended emergency risk management process
Source: (b) adapted from the Australian Emergency Risk Management Standard (EMA, 2000) and an extended Post-Normal Science version (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993;1 Handmer and Proudley, 2005)
We also need to be cognizant of the key themes that were identified in Chapter 1, such as the:
• whole-of-society and whole-of-government nature of emergencies and disasters, when considering causes, impacts and responsibilities;
• critical role that community vulnerability and, conversely, resilience play in defining the possibility and impacts of emergencies and disasters;
• importance of how emergencies and disasters are framed as policy and institu- tional problems, not only as ‘events’;
• necessity of incorporating explicit consideration of residual risk and uncertainty in framing policy and designing institutions;
• need for long-term (strategic) policy development, as well as event- and response- focused policy settings;
• need for more structured and detailed processes for policy instrument choice and policy implementation;
• importance of learning across time and place, and the connection of this to adap- tive processes;
• necessity of considering redundancy and non-optimized capacities in the face of large-scale potential impacts;
• crucial role that broader institutional factors play in all of the above.
These key challenges, which represent more cross-cutting issues, together with the frameworks depicted in Figure 3.1, provide the basis for the integrated framework presented in the next section.