Presentation on theme: "A glimpse into the future – Earth Science on trial! Lessons from Strasbourg, San Jose and L'Aquila Richard Bretton, Dr Jo Gottsmann, Dr Ryerson Christie."— Presentation transcript:
A glimpse into the future – Earth Science on trial! Lessons from Strasbourg, San Jose and L'Aquila Richard Bretton, Dr Jo Gottsmann, Dr Ryerson Christie University of Bristol, United Kingdom 0
The Past Leadership from the United Nations (UN) “Reducing disaster risk is primarily an issue of identifying the political and economic incentives and negotiating the different trade-offs...few countries have been able to find these incentives…” 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction “…What is now required is the political and social commitment to [make prevention policy succeed].” 1999 Kofi Annan, the then Secretary-General of the UN 1
The Past The existing international standards within the Hyogo Framework Strategy are, in effect: – Code of Practice – Optional – Unenforceable “The times, they are a’changin” Bob Dylan 2
Governance Unrest Model Problem How can we predict Governance Unrest? The Precursors to Governance Unrest Changes from the previous background – Top down accountability pressures – Bottom up accountability pressures 3 Top down pressures Bottom Up Pressures Decision makers
Governance Unrest Top down accountability pressures Clearer, mandatory duties to protect citizens from volcanic risks – National Civil protection law – International human rights law against which national laws & arrangements will judged 4 European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg) Article 8 Right to respect for private & family life Guerra v Italy (1998) Article 2 Right to Life Oneryldiz v Turkey (2005) Budayeva v Russia (2008) Kolyadenko v Russia (2012) Inter-American Court of Human Rights (San Jose) Articles 4.2 & 4.4 Right to respect for private & family life La Oroya v Peru (?) Article 4.1 Right to Life
Governance Unrest States have a positive duty to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of Citizens Before the event, Legislative & administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life Regulatory measures to identify hazards, assess and control their risks to have a supervisory system to encourage those responsible to take adequate safety steps to establish coordination & cooperation between administrative authorities to set in place an emergency warning system to inform citizens of the risks (the failure at L'Aquila!) 5
Governance Unrest After the event, when lives have been lost: A prompt, diligent, independent & impartial official investigation to ascertain: – What happened and any shortcomings – The State officials & authorities involved 6
Governance Unrest Bottom up accountability pressures Clearer, mandatory duties to retain & disseminate government held information – National Freedom of Information laws – International human rights law "the more closely we are watched, the better we behave" Bentham 7 Inter-American Court of Human Rights Article 13 Freedom of Thought and Expression (to seek, receive & impart information) Claude Reyes v Chile (2006) "A right to access to state-held information is a logical component of the right of the public to be informed, to be able to participate meaningfully in governance and to hold the government accountable"
Governance Unrest Decision makers need advice from Earth & Social Scientists to make risk mitigation decisions Advice generates State-held information Information – after use, will be preserved and disseminated – as evidence may or may not help! 8 Decision makers Scientists
Governance Unrest Decision makers caught in the middle of: Political pressures of transparent accountability – State, Central, Regional, local Public expectation (social demand) Media review in real time with a frame-by-frame play back facility! L’Aquila, Italy case is an example of the consequences of unrest Poor communication to vulnerable expectant citizens following alleged political pressure 9
Governance Unrest Decision makers & Scientists (Earth & Social) will be held to account on more occasions* Post-event scrutiny may lead to blame identification & apportionment Anticipated scrutiny may lead to Pre-Event changed behaviours ** – Credit v Blame calculations – Structure (delegation) – Defensive risk management – Record keeping (shredding, snowing, Post-its) *Aspinall & Sparks (2004), Aspinall (2011), Jordan (2012) **Hood 2002 10 Decision makers Scientists
Mitigation Protocols (i.e. "pre-nuptial agreements") will be needed to identify, record and regulate the relationships between: – Scientific team members (IAVCEI Professional Conduct paper 1999) – Scientists, State bodies & other players This may be “the self-regulation” “to fix rules all around the world” advocated, by Giovanni Orsi in his Key Note speech on 20.11.12, to make best use of the L’Aquila case These protocols will have to address: the true (safest) role for Earth and Social Scientists The demarcation between Hazard and Risk competencies Uncertainty and Risk communication 11
Questions please but remember lawyers charge by hour! Richard Bretton, Dr Jo Gottsmann, Dr Ryerson Christie University of Bristol, United Kingdom 12
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.