The Problematic Approach in Disaster Management and the Efficiency of Public Administration

The perspective on disasters has changed in the history of humanity depending on the development of science. While disasters were attributed to supernatural forces when human knowledge was insufficient, the causes and consequences of natural events began to be understood with the development of scientific knowledge. In addition, nomadic human communities knew how to take precautions against some natural events with their experiences, even though they did not know the reasons. For example, if they set up a tent on the creek bed in rainy weather, they learned and paid attention to the damages that the flood can cause. From this point of view, it is possible to say that disasters occur as an indirect result of natural events, largely depending on the decisions of human societies. However, it is useful to emphasize that; Today, the opportunities offered by technology have provided the opportunity to evaluate risks without experiencing them. For example, as a result of advances in digital maps, areas at risk of flooding can be easily determined, depending on precipitation statistics in various time periods. Despite these risks, the fact that the evaluations are not taken into account in the construction is a completely human-induced defect and the fact that the precipitation is more than expected cannot be an excuse for what has happened.

Particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, the proportional increase in urbanization paved the way for the consequences of disasters to be more devastating and material losses to be higher. Urban planning has become an important discipline within the scope of measures to be taken against disasters. In addition, since the increasing costs of disasters create significant pressures on the economic, morale and human power of the states, the necessity of developing a systematic approach to disasters has manifested itself. The first comprehensive approach in this regard is the holistic disaster approach, which accepts disasters as a cycle. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was established in the USA in 1979, was founded on this approach. The basis of this approach is the idea of ​​treating disasters as the management of the whole process, which requires different managerial practices before and after disasters. Pre-disaster, mitigation and preparedness in the disaster cycle; There are four basic phases: post-disaster, response and recovery. While it is mainly based on risk management before disaster, it is focused on crisis management after disaster. The success in crisis management directly depends on the success of risk management. For this reason, the predetermination of disaster risks and the evaluation of the measures to be taken within this framework should be seen as a necessity in order to reduce the losses in disasters and to return to normal life quickly.

However, the disasters experienced in the last quarter of the twentieth century have also changed the perspective of this approach based on engineering applications. While it was discussed that societies are resistant to disasters at the beginning, there has been a tendency towards societies that can recover from disasters quickly over time. Theoretically, the shift from crisis management to risk management in the approach to disaster management has evolved over time to holistic sensitivity management.(1) We can explain this with a current example; The "Kilimli Coastal Road", which has been in the media recently, is constantly damaged by waves. It's pretty clear what the risk is here. Waves rise on days of bad weather, damaging the road and preventing its use. It is also clear which engineering solutions can be made against this risk. Each solution naturally means a different cost. Vulnerability management requires avoiding options where disaster risk is possible. This is to pass the road through another safer route after the necessary measurements are made. However, insisting on the mistakes made will result in wastage of public resources. Therefore, the preferred disaster management approach has a direct relationship with public policy. In order to reveal this relationship, first of all, it is necessary to explain what public policy means.

Easton defines politics as the "authoritarian allocation of values," which is one of the shortest but most accurate descriptions of public policy. The government, which manages the political organization we call the state, ensures the distribution of values ​​to various segments (or classes) of society with its policies in various fields. Every social phenomenon is therefore the subject of public policy. Building a road is also a policy choice, building a mosque or a school is also a policy choice. In other words, the approach of governments to disaster management is also a preferred public policy. However, the problem is not that simple. Every policy choice has monetary, legal and political dimensions. Since governments spend public money for the public, they should avoid imbalances in their policy choices that would disrupt social peace. For this reason, it should prefer policies supported by rational and scientific data that it can account for, rather than policies that are not supported by scientific data. 

When evaluated in terms of disaster management, there is a very close link between disasters and preferred public policies. (2) A preferred public policy creates its own risks. For example, the nuclear power plant that you have decided to build within the framework of energy policy contains the risk of an accident that may occur. Japan, which has one of the most effective disaster management systems in the world in disaster management, could not prevent the tsunami that occurred as a result of the secondary effects of the disaster after the Tohoku earthquake in 2011 and the accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. Because the height of 3.1 meters, which was determined for a possible tsunami "taking into account the tsunami that took place in Chile in 1960", was insufficient even though it was developed for a tsunami of 5.7 meters in 2002. (3) In order to avoid any misunderstanding here, it is useful to state the following. Every policy choice has more or less risk. The important thing is to foresee acceptable risks and to exclude policy choices with unacceptable risks. Afterwards, necessary studies should be carried out in order to manage the foreseeable risk.

The Disaster and Emergency Management (AFAD) Presidency, which was established in Turkey in 2009 as a result of efforts to gather emergency management under a single roof, was operating as an institution affiliated to the Prime Ministry. It was restructured as an institution affiliated to the Ministry of Interior with the Presidential Decree No. 4 dated 15.07.2018. Establishing responsibility within the ministry of interior in the disaster management process, which requires close coordination between ministries, and reducing the number of three boards established under the AFAD Presidency to one for coordination raises questions about the difficulties to be experienced in coordination. Although one of the main purposes of establishing the institution is to be a coordinator office, AFAD, which seems to be an executive institution with its provincial organization, has an organizational structure built on the paradigm of FEMA, which was founded in the USA in 1979. "Creating a disaster resilient society" has been determined as the vision of the institution. However, disaster-resilient society, mostly geology, engineering and urban planning practices are effective; In addition, it is criticized for keeping important actors out of the process in disaster management, which needs to be handled with an interdisciplinary approach, and for being insufficient to meet the functional areas required by emergency management. (4) Considering the objectives stated in the 2019-2023 Strategic Plan of the institution, it seems very difficult to find clues for a proactive management approach. In the second of the six purposes; "To ensure that a risk-oriented integrated disaster management approach is adopted and settled in all sectors." statement is included. In theory, integrated disaster management is an approach that evaluates risks by considering post-disaster effects. However, the dominant paradigm in disaster management today highlights an approach to eliminating vulnerability to disasters. We can say that the most important factor in the development of this approach is that it is possible to evaluate many risks effectively thanks to the developing technological opportunities.

The fact that earthquake is the first type of disaster that comes to mind when disaster is mentioned in our country seems to be reflected in the understanding of disaster management and the management of the process. However, many different disasters can occur and when they do, inadequacies in organization can cause undesirable results. The most recent example of this is the forest fires that started at the same time in many regions in August 2021. The magnitude of the fires went far beyond the intervention power of AFAD's provincial organizations. Since the timely risk assessment was not done correctly, the intervention was ineffective and very negative results emerged, both environmental and economic. However, even if forest fire statistics are evaluated in the summer months, it is possible to make many arrangements and take precautions against such a possibility, such as the existence and availability of an effective fire extinguishing fleet, and the development of forested areas.

It is also reported that the log warehouse, which was allegedly installed in the wrong place in the flood disaster in the Bozkurt district of Kastamonu in August 2021, dispersed and the dispersed logs formed a dam that prevented the free flow of water. When wrong development plans were added to this, disaster arose. The statement "We did not expect such a rainfall" after the flood could only be a statement of incompetence by public administrators. While it is possible to determine the probability of flooding for each region over the annual precipitation regimes by means of digital maps, there is no scientific answer why they are not taken into account. Again in July 2012, "The torrential rain that hit Samsun in the middle of summer caused a disaster. 10 people lost their lives in TOKİ houses built on the stream bed. 

As it is stated in the news of "he lost his life" (5), no one has accepted the responsibility for the loss of life in the houses built by the public. It is possible to say that a chain of negligence that goes beyond the theoretical limits of disaster management approaches makes the relationship between the disaster management process and public policy rethink.

There is no need for extensive research to see that the elements of national power weaken with disasters and that the losses affect the welfare of the country. In Mine Kırıkkanat's fictional novel "One Day, Night", the security risks that a possible Istanbul earthquake may pose for Turkey are described in a striking way. Indeed, although a possible Istanbul earthquake has been mentioned in scientific studies, the shaping of public policies with an understanding that ignores this possibility raises concerns for the future. It should not be forgotten that every disaster arises from the risks created by a public policy choice. Governments, which are at the decision point in the formation of public policy, bear political responsibility, even legal responsibility in some cases, for all the choices they make. Of course, judicial review of legal responsibility is a requirement of the separation of powers, which is one of the basic features of democratic regimes. In this context, the thoughts expressed in this article are the product of a view of the problem of disaster management approach from the perspective of public administration. The most important responsibility of a manager is to use the resources effectively and efficiently. This is the key to profitability for a company manager, victory for a commander, and the well-being of the people for a head of state.

References:

(1) David A.Mcentire, "Comparision of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide", Public Administrative Review, December 2001, p. 267-281.

(2) Özkan Leblebici, "Disaster Management Approaches and Effects of Disasters on the Environment in the Context of Public Policy", Memleket Political Management, Issue 23, Ankara, 2015, p. 41-78.

(3) https://www.afad.gov.tr/kbrn/fukushima-daiichi-nukleer-santral-kazasi, 21.01.2022.

(4) David A.Mcentire, op. cit., p. 269.

(5) https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/samsunda-sel-felaketi-11-olu,XmFt9Hbck0yWrSQddndK6w, 21.01.2022.