Comparison of the Flood Emergency Management Systems of the UK and Turkey - Example

Comparison of the Flood Emergency Management Systems of the UK and Turkey Name Institution Tutor Date Comparison of the Flood Emergency Management Systems of the UK and Turkey Both countries employ a multi-agency hierarchical approach in managing flooding emergency. The National Flood Emergency Framework in the UK constitutes of different stakeholder organizations and entities such as the Environment Agency, the Internal Drainage Board, District Councils, Lead Local Flood Authorities, Water and Sewerage Companies, Highways Authorities and Delivery Bodies. On the other hand, the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs and its affiliate, the Directorate General for Water Management are at the helm of managing flooding emergencies. The Water Management Coordination Board is responsible for coordinating response and recovery efforts from other organizations and institutions in the event of a flooding emergency. It is evident that the UK’s flood management system is fragmented thus resulting in significant inefficiencies when the need for handling a real flood scenario arises. On the other hand, the Turkish system encourages minimal participation of the local authorities thereby having an adverse impact on the response time and the reporting of actual information. Even though the flood management system in Turkey falls under is a subsidiary of the country’s disaster management system, it is evident that the system does not encourage substantial local input that plays a massive role in enabling an appropriate response. Rather than developing a robust flood management system such as the one adopted by the Netherlands, the evolution of the flood management system in Turkey has relied on previous experiences and the inefficiencies observed in previous flood response units. The centralized response structure that grants the role of governance to the ministries has resulted in a very weak system at the local level. UK MPs also reiterated the fact that their flood management system was inefficient following its inability to meet its responsibilities in the recent storms that have befallen the country. This is an indicator of the laxity of the framework in preventing risky areas from flood risks. For instance, the maintenance of approximately three-quarters of the flood defenses is inadequate with the budget cuts posing main constraint towards the effective maintenance of the defenses. As a result, it is evident that the UK still faces the risk posed by flooding emergencies to individuals and property regardless of the existence of a solid framework to deal with the disaster. The establishment of a specific agency to manage flood emergencies in the UK resulted in the creation of the Strategic Coordinating Group (SCG) that coordinates the efforts of all stakeholders in the response and recovery activities. The Lead Police or the Local Authority Chief Executive that heads the SCG has adequate knowledge about the situation on the ground. As a result, the UK’s approach towards the management of flooding emergencies guarantees better results as compared to the approach adopted by Turkey. In Turkey, the Water Management Coordination Board is responsible for coordinating the efforts of the relevant ministries towards implementing the response and recovery operations. The response occurs at the centralized level as compared to the UK where the Lead Police or the Local Authority Chief Executive takes the mantle in responding to the emergency. This is an indicator that the first response operations following the occurrence of a flooding emergency are ineffective and problematic because of the absence of a localized first-response initiative. With regard to the legislative structure, it is evident that the flood emergency management systems employed by both countries are in accordance with the European Union Action Program for flood protection. The published Prime Ministry Circulars in Turkey give the different ministries and committees the mandate to respond appropriately to flooding emergencies. This is comparable to the civil Contingencies Act (CCA) of 2004 that advocates for the installation of a civil protection framework in the country to protect citizens and property from damages and injury caused by natural disasters. It is evident that both systems reveal inefficiencies at problems. The Turkish system, for instance, revels problems in implementing the first response and effective coordination. The British system, on the other hand reveals inefficiencies in implementing protective structures that either prevent the adverse effects of flooding events or reduce the resultant damage and injury to property and people respectively. The coordinated reporting framework in the UK flood management system is the other aspect that the system outperforms its equivalent in Turkey. The dedicated framework for managing flood emergencies in the UK identified the need for reporting the status of the emergency during both crisis management and consequence management phases. Crisis management takes place in response to the flooding emergency whereas consequence management takes place in the recovery phase. UK’s dedicated system resulted in the splitting of reporting roles to DEFRA and DCLG in the response and recovery phases respectively. The use of a unified reporting structure in the UK ensures the delivery of the same information to other responders and the public. This ensures the effective and efficient allocation of resources to the affected areas to address the needs of victims as well as prevent further loss of property. The existence of a weak local response system affects negatively on the reporting framework in Turkey. Even though the centralized response tries to implement the response and recovery operations, the absence of accurate data regarding the state of events on the ground impedes the efforts thereby resulting in an efficient resource allocation system. Finally, the response approaches employed by the flood management systems of both countries appear different irrespective of the common goal of managing the emergency. In the UK, local response is on the forefront in the management of the flooding emergency. The system also encourages massive input from non-profit organizations in availing humanitarian aid and other forms of assistance to the affected areas. The SCG, through its leader, the Gold Commander is responsible for identifying the affected areas and the extent of the emergency before reporting to DEFRA in the event that the emergency level requires the intervention of the central government. On an annual basis, the UK Government devotes funds to the flood-risk management program. The UK Government has also increased its expenditure on flood groups and local agencies with the objective of transferring the obligation of flood risks to the communities. In Turkey, the Government has also increased its investment in the reduction of the flood risk by allocating funds to the public, NGOs, and private stakeholders that take part in the management of the flood risk. The use of local organizations in responding to the emergency and advancing to higher levels of intervention is in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. The Strategic Coordinating Groups (SCGs) and the Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) ascertain the proper coordination of the efforts of other stakeholders in responding to the crisis as well as implementing recovery measures after the emergency. The LRFs and SCGs play a massive role in the identification of the risk. For instance, they identify and assess the risk before the disaster and during the response and recovery operations. Their involvement in the process enables the foreseeing of the possible consequences and the development of solutions that would assist rather than impede the rescue and recovery operations. The flood management system adopted by Turkey reveals a weak supporting structure for the involvement of non-profit organizations. The failure to involve non-profit organizations and the weak local response system explain the failure of the Turkish system to implement an effective and efficient first response. Read More