CEPREDENAC is the regional disaster coordination organization, comprised of certain Central American countries. In each of the member countries there are national committee's: Guatemala
(CONRED); El Salvador (Ministry of Foreign Affairs); Honduras (COPECO); Nicaragua
(INETER); Costa Rica (CNE); Panama (SINAPROC). There is a board of directors that is comprised of the directors of the national emergency committee's. There is a President and a Secretary General who are in charge of operations and management and the Executive Secretariat is headquartered in Panama. CEPREDENAC has a five-year plan which operates at three levels; basic, sector and national. Within the national plans level each country develops a unique strategy using regional planning strategies as the foundation. This mechanism ensures continuity. The general objectives of CEPREDENAC are to promote and coordinate international cooperation; exchange information, share learned experiences, and to provide technical assistance and training for the prevention and mitigation of natural disasters in Central America. Of the different programs CEPREDENAC works on, one directly relates to public-private sector strategies which came as the result of a meeting with
CDMHA.
(See meeting Summary for more details).
Oliver Davidson discussed opportunities for private sector involvement in disaster prevention, mitigation and relief coordination with business-industry leaders in Nicaragua.
The preliminary assessment of the survey data indicate that in Nicaragua, where the survey is being pre-tested,
no sector (public, private or NGO) was prepared for Hurricane Mitch and all were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the disaster and by unfinished planning. Some critical services failed thereby compounding the effects of the disaster: telephone services in Managua went down, key bridges for export and raw materials were destroyed, among others. Some of the corporate lessons learned were equally noteworthy. They included the following: many found internal procedures and preparedness plans inadequate and although many corporations had planned and exercised for industrial accidents, they were not prepared for natural disasters. Companies with "daily" threats were generally better prepared (oil, airlines, shipping, etc) and some other plans worked, namely four helicopters from Guatemala were delivered without problem and employees from local and non-local areas rallied to help the relief/recovery effort. Most noteworthy was the fact that Bell South cell phones worked throughout, and the company itself donated a lot of support to the relief and recovery efforts. The Managua airport control
tower also handled huge increases in air traffic control and there were no reported 'near misses' at all. However, it was widely noted that insurance was not adequate to cover the magnitude of the losses. Although companies often supported government efforts with transport, fuel, etc, the services offered were not always well utilized and there was an overall misunderstanding of the role of governmental capabilities in implementing disaster plans and a shallow understanding of disaster needs or how to assist victims. Few organizations had links to international disaster organizations and more accountability was emphasized. In terms of supplies almost all comments were negative since most goods were not appropriate (e.g. old clothes) and few boxes carried invoices or consignees and there was no mechanism to prioritize the handling of donated goods. The result of this was loss, duplication, wasted funds and a lot of frustration. Shipping containers were tied up with relief supplies at company expense.
Davidson noted that the concern for the welfare of the employees was evident especially among the key industries: banana and sugar industries with over 25,000 employees. These companies allow limited employee/community activities, but more could be done in this area. There is still high unemployment which limits participation in employee-focused disaster training. One of the results of the preliminary assessment was the suggestion that CDMHA help create a disaster action plan/seminar with the American Chambers of Commerce
(AMCHAM).
(See meeting Summary for more details).
The elements of the AMCHAM plan would include the following: strategies to build local capacity and coordination, incorporating regional disaster specialists in the design and delivery of trainings, identifying corporate risk managers and government disaster officials and international technical experts. The information thus far indicates that industry could have contributed far more to the post-Mitch relief efforts, but the government was not prepared to handle the input and therefore the losses were compounded. Eventually business/industry could create a nation-wide disaster committee comprised of business/government and NGO leaders.
Due to the recent natural disasters in Central and South America (Ecuador, Venezuela,
Honduras, Nicaragua, etc) there is a growing awareness among American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America that there is a need to do more to prepare for disasters. The Pan American Development Foundation
(PADF) is working with the Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America
(AACCLA) to improve disaster preparedness and response capability. A comprehensive survey of all companies would be a good place to start. AMCHAM's would also be a good place to start an ongoing series of seminars on disaster preparedness at the plant or company level. There is a need to develop Chamber specific disaster preparedness plans. Therefore one of the goals of this endeavor should be to try and help AACCLA units in planning and developing improved disaster response mechanisms. Training would be an important component in this process. Seminars, simulations and models could help to provide a more strategic and coherent focus to respond to disasters. In terms of regional cooperation, the Pan American Health Organization
(PAHO) is fully supporting PADF's regional disaster initiatives.
Businesses recognize the cost of disasters in the US and therefore it should be relatively simple to convince leaders to focus on prevention. In this arena much can be learned from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) experience in the US. One example is "Project IMPACT" which emphasizes prevention at all levels. The onus is on each individual, in every sector, to evaluate the possibility for action and assume social responsibility for the most vulnerable parts of society. Looking at some companies which already include prevention as foundation in training would be a good first step. While governments need to be more sensitized to work with the private sector, other actors need to join together for action. FEMA and the Latin American Development Association Foundation should work together in order to connect and share information and use technology to build and retrofit buildings for higher safety standards. One example of a successful collaboration effort is with the Inter-American Development Bank
(IDB) which required FEMA assistance in establishing guidelines for building in loan-recipient countries. FEMA's "Project IMPACT" gave this field many lessons, including: shared vision by public and private sector, passionate leadership, trust between public and private sector and the nature and uses of resources. Some other actors that have made, and continue to make contributions to this area include the National Weather Service, certain companies in Mexico which are taking responsibility for their employees and some examples in the Philippines (Philippine Business for Social Responsibility and the Corporate Response Network) and Los Angeles (Los Angeles Business, Industry Committee for Emergency Preparedness and Planning,
BICEPP) of private-public sector disaster collaboration. The suggestion was made that the strategies aim at certain sectors since sector-sector collaboration is probably the most beneficial and efficient way to prepare for and mitigate disaster losses. Vulnerability assessments can be conducted at the sector level (transportation, energy, health, etc) as well. Of course the emerging role of information technology can not be overstated in this field. One example to illustrate the importance of this, was given by the representative of the Organization of American States (OAS), where two member countries lost all of their property and tax data in a natural disaster due to poor technological infrastructure. Therefore, one aspect of assistance should most definitely be on the role of technology and how to transfer resources to the America's in order to ensure against data loss in times of disasters.
In times of disasters, and as the public catches glimpses of the tragedies on television, well-intentioned people tend to send irrelevant and often times totally inappropriate goods to disaster areas. This is emerging as a very big logistical and managerial problem. While some donors donate the right kinds of goods, allocating resources to 'donor education' would be worthwhile and could in fact lead to the contribution of more appropriate resources.
