|
NOTICE:
TIEMS Transportation Safety and Security Workshop January 28-29th 2003
|
Welcome to
the
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management Crisis and Emergency Management
|
| January 2003
Volume 3 - Number
4 |
|
Links:
Current events
|
TURKEY: A CASE STUDY OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY
OF CRISIS MANAGEMENT BEFORE AND AFTER THE MARMARA EARTHQUAKE
Presented by: Erdem Ergin
Abstract
Turkey, due to its very dynamic landscape, is very prone to natural disasters. Moreover, its geopolitical position, the unsettled democracy and industrialization cultures, its rich natural resources and surrounding countries increase the probability of crisis of different types. The concept of disaster and crisis management has been present for more than 75 years and continues to evolve, with major changes after each disaster, like after the 1999 Marmara earthquake. This case study describing the concept in this developing country includes interesting topics to all, as it is one of a developing country, where often aid is provided; and it outlines the managerial and executive problems of a too unified approach, as the one proposed for the Homeland Security Department. The system involving many governmental organizations and toped by the Prime Ministry Crisis Management Center, heavily in control of the military, failed to provide effective response to the disaster. The broad definition of crisis, ranging from natural disaster to economic crisis to war was, and still is, the base of the problem. Too many players are involved; no clear task delineation can be made (and consequently no prearrangement); and central funding is hard to do. The changes after the quake were mainly driven by a World Bank project and loan, and failed to either fit the existing structure or comply with our culture. A new branch has been formed under the Prime Ministry and the coordination has been taken from the National Security Council. Now, depending on the type of crisis, the most relevant organization will coordinate. The responsibilities of each organization have been defined but still the large scope of action prevents functionality and prearrangements. Respective roles are still not clearly defined. The NGOs are still not involved in the decision process and nothing is planned to use their important resources. The Red Crescent has been taken under state control and the cabinet overrules now it general council. An important step would be to reverse this give more freedom and rights to NGOs as well as seeing them as partner. Other future steps should be: first to reduce the scope of disaster and crisis to regroup the similar ones and obtain different but permanent coordinators; second, to change the existing “free man power and equipment cost at supplier’s charge” understanding with a central disaster fund; third, every possibly involved organization has to have experts with knowledge of disaster and application to their field, it has not to be performed as an ‘usual’ business. These changes should ease prearrangements and protocols and the operations would become more effective and efficient. To Full Paper |