Abstract:

Natural disasters occur without any prior knowledge. They occur when people least expect it to happen. How prepared a country is all depends on the policies that have been made and how they will be implemented and executed in case such disasters occur. Thus, the nation should prepare a framework within which effective responses will be implemented. This framework should be based upon well-trained leaders and responders, who are able to achieve the shared objectives, develop partnerships and invest in preparedness response (DHS, 2008). These policies should be made from all governments present. The key players will include organizations and entities that may offer or require assistance at one time or the other. The local and state governments have to be included in this due to their proximity to the people and the need to decentralize the relief efforts. Disaster management has also grown to include terrorism management after the 9/11 attack. This has widened the scope of disaster management to include terrorism as part of the disaster.

Natural disasters and The Federal Response Structure:

This is a guide on how to the nation will conduct hazard response once they occur. It outlines the responsibilities of all the authorities that in one way or another are in line with offering help to those affected by these disasters. It outlines the key roles and responsibilities of each organization and the best practices for managing incidents that range from serious but purely local to large-scale catastrophic natural disasters or terrorist attack (DHS, 2008). It further outlines the key lessons learnt form previous disasters like the Hurricane Katrina, and Rita. It focuses on how the federal government organizes it self to help communities and states that are in catastrophic incidents. It encompasses all the emergency support function annexes that group the federal resources and capabilities into functional areas. These areas are supposed to serve as the primary mechanisms that will provide assistance at the operational level. There is a part that discusses incident annexes that address specific categories of hazards requiring specialized application of framework mechanisms.

The key players here include the tribal governments, local governments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, federal governments, and state governments. Local governments respond to emergencies on a daily basis using their own resources. They may however at one time or the other depend on mutual aid and assistance agreements from other neighboring jurisdictions incase there is a need for additional resources (DHS, 2008). State governments on the hand help local governments if they so require. They have resources of their own with which they can use to handle disasters. However, should the need arise and they require assistance from other states, they can use the interstate mutual aid and assistance agreements such as the EMAC (emergency management assistance compact). The governor of the state could request for help from the federal government should the disaster get out of hand. This is as was observed during hurricane Katrina which occurred in Louisiana.

Challenges:

As may be noted, there are various challenges faced by these local and state governments whenever a disaster occurs. The magnitude of the catastrophe will be the first determinant. If a disaster of Katrina’s magnitude occurred and the state or local government was still lax, then the responses would be delayed (Wesson, et al 2007). This would not lead to loss of lives and destruction of property which is what the national framework tries to avoid. Inadequate resources offer a major impediment in the fight against disasters. This limits the speed within which they can respond to emergency cases. If the need for a presidential declaration arises, then the time taken to issue on is long enough to provide disastrous results. The process taken before one can be issued is very long and emergencies cannot withstand such delays (Wesson, et al 2007).

Terrorism in relation to emergency and disaster management programs:

The 9/11 attacks changed the way disaster management foundations were laid. This is due to the change in tactics after two planes succeeded in attacking a country that was believed to have been the most secure due to the military and technological superiority. When these attacks took place, the whole disaster management program was in disarray. The people could not tell what will happen where due to the panic caused in the affected areas. Of importance is how the planning will take place (Comfort, 2002).

The programs should aim at providing a united effort for emergency operations so as to coordinate a purposeful operation aimed at accomplishing the same objectives. This way, the federal state can not be caught unawares. The decentralization of activities from the Homeland Security Department to the local scenario since this will increase the rate at which people and properties are saved and less damage witnessed (Pape, 2003). The response took time before there could be any coordinated efforts to achieve the desired results before the repercussions could be enormous. From a local or a state level, the operations will be quicker with the Federal Emergency Management Agency coming to assist after re-organizing all the required resources after having the knowledge of what is required. This will contribute to unity efforts by providing a blueprint for actions carried out incase an emergency occurs. These conceited efforts should be adhered to strictly to avoid mass deaths and help build secure environments to live in. The federal government should implement the recommendations of the framework to the letter.

References:

Comfort, Lousie K. (2002). Managing intergovernmental responses to terrorism and extreme events, Publius, Philadelphia: Fall

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2008). National Response Framework. DHS. Retrieved 18th November, 2010. HYPERLINK “http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf” t “_blank” http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf.

Pape, Robert A. (2003) “The Strategic rational on Suicide Terrorism,” American Political Science Review, 97 (3): pp. 1–19.

Wesson, Robert L., et al (2007), Revision of Independent probabilistic seismic dangers for Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1043.