UK: govts must prepare for mega-disasters

[BMJ]

Hi Guys,
Link below:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8229763/uk-govts-must-prepare-for-more-mega-disa

Mentions basically we need to prepare for more frequent and powerful disasters, read HAARP, and this has been warned by a former United Nations representatvie, red falg.

Anyway have a read guys.

[DeDukshyn]

Wow, thanks. They way they worded things, didn't discount use of technology at all, just that we better get used to it...

"the beginnings of a new kind of future in which mega-disasters are going to be more frequent."

[str8thinker]

Thanks BMJ. It was a little difficult sourcing this one as the ministry's name is actually DFID, but you can download the 2 Mb, 60 page report here (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/HERR.pdf).


In July 2010 Lord Ashdown began leading a taskforce of experts to review how the UK government should respond to humanitarian disasters and emergencies.

Lord Ashdown presented the results of this independent review - known as the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (HERR) - to Andrew Mitchell, who commissioned the report, at a launch event on 28 March 2011.

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Get-Involved/Disasters-and-emergencies/Humanitarian-Emergency-Response-Review/

Here's the foreword from it, which sums it up.


Foreword to the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review

The people of the United Kingdom know why we respond, individually and as a society, to humanitarian emergencies around the world. They understand that when we are confronted by the image of a child trapped in the rubble of an earthquake, or of a family clinging to the roof of a flooded home, we don’t so much commit to help, as feel committed to do so; committed by our shared humanity.

It is because the impulse to relieve suffering is rooted in morality that our interventions to relieve suffering at times of disaster must always be driven by need and need alone. Nevertheless, the fact that Britain is prepared to play a full part (and often a leading part) as a member of the international community in order to relieve suffering at times of crisis makes for, not only a more compassionate world, but a safer one too – and that benefits all of us.

What is crucial is that when we decide to act, we do so effectively. The fact that, across the country, household budgets are under particular strain at the moment, only underlines the point. People want to know that every pound they give will be a pound spent saving lives and livelihoods.

In looking at the way the UK government responds to humanitarian emergencies, this Review has identified much in which the British people can take pride. The Department for International Development, as a policy maker, a funder and a deliverer of aid, has been widely praised for its leading role within the international humanitarian community. But being good is not going to be good enough given the challenges ahead. The scale, frequency and severity of rapid onset humanitarian disasters will continue to grow in the coming years, and at an accelerating pace. Experts predict that climate related disasters could affect 375 million people every year by 2015, up from 263 million in 2010.

The reasons for this are many. Rapid population growth, especially in disaster prone areas, is a key factor, especially when combined with continued mass urbanisation, much of it unplanned and unsafe. So too are the changes already underway in sea levels, and in global rainfall and storm patterns – changes that will contribute to significant additional pressure for food and water in the years ahead. We are caught in a race between the growing size of the humanitarian challenge, and our ability to cope; between humanity and catastrophe. And, at present, this is not a race we are winning.

Some recently affected countries, like China and Chile have demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of natural disasters. Even Japan, where the triple catastrophe has led to tremendous suffering, things might have been far worse without preparation. But others, like Haiti or Pakistan, have needed large scale outside help and will continue to do so.

The ability of the international humanitarian community to provide this help is threatened by a number of problems, some new, some familiar. The first is the global economic crisis, which could make the already slower growing countries of the West less able or willing to provide resources for disaster relief. This gap could be filled by the faster growing ‘emerging’ world economies, but this is far from guaranteed. These countries currently contribute far less to disaster relief, and in any case are likely to remain preoccupied with the relatively high levels of poverty within their own borders.

The second is the rising security threat faced by humanitarian workers on the ground, and the increasing difficulties they face in accessing affected populations. The task of providing humanitarian assistance impartially and on the basis of need is hugely complicated by conflict. The need, on occasion, to work alongside or with hostile – even proscribed – groups already presents humanitarian workers with a number of moral and practical problems. These too are likely to grow in number and complexity.

Regrettably, the leadership, management and coordination of the international community’s efforts have not risen even to the challenges we currently face. Unless we radically improve the quality of the leadership of the international effort in humanitarian crises, we will not succeed in dealing with what is ahead.

For all these reasons, we have concluded that merely improving upon what we have done in the past – enhancing the status quo – will not be sufficient. We must devise new ways to meet the new challenges.

There are seven threads to this new approach. These form the structure of this document.

First, we need to develop a more anticipatory approach, using science to help us both predict, and prepare for future disasters and conflict.

Second, we need to place the creation of resilience at the heart of our approach both to longer-term development and to emergency response. This will require DFID to make humanitarian response a part of its core development work, engaging more closely with local people and institutions so as to strengthen local capacity.

Third, we need substantially to improve the strategic, political and operational leadership of the international humanitarian system.

Fourth, we need to innovate to become more efficient and effective.

Fifth, we need to increase transparency and accountability towards both donor and host country populations. Far from being burdensome, this is in fact a precondition for the improvements we want to see in terms of value for money and impact. Sixth, we need to create new humanitarian partnerships to allow DFID better to influence and work within an increasingly complex humanitarian system. In future, the effectiveness of DFID will depend more on what it can do with others, than on what it can do alone. DFID will need to work more closely with the emerging world powers and with the private sector, as well as with the military. In addition, it will need to nurture its existing partnerships with the EU, the US, other donors, the Red Cross and the international NGOs.

Sixth, we need to create new humanitarian partnerships to allow DFID better to influence and work within an increasingly complex humanitarian system. In future, the effectiveness of DFID will depend more on what it can do with others, than on what it can do alone. DFID will need to work more closely with the emerging world powers and with the private sector, as well as with the military. In addition, it will need to nurture its existing partnerships with the EU, the US, other donors, the Red Cross and the international NGOs.

Finally, as emergencies become bigger and more complex, so we need to defend and strengthen the humanitarian space. This refers to the need for humanitarian workers to be granted access and protection as they seek to provide humanitarian assistance in conflict affected areas. This in turn will require us to reassert the core humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality; the promise to assist people on the basis of need, regardless of their gender, religion, ethnicity or political allegiance. As DFID seeks to meet these challenges, it will need, in everything it does, to become even more innovative, even more of a learning organisation that is always open and welcoming to new ideas.


http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Images/250x190/pakistan-Ashdown-children-Sukkur.jpg
Lord Paddy Ashdown with children in a
tent in Sukkur, Pakistan.

Lord Paddy Ashdown seems to be a guy with good intentions. As you can see by comparing the newspaper articles with the actual report, they concentrate on the 'increasing disasters' bit and make that their headline.

[folotheflo]

awsome, thanks bmj for bringing it to my attention, and to st8thinker for posting the forward. an excellent bit of info to add to the research. official reports of the coming changes aye, we should quicken our readiness me thinks !!

[celestia]

Thank you BMJ, for a positive message and Str8thinker for the post above. I perceive this as a call for more care and concern for other people in other countries especially poor and under-developed countries. It is high time we start a new era full of love locally and globally, to get one in our common struggle for LIFE.
I am relieved to see that there are leading figures in this world who are there to build not to destruct.
"The author Paddy Ashdown, a House of Lords member and ex-United Nations high representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina, said rich nations must help poorer countries to build up their defences against disasters." : in human goodness I believe!

Lots of love

[BMJ]

Hi Guys,
Thank you for your input, and research str8thinker amazing piece of work.

I was thinking along the lines that everyone is looking left i.e. the public is waiting for the false flag ET invasion, to your right TPTB could be using HAARP instead.

Two different type of world threats one well publicised, in the alternative media, ET invasion and secondly a world wide mega - disasters either could provide the means for world unite.

HAARP would:
Provide a great revenue stream for relief based industries e.g. pharma, tents, blankets emergency rations e.t.c.
Mega-disasters are an act of god no bad PR for any government.
Plausible way of eliminating undesirable races or holding sway over governments.
A way to unit the countries of the world when we all have a common threat i.e. mega disasters.

Give it a thought guys whilst we look left whats happening on our right?