A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION FOR THE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL SECTORS IN THE CARIBBEAN
Mitigation in Agriculture
Given the concerted efforts being made to reposition agriculture and the articulation of policies that fit within the contextual framework of the MDG, Agro 2003-2015 and the Jagdeo Initiative; hazard mitigation should also fit harmoniously within other sector-wide efforts. “Environmental Sustainability” and “Food Safety” are both threatened by significant hazards. Safety and competitiveness issues have ensured that the food sector embraced the concept of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) as being absolutely necessary for survival. A detailed review of natural hazard mitigation attempts in the agricultural and rural sectors highlights the need for an approach based on Hazard Analysis and Critical Mitigation Point (HACMP). This approach will marry the CHAMP and HACCP principles and further institutionalize the critical point concept within the agricultural sector. It will also provide a structured mechanism to inculcate gender-sensitive procedural elements into the hazard analysis, vulnerability assessment and mitigation measures. The well-documented roles of women in the agricultural and rural sectors will be recognized in the determination of critical points.
Like HACCP, HACMP will be based on seven principles:
Analyze hazards. Potential natural hazards and measures to control those hazards are identified. The hazard could be of hydrologic origin, such as a hurricane; seismic, such as an earthquake; or biological, such as an invasive plant or animal.
Identify critical mitigation points. These are points at which the impact of the potential hazard can be limited or eliminated. Examples are site selection/preparation, pen construction, planting, and cultivar selection.
Establish preventive measures with critical limits for each mitigation point. For a riparian area, this might include setting the minimum cambered bed height required to ensure the protection of the collar region (often disease-prone junction of stem and root) of crop plants.
Establish procedures to monitor the critical mitigation points. Such procedures might include determining how, and by whom, site preparation should be monitored.
Establish corrective actions to be taken when monitoring shows that a critical limit has not been met --for example, ensuring prized animals are tagged and identifiable.
Establish procedures to verify that the system is working properly --for example, testing gradient on box drains.
Establish effective recordkeeping to document the HACMP system. This would include records of hazards and their control methods, the monitoring of safety requirements and action taken to correct potential problems. Each of these principles must be backed by sound scientific knowledge.
Advantages of HACMP
HACMP offers a number of advantages. Most importantly, HACMP:
- focuses on identifying and limiting or preventing hazards
- utilizes a systems approach
- will be based on sound science and provides a framework for the use of hazard maps etc.
- permits more efficient and effective management oversight, primarily because the recordkeeping allows investigators/financiers to see how well a firm is complying with agreed mitigation measures over a period rather than how well it is doing on any given day
- places responsibility for anticipating and preparing for hazards on the Agribusiness Manager
- Potentially reduces the cost of post-hazard resumption.
Disadvantages of HACMP
▫ Does not yet have a “driver” either a legislative, donor-determined or trade related impetus to spur implementation
▫ There is a perception that mitigation is impossible or the costs are prohibitive, thereby legitimizing the need for disaster relief
▫ Necessitates the utilization of procedures that have not been effectively communicated to stakeholders
▫ Stakeholders have been presented with guidelines over the years but no firmly rooted systematic, auditable procedures. HACMP will be viewed as being too rigorous.
The preceding sections of this paper have echoed the views of opinion leaders in the Caribbean with regard to the need for a comprehensive mechanism to address Disaster mitigation in the region. HACMP can be the basis upon which a Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy is crafted for the Agricultural Sector.
Why is a Policy level intervention necessary?
The overall objective behind the Agro 2003-2015 Plan, the Jagdeo Initiative, and the renewed interest in agricultural policy harmonization, is the Repositioning of Agriculture. Decision-makers at the highest levels in CARICOM have already proclaimed that the sector can no longer survive in a “business as usual” mode. Having identified the ten key binding constraints, policies are being formulated to address them, as determined by feedback from national consultations amongst all stakeholders.
One of those key binding constraints is the “deficient and uncoordinated risk management measures” in the sector. This policy will provide the mechanisms to coordinate the risk management measures as they relate to natural hazards. It is generally recognized that unmitigated risk from natural hazards is a significant constraint.
The proposed Policy framework addresses these concerns and is in sync with other initiatives in the sector because it:
➢ utilizes a systems approach
➢ acknowledges critical points, affording opportunities to be proactive rather than reactive
➢ provides a structured mechanism for the incorporation of existing guidelines and procedures from the many organisations operating in the sector
➢ can be tailored to factor in the up-front contribution of various stakeholders from the most vulnerable to those able to recoup losses, relocate or refinance their activities post disaster
➢ facilitates oversight and review by an existing regional disaster mitigating agency
➢ reinforces the importance of mitigation at different levels in the sector
If the framework is bundled with other policy initiatives arising out of the Regional Transformation Programme as articulated by President Jagdeo, in his capacity as lead Head for agriculture, it can be endorsed by the highest decision-making body in CARICOM. It would still require a legislative, donor-dictated or trade-related impetus to promote its adoption. Elsewhere in this paper it has been documented why mitigation measures are not the “responses of first choice” by many stakeholders. However, the escalating costs in economic, environmental and social terms make it mandatory that a concerted, systemic and systematic approach is developed
Steps to adoption of the HACMP Framework (as the basis of a natural hazard mitigation policy for the agricultural sector):
1. Commitment by key stakeholders especially the Heads of Government, Ministers of Agriculture and Executives in regional/national agencies and preliminary indication of the “drivers” to encourage and justify the proactive, critical point approach.
2. Inter-agency gap assessment and planning with regard to the range of hazards and implementable mitigation methodologies, with specific reference to
▫ Full-fledged Hazard analysis,
▫ Agreement on critical mitigation points,
▫ Establishment of critical limits,
▫ Establishment of monitoring systems,
▫ Categorizing the roles for assorted stakeholders (including those traditionally only seen as potential beneficiaries)
▫ Agreement on corrective action,
▫ Establishment of verification procedures,
▫ Establishment of documentation and record keeping formats.
3. Pilot Implementation with regard to particular hazards and selected agricultural activities
4. Review of Internal audit and improvement mechanisms along with cost-benefit analyses
5. Launch of expanded framework
The proposed framework provides a missing link in the natural hazard mitigation milieu, by establishing a structured, auditable system to consolidate the disparate efforts of several regional and national agencies. One of the most important aspects of a successful hazard mitigation strategy is the participation of the public during the planning process. In addition to the Steering or Management Committee Meetings, a series of public meetings should be held throughout the process. These meetings will allow the public (traditional and non-traditional stakeholders) to comment on the development of the plan and to contribute to rather than simply ratify the information tabled.
No comments:
Post a Comment