3. Institutional framework:
MITIGATION AND US GOVERNANCE
3.1 Federal government
The federal government of the US only deals with issues that are in the interest of the whole
nation. Most other issues are dealt with on a state or local level. Since natural disasters have the
ability to cause immense losses, both in lives and financially, regulating natural hazard
mitigation is one of the tasks of the federal government. This includes provision of hazard
information, provision of post-disaster relief, funding of mitigation projects, and encouraging
lower level governments to mitigate hazards. These tasks are carried out by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, in short FEMA (Godschalk e.a. 1999, Palm & Carroll 1998).
In 1995, FEMA launched the ‘National Mitigation Strategy’ that aims to “strengthen the
partnership among all levels of government and the private sector and to empower all
Americans to fulfil their responsibilities for ensuring safer communities (FEMA 1997, p.1).
The strategy has two goals (FEMA 1997, p.1-2):
• “To substantially increase public awareness of natural hazard risk so that public
demands safer communities in which to live and work.”
• “To significantly reduce the risk of loss of life, injury, economic costs, and destruction
of natural and cultural resources that result from natural hazards.”
FEMA has many other programs concerning natural hazard mitigation. Some are now part of
the National Mitigation Strategy, others are separate measures.
In general, mitigation efforts and funding by FEMA generally focus on floods and earthquakes.
For other natural hazards, state and local governments are largely dependent upon themselves.
In practice this means that mitigation efforts for other natural hazards then floods or
earthquakes, local governments are fully responsible, both financially and organizationally,
because in most states state government mainly pursues FEMA standards that lay most
responsibility upon the local level (Geschwind 2002). Another problem is the fact that most
FEMA programs focus on structural mitigation measures or on awareness projects. There are
few initiatives at the federal level that aim at, or help local governments with, non-structural
mitigation measures such as to discourage new developments in high-risk areas. This truly is a
missed opportunity since local governments are often reluctant to take such decisions fearing
the financial consequences. Non-structural mitigation measures are highly effective, so more
15