International Best Practices

Nations across the globe that have disaster response and emergency management processes in place have or are developing additional guidance to meet the challenges of “building back better” or recovering in a way that can enhance resilience and adaptive capacity. Each has been developed for a particular governmental and geographic context, but they have in common guidance on how local, territorial, and national governments work together and with the private sector to plan for, implement, and finance recovery from natural and environmental hazards as part of redevelopment or relocation plans and projects. Some of these also address additional technological, cyber, and human-caused events and the complicating events of long-term climate change that may not have a discrete event. 

1. Hazard Management and Disaster Resilience 

In Taiwan, the Disaster Prevention and Response Act of 2000 of Taiwan, covers four phases of emergency management—mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. It requires every level of government to create a Disaster Prevention and Response Council (DPRC) and its disaster management plan. This technologically oriented Act retains an emphasis on recovery and preparedness, rather than risk reduction. 

The Local Government Act of 2002 in New Zealand was instrumental in establishing a framework for local land-use management through the creation of urban and rural municipalities. Additionally, the Resource Management Act of 1991 laid the foundation for a network of regional councils, uniquely designed as specialized entities focused on land use and environmental policy rather than serving as general-purpose units of government. These councils primarily function as planning and policy bodies, contributing to a comprehensive approach to governance and sustainable development (Local Government Act, 2002).  Ukraine’s recent push towards decentralization and local self-governance closely resembles a possible use case for New Zealand’s Local Government Act. 

In the United States, disaster preparedness and resilience are governed in the US by the National Preparedness Frameworks, which specify how planners and emergency managers work across levels of government and with the private sector to address the “whole community” during planning, response, mitigation, and recovery actions (FEMA, 2023). Response is also guided and resourced by, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, commonly known as the Stafford Act, is a pivotal piece of legislation enacted in 1988 to govern federal responses to disasters and emergencies. This comprehensive act outlines the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, tribal, and local governments in disaster management. It places a strong emphasis on preparedness, planning, and collaboration among various levels of government and private entities. The Stafford Act authorizes federal assistance in the form of financial aid to individuals, public assistance to governmental bodies, and funding for hazard mitigation programs.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a crucial U.S. government agency established to coordinate and respond to disasters and emergencies, both natural and man-made.

FEMA then provides financial assistance, coordinates resources, and offers technical support to affected regions, working collaboratively with state and local authorities, tribal nations, and various partners, with a focus on building national resilience, through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.  To foster investment in long-term community and infrastructure resilience, Congress in 2018 passed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, with a permanent source of funding that FEMA administers for pre-disaster hazard mitigation projects under a program that FEMA rolled out in 2020 as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), offering grants to communities on a competitive basis. Federal agencies continue to examine how to improve the criteria and technical support for project development to enhance the impact on long-term community and infrastructure resilience and to encourage collaborative projects at the scale of a critical system such as a road serving schools and hospitals in multiple communities. 

In the state of California, addressing the safety element requirement has prompted a series of laws specifically targeting mitigation measures for various hazards, including seismicity and wildfires, and certain geographical areas, such as the coast. Legislation such as the Earthquake Fault Zone Mapping Act (1972) prohibits construction on active fault traces, while Senate Bill 547 (1986) mandates localities in highly seismic zones to inventory unreinforced masonry structures and develop mitigation programs. Similarly, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) necessitates mapping of liquefaction-prone areas, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking, with geotechnical investigations required before building permits are issued. Assembly Bill 304 (2005) focuses on soft-story building inventories and enables the adoption of local ordinances for seismic retrofits. Recognizing the escalating risks from climate change, legislation emphasizes both preparing for its impacts by reducing vulnerability and managing avoidable impacts by curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The California Water Code, sections 8534, 8608 - 8710 are the codes responsible for enforcing standards for flood control plans in California. The code also stipulates that a city or a county may be required to contribute to a share of property damage if the new developments in flood zones are approved.  At a regional oblast level in Ukraine, local and regional plans such as the ones instituted by New Zealand and the US state of California can be implemented. 

However, Ukraine lies in a universe of medium-sized countries which could lead to varying degrees in either direction between federalism or centralized national control.  


ii. Land Use Planning and Development 

Land use planning helps communities mitigate and prepare for hazards and allows governments to minimize risks.  Often neglected in preparedness, mitigation, and recovery planning is the role of comprehensive planning, zoning regulations, and capital improvement plans developed by local and territorial governments outside of the formal preparedness cycle. Land use decisions have major impacts on whether a hazard turns into a disaster. 

Land use planning in the USA is primarily a function of local governments, who oversee the planning and implementation of state-mandated statutory frameworks. One US State, Florida, had mandated that cities and counties include a provision requiring Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plans (PDRP) in coastal cities and counties and provided guidelines. Although Florida rescinded the requirement major urban areas and planners continue to include policy goals and procedures for post-disaster recovery in advance of a disaster, to be used if it should occur. This remains one of the most innovative pre-disaster approaches anywhere, and major plans remain in place in major metropolitan areas such as Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa.  

Zoning implementation also emerges as a pivotal tool, guiding land use, preserving open space, and redirecting settlement patterns to mitigate climate change effects and adapt to challenges like sea-level rise, exemplified in California's SB 375. Zoning and other regulations can also impede important population or public facilitation relocation to reduce flooding and climate impacts unless these hazards are considered as part of the planning process. Flood zoning is commonly established by delineating floodplain boundaries on local zoning maps and employing regulations to manage potential risks. A prevalent FEMA regulation prohibits development in a designated floodway channel (most commonly the 100-year flood level), the most hazardous part of the floodplain where obstruction could worsen downstream flooding. In the US, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), under FEMA, oversees local compliance with national standards for floodplain regulation, including local floodplain management ordinances. The availability of federal flood insurance is tied to local compliance. Density limitations are imposed in the flood fringe area, situated within the floodplain but outside the floodway. Flood zoning incorporates use regulations, allowing only open-space land uses in floodplains, along with setbacks to minimize flood exposure, maintain natural vegetation, and control runoff. Nonconforming-use regulations outline standards for reconstructing flood-damaged structures, while special-use permits mandate adherence to specific criteria to mitigate future flooding. Overlay districts add an additional layer of regulation to sensitive hazard areas like floodplains. 

Zoning related to earthquake and geologic hazards involves mapping seismic areas and imposing development restrictions in and around these zones.  

Additionally, some tools in local land use planning, as suggested by Burby et.al (2000) in the US include: 

The USA has encouraged local and state governments to consider environmental factors in plans and ordinances through regulations and programs established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies administering federal laws to protect air and water quality, wetlands, and endangered species. The Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) is another federal policy, which oversees the management of coastal zones across the country. 

Some types of land use plans used for hazard mitigation can be integrated with various types  

of local plans such as area plans (traffic corridors, central business districts, small areas), functional plans (community services and infrastructure), and operational plans (continuity of government plans). FEMA recently sponsored a report by the American Planning Association that laid out a thorough methodology for such integration: Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning (PAS 560). It focuses on integrating hazard mitigation into local comprehensive plans, other plans just noted, and development ordinances, among other local responsibilities related to land development. 


2. Governance Practices

In Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Risk Reduction, governance systems and a clear line of authority when it comes to recovery and response are important. Part of the vision behind an autonomous disaster management planning department includes:  

In addition to federal-level agencies for disaster management, local councils, and local self-governance help streamline disaster responses. According to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) in the US, federal approval for local hazard mitigation plans is contingent upon formal adoption by the jurisdiction's local governing body. This elected legislative entity, which may be a county board, city council, or a similar elected body, must formally adopt the plan for it to receive FEMA approval. In most states, the official recognition of local comprehensive plans is achieved solely through formal adoption by the elected governing body of a municipality or county. However, a few states empower the planning commission with the authority for final adoption (PAS -460). 

In the case of recovery post disaster, there is a formal participation of planners and volunteers within the recovery process that include the following participants (PAS-576): 

1. Police / Fire / Emergency Services 

2. Consultants 

3. Planning and Building 

4. Citizens 

5. State Agencies 

6. Federal Agencies 

7. Special Interest Groups 

8. Elected Officials 


3. Insurance Programs and Financing for Disasters  

This section discusses possible disaster financing schemes and insurance programs that can help alleviate the risks of disasters.  

The establishment of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the USA by the National Flood Insurance Act was a pivotal development in flood management. In 1990, the NFIP introduced the Community Rating System (CRS), later enshrined in the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, aiming to incentivize and enhance local floodplain management efforts. This program facilitated federally backed reinsurance for privately sold flood insurance, supporting recovery for flood victims. Central to NFIP's mitigation strategy was the creation of federal floodplain mapping, known as Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBMs) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), coupled with regulations guiding development within or redirecting it away from high flood-risk areas. Furthermore, the NFIP CRS program encouraged local mitigation by offering graduated flood insurance discounts proportional to increased community flood mitigation activities surpassing minimum federal standards. 

In the case of other disasters apart from flooding, the example of New Zealand can be applicable. The Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) provides insurance schemes to manage expenses in the aftermath of an earthquake. In the US, California has adopted this idea to create a state agency, the California Earthquake Authority (CEA), which makes earthquake insurance available to property owners, given the difficulties involved in providing private insurance in a high-risk pool.  

In a post-conflict setting, and particularly at the scale of Ukraine, recovery would largely be led by external support from international donors, examples of which would be discussed further in the paper. However, the above examples may offer models to craft a post-war response to insurance or financing models for natural disasters in the country. 

 

4. Resilient Infrastructure 

Infrastructure systems underpin the urban and regional services that must function or be rapidly restored after a disruption due to war, a natural hazard, or other event. Infrastructure vulnerability assessments methodologies offer an approach to characterizing these systems, tracing how services depend on them, and identifying how disruptions may cascade across communications, energy, transportation, water and other sectors, many of which depend on one another to function. Recovery guidance can prescribe how to assess infrastructure system sectors and interdependencies to that when funds are invested in rebuilding, the risk of cascading consequences to essential services is reduced and future recovery is more efficient. 

Vulnerable infrastructure is assessed in terms of exposure (probability of damage), sensitivity (extent of damage), cascading consequences across systems that depend on one another,  and adaptive capacity. These assessments can be used to define baseline conditions, establish impacts, and prioritize investments and actions based on their relative importance in enhancing the resilience of critical infrastructure and dependent services to human, technological, and natural threats compounded by long-term climate impacts. Such assessments also identify the role of the government and private sector in preparedness and planning for restoration and recovery. 

Assessments can serve as a mechanism for planners to identify and bring together the many owners, operators, and regulators of energy, water, transportation, and communications to jointly consider how they rely on one another and how consequences can best be limited. Planners then convene these stakeholders to coordinate the development of term climate impacts and to consider how to sustain a power plant or port that are important to health care or the economy. Planners then convene these stakeholders to coordinate the development of functional plans, hazard mitigation plans for infrastructure, and capital improvement programs for replacement or resilient design.  

Plans are realized by a program of investments by the public and private sectors. The infrastructure assessment and resilience plan can be used to prioritize and justify financing. The integration of hazard mitigation objectives and priorities into capital improvement plans (CIPs) has emerged as a commendable approach for fostering community resilience in the US. Capital improvement plans, commonly encompassing crucial public infrastructure like roads, fire stations, sewer lines, water supply and storage facilities, and wastewater treatment facilities, constitute integral components vital to community operations. Moreover, capital improvement plans serve as the principal mechanism for prioritizing and allocating funding to structural hazard mitigation measures. This strategic integration ensures that community development aligns with resilience objectives, enhancing the overall preparedness and adaptability of the community in the face of potential hazards. Hazard mitigation projects identified in a local hazard mitigation plan ought to be included in a capital improvements plan or element. The five general steps for infrastructure resilience or recovery planning fit within the steps planners already use in developing a comprehensive or hazard mitigation plan. Analysis of stakeholders and risks includes understanding how infrastructure supports housing, health care and other services and developing plans and strategies across the region. For an example, see CISA’S 2024 document titled “Infrastructure Resilience Planning Framework”(CISA, 2024).