Federal Legislation for Disaster Mitigation: A Comparative Assessment Between Canada and the United States

Exposure to natural hazards tends to be poorly understood and yet implicitly accepted by a large proportion of populations at risk. Some people through years of experience and time-tested coping mechanisms effectively respond to most hazards. Others, lacking skills and experience, are dependent on institutional response systems for immediate assistance and long-term recovery. Clearly, both approaches can reduce losses; however, the former strategies often prove more cost effective. How then, can loss reduction be handled with minimal external involvement? Are there not strategies that can reduce the impact of natural hazards and minimize exposure to these risks? Introduction of hazard mitigation strategies can begin to address these concerns in a timely and cost effective manner. Federal institutions in Canada and the United States recognize this potential, and in response, have developed policies and designed programs to limit the impact of hazards. To further collective thinking on hazard mitigation, this paper surveys current legislation and programs in both countries, makes a comparative assessment, and seeks to identify implications for mitigation policy within the framework of the Canadian IDNDR initiative. Perceptions of mitigation are explored to create a common foundation from which to address the nature, direction, and structure of mitigation policy and programs in Canada. Clarity of purpose, awareness of context, and acknowledgment of limitations and conflicts represent crucial aspects in the evolution of mitigation strategies. Through awareness, understanding, and a willingness to engage in dialogue new ways of thinking can be employed to decrease the impact of natural hazards on society and the environment. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997