Why Italians Prefer Local Government

Disaster Management in Italy

Introduction

Italy is the one country in Europe most likely to be impacted by a disaster due to its geology. Yet it has a distinct character and cultural set of values that prevent it from adopting a standardized approach to disaster management. The various regions of Italy are historically more like independent and autonomous kingdom states than they are members of a unified nation. These various states have throughout the centuries fought with one another—but today they are all considered as part of Italy. It is because of this character of the various regions that Italy today is rather dependent upon local disaster management response than it is upon a centralized approach—even though centralized management procedures are there at least in theory. But another aspect of Italy worth remembering is that Italians care very little for rules and laws—they are a people who respond to the needs of any given moment in the manner that they see as best. Thus, the regions of Italy actually rely a great deal upon volunteers when it comes to disaster management—and they prefer it that way rather than having to turn to outside help or NGOs. This paper will discuss the history of disaster management in Italy, the rationale for Italy’s approach, the implementation pattern the state adopts when managing disaster, disaster hazards and planning it faces, participants, obstacles, and how disasters have shaped the state’s policy today.

History of Disaster Management in Italy

Disaster management in Italy in the 19th century was limited to disaster relief. Numerous disasters were known to the state at the time: hydrogeological events, forest fires, volcanoes eruptions and seismic tremors—but the nation had no policy for managing disaster. It was reactive rather than proactive. That changed in 1926 when “a royal decree-law provided for the the first institutional framework in this area attributing relief activities to the Ministry of Public Works” (Module et al., 2021, p. 4). Unfortunately, bureaucratic overlap led to role confusion, as the Ministry of Home Affairs already performed a relief activities function, and in the end the state was ineffective at managing policy in this regard. The state then attempted to improve the civil protection and disaster management system in the latter half of the 20th century. This transformation continued on into the 21st century, with Italy seeking to decentralize disaster management by conferring legislative power to various Italian regions and reserving only to the Italian State the right to establish “fundamental policy principles” (Module et al., 2021, p. 4).

As Alexander (2008) notes, “Italy has developed a national system of disaster preparedness which integrates all levels of government through a cascading system of emergency command”—largely in part to the various disasters that have befallen the state over the decades of the modern era but also due in part to the historical character of the state and its regions. Every year it is estimated that 75,000 Italians are affected by some form of natural disaster. Compared to the rest of European countries, Italy faces the more risk from disaster than any of them (Alexander, 2008). Millions of people could be impacted by an earthquake in the Strait of Messina or by a volcanic eruption like that of Vesuvius, which erupted 2000 years ago. Because of these factors, and in spite of Italy’s regional differences and characteristics, a national system of disaster management has been constructed in Italy.

Essentially, however, this construction has only come as a result of legislative reactions to disasters, like the earthquake that shook Sicily in 1968, or the one in 1976 that rocked Friuli Venezia-Giulia, or the one in 1980 that hit Campania-Basilicata (Alexander, 2008). Government lawmakers in Parliament at the time saw a need to have a disaster management chief who could oversee responses, and thus Italy’s “first reaction to these events was to appoint a representative of central government as Commissar for post-disaster relief”--Giuseppe Zamberletti, who became known as the Father of Civil Protection in Italy (Alexander, 2008). From the beginning of this approach to having a centralized response, the Fire Services in Italy, typically tasked with technical rescue operations, became the lead organization. In 1992, the first nationwide civil protection service was instituted under orders of Parliament (Alexander, 2008).

Rationale for Italy’s Approach

Disaster management in Italy is organized the way it is because Italy is, both historically and traditionally, a state made up of many different tiny kingdoms. It is only in modern times that these kingdoms have been united under one government. Each region and locale, however, still retains and possesses a strong degree of independence and autonomy with respect to administration and management of operations. This is the preferred approach of Italians; de-centralization of powers is part of its historical character, and the same de-centralized approach to disaster management is practiced in the state today. This means that every region is effectively responsible for addressing disaster planning and recovery, so long as the fundamental principles of the state are followed.

Nonetheless, the Italian state government has taken steps to more formally organize disaster management programs, following talks with organizations like the World Bank and other entities. In 2017, the state passed legislation providing the Government “to adopt binding legislative decrees aimed to re-organise and better frame the national service of civil protection and its legal and institutional structure” (Module et al., 2021, p. 4). This recognition on the part of the Italian Parliament to centralize more control over disaster is a result of recent disasters in Italy, such as the Emilia earthquake in 2012: after that response, Italian representatives sought to ensure the public that a more centralized approach to management and procedural planning would be implemented to ensure both a top-down and bottom-up approach to disaster response could be implemented. In fact, this approach was actually embedded within state law well before the earthquake of 2012, but it carried little force. Today, Italy recognizes that the Chief of Civil Protection has responsibility of overseeing that necessary resources and funds are secured for operations and planning purposes. Additionally, the Chief of Civil Protection has the right “to exercise extraordinary powers and, where appropriate, determine limits and conditions of intervention” (Module et al., 2021, p. 5). Thus, in Italy, there is emphasis on both local and regional actors taking responsibility and governance being provided by a central actor in the Chief of Civil Protection that coordinates with the whole of the Italian State. The Chief can call for “orders of necessity,” which allow wide in scope, must “explicitly indicate derogated provisions and state reasons for derogation” (Module, 2021, p. 6). The Chief also is responsible for requesting aid from NGOs and international organizations to assist with relief funding and operations (Italian Red Cross, 2015). Typically, orders of necessity are given for three areas: 1) the organization and provision of relief and assistance for the stricken region or locale; 2) for ordering the restoration of public services and infrastructures; 3) for interventions to reduce after-effect risks and to identify what must be done to ensure the functioning of the economy and industry.

At the same time, the Chief must work with regional authorities in order to ensure supplies and resources are effectively managed. For instance, various regions “must ensure the immediate activation and deployment of regional emergency columns and volunteer organizations” (Module, 2021, p. 6). Each region, moreover, has a Regional Protection Committee, which ensures that local authority is still present and integrated into any disaster response scenario. This bottom-up approach was kept in Italy in spite of the centralized nationwide civil protection service because the civil protection service was found to be too reactive and not proactive enough (Alexander, 2008). Thus, at the regional and city levels of administration, Italy has provincial heads: “Each of the 109 provinces in Italy has a government office, or prefecture, and a provincial Prefect, who is the chief representative of central government at the devolved level. Prefects have responsibility for police and fire services and hence were identified in the 1992 law as the co-ordinators of emergency response at the intermediate level” (Alexander, 2008). However, by the end of the 20th century, Italian regions wanted authority back under their control and so power was transferred from central prefects to regional administrators in all Italian provinces. So, for instance, in Italy, one finds the Lombardy region, which by way of comparison is larger than Wales in England and holds twice the number of people as in Ireland; it has 12 provinces that coordinate with 1546 local authorities to oversee a range of civil protection problems that are “impressive, as the region encompasses both Italy's industrial heartland and a section of the Alps” (Alexander, 2008). Thus, the approach of Italy to disaster management is really a combination of top-bottom and bottom-up as a result of the centralized needs of the state as a whole and the individual characters and abilities of the various regions.

Implementation Pattern

The implementation pattern that applies in Italy’s disaster management and response approach is mainly bottom-up, nonetheless, with the different Italian regions being “the main actors for the preparedness, rescue and recovery of the society, to be supported by national actors in case of major calamities” (Module, 2021, p. 4). As Alexander (2008) points out, “in operational terms disasters must be tackled primarily at the local level.” In Italy there are 8104 municipalities with mayors who are recognized by Italian law as the chief local authority when it comes to civil protection services (Alexander, 2008). However, emergency preparation and planning as well as response management is conducted under the Augustus System, which operates at all levels of government, from local to regional to national, and “is designed to provide a fully compatible means of preparing and planning for emergencies, deploying resources and communicating during them, and recovering from them” (Alexander, 2008). Response and recovery actions are triggered both by the national government and by local government. The Chief of Civil Protection, for instance, can call for assistance from NGOs, but the mayor is also a chief at the local level who has authority to request aid or call in assistance.

Still, public bodies represent the majority of the actors engaging in disaster management within Italy, including the National Firefighters Corps, which is the main actor, followed by armed forces, police forces, and the Forest Guards. Then there is the National Health Service, along with science and research groups, as well as the Alpine Search and Rescue Corps. Each of these public bodies plays an important role depending on the type of disaster that occurs. Then there is the private body of the Italian Red Cross, which also plays a part in disaster relief (Module, 2021). Nonetheless, private organizations are also relied upon for contributions in the management of disaster responses: “in order to contribute they have to join the national or regional registers of civil protection volunteer organizations” (Module, 2021, p. 4).

Recently, however, Italy has signed a memorandum of understanding with India to share disaster management best practices (Chaudhury, 2021). The two states took part in a virtual summit in 2020 largely in part due to the Covid pandemic responses that both countries were undertaking. The new memorandum reflects Italy’s desire to engage more fully in “the exchange of technical-scientific information, the exchange of experts, the development of strategies and methods aimed at reducing common risks, the study and analysis of the impact of natural disasters, sharing of skills and procedures for assistance in the event of natural disasters” (Chaudhury, 2021). This memorandum with India, moreover, shows that the Italian State seeks to re-centralize some of the functions of disaster management in the coming years.

Disaster Hazards and Planning

Italy has invested in climate change and flooding disaster risk mitigation as well as earthquake disaster risk mitigation (OCHA, 2016; UNDRR, 2022). Paleari (2018) argues, however, that Italy has not distributed enough funds across the state for preventing and mitigating hydrogeological disaster risks. Some regions are poorer than others, while other regions are much better organized and managed, with a large volunteer force for disaster response (Alexander, 2008). So as Alexander (2008) notes, “in Florence, for example the Venerable Archiconfraternity of the Misericordia has a 761-year-old tradition of not-for-profit work in emergencies. Thus, although the Comune of Florence has only 12 civil protection employees, it can put 5000 volunteers to work in the field within two hours of the start of an emergency and can activate 1000 of them within ten minutes.” Volunteers make up a substantial force for the planning and response to disasters in Italy, and all volunteers are accredited upon training prior to being put into action (Alexander, 2008).

Additionally, India is not the only actor with whom Italy has signed a memorandum of understanding on disaster management. In 2016, Italy signed one with the World Bank Group to focus on disaster risk reduction (World Bank, 2016). Cited on the occasion was the need to address the issue of climate change and the disaster it could have on the country if not prepared for the worst, which is why the Group’s director for climate change noted that “Unless we change our approach to future planning for cities and coastal areas that takes into account potential disasters, we run the real risk of locking in decisions that will lead to drastic increases in future losses” (World Bank, 2016). Prior to these developments, however, Italy was more dependent on its own local resources and organizations.

For example, in response to the 2012 earth quake Emilia, regional and local actors combined forces to direct the disaster response. 27 were killed, 400 injured, and 42,000 evacuated after the quake. The National Department Civil Protection (DPC) and the local civil protection were activated and coordinated as per planning, and 28 relief camps were built to tend to those in need (Carnelli & Frigerio, 2016). For hazards and emergency situations of this sort, the Command and Control Headquarters follows the procedure of declaring a state of emergency. This department oversaw the response for two months before transferring control to local and regional authorities. Regional law is then followed, and in the case of the Emilia earthquake a reconstruction plan was passed and pursued the following year.

Participants

The national participating force in Italy is the Department of Civil Protection's headquarters in Via Ulpiano and the national emergency operations centre (EOC) on the Via Salaria (Alexander, 2008). Regional and provincial offices make up the next level of participating forces for disaster management: “the provinces have the most direct role in co-ordinating assistance to municipalities, while the regions manage general support, as well as preparing hazard management plans for broad areas of land” (Alexander, 2008). Then there are the local level operational participants in the municipalities, found in Mixed Operations Centers and coordinated across town halls with small local authorities and administrators. Depending on the level of local risk, the level of services provided will fluctuate. Florence has a much more integrated and available civil protection service dedicated for this purpose, but it is also a much wealthier region than other parts of Italy and can afford this type of service.

Universities across the state provide disaster management education. Before the close of the 20th century, disaster management was seen more as a centralized affair, but now it is seen more as a local affair as well. This may be somewhat confusing to an outsider, but it reflects well the tensions in Italy between centralized power and de-centralized power. Thus at the provincial level there are not always well-defined principles or procedures for disaster management (Alexander, 2008). But, as Alexander (2008) notes, autonomy also gives rise to responsibility, and so “where provinces and regions have statutes that guarantee extra autonomy, civil protection has forged ahead, including in some places, such as Sicily and Sardinia, which were traditionally considered slow to innovate.” Since regional autonomy is a distinct character of Italian culture, it makes sense that civil protection would find the bulk of its participants at that level and through volunteer programs.

However, there are government agencies and NGOs that take part in planning and coordination, as the centralized aspect of Italian disaster management shows, and as the participation of private organizations indicates. Italian law allows for any institution and organization to “take part in civil protection activities, and since these institutions and organizations may also be private, foreign NGOs may in principle contribute to Italian civil protection” (Italian Red Cross, 2015). This is already the case with Italy working with India’s government and with the International organization of the World Bank to refine disaster management along the parameters of climate change risk reduction and so on. Still, there is no real clarity on which NGOs may participate in disaster management or what their role would be in the national legislation (Italian Red Cross, 2015).

Potential Obstacles to Effective Disaster Management

If there is one potential obstacle to effective disaster management in Italy it is Italy’s character and culture, which is at once both its main strength and its main weakness. For example, Italian regions and provinces are more or less autonomous and culturally unique; they rely upon themselves to the extent possible and they manage disaster response through volunteers and local teams. But at the same time, the central government seeks to have some principles that every manager should follow and thus legislation exists to cover this—but the law itself is not explicit or clear on terms or conditions or even on roles and responsibilities: “therefore, there is a gap as concerns the intervention of foreign organizations, a gap that needs to be filled by looking to other norms” (Italian Red Cross, 2015). However, at the same time, the Italian Red Cross (2015) recognizes that Italy has “developed advanced and flexible disaster response mechanisms” (p. vi). It is part of the European Union (EU) Civil Protection Mechanism, which only bolsters the support for response. Yet, up till today, Italy has for the most part relied mainly on its own support and resources for disaster management.

The main obstacle to effective disaster management according to the Italian Red Cross (2015) is that in Italy there are too many organs with differing capabilities, resources, and responsibilities. Therefore, there is no clarity of structure in terms of standardizing response. And because of the top-down and bottom-up approaches applied in Italy, no one really knows or seems to much less care what the rules are for disaster response. It is simply a matter of everyone pitching it together when disaster strikes—and this attitude really reflects the overall culture of Italy: it is a very relaxed and laid back culture that is centuries old and has seen the rise and fall of empires, churches, and states. It is not really one much given over to central planning or standardization but instead relies on a spirit of community for getting the job done. Thus, Italy remains a rather reactive posture with regards disaster management. The call for centralization is more a result of political pandering to the public than an actual expression of any unified or coherent pull towards standardized processes and procedures.

Yet when administrators do want to apply rules or laws, they can usually find one that might prevent aid from coming in from outside (Italian Red Cross, 2015). The legal framework for disaster management is not clear on this matter, and local provinces are not necessarily grateful for outside aid, as they do not want to be on the hook for paying back loans.