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 anotherbut 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 approacheven 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 lawsthey 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 managementand 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 Italys approach, the implementation pattern the state adopts when managing disaster, disaster hazards and planning it faces, participants, obstacles, and how disasters have shaped the states 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 tremorsbut 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 commandlargely 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 Italys 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 Italys 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 Italys 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 institutiona 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...…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.

How Disasters Have Shaped Disaster Management Planning and Policy in Italy Today

Italys disasters in the second half of the 20th century were responsible for shaping the legislation that was passed in 1992. These disasters were the earthquakes that rattled the country from the 1968 to 1980. The seemed to occur so frequently that politicians and pundits called for legislation that would help the country take a more unified and responsible approach to disaster management.

Today, the call to action is centered around climate change, which is the current disaster specter haunting the planet, right after the Covid pandemic. Indeed, Italys decision to work closely with the Indian government is a result of concerns about the two countries trying to figure out how to implement a centralized form of leadership in a nation that is incredibly provincial. In this way, Italy and India are a lot alike, as they both are better depicted historically as a state of many different small kingdoms. In India, there is no real one national culture, in spite of what the government has tried to do: the northern states have a much different culture and identity from the southern states, and the inland states are different as well. The same is true in Italy, where the different regions and provinces have their own characters and cultures, customs, and identities. In countries like this, it is much more difficult for a centralized approach to management to be accepted or even practiced. That is why Italy and India have tried to address this problem together. They do not have the individual national character of a country like the US where civil war already put to rest the question of where the authority of the country would lie.

Thus, the 20th century quakes in Italy were a big impact on the decision to set down disaster management principles, and the worries of climate change and the pandemic of 2020 were more concerns that the state has tried to face by working with the World Bank and other NGOs. However, flooding has also been a problem for Italy in the past and the 2003 flood of upper Tagliamento River Basin affected 300,000 people, caused more than 2 million euros in damages, and occurred after a period of severe drought. Italy was also hit by many smaller flood events which caused significant damages in agricultural and urban areas (UNDRR, 2022). To address this concern of flooding, the Italian State has passed legislation that restricts builders from constructing buildings within 150m of rivers. Still, because it is Italy and everyone has a very independent attitude, there is little to no compliance with this rule (UNDRR, 2022). In fact, Italy is a country that resists rules and laws, preferring a different heritage than one of bureaucracy for its guidance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Italys approach to disaster management is distinctly Italian and largely reactivebut at the local level where the heart of response can be found, there are proactive steps in placesuch as the ensuring that local volunteers have the training and education to implement best practices in disaster management and that they…