Disaster Management in Italy: History, Structure & Challenges

Introduction

Italy is the 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 members of a unified nation. These regions fought with one another for centuries, but today they are all considered part of Italy. It is because of this character that Italy today relies more heavily upon local disaster management responses than upon a centralized approach—even though centralized management procedures exist, at least in theory.

Another aspect of Italy worth noting is that Italians tend to have little regard for rigid rules and laws—they are a people who respond to the needs of any given moment in the manner they see as best. As a result, Italy's regions rely a great deal upon volunteers in disaster management, and they prefer this approach over turning to outside help or NGOs. This paper discusses the history of disaster management in Italy, the rationale for Italy's approach, the implementation pattern the state adopts when managing disaster, the disaster hazards and planning challenges it faces, key participants, potential 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 hazards were known to the state at the time—hydrogeological events, forest fires, volcanic 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 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 function, and the state proved ineffective at managing policy in this regard. Italy then attempted to improve its civil protection and disaster management system in the latter half of the 20th century. This transformation continued into the 21st century, with Italy seeking to decentralize disaster management by conferring legislative power to various Italian regions while reserving to the Italian State alone 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 due to the various disasters that have befallen the state over 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 Europe, Italy faces greater disaster risk than any other country (Alexander, 2008). Millions of people could be impacted by an earthquake in the Strait of Messina or by a volcanic eruption such as that of Vesuvius, which last erupted nearly 2,000 years ago. Because of these factors, and despite Italy's regional differences, a national system of disaster management has been constructed.

Essentially, however, this construction came only as a result of legislative reactions to disasters—such as the earthquake that shook Sicily in 1968, the one in 1976 that struck Friuli Venezia-Giulia, and the one in 1980 that hit Campania-Basilicata (Alexander, 2008). Government lawmakers in Parliament saw a need for a disaster management chief who could oversee responses, and 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, 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 as it is because Italy is, both historically and traditionally, a state made up of many different small kingdoms. Only in modern times have these kingdoms been united under one government. Each region and locale, however, retains a strong degree of independence and autonomy with respect to administration and management of operations. This is the preferred approach of Italians; decentralization of powers is part of its historical character, and the same decentralized approach to disaster management is practiced 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 consultations with organizations like the World Bank. In 2017, the state passed legislation empowering 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 reflects lessons drawn from recent disasters, such as the Emilia earthquake in 2012. After that response, Italian representatives sought to reassure 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. In fact, this approach was embedded within state law well before the 2012 earthquake, but it carried little practical force.

Today, Italy recognizes that the Chief of Civil Protection has responsibility for overseeing that necessary resources and funds are secured for operations and planning. 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, with governance also provided by a central actor—the Chief of Civil Protection—who coordinates with the whole of the Italian state. The Chief can issue "orders of necessity," which are broad in scope but must "explicitly indicate derogated provisions and state reasons for derogation" (Module, 2021, p. 6). The Chief is also 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) ordering the restoration of public services and infrastructure; and (3) interventions to reduce residual 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 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 remains present and integrated in any disaster response scenario. This bottom-up approach was preserved in Italy despite the establishment of the centralized nationwide civil protection service, because that service was found to be too reactive and insufficiently proactive (Alexander, 2008).

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 sought to reclaim authority, and power was transferred from central prefects to regional administrators in all Italian provinces. Consider, for example, the Lombardy region, which by way of comparison is larger than Wales and holds twice the population of Ireland; it has 12 provinces that coordinate with 1,546 local authorities to oversee a range of civil protection challenges that are "impressive, as the region encompasses both Italy's industrial heartland and a section of the Alps" (Alexander, 2008). Italy's approach to disaster management is thus a combination of top-down and bottom-up, resulting from the centralized needs of the state as a whole and the individual characters and capabilities of its various regions.

Implementation Pattern

The implementation pattern in Italy's disaster management and response approach is mainly bottom-up, 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 8,104 municipalities whose mayors are recognized by Italian law as the chief local authority in civil protection services (Alexander, 2008). Emergency preparation, planning, and response management are 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 can call for NGO assistance, while the mayor also holds authority at the local level to request aid or call in assistance.

Public bodies represent the majority of actors engaging in disaster management within Italy, including the National Firefighters Corps, which is the main actor, followed by the armed forces, police forces, and the Forest Guards. The National Health Service, science and research groups, and the Alpine Search and Rescue Corps also play important roles depending on the type of disaster. The Italian Red Cross, as a private body, also plays a part in disaster relief (Module, 2021). Private organizations are additionally relied upon for contributions, though "in order to contribute they have to join the national or regional registers of civil protection volunteer organizations" (Module, 2021, p. 4).

Recently, Italy 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 response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The 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 also signals that the Italian state seeks to re-centralize some functions of disaster management in the coming years.

Conclusion

Italy's approach to disaster management is distinctly Italian and largely reactive at the national level. At the local level, however, where the heart of response is found, proactive steps are in place—such as ensuring that local volunteers receive the training and credentials needed to implement best practices in disaster management. In the end, Italy has made efforts to standardize and centralize disaster management, but its provinces and regions continue to prefer their own local approach to handling disasters.

References

Alexander, D. (2008). Emergency command in Italy. Retrieved from http://emergency-planning.blogspot.com/2008/11/emergency-command-in-italy.html

Carnelli, F., & Frigerio, I. (2016). A socio-spatial vulnerability assessment for disaster management: Insights from the 2012 Emilia earthquake (Italy). 22–44.

Chaudhury, D. (2021). India, Italy sign MoU to share best practices in disaster management. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-italy-sign-mou-to-share-best-practices-in-disaster-management/articleshow/83870870.cms

Italian Red Cross. (2015). IDRL in Italy. Retrieved from https://disasterlaw.ifrc.org/sites/default/files/media/disaster_law/2020-09/Italian%20IDRL%20Report%20ENG.pdf

Module, J., Bartolini, G., & Natoli, T. (2021). IFRC Project "Checklist on Law and Disaster Preparedness and Response." Retrieved from https://disasterlaw.ifrc.org/sites/default/files/media/disaster_law/2021-03/Italy%20Desk%20Research%20IFRC.pdf

OCHA. (2016). Italy commits to long-term earthquake preparedness. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/italy/italy-commits-long-term-earthquake-preparedness

Paleari, S. (2018). Natural disasters in Italy: Do we invest enough in risk prevention and mitigation? International Journal of Environmental Studies, 75(4), 673–687.

UNDRR. (2022). Mitigating the impact of climate change and flooding in Italy. Retrieved from https://www.preventionweb.net/news/mitigating-impact-climate-change-and-flooding-italy

World Bank. (2016). The World Bank Group and Italy join forces on disaster risk reduction. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/05/31/the-world-bank-group-and-italy-join-forces-on-disaster-risk-reduction