Logotyp: till Försvarshögskolans hemsida

Över 60 procent av brandmännen i Sverige är anställda som räddningstjänstpersonal i beredskap och arbetar deltid inom kommunal räddningstjänst. Deras huvudsakliga utbildning är grundkurs för Räddningsinsats som årligen genomförs på ett flertal platser i landet med MSB som huvudman.

Utvärderingen visar att grundkurs för Räddningsinsats är en uppskattad utbildning, både av studerande och avnämare, som i hög grad uppfyller räddningstjänsternas behov. Trots detta finns det många förslag på förbättringar av utbildningen. Många synpunkter handlar om att anpassa utbildningen till förändringar som skett inom räddningstjänsterna. Kunskapsområdet Prehospitalt akut omhändertagande bör utökas med suicidkunskap, anhörigstöd och socialt omhändertagande samt hjärt-lungräddning för att anpassa kunskapsområdet till nya behov. För att öka studerandenas förståelse för samtliga kunskapsområdens relevans bör en stor del av undervisningen och övningarna vara ämnesövergripande. Övningarna bör också genomföras med en flexibel syn på insatsorganisation och med ett jämnt fokus på olika släckmetoder.

Många respondenter har efterfrågat en anpassning av grundkurs för Räddningsinsats till lokala förhållanden. Eftersom skillnaderna mellan landets räddningstjänster vad gäller organisering, riskbilder och stationernas behov, är stora bör en sådan anpassning göras under preparandkursen och inte under grundkursen.

Crismart har genomfört en effektutvärdering av tolv 2:4-projekt med olika löptider. Projekten har bland annat genomförts av länsstyrelser, MSB och andra myndigheter. Syftet var att stödja MSB:s uppföljning av 2:4-projekt utförda inom åtgärden inriktning och samordning. Detta ska ske genom att projektens påverkan på krisberedskapsförmågan utvärderas.

I vår analys av de resultat och effekter som uppnåtts i de studerade 2:4-projekten framkommer ett antal större mönster rörande förutsättningarna för projekten att resultera i någon slags systemeffekt. Vi kan se:

- att det finns en inneboende problematik i hur effekter kan och bör mätas och utvärderas på systemnivå, inte bara ur ett utvärderingsmetodologiskt perspektiv utan även på ett mer praktiskt plan i hur 2:4-projekt drivs och kvalitetssäkras,

- att 2:4-anslagets avgränsning skapar problem för långsiktighet och förvaltning av de resultat som projekten mynnar ut i,

- att det samtidigt finns en risk att anslaget över tid får en skev inriktning på grund av hur denna systemnytta kan mätas och värderas,

- och att anslagets utformning skapar hinder för vilken slags systemnytta som går att uppnå baserat på vilka aktörer som har möjlighet att bidra till och dra nytta av projekten.

Following unprecedented earthquakes in 1999, highly centralized Turkey initiated reforms that aimed to improve disaster management collaboration and to empower local authorities. In 2011, two earthquakes hit the country anew affecting the city of Van and town of Erciş in Turkey’s southeast.

In attempts to reduce disaster risk, global disaster risk reduction frameworks and disaster scholars and practitioners advocate collaborative and decentralized disaster management strategies. This thesis investigates how such strategies are received in a centralized and hierarchical national political-administrative system that largely is the anti-thesis of the prescribed solutions. More specifically, this research investigates the barriers and prerequisites for disaster management collaboration between both public and civil society actors in Turkey (during preparedness, response, and recovery) as well as how Turkey’s political-administrative system affects disaster management collaboration and its outcomes. The challenges to decentralization of disaster management are also investigated.

Based on forty-four interviews with actors ranging from national to village level and NGOs, the findings suggest that the political-administrative system can alter the relative importance, validity, and applicability of previously established enabling or constraining conditions for collaboration. This may in turn challenge previous theoretical assumptions regarding collaboration.

By adopting a mode of collaboration that fit the wider political-administrative system, collaborative disaster management progress was achieved in Turkey’s national level activities. Although there were exceptions, collaboration spanning sectors and/or administrative levels were generally less forthcoming, partly due to the disjoint character of the political-administrative system. Political divergence between local and central actors made central-local collaboration difficult but these barriers were partly trumped by other prerequisites enabling collaboration like interdependence and pre-existing relations. The findings suggest that the specific attributes of disasters may both help and hinder disaster management collaboration. Such collaboration generally improved disaster response. The findings also indicate that the decentralization attempts may have been premature as the conditions for ensuring a functional decentralization of disaster management are presently lacking. Decentralization attempts are commonly suggested to increase local capacity and local participation but the findings of this dissertation suggest that in Turkey, these commodities may currently have better chances of being increased by refraining from decentralization.

Global disaster policy frameworks promote decentralization as a prerequisite of good disaster governance. Using 44 interviews, this study contributes to the literature that focuses on disasters and decentralization by investigating three systemic mechanisms that seemingly challenge decentralization of disaster management in Turkey: introduction of oversight systems, resource-allocation failure, and central–local collaboration. The results indicate that these mechanisms are enabled by a combination of political-administrative system characteristics and disaster-induced processes. To better understand how to secure the benefits of decentralization, we should engage with a wide range of disaster management actor perspectives, and integrate research on political-administrative systems and collaborative governance.

In an effort to address some of the current knowledge gaps in the literature on collaborative crisis management, this chapter explores the nature and development of the political-administrative system in Turkey and the role some of its attributes played for collaboration during the response to two earthquakes in southeast Turkey in 2011. In particular, the chapter investigates how state-society relationships, political conflicts, and intergovernmental relations influenced stakeholder collaboration during the earthquake response. In order to capture how the actors perceived collaboration and how they organized their collaborative activities, interviews were conducted with state officials from varying administrative levels, municipality and NGO representatives as well as village and neighborhood leaders, all of whom were involved in managing the earthquake disasters. By applying a general collaborative governance framework, this chapter attempts to shed light on the perceptions of collaboration in Turkey’s political-administrative system and the role it plays for collaboration. Two components of this framework are in particular focus: the drivers (i.e. uncertainty, interdependence, initiating leadership, and consequential incentives) and the “system context” (socio-economic and cultural characteristics) as well as the interplay between them. This chapter illustrates that there are evident differences across political-administrative systems regarding the conditions for collaboration, who is engaged in such activities, and what collaborations can realistically achieve. The chapter highlights that there needs to be a greater recognition of how these conditions for collaboration, and collaboration itself, may differ in various settings. Also, research should pay close attention to meanings and values that actors in these varying political-administrative systems ascribe to collaboration, as these too affect the outcomes of such activities.

Managing disasters generally demands multiorganizational collaboration and collaborative skills. In Turkey, observed shortcomings in disaster management collaboration prompted a reorganization of the disaster management system that led to the emergence of a centralized hybrid network. The network governance literature generally heralds decentralized organization and shared network governance, which facilitate collaboration by maximizing trust and legitimacy and minimizing power imbalances. Through the use of 24 semi-structured interviews, this article's objective is to assess the applicability of prior theoretical assumptions regarding interorganizational collaboration in a political-administrative context different from that in which they were originally developed. The study contributes to the theoretical discussion about how political-administrative system attributes might influence interorganizational disaster management collaboration. The results suggest that ‘tailor-fitting’ interorganizational network designs to the political-administrative culture can be beneficial for collaborative disaster management. Furthermore, results suggest that more effort should be devoted to examining cases where actors manage to overcome barriers to collaboration despite challenging institutional and political-administrative landscapes.

Local and civil society can play decisive roles in disaster response. Yet, the disaster management literature is unclear regarding the conditions that enable cross-sectoral collaboration. Using a collaborative governance framework and 44 semi-structured interviews, this study investigates how trust, pre-existing relations, interdependence, knowledge, and resources affect cross-sectoral collaboration during disaster response in Turkey. The results illustrate how these factors interact with system context factors, like political compatibility, to facilitate or hinder cross-sectoral collaboration. The study concludes that cross-sectoral collaboration is no panacea for successful disaster response but empirical examples suggest that cross-sectoral collaboration can contribute to reducing suboptimal disaster response.

The magnitude of a disaster is not measured solely by the size of an earthquake or strength of a storm. It depends on how societies are structured and organised, as this affects their disaster resilience.