Countries

The two countries are Japan and Britain. The two states are highly developed, so their technology and preparedness skills are likely at par. Further, the two nations vary concerning disaster occurrences, making them appropriate for the analysis. Japan and Britain are similar in that they are developed countries but differ in regards to disaster frequencies and management.

Implementation Pattern

In the UK, the implementation is bottom-up. Disaster is managed from a local level to the national government, depending on the disaster level (“Cabinet Office,” 2018b, p. 7). The Category 1 level entails responders like the police, fire services, ambulances, environmental agencies, and local authorities. Notably, this is the level that bears the heaviest responsibility in response. Correspondingly, in Category 2, the participants are organizations that would be partaking in preparing for incidences that would affect their sectors. The Category 2 participants include public bodies, such as the Health and Safety Executive and telecommunications companies. However, these two levels are governed by the Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) that was implemented in 2004 that defines emergencies and how they should be responded to. In the UK, the government’s disaster management implementation pattern starts from the local to the national level.

Conversely, in Japan, disaster implementation pattern is top down. The Cabinet appoints the Minister of State for Disaster Management (Ogata, 2016). The response is divided into 3-tier administration: the national government, prefectures, and the municipalities. Forthwith, the head of each tier takes charge of the responsibility of their position and even designs the prevention plan. Should an emergency occur, the Cabinet Officer takes full charge of the situation with the assistance of agencies and ministries, regardless of the disaster level.The Prime Minister is involved when large scale disasters occur, and strategize counteractive measures. In Japan, disaster planning and implementation activities are done from the top to bottom offices.

Preparedness Activities

In the UK, Category 1 and Category 2 partake in preparedness activities. Both parties cooperate and share information on disaster preparedness (“Cabinet Office,” 2018 b, p. 8). Category 1 communicates with the public on disaster through advise, warning, and informing the public. Equally, this category must conduct risk assessments and formulate emergency planning and business continuity management (BCM) strategies (“Cabinet Office,” 2012a, p. 9). The local authority has exclusive duties to advise voluntary organizations and the commercial sector. Categories 1 and 2 have responsibilities to educate the public on disasters.

In Japan, the government is responsible for preparedness activities. The Cabinet Office investigates disasters in the country and devices crisis management systems that are applied by other major cities globally (“White Paper,” 2015, p. 57). There exists the Disaster Management Headquarters under the Cabinet Office that designs drill activities in emergency preparedness. The Headquarters liaises with the local governments to educate the public and conduct drills focusing on complex disasters.Policies enacted by the Cabinet Office enforces most of the training done. Disaster preparedness in Japan is a government function that it implements with the aid of agencies and programs.

Strengths and Weaknesses of both Systems

The bottom-up approach used by Britain has its benefits. Firstly, it results in a quick response. The local authorities, fire-fighters, ambulances, and other amenities are readily available (“Cabinet Office,” 2018, p. 7).Further, the local organizations and government are equipped with the skills to handle any disasters. Since Categories 1 and 2 are actively involved, they are well funded, equipped, and their skills tailored to respond to their issues with effect.Conversely, weaknesses in the approach taken by Britain. There is very little activity on the part of the UK government in disaster management as Category 1 and 2 are responsible (“Cabinet Office,” 2018b, p. 8). Similarly, a disaster may take long to counter if Category 1, does not have all the amenities needed to resolve the issue. The approach puts pressure on Category 1 and leaves the UK government dependent on local authorities for information.

Japan’s up-down approach means the government is proactive about disasters. The Cabinet Office makes a nation-wide analysis of disasters and comes up with effective strategies (Ogata, 2016). The use of government-sponsored activities like drilling means that people would be equipped with the skills to handle the disasters when they occur. The approach may lead to a delayed response. Since all instructions must be received from the Cabinet Office, who must convene meetings before any action is taken, there could be delays (“White Paper,” 2015, p. 60). Furthermore, it takes the government a lot of time and financial resources in conducting these researches and preventive programs. The Japan system leaves agencies dependent on and is costly to the government.

The similarity and differences in the response systems are due to multiple reasons. The two are similar in that they have policies that govern their responses. The policies are essential to ensure that the operations are done to the benefit of society. The differences are more apparent, however. Understandably, Japan is more prone to fatalistic disasters at a large scale compared to Britain. Hence, the national government would be more involved in designing policies and implementing strategies. The response systems are driven by the frequency and scales of disasters, in which case, Japan is more vulnerable than Britain.

References

“Cabinet Office.” (2012 a). Chapter 1 Introduction: Revision to Emergency Preparedness.Civil Contingencies Act Enhancement Programme. Retrieved From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61024/Chapter-1-Introduction_amends_16042012.pdf

“Cabinet Office.” (2018 b). UK Emergency Planning: Our Context and Approach. Civil Contingencies Secretariat. Retrieved From https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/55686/Overview_of_UK_Emergency_Management_vers1.0.pdf

“White Paper.” (2015). Disaster Management in Japan 2015. Cabinet Office, Japan. Retrieved From http://www.bousai.go.jp/kaigirep/hakusho/pdf/WP2015_DM_Full_Version.pdf

Ogata, T. (2016). Disaster Management in Japan. Japan Medical Association Journal, 59 (1). Retrieved From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5059167/

https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/55686/Overview_of_UK_Emergency_Management_vers1.0.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61024/Chapter-1-Introduction_amends_16042012.pdf

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?