@article {bnh-7293, title = {Legal Complexities of Entry, Rescue, Seizure and Disposal of Disaster-Affected Companion Animals in New Zealand}, journal = {Animals}, volume = {10}, year = {2020}, month = {09/2020}, abstract = {

With the increasing societal expectation that animals are afforded greater protection in emergencies, the legal process from entering a property to rescuing a companion animal, through to how to dispose of such animals if they remain unclaimed has not been well examined in New Zealand. It is hypothesised that the legal framework for such a response is flawed. In this study, each phase of animal disaster rescue is evaluated against four key statutes that may apply in each phase, in that does any statute provide clear end-to-end provisions with clear legal authority to do so? The study found that all statutes evaluated contained flaws and that the current legal provisions are insufficient to provide clear authority for the sequential process of undertaking the rescue of animals during emergencies. A major flaw was discovered in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, a key statute, that provided for the seizure of property and animals but omitted a procedure for the disposal of such seized things leaving them all in legal limbo. It is recommended that animal disaster laws be updated to be more animal inclusive. The method also may be applicable to assist evaluating animal disaster management legal frameworks in other countries

}, keywords = {animal, disaster, disposal, Emergency, law, rescue, seizure, welfare}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091583}, url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/9/1583}, author = {Glassey, Steve} } @article {bnh-1639, title = {Risk Management from a Legal and Governance Perspective}, journal = {Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management}, volume = {4}, year = {2014}, month = {12/09/2014}, pages = {61-72}, chapter = {61}, abstract = {
Risk management is seen as the key to living with potentially catastrophic hazards, but the language of disaster risk management carries with it the implication that all risks can in fact be managed. This implies that if there is an adverse outcome, even accepting an inherent residual risk, there must have been a failure by those responsible. The concept of risk management raises the further risk of being blamed for failing to meet community expectations and that risk, too, needs to be managed. Power says:
{\textellipsis} experts who are being made increasingly accountable for what they do are now becoming more preoccupied with managing their own risks. Specifically, secondary risks to their reputation are becoming as significant as the primary risks for which experts have knowledge and training. (Power, M., The Risk Management of Everything (Demos, London 2004) 14).
The ultimate expression of the secondary risk came with the conviction of six Italian scientists for manslaughter, over their failure to issue appropriate warnings regarding the risk of the 2009 L{\textquoteright}Aquila earthquake.
This paper looks at the question of risk management from a legal and governance perspective. Drawing on developments in law and policy from Australia and around the world, this paper will explore whether disaster risk management is moving from reducing the risk to communities to reducing the risk to governments and emergency managers. Legal and policy reforms that may help to refocus disaster risk management to those vulnerable to hazards, rather than vulnerable to blame, will be identified.

}, keywords = {governance, law, risk management}, issn = {2185-8322}, doi = {10.5595/idrim.2014.0076}, url = {http://idrimjournal.com/index.php/idrim/article/view/76}, author = {Michael Eburn and Dovers, Steve} }