Why not exercise plans with recovery or restoration in mind?
Damage from Hurricane Sandy along the New Jersey coast. Greg Thompson/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The statement that investments in resilience pay huge dividends when disaster strikes rings true, but the conversation can’t end there.
As a longtime local and state emergency management director, one of my final challenges remains unmet: the ability to gather the combined resources of a community to consider the challenges of restoration prior to a disaster.
Here’s why: Knowledge of risks is often known, but that information is diffused among a number of agencies. Those who know the most about risk rarely have an opportunity or a forum, outside of their own professional discipline, to educate or share their knowledge with others. We need discussions outside of our respective disciplines because no one group or profession possesses either all of the answers or a clear understanding of all of the negative impacts that could arise from a disaster.
In my final years in Washington state as director of emergency management, we determined that for the state and its communities to recover from a catastrophic, or just a really bad earthquake, we needed a public-private discussion of the risks (to public safety, commerce and “social equilibrium”) that our coastline and communities throughout the state would face from the Big One. That proposal is still under review by Gov. Jay Inslee and the Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division.
It’s a good start at planning for resilience. If/when it finally surfaces among other state agencies, local governments, the private sector and (I hope) the general public, there is a chance we can move from theory to concerted action to plan for recovery. Where to rebuild, where to reoccupy and where not to are just some of the considerations I have been speaking about for the past couple of years and in the months since my retirement.
After a major event, the priority inevitably becomes getting people back home, rebuilding and healing. No one really wants to have an in-depth discussion about the feasibility of reoccupying or rebuilding. People want to go home again if they can, as quickly as possible, and resume life as they once knew it. Environmental concerns often pale in the face of a need for communities to rebuild and reconstitute themselves. In New Jersey and Louisiana, and almost any other place where risks have caught up with development decisions, recovery planning began too late, after the event has done its worst.
We know that government leaders, after the first few days or weeks, will appoint someone to lead a redevelopment/recovery task force, particularly if criticism about the pace of the recovery grows.
Why not do it now?
Why not exercise plans with recovery or restoration in mind? Why not identify challenges, such as a lack of legislative or administrative authority to carry out recovery requirements and establish that authority? Why not enlist leaders in the private sector to provide their perspective. And let’s not forget to take the general public along for the ride. They are way ahead of us on such subjects, we might as well trust them in advance with the challenges we may all face.
Jim Mullen is the former Washington state Emergency Management Division director and former National Emergency Management Association president.
As a longtime local and state emergency management director, one of my final challenges remains unmet: the ability to gather the combined resources of a community to consider the challenges of restoration prior to a disaster.
Here’s why: Knowledge of risks is often known, but that information is diffused among a number of agencies. Those who know the most about risk rarely have an opportunity or a forum, outside of their own professional discipline, to educate or share their knowledge with others. We need discussions outside of our respective disciplines because no one group or profession possesses either all of the answers or a clear understanding of all of the negative impacts that could arise from a disaster.
In my final years in Washington state as director of emergency management, we determined that for the state and its communities to recover from a catastrophic, or just a really bad earthquake, we needed a public-private discussion of the risks (to public safety, commerce and “social equilibrium”) that our coastline and communities throughout the state would face from the Big One. That proposal is still under review by Gov. Jay Inslee and the Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division.
It’s a good start at planning for resilience. If/when it finally surfaces among other state agencies, local governments, the private sector and (I hope) the general public, there is a chance we can move from theory to concerted action to plan for recovery. Where to rebuild, where to reoccupy and where not to are just some of the considerations I have been speaking about for the past couple of years and in the months since my retirement.
After a major event, the priority inevitably becomes getting people back home, rebuilding and healing. No one really wants to have an in-depth discussion about the feasibility of reoccupying or rebuilding. People want to go home again if they can, as quickly as possible, and resume life as they once knew it. Environmental concerns often pale in the face of a need for communities to rebuild and reconstitute themselves. In New Jersey and Louisiana, and almost any other place where risks have caught up with development decisions, recovery planning began too late, after the event has done its worst.
We know that government leaders, after the first few days or weeks, will appoint someone to lead a redevelopment/recovery task force, particularly if criticism about the pace of the recovery grows.
Why not do it now?
Why not exercise plans with recovery or restoration in mind? Why not identify challenges, such as a lack of legislative or administrative authority to carry out recovery requirements and establish that authority? Why not enlist leaders in the private sector to provide their perspective. And let’s not forget to take the general public along for the ride. They are way ahead of us on such subjects, we might as well trust them in advance with the challenges we may all face.
Jim Mullen is the former Washington state Emergency Management Division director and former National Emergency Management Association president.
http://www.emergencymgmt.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment