Article Six (AUGUST/2011) - Posted by Len LeRiche, AUGUST 18, 2011
Emergency Preparedness / Emergency Management - Closure of the Search and Rescue Coordination Center in St. John’s.
The number one priority for any government at any level is safety and security of its citizens. Without safety and security development stops or stalls as people lose trust and confidence in systems and invest elsewhere. In the case of the SAR Coordination Sub-center in St. John’s, closing it is a huge mistake. The message forwarded to us by the Government of Canada is that we are not considered equal to our counterparts across the Federation. Had the bureaucrats known anything about Search and Rescue and the part it plays in emergency response and recovery and emergency preparedness they would not have considered such a drastic move.
In an attempt to manoeuvre around the issue and default to technology as the savour to improve the service from Halifax and Trenton they missed several key points. Some obvious ones which have been identified for them such as local knowledge however, local support is also very important. Considering that emergency response and recovery is the responsibility of the Province until it exceeds the Province’s capability it is equally important to build local networks of response which must be coordinated, practised, and exercised. Conducting an exercise cannot be done from afar. Emergency planners rely on networks which are built and maintained at a local level requiring time to build and to maintain.
The numbers of groups that are established in the emergency management area are all necessary as they become conduits to stay informed and to train together for efficiency reasons. As was stated in the Cougar Helicopter Report, safety / emergency preparedness requires a special effort. It cannot be lumped in with other functions as the focus gets shifted around too easily.
In addition to the closure of the Center, the Federal Government is also reorganizing Public Safety to set up the hub office in Halifax for the Atlantic Provinces. Again, these decisions are without consideration for the consequences. Calculating the risk doesn’t seem to be a part of the formula. Look at the obvious gaps in a strategy to stage a rescue operation during a catastrophic event when extensive travel is required.
Privatizing a support system is OK although not ideal. Regardless of how it looks on paper, profit margins drive the service; therefore it has to be the function of government.
After spending 35 years in government I learned that things don’t change they just keep going around and around at such a slow pace that by the time they come around for the third or fourth time they just look new. Sadly, governments are void of innovation and ingenuity by relying on the same old solutions to the same old problems.
Regards,
Len
Len LeRiche
LeRiche and Associates – Emergency Management Group Inc.
===================================================================================
Article Five (APRIL/2011) - Posted by Len LeRiche, APRIL 21, 2011
Another above Average 2011, Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast.
If predictions are accurate for an above average 2011 Atlantic basin hurricane season, where it is expected that 16 named storms between June and November, with 9 expected to turn into hurricanes and 5 developing into major hurricanes, what is the probability of another IGOR like event in NL?
Check out http://www.entransit.org/hurricane for US landfall probability as far North as Eastport Maine and it is fair to say the probability is very good that we could see an event as devastating as, or greater than IGOR.
Are we prepared for another IGOR? Have we learned anything from previous events? If we have we are certainly keeping quiet about it. At the provincial level, I’m not convinced they have taken the necessary steps in the response, recovery, preparedness and mitigation areas of emergency management. A robust emergency plan is required based on sound risk and threat analysis and they also need an equally equitable disaster financial assistance program. The province has to stop defaulting to the Federal Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangement as it slows the process of getting funding to those who need it right away. I say to the Minister, stop blaming DFAA for delays and introduce your own program, to avoid the pitfalls of trying to interpret eligibility criteria from a Federal Program. I also recommend using technology to do risk modeling. GIS for instance, is an excellent tool to help calculate and to demonstrate potential impact to any given area in the country. It was used a few years before Hurricane Katrina and in comparison to the actual event the prediction model was very close.
We are falling short bridging construction patterns with an expected worsening of the climate. We are putting more money into infrastructure without sufficient consideration to climate change. Locally, we are building condominiums in already congested areas increasing the volume of traffic, increasing the risk significantly. Sit at any coffee shop and count the huge truck traffic transporting dangerous goods through the downtown core. Surely, if you think about the process involved in evacuating a huge portion of downtown containing a number of office buildings, businesses and condominiums and single dwellings, emergency planning has to take priority. Based purely on sound business continuity planning I would have expected those industries which are housed downtown to find it unacceptable. How quickly can you shut down your office to protect sensitive material, where do you go and how will you get there and back?
I leave you with a thought from an earlier article that we have to value our property more before it is damaged than we do after. Also I leave you with a quote from Nibaruta Anicet chair of a meeting on disaster management in
Regards,
Len
Len LeRiche
LeRiche and Associates – Emergency Management Group Inc.
================================================================================
Article Four (NOVEMBER/2010) - Posted by Len LeRiche, November 8, 2010
Just this week I attended a panel discussion hosted by Memorial University where GIS was being discussed related to post tropical storm Igor. Some will say that it was a hurricane however I beg to differ, although, there were times when it reached hurricane force winds. The situation was very well addressed and was presented in a very clear manner which I feel many more people could have benefited from.
What I did find lacking though was the discussion related to the response and recovery component of the entire event. As I listened to the description of the event from the academic community and the information presented by the GIS consultant it occurred to me (well, actually I have known this for a long time) that there is a necessity to better connect the academic community to the planning and response component of emergency management. I had worked on the Katrina disaster and I had forgotten that a few years prior to the actual event a simulation had been examined with some very interesting results, similar in fact to the results of the actual event. Sadly, little if any of the information had been put into practice, hence preparedness for a hurricane of the size and magnitude of Katrina was lacking in the worst kind of way. With this in mind, had the academic community and the GIS information been presented to Fire and Emergency Services, prior to Igor, I wonder, would the outcome been different? Could the municipalities prepare better for such devastating winds and rain? The answer to that question, I believe, is yes. Until emergency planning is integrated sufficiently into the urban planning process, and is linked to the engineering and process, given the importance that it requires, I don’t see many changes on the horizon. We used to compare emergency planning to selling insurance. We hate to spend the money on it but are happy enough we did when something goes wrong.
After each event, with almost one every year, somewhere in the province the results are exact duplicates of each other. We all step up to plate to help out during the response phase until it reaches the recovery phase when people attempt to put their lives back together. That’s when the problems start for most. They want to get at it right away.
However, between the adjusters, the engineers and the auditors the process gets bogged down in bureaucracy, which is not necessary. The reliance of the province of NL on the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) is such that most of what they do is determined by the DFAA guidelines. May I suggest that the province develop their own program and trust in their own adjusters and auditors to get the money out within days of an actual event? DFAA is designed to compensate the Province and not each individual claimant and the focus must not be on how much they are going to get from the Federal Government, rather it should be on how quickly they can help Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans get back to pre disaster condition.
Anyway, I digress. Back to my original train of thought, I was about to talk about the necessity of bridging the academic community with the planning and engineering communities to lessen the impact of these catastrophic events. Proper risk analysis must be used to determine vulnerability and establish priorities for planning purposes.
Add that to sound risk modeling given the technology we have today, the three levels of government can reduce the impact these events have on us when they occur. Another challenge to consider is the complacency most of us live under. We accept that someone will look out for us. Our expectations match our assumptions until events like Igor brings us to reality.
I’ll conclude by saying that by spending more on preparedness initiatives we will have to spend a lot less on response and recovery and our lives will return to normal a lot sooner.
Regards,
Len
Len LeRiche
LeRiche and Associates – Emergency Management Group Inc.
================================================================================
Article Three (SEPTEMBER/2010) - Posted by Len LeRiche, September 24, 2010
Living With Risk
In the past few days in Newfoundland and Labrador we have come to appreciate the power and drama associated with a natural disaster. Imagine for a moment if Igor has been a category 2 or 3 or even a 4 for that matter. As I listen to the reaction of people it is obvious that lots need to be done to prepare for such catastrophic events. How much are we prepared to tolerate? Having worked on the Katrina disaster I can say with confidence that we were all fortunate for having done as well as we did. I am surprised that there was only one fatality associated with the storm and my condolences go out to the family on Random Island for their loss. To think we came through this unscathed for the most part should not leave us overconfident or complacent that we can battle through anything. Rather we should engage in preparedness activities to mitigate the damages that these events cause.
Damages around the world cost in the billions and are expected to increase due to the human intervention into the laws of nature. Most people I hear speak of the devastation. They comment that this has been the worst they have ever encountered. Environment Canada has agreed that this was probably the worst since keeping records began related to Newfoundland and Labrador.
What all of this tells me as an emergency planner is that the relationship between human actions, environmental stewardship, and disaster risk is becoming more critical. Are we prepared to live with the risk as it is now? Should we be spending more on emergency preparedness?
From my point of view disaster reduction policies and measures need to be implemented with the aim to enable communities to be resilient to natural hazards while ensuring that development efforts do not increase vulnerability. How many times can a community like Bonavista get back up after being knocked back by these events? There is no doubt that disaster assistance during and following a crisis is important. We have to do more than value our assets after only after they have been lost in a disaster. Much greater emphasis needs to be paced on protecting what we have built that contributes to our quality of life.
I’d like to leave you with a few points to consider:
· Risk assessments are necessary to determine an acceptable level of tolerance
· Prevention and preparedness is necessary to reduce disaster relief
· Prevention and preparedness must be integral aspects of development policy and planning
· Develop and strengthen our capacity to prevent, reduce, and mitigate disasters
· Develop and follow early warnings
· Engage the community in preventative measures
In closing, as I listen to the roar of chain saws around the city I would like to compliment everyone for the patience and cooperation that has been demonstrated since Igor blessed us with his presence.
Sincerely,
Len
Len LeRiche
LeRiche and Associates – Emergency Management Group Inc.
================================================================================
Article TWO (AUGUST/2010) - Posted by Len LeRiche, August 03, 2010
Ever wonder what happens during a crisis and the how a response is conducted? With several years of experience and having worked on a number of response operations including many exercises, let me try to help you understand it.
Effective emergency management begins by good planning. It requires a commitment from the top and must be comprehensive, which to me means all hazard planning for worst case scenario. If you respond by telling me that no one person or organization can plan for everything you are correct, however, what I mean by all hazard planning is that regardless of what triggers the event some kind of response is required. Once we have determined our limitations in terms of resources and then by applying comprehensive risk analysis we can proceed to build a response plan. Consequence management is a key consideration and the level of tolerance we are prepared to accept. In addition, the cost to establish and maintain the appropriate level of preparedness is an important factor. To operate without a good emergency plan and business continuity plan is very risky and could cost a lot more when something happens. Don’t think for a moment any of us are immune from emergencies. Complacency has been a huge challenge for emergency planners for a long time.
Let us assume an organization has done some sort of emergency plan and is called on to activate their plan, due to a crisis. There are a couple of methods or structures in place that are utilized in emergency management – Incident Command System (ICS) and Emergency Management or Coordination (EM, EC). Over the years we have debated the merits of both as we continue to come up with the most efficient system possible. In some cases for those organizations that are constructed on a rank system such as the police or military, command and control is obvious. In many organizations that is not the case; therefore, the challenge is trying to bridge the two structures to avoid confusion. Determining who is in charge is critical and in many cases is not always clear. That’s why it is important to evaluate the plan once it is drafted to determine and avoid deficiencies during a real event. Responders and support systems need to know and understand the process and procedures that are in place for an effective response and recovery operation. Many organizations lack sufficient resources to implement a full scale response and recovery operation and that’s where building and maintaining good networks and partnerships are critical.
Once a management structure is in place and it is practiced, the job to respond is made easier. Provided we have the capability to communicate clearly, information must flow between the site management team (on scene commanders – police, fire, ambulance) and the emergency operation center (EOC). The EOC is comprised of knowledgably people from the various agencies required to respond to the event. Depending on the size of the event the numbers of support workers could be quite large. My work on the Katrina Disaster required the largest EOC I have ever experienced which faced many challenges. Government departments, agencies and organizations must come together under the leadership and guidance of a lead agency. The lead may change during the course of the response and recovery activity and should be done in a clear, concise manner.
With the proper structure in place and the required people at the table the job of the EOC is to support the needs of the site management team. By moving resources and material in and out of the site the responders have the necessary tools to do what is necessary. On many occasions I was asked when the military could be expected on the scene. Usually, it was not easily understood by explaining that they were a force of last resort. That is to say, that once every other resource has been exhausted, that’s when the call for the military is made. As a planner and responder, I hope that day never comes although if we consider worst case scenario in our planning we will have options.
Len LeRiche
LeRiche and Associates – Emergency Management Group Inc.
================================================================================
Article One (JULY/2010) - Posted by Len LeRiche, July 23rd, 2010
There has been a lot of discussion recently with regard to planning for emergencies, in particular, those of an environmental concern such as the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico and in comparison our preparedness here in NL as it relates to the activity offshore. The issue is complex; however, with good planning the impact can be reduced.
The key to reducing the impact is in good emergency planning. Good planning begins with a comprehensive risk assessment and by identifying vulnerabilities and gaps related to the supply of materials and resources to issues of leaks, explosions, or any other trigger, is critical. This process is intensive and time consuming and has to reach beyond the boundaries of the organization as it has to reach inside the walls of other business that supply and support the organization.
The recent discussion locally concerning the ability and or desire of the CNLOPB to share information with the public must be treated carefully. I do agree that being transparent is important as tax payers contribute a lot to ensure operations such as those offshore are conducted in the safest, most secure way possible, however, they don’t need to know the details contained in emergency plans related to response and recovery. What is important, in my mind, is that those involved in response and recovery know the details and have contributed to the planning and have exercised their plans in conjunction with the offshore industry. As it relates to preparedness and mitigation, I think those are the two components of emergency management where the general public may be informed allowing them to decide if their money is well spent.
From my experience, gaps are always found, some are easier than others to bridge as emergency planning is very fluid and is subject to constant changes. Our ability to manage the change and to respond to the many assumptions that are part of planning affects our ability to respond and recovery. Affordability is another factor and how much we are prepared to pay for comprehensive planning and those preventative measures that could ameliorate a situation. Risk analysis is much more than a formula to calculate probability and impact and is worth the money if it is comprehensive.
While I’m on the topic of emergency management I would also like to chat about business continuity planning and business resumption planning as that too seems to be topical in light of the recent fire at a local law firm in St. John’s. Whether or not they had all their files backed up, stored for easy access by trained people to lessen the impact that long delays or lost information could impose on the business, it has an impact that the organization has to deal with. In some cases, business had no alternative than to close its doors due to ineffective planning. The lesson to all of us is that we should take some time to think about these things and whether we are prepared for the consequences of such events.
Len LeRiche
LeRiche and Associates – Emergency Management Group Inc.