For years, many of you have seen my Business Resumption Planning articles in NaSPA's publications.  The focus has almost always been on the Fortune 1000 enterprise, and more specifically on the U.S. Fortune 1000 enterprise.  I have on occasion, however, addressed the public and or socioeconomic side of Disaster Recovery Planning, either as a former Mayor and City Councilman or telecom expert.  (Relax on the Mayor thing, I'm ‘better' now...)  

The world is a big place, however, and disasters most often occur far from the U.S.  They often occur in places where the people affected are least prepared to deal with them from an infrastructure and communications standpoint.  I would be willing to wager that with the increasingly global profile of readers of NaSPA's publications, there is a pretty good chance that many are concerned about disasters in their home countries, whether in Africa, Chile, Indonesia, the middle east, Pacific Rim, etc.  Many of these places wish to implement disaster plans, even on a national scale, but simply do not know where to begin or how they can afford it. That will be the focus this article.  We also present a case that the right disaster recovery plan can be a national asset, not a net liability.

Improving National Well Being Through Disaster Recovery Planning

National strategies for Disaster Recovery can and should create economic opportunities and other benefits, including a reliably safe environment for productivity, growth, innovation and quality.  The long-term benefits of such sustainable development and capacity building can often include increases in foreign investment, co-operative improvements in agricultural science, renewable energy, and tourism.  Developing these opportunities for economic self-sufficiency also supports the laudable goals of enhanced equality, justice, prosperity, and education in a society.  Disaster Recovery planning can sustain all of these goals.

Long-term development, however, is often derailed due to unforeseen catastrophic events, often occurring in countries which can least afford them.  Many of these shocks relate to natural and/or man-made disasters, and the ensuing stresses they put on social and political systems can reverberate for decades.  Today in fact, disasters are widely recognized as among the most disruptive forces impeding sustainable development, especially in developing nations.[1]  Disasters divert scarce resources away from strategic infrastructure development in favor of tactical response and recovery.  Disasters not only threaten safety and economic prosperity in the affected nation, they also stretch social and political orders to the breaking point. 

To guard against these negative effects and outcomes, promotion of national disaster management strategies and implementation of sound disaster management practices in such public sectors are essential in the context of a national development platform.  But who should undertake such an endeavor and where would one begin?

First, responsible governments must come to the realization that addressing these issues will not happen overnight, but can be taken in baby steps.  The goals would be (1) to foster sustainable development and the creation of opportunities for increased national capacities, and (2) to pro-actively identify and balance the disruptive forces of unexpected shocks on these opportunities. In other words, reducing disaster risks and impacts will allow policy makers to better balance social progress, increase economic growth, and enhance environmental protection as a strategy.  In this manner they increase opportunities for long-term enhancement of national capacities, absent the sudden and expensive setbacks and diversion of resources which is inevitable if a nation is in the "reactive" mode only to disasters.   Remember, for far too many places in the world, it is not a question of "if" a disaster will occur; rather, it is a question of "when."

There are many ways to measure "national capacities."  According to Ted Sheppard, Director of Programs and Business Development for the Pacific Disaster Center (PDC, www.pdc.org) building success may be measured by six benchmarks:[2]

• Public health and education,
• Family stability,
• Community stability,
• Equitable economic growth,
• Environment stability, and
• Fair and just democratic society.

As noted above, disasters divert needed money from sustaining national economies and protecting environments. This diversion of capital resources reduces support for basic social, educational and infrastructure programs that could otherwise foster growth. Capacity building in disaster management therefore pays dividends far in excess of expenditures on such programs by helping overcome the negative impacts of disasters on overall quality of life, and by enhancing the ability to counteract effects that otherwise will hamper, halt or reverse economic growth.

Another critical step in the process is developing "Best Practices" for disaster recovery.  These international best practices must be adapted to reflect differences in social, economic, meteorological, geological and cultural circumstances in the subject nation or region.  It is highly advisable to retain subject matter experts with contemporary experience and familiarity with the region.  It is also imperative to be able to communicate threats and probabilities in non-technical terms to national policymakers.  This means retaining developers who can develop and customize computer programs that render highly complex data into understandable, graphical form or sometimes even computer-generated images of what the event (a tsunami, for example) would actually look like if it occurred.

Other technical issues to be evaluated by the host nation would include the utilization of existing communication technology for hazard information collecting, alerts and warnings.  While the bandwidth requirements of a hazard monitoring and risk mitigation system are not demanding, the types of communication channels, and their relative sophistication, vary widely by locale.  Moreover, how secure these systems are from damage by hazards will also have an effect on the final design of the system.  These are not complicated or expensive concerns, but they must be evaluated thoroughly since communications systems are the eyes and ears of any emergency response.

So what would such an effort cost and what avenues are available to a nation seeking to take the first step?  For the answer to this question we turned again to our friends at the Pacific Disaster Center who have more hands-on experience than we do on the topic.  In our estimation, the cost of developing the initial system would be measured in the hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars, not in the millions.  This is not inexpensive, but well within the reach of even lesser developed countries.  For such an amount a client nation should expect a basis communication and vulnerability analysis as described above.  Beware, a good consultant should not give the client a fish; it should teach the client to fish.  Insist on training and documentation for continued operations, and that the work product of the consultant becomes the property of the host government.   After the host government has a basic familiarity with the potential threats and with the communications systems designed to alert "First Responders" to those threats, additional types of disasters and more sophisticated responses to them can be added later.  Again this cost should not exceed an amount not in the millions but in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  In addition, also expect recurring expenses for hardware and software licenses for the development and/or operation of the system.  These again should not exceed US $100,000 a year or so depending on complexity.

At some point in the process, after two or three years perhaps, with a relatively modest cumulative expenditure, the host government should be ready to take control of its own emergency response with the fundamentals firmly in place.  For this reason and with this goal in mind, a portion of the work - including research and technological development - should be performed by local nationals throughout the consulting project, in order to make for a more graceful transition later to local control.  Sometimes, however, even the most modest expenditures are beyond the control of the poorest nations.  For these we offer a few other suggestions.  First, understand that any funding by the U.S. or other sources of international funding for such a project would certainly require some cost sharing on the part of the host government of and/or other local partners.  There are reputable partners to be found.  Sometimes organizations like the PDC can facilitate support from organizations such as U.S. AFRICOM and other entities with which the Center is now working on other projects, in this case, in Africa.  It may also be possible to secure some funding from organizations like the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.  The USTDA was a primary funding resource for PDC's project to enhance an early warning capability for the government of Thailand. Other options may exist in PDC's relationships with World Bank, USAID and other agencies. These possibilities for external funding, however, will have to be discussed in conjunction with local contributions to the budget for developing a world-class disaster management and risk mitigation system in any host country considering such a system.

However it happens, the overall goal of such a project is to promote disaster management and to foster disaster-resilient communities as integral components of national-to-local economic and social development. The framework's strategic program should focus on five areas:

• Decision and Policy Support
• Institutional Capacity Development
• Risk and Vulnerability
• Humanitarian Assistance Support
• Security and Sustainability

Such a project will require a national commitment and international cooperation from external stakeholders whose interests include friendship and a sense of humanitarian responsibility.  As part of the framework, several key interventions will also be necessary to build the capacity of a National Emergency Disaster Preparedness Center, including wide support from the government at national and provincial levels.  As Risk and Vulnerability assessments identify the needs and the gaps in capacity, they will also help define how it is possible to mitigate the impacts and strengthen the capacity of communities, civil society and the corporate sector.  These assessments include not only information management but also filling the gaps in disaster management policy through legislation and best practices, as well as addressing relevant regulatory and management issues.  A good consultant/partner should be prepared to assist with building and stabilizing the technical capacity of responsible institutions to share information and operate the platform(s); as well as undertake efforts to increase public awareness and provide educational and training activities in the host country.  This approach will further enhance the capacities of the host government, its communities and other stakeholders (such as private sector firms) by improving basic computer skills, training staff and participants, developing community mitigation plans, and establishing provincial or national disaster management plans. Community-based disaster awareness and mitigation projects will introduce a culture of prevention and preparedness by raising the awareness of communities of disaster mitigation measures in areas prone to earthquakes, fire, disease, floods and drought. The process should employ a robust communications network for alerts and utilize powerful model visualization techniques and data analyses to portray hazard risks and potential impacts.  These include but are not limited to:

• Hazard Consequence Modeling and Visualization. Understanding what risks an area or population may experience is essential. Having the accumulated data on such risks resolved into dynamic maps and multi-dimensional models can turn an endless stream of numbers and facts into instantly understandable imagery.  A consultant/partner in such a project should be prepared to devise, install and provide training in a system capable of creating and presenting these models and other visualizations.
• Integrated Decision Support System. An Integrated Decision Support System focuses all available incoming communications/data from local, national and international information sources, from remote sensors, and from disaster managers and humanitarian assistance providers. It also includes tools for analysis, visualization and collaboration. Finally, it empowers rapid and appropriate decision making in support of effective and efficient warnings.  It also has the capacity to direct services and responses in times of need.  Any potential consultant/partner should be experienced in creating such systems. 

 Summary and Conclusions

In summary, Disaster Response Planning provides enormous benefits to a nation, which extend far beyond the traditional reasons for disaster management.  A correctly orchestrated process should support a market-based economy, conceivably including improvements to roads, airstrips and other infrastructure.  It establishes pre-competitive research opportunities for future education investments.  In addition to managing risk, a national disaster management framework (policy, legislative, regulative and management) encourages "best practices" use of scarce national resources.  This creates or fosters socially responsible investment, proper governance, and philanthropy opportunities for the host nation.  Such a project will also encourage cooperative and mutually beneficial science and technology exploration to develop research opportunities, capacity building and agency networking as well as opportunities for such transboundary problems as infectious disease and climate change.  The correct strategy will also develop long-term cooperation by creating future opportunities to address complicated regional challenges in water scarcity, poverty, technology and communications. Finally, decision makers and communities will better understand their risk and vulnerability, resulting in safer and more resilient communities, safeguarding the most important resource of all, human life.

 

Leo A. Wrobel has over 25 years of experience with a host of firms engaged in banking, manufacturing, telecommunications services and government. An active author and technical futurist, he has published ten books and over 400 trade articles on a wide variety of technical subjects. Leo served ten years as an elected Mayor and City Councilman (but says he is "better now"). A sought-after speaker, he has lectured throughout the United States and overseas and has appeared on several television news programs. Leo is presently CEO of Dallas-based I b4Ci Inc, http://www.b4ci.com He welcomes your comments by calling (214) CALL-LEO or email at leo [at] b4ci [dot] com.

---

[1]   See United Nations reports in http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev.

[2] After Hurricane Iniki devastated the Hawaiian island of Kauai in 1992, the U.S. Congress established the Pacific Disaster Center (PDC). www.pdc.org Headquartered on the island of Maui, PDC has assisted in disaster preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery efforts of emergency managers and decision-makers around the world. PDC is an applied science, information and technology center, working to reduce disaster risks and impacts to peoples' lives and property and to local, national and regional economies. Throughout its existence, PDC has worked to improve disaster early warning systems and to develop better risk mitigation practices, which can be applied at all levels, from international regions down to individual communities. Most importantly, PDC's approach to emergency management shifts the emphasis from being reactive, (focusing solely on response and recovery operations) to being proactive - with the focus on mitigation and preparedness.  As an astounding repository of information from governments worldwide, the Center provides detailed assessments of hazards and risks, and helps to communicate and prioritize preventative actions by national policymakers.

 

Forward this page to a friend

Your Email: *

Your Name: *

Send To: *

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.

Message Subject: (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from NaSPA.com

Message Body: (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the NaSPA web site.

Your Personal Message: *

Your vote:

1

2

3

4

5

No votes yet