The Corporate Citizen, April 2008
Section: News
On the Brink: Better Disaster Management Processes
[Editor's Note: The following article is an excerpt. The full text will appear in BCLC's 2008 disaster assistance and recovery report, scheduled for release on June 5.]
The disaster response process is a subject that has historically received little attention, particularly the pieces of community disaster preparedness and long-term recovery.
Why do we spend millions of dollars evacuating people from a disaster zone, but comparatively little to bring them back home? Instead of tackling the problem from beginning to end, we frontload immediate relief and largely ignore the community recovery side of the equation.
BCLC and its network of Disaster Assistance and Recovery program partners are seeking to pull the nation toward the type of disaster management that allows the U.S. to be better, faster, and smarter at rebuilding communities, restoring the economy, bringing people back home and to work, and ultimately, saving livelihoods.
We are on the brink of a new way of thinking about disaster response — one in which the three sectors work together; community preparedness, relief, and recovery are recognized as the full disaster management cycle; and economic impacts are reduced because appropriate planning and practicing happened before the disaster.
Right now we have the opportunity to change the way people think about and respond to disasters. Here are steps to take to move our country toward a new, robust response system.
Step 1: Find the Right Balance
Old Approach
The three response phases — preparedness and mitigation, relief, and long-term recovery — traditionally receive unequal treatment.
Mitigation dollars are unevenly distributed to communities that have already experienced an event. Communities that have not had a disaster largely ignore the necessity of preparedness planning and have no incentive to adequately prepare.
The majority of the money and effort mobilized after a disaster is directed to initial response, mostly because of the 24/7 media cycle and the human tendency to want to ease suffering. Long-term recovery is an afterthought, or it's not even a blip on the screen.
If long-term recovery is attempted, disaster areas experience fragmented efforts, with no one taking a leadership role. When news media leave, people forget about lingering community needs.
New Approach
The three phases need to receive an appropriate amount of attention that is not skewed by current events or the news, but that is based on real risk and actual plans. All communities should perform mitigation activities and prepare for the recovery steps they would take after a disaster.
The three sectors should talk and coordinate before the disaster to decide on activities to save lives and provide immediate relief and refuge.
Once life-saving has happened, quick action should be taken to assess the economic impact, direct capital to the area, and establish leadership and coordination points, perhaps through the local chambers.
Step 2: Be Smarter in Recovery
Traditional Approach
Disaster-stricken areas have been in the habit of trying to rebuild what was lost. There is no real concept of what recovery looks like and how to measure it.
New Approach
Debris removal needs to happen quickly. Beautification and clean up is an important consideration because of the psychological effect the images of damage and destruction have on residents.
Community leaders need to realize that things have changed and that rebuilding what used to be there might not best serve community needs. Communities should look for the opportunities and priorities to build back better and fix pre-existing challenges.
Community leaders should take to heart the lessons learned by others communities that have weathered crises. While there is no silver-bullet solution for successful community recovery, lessons learned can help communities move in the right direction.
1615 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20062 (t) 202-463-3133 (f) 202-463-5308 (e) BCLC@uschamber.com |
