Dealing with Disaster - Coursework Example

Dealing with Disaster Dealing with Disaster Introduction Human beings have always faced the threat of large scale destruction and death from various disastrous situations. Mention the September 11 attacks, floods in Queensland in 2010-2011, Japan gas and Krakatoa evokes sad images in the faces of many people. In spite of technological advances, disaster affects and will continue to affect the whole community in several significant ways. Research shows that the number of vulnerable people to various disasters continues to increase at an alarming rate (Bouwer, et al., 2007). Such threats include traditional geophysical events like floods and earthquakes, and anthropogenic emergencies like toxic substances release, transport accidents, and terrorism. For example in 2008, there were two significant disasters that occurred in Asia leaving several thousands of people dead and a lot more of them homeless. It is not a wonder to get societies devoting most of their time in major disaster preparedness, planning and training of agencies in preparation for effective response. It involves providing people who are well skilled in leadership, planning and strategic management, logistics, risk management, information management, mitigation, communication technology, and continuity management. These skills assist in all the four stages of disaster management in case of an emergency; preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery. There is however one critical factor that has been identified by planners to work in times of crisis; strategic risk and crisis communication function. It is important for the public to have some level of awareness in regard to life threatening issues in their daily lives. Involving them in decisions that are made to protect them against these threats is an advantage. For example when a disaster occurs, the public is in need of clear warnings and immediate ones so that they can take precautions as fast as possible. In some cases this might prove impossible and all the public would like is compassionate and clear information on how to cope with the situation so as to build a sense of order in their lives. Major communication in all the phases of disaster management cycle is essential in any disaster. This paper will analyze how effective communication in the phase of a disaster is effective in preparing, mitigating, responding and recovering. It takes the case of 9/11 attacks. Emergency life cycle Coombs (1999) says tat all major emergencies have a life cycle that can be identified. This is a theme that explains contemporary emergency management theory. Identifying a major emergency by its life cycle allows the management to subdivide the process into different stages. By so doing, the lead response organization is able to comprehend the systems that exist within the emergency, key elements involved in each stage and understanding how each phase fits within the emergency management framework, thus a more effective response. There are several life cycle models identified by theorists including, three, four and five stage models. The management of emergencies in these phases is called system approach, and this is a paradigm that has been adopted by various countries including UK, the USA, Australia, Sweden and Canada. This approach requires an efficient analysis of the emergency situation before utilizing it as a best practice. According to Coombs (1999), the three stages of emergency management include; pre-crisis stage which involves identification of hazard, planning, and preparedness for the impending disaster; crisis which involves response actions in terms of warnings, alarms, evacuations ; and post crisis which includes relief and recovery efforts and efforts to return to normality. A four stage model as adopted by Alexander (2002) involves mitigation, preparation, response and recovery. However there is no significant difference in the functions of these models apart from the number of steps when managing an emergency. This paper chooses the four stage model for the sake of simplicity. 9/11 Attack and the Four Stages of Emergency Management Many people, chiefs and local police agencies, say that since the 9/11 attack everything changed. They have realized that it is not possible for federal agencies to work alone in protecting the humans of US from further terrorism attacks. It is crucial to work in partnership with other private and public agencies and mostly the local police who can identify potential terrorists in their areas of jurisdiction, thus protect the most vulnerable individuals as well as coordinate the first response measures to a terror attack. This in itself is a communication strategy aimed to mitigate, prepare and respond to a similar disaster. The responsibilities have been subdivided into these departments so that they can keep the public prepared for such emergencies. The United States has learnt that countering terrorism has to be in every day’s activities of every department in the security arm (Ridge, 2004). It has become the agenda of every meeting so that every office on the street takes terrorism prevention as an every day thought. Mitigation According to Alexander (2002), this mitigation measure would have worked in the face of 9/11 attack. Mitigation is any activity undertaken to prevent an emergency, reduce its chances of occurrence or reduce the effects that that such an emergency might have to the environment, economy and social aspects of life. These kinds of activities are considered long before the emergency attack occurs, for example, buying insurance policies against fires and floods. In the case of 9/11, emergency mangers should have had terrorism as a concern before the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Even though they had this concern with them, the main problem was that they considered terrorism risks and those posed by other hazards as similar rather than looking into the differences (Bernstein, 2002). They saw this kind of emergency as a federal problem rather than a local or state problem, thus mitigation measure was not put in place as appropriately as it deserved. However, following the attack, emergency managers have divided their attention to a war on terror and other wars against more natural and technological hazards and disasters. Those emergency managers in the urban centers lay emphasis on the issue of terrorism since most emergencies occur in the populated urban centers. They have however given a major responsibility to police who can identify potential terrorists in their areas before they can act. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) has been moved to the Department of Homeland Security to help in mitigation measures and response to terrorism disasters. There are various strategies that could have been helpful in mitigation the terrorism attack. On is anticipation, which is a proactive approach in emergency management by making centralized decisions. It also includes careful assessment of vulnerability in the community in order to make limitations in obvious imminent dangers. This allows the central mind to predict and control or prevent potential risks before any damage occurs. Such anticipatory measures that could work in a terrorism attack is prediction of the risk and risk assessment, other actions that could have prevented the magnitude of the damage and risk communication improvement. Some theorist however are not in support of this approach as it is seen o apply to only specific categories of major situations (Royal Society, 1992). Resilience on the contrary is the ability to cope with unexpected dangers after their manifestations. In general it is learning to come back. Resilience lays emphasis on taking action against the impacts of an emergency like having adequate insurance for the public. This is by far the best approach in developing an effective emergency management program. However, (London Resilience, 2005), seems to think that this approach of mitigation does not put into consideration political, economic and social realities that come with a disaster. This is because the approach does not consider meaningful dialogue with public to assess their concerns and needs. According to the 9/11 attack mitigation measures, inclusion of the public and local police only cam after the attack, after they realized that terrorism is not a federal problem but a local and state problem too. Preparedness In the event that mitigation efforts fail, in which case they did in 9/11 attack, preparedness and readiness of major plans and procedures, personnel and equipment to effectively respond to the disaster is important so as to prevent loss of life, damage to the environment and injuries. This includes preparedness at individual and societal level. Preparedness involves having procedures and protocols aimed at informing or communicating through instructions to participants once the disaster occurs. The health and safety executive of UK (1999) highlights that plans should comprehensively address all angles of response required at every stage of emergency management whether immediate or long term recovery aspects. Having regarded terrorism as a federal problem, preparedness for the 9/11 attack was not exemplary as all the emergency response agencies were not involved in the plans and procedures of preparedness. It is advised that even though disasters range in terms of risks associated, it is important to have a generic plan that can be adapted to meet the needs of all disasters with minor adjustment in the differences (Coombs, 1999). Communication in preparedness is important as it allows development and implementation of adequate public warning and alert. Giving the public the education and awareness needed in order to enhance their knowledge and convening meetings with interested parties for information sharing is appropriate for any disaster preparedness. Treating it as a federal crime and doing silent investigation was not of any help to US federal agencies. Comprehensive knowledge to the public is essential, not to scare them but to make them understand the issue related with emergencies like terrorism. Even though terrorism is a crime, it is still a disaster that lives many people dead and others grieving, sharing information on the preparedness measures would help a great deal in dealing with the consequences or the response measures or most importantly eluding the attack (Ridge, 2004). Emphasizing the shifts in emergency management systems like the US deed after the attack by involving the locals is important as the people are provided with information which is a resource that helps them to protect themselves during an attack. This is done through the use of brochures, leaflets, videos and posters. This way the local communities are able to prepare strategies and plans for themselves so that they are better prepared with their own responsibilities to undertake in case of a terror attack. Response When mitigation and prevention measures fail stop a major emergency from occurring, responders have to think of response stage since the disaster occurs without warning and suddenly. The priority for response measures is to ensure survival and safety of individuals, and to protect the infrastructure. The safety and well being of individual is dependent on the level of preparedness and crisis response mechanism. By acting safely and responsibly, it is possible to protect the victims of a disaster as well as the victims protecting themselves. Elements in an emergency response include warning the public, alarming them, and mobilizing resources necessary to deal with the emergency. In response the emergency management team has to first recognize the occurrence of a situation and then declaring the situation. This may include instructions like evacuation orders and alerts. The 9/11 attack may have involved other agencies of emergency response so that they were better placed in tackling the situation. An adequate system of command is efficient in controlling and coordinating the utilization of resources in an emergency response (Ridge, 2004). The core responses include fire, police, health services and local authorities who need assistance in evacuation, media affairs and casualty dealing. Managing the response effectively requires the team to have an on site and off site centers of control so as to allow implementation of emergency plans. Thus communication strategies need to be effectively implemented for a successful response. Response therefore requires adequate and clear allocation of roles and responsibilities (London Resilience, 2005). This means that all agencies involved in response should exercise coordination between and within themselves and other affiliate organizations. Good telecommunication and communications during emergencies re the heart of effective response. This is why it is important to establish information sharing mechanism as well as a two way communication strategy between the agencies involved and multiple jurisdictions. For example, US is more prepared for a terror attack response now than it was in 2001 since they have established a chain of communication between the emergency authority and Homeland Security which acts as the jurisdiction body. During the response to 9/11 attack, a major criticism leveled was the lack of information sharing by agencies who wanted to perform their duty to the nation (Walter, 2005). Similarly, if there had not been delays in relaying information on the hijacked planes may be evacuation response would have been effective. Effective information management and inclusion of all interested and affected parties enhance effective decision making. This statement can be supported by the fact that the passengers of the fourth plane decided to attack the hijackers since they had been informed through messages of the on goings in US (Bernstein, 2002). Recovery The function of recovery is relief management. It is the restoration and rebuilding a community after the effects of a disaster which involves business continuity management plan, relief and rescue. There is a premonition that recovery starts within 48 hours of response stage end. First, attention is given to needs that require immediate action like restoring social equilibrium and giving basic necessities to those affected(Shawand Sinha 2003). Since this stage involves various relief agencies both in the government and non governmental ones, it is important to have a coordinated plan so as to avoid effort duplication or leaving gaps in relief. It is therefore important to have a recovery program placed in the overall emergency plan. According to Alexander (2002), it helps to improve efficiency and reduce suffering when the conditions are chaotic and demands are relentless just like a terror attack. Communication at this stage requires the persons to be sensitive and empathetic so as to deal with suffering individuals like children who have lost their loved ones and families waiting to identify the bodies of their loved ones. In the New York terror attack, the response organization reported that hospitals did not have adequate skills to deal with families who were searching for their loved ones. It is also reported that they were coldly asked to fill out forms allowing authorities to dispose of tissue samples found at the disaster site (Bernstein, 2002). Conclusion The 9/11 attack was a major blow to the economy and society of US where thousands of people were killed. However it is only after the attacks that the US came up with initiatives to combat terrorism and redefining their emergency management plans. Effective communication would have helped to prevent the second and third hits or just may be mitigate the impacts. However poor communication as indicated from the process of mitigation to recovery led to crisis that the country is still recovering from more than ten years later. It is however, commendable that it has taken measure to fill in the gaps in their emergency management program, putting communication at the core of every step. Bibliography Alexander, D., 2002. Principles of emergency planning and management. Hertfordshire: Terra. Bernstein, R., 2002. Out of the blue. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Bouwer, L. et al., 2007. Confronting disaster losses. Science, Volume 318, p. 753. Coombs, T., 1999. Ongoing crisis communication: planning, managing, and responding. London: Sage. Health and Safety Executive United Kingdom (HSE UK), 1999. Quantified risk assessment: its input to decision making, London: HMSO. London Resilience, 2005. Strategic emergency plan, London: London Resilience Team. Ridge, T., 2004. National response plan, Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security. Royal Society, 1992. Risk: analysis, perception and management, London: Royal Society. Walter, J., 2005. World disasters report. Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Read More