|
|
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management Crisis and Emergency Management Newsletter Website |
|
|
|
February
2004
Volume 6
- Number 1 |
|
|
Related Sites:
|
By: Douglass T. O’Neill A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…Mitigation played an important role in national emergency management plans. In the Federal Response Plan (FRP), originally the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publication 229 published in April 1999, mitigation played an important role in emergency management. There are at least ninety-three (93) different references to mitigation operations, activities, programs, and etc. in the FRP. Mitigation in the FRP was defined as a commitment “to assist in rebuilding structures and facilities and restoring land in a way that minimizes risk of future damage and achieves the goal of building disaster-resistant communities. The terms that describe these concepts — “mitigation” and “risk management” — are often used as a unit when they are defined as “sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people, property, and structures from hazards and their effects.” The concepts of mitigation and risk management are based on the premise that money spent on mitigation will save significant future money by reducing the vulnerability of individuals, businesses, and communities to future disasters. (FRP, January 2003) Mitigation opportunities should be actively considered throughout disaster operations. Decisions made during response and recovery operations can either enhance or hinder subsequent mitigation activities. The urgency to rebuild as soon as possible must be weighed against the longer term goal of reducing future risk and lessening possible impacts should another disaster occur. (FRP, January 2003) Then there were
the events
surrounding September 11, 2001. The
result is a series of changes to emergency management that will
ultimately
result in the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), the
largest cabinet agency since the creation of the Department of Defense
in 1949,
and the dissolution of a “cabinet level” FEMA and the concept of the
role of
mitigation in the cycle of emergency management: Preparedness,
Response,
Recovery, and Mitigation. Homeland
Security Presidential
Directive 5 (HSPD-5) tasked DHS to develop the National Response Plan
(NRP) to
enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents
by
establishing a single, comprehensive National Incident Management
System
(NIMS). The NRP mandated by HSPD-5 is
intended “to integrate Federal Government domestic awareness,
prevention, preparedness,
response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazard plan”.
(NRP,
Initial Plan, May14, 2003). Mitigation the
word does not exist
in the NRP with the exception of the single reference on page 37,
paragraph (h)
the definition of emergency management. So,
what happen to mitigation? Mitigation has
been replaced by awareness and prevention. There
are fifty-eight (58) references to
awareness in the NRP, sixty-three (63) references to prevention in the
NRP. Where awareness
is defined as “the
continual process of collecting, analyzing, and disseminating
intelligence,
information, and knowledge to allow organizations and individuals to
anticipate
requirements and to react effectively. It involves an interactive
process of
sharing and evaluating information from multiple sources to include the
fusion
of domestic and international intelligence and operational reports into
a
coherent picture. It includes communications and reporting activities
and
activities to forecast or predict incidents and to detect and monitor
threats
and hazards.” (NRP, Initial Plan, May14, 2003). Where prevention
is defined as
“actions to avoid an incident, to intervene to stop an incident from
occurring,
or to mitigate an incident’s effects. It involves actions to protect
lives and
property and to defend against attacks. It involves applying
intelligence and
other information to a range of activities that may include such
countermeasures as deterrence operations; heightened inspections;
improved
surveillance and security operations; investigations to determine the
full
nature and source of the threat; public health surveillance and testing
processes; immunizations, isolation, or quarantine; and law enforcement
operations aimed at deterring, preempting, interdicting, or disrupting
illegal
activity”. (NRP, Initial Plan, May, 2003). So the question
is asked
again. Where does mitigation fit in the
NRP? Clearly, the goal of building
disaster resistant communities in an all-hazards approach has been
superceded
by the need to protect the homeland from attacks by applying
intelligence,
information, and security operations. Missing
from the NRP are concepts of including mitigation
during the
response and recovery phases of an event cycle. FRP, January 2003: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/rrr/frp/frp2003.pdf NRP, Initial
Plan, May 2003:
http://www.nemaweb.org/docs/national_response_plan.pdf |