Teaching RecoveryA report from the Theory of Recovery Workshop Ryan Alaniz – University of Minnesota Jessica Hubbard – The Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) Claire Rubin – Claire B. Rubin & Associates Richard T. Sylves – The George Washington University William Waugh – Georgia State University
Background • An increasingly important issue for our times is how we can better understand and address long-term recovery from disaster • We know a lot about the systematic problems that hinder long-term recovery • What is MISSING is a unifying theory of disaster recovery, validated by sound research, to help inform policy decisions.
Background Continued • The Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) has a long history of involvement and publishing in the emergency and disaster recovery field. • In 2009, PERI’s Board of Directors decided, at the suggestion of board member Dr. Laurie Johnson, to approach the National Science Foundation to request support for a workshop. • This workshop would bring together many of the foremost researchers in disaster recovery
Purpose and Steering Committee • Workshop purpose: begin work on a unifying theory of recovery that would support a policy framework for disaster recovery. • Members of the steering committee that submitted the proposal to NSF include: • Dr. Laurie Johnson (Laurie Johnson Consulting) • Dr. William Siembieda (California Polytechnic State University) • Dr. Gavin Smith (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) • Claire B. Rubin (Claire B. Rubin & Associates) • Gerry Hoetmer (PERI Executive Director)
Workshop • PERI convened a two and one-half day Theory of Recovery Workshop in November 2010 at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. • Workshop participants were leading researches in disciplines that study five areas of recovery: economic, social, environmental, institutional, and built. • By the end of the Workshop, participants had adopted a working definition of disaster recovery, identified a set of variables that may affect disaster recovery, and developed a future agenda to help guide future research.
Resources on Long-Term Recovery from Disasters • The recovery phase typically gets less attention from researchers and practitioners • Literature and documentary resources are somewhat thin • A few online sources have become available, though many more are needed
Selection of Bookson Recovery • Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: A Review of the United States Disaster Assistance Framework by Gavin Smith. PERI(will be published June 2011). • Managing for Long-Term Community Recovery in the Aftermath of Disaster by Dan Alesch, Lucy Arendt, James Holly. PERI ( 2009). • Holistic Disaster Recovery: Ideas for Building Local Sustainability After a Natural Disaster PERI ( 2005). • The Water’s Edge: Profits and Policy Behind the Rising Catastrophe of Floods (DVD) These resources are available on PERI’s website: www.riskinstitute.org/bookstore
Some Online Recovery Resources • Disaster Recovery Resources – website • www.disasterrecoveryresources.net • Recovery Diva – blog • http://recoverydiva.com • Disaster recovery hour (radio/Internet) • http://drhradio.net/ • Emergency Management Magazine • http://www.emergencymgmt.com/ • Texas A&M University, Disaster Recovery Resources • http://texashelp.tamu.edu/disaster-information-recovery.php
Why Recovery? • Increasing natural vulnerability = more disasters • Increasing human vulnerability = greater tragedy • “Fragile” states unable to address disaster situations = greater tragedy
Natural Vulnerability • Climate Change • Increasing number of Disasters • Increasing over time (Red Cross 2004) • 2010 second highest number of disasters recorded in history (Swiss Re 2011) • Increasing impact of disasters
Human Vulnerability • Increasing population • Closing in on 7 billion • Massive urban migration • Port-au-Prince
Fragile States • Unable to cope with increasing human vulnerability • Urban migration • Unsafe living conditions of citizens • Unable to cope with disasters • Examples Honduras, Haiti, Pakistan
Why Presidential Declarations of Disaster Matter • Types of presidential declarations pertaining to disaster: • 1) Major Disaster [DR] (issued serially since May 1953, most common, 1,977 as of May 6, 2011, see http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema ); and www.peripresdecusa.org my site. • 2) Emergency [EM] (since 1974, issued for imminent disasters or for life safety, rescue help, capped at $5 mil, 322 issued) • 3) Catastrophe (details of this type still being worked out: none issued so far) • Who can ask for them: only governors of states can ask.
Solomonic Judgments • The Federal Government has suggested objective criteria by which to approve or deny Governor requests for Presidential Declarations of major disasters or emergencies, but the president is free to disregard this criteria and judge Governor requests on a case by case. • Each event or incident is evaluated individually on its own merits. The criteria set forth in the Stafford Act for evaluation are: • 1. The severity and magnitude of the incident; • 2. The impact of the event; and, • 3. Whether the incident is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments.
Why Presidential Declarations of Disaster Matter • Governors ask Presidents to issue them • Odds of approval from 1953-2011 are 2 in 3. • Odds from 1989-2008 are 3 in 4 or better.
Presidential Declaration Spending is an indicator of several important things • It denotes the scale of the disaster or emergency in terms of program costs • It demonstrates the types of programs, and infers the type of damage, suffered. • It reveals spatially and in terms of political geography the zones of damage. • Collectively, declaration data provides a history of disaster vulnerability and the pace of recovery.
Turndowns as Endangered Species • “TURNDOWN” refers to the action authorized by the President and signed by the FEMA Director which denies a Governor’s request for a major disaster or emergency Declaration. • It is noteworthy that the White House announces Presidential “approvals” of Major Disaster and Emergency declarations, while it is left to FEMA (1979-2003) and DHS-FEMA (2003-today) to announce that the President has “turned down” a Governor’s request for a declaration.
Turndowns and Recovery • Presidential and FEMA turndowns of governor requests for presidential declarations denotes that the Federal government has determined that the requesting state can RECOVER from the incident relying on state and local resources. • Turndowns connote more easily recoverable incidents than do major disaster declarations. • This too constitutes part of the historical record of emergencies and disasters.
Pres. Bush signs pre-disaster emergency declaration for states in the path of Hurricane Katrina before landfall
Yes, yes, I know, highly unreadable. This is a snapshot of how the National Incident Management System works under The National Response Framework.
Four Phases of Emergency Management • INTEGRATED EMERGENCY • MANAGEMENT SYSTEM • Comprehensive emergency management • Addresses all hazards • Four phases • Mitigation • Preparedness • Response • Recovery
Mitigation Project & Law • FEMA launches Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities mitigation program • Incorporate risk avoidance into every day community decisions • Build grassroots support for EM • Hazard Mitigation Act of 2000 • States to create Hazard Mitigation plans • Promote sustainable economic development • Congress authorizes project money to all 50 states.
Emergency Management After 9-11 • National Strategy for Homeland Security (2002) • Federal government assumes lead • Established strategic objectives • Critical mission areas: intelligence and warning, border and transportation security, domestic counterterrorism, protecting critical infrastructure, defending against catastrophic terrorism, emergency preparedness and response
HSPD 5: Management of Domestic Incidents • HSPD 5: Management of Domestic Incidents (2003) • Federal agencies to take specific steps for planning and incident management • Single, comprehensive national approach to domestic incident management • Mandates creation of National Response Plan (NRP) and National Incident Management System (NIMS)
National Response Plan (NRP) • NRP contents • Base plan • Appendices • Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) • Support Annexes • Incident Annexes • Begins Dec 2004
Coordination Schemes • Great need for multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional coordination in emergency management and disaster. • National Response Plan put into effect in 2005 and massively revised after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, aims to promote the coordination and integration of federal, state, and local emergency management. • Since 2008 the NRP has been replaced by the National Response Framework, which is shorter but chocked full of annexes.
National Incident Management System (NIMS) • NIMS’ Chapter III – “Preparedness cycle” that includes: • planning; • training; • equipping; • exercising; • evaluating; and • taking action to correct or mitigate • Groups must be multijurisdictional in nature
Disaster Recovery • Long ignored as a field of research. • There are many objective measures and indicators that can be used to examine recovery over time. • When is disaster recovery achieved? • Who will support rendering of presidential declaration data in successive cuts over time so as to provide longitudinal measures of recovery through Federal disaster assistance?
Presidential Declarations of Major Disaster and Emergency • A tool for examining disaster recovery • A means of educating the public from the county level to state-wide level on the need to engage in disaster mitigation. • Where to go? see http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema and www.peripresdecusa.org my site.
Long-Term Recovery and Disaster Relief • Sustainable assistance – the long-term view • Linking with long-term development plans – the APA study of comprehensive plans • Using the opportunity to change development patterns, economies, cultures and societies • Linking with hazard mitigation plans to build community resilience – risk-driven planning • Building community awareness and commitment to risk-reduction • Assuring community-driven development
Humanitarian Relief and Risk Reduction • Donor prerogatives • Community values and preferences • Pre-disaster conditions – poverty, housing, land ownership, food and water issues • Horse and cart issues – what comes first? Priority setting • The importance of sequencing in aid