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

PRES. OBAMA SIGNS DISASTER DECLARATION FOR WINTER STORMS OF 2010

Yes, yes, I know,highly unreadable.This is a snapshotof how theNational IncidentManagementSystem works underThe NationalResponseFramework.

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 leadEstablished 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 contentsBase planAppendicesEmergency Support Functions (ESFs)Support Annexes Incident AnnexesBegins 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 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

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