Many posts ago, I commented on the array of extreme natural events that appeared to be sweeping across the globe within a seemingly short time frame. In particular, I commented in detail on the issues faced by Pakistan after the devastating floods they experienced and highlighted how a natural disaster could be exacerbated by a nations’ incapacity to orchestrate appropriate disaster-response. I did consider at the time, how an event of similar magnitude and proportion might be managed in a more prosperous country. Little did I know that only a few weeks later, I would personally experience such an example. Be careful what you wish for.
The Canterbury earthquake hit in the early hours of the 4th of September. My own experience of the quake was fairly minor. There was no damage to the house, barely anything broke and I was more excited than concerned about the tremor. My military flatmate was called into C
ivil Defence Head Quarters early on Saturday morning as the 3rd Land Force Group Liaison Officer. He suggested, when leaving the house, that he would be home by lunch. As the morning progressed, I began receiving hourly updates from my friend. A picture began to unfurl that this event was more severe than we had originally anticipated. Once the power came back on in the afternoon, I could then observe the media reports and was able to better comprehend the scale of destruction. More than a month later, we are still experiencing significant aftershocks and the reconstruction continues. Many have been badly affected physically, financially and psychologically. However, compared to the situation in Pakistan after a similar period of time, well, there is no comparison.
I have decided to review the disaster response and recovery effort for the Canterbury earthquake with
the objective to highlight how the effects of an extreme natural event can be experienced in a completely different (or less severe way) when the appropriate management frameworks are in place and, to varying extent, are integrated.
The Initial Response
The initial response was enacted according to emergency response plans drafted previously. According to a personal account from the military liaison officer to the Civil Defence Response Group (CDRG) the atmosphere in the HQ the morning after the quake was calm and well organised, even with the senior manager of the CDMG overseas at the time, leaving the second in command to lead the response. A state of emergency was declared around 10am on the 4th September in Christchurch as well as Selwyn District and Waimakariri District. The National Crisis Management Centre in Wellington was activated along with emergency operation centres in outlying areas such as Timaru. Initial support measures included the opening of three community centres, the imposition of a city cordon and associated city curfew, inspection of quake damaged buildings by urban search and rescue specialists as well as structural engineers, restoration of basic utilities and general clean up. The official utility support agencies such as Orion, were co-ordinated at a regional level along with many welfare support agencies such as the Salvation Army, St Johns Ambulance and the Red Cross. There was a presence of appropriate leadership displayed by Mayor Bob Parker and Prime Minister John Key ensuring that they made face to face contact with staff and citizens on the ground. This reflected in the public support shown by residents with polls showing 94% of citizens thought that Civil Defence had performed well and 90% saying that council staff had. The media also played a prominent role becoming an important source of information for affected residents and concerned citizens in other areas.
Magnitude of Earthquake: 7.1
Harm to Humans: two people seriously injured, one by a collapsing chimney and a second by flying glass. One person died of a heart attack suffered during the quake, although this could not be directly linked to the earthquake.
How the situation may have been made worse:
Some of this comes down to luck. Many people said that if the earthquake had occurred just a few hours earlier, central city would have been packed with boozed town goers posing a situation for potential carnage. If it had happened during the day, again many of those older buildings that were worst affected in central city might have take some lives with them.
However, a significant amount of praise must go to the Canterbury Civil Defence team who appeared to be well prepared and maintained a high level of command and control throughout the
emergency response period. Welfare support mechanisms were put in place fairly rapidly and law and order was maintained. Credit has also been attributed to New Zealand strict building codes that ensured that many newer buildings at least were better able to withstand the shock.
Had Christchurch been less fortunate, there may have been significant delays in restoring basic utilities. Many people complained during the earthquake about losing running water for days and having to use portaloos in the street. The irony is that for many people in developing countries, they might go their whole lives without access to safe running water or a flushing toilet, so hardships are all relative I guess. There were longer delays in some isolated areas although it appeared that even private sector operators responsible for repairing pipelines and drainage systems were genuinely concerned about performing their duties as quickly as possible. I recall one man almost in tears when addressing a community that had been without running water for days, pledging that he would do all that he could to restore their basic needs.
Subsequent Arrangements.
Institutional Arrangements:
The Christchurch City Council (CCC) took a prominent leadership role. They quickly established a temporary cell on the ground floor to deal with the surge of resource management enquiries anticipated during this period. Their website contained an extensive quantity of information on their websites including PDF fact sheets and links to other important websites such as the Department of Building and Housing. The information was easily obtainable and regularly updated.
One of the most prominent areas that highlighted some fragmentation was the management of heritage buildings. Although the CCC insisted that heritage building could not be demolished until approved through due process, there were concerns that some were demolish without appropriate approval. In addition, there were concerns in the community, particularly from the point of view from some prominent architects that inappropriate decisions were being made regarding heritage management. There have been a number of public meetings subsequently to address these issues and government funding allocated to restoration.
The Earthquake Commission (EQC) has been responsible for the assessment for insurance purposed. I received a personal account from a Masterton Builder working as an assessor for EQC how he had perceived their operation. On initial impression it appeared that the EQC had planned thoroughly for small scale events and anticipated only minor damage. Many of their standing procedures and plans were not able cope well with the mobilisation required for a large scale event. There were also unrealistic expectations that assessors would be able to complete higher number of assessments per day than what was possible in reality. However, as process wore on procedures were amended and improved.
The EQC covers domestic residents with private insurance only and so does not cover businesses. Their payout is limited to the first $100 000 for any individual claim with the remaining amount covered by the private insurance company. There is a still a great deal of work to be done in this area and too soon to tell how effective they have been.
Integrated Legislative Framework
It was not long (ten days in fact) before the Government drafted and passed the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010. The Act provided an Order in Council giving additional powers to government. It grants exemption from, or may modify, or extend any provision of any enactment. It basically allows Government to ignore almost any statute or law if required to expedite the Canterbury earthquake recovery process. The Act also established a Recovery Commission consisting of seven people including the CCC Mayor, the Selwyn DC Mayor and the Waimakariri Mayor.
Links between initial response and long-term opportunities.
Experts commented that although the initial response has progressed reasonably well, there are some concerns over linking immediate response to longer term recovery. There has been a tendency to try to restore the city back to how it was before the earthquake. However, some experts are urging planners to use the reconstruction process as an opportunity to make improvements.
There are many aspects of the Canterbury Earthquake response and recovery effort that has been integrated. Integrated legislation, regulations, policy and plans have all contributed significantly to the effecti
ve coordination and strategic reduction. There is significant scope to use an integrated approach to link long-term goals to reconstruction efforts being conducted now. An emphasis on greater participation and consultation should assist to further integrate the process where previously, due to time constraints it was not possible. It will also be important to revisit problem definition and goal setting stages, as we move from the short and medium term into the long term. Up until this point in time, there has been significant support from central government and a high level of integration between levels of Government. It is predicted that the window of opportunity to secure national level support will soon pass, as other events distract decision-makers and alter priorities. A robust and integrated approach needs to be developed now to ensure that the momentum is not lost and progress continues to be made.
Inappropriate IEM Joke:
The Canterbury earthquake hit in the early hours of the 4th of September. My own experience of the quake was fairly minor. There was no damage to the house, barely anything broke and I was more excited than concerned about the tremor. My military flatmate was called into C
ivil Defence Head Quarters early on Saturday morning as the 3rd Land Force Group Liaison Officer. He suggested, when leaving the house, that he would be home by lunch. As the morning progressed, I began receiving hourly updates from my friend. A picture began to unfurl that this event was more severe than we had originally anticipated. Once the power came back on in the afternoon, I could then observe the media reports and was able to better comprehend the scale of destruction. More than a month later, we are still experiencing significant aftershocks and the reconstruction continues. Many have been badly affected physically, financially and psychologically. However, compared to the situation in Pakistan after a similar period of time, well, there is no comparison.I have decided to review the disaster response and recovery effort for the Canterbury earthquake with
the objective to highlight how the effects of an extreme natural event can be experienced in a completely different (or less severe way) when the appropriate management frameworks are in place and, to varying extent, are integrated.The Initial Response
The initial response was enacted according to emergency response plans drafted previously. According to a personal account from the military liaison officer to the Civil Defence Response Group (CDRG) the atmosphere in the HQ the morning after the quake was calm and well organised, even with the senior manager of the CDMG overseas at the time, leaving the second in command to lead the response. A state of emergency was declared around 10am on the 4th September in Christchurch as well as Selwyn District and Waimakariri District. The National Crisis Management Centre in Wellington was activated along with emergency operation centres in outlying areas such as Timaru. Initial support measures included the opening of three community centres, the imposition of a city cordon and associated city curfew, inspection of quake damaged buildings by urban search and rescue specialists as well as structural engineers, restoration of basic utilities and general clean up. The official utility support agencies such as Orion, were co-ordinated at a regional level along with many welfare support agencies such as the Salvation Army, St Johns Ambulance and the Red Cross. There was a presence of appropriate leadership displayed by Mayor Bob Parker and Prime Minister John Key ensuring that they made face to face contact with staff and citizens on the ground. This reflected in the public support shown by residents with polls showing 94% of citizens thought that Civil Defence had performed well and 90% saying that council staff had. The media also played a prominent role becoming an important source of information for affected residents and concerned citizens in other areas.
Magnitude of Earthquake: 7.1
Harm to Humans: two people seriously injured, one by a collapsing chimney and a second by flying glass. One person died of a heart attack suffered during the quake, although this could not be directly linked to the earthquake.
How the situation may have been made worse:
Some of this comes down to luck. Many people said that if the earthquake had occurred just a few hours earlier, central city would have been packed with boozed town goers posing a situation for potential carnage. If it had happened during the day, again many of those older buildings that were worst affected in central city might have take some lives with them.
However, a significant amount of praise must go to the Canterbury Civil Defence team who appeared to be well prepared and maintained a high level of command and control throughout the
emergency response period. Welfare support mechanisms were put in place fairly rapidly and law and order was maintained. Credit has also been attributed to New Zealand strict building codes that ensured that many newer buildings at least were better able to withstand the shock.Had Christchurch been less fortunate, there may have been significant delays in restoring basic utilities. Many people complained during the earthquake about losing running water for days and having to use portaloos in the street. The irony is that for many people in developing countries, they might go their whole lives without access to safe running water or a flushing toilet, so hardships are all relative I guess. There were longer delays in some isolated areas although it appeared that even private sector operators responsible for repairing pipelines and drainage systems were genuinely concerned about performing their duties as quickly as possible. I recall one man almost in tears when addressing a community that had been without running water for days, pledging that he would do all that he could to restore their basic needs.
Subsequent Arrangements.
Institutional Arrangements:
The Christchurch City Council (CCC) took a prominent leadership role. They quickly established a temporary cell on the ground floor to deal with the surge of resource management enquiries anticipated during this period. Their website contained an extensive quantity of information on their websites including PDF fact sheets and links to other important websites such as the Department of Building and Housing. The information was easily obtainable and regularly updated.
One of the most prominent areas that highlighted some fragmentation was the management of heritage buildings. Although the CCC insisted that heritage building could not be demolished until approved through due process, there were concerns that some were demolish without appropriate approval. In addition, there were concerns in the community, particularly from the point of view from some prominent architects that inappropriate decisions were being made regarding heritage management. There have been a number of public meetings subsequently to address these issues and government funding allocated to restoration.
The Earthquake Commission (EQC) has been responsible for the assessment for insurance purposed. I received a personal account from a Masterton Builder working as an assessor for EQC how he had perceived their operation. On initial impression it appeared that the EQC had planned thoroughly for small scale events and anticipated only minor damage. Many of their standing procedures and plans were not able cope well with the mobilisation required for a large scale event. There were also unrealistic expectations that assessors would be able to complete higher number of assessments per day than what was possible in reality. However, as process wore on procedures were amended and improved.
The EQC covers domestic residents with private insurance only and so does not cover businesses. Their payout is limited to the first $100 000 for any individual claim with the remaining amount covered by the private insurance company. There is a still a great deal of work to be done in this area and too soon to tell how effective they have been.
Integrated Legislative Framework
It was not long (ten days in fact) before the Government drafted and passed the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010. The Act provided an Order in Council giving additional powers to government. It grants exemption from, or may modify, or extend any provision of any enactment. It basically allows Government to ignore almost any statute or law if required to expedite the Canterbury earthquake recovery process. The Act also established a Recovery Commission consisting of seven people including the CCC Mayor, the Selwyn DC Mayor and the Waimakariri Mayor.
Links between initial response and long-term opportunities.
Experts commented that although the initial response has progressed reasonably well, there are some concerns over linking immediate response to longer term recovery. There has been a tendency to try to restore the city back to how it was before the earthquake. However, some experts are urging planners to use the reconstruction process as an opportunity to make improvements.
There are many aspects of the Canterbury Earthquake response and recovery effort that has been integrated. Integrated legislation, regulations, policy and plans have all contributed significantly to the effecti
ve coordination and strategic reduction. There is significant scope to use an integrated approach to link long-term goals to reconstruction efforts being conducted now. An emphasis on greater participation and consultation should assist to further integrate the process where previously, due to time constraints it was not possible. It will also be important to revisit problem definition and goal setting stages, as we move from the short and medium term into the long term. Up until this point in time, there has been significant support from central government and a high level of integration between levels of Government. It is predicted that the window of opportunity to secure national level support will soon pass, as other events distract decision-makers and alter priorities. A robust and integrated approach needs to be developed now to ensure that the momentum is not lost and progress continues to be made.Inappropriate IEM Joke:
What did the Samoan Tsunami say to the Canterbury Earthquake?
...Nothing. It just waved.
No comments:
Post a Comment