By
Contents
Putting Early
Warning in Context
Governing
the Warning Capability
Over
the last 15 years there has been a considerable amount of international discussion
and debate on the subject of early warning systems. As a result there are now a variety of
successful local initiatives in place around the world.
However,
as I pointed out in my paper Early
Warning Systems: reframing the discussion, published in the Community
Safety Edition of the Australian Journal of Emergency Management (Vol. 22,
No.2, May 2007), the
international emphasis on early warning systems has shifted the focus from
emergency management to science and technology, and scientists and
technologists are now generally considered to be leading the development of
early warning capabilities. As a result,
the international
community has lost sight of the fact that early warning is the integration and
extension of existing emergency management capabilities and that the effort to
establish any early warning capability must be led by emergency managers, not
by scientists and technologists.
In
simple terms, emergency management brings together the everyday endeavors of
private, voluntary and government agencies in a comprehensive and coordinated
way to deal with the range of emergency needs.
Through this coordinated effort, emergency managers make use of existing
tools and processes, all of which are used to provide specialised services to
the community on a day-to-day basis, to help communities deal with natural hazard
risks and events. While there are
important benefits to be gained from improving detection and interpretation
systems for natural hazards, these benefits cannot be fully realised unless those
systems are integrated into the all-hazards emergency management capability.
In the
The place
of early warning within the context of effective emergency management can be
more easily understood by considering early warning in terms of the hazard
event itself. The hazard event – be it a
volcano, tropical cyclone, tsunami or earthquake – is real; everyone, from the
international community of experts and specialists to the people living in
areas that experience the hazard event, can talk about it in meaningful terms. With respect to the hazard event, everyone
exists in one of two states; they are either preparing for the hazard event
should it occur (i.e. in the
The
hazard event itself triggers the transition from one state to the other; when
it occurs, we deal with it and when we have dealt with it, we prepare in case
it should occur again. This description provides
a realistic structure within which the National Disaster Centre can manage the
many community awareness, education, scientific, technical, political and
logistical details required to prepare for and deal with hazard events in
The
word “early” in early warning emphasizes the need to improve and optimise not
only the science and technology, but also the human capability throughout the full
range of interactions that support emergency management. Science-based agencies such as the National
Weather Service must continually improve their ability to accurately detect,
interpret and report a hazard event at the earliest possible moment. The National Disaster Centre must be
supported by a communications technology infrastructure that integrates with
traditional methods of communication, so that they can send emergency
information quickly out to every community and person at risk. The village communities must, through their
awareness and participation, add to and confirm the information from the
scientific or technical systems with local knowledge and observations, which in
many circumstances throughout PNG will be their only early warning capability.
The
National Disaster Centre must govern the early warning capability in accordance
with an overall national emergency management communications strategy, through
which the National Disaster Centre manages the relationships with its stakeholders. This strategy must identify appropriate
interfaces with strategic service providers whose support is crucial if the
early warning capability is to be effective; strategic service providers
include the National Weather Service and other science-based agencies, PNG
Power, Telikom PNG and other infrastructure providers, public
officials, community emergency services and the media.
The
National Disaster Centre, therefore, must actively lead the interaction at all
levels, working with the communities at risk, strategic service providers and
government to develop effective local, provincial and national early warning capabilities. They must strengthen and sustain that
capability through a continuous cycle of review, assessment and improvement
activities, again with the community and with the strategic service providers.
The
National Disaster Centre must also take the lead in dealing with two areas of on-going
challenge. Scientists often fear that
false or inaccurate warnings might result in lack of faith in subsequent
warnings and loss of credibility. The
National Disaster Centre must collaborate with science and the media to inform
the community, and to establish realistic expectations of the extent and limits
of scientific knowledge with respect to the hazards that threaten the
community. An informed community, with
realistic expectations, can accept false alarms without becoming unresponsive
or devaluing the professional capabilities of the scientists.
A
second challenge involves public officials who often resist initiating or
escalating within the hazard response plan because they are concerned that
information and warnings about hazard events will create panic within their
community. Rational fear – fear of
situations that are liable to occur – generally motivates people to engage in
constructive actions to deal with the situation they fear. The National Disaster Centre must collaborate
with public officials and the media to provide factual information about the
risks the community faces and its options for mitigation and management of those
risks. An informed community is unlikely
to panic, and any undesirable economic consequences will be directly related to
the hazard event itself.
A warning system cannot be truly effective without an effective response system, and vice-versa. A highly tuned and robust warning system that delivers timely and understandable warnings to communities and people at risk will be ineffective if the target audience has not been adequately educated, trained and equipped to respond to the warning. Similarly, a well-educated and prepared public will still be adversely impacted by a hazard if the warning does not tell them what they need to know when they need to know it, in order for them to do what they need to do when they need to do it.
The National
Disaster Centre, therefore, must assume the role of “champion” and lead, science and technology organisations
and agencies must contribute their specialised knowledge, and the communities at
risk must actively participate in the development of effective and sustainable early
warning capabilities for
He has extensive experience in delivering operational facilities and
mission critical systems in
He is a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers Australia, Member of the International
Association of Emergency Managers (Oceania Region) and a member of the Advisory Board to the Emergency Preparedness Institute, Inc. in the
Email: philip@faerberhall.com;
Web: http://www.faerberhall.com/
Return to the Commentary:
Environment & Sustainability page of Faerber Hall.