Building Municipal Resiliency

Critical Infrastructure Protection Reaffirmed!

2008-11-18T20:19:54Z

I would like to draw your attention to a study recently released, hot on the heels of the U.S. election. The report itself not new, but is labelled an "Assessment Study" and is really a message to the government in waiting.

The "Critical Infrastructure Partnership Strategic Assessment Study" is a state-of-the-union type report by the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) on where the Public / Private partnership on critical infrastructure protection is and what the priorities are for the incoming administration.

First and foremost though, is a description of the partnership itself. The NIAC membership reads like a who's who of the executive level of the biggest business and industry. The Advisory Council helps to overlook the working groups (more councils) belonging to the 16 (national) critical infrastructure sectors. This all comes as a result of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) which creates the "the unifying structure for the integration of critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KR) protection into a single national program. The NIPP provides an overall framework for programs and activities that are currently underway in the various sectors, as well as new and developing CI/KR protection efforts.

This collaborative effort... "will result in the prioritization of protection initiatives and investments across sectors. It also will ensure that resources are applied where they offer the most benefit for mitigating risk by lowering vulnerabilities, deterring threats, and minimizing the consequences of terrorist attacks and other incidents". This is really good stuff, but this short description does not do justice to the magnitude of the project. I should note that this is a U.S. federal program and similar programs have been, or are being, developed across the globe, including Canada and the Province of Ontario (that I have written about previously).

Although I would like to talk to all of the 24 page PowerPoint summary, that may get a bit tedious. You can download it yourself here. Instead, I will pull out a few gems for discussion.

"Regulation cannot achieve the same level of infrastructure protection success as the partnership". Emergency Management Ontario has recently launched the Supply Chain Alliance program, where the private sector was invited to create an emergency supply chain system for the province during a provincial emergency. As an invitation, not legislated requirement, the program showed unprecedented private sector participation, cooperation and speed of implementation.

"A strong value proposition must be articulated and reaffirmed to sustain private sector participation in the partnership". This is certainly a sentiment that needs re-iteration: private sector businesses are NOT altruistic entities, they must profit to survive. Though profit can be derived from many sources: advertising / marketing, good "PR", exclusivity, etc. To the public sector preferring 'value' can be a creative (and rewarding) process.

"There continues to be an imbalance between the resources available to support the current requirements of the sector partnership model and the demands placed on it." Let's face it, we have many complex systems most work well, but not flawlessly. In order to even approach a high degree of resilience will take a long time and much resources. What is the alternative? That the sum of the parts (costs, fees, breakdowns, higher prices, shifting responsibilities, etc.) will indeed be greater than the whole.

The study illuminates us on what we have always suspected about government bodies: "Productive partnership efforts can get bogged down by inefficient government processes and cumbersome requirements", "Better coordination among government entities will strengthen the partnership", "A lack of partnership experience and skills hinders collaboration." Need I say more? But before you government sector folks get offended, remember I'm one too.

Lastly, this quote on recommendations for the new administration, is one I like best, to "reaffirm the importance of critical infrastructure protection and resilience as a fundamental mission of government and a responsibility of business". Note that these are parallel, but not the same. A "mission" of government, but a "responsibility" of business. This theme is endorsed by business through the Council. Two different agendas, one common outcome: resilience.

More on Small 'P' Politics and Decision Making

2008-11-07T15:59:36Z

I wrote recently on 'educating the decision makers' -- essentially on the need to have the elected officials and executive administration properly educated on issues of wide ranging impacts and consequences in order that truly informed decisions can be made. I can now add a further dimension to this subject.

Yesterday I, along with a colleague, presented at a seminar on the need for field level adaptation programs to lessen the impacts of climate change. The organizers were the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The audience consisted of both administrators and elected officials.

From the feedback I received (granted it was a small sample size), I realized that there is a distinct lack of awareness of the obstacles, challenges and blockages of information running up to the decision makers. Simply put, the elected officials I spoke with were surprised that I (or my colleagues) could not walk into their offices and speak to issues. And while they mentioned various mechanisms for educating their bodies, were not aware of the pathways and challenges of stickhandling such a proposal through to them.

In fact, although it made sense to these officials, they did not realize that in many instances, the attempt to get information directly to them, contentious or cooperative, sensitive or secure, exciting or banal, may be a "Career Limiting Move," or even grounds for dismissal.

So how does one get information to those that need to decide, undiluted and in a timely fashion, without breaking chain of command?

The only answer I have is that the search for information and the satisfaction (or not) of the reply has to come from the highest levels. There should be an assumption that not all information is bubbling up, that not all issues are laid on the table and that expediency is maintained in flowing through what is currently in the pipeline.

I realize that not all organizations have the same challenges and some excel better than others at information flow. But I would wager that everyone can admit the possibility of some facets of the above challenges in their organization.

In short, I believe that many senior officials need to have a greater finger on the pulse of the organization (without micro managing), or as the responders put it, a greater situational awareness to determine information gaps and needs and thus make more informed decisions.

Transit: Vital yes, but "Essential"?

2008-10-30T13:37:39Z

Today, in Toronto, City Council is debating as to whether they should ask the province to declare the local transit system (the TTC) as an "essential service". The issue arises over an incident last spring where the TTC was in a legal strike position and in contract talks. Somewhere during the negotiation cycle things went awry. Both management and the union executive arrived at a deal that was supposed to be a 'slam dunk' with the union but, as telegraphed here, was not.

The transit union voted against the deal and went on strike. Further, against union executive promises, they stuck immediately, without the agreed upon 48 hour notice. Expectant users were literally stranded in the streets following the usual Saturday night revelry. Everyone was angry. Hundreds of thousands of users were left trying to scramble for alternates before Monday's rush, not to mention those working and travelling on the Sunday. The Provincial Government ended up introducing back to work legislation to end the strike and send the parties to arbitration.

Some of the parameters of the impact of a TTC strike that are being floated around:

        * 1.5 million riders per day
        * traffic congestion in the city costs about $2 billion per year
        * the cost of a TTC strike to the city is about $50 million per day
        * the cost to accept the negotiated contract was about $11.2 million

There is no doubt that this transit system is, as most systems are across North America especially in major urban centres, a vital service to the populace. In fact, as a strong proponent of Critical Infrastructure Assurance, I would say this type of service is critical to the continued proper functioning of a city. But "essential"?

The Ontario Provincial Government, in 1993, legislated "Essential Service" through the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act (S.O. 1993, C. 38). In this act, essential service was defined as "services that are necessary to enable the employer to prevent,

    (a) danger to life, health or safety,

    (b) the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises,

    (c) serious environmental damage, or

    (d) disruption of the administration of the courts or of legislative drafting" (s. 30)

Essential services include police, fire, ems and other life saving services. Nowhere does the legislation state, or even allude to, economic impacts. Nowhere is there mention of guaranteed access to employment. This action would put bus drivers in the same class as paramedics performing advanced care on an accident victim or firefighter running into a burning building. With all due respect to transit personnel, this designation would 'cheapen' our front line responders.

If, in this context, transit is essential, then we must necessarily include almost every other piece of critical infrastructure. Truck drivers who deliver our food (necessary sustenance), sanitation workers (health threat of curbside garbage) and oil refinery workers (we need that gasoline) to name but a few.

This movement is occurring for the wrong reasons, this is about economy and convenience, not health, safety and life protection. There are alternatives for transit (car / carpool, walk, cycle, taxi, work from home, vacation, stay with friends, etc.) but there are few alternatives to law enforcement officers.

There are better ways to deal with the issues surrounding this event. Designating transit as an essential service, thus removing their right to strike, is not one of them unless we deisgnate all critical infrastructure workers as "essential."

How do you educate the decision makers?

2008-10-22T17:54:57Z

Our governments, big business and other organisations are highly stratified. We all know this. The closer we are to the bottom of the ladder, the more we do. The higher we are to the top, the more we decide what is to be done. Again, pretty obvious.

There are many benefits to this system. One being we don't have inexperienced, 'wet behind the ears' employees making critical decisions and running the business. On the other hand, our decision makers get further and further away from the field. Basing decisions on increasingly outdated and obsolete ground level experience. Funny though, that's not my point.

What is my point is that at the very highest levels, in the largest of companies / governments the decision makers are only just that. They decide. They rarely have time to digest information. They rarely have time to educate themselves. They rely on an upward trend of recommendations through reporting structures and advisors to provide for them the sound bite of information required to make the decision: "Just give me the 50,000 foot overview (as we walk between meetings)". Maybe this is necessary. Maybe this is the best way. But maybe it has it's faults.

My area of focus, emergency management, often has CORPORATE WIDE IMPLICATIONS and employs a complex stream of analyses, justifications and diverse perspectives to paint a realistic view of risk to those who must responsibly treat these risks or give direction to treat these risks. Can your executive adequately make decisions on Critical Infrastructure Assurance, Continuity of Operations or Comprehensive Terrorist Threat Assessment Programs based on a one or two page brief?

The question is: how does one prepare the decision makers to make an informed decision, when there is little time or ability to properly educate them?

Further, if an incorrect decision is made, who is most at fault? Those that didn't (couldn't) supply the correct amount of information / awareness / education? Or those that didn't (couldn't) devote the time for the correct amount of information / awareness / education? How can we get the an increasing amount of 'face time' with the executive to ensure they the essential information required to make the informed decisions on these comprehensive programs?

Photo by Steve Webel. Creative Commons License Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic

Exchanging Business Cards

2008-10-08T02:18:52Z

"During an emergency is NOT the time to be exchanging business cards". I first heard this piece of advice from then Commissioner of Emergency Management (Ontario), Julian Fantino. While this is certainly sage advice and I wholeheartedly agree, I have also noted an adverse effect of the business card exchange, or rather it has highlighted a dangerous fallacy among practitioners.

I hear this phrase now at almost every other conference, workshop or seminar I attend on the subject of emergency management. It is a plea of the moderator for the audience to get out and meet the other attendees. "NOW is the time to exchange business cards", they say. "Well that's just great", I say. But there are problems with this.

Firstly, I now have a drawer full of business cards. We live in an electronic information age, at least I do. It's better to send an email so I can electronically catalogue your information, place into my contacts folder and blast you an email from time to time. It's much easier as I have a genetic disposition for instantly forgetting names. But that's not the problem, that's just me.

The problem is that we are connecting ourselves through chance meetings at various events, meeting those of the same interest and the same abilities to attend. It's a skewed audience. I will have to hope that in the midst of an emergency, I have previously met the person I now desperately need to contact.

Our contacts are based on personal relationships, chance meetings and imperfect memberships. How many meetings have you attended where some (many) of the members are no-shows, or send a 'designate'? This problem looms large for the emergency manager, or anyone who needs to coordinate vast and varied persons / organizations / industries and needs them to 'play nicely together in the sandbox'.

What still has to occur in emergency management, risk management, business continuity and any other discipline that stretches across an organization or public body is to operationalize the process. That is to pull the function away from the individual (the 'champion') and push it to the position, connecting with every other position.

We shouldn't need to exchange business cards. We should have to rely on happenstance to meet the right people. We should have the networks set out in all of our operations so contacts are known, exercised and maintained. So if so-and-so from such-and-such retires, I would know immediately, would know his/her replacement and would not lose continuity.

Imagine during an emergency I pull out a business card and "...the number you have dialled is no longer in service..."

Developing Public / Private Partnerships #1

2008-09-25T18:51:27Z

I have just arrived back from a conference on organizational resiliency where part of the focus was public / private partnerships. The conference was presented by the Ontario Hospital Association and held in Toronto (OHA).

It's interesting in itself that the OHA had partnered with the Toronto Board of Trade, the Disaster Recovery Information Exchange (DRIE), the Ontario Association of Emergency Managers (OAEM) among others to host this event in their "Business of Health" series.

I worked with the organizers of the conference to set it up and immediately one problem came to the fore: price. In hindsight, as I watched the day progress it seemed this issue underscores one of the problems of engaging both sectors at the same time. On the surface, the problem was that (in general terms) a municipal employee tends to be adverse to spending high dollars to attend conferences, workshops, etc. (or has to go through hoops, has limits, must apply months in advance, etc), whereas many in the private sector do not have these same controls or limits. Further, many in the private sector will not attend a low cost event under the impression that low cost = low value.

The deeper problem is the entirely different way these two sectors view spending money, investment in people and projects, bottom line results, etc. My own perspective is that private companies are more inclined to invest money into projects that ultimately improve their bottom line, whether directly through profits, or indirectly through improved customer satisfaction, greater competitive advantage, etc. In the public sector, the improved 'bottom line' is only one of many considerations, along with perception of 'good fiscal management' (ie don't raise taxes), the 'need to succeed' (most of our work reflects well or poorly on someone else), timing (elections, budgets, re-orgs, etc.) and other non-monetary, barely tangible issues. I know this is a crass oversimplification, but you get the point: these are two widely separate systems.

Pricing was our dilemma for this past event. In the end, the initial price was dropped to be inclusive of the public sector, but not so much that it "cheapened" the day. The mix of sectors was good, but the overall attendance was not as high as desired. We are left wondering whether there can be a price point that is low enough for the public sector, yet high enough for the private sector and still (at least) break even.

One Picture

2008-09-10T18:25:48Z

This is a story in one (actually 2) pictures:

Photo Credit: ICLR

The background story of this photo (of which I'm sure you want to know) is showing some of the aftermath of a storm which occurred August 19, 2005. The storm swept through southwestern Ontario complete with at least 2 tornadoes and extensive rainfalls throughout. According to the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR) in Toronto, this was the most costly disaster in the Province's history with greater than $500 million (CDN) in damages.

As interesting as this photo is in showing disaster results or exclaiming massive costs of failure or other such things (especially 'the story behind the story')... this is not why I have posted it here.

The ICLR has done an excellent job in highlighting the complexities of our infrastructure. Note the labelling: gas mains, water mains, hydro cabling, telephone cabling, sewers and even aesthetic pedestrian pathway. Oh, did I mention the road was broken, too?

In the grand scheme of things the cost of this road failure, in terms of reconstruction, did not even allow for the municipality to claim for disaster funding. But look at all the infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed:

And that's just the obvious. Note the impact this would have on our: hydro rates, telephone bills, water bills, natural gas bills and tax rates (don't forget the parks path!).

What about the not-so-obvious? Lost business with downed telephone service, wasted (thawed) frozen food, possible potable water contamination, lost productivity due to an increase in commuting time... oh, and a lesser quality of life because the park cannot be accessed.

These are the real costs of disasters. They are mostly hidden. They are mostly borne by the municipality or the private sector. Where do they recover their costs from? I think we all know the answer to that.

An aside: There's a couple of significant things happening in Canada that are relevant to this blog.

First, a new report has been released by a Standing Committee of our Senate (basically the place where our politicians go to retire) entitled:

"Emergency Preparedness In Canada... Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence". The reason for the elipses points is for the subtitle of the report:

"How the fine arts of bafflegab and procrastination hobble the people who will be trying to save you when things get really bad..."

I kid you not... actually, it's as entertaining a read as a Senate Report can be.

The other significant event is a Canadian federal election that was just called by our prime minister. I wont even make fun of it (yet), however I will say the municipalities (especially in Ontario) are ramping up to make infrastructure, critical infrastructure and lack of funding for such big political issues for the election.

More on these to come...

One Story...

2008-08-22T20:05:11Z

November 30 to December 1, 2006. Hamilton (Canada) received more rain on those two days (57.0 mm / 2.3 in) than the average for the whole month of December (43.7 mm / 1.7 in). These were also the greatest rainfalls for each of those two days since at least 1959 (22.4 & 34.6). Can you see what's coming?

There are a few factors to consider that make this torrential downpour a potential disaster. The water treatment plant destined to have problems on the 1st services approximately 380,000 people. Over 600 km of the city's pipelines (370+ miles) are combined sewers, both sewage and runoff into the same pipes. With an average temperature hovering just above freezing, there is little evaporation. Torrential downpours often result in immediate runoff (into sewers) because the ground does not have the time to absorb the rainfall.

To make a long story shorter, the treatment plant had an increasing wall of dirty water bearing down on it, filling it's holding tanks and maxing out their outfall and diversion structures and still the wet water well was increasing in height, threatening to breach the upper limit. As the water level approached the limit, the height differential between the well and several dozen residential basements starts to become equal.

If this could be worse, it was. If the water was to breach the top of the well, it would flow into the dry well area of the plant. This is the location of the pumps and (of course) all of the electrical equipment servicing the pumps. If the electrical shorts, the equipment fails, the waters rise uncontrollably and a significant portion of the lower city becomes flooded with dirty water. A public works, public health, civic disaster.

If it had happened, you would likely have known as it would have made BIG news in North America. The treatment plant had 5 wet well pumps and 3 dry well sump pumps fully operating before a fix was found. There was one sump pump left.

So... an isolated incident? An unfortunate synergy of circumstances? A product of aging infrastructure? Poor planning from decades past? Does the cause matter? The fact remains that many cities worldwide still have a significant percentage of combined sewerage. That funding for municipal infrastructure is not keeping up with maintenance in many cases. That science is telling us that global warming will give many of us an increase in torrential rainfalls.

While the incident may be isolated from a historical perspective, it is quite likely a harbinger of things to come.

PS: it is heartening to know that the 'fix' found was reportedly offered up by a couple of old timers in public works who pointed out a little known, unused gate in the system. "Institutional memory" saved the city. A different lesson for another day.

Is this the beginning...?

2008-08-20T19:29:29Z

As I write this, my first blog entry, and the first of many dealing with community resilience, global warming, the changing face of disasters, etc. I can't help to think of (one of) Winston Churchill's famous quotes:

...this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

- November 10, 1942

This is my hope when it comes to global warming ("climate change") and how we as a people, a society, an administration are dealing with it. Each piece of the above quote is apt in this context.

The end? Some doomsayers will have you believe that the effects of global warming will indeed spell "the end". I don't. Nor do I believe it is the beginning of the end. I don't think humanity will let it get that far. Therefore, it is not the beginning of the end.

However, after 30 or 40 years of science, observations, propaganda and politics, I hope it is the end of the beginning. The end of talk. The end of argument. The end of inaction. All of this (I hope) was the beginning.

This blog is being written to help us move to the next step: action. Action in terms of planning, prevention, mitigation and adaptation. PROactive words. As an emergency manager, a member of society, a father... I believe we must all now work toward solutions, provide answers, take action.

Waiting for it (reaction) will no longer suffice if we truly do not want this to be "the end". What I believe is also obvious, is that solutions will only come through a collective, multidisciplinary, respectful effort. The complexities, responsibilities and interdependencies are too great and varied to rest with one individual, one group, one industry.

These (and others) are the concepts I will be addressing in my blogs to come...

Municipal Critical Decision Making Contingencies

2008-08-18T18:49:45Z

Municipal Critical Decision Making Contingencies.pdf

This booklet describes various contingencies for ensuring that critical decision making, typically by municipal council, can continue during a crisis. It is especially concerned with the scenarios where quorum may not be attainable due to circumstances.

The booklet also outlines tried and true methods of facility and information technology redundancies.

A little bit about me

2008-08-15T19:56:08Z

In case you were wondering who I am, here's a few words on what I am and where I've been.

I am one of two Emergency Management Coordinators for the City of Hamilton, Canada and Hamilton's designated Community Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC). Hamilton is located in Ontario, at the Southeast corner of Lake Ontario about an hour's drive from Toronto (3 hrs. during the rush). The CEMC designation denotes that I am the first one that Emergency Management Ontario calls in a disaster. The CEMC is a legislated position for each of the 450+ municipalities in Ontario under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act and its regulations. I have been with Hamilton since October, 2004.

I am also the President of the Ontario Association of Emergency Managers previously serving as Vice President as well as Secretary to the Board and several other functions. The OAEM has approximately 500 members comprising of emergency managers from both the public and private sectors.

I sit as the OAEM Representative to the Continuity of Government Sector Working Group of the Ontario Critical Infrastructure Assurance Program. The OCIAP has 9 working groups representing the obvious critical sectors of society (public safety, gas, hydro, public health, water, food, etc.). Our group has recently published a 'toolkit' for ensuring the continuity of decision making during a crisis. I have uploaded the document for your use.

I like to be involved in the profession. Among some of my recent and current activities: at various times over the past six years - member of the Program Selection Committee, Professional Recognition Award Committee and Volunteer Coordinator for the World Conference on Disaster Management, undertaking projects with the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness and as an instructor for the Emergency Management Certificate Program at Centennial College in Toronto, teaching risk assessment and hazard analysis.

My actual schooling is in Environmental Studies, with a degree in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Waterloo and I have also attained the Associate Business Continuity Professional designation from the Disaster Recovery Institute.

Hamilton has had its share of crises including: a tornado touchdown in November, 2005; an ambulance shortage in May, 2006 and excessive storm water surge in December, 2006. I have helped to maintain 4 different Emergency Operations Centres and undertaking a study for a fifth.

That's a synopsis - I've done other things (spent 10 years in software development, worked for a while in a meat packing plant, cooked in restaurants, clubs and golf clubs) - but we don't have to go into that...

You can reach me at richard.kinchlea@hamilton.ca.