“But when you have an operation like this, you have to be coordinated, you have to know where you’re going. And one of the big issues at the beginning was just communication. Think of it—the State Department couldn’t even talk to the officials in the Haitian government initially.”

Can We Communicate Better Today?

What if a Haiti-like event—or any disruption that knocks out communications and power—happened in your community today? Could your government officials call anyone outside the area to coordinate critical resources?  Could your county emergency managers reach the governor to identify needs and request support? Could the governor and his or her staff email or call FEMA? Would anyone be able to tweet or update the community on Facebook or other social networks? Would they be in the same boat as Haitian officials were a year ago today?

If Haiti’s leaders had portable satellite communications kits with solar power, Washington could have known what they needed within minutes—instead of hours, even days—of the 7.0 quake.

To honor the memory of those lost a year ago and to respect the lives of people everywhere, let’s resolve to be resilient. Let’ accept the fact that communications networks can and do fail—more often than we like to admit. Without adequate communications for sharing situational awareness, people unnecessarily suffer—even die. Let’s commit to having a Plan B so lack of communications is never a question for rapid response when lives are at stake.

Major disasters provide important learning opportunities. People are motivated by the loss of life to be more receptive to new approaches and strategies for risk reduction in the aftermath of a crisis. In 2008, 321 natural disasters claimed more than 235,000 lives and cost the world an estimated $181 billion (according to The World Bank).

A long-term approach to building disaster resilience is critical, sadly however, disaster risk is often only fully acknowledged following a major event. The disaster recovery period thus provides an opportunity to once again sound the alarm and proselytize for increasing disaster preparedness and risk reduction funding at the federal, state and local levels.

Climate change now compounds the risks for natural disasters, but also provides an opportunity to empower communities to manage that risk. Consider that disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation funding can actually be integrated into relief and recovery budgets. How about an in-depth review of the relevant funding instruments and practices to ensure that those institutions most able to effect change have access to relevant funding  facilitated by local and national governments?

Let’s get serious about risk reduction partnerships and collaboration with practices that engage local government, civil society and NGOs in collective decision-making and tangible strategies to reduce risk and strengthen early warning. Technology MUST be utilized more effectively if we are to achieve enhanced resiliency and risk reduction with the limited funds we are currently willing to allocate.

This fleeting moment needs to be capitalized upon by policymakers, practitioners and the public alike – let’s do it together.

Thankfully there are those who are tackling these thorny questions. In October 2009 the 6th Gaining Ground Summit series attracted 600 people to Vancouver, BC to learn, talk about, and build connections around the theme of “Resilient Cities.”

Check out Mark Holland’s Resilient Cities Manifesto:

“I will open to the pain that I cause in the world through my ignorance and fear and the distance I seem to have from my internal dignity and nobility, and I will feel the pain, shock and injustice of participating in the death of so many, if only by accident – and then I will move past the grief to the restless serenity of my responsibility – to my planet, to my community, to my family, and to myself.”

Last November, Timothy Manning, FEMA’s Deputy Administrator of the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) announced that preparedness grant funds can be used for fees associated with equipment purchases.

An excerpt from the FEMA Grants Program Directorate’s bulletin released by his office:

“Effective [November 2o, 2009], the use of FEMA preparedness grant funds for maintenance contracts, warranties, repair or replacement costs, upgrades, and user fees are allowable under all active and future grant awards, unless otherwise noted.”

How Does FEMA Define User Fees for Preparedness?

The FEMA information bulletin offers this definition:

“User fees are viewed as costs for specific services required to maintain and provide continued operation of equipment or systems. An example would be the recurring service fees associated with handheld radios or mobile data computers.”

Another example (okay, here comes the shameless plug) would be satellite airtime services – to keep calls and data flowing to an OODAkit, BGAN terminal or satellite phone.

How many more people will die in the future because of our complacency – in this country and elsewhere?

How many times do we have to witness such disasters only to find that once again lack of communications is the greatest hindrance to rapid and accurate assessment of the impact? How many people could have been saved if communications were available to quickly obtain accurate situational awareness and better coordinate the resources for search and rescue?

We’ve heard over and over again from the media, “The lack of communications in Haiti is preventing … ”

Many have spent years working diligently to ensure that communities and organizations can communicate when disaster strikes. However, conflicting priorities and budget constraints have postponed spending in this area – yielding late-night pleas for communications gear in the immediate aftermath of each new disaster.

Another painful reminder that such communications cannot be an afterthought if we want to minimize loss of life among the victims!