1. What is the link to Crisis Management?
The threat of flooding in low-lying aboriginal communities has resulted in a declaration of an emergency state in Northern Ontario. As a result, 50 residents from Kashechewan were evacuated on March 24th with another 300 residents moved on March 25th.
2. What stage of Crisis Management does the system appear to be at?
The system seems to be at the risk stage for the both the residents and government officials. Firstly, this is a reoccurring concern. The article mentions that in 2005 there were high E. coli levels in the community’s drinking water as a result of the flooding. As a result, these floods are causing various safety concerns for both the residents and federal government officials. For the First Nation people there is a risk of relocation and potentially losing their native community. For the government, there is a risk of injury, health issues and potential death of such residents and they must find a way to keep these people safe.
3. How well does the system appear to be handling the situation?
The system is handling the situation well. Evacuation was focused on elderly residents, women, children and people with medical conditions. The evacuation was done over the course of 2 days. Further, the government was proactive and did not wait to evacuate given that by the 25th the risk of flooding diminished and First Nation Leaders requested a suspension of flights. Currently the ministry of natural resources is monitoring river conditions to determine whether to move more residents out of the region and therefore the system is prepared to relocate more people if needed.
4. What level of crisis preparedness does the system appear to have?
The system seems to have a level 4 for preparedness. Given there have been repeated evacuations over the past 8 years, they were proactive and moved individuals even before the flooding occurred. By the next day, the risk of flooding was removed. This really showed that they were prepared to move folks quickly.
From a longstanding solution standpoint, in 2006 a report by the federal government recommended relocating the flood-prone community, however the First Nation Leaders rejected the recommendation because they wanted to remain in their traditional territories. As a result, the system is focusing on improving flood-control measures.
5. What personal reactions/feelings does the description trigger in you?
I am surprised at how flexible the government is being with this situation. Given that there are reoccurring floods, I would have thought they would make it mandatory for the residents to move. The only relocation option that seemed suitable to the First Nations would cost $500-million. I was surprised at the cost of such a relocation, given there are only a few thousand residents being evacuated. I would be interested to also learn what the cost of evacuations and monitoring of such areas is in comparison to a complete relocation.
6. What advice would you offer to those involved?
I would recommend that government official do a risk assessment and potential of harm such floods could cause. I would also recommend a cost analysis of relocation versus evacuations to decipher if the costs of relocation are much higher. As for improving flood-control measures, I would suggest the government to look at what other areas are doing, such as Japan or other countries, which have already created systems in place to deal with flooding.
I would recommend that First Nation Leaders consider relocation. As the climate continues to change there is potential for more flooding. The safety of their family and people are important and must be factored in.
Article Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment