Is there a case for Disaster Resilience?

Over the past few weeks I have had the chance to speak to several scientists working on climate risk and disaster risk reduction, which was very inspiring. Still, I could not help but wonder how those conversations might affect the daily job of a business continuity practitioner working in a financial institution or that of a risk manager in an energy company, for instance. We know that governments and public administrations are in charge of responding when there is a large-scale emergency, such as floods or an earthquake, and some of us might even collaborate with first respondents in some cases. However, is there a structured approach across sectors to enhance collaboration among different stakeholders – private and public – when natural hazards strike? Are we aware of the latest tools and techniques that can tell us when to increase our alertness?

The short answer is no, there is no such cohesive approach that extends the concept of organizational resilience beyond the boundaries of the organization. Resilience practitioners are working without tapping into the creative pipeline of their academic counterparts. They are doing their best using sound frameworks from international standards and guidelines but there is no consistent exchange of ideas with those who study natural hazards, trying to understand their patterns and impacts. This includes experimenting with cutting edge technology and analysis tools that we often discuss in industry conversations.

On the other hand, the academic world is often stuck in a web of publishing dynamics, funding needs and the inability to reach organizations who have first-hand experience in dealing with the consequences of natural hazards. They analyse the data they can retrieve from publicly available sources, sometimes they even manage to get a hold of data from private organizations, but they have limited access to the practitioners world. The two groups rarely mix up at conferences and there are no ongoing discussions beyond the occasional chat with no or little follow-up.

Academia and industry are two different versions of the same world that run parallel but never meet, despite having very similar goals.?

This is striking, because we are looking at different sides of the same coin. Researchers are investing a lot of time and effort in trying to understand the life of a natural hazard, its complexity and how risk levels change based on the combination multiple natural phenomena. At the same time, practitioners are experts in taking decisions once these threats turn into real events, coordinating teams, activating plans and steering organizations in the right direction. Some are so convinced of the importance of response measures that might even decide to skip the risk assessment altogether!

As things stand, there is a communication barrier that needs to be overcome if we want these two worlds to harmonize and feed into each other. Academics often talk of disaster risk reduction or disaster risk management but if we translate that into industry jargon, many will refer to the same practice using a variety of terms such as emergency management. Furthermore, organizations use the word “disaster” to indicate disaster recovery, which is about recovering IT systems, something very specific and a completely different concept. Also, the way we conceive risk management practices often centers around the single organization and possibly some of its suppliers, but this concept is rarely calibrated on an area-wide response. Meanwhile, business continuity does not run any risk of being misinterpreted by academia simply because no one talks about it there.

There is an enormous potential to be gained from creating a synergy between two growing and committed communities such as industry resilience practitioners and academics working in disaster risk reduction. As climate change intensifies and we experience more intense weather hazards, we cannot afford to ignore the potential benefits of having these two communities converge. For the record, this applies also to other academic communities working in fields such as information security and risk management (business continuity remains, alas, a work-in-progress in academia). I believe there is potential for coming up with a language both worlds understand. The expression “Disaster Resilience” comes to mind, but at the moment let’s aim to start a conversation and hopefully there will come a time when we can all argue about definitions at the same table. ?

?