Challenges in Recovery

Number of replies: 7

Consider the following questions and share your response with your peers: 

  1. What are some of the issues that are likely to come from applying recovery management processes?
  2. After reading what some of your peers have said about the issues that are likely to come form applying recovery management processes, make some suggestions of how these could be addressed.

In reply to First post

Re: Challenges in Recovery

by Alison Russell -
Failure to reach agreement in a timely manner about what an improved system for a community would look like. Such delays would lead to an increase in the cost of the overall recovery, and may even lead to no resolution if an agreement can not be made. If this occurs with one of the key recovery decisions, for example, where to move a town centre that has been flooded 3 years in a row, then it may lead to business owners either:
1) leaving town and setting up in a different location
2) increased costs leading to some small businesses failing and having to close
3) people employed by these businesses that no longer have income may seek employment in other businesses out of town, therefore taking their income out of the area
4) empty building leading to an undesirable-looking environment for any potential new business to set up
5) business owners may not be able to get insurance if they rebuild where there has already been issues, and without a firm plan as to where the new business centre is to be set up, may not be able to get financial backing or insurance for an unplanned/unknown business model

Some business owners (who are an integral part of the recovery process) may be of the opinion that they want status quo - others want change. There needs to be a robust plan of how to move forward when stalemate looks inevitable so as to not stall the recovery process.
In reply to First post

Re: Challenges in Recovery

by Michelle Gillman -
Issues that could arise from applying a recovery management process can be infinite and unpredictable but essentially the relate to 3 root causes are; people, process and communication.
If the plan that is set up is not followed confusion occurs.
If the plan that is set up is flawed and the people driving it are rigid in their approach then the management process will not be fit for purpose.
If communication across any stage of the plan or process fails then recovery will be delayed or even stalled.
There needs to be a clear common goal with flexible processes and approaches that are properly managed and resourced by a team of experts all with the same end point in mind.

I think that the most important issue in applying a recovery management process is pre planning and consultation with the communities and businesses involved. If this is done their will be more ownership and the understanding of a new normal rather than business as usual after the event.
In reply to Michelle Gillman

Re: Challenges in Recovery

by Jade Badcock -
I totally agree with Michelle

Applying what she's said to the Canterbury earthquakes:

Issues that could arise from applying a recovery management process can be infinite and unpredictable but essentially the relate to 3 root causes are; people, process and communication.

If the plan that is set up is not followed confusion occurs.

This was the case with the managed home repair programme. Communication following the September 2010 was not clear whether managed repairs were optional or mandatory. Because it wasn't clear in 2010, it remained unclear and muddled throughout 2011 and beyond.

If the plan that is set up is flawed and the people driving it are rigid in their approach then the management process will not be fit for purpose.

Again, this happened - even though people opted out of EQC's managed repair programme, EQC did not release the money to the beneficiary to pay directly for the repairs. This resulted in the homeowners having to send the invoices to EQC for processing and payment.

This added layer in some cases overrode the customers' willingness to pay and created cash-flow problems for the contractors carrying out the repairs.

Instead of enabling homes to be repaired in an efficient and timely manner, the process created inefficiencies and muddied contractual obligations leading to disputes that required resolution.

If communication across any stage of the plan or process fails then recovery will be delayed or even stalled.

The communications were different depending on who the individual or group were being communicated to. The home owner then experienced many messages from many parties leading to frustration.

The same issues have arisen from our response to COVID:

If the plan that is set up is not followed confusion occurs.

The plan has been followed but we're now two years with the same plan, that has led to disengagement by some within Aotearoa.

Unfortunately, this international pandemic has identified the lack of influence the World Health Organization (WHO) has with other international organisations or individual countries. As a result, different countries have taken different approaches leading to some nations managing the pandemic well, some managing it badly, and some no better able to manage the pandemic than any other issue it's had to face (developing nations).

As such it's very likely that WHO's pandemic plan was probably extremely comprehensive. But WHO is not set up to be the deliverer of the plan and is reliant on its member nations.

So individual nations were left to fall back on their pandemic plans (if they had one). Aotearoa used its Pandemic Flu Plan as its base. With hindsight, there may be a discussion about the flu pandemic plan was fit for purpose, with a domino effect.

If the plan that is set up is flawed and the people driving it are rigid in their approach then the management process will not be fit for purpose.

I'd also argue that there was a lot of rigidity and a lack of diversity and exclusion in the execution of the plan. The Waitangi Tribunal ruled in December 2021 that the Ministry of Health was institutionally racist in its response. This is because the first lockdown placed huge social and economic stress on the communities with the least income and then the introduction of age based vaccination with the oldest first, didn't account for the mortality rate for Māori being 10 years younger than for non-Māori (and there is also a mortality differential between Pacific and non-Pacific), so vaccinating the over 70s first meant that there were fewer Māori and Pacific peoples being vaccinated, which them impacted on second vaccination timing and most importantly booster shots.

As a result, original COVID (pre vaccination) was less affected by the structural inequity in age distribution - Māori/non-Māori, Pacific/non-Pacific, All New Zealanders, the appearance of Delta began to identify the structural issues, but they've really come into play with the vaccination programme and management of Omicron.

And because those at the original pandemic table lacked diversity and excluded Māori/Pacific/disabled/remote rural communities, we ended up with a white Wellington response.

As a result, New Zealand's ability to 'open' up that was originally planned for mid-January 2022 (for those in Australia) and from mid-February 2022 (for those in the rest of the world) was suspended. This suspension has created economic, and social hardships. The rigidity was best highlighted by the journalist Catherine Bellis and trying to get back from Afghanistan.

If communication across any stage of the plan or process fails then recovery will be delayed or even stalled.

I think as a nation, communication throughout 2020 and into 2021 was exemplary. However, as 2021 wore on and we moved to 2022, communication effectiveness has declined (if it ever existed effectively for those outside New Zealand).

I think this why we're beginning to see frustration levels rising. Business groups and sectors are struggling to get answers, Māori and Pacific representatives are struggling to get answers, and the lack of communication of what the end point is and when it'll be reached means that the common goal/purpose is now losing out.

Therefore the new normal will be groups of mentally traumatised people, those who've felt that throughout the whole pandemic they've lost their autonomy, Māori who lost their autonomy 182 years ago noting nothing has changed, and many businesses requiring long-term financial support from the public purse as the cash in circulation from private sources (including individuals) grinds to a halt.

I can see the recovery period from COVID lasting for at least two decades and beyond.
In reply to First post

Re: Challenges in Recovery

by Gary Fleming -
Issues that can arise during the recovery management processes can stem from how well the process has been developed. If the stakeholders and community have not been involved in developing the process there could be a lack of buy in to the process. The processes may be unsuitable for the community and not what is needed, leading to inefficiencies and resistance by the local community. All of these things can bring about delays, and increased costs.
A cohesive and preplanned approach can make it more palatable to the community and they are more likely to be able to respond themselves more quickly with as much input from authorities.

If for example the community is aware that after a major earthquake a certain known high risk area of the current town would no longer be habitable, then they would more be likely to have already thought about having to move after an event. Councils would have had time to consider safer options for these scenarios and have plans in place to make it easier when an event does happen.
In reply to Gary Fleming

Re: Challenges in Recovery

by Dellwyn Moylan -
I agree with Gary that if those affected such as stakeholders and communities aren't part of the planning for recovery there could be less of a by in. The planning for recovery needs to begin before the emergency when people are in a better space to think clearly and respond to ideas etc rather than react. Communities have often have a good idea what they might need so in partnership with the experts/professionals can plan for not only a recovery but to ensure the community is at least equal if not better than prior to the emergency.

I hadn't considered Gary's very good point that if for an example the community is aware that after a major earthquake a certain known high risk area of the current town would no longer be habitable, then they would more be likely to have already thought about having to move after an event. Maybe people in the Red Zones in CHCH who may have thought their places could be affected by floods had also known of the potential risk of EQ then it may have been easier to have left their homes/land. It may have also meant that communities could have moved collectively to another area that the council had already planned as an option if entire areas albeit a few houses dotted here and there had to be condemned. I heard time and time again that people felt they had lost everything, homes, sometime jobs, people they knew and then were forced to leave their homes, neighbourhoods communities, children were moved to new schools away from friends, etc etc.
In reply to First post

Re: Challenges in Recovery

by Dellwyn Moylan -
What are some of the issues that are likely to come from applying recovery management processes? I have no idea in my area what recovery management processes might be in place for any emergency. Looking at how things are going know we have Covid in our community I wonder what processes are actually out there. From my perspective and I am not involved in Emergency Management I personally see following doing this course a lack of community consultation and involvement.

I sit on or CD Welfare committee - at our meetings we here what local govt and agencies are doing, how things are going, if there are challenges but that is on an individual level as yet to here of an over all recovery plan. Following the first lock down after the welfare committee had kind of been stood down it was identified there was a need to look at where there were gaps in services in the community and extensive research was undertaken and gaps identified, task groups set up to address them but this wasn't a recovery plan.

I see some of the key things are: the need for a PLAN, what are we hoping to achieve, what is the goal, who needs to be involved, what are the roles. Clear COMMUNICATION with, to and from everyone who needs to be involved. And there needs to be ACTION if people see or perceive something is happening, they are kept informed they are more likely to take it onboard and embrace it. There needs to be OPENNESS - for instance this week I keep hearing from the public, agencies and those who are meant to be overseeing the response to Covid that its all the secret squirrel society no one has the facts, so not one can plan if they don't know what they are dealing with.

Following our floods last year their seems to have been some issues with recovery to prepare for when it happens next eg we have been told it could be five years before the stop banks can protect from a future big flood - the recovery phase should have seen these as a priority to protect the town and the farms who are the back bone of the community economically, the slumping of the bridge - the one main bridge carrying SH1 and its closure saw an impact on getting goods around the South Island - their is a delay in getting a second bridge (its been talked about for years and there is talk it will be years away) but a fast track of this should be part of the recovery. The bridge slumped due to the build up of logs in the river that were smashing into the piles, yet there are still lots in the river that aren't being removed surely part of the recovery to remove a risk of a potential and known hazard
In reply to First post

Re: Challenges in Recovery

by Bill MILNER -
I want to come back to the environments - social, economic, natural and infrastructure. I think the governance aspect, summed up here by a recovery commission, doesn't do justice to the possible effect on governance generally. There is likely to be a need to review laws and regulations, and especially with an eye to changing/modifying enforcement mechanisms, and to encourage changed behaviours to reduce risk. The entire oversight process needs to be based in a legal framework - another governance issue. Changing demographics could have an effect on riding boundaries, the make-up of voting populations, etc. Finally--and this was touched on earlier in the context of new leaders arising--views of the effectiveness of politicians and political systems could be affected by the efficacy of the response, with new ideas represented by new leaders rising from the ashes (so to speak.) Yes, I think this area requires much more fleshing out since any response will have to be aware of and adapt to that political/governance framework.