**January 22, 2008 FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project
Report**

**(1) Business Continuity or Discontinuity?**

Fonseca, Brian. "Eight-Day IT Outage Would Cripple Most Companies:
Gartner Survey Finds Business Continuity Plans Lack Ability to Withstand
Longer Outages" *Computerworld*, 10Jan08.
<http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=security&articleId=9056798&taxonomyId=17&intsrc=kc_top>

 

\[Excerpt:  \"A Gartner Inc. poll of information security and risk
management professionals released today shows that most business
continuity plans could not withstand a regional disaster because they
are built to overcome severe outages lasting only up to seven
days\.... Gartner surveyed 359 IT professionals from the U.S., U.K. and
Canada during 2007 on their business continuity efforts, and nearly 60%
said that their business continuity plans are limited to outages of
seven days or less.  Further, results showed most companies focus on
rebounding from internal IT disruptions, not from regional disasters
that could also damage facilities.\"\]

**(2) DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff on "Ignorance is Not Bliss," DHS
Leadership Journal** (22Jan08)

"Last week, the *New York Times* Science section ran a
[column](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15tier.html) that
posed the question: What is more dangerous -- al Qaeda or homeland
security? Pointing to a [recent
study](http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/65/1/62) about
cardiac health problems caused by anxiety, columnist John Tierney
suggested that continuing elevated threat levels -- and changes in
security measures -- may spur anxiety-based heart damage that harms more
people than al Qaeda.\
\
"I'll admit that I began to read the article expecting at the end it
would be tongue in cheek. But this didn't turn out to be satire. The
*Times* seems to feel that where terrorism is concerned ignorance is, if
not bliss, at least tranquility. Of course, there are a couple of quick
points to be made. Contrary to Mr. Tierney's assertion, the United
States Government does not frequently change the [alert
level](http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/editorial_0844.shtm), and when
we do we explain as fully as possible why. I could also point out that
the *Times*' advice suggests that the newspaper itself may be a bigger
cause of anxiety-related heart disease, what with the recent reporting
about foiled terrorist plots in Spain and Germany, and, less happily,
the Bhutto assassination, and bombings in Pakistan and Algeria.\
\
"But I want to take the *Times*' point more seriously, because it is an
example (more obvious and outlandish than usual, perhaps) of an
increasing strain of intellectual denial when it comes to terrorism. As
I have often said, our approach to terrorism must be balanced. Neither
complacency nor hysteria is appropriate in dealing with a global
struggle that will be with us for the foreseeable future. The right
answer is to acknowledge the threat, manage the risk and make the
necessary reasonable and cost-effective investments that we need to
secure ourselves and respond if necessary. And averting our eyes from
the threat of terrorism will seem very hollow when the abandonment of
security leads to tragic losses that cannot be ignored\
\
"We certainly debate about what the right balance of security is, but
does it make sense to pretend that what we read about doesn't exist?
When facts become uncomfortable or upsetting, should we ignore them? On
the *Times*' theory, we should also not discuss
[preparing](http://www.ready.gov/) for [pandemic
flu](http://www.pandemicflu.gov/) or major catastrophes. The anxiety
caused by a 21st century in which technology has given terrorists and
militants unprecedented destructive capabilities is very real. The
constructive approach to that anxiety however, is not to wish it away or
pretend that it doesn't exist. The correct approach is to confront the
danger, be transparent about the facts, and build real capabilities that
assure us that we have maximized our chances of averting or minimizing
harm. These are the kinds of behaviors that calm\--rather than
promote\--anxiety.\
\
"Ignoring the danger leads neither to bliss nor tranquility. Rather, we
should recognize that in a world where man-made and natural hazards
exist, the most constructive outlet of anxiety is to motivate solid,
intelligent, and balanced preparation."\
\
Michael Chertoff

**(3) Human Impacts of Disasters Course at LSU:**

Communicated with Dr. John Pine, head of the Disaster Science Program at
Louisiana State University who noted that this past fall's Honors
College freshman course on "Human Impacts of Disasters" went very well
and involved 15 faculty from throughout the campus as instructors. The
Honors College has decided to offer this course again "given the
response from the students. We discussed scheduling Dr. Pine to provide
a presentation on this initiative during the June 2-5, 2008 FEMA
Emergency Management Higher Education Conference here at EMI. By that
time Dr. Pine's latest book -- Natural Hazards Analysis -- should be
published. Perhaps we can coax a 2^nd^ presentation out of Dr. Pine.

\[Note: If anyone else has a fairly recent experience with a campus-wide
emergency management college class, and would be interested in
discussing this experience within a breakout session at the EM HiEd
Conference, please email me at the email address at the end.\]

**(4) National Response Framework:**

Hsu, Spencer. "DHS to Unveil New Disaster Response Plan: FEMA Will
Regain Power; State, Local Input Included." *Washington Post*, January
19, 2007. Accessed at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011803586_pf.html>

\[Excerpt: "The Bush administration is set to announce an overhaul of
the nation\'s emergency response blueprint Tuesday, streamlining a chain
of command that failed after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, sources familiar
with the plan said yesterday. After years of aggressive lobbying by
unhappy state governments, the administration chose to restore FEMA's
power to coordinate federal disaster operations. That power was
undermined in the administration\'s previous plan \-- used just once,
after Katrina \-- when the secretary of homeland security appointed his
own officer to oversee disaster response. Under the new plan, the head
of FEMA will appoint the top coordinating officer, clarifying
responsibility and, according to the states, ending confusion that
caused critical delays. Congress ordered that change to the plan last
year.

"State leaders, who condemned an early draft of the 90-page plan as
lacking substance and ignoring their input, praised the administration
this week for listening to their complaints and reestablishing a
federal-state hierarchy that predated the Sept 11, 2001, attacks and
DHS\'s formation in 2003. \"They changed. It came around 180 degrees,\"
said Tim Manning, director of homeland security and emergency management
for New Mexico and spokesman for the National Emergency Management
Association, whose members include his counterparts in the 49 other
states. \"The country will have a much better response with this plan
than we had with the previous plan,\" which was finished just nine
months before Katrina struck....

"...many in Congress have long faulted \[DHS\] for undermining FEMA\'s
authority after they merged in 2003. A source familiar with the process
said the turning point coincided with the October departure of former
DHS deputy secretary Michael P. Jackson, who had pushed unsuccessfully
to solidify the department\'s control over disaster operations....

"The national framework is supposed to guide how federal, state and
local governments, along with private and nonprofit groups, respond
during disasters. The previous version, developed by officials in
Washington at the end of 2004, was widely depicted as an impenetrable
427-page document that deemphasized responding to natural disasters in
favor of countering terrorism."\]

\[Note: The new Jan 2008 NRF core document, the Emergency Support
Function Annexes and Support Annexes, a new briefing and other
materials are now available at the NRF Resource Center
([www.fema.gov/nrf](http://www.fema.gov/nrf)).\]

**(5) World Economic Forum Report on Global Risks 2008:**

World Economic Forum. *Global Risks 2008: A Global Risk Network Report*.
Geneva, Switzerland, WEF, January 2008, 54 pages. Accessed at:
<http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/downloads/WEF_Global_Risks_2008.pdf>

\[Excerpt: "*Mitigation:* Economic analysis of case studies in four
hurricane vulnerable US states revealed that a range of physical
mitigation measures -- such as storm shutters, roof anchors and safety
film on windows -- could reduce insured losses from a severe hurricane
considerably (by up to 61% in Florida). But property owners rarely make
these voluntary investments because they believe that catastrophes will
not happen to them, and because the economic incentives to invest are
suppressed by artificially low premiums. In a survey of those living
along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, undertaken in the spring of 2006,
83% of respondents had taken no steps to fortify their homes with
relatively inexpensive measures, even after the devastating 2004 and
2005 hurricane seasons.

*"Lessons for global risk management?* What lessons can be drawn from US
natural catastrophe insurance to understand the role of insurance in
managing global risks?

• First, understanding the nature of the risk and quantifying it is the
prerequisite for insurance.

• Second, there is a need for new risk transfer instruments such as
catastrophe bonds and other financial instruments, which can supplement
traditional reinsurance, to enable insurers to protect themselves
against catastrophic losses and reduce the need for government
intervention.

• Third, insurers need to be able to charge a premium that reflects the
risk they assume and which rewards those who undertake mitigation
measures. Government intervention to artificially suppress premiums may
have unintended consequences, including reducing the economic
sustainability of insurance by skewing incentives. However, government
codification of mitigation measures may help.

• Finally, the way in which equity concerns are met is vital. It would
be more efficient to provide insurance vouchers and mitigation grants to
low-income groups in the US living in natural catastrophe zones, than to
mandate artificially low insurance premiums. Similarly, addressing
equity issues at a level should not be done in a way which reduces the
ability to leverage financial markets to mitigate risk.\" (p. 35)

**(6) Materials Received Today, But Not Reviewed:**

*Disaster Recovery Journal \-- The Journal Dedicated to Business
Continuity* (Vol. 20, No. 4, Fall 2007)*.* (Quarterly, Systems Support,
Inc., Circulation Dept. P.O. Box 510110, St. Louis, MO 63151, (314)
894-0276, (314) 894-7474 (fax), URL:
[http://www.drj.com](http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/cgi-shl/goodbye.asp?url=http://www.drj.com),
e-mail: <drj@drj.com>)

B.Wayne Blanchard, Ph.D., CEM\
Higher Education Project Manager\
Emergency Management Institute\
National Emergency Training Center\
Federal Emergency Management Agency\
Department of Homeland Security\
16825 S. Seton, K-011\
Emmitsburg, MD 21727\
(301) 447-1262, voice\
(301) 447-1598, fax\
wayne.blanchard@dhs.gov\
<http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu>

**"Please note: Some of the Web sites linked to in this document are not
federal government Web sites, and may not necessarily operate under the
same laws, regulations, and policies as federal Web sites."**

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or
stop subscriptions at any time on your [Subscriber Preferences
Page](https://service.govdelivery.com/service/user.html?code=USDHSFEMA).
You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have
questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact
<support@govdelivery.com>.

This service is provided to you at no charge by
[FEMA](http://www.fema.gov/index.shtm).

[Privacy Policy](http://www.dhs.gov/xutil/gc_1157139158971.shtm) \|
GovDelivery is providing this information on behalf of U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, and may not use the information for any other
purposes.

FEMA · U.S. Department of Homeland Security · Washington, DC 20472 · 1
(800) 621-FEMA (3362)