ARCHIVE: VP CORNER
 | Regional Plans: A Next Step in a National Protection Strategy Gilles Rhéaume, Vice-President, Public Policy July 19, 2010 | The walls and barricades that transformed downtown Toronto and the Muskokas in preparation for the G8 and G20 summits last month drove home the point that security is a regional matter, even when world leaders come together. Understanding threats and addressing vulnerabilities at a regional level is paramount, whether the goal is protecting leaders or safeguarding critical infrastructure, such as road, telecommunications, energy, and rail systems. However, regional plans are unlikely to succeed in the absence of a national framework. This is why the federal government’s recently released National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure was well received by provinces and the private sector. A crucial next step is to implement the key elements of this strategy at a regional level. Comprehensive Approach The federal strategy rightly adopts a risk management approach that deals with all hazards—natural disasters, blackouts, oil spills, pandemics, acts of terrorism, and other threats. This approach requires authorities to examine risks region by region. Forest fires threaten British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec; coastal storms are of particular concern to Atlantic Canada; and flooding is a regular threat in Manitoba. Terrorism presents a greater threat to Ottawa and Toronto than to rural communities. The composition of critical infrastructure differs among regions as well. Take energy as an example. New Brunswick has the Point Lepreau nuclear power station, the Irving Oil refinery, and a liquefied natural gas station. Quebec has important hydro facilities and petrochemical plants. Alberta’s oil sands and pipeline facilities make up a large share of the province’s critical infrastructure. Understanding threats and addressing vulnerabilities at a regional level is paramount, whether the goal is protecting leaders or safeguarding critical infrastructure, such as road, telecommunications, energy, and rail systems. Cross-Border Links Canada’s vulnerability is linked almost magnetically to that of the United States. Whether it is telecommunications, energy, or transportation systems, infrastructure spills over the border into America, and vice versa. For example, the immediate aftermath of 9/11 disrupted Ontario and Michigan auto supply chains, leading to the temporary shutdown of manufacturing plants. In August 2003, a power outage in Ohio plunged Ontario and most of the northeastern United States into darkness. A transportation disruption between Windsor and Detroit would not only stall economic trade, it would also prevent some 4,500 nurses living in Ontario from getting to work in Michigan, threatening health-care delivery in Detroit. As a result, critical infrastructure protection and resilience must be addressed on a regional, cross-border basis. In 2008, this realization led The Conference Board of Canada to work with stakeholders to develop an action plan for critical infrastructure protection in four cross-border regions: Maine and New Brunswick; New York and Ontario; Michigan and Ontario; and Washington and British Columbia. Our November 2009 report, Protecting Critical Infrastructure: A Cross-Border Action Plan, outlined the essential six parts of regional plans, which can be grouped into three categories: partnerships, all-hazards risk management, and information sharing. Partnerships First, regional plans should build on the existing cross-border relationships, experiences, and knowledge of those who have provided fire, rescue, and police protection in their communities for years. Regional teams know their turf and issues better than anyone. Second, engaging more players with different perspectives, expertise, and responsibilities—not just government representatives, but owners and operators of critical infrastructure, too—in developing and implementing plans will improve protection and regional resilience. All-Hazards Risk Management Third, regional all-hazards risks affecting critical infrastructure must be assessed across borders and sectors. Although these evaluations do currently take place, they are usually done primarily for specific events or industries, or on just one side of the border. Fourth, based on these risk assessments, priorities for action need to be established to address vulnerabilities related to critical infrastructure and emergency response capabilities. Regional plans should be built on the existing cross-border relationships, experiences, and knowledge of those who have provided fire, rescue, and police protection in their communities for years. Information Sharing Fifth, the outcomes of the risk assessments should be shared across jurisdictional and sectoral boundaries. All those responsible for critical infrastructure protection and emergency response need to have a common understanding of the risks and vulnerabilities so that they can take appropriate actions. Sixth, cross-border emergency management field and tabletop exercises must expand to engage all relevant players on both sides of the border. These exercises are excellent ways to share information on the effectiveness of emergency management plans. Lessons learned from these exercises can bring about necessary changes to improve resilience. The elements of the federal government’s strategy—partnerships, an all-hazards risk management approach, and faster and better information sharing—constitute the appropriate framework. Now, it is important to ensure they are implemented properly at the regional level.
Related Executive Networks
Centre for National Security
Council on Emergency Management Related Publications
Building Resilience: Being Fair in an Emergency Response
Building Resilience: Cooperation and Coordination for an Effective Response
Ready or Not: Effective Pandemic Planning
|