In 1993, early in my tenure as an Agriculture official in the Clinton administration, I was sent to California to help state and local officials combat wildfires that had turned the iconic Malibu beach community and surrounding hillsides into a raging inferno. As we flew into the region late in the evening, the hillsides glowed red as flames ran up and down the mountains destroying homes and threatening entire communities. It was as if hell had opened up and was devouring the landscape.
As we got closer to the fires we could see engines and crews ahead of the flames cutting brush and digging fire lines to try to slow the fire’s spread. We saw air tankers dropping retardant to drown the flames, and the flashing lights of local EMTs redirecting traffic away from the fire zone. It was a disaster that involved coordinating teams of firefighters from a wide array of county, state, and federal agencies to limit loss of life and property. It was an enormous logistical challenge.
But, as I learned firsthand over the next several days, we actually had a little known but very potent apparatus for handling the logistics of large-scale disasters. As I watched it work, I learned to trust in the knowledge, expertise, and ability of career government officials to manage wildfires. It became clear to me that the best thing I could do as a political appointee to help the firefighting effort was get out of the way and keep elected officials, the media, and the White House informed.
The key to success in combating wildfires is the Incident Command System. This system, which has now been used for fifty years, was modeled after the Navy command system designed to ensure the efficient implementation of military operations. It was first adopted by California wildfire fighting services to deal with the massive fires they frequently faced, and over time it became the universal strategy employed by federal, state, and local firefighters around the country working together to tackle large wildfires and eventually, other disasters, such as the 9/11 attacks. The ICS was made mandatory for all federal agency emergency disaster responses when the Department of Homeland Security was established in 2004. That same system was eventually adopted by other state and federal agencies like FEMA and the CDC to guide emergency response to all large-scale disasters.
It is precisely this kind of state-federal cooperation and coordination that has been lacking in the Trump administration’s response to Covid-19. And there's every reason to believe the ICS approach is adaptable to the crisis we face — in fact, it's likely more appropriate and effective than the mixed bag of task force and FEMA supervision that Washington is using now.
As the White House flirts with the idea of disbanding the coronavirus task force, leaving Americans to wonder what will guide the federal response to an epidemic likely to be with us for years, the ICS gives us a smart, proven playbook to follow — and one the government already knows how to run.
While they might seem different at first, there are many similarities between fighting a pandemic and battling wildfires
Both have the potential to cause significant harm to people, communities, and their economy. An effective response requires coordination at a large scale to provide necessary equipment, supplies, and experienced personnel to deal with the disaster at hand. Collaboration at all levels of government – federal, state, and local – is essential to carry out a common strategy, using information that all parties agree accurately reflects the risks and rewards of the tactics they implement. Most importantly, there is a clear chain of command to avoid confusion and competition for essential resources.
The ICS is specifically designed to address many of the same problems that have plagued the Trump administration’s Covid-19 response: (1) an unclear chain of command and supervision; (2) lack of an orderly systematic planning process; (3) poor integration of inter-agency management structures and processes; (4) poor communication; and (5) a lack of accountability at the top.
These shortcomings are at the heart of the problems plaguing the U.S. pandemic response. As a result, each state’s governor has been forced to “freelance” in attempting to obtain testing materials, personnel protective equipment (PPE), and ventilators. That, in turn, led to competition between the states and the federal government for the same supplies. And it is now leading to a wide range of “re-opening” strategies in spite of the lack of essential information to track the progress of the disease including adequate testing and tracing capability.
In contrast to the Covid-19 response, the interagency strategy used universally by the firefighting community has proven to be effective in saving lives and mitigating impacts to local economies in spite of the large number of fires each year. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho, which is part of the ICS system, coordinates wildfire fighting in the the U.S., including the purchase and distribution of critical supplies and resources, as well as the allocation of firefighters and equipment. The NIFC managed over 71,000 fires across the nation in 2017, and more than 50,000 fires each of the last two years affecting all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories. NIFC also supports responses to other emergencies such as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes in the United States.
The ICS works. It is understood and is routinely used by federal and state agencies, including FEMA and the CDC, to deal with disasters and disease outbreaks. Instead of learning about the ISC and trusting in the capability of his federal agencies to manage the crisis, President Trump has elected to “take charge” of the pandemic response himself and manage the process from the White House podium. This has been, to say the least, counterproductive.
This pandemic is far from over. Experts have warned that decisions by some governors to “reopen” their states could lead to flareups down the line — just as can occur with wildfires. Given predictions by scientists that a resurgence of Covid-19 is likely in the fall and warnings of a second wave next year, we need an effective system to combat these threats. That system already exists.
If President Trump wants to improve coordination of resources between the states and federal government and improve his response to the inevitable hotspots and outbreaks that will flare up in coming months, it’s time to trust the people with the experience and expertise to manage this crisis, and who know how to work together toward that goal.
"What" - Google News
May 07, 2020 at 04:41PM
https://ift.tt/2yApq2A
Opinion | What Firefighters Could Teach the Trump Administration About Covid-19 - POLITICO
"What" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3aVokM1
https://ift.tt/2Wij67R
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Opinion | What Firefighters Could Teach the Trump Administration About Covid-19 - POLITICO"
Post a Comment