Crisis management is a core task for every nation. All countries have an organized decision-making system for crisis management in order to act when being under significant threat and time pressure.
The main bodies of every Crisis Management System differ depending on various reasons, from culture to political system and many other elements. An indicative system could include
- The Government Security Council.
- The President or the Prime Minister.
- The Minister of Foreign Affairs.
- The Defense Minister.
- The Minister of Interior.
- The body in charge for Governmental Communication.
- The Chief of the National Defense General Staff.
The above bodies could be more or less, but we have chosen on purpose the number 7 as we believe like many others, that keeps the balance between inclusiveness and quickness. Any country should always be able to assess the potential or actual crisis situation, as a mean to assist the decision makers in preventing or eliminating an emerging crisis.
When a crisis unfolds, a capable state assesses the situation and develops responsive measures thanks to a multi-phase crisis management process. This process is primarily designed to allow the relevant staffs and councils to coordinate their work and advise to the highest-ranking body in a timely and compelling way. It also allows to the Chief of National Defense General Staff to undertake preparatory military planning measures in a reasonable timeframe, and subsequently it facilitates and allows capitals to make strategic political decisions.
The illustrative phases are not strictly defined, they may be of different length and may overlap as required by the crisis situation. A Typical Crisis Management System includes: Phase 1: Emerging Crisis. During this phase, indications and warnings are provided either by national intelligence and warning system or by an ally or a partner. Phase 2: Situation Assessment. During this phase, the crisis situation is assessed by the appropriate agencies. Phase 3: Response Options Development. During this phase, the appropriate national councils submit proposals for crisis response to the decision-making body. Phase 4: Planning. Development of a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and subsequently an Operation Plan (OPLAN) and submission for consideration and approval.
Different Crisis Response Systems include also more phases like, the “Execution Phase”, the “Transition Phase”, the “Recovery Phase” and others. Usually, a national mechanism has less phases than a multinational, because any country desires to take decisions quicker comparing to multinational organizations procedures, where there are many allies and have to agree to a decision.
Recently due to climate change, wild fires, extreme heat and flooding, many countries have established also disaster management mechanisms in order to cover the entire disaster management cycle and constitute the totality of the concurrent operational and administrative structures and functions of civil protection. Priorities encompass prevention, preparedness and the protection of life, health and property of citizens, the environment, cultural heritage, infrastructure, wealth-producing sources, vital services, material and immaterial goods from natural and technological disasters and other threats of related origin, which cause or may cause emergency situations in peacetime and in parallel the reduction of the risk and the treatment, restoration and minimization of their consequences.
The basic operating principles are fulfilled through the prevention, preparedness, response and restoration of risks. The mode of operation of a national mechanism constitutes a system which also contributes to the achievement of the goals of regional and international civil protection mechanisms and systems, including especially international cooperation.
Regarding the communication management of a crisis, it is required a central communication channel through a national system, which will reproduce the national message in order to be able to dominate the information environment for the achievement of internal and international legitimacy and ultimately in support of the national goal.
Concluding, one should add in any crisis response mechanism the significant factor of resilience in the individual, societal and governmental level. To define resilience, we can use NATO’s terminology where it delineates resilience as “a society’s ability to resist and recover from such shocks” as natural disaster, failure of critical infrastructure, or a hybrid or armed attack. This definition touches on two features of resilience: first, resilience concerns the ability to absorb and recover from a state of crisis and second, resilient actors must be able to respond to a range of potential shocks, both expected and unexpected.
Resilience focuses on the continuity of government services, healthcare, energy supply, food and water resources, communication networks, and transport systems. Conceived as the power to survive in crises, resilience can be seen as a defensive and reactive concept. Resilience is as much about coping with all possible eventualities as trying to anticipate specific events.
While national preparedness for systemic shocks is now motivated by at least some clearly identifiable defence and national security priorities, it is still helpful to take a generic approach to preparing for unexpected shocks. Such generic measures include allocation of responsibilities at the national, regional and local level; the requirement for a single lead agency at the centre of government in any emergency; disciplines for exercising pre-agreed procedures with senior people involved; and rolling audit programmes to test that these disciplines remain effective.
Resilience, therefore, has political and psychological as well as physical dimensions. It can be viewed in exclusively material terms as shown above, but also as a psychological mindset held by groups or individuals which allows them to function in the face of adversity. Structures and procedures for coping with shocks cannot ensure national resilience in a crisis if the mindset for responding effectively is not there.
Military, physical, political and societal resilience have the potential to deter as well as defend. To that end, the capacity for resilience can influence the policies of opponents by deterring them from armed attack or other offensive measures. Effective and visible resilience is therefore strongly linked to deterrence by denial. Contrary to the idea of deterrence by punishment, which threatens actors with severe penalties if they launch an attack, deterrence by denial seeks to deter actions by making them appear unlikely to succeed.
Crises are something natural and strongly connected to humanity. It can be seen as a problem but also, many times, as a motivation for change. It is up to us to take the proper steps towards a more manageable future, and Proorasis is steadfast to that mindset.
Download this PDF to get more info: Resilience Sweden.