There have been public discussions in recent weeks about proclaiming a state of emergency in certain cities and administrative districts in relation to spring flooding. This leads to thoughts about many issues – threats against overall security for local residents, the taking of decisions about a state of emergency, co-ordination among the relevant state and local government institutions to deal with the consequences of the flooding, etc.
The Latvian Federation of Security and Defence Industry is focusing on future solutions so as to ensure that security capacities that are marked out in the new National Development Plan are brought to full bear in terms of physical and property security. Federation members believe that this requires the mobilisation of all relevant institutions, residents and businesspeople in a manner similar to the Big Clean-up Programme. Storms and floods in Latvia test our strength and unity each year, but each year we see differences of opinion as to what is to be done in response to emergency situation. The worst thing is that we see a lack of security among our fellow residents, because they are endangered.
An in-depth look at Latvia’s practical readiness to deal with emergency situations suggests that local residents are poorly informed and prepared in terms of what to do during such situations, while goods and services are not ensures at the level of the country’s material reserves, with local government resources also being limited.
Management of emergency and security situations has, for many years, involved a system in which a national crisis management council is assembled only when a flood or other crisis has already begun. There must finally be training on crisis management and civil defence at the national level so that the relevant regional and national crisis management institutions can receive timely training and learn how to work with one another. The national crisis management council must meet in preparation for crises, doing so far in advance so as to ensure the best management of existing resources and to test the readiness of the relevant management systems.
The procurement system should be made as flexible as possible so that regional leaders can proclaim dangers or a state of emergency in a limited way, with precise formulation and thought given to their resource capacities. If evacuation is needed, preparations are needed far in advance so that agreement can be reached on the housing and care of people whose own homes are endangered.
The quality of co-ordination among government institutions and the mobility of local residents would be ensured by a full reporting system in the country in terms of defence and military industries, including an efficient SMS system, as well as other possible innovations that would make it possible to warn people and crisis managers in a timely way and ensure the establishment of an effective 21st century crisis management system in Latvia. A timely and effective approach toward the co-ordination and planning of rescue and aid resources is necessary at the national level. The industries’ offers must be identified so as to manage emergency situations and to ensure the necessary materials reserves. Protective structures must be established and improved via a planned and national support programme.
