Recovery structures
RPs have generic arrangements to allow for an effective managed response to emergencies. They are based upon three well-known and understood levels of management – strategic, tactical and operational. The structure is modular and adaptable to a wide range of emergencies. Implementation of the various levels of the structure is subject to agreed local procedures, as set out in the Preparing Scotland guidance on management structures.
The role of the Resilience Partnerships is consistent in both response and recovery from emergencies. The leadership and membership of the group may change as the urgent and immediate response diminishes and recovery becomes the principal concern.
When an emergency occurs the Resilience Partnership may establish complementary sub-groups which will:
- keep abreast of the changing needs of response
- gather and analyse information and intelligence
- determine priorities for allocating resources
- obtain further resources as required
- plan and co-ordinate tasks to be undertaken
- consider the future direction of response (and recovery)
- inform and advise strategic managers as and when required
- implement decisions taken by the Resilience Partnership through resources acting at an operational level
- negate time-consuming, in-depth discussions at the main RP forum
The role of the tactical level of management is consistent in response and recovery from emergencies.
A number of sub-groups may support the RP in its recovery activities. They may include sub-groups to deal with:
- community engagement/liaison
- care for people
- environment and infrastructure
- public communications
- scientific and technical advice (STAC)
- finance, legal and administration
- business and economic recovery
Outline details of the purpose, membership and roles of these sub-groups are shown in Annex 1. Fuller details may be found in specific Preparing Scotland guidance as shown in the Annex. It may not be necessary to initiate all sub-groups in a particular emergency. However, the sub-groups’ knowledge, expertise and experience might assist and inform the recovery strategy by identifying contemporary issues within their specialist areas.
Where the discrete elements of the sub-group structure overlap there is a need for a communication link, a single management point of contact in the first instance. It is critically important that the links, contacts and the responsibilities of those nominated to undertake the roles are clear and understood by all responders in the group in which they work. The structure will expand, contract or develop according to the nature and scale of an emergency. For example, in recovery the operators of a significant industrial site might be invited to join any of its groups or even lead a multi-agency sub-group to manage industrial interests.
The RP will determine the most effective management structure for particular emergencies. In preparation it should consider how its generic arrangements/plans would adapt and evolve to manage recovery.
It may be necessary to prepare for recovery from particular emergencies covered by regulatory regimes such as Control of Major Accident Hazard (COMAH). It makes sense, where appropriate, to integrate specific arrangements for recovery from particular emergencies with the generic arrangements for recovery from any emergency.
Recovery arrangements/plans should be accepted as the stated policy of the RP and the organisation or organisations for which they have been produced. The key decision makers in an organisation should acknowledge ownership.
The RP may decide to establish a sub-group or groups to implement strategies for recovery set by the strategic group. This is a matter for local determination. However, given that the role, membership and activities of the various groups described above are established and that their members are performing their normal functions, albeit in difficult circumstances, the RP might wish to consider:
- if it has sufficient resources to provide management activity for both response and recovery
- the potential confusion arising from duplication by establishing groups with similar management roles and performing similar functions
- the potential for conflicting managerial direction where response and recovery necessarily run in parallel