Boots on the Ground: Disaster Response in Canada by Johanu Botha

"Our job is to kill people and break stuff," summarizes one Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) soldier (94). This blunt perspective raises questions about how the CAF role translates to domestic disaster response. In Boots on the Ground: Disaster Response in Canada, Johanu Botha draws on the fields of emergency management, civil–military relations, and public administration to assess interorganizational collaboration between the CAF and emergency management operations in Canadian and First Nations communities. This book will interest students of disaster studies and disaster management, emergency management practitioners and elected representatives at all levels of government, and military planners in and beyond Canada.

In the face of extreme weather events that exceed local response capacity, local authorities can request the CAF to aid in (but not lead) the response phase of the disaster management cycle. This includes providing boots on the ground for a variety of tasks, such as evacuations, filling sandbags, and rebuilding bridges, but it excludes any policing or security mandate despite the visibility of "guys in green" (72). Botha provides a thorough and close study of the presence, quality of, and barriers to CAF disaster support, focusing on four recent disasters: Hurricane Igor (Newfoundland and Labrador, 2010), the Assiniboine River flood (Manitoba, 2011), the Alberta multiriver flood (2013), and the Saskatchewan wildfires (2015).

Botha systemically applies a framework evaluating interorganizational collaboration—information sharing, nonmanipulative influence, flexibility, support, collective conflict resolution, and trust—finding that overall, the quality of collaboration is high. This indicates that much is working well. However, there are barriers to collaboration, a number of which center on misunderstandings about the CAF's role. Botha illuminates fine-grain interactions and areas for improvement. For example, there is confusion regarding the practicalities and significance of formal requests for assistance (RFAs), so much so that implementation can feel like "interpretative dance" (128).

An RFA is intended as a finite list of ways CAF will lend support in a specific disaster, not a starting point to which items can be added. Initially this may appear inflexible, but it is in the larger interest of ensuring that CAF activities stay under the remit of "democratic accountability," one of many salient points in Botha's analysis (88). RFAs focus on a desired "end state," which means that the CAF arrives in each community focused on meeting the predetermined criteria that will allow them to leave. In true Canadian fashion, Botha implies that this "eye on the door" approach is interpreted (though not intended) as a bit brusque by communities welcoming CAF as guests. Furthermore, communities often request specific CAF assets, such as Hercules aircraft and light armored vehicles, when in fact, requesting the desired effect, such as surveying damage or evacuating residents, allows CAF to tailor response to local needs.

Although none of these barriers were a source of significant or ongoing friction, they functioned as speedbumps to rapid interorganizational collaboration in an ongoing disaster. Botha concludes with three recommendations: foster and expand emergency management networks, maintain decentralized emergency management, and enhance emergency management capacity (155–60). This prompted me to consider CAF's future in the face of changing international and domestic demand. Given increasing severe weather and the need for response personnel, is a new CAF branch, such as a Domestic Disaster Corps, justified? How does CAF fit into a climate-adaptive emergency management priorities? Botha notes that

no military trade exists that is specifically developed to produce non-combat, domestic emergency responders/managers … CAF is not a glorified civilian emergency services organization; it is an organization developed primarily for fighting wars made up of members whose skills happen to be very useful during a disaster.

(28–29)

A Domestic Disaster Corps, with a mandate to "help people and fix stuff," could liaise with and train municipal and provincial partners and provide support throughout the disaster response cycle, not just the response phase. It could enhance the development of specific skills sets, such as firefighting, that challenge traditional all-hazards approach. Botha describes how during the 2015 Saskatchewan wildfires, CAF personnel were given a twenty-four-hour crash course in firefighting, a skill that takes months to learn and years to master. What other disasters require specialized skills sets (e.g., avalanches, search and rescue) and how might these be prepared for? Options and efforts for modernizing CFA participation in disaster management in the climate crisis would make for another valuable book.

In a related vein, as an environmental sociologist with an interest in disasters, Botha's book prompts me to ask about the social-ecological relations engendered in CAF responses. For emergency managers, disasters are "adverse events" to be managed (47); for public administrators, they are "wicked problems" to be addressed (47); and for CAF, flame and water are "enemies" to be conquered (149). How might such a combative approach, defined by twenty-four-hour "battle rhythms" mesh with bigger-picture shifts toward more collaborative social-ecological approaches (81)?

This leads to larger questions about who and what knowledge informs disaster management across Canada. For the case studies, Botha's interview sample is small, indicating access to and focus on key players closest to the events in question. Based on my research experience, this can also mean that participants are predominantly white men. Furthermore, emergency managers may be more likely to have military background. Greater discussion of avenues for increasing diversity in emergency management (e.g., gender, First Nations) and the challenges this will bring in terms of collaboration is a valuable area for further research.