Contingency Planning


PURPOSE: Develop contingency plans for immediate implementation whenever crises occur.


Chair:  CPT Benjamin Roberts – ( Brockington and Associates and Georgia Army National Guard

Gary B. Roberts, Ph.D. – ( Management and Entrepreneurship, Kennesaw State University

Paul Wegener – ( USCBS/US Army CA

Cris Alvarez – ( USN

Brian Lione – ( Air National Guard

Lisa Cipolla – ( USAG Fort Hunter Liggett

Jim Carlson – ( SPC in National Guard

Rebecca Karberg – ( Historic Preservation Specialist GSA


–          There is no real good data about cultural losses / successes. What are the definitions?  No definitions exist, this is one of the issues, that no comprehensive way to gather/track data exists and no solid definitions of what constitutes a ‘loss’ or a ‘success’ have been delineated.  This is something that needs to be addressed by CHAMP and/or Governmental organizations.

 –          What is contingency response?  Humanitarian and Natural crises–where do they fall?  The official doctrinal definition of a contingency plan is one that applies to an operation within 60-90 days of the start of the response. Such plans necessitate having data about countries and requirements for various aspects of  needs, as well as the ability to deploy stockpiles of resources and manpower at a moment’s notice. Humanitarian and natural crises by their very nature require immediate response.

 –          Coordination between agencies is key!

 –          The ways that natural disasters such as wildfires are handled can be a model of cooperation: archeologists are consulted.  How to get “ahead of the bulldozers.”

 –          Business – importance of relating monetary income to cultural protection.

 –          CERP — very effective, but very poor tracking — Problem of Battalion Commanders being the operators = not their highest priority.  Tracking these programs (like CERP) could ensure that lessons learned are applied and any successes can be replicated


–          Ready to use – in place and tells what to do.

 –          Stakeholders – event driven  

–          CR protections needs to be emphasized at the command level — legal obligation to make it happen now with the signing of 1954 Hague. Iraq — example that only the Oil Ministry  was secured, but the Nat’l museum and others were not = Bad Press

 –          Protecting cultural resources need to be part of the awareness — and a priority.  It should be an Annex in the Op Order and mentioned in the new Stability Operations Manual.

*Scenario based training — War College is based on this type of training.

–          In Baghdad, the Commander moved right past the National Museum because it was not his objective and therefore was not on his radar.  With very little effort, it could have been secured.

RECOMMENDATIONS: (Need to have them in place ahead of time [proactive]. In the past, these things were done mostly reactively).

1.   Political lobbying to get cultural heritage protection added to standing military doctrine up front, not buried deep in another subject matter (especially since the 1954 Hague has been ratified.  In addition, this would allow for the addition of a Cultural Resource Annex in all operations orders at every level. (Currently there is no annex to an operations order that addresses cultural heritage protection.  Developing a policy and doctrine that requires cultural protection is important.  It is sort of incorporated in the Engineering Annex, but not clearly defined — needs to be included in the Civil Affairs and other relevant annexes)

2.  Once doctrine is implemented, develop relevant training at all levels: top down (scenario, vignette (example), case based). Get it on the radar at every level-include it in the doctrine.

 3.  Develop Reach back capabilities (professionals list available to stakeholders at every level) Note: do not reinvent the wheel, this may exist at some level.

4.  Find out and learn from agencies/organizations with successes in contingency planning ( for instance, FEMA’s ability to coordinate large numbers of agencies (and also Western USAFire Fighting crisis situations).

5.  Tools/action Items:

        – Doctrinal definitions of what constitutes a contingency plan (if not already defined)

        – A comprehensive way to gather/track data on threats to cultural resources

        – Definitions of what constitutes a ‘loss’ or a ‘success’ during contingency operations

       – Comprehensive CR database (not reinventing the wheel) available to stakeholders

       – Compilation of Lessons Learned — maintain a compilation that’s public – can we (CHAMP) start the process and/or be the keepers of the data and be the ‘go-to’ for consulting and        reachback?? (From all agencies — FEMA, DOD, etc.)