Recap Day 4 & 5 at IPY 2012

Day 4 started with a video summarizing the Indigenous Knowledge Exchange. With performances by the ArtCirq, the Dakhka Khwaan Dancers and throat singers, photo exhibits, forums, award winners, exhibitors, guest panelists, keynote speakers, representatives on the executive committee, and even a strong presence in the conference “twittersphere” and a special degustation of northern delicacies, the indigenous people and their voices have been a top priority during this event. Most importantly, it was crucial to make the scientists understand the value of their traditional knowledge and the necessity to include it in their work.

After a short keynote policy address by Dr. Palle Christiansen, Minister of Education, Research and Nordic Cooperation in Greenland it was time for one of the most remarkable keynotes of the week, Dr. Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies and Director of the Program on Science, Technology and Society at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As well as member of the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and as President of the Society for Social Studies of Science. Humbly presenting herself as someone who simply teaches and writes about knowledge, she let  the audience know that she saw herself in group that could be summarized, using the words of H. L. Mencken, by “Those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach.” She talked in length about the failures of the Linear Model and its unfortunate results, “minilateralism not multilateralism seems to be the discord of the day” she says.

Yet in spite of this unproductive system, the science world is quick to claim and hold tight to its presumed benefits. Dr. Jasanoff goes on identifying presumed assumptions and presenting a different perspective and what that perspective should entail. She also talks about the politics of science and the complexity of knowledge making, leading unfortunately to many faulty courses of action. What is missing, Dr. Jasanoff points out, is the human factor – how people understand science and how culture shapes understanding. She goes as far as to ask the audience “Why should we believe scientists?” Is it because they are close to nature – a questionable statement. Is it because of science integrity, which is hard to prove. Or is it because of a strength of consensus, which they often don’t have. She even wonders if Rio+20 is actually an admission to failure, recognizing a global environmental exhaustion on the matter and the lack of international treaties and consensus. But she finishes hoping that the summit will present a chance to move away from business as usual and act on today’s challenges by building a bridge to the future. I strongly recommend that you listen to her speech and read each slide of her presentation on the webcast by clicking here.

In the afternoon, I attended a session given by Dr. Elizabeth White, director of BBC’s Frozen Planet series, titled “Behind the scenes: Broadcasters and Scientists Working Together” White spent an hour showing us scenes from the show and telling us how the filming team had only succeeded because of a strong partnership with field scientists. She also demonstrated how new filming technology and science knowledge had created never filmed before opportunities.

Next stop was the Martin Bergmann Medal Award ceremony, hosted by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. Bergmann was director of the Natural Resources Canada’s Polar Continental Shelf Program and personal friend of Mr. Peter Harrison, President of IPY 2012. Sadly, in August 2011, Bergmann was part of the victims in a plane crash in Resolute Bay. Martin’s wife was to receive the first honorary medal. In what was an highly emotional event, Harrison spoke of his friend with honor, pride and nostalgia. “I want to celebrate an Arctic hero, I want to celebrate Marty” he said, “He embodied knowledge to action!” Several of his dear friends came to tell the audience a story that epitomized the good nature of this Arctic legend. In fact, everyone in the room had himself or herself, at one point or another, experienced the magic of Bergmann. Not only was he a master at connecting people, but he excelled at making things happened.

That evening, being the last one before the closing day, it was time for the conference’s big banquet featuring a performance by the prestigious Cirque du Soleil. Sold out and without one single seat left, the packed room dined together for the last time before being treated to an absolute fascinating show. The small troupe demonstrated physical feats that none of us thought even possible. Rolling and spinning in a giant metal ring, bouncing on a trampoline in ways that flouted gravity, and finally human sculptures that were, well scientifically defying the laws of physics! At the table with me was British educational hero Antony Jinman from ETE (Education Through Exploration)

Day 5, the final day, was time to close the conference in the same way it had started, with the educators. The last keynote speaker was Dr. Jose Xavier, a marine biologist with the Institute of Marine Research, University of Coimbra, Portugal and the British Antarctic Survey, U.K. In addition to his work on a number of science projects, he lead a highly successful educational program called LATITUDE60!, which reached thousands of students, educators, and politicians, helping to raise awareness of the polar regions. In 2011, he was awarded the prestigious Martha T. Muse Prize for Science and Policy in Antarctica. Before starting his speech, Xavier invited the public to watch on the big screen behind him a video honoring the incredible work of APECS’s (Association of Polar Early Career Scientists) founder Jenny Baeseman.

For the closing speech, Harrison summarized what had been accomplished over the last 5 days. While the conference in Olso was specifically focused on science, this year’s IPY 2012, which took 3 years to prepare, was to go beyond the science and move from knowledge to action. By involving the youth, the educators, the indigenous, and the politicians, the goal was to bridge all these parties with the science community. On another level, the green aspect of the conference was acclaimed as goals established prior to the event, were actually greatly surpassed.

What impact will have the conference? No one knows, time will tell. One thing is for sure, up to 4,000 people per day showed up and worked relentlessly at laying the foundations, and the framework on which to build a global partnership, an international momentum involving everyone and working together on a single mission – to preserve and protect the Poles, with their unique environment and their priceless biodiversity. Congratulations to the Steering Committee, the Program Committee, the Secretariat, the Volunteers, the Green Committee and everyone else  involved in the making of this incredible conference!

IPY 2012 logistic

It is important to mention that the organization of the International Polar Year 2012 has done a tremendous job with the set up of the conference. I also need to say that the internet wifi, provided to all 3,000 attendees, for free, is really fast and working extremely well! Congratulations for a well done job!

Interview Platform

Translation devices in 4 languages

Press conference set up

Skype booth for online interviews

Internet Cafe available to the public

Live board with information on all sessions

Smart phone application provided by Guidebook

IPY 2012 – beginning

Yesterday was the registration and the opening cocktail for the International Polar Year 2012 Conference. After picking up the badge and meeting people, it was time to head over to one of the main rooms and break the ice with all the other attendees – more than 3,000 of them, from 47 countries. While we were munching over nice food and drinking Canadian beers, Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, welcomed everyone before introducing a duo of Inuit performing throat singning. Looking up on Wikipedia, this cultural treasure is described as:

“Two women face each other usually in a standing position and holding each other’s arms. Sometimes they will do some kind of dance movements while singing (e.g., balancing from right to left). One singer leads by setting a short rhythmic pattern, which she repeats leaving brief silent intervals between each repetition. The other singer fills in the gap with another rhythmic pattern. The sounds used include voiced sounds as well as unvoiced ones, both through inhalation or exhalation. The first to run out of breath or be unable to maintain the pace of the other singer will start to laugh or simply stop and will thus lose the game. It generally lasts between one and three minutes. The winner is the singer who beats the largest number of people. At one time, the lips of the two women almost touched, so that one singer used the mouth cavity of the other as a resonator, but this is less common in present day. Often, the singing is accompanied by a shuffling in rhythm from one foot to the other. The sounds may be actual words or nonsense syllables or created during exhalation.”

The performance was incredible and apparently, in the Inuit culture, it is often used often as a lullaby for children. These events at the beginning of any conferences are always a great place for people to loosen up and set the groundwork for a successful week of productive work and priceless new connections.

The arrival at the Palais des Congres this morning was marked by heavy security, following a weekend of intense manifestations. Once inside though, the feeling was much aligned to one of community and camaraderie and it was obvious that everyone was in the mood to make the best of this unique and special conference.

After much preparations, the main conference room was ready for the big show. Professor Peter Harrison, Chair of the IPY 2012 and Director of the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University came one stage and declared the conference opened. His introduction was followed by the Honorable John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development at the Government of Canada. Jean Charest, Quebec’s Prime Minister, came on talking about Quebec’s Plan Nord. Ms. Mary Simon, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami focused on showing the importance of the indigenous people and pointed to the fact that over 100 Inuit were present this week. More people took the stage,  Ms. Kyla Kakfwi Scott, Jane Glassco Arctic Fellow, Dr. Yuan-Tseh Lee, President, International Council for Science and Mr. David Grimes, President, World Meteorological Organization. At the end, we were treated with more throat singing and great native dance.

The ceremony was followed by the opening Keynote speaker Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Norwegian Prime Minister and sustainability guru!

I then hooked up with Milbry Polk – Wings Quest Founder and Moki Kokoris – contributor writer for the Arctic Institute, liaison for the UN and founder for of the educational program 90-North. The morning was followed with a meeting with Aqqaluk Lynge, Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council and a lunch with Canadian hero Geoff Green, founder of Students on Ice. The afternoon started with a panel moderated by David Grimes and featuring Dr. Jane Lubchenco – Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere Administration, Dr. Karin Lochte – Director Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Dr. Huigen Yang – Director Polar Research Institute of China & H.E. Ronny Jumeau – Ambassador to the United Nations & United States. Followed by a meeting with Mike Gill, Chair of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program at Environment Canada, Tom Barry Executive Secretary of the Conservation of Arctic Flora & Fauna (CAFF) and Dr. Evgeny Syroechkovskiy, CAFF Chair. By the time 5pm rang my clock, it was time to head over to the Arctic Council booth for a quick chat with Linnea Nordstrom, the Information Officer. Just about ready to leave, I had to stop just a bit more to watch a great display of Inuit fashion and craft with seal skin amazing outerwear.

Judging from the first day at IPY 2012, I can assure you that the conference will be a huge success. Stay tuned for more updates. Don’t forget to check the live Twitter updates with the hashtag #IPY2012, and don’t miss the conference’s live webcast

More tomorrow!!

Registration this way!

Time to mingle!

Throat Singing

Getting ready for a long day!

Just waiting for the 3,000 attendees!

Center stage

Before

After!

Peter Harrison

Jean Charest

Mary Simon

More throat singing!

More dancing!

Gro Harlem Brundtland

Translation available in Russian, English, French & Inuktitut!

Action forum

Panel discussion

CCGS Amundsen

Tomorrow the International Polar Year 2012 conference is starting in Montreal, but today, the CCGS Amundsen icebreaker, docked at the King Edward Quay in the Old Port, was opened to the media.

The icebreaker was built in 1979 and commissioned as the CCGS Sir John Franklin. In 2003, she was refitted for scientific purposes and named in honour of Arctic Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, who, in 1903, led the first expedition to successfully traverse Canada’s Northwest Passage.

CCGS Amundsen was in the news at the beginning of the year when it was announced that she had suffered engine failure, loosing 2  out of her 6 engines, consequently leading to ArcticNet’s 2012 summer expedition’s cancelation. Talking to Martin Fortier, ArcticNet’s executive director, on the deck of the icebreaker, he assured me that in fact, the unfortunate event had turned out to be more of a blessing in disguise than anything else. Allowing the crew to catch up on much needed work and make the point on all the data so far collected. Now that the funds have been secured to repair and upgrade, they are looking to be back on the field in 2013, stronger than ever!

For our official tour, led by the captain and Fortier, we were first shown some of the onboard science labs (the ship has more than 15 of them), where studies on plankton, water analysis, and much more are conducted. After visiting the bridge, with state of the art mapping system and incredible GPS stationary system, which allows the ship to stay stationary, to the meter, independently of the wind and current, we were taken to one of the icebreaker’s most unique features – an inside access to the water, that open directly underneath the vessel, perfect to launch the ROV and Rosette even in the coldest freezing and icy conditions. Independently if Amundsen is surrounded, or even stuck in 2-meter thick ice, the crew always has access to the water. Last winter, on their last assignment, they discovered they were not the only ones enjoying this neat “James Bond” exit – a group of ring seals started to use this mini indoor pool as their personal sauna, spending hours basking in the warmth of the boat, while the crew tended to more “professional” activities!

Starting Sunday 9am and until Wednesday 19h30, CCGS Amundsen will be open to the public. Go mingle with the crew and Fortier’s team and let them share with you what it is like to live and work the Canadian Arctic!

If you want to keep a souvenir, find your way to the nearest bank machine, or bank, and withdraw a 50 dollar canadian note, and there, on the front is the icebreaker itself in its full glory!

Deflecting – Preservation and Exploitation

“As long as there are commercial opportunities in the Arctic, local communities, governments, and companies will take advantage of them.” Andreas Østhagen, Research Associate – Norway/EU Arctic Policy

In the conservation world, there are two main ideologies on how to achieve your goal. The first one consist of applying a direct counter force towards an element you wish to stop. The other approach is greatly different. Accepting that the element has too much momentum and its force is too great, it chooses to rather deflect or guide the force towards a different end point. In other words, either you protest against corporations, or you work with them. Although this bureau accepts that there might be some benefits in trying to change the system by protesting, it believes that the forces at play within our society, within our industrialized world are way to big to simply counter attack. Rather, it considers cooperation to be the way to achieve long lasting conservation. The goal is to create win-win situations and, as Østhagen concluded in his article for the Arctic Institute, to establish a balance between preservation and exploitation. One unorthodox way to explain this “cooperation” or “deflecting” concept, is to look at martial art aikido. Aikido is often translated as “the way of unifying (with) life energy” or as “the way of harmonious spirit.” It is performed by blending with the motion of the attacker and redirecting the force of the attack rather than opposing it head-on. This requires very little physical strength.

Some argue that this method is a sell out. But we think otherwise and campaign for it.

One of the most famous conservationists who believed in this strategy was José Márcio Ayres. He believed that nature would stand no chance of survival unless community-based models of natural resource management were applied. In fact he created the Economic Alternatives Program with an aim to change the way in which natural resources are being exploited, to make them generate long-term socioeconomic and environmental benefits.

Per instance, the clearing of forest for lumber, once carried out illegally and on a large scale by forestry companies from outside Mamirauá, is now handled by 20 communities living in the reserve who take into account the sustainability of the tree species — a first for the várzea. This kind of sustainable development has made it possible to increase the income from forest management by 100 to 150 per cent — a huge benefit for the community, as it is the only major work that can be done during the high-water season.

The Antarctic Ocean Alliance is also recommending solutions based on this belief. Its proposal does want a ban on fishing in the wider Ross Sea region, nor a limit on toothfish catches. But rather it proposes excluding fishing from the most ecologically important areas.

This is the strategy we want to see for the Arctic. Here are two solutions we believe could yield tremendous conservation benefits, using the momentum of exploitation to the conservation advantage.

  1. Give Give
    For every exploitation zone given, an area of the same size is declared off limit and protected. The more exploitation, the more protection. Conservationists and biologists would determine what areas are best to protect in relation to the exploitation zones.
  2. Insurance Fund
    Unfortunately, accidents do happen. Even when we don’t want to. That is why we buy insurance. Nobody buys a car knowing that he/she will get into an accident. But we all get an insurance in case one day… According to Wikipedia, insurance is: “a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for payment.” In 1989, there was the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In 2010, there was the BP oil spill. Every year, in Russia, 5 million tons of oil is spilled into the environment (6x what the BP spill was). It is only fair to say, that one day, there will be another major disaster. The question is not How, but When. We propose then that all oil/gas/mining companies involved in the exploitation of the Arctic region finance an insurance fund that will go for an eventual environmental tragedy. Part of that fund would be used to manage the protected areas mentioned in point 1 above. The more resources are extracted, the more the fund grows. This concept is also used between Tourism and Conservation. The more tourists you have the more you have to finance the conservation.

Those solutions are not problems free. They do though acknowledge the complexity of our society and work with the parties involved into a constructive relationship rather than a pissing contest, (Shell wins injunction against Greenpeace Arctic drilling protestors) where short term benefits might indeed be achieved, at the price of much needed long term benefits.

Humble enough to listen and tough enough to decide

In the 1960’s during a plague of Crown of Thorns starfishes on the Great Barrier Reef, in the waters of Australia, people decided to counter attack by slicing them into pieces. Whether it is true or not, according to certain reports, their numbers then doubled or quadrupled when each piece of starfish regenerated itself into a full new one.

In 1584, Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, a Spanish sailor, established a settlement at Buena Bay (locally known as Mansa Bay) on the west side of the Strait of Magellan, near Punta Arenas in Chile. In less than a couple of years, all 300 plus settlers died of starvation. The unfortunate location is known today as Puerto Hambre or Port Famine (Port Hunger in english!)

In 1819 Sir John Franklin led an expedition in the Canadian Arctic. Of his original crew of 20, 11 died of starvation. Again, in 1845, his famous Northwest Passage expedition got lost and all of his 129 men, himself included, died.

What do those three seemingly unrelated events have in common?

The Crown of Thorns is known to the Fijians as “Na’Bula”, meaning living or alive, reflecting the regenerating power of the starfish. Puerto Hambre is located in an area where the Alacaluf, a Fuegian tribe, had lived for hundreds of years. Franklin’s doomed expedition perished in a place where Inuit had been living for thousands of years.

Each case represents a total lack of consideration for the precious knowledge held by the indigenous people. For the “White Man”, coming from civilized countries, these “people” were considered savage and primitive. Not only were their beliefs in nature seen as a flagrant obstacle to progress, but it was ridiculous to admit that they could know more on how to survive in these remote places than a highly decorated naval officer.

While the natives saw themselves as part of Nature and understood the delicate balance that needed to be respected, the “White Man”, supported by his belief that God had created the earth for him only, plundered the resources as if there would be no tomorrow. Anything found in the way was destroyed. His motto has always been “Act Now, Think Later”. He wants something, he gets it, then deals with the consequences later. He decimated the buffalos, the wolves and the whales. On the Pribilof islands in the Bering Sea, he succeeded in reducing to almost zero a population of fur seals that was considered limitless. When the resources were gone, he simply moved to another location and proceeded again. Where the indigenous people managed to live off nature for centuries, the “White Man” only took decades to destroy everything.

Not much has changed today. Reading recently about the incredible and fast decline of stock of Mackerels off the coast of Chile, we don’t seem to have learned anything. We keep repeating the same pattern over and over. The only difference is that today with our technology, we do it much faster.

The natives have warned us since the beginning that our lives were unsustainable. That our lifestyle and values would destroy the earth’s resources. We laughed at them and told them that we had amazing technology that would fix everything.

…overcome by the giddiness that flying lent him, Icarus soared through the sky curiously, but in the process he came too close to the sun, which melted the wax. Icarus kept flapping his wings but soon realized that he had no feathers left and that he was only flapping his bare arms. And so, Icarus fell into the sea…

This Greek myth is a premonition about our culture of consumption. Obsessed by satisfying our desires and pleasures we have forgone common sense and wisdom. We have lost the ability to limit ourselves. Blind to any consequences, we plunge into our ego centered lives and quietly hope for salvation. We take pride in our intelligence, bragging about our inventions and technology, believing that only WE have the power to save the world. But are we really that smart or simply extremely arrogant? One thing for sure is that we are not a mature civilization. Mature is by definition something that is based on slow and careful consideration. Which lies at the total opposite spectrum of how we operate.

And in those moments, when everything around us is crumbling, we look at our leaders for guidance and courage. But unfortunately, as Margaret Thatcher said: “One of the great problems of our age is that we’re governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas.” Will our world find the humility to listen to the indigenous tribes and have the courage and strength to take the necessary decisions to move towards a sustainable growth? Will the Arctic become the stage for a new kind of development or sadly be an “Encore” of a very bad show? A dialogue like the one recently put forward by Prince Charles is a good step in the right direction. The only thing it takes is people that are willing to make the right decisions rather than wanting to please everyone.

“In the distant past, scientists often ignored and even made fun of the knowledge of indigenous people. But we now recognize that people who live off the land for generations know more than researchers will discover with years of investigation.” Smithsonian Blog

The Future of the Arctic

Welcome to the Extreme & Polar Islands Conservation (E.P.I.C.) blog. Weekly posts will explore conservation issues that pertain mainly to the Polar regions: their oceans and their remote islands.

The Future of the Arctic

For anyone involved in oil, mining, gas or conservation, it is no secret by now that the North is where most of the attention will be locked for the next decade. It is extremely ironic that the consequences of our lifestyle on the planet’s ecosystem have opened a once-inaccessible and pristine region for development, giving our industrial world a much needed life line. The timing could have not been more perfect for some, and the worst for others. The pressures on the planet’s resources have never been so high, ever. Living off nature is nothing new, at the end we are an earth species living in a complex web of dependencies. What is different today is the scale of our consumption and the role human has taken in the food chain as both the predator and the grazer.

A predator is a constructive element in the food chain. Its goal is to keep in check the numbers of more invasive species. These species, if not controlled have the power to eradicate the resources. The grazers in return help keeping a balance in the plant wold. Nature is this amazing relationship-based system, where each living organism plays its part for the planet’s equilibrium. In fact, without these dynamic “boundaries”, each would have the potential to destroy its own environment.

The problem today is that we hunt like predators and consume and reproduce like grazers. In other words, we consume the resources from both ends, without a care in the world, thinking that this candle will just keep burning forever. While at the same time populating the earth at a rate that any virus would envy.

What will happen to the Arctic? We have just passed the 7 billion mark in population. We have eaten our way through the Pacific and the Atlantic. We have used most of the oil from the fields so far discovered. And we have cut down pretty much everything. The Arctic is offering new waters to fish, new minerals to extract, new oil fields to drill, new forests to cut and new land to built cities. Worse, our past record in managing new resources is nothing to be proud of. We decimate before we care. The pressure to deliver “cheap” material and “cheap” food for this ever increasing world does not help any conservation matters. So what to do?

The complexity of the situation is not to be taken lightly. At one extreme, you have the people who simply want the entire north to stay off-limit: no development, nothing. At the other end, you have the people for whom this new territory is just another dot on the map with precious and extremely valuable resources. You also have the native communities, who for many years, have been kept quiet by subsidies. They now find themselves at the frontline of a new gold rush and they want to be included. Some countries are drooling over the rewards the Arctic could reap, while others, already exhausted over interior issues and financial realities can’t seem to know what foot to dance on. Finally you have everything in between. In this “open internet sensationalized media world” everyone has a right for its opinion and a platform to share it.

Politicians, independently of what they will do or decide, will be screamed at and vilified. If it is not the fishermen angry for not being able to make a living, it will the conservationists, the public, the corporations, the native communities – there won’t be anywhere where governments can hide. Still, they have to make decisions. And their decisions are most of the time based on what will bring them reelected next year. If that was not enough, we live in a world where no one pays the real price for its lifestyle. And no one wants to pay more. We want cheap food, cheap electronics and cheap energy.

The development of the Arctic will go on, whether we want it or not. The question is: How will it go? In 1996 the Arctic Council was formed precisely to look over the process. Formed by the delimiting countries: Canada, USA, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden, it mission is to:

To provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of the Arctic Indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.

Also at the Council table are France, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. Although their role, is to observe and suggest but not to participate in the decision making. In recents years, other countries, such as China, Brazil, India, Japan and the EU have clearly lobbied for a right to be involved. In their views, what happens in the North, happens everywhere. The world is so global, that no one has the luxury to ride without the others. In the extreme scenario where much of the Arctic disappears, these waters will be international and free for all to navigate.

The challenge will be to manage on a sustainable level this eager group of developers. Playing the NO card is not a wise strategy. In fact, it would absolutely be counter productive. The corporations have the funds and the political will (lets not forget also the reality that the world demands their products!) to exploit as much as they can first and deal with the consequences later. So to simply oppose to their power and fight fire with fire, would accomplish nothing. It would be a waste of people’s money, but more importantly it would erase any chance of working with these companies at guiding them in their developing process. Everyone involved will need to be pragmatic. Conservation groups need to understand the economical realities we face and the corporations need to accept their responsibilities towards the environment.

Instead of pretending that nothing will happen, that no accidents will occur, or that no one will ever drill in the Arctic, what must be achieved is a constructive discussion where everyone is enticed at working to avoid and prepare for the worst. Like a teen coming of age of driving, there is no point to prohibit the inevitable. What you can do is guide, instruct and prepare so that when something bad happens (and it will!) it doesn’t come as a surprise and the mechanisms to repair are already in place.