Today’s public debate is dominated by artificial intelligence. Every week brings a new model, a new investment, and a new prediction about how AI will transform work, the economy, and public administration. Yet amid this rapid pace of change, it is easy to overlook the fact that our lives still depend on very tangible essentials: running water, electricity, heating in our homes, places where people can seek shelter, and individuals who know what to do when any of these systems fail. An algorithm cannot evacuate a nursing home or secure drinking water for an entire neighbourhood.
A real crisis does not begin at the regional level or in a data centre. It begins on a particular street, in a school, or in a hospital. And it is the mayor who faces the first questions. The state is working to strengthen preparedness, for example through the 72 Hours campaign. Yet most households remain unprepared for a crisis. In our view, the gap between what the state expects from the crisis management system and what people and municipalities are actually prepared to handle is one of today’s most underestimated security challenges.
Municipal emergency preparedness is often viewed primarily as an administrative obligation. A plan exists, contact details are recorded in a spreadsheet, and responsibility is assigned to the regional authorities or municipalities with extended powers. However, the effectiveness of the entire system depends largely on the people involved, on how regional authorities cooperate with municipalities, and, above all, on whether each municipality understands the specific vulnerabilities of its own territory. Resilience must therefore also be built from the bottom up.
Which essential services must remain operational during a power outage lasting several days? Where can residents seek shelter if permanent shelters are no longer available? Who are the most vulnerable people who will need assistance first? And how can critical information reach them if the internet and mobile networks are unavailable? These practical questions should form the foundation of genuine emergency preparedness in every municipality.
This is also where one of the paradoxes of the digital age becomes apparent: the digital dependency of local communities. Traffic management, water supply systems, district heating, public warning systems, and communication between crisis management teams all rely on digital services, often provided by a single supplier or operated through a single data centre. The smarter a city becomes, the more important it is that it can continue functioning in an emergency, including through analogue backup procedures. Decentralisation and contingency arrangements are no longer merely technical details; they have become matters of public safety and security.
Residents themselves are an equally important part of resilience. Community engagement, willingness to follow official instructions, and the ability to recognise risks are all weakening. Yet no emergency plan will work if people do not understand it or trust those responsible for implementing it. Preparedness therefore involves more than technical safeguards and well-designed procedures. It also requires effective communication, cooperation, and trust between local authorities and the public.
These issues are supported by established academic expertise. For example, the crisis management research group at the University of Defence has long focused on assessing territorial vulnerability, civilian sheltering, and crisis management exercises. Its methodologies are directly relevant to municipalities. However, their real value only emerges when they are put into practice. On paper, many municipalities may appear adequately prepared. Plans have been developed, documents approved, and inspections completed without significant findings. But the real test will not come in the form of an inspection. It will come as a prolonged winter power outage, an overnight flood, or a technical failure that disrupts the water supply.
We would therefore encourage local governments to adopt a pragmatic approach. Identify a handful of threats that are genuinely relevant to their territory, discuss them with the people who would be responsible for responding, and assess what residents would actually need in such situations. Then test the proposed procedures, even through a simple tabletop exercise. Only practical testing can reveal what is missing from a plan, where the weaknesses lie, and which areas require further attention.
Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies can significantly strengthen crisis management, and we work with these technologies every day. However, when events do not unfold as expected, what ultimately matters is whether a municipality has concrete procedures, capable people, and the necessary resources to put its plans into action.
Resilience does not begin with technology or strategic documents. It begins with prepared people and municipalities that know how to respond when the systems we rely on every day stop working.
3 minutes reading
