The argument that a third link is needed for reasons of economic security comes from a vulnerability analysis. This type of study targets a risk (loss of electricity in a hospital, breakdown of refrigeration in a vegetable warehouse, inability to move trucks over a bridge, etc.). Then, we estimate the probabilities that this will happen. We then estimate the consequences that this would have. And finally, we look at our ability to react. This gives us an indication of vulnerability. Where does this vulnerability index lie in the present case?
For risks associated with a high vulnerability index, contingency plans and continuity plans are prepared which will mitigate the consequences and allow the continuity of services or businesses.
This type of study and plans are very common. Banks, large companies, universities and government departments all do them.
It is difficult to believe that the Ministry of Transport has just realized that there is an economic risk associated with the passage of goods over the Laporte bridge… Even harder to believe that there is no plan to contingency and continuity to ensure that the transport of goods would continue, regardless of the hazard. What do the contingency and continuity plans provide?
We have two options. These studies and plans exist, or they do not exist. If they exist, what do they plan? If they don’t exist, then we’re dealing with crass incompetence…
To watch on video