- From: Don Cameron <rural.life@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:40:39 +1000
- To: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, "'Ioannis Dokas'" <jdokas@gmail.com>, "'Rex Brooks'" <rexb@starbourne.com>
- Cc: <public-disaster-management-ont@w3.org>
> emergencies properly managed do not escalate,
> crises are emergencies gone out of hand,
> disasters are crises that have gone out of hand,
Paola - I hope to assist.
The practice of emergency management embraces events, crisis and disasters
of any scope. Emergencies are expected to escalate, and almost always will
escalate regardless of the effectiveness of management. The function of
Emergency Management is to restore normality. That an emergency escalates is
not demonstrative of a failing of management process, it's an expected part
of the cycle of emergencies and an aspect incorporated into the field and
study of emergency management planning.
An emergency is a situation that poses immediate threat to life or serious
damage to property. An emergency is not constrained by scope. The SE Asian
Tsunami was an emergency. The storm-surge grounding of the Pasha Bulker
Tanker on Newcastle beach this week is also an emergency. That one of these
events is beyond the capacity of local resources to control; that one is
within local capacities is irrelevant to the definition. Both are
emergencies.
A disaster is an event or crisis that has escalated beyond the capacity of
local resources to control. The SE Asian Tsunami was a disaster; the
grounding of the Pasha Bulker Tanker is not.
A crisis is undefined in the context of Emergency management and should not
be interpreted as an 'emergency that has gone out of hand'. This is just
invention.
> {my personal opinion: disaster management is a money making machine (snip)
I do not believe this comment adds real value to the conversation.
Don Cameron.
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2007 15:33:13 UTC