Re: Draft XG Charter

Paul -

I think the point  is worth elaborating

Just some thoughts, from experience.
Regarding 'failure' -  (Please note that in some cultures 'failure' is
not acceptable,
and is seen as profoundly humiliating! People will default to denial
when confronted
with 'failure', in some cultures more than others)

National emergency services, afaik, are the ones to get there first
when there is a problem International ones come in when

1. demand exceeds capacity (got all my ambulances out already, need more)
2. demand needs more specialised capacity than avaialble nationally
(need some equipment that only a few countries have)

probably a few others

In the cases 1. and 2. above, international services merely 'backup',
ie negotiate the intervention under local authority, or coordinating
bodies

in

3. other situation as you describe (national services breakdown) I
think the intervention is more political nature, as there is no-one
home to coordinate the intervention with, so the emergency agencies
also have to take over command and overall line of decisions
which becomes more complicated

I think we should compile some case studies, where do we start?

Now, the political/jurisdictional aspect of the international
interventionsm is widely studied, and we should take into account in
our work - in whatever measure we manage to do so.  We should try to
have at hand a list of conventions and treaties that regulate such
circumstances, so that we can make sure our standard 'fits' in the
protocol
(otherwise it will be dificult to use ' de jure' )

>From my viewpoint, it would good enough if we could start with
creating  a 'supranational' 'emergency standard' which can be used by
any agency in most generalized circumastences and that can be
interfaced by national agencies as they see fit,
(even in addition to their own national conventions) where trust and
protocols have been at least partly negotiated and validated, as
opposed to having to fear, in addition to the stress already existing,
that information will fall in the wrong hands.

I think 'security' is a big issue there - 'national' as well as 'international;
(hay, anyone from the UN on this list?)


A framework of reference will help a country like Thailand, say,
coordinate with a country like Sweden, and Denmark,say, to exchange
information about their nationals in case of an emergency.  Not too
difficult to organize, but it needs to be thought out carefully.

The scope of this project can then expand accordingly -

Think of this:  how did the Thai Hospitals in Phuket communicate with
the embassies  to provide information about the people they were
assisting during the tsunami, and their needs, for example. Generally
on paper, by phone, by fax, occasionally via the internet

I think what we are saying here, is that in principle we can already
use a multiplicity of devices, including mobile phones, to transmit
critical info over open networks, but we dont have the standards, nor
the protocols

 How can we create something easy to use, and compliant with national
and international policy, which is also safe for the 'users' (people
affected and various agencies) that will maximise communication as
well as the delivery of the services?

I think this is part of our mission (not sure if its reflected in the
statement as such)

We can easily model some relationships from  case studies  I am sure
we can pull together a few people that we know from such experiences
to help us develop a realistic models to work with

Let us know if you have ideas on how to get started there

(Chamindra I deal with complexity by not being afraid of appearing
confused at times   :-))


Paola Di Maio





On 8/9/07, Paul Currion <paul@currion.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks both to Paola, Chamindra and Kristin for their inputs, all of
> which definitely helped me to shape what I was thinking.  I would
> continue to flag this up as something to think about; one way of
> thinking about the distinction is that international responders will
> usually be active where the domestic responders have essentially failed
> (e.g. where the state is weak or has collapsed due to disaster or
> conflict).  I agree that this is not a rigid distinction, however.
>
> (Might also be worth noting that the wording of the Charter suggests
> that we will not cover complex emergencies - e.g. war and the like -
> which is probably a good thing, but might also create complications as
> we move forward, since the line between the two is sometimes blurred.)
>
>
>
> Kristin Hoskin wrote:
> >
> > Hi All
> > First posting so if you don't recognise me that's why. Have been
> > lurking for about 6 weeks. Because of this I'll start with a
> > disclaimer that I may have got the "wrong end of the stick" in this
> > thread but I venture the following comments anyway.
> >
> > I would break down the agencies that have emergency management roles
> > as Emergency Responders, Emergency Coordinators (or Managers),and
> > Welfare Coordiators (or Managers) Many agencies would fulfil several
> > of these roles subject to situation and resources (whether
> > international or domestic).
> >
> >> I tend to agree with Paul that we need to ensure that these varying
> >> degrees of "crisis response" needs to be covered, especially as it
> >> means that a different composition of agencies are involved in the
> >> relief effort based on the level of crisis. I prefer to refer to the
> >> distinction Paul mentioned as emergency management (fire, police,
> >> ambulance, other gov services) vs disaster management (EM + NGOs,
> >> Civil society, foreign gov support).
> >>
> >> I have understood there are difference in terminology between these
> >> various agencies and in will sometimes be hard to get them to agree
> >> on one set of terms, sometimes due to politically correct reasons.
> >
> >
> > I think it would be sufficient to cover these  terms based on their
> > intent rather than try and associate specific functions to agencies
> > and then try to find a term to fit them especially when these agencies
> > have different scope in different countries and territories.
> >
> > This is best illustrated with the example of "Fire Service". In some
> > countries this is restricted to fire response and rescue, in others it
> > extends to response and rescue at motor vehicle accidents and in
> > others the fire service also performs medical first response (as
> > opposed to ambulance) and/or plays a major role in structural collapse
> > response. They will in most instances also have representation in
> > emergency coordination committees or the like for planning and
> > mitigation. Because of this they span both response and coordination
> > in the levels that were referred to as emergency management and
> > disaster management previously (above) but could not effectively be
> > defined purely by fire extinguishment or small scale emergencies. With
> > NGOs a similar example could be gained by looking at the roles that
> > the Red Cross/Crescent performs in different countries. In some
> > countries such as the US they perform an enormously diverse range of
> > emergency management functions such as rescue, aid distribution and
> > public education, in others their role is restricted to only a
> > fraction of these services because of either funding, red
> > cross/crescent personnel or because some of the roles are filled by
> > other agencies (either governmental or non-governmental). The role
> > they play may or maynot be extended in the case of a large scale
> > emergency (disaster) subject to the requirements and arrangements in
> > that territory or country.
> >
> > Kind wishes to all
> >
> > kristin
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Paul Currion
>
> UK / CELL: + 44 79 46 82 45 46
> UK / LAND: + 44 20 71 93 71 67
> MSN / SKYPE / YAHOO / IRC: paulcurrion
> Web / www.humanitarian.info / www.currion.net
>
>
>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 11:30:06 UTC