Re: Draft XG Charter

Thanks Kirstin -

for illustrating further the scenarios and for underlining the fine
line between 'international help' (earlier examples 1. and 2. and
'invasion' example 3. - ireported below)

- Do you have pointers to documentation/references of case
history/examples that you mention we could bookmark?
- Do you know what international conventions regulate the 'invitation'
behaviour (protocols) also to bookmark as a reference
- would it be more accurate to say that 'emergency management' can
have political implications in some cirumastances where interventio is
not sanctioned by international conventions (ie. in case 3,when it
becomes an invasion?)

- is it agreed and clear from our mission statement that our work
aimes to support 1.2. and not 3.?


Thanks
PDM


On 8/10/07, Kristin Hoskin <kh@kestrel.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Just want to clarify a point that has not been too clear in the last
> few emails. It may not be necessary in which case ignore it but for
> those unfamiliar with the ways some things work it might be of use.
>
> International organisations, including those supplied by other
> governments, come in when they are "invited". They are essentially
> guests and have no rights to impose aid or support except where this
> has been prearranged. They don't just come in when domestic
> organisations and governments can't cope either (that would be
> considered invasion).
>
> Predominantly overseas organisations and governments offer specific
> assistance which may or maynot be accepted by the affected nation or
> a pre-established working relationship with organisations within the
> affected country is already in place for disaster contingencies. The
> only exception is for the purpose of evacuating their own citizens
> that are in the affected area. To illustrate this, rural or wildfire
> fire fighters often send teams overseas to perform specific roles
> that supplement the domestic capacity of an affected country. They do
> this to help with specific response functions and to gain experience
> in specific deployments as well as to build interoperability capacity
> and to share their knowledge and skills with others. A specific
> instance of this would be where there is a need for fire jumpers -
> the US has a particularly well developed capability in this area due
> to terrain, size of forest fires, access to equipment (and people
> crazy enough to jump out of planes and into the middle of a forest
> fire). They have specialised techniques and skills that many other
> countries don't have either due to the expense of resources or lack
> of need. In the rare instances when this type of approach is of
> benefit then fire jumpers might be volunteered. A similar example is
> in coordination of wildfire response. New Zealand rural fire people
> often go to Australia to assist with the coordination aspects of
> managing large scale multi-front fire responses, not because
> Australians can't do it but because it helps to meet the capacity
> requirements and keeps the NZers trained up. These are just fire
> examples and I give them because most people can relate to and
> visualise such examples. There are of course many others at all
> levels of emergency management.
>
> In summary the point I want to articulate is that many organisations
> and governments have standing overseas support arrangements but with
> the exception of nations that are under civil war it would be rare
> for aid to be provided as a "guns a blazin' hero on a white horse
> saving the day" approach. It isn't a matter of politics so much as a
> matter of manners and appreciation that those on the ground know what
> they need and that others will supply what is asked for. It is worth
> stating that this is quite distinct from long term recovery aid
> packages which I would not consider a part of assisting emergency
> management but of assistance to social and economic recovery.
>
> Kristin
>
>
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?

Received on Friday, 10 August 2007 07:03:55 UTC