- From: Don Cameron <donc@internode.on.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:03:54 +1100
- To: <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
> Thanks Don - this is exactly what we need. Hi Renato, I have also started to collate as many top-level Statutes as I can (Emergency Management Acts and Regulations) to help identify the hierarchy of language we need, so we can ensure any standards adopted are in compliance. Just by way of introduction for anyone new to EM - Most states & nations have an Emergency Management Act or Statute (or similarly named legislative device), that describes top-level responsibilities, accountabilities, and defines terms and organisational structures during emergency and escalating disaster (eg: Most of these Statutes will define words like "emergency" and "disaster" and name the devices and instruments used for response and emergency planning purposes etc.). The Statutes and Acts are "law", and can only be changed or otherwise amended through Parliamentary process (name your political system here). The Acts themselves are increasingly uniform across national boundaries through international cooperative agreements. Underneath these statutes, are emergency plans, dictionaries and other instruments and utilities built under Statute carrying legal compliance requirements (instruments and utilities of emergency management that must be followed by law; breach of which is a breach of law). Underneath again, are what we deem 'EM Standards' by virtue of accreditation by an approved authority. The hierarchy of a standard is usually that of a national standard (AS) built to compliance with an ISO (International Standard). ISO and national (AS) construction involves extensive public consultation and is a lengthy process (the description of which is beyond the scope of this brief). Underneath again from a hierarchical perspective, are locally adopted policies, standards and practices either built internally by EM orgs or adopted and massaged for suitability of purpose. These are the "Practices of EM" deployed by EM agencies and built and amended as needs dictate. These are also the processes most held accountable during any public briefs and analysis held post disaster (public hearings and Coronial Inquests etc.). Lastly are the many extraneous standards, practices and policies that might (or might not) impact on EM accountabilities. (eg: a standard not directly relating to EM but potentially having an impact during emergency). The reason these are described as extraneous is because legislation itself is hierarchical, and EM legislation is always "top-tier", meaning other legislative instruments and hierarchical trees are inferior during and post an emergency or disaster. Usually the only exception to this rule are legislative trees enacted under an Act of War. At some point we will need to ensure the standards we accept are identified within this structure, and depending on placement, are compliant. Cheers, Don Cameron
Received on Monday, 25 February 2008 20:04:06 UTC