RE: A view from Australia on dealing with emergencies.

["Carl Reed OGC Account" <creed@opengeospatial.org>]

I recently attended and presented at a workshop is Australia titled Geospatial Support to the National "All Hazards" Counter-Terrorism, Emergency. By way of background, after 9-11, and convened with greater urgency as a result of the Bali bombings, the Australian Government invited representatives from key United States emergency management organizations involved in the response to the September 11 incident were invited to lead a series of ‘Lessons Learnt’ Executive Breakfasts and Workshops around Australia in March 2003. The results of these workshops can be found in a document located at http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/EMA/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(63F21BC6A4528BAE4CED2F9930C45677)~EMALessonsLearntbookletfinal.pdf/$file/EMALessonsLearntbookletfinal.pdf .

 

One of the key recommendations that arose from these workshops and has since become and integral component of EM and Preparedness in Australia is something called the  'All hazards' approach. Basically, this approach is to develop preparedness and response plans that incorporate the 'all hazards' approach - really one plan that can be activated with the flexibility to be adapted to all incidents.

 

This policy is captured in the 2004 Emergency Management Act. The Emergency Management Act 2004 establishes a framework for the management of emergencies. Its major parts deal with:

• the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) - establishment, membership, functions and powers, including the power to create advisory groups
• co-ordination - through the Commissioner of Police, as State Co-ordinator, and assistants
• the management of emergencies, including:
• • their classification as major incidents, major emergencies or disasters
  • recovery operations.

The Act replaces the State Disaster Act 1980, and is consistent with the Government's policy on emergency management, protective security and counter-terrorism. It shifts the focus from 'disaster management' to a flexible 'all hazards' framework that applies to planning, coordination and control for any emergency.

Their philosophy is to treat all emergencies the same in terms of policy, jurisdictional relationships, partnerships, agreements, communications, information sharing, and so forth. There are obviously response hardware differences according to the event type, such as required for radiation versus fire versus a bomb threat. However, the policies and procedures - the plan - are almost identical for all event types.

 

I am not sure how similar or dissimilar this approach is from what DHS is doing. However, they Aussies are a bit mystified by what appears to be a fragmented approach in the US.

 

Carl Reed, PhD
CTO and Executive Director Specification Program
OGC

 

The OGC: Helping the World to Communicate Geographically

 

---------------------

 

This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender  immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies.

 

"The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein