Tercer movimiento

Alexander (2005) - Criteria for an Emergency Planning Standard

1. The basic, or reference, level of emergency planning is that of municipal government. The regional, national and international levels are those of co-ordination.

2. The plan should be prepared by, or under the direction of, a qualified emergency planner. 3. There should be only one plan, not several, and it should be cover all likely hazards. 4. The plan should be written in clear, simple, unambiguous language.

5. The plan should conform to the laws on emergency and disaster management that are in force in the country and region it pertains to.

6. The plan must be specific about the extent, limits and limitations of its jurisdiction. 7. The plan should seek to be fully compatible with plans and planning requirements at other

levels of government and in neighbouring jurisdictions.

8. The first objective of the plan is to ensure that lives are not lost unnecessarily.

9. The second objective of the plan is to match urgent needs with appropriate resources in the most efficient and timely manner.

10. The plan should be based on a careful and, as far as possible exhaustive, assessment of what is likely to happen when an emergency occurs in its geographical area of jurisdiction. It must be based on adequate basic research.

11. The emergency plan should take account of urban and regional planning provisions in effect in the area under its jurisdiction, especially regarding the hazardousness of place and the siting of critical facilities.

12. The plan should conduct and present the results of a full audit of the resources that will be used during emergency operations.

13. Emergency planning should deal with processes, not merely quantities.

14. The plan should adequately specify the roles and activities of each and every participant in the risk management and emergency operations activities it covers.

15. Whether or not an emergency plan concentrates on the early post-impact phase, it should take account in an integrated manner of all the phases of the “disaster cycle”.

120 16. Activities described in the plan that are designed to combat disaster should include or at least

facilitate sustainable measures for disaster prevention.

17. The plan should seek to integrate and embrace provisions for the private sector, hospitals, industries, airports, etc.

18. The plan should constantly be revised and circulated among its participants, and should be tested regularly.

Alexander (2005) - Applying the Standard Using a Category-Based Evaluation Tool Legislative and organisational context:

Disaster mitigation policies . . . adequate and in place? Legislative instrument . . . its provisions fully respected?

Legal and jurisdictional responsibilities of plan participants . . . fully specified?

Clarity of objectives:

Scope and general objectives . . . clearly set out? Conditions for activation . . . fully specified?

Hazard, vulnerability and risk analysis:

Historical analysis of past hazard impacts in the local area . . . sufficient? Hazard probability analysis . . . accomplished?

Vulnerability and risk analyses . . . adequate?

Disaster scenarios for the local area . . . constructed and satisfactory?

Logistics:

Emergency resource audit . . . conducted?

Structure of the command system and centres . . . fully described? Communications equipment, protocols and procedures . . . specified? Warning, evacuation and other pre-disaster preparations . . . worked out? Search-and-rescue . . . organised and managed?

Maintenance of public order . . . provisions satisfactory?

Media and public information arrangements . . . in place, tested and approved? Medical and mortuary services, including transportation for the injured . . . OK? Mutual assistance pacts . . . are they incorporated into the plan?

Recovery of infrastructure and basic services . . . adequately described? Plans for particular sectors (as necessary):

Hospitals, schools, industry, airports, etc. . . . included?

Arrangements:

For testing the plan . . . in place? For disseminating the plan . . . in place? For updating the plan . . . in place?

121

National Response Framework Criteria

Acceptability – A plan is acceptable if it can meet the requirements of anticipated scenarios, can be

implemented within the costs and time frames that senior officials and the public can support, and is consistent with applicable laws.

Adequacy – A plan is adequate if it complies with applicable planning guidance, planning assumptions

are valid and relevant, and the concept of operations identifies and addresses critical tasks specific to the plan’s objectives.

Completeness – A plan is complete if it incorporates major actions, objectives, and tasks to be

accomplished. The complete plan addresses the personnel and resources required and sound concepts for how those will be deployed, employed, sustained and demobilized. It also addresses timelines and criteria for measuring success in achieving objectives and the desired end state. Including all those who could be affected in the planning process can help ensure that a plan is complete.

Consistency and standardization of products – Standardized planning processes and products foster

consistency, interoperability, and collaboration, therefore, emergency operations plans for disasters response should be consistent with all other related planning documents.

Feasibility – A plan is considered feasible if the critical tasks can be accomplished with the resources

available internally or through mutual aid, immediate need for additional resources from other sources (in the case of a local plan, from state or federal partners) are identified in detail and coordinated in advance, and procedures are in place to integrate and employ resources effectively from all potential providers.

Flexibility – Flexibility and adaptability are promoted by decentralized decision-making and by

accommodating all hazards ranging from smaller-scale incidents to wider national contingencies.

Interoperability and collaboration – A plan is interoperable and collaborative if it identifies other

stakeholders in the planning process with similar and complementary plans and objectives, and supports regular collaboration focused on integrating with those stakeholders’ plans to optimize achievement of individual and collective goals and objectives in an incident.

122