some other IMS method. Some countries have no standard IMS method across their nation, but rather leave it up to the provinces or the states what, if anything, should be used. In some instances, these foreign countries do not use an IMS method, or they only recently started using an IMS method. A basic review of these countries and the methods they use can help us understand the importance of the basic principles and concepts as they relate to managing an incident.
3.1 The United Nations
In 1999, the United Nations (UN) began the execution of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR or UNISDR). Member countries of United Nations were seeing the importance of disaster reduction and a coordinated response to disaster. For two years, the organization worked on a resolution to create disaster reduction while supporting coordination, collaboration, and cooperation among member countries that might respond to disasters. While prior versions were related to disaster reduction in the United Nations, most or all of the previous versions were recalled, and the new version was accepted in January 2002, four months after the September 11 attacks on the United States (UN General Assembly, 2002).
Much like what happened in the United States, the September 11 attacks created urgency for the United Nations General Assembly. There is no documentation to support this supposition, but there are many indicators that support this theory. While the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) was being discussed and planned for several years, it was not until four months after the September 11 attacks that the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) was passed. Because the United Nations is based in New York City, it would be fair to say that members of the organization saw the destruction, they saw how devastating it was to the community, and they could have even seen how the IMS method of ICS helped to organize the massive response at the World Trade Center. Perhaps they realized that arguing and nitpicking the smallest of items in the resolution was not productive and that the time for action was at hand. We were not in these meetings, so we really do not know. One thing that anyone in public safety can tell you is that after a major disaster, we typically see more laws, more spending, and more agreements being made in the first year than we have seen in the previous five years. Disasters typically force action from government entities.
Under resolution 56/195, the UN General Assembly mandated that the United Nations would be the focal point in this new system for the coordination of disaster reduction. Together, member countries would create a combined effort in disaster reduction activities. An organizational unit of the UN Secretariat was formed and was led by the UN Special Representative of the Secretary‐General for Disaster Risk Reduction (SRSG).
Initially, they used the Hyogo Framework for disaster reduction. According to the United Nations (2005) this was officially called The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (HFA). It was essentially the first plan devised by the United Nations. It broke down the major areas of disaster reduction, and it explained (and detailed) the work that was required to reduce disaster losses. Many of those UN members and partners saw destruction after a major incident and realized that reducing disaster risks was critical for some countries to survive, and this was the initial way of doing so. The lengthy list of exactly who could benefit from disaster reduction included governments, international agencies, disaster experts, and many others. The Hyogo Framework helped to bring all the individuals and organizations into a common arrangement that would create better coordination when responding to a disaster. This framework also included language that would promote disaster resilience, especially in economically depressed countries. The Hyogo Framework outlined five priorities for action with a goal of significantly reducing disaster losses by 2015 through building resilience.
1 1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation.
2 2. Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning.
3 3. Use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels.
4 4. Reduce the underlying risk factors.
5 5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels (UNISDR, 2005).
As part of strengthening disaster preparedness, it was suggested that the Incident Command System (ICS) should be used to ensure that all countries responding to a disaster were on the same page. This would also allow a higher level of integration of resources from other countries when a multinational response was needed.
In preparing for the ending of the Hyogo Framework, the UNISDR began working on a successor that would continue the strides that had been made in disaster reduction. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 is the successor instrument to the Hyogo Framework. It was adopted on 18 March 2015, at the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Sendai, Japan. The Sendai Framework also recommended that countries utilize, or continue to utilize, the ICS method to manage disasters.
While exact details were not found on when the United Nations began recommending the use of the ICS method, there were suggestions that 10 countries signed an agreement in 2003. Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) adopted the use of ICS in that year, and it included the countries of Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei. Additionally, the 133 members of the United Nations signed an agreement on the Hyogo Framework, and interestingly enough, numerous ICS classes were offered that same year (Cabag Jr., 2012).
In one advertisement from the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center ([ADPC], 2009), was revealed that a collaborative effort was being put forward to train countries about the ICS system. This collaboration included the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service ([USFS], n.d.). According to the information, ICS was adapted to many countries including Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. This adaption was based on the structure of the countries national government while being cognizant of cultural considerations. This specific training offered Train‐the‐Trainer ICS course curriculum to key national agencies and trainers (ADPC, 2009). Train‐the‐Trainer courses provide the individual or agency with the knowledge and resources to become instructors and to teach the ICS system to others. According to the US Forest Service (n.d.), beyond the ASEAN, the agency had provided ICS trainings to Canada, Australia, Mexico, Bulgaria, Mongolia, and Sri Lanka by some time in 2007 (USFS, n.d.). Additionally, after the approval of the Sendai Framework, there were also a multitude of classes that were offered in ICS in 2015 and beyond.
3.2 Australia
In the 1980s, the Australian government created the Australian Inter‐Service Incident Management System (AIIMS). This was the first iteration of an IMS system in Australia. It closely mimicked the National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS) system in use by the US Forest Service and that was based on the IMS method of ICS.
In 1989, the Australian government enacted legislation called the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act. The legislation mandated that an IMS system should be developed for all disciplines within public safety. The first implementation of Australian Inter‐Service Incident Management System (AIIMS) method was sometime in 1991, and it implemented Incident Control System as the way to manage an incident. The Incident Control System was nearly identical to the USICS method, with one primary difference. The person in charge of an incident was not known as the Incident Commander (IC), but rather an Incident Controller (Turner, n.d.). In 2002, after hearing years of criticism that the system was fundamentally for the fire service, the Australian and New Zealand National Council for fire, emergency services, and land management undertook a revamping of the system to make it nonspecific to discipline type. While some changes were made, the system closely resembles ICS method used in the United States.
Sometime after the September
