rescue units and were melded into the already existing Search and Rescue Service within EMERCOM. Goals were identified, and plans were made for civil defense, with a completion date of 2020. These goals were to improve the current methods of protecting the Russian population, protecting resources and objects of cultural value against consequences due to military operations, and handling emergency situations due to natural and man‐made disasters. Additional goals included developing services to be used for civil defense, preserving the existence of the Russian people during a time of war, cultivating the structures of education and training in the field of civil defense, and evolving international cooperation in the field of civil defense. In 2015, additional regular military defense units were earmarked to be available for handling natural disasters. A total of 12 000 soldiers from army units, railway troops, engineering and logistics troops, and airborne troops have been folded into the mix. Perhaps the most curious bit of information is that Russia was a signer and complied with the Hyogo Framework; however, there is no mention of what IMS method was used, or how they integrated with outside resources (Roffey, 2016). Due to the fact that the overall organization is military based, incidents are managed in a military style of leadership when it is a larger emergency than the local government can handle. It is still not known what IMS method is used by local governments, or if it is a mix of different IMS methods. No further information could be found on the IMS methods used in Russia, including the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS).
3.24 Singapore
The country of Singapore utilizes the ICS method to manage disasters and emergencies across multiple agencies. These agencies include EMS, emergency managers, the Singapore Disaster Response Force (SDRF), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), and more. While little historical information was found, it is known that Singapore began using the ICS method even prior to the 2005 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Agreement. It appears that the Singapore Civil Defence Force has used some form of an IMS method since at least 1998. The Singapore Civil Defence Force includes many public safety agencies (including fire and HazMat), and they cooperate with the vast majority of government organizations (Yung, 2012). Beyond this, no information was found except that Singapore was a signer of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and later the Hyogo Framework.
As was mentioned earlier in this book, necessity is the mother of invention, and this is (to a certain extent) what happened in Singapore. Between February and May 2003, an epidemic gripped Singapore with fear. A patient who had been visiting China contracted Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). When the patient returned to Singapore, this single patient created an epidemic that would infect 238 people. Thirty‐three of those infected with the virus would end up dying (Chew, 2009). In response to the pandemic, some hospitals and physicians began looking for ways to manage future incidents such as this. Toward the end of 2003, Dr. Tham (2003) began delivering courses on the ICS method to hospitals, but this was not the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS). He had adapted the ICS method used by first responders to fit the needs of Singapore hospitals. What makes this interesting is that even though the Hospital Emergency Incident Command System (HEICS) was already developed and being used, and the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) was involved in containing this outbreak (Chew, 2009), curiously, it was not taught. There could be several different reasons why the Hospital Emergency Incident Command System (HEICS) was not used, including that it was not known in Singapore at that time and/or that it would not meet the needs of this outbreak. Even though no information could be found regarding the use of HICS in Singapore, it is a safe assumption based on other materials (Singapore training flyers, discussions about HICS, etc.) that it has been implemented.
3.25 United Kingdom
Fire and Rescue Service have been utilizing a modified version of the US ICS method since approximately 1999. While most countries around the world have based their modifications on the FIRESCOPE version of ICS, the United Kingdom chose to utilize and modify the ICS method developed by Chief Alan “Bruno” Brunacini. In fact, Brunacini generously donated his time to assist in creating the IMS method used in the United Kingdom (Arbuthnot, 2015).
According to Arbuthnot (2015), the need for an IMS method to manage operations in the United Kingdom was realized after several fire responses went horribly wrong. While numerous fires may have played a role, the Gillender Street fire in London during July 1991, and the Sun Valley poultry factory fire in Hereford, England, during September 1993 seemed to be the impetus. In both aforementioned fires, two firefighters died (in each one). Additionally, there had been questions about command and control issues in a government report, which also helped the push for solutions. Initially, the two main focuses for the UK ICS method were dynamic risk assessment and organizational structure on the operational (fire) ground. As the system started to develop, a third focus was added which revolved around command competency. After much debate and inquiry, a final IMS method was decided on, and in 1999, the UK Fire Service released the Incident Command manual. Since then, there have been revisions, updating, and additions in 2002 and 2008 (Arbuthnot, 2015).
In the United Kingdom, the Metropolitan Police Service determined that an IMS method was needed after a police constable was killed in the Broadwater Farm riot that occurred in October of 1985. This event caused the Metropolitan Police to realize that a rank‐based command system was not appropriate for rapidly changing events. This was (primarily) based on the premise that there was no specific individual definitively managing operations during the response to the riot, thereby causing chaos, confusion, and uncertainty (Future Learn, n.d.).
After reviewing this riot (and other incidents), it was determined that three essential roles were important in managing an incident. To mitigate problems with incident management, a few members from the Metropolitan Police created and implemented a new IMS framework called Gold–Silver–Bronze. This framework was also found to be useful in preplanned operations. Soon after its inception, it began to be utilized or integrated by other emergency services/public safety agencies (Future Learn, n.d.).
In this system, the Gold Commander is in complete control of organizational resources for an incident. The Gold Commander will be located somewhere other than the actual incident (usually in a control room) and will be in contact with their resources so they can receive regular updates. The specified control room is known as Gold Command, and this is where they will formulate the strategy. This remote command post was devised so that the person creating strategy has less of a chance of getting tunnel vision caused by being physically at an incident. Multiple Gold Commanders from different organizations (fire, police, EMS) will work together on a multiagency response in Gold Command and, if by chance they are not in the same geographical location, they will remain in continuous contact with each other by videoconference or telephone. This is not to insinuate that they will usually be in the same room, but rather they will typically be in the same geographical location, usually within walking distance of each other. Designated Gold Commanders from different agencies will periodically meet so that they can deliberate and articulate policies and improve working practices between their organizations. In these meetings, they will often preplan coordination for various types of incidents (Future Learn, n.d.).
The Silver Commander is responsible for managing tactics, and they are at, or near, the incident. It should be noted that the Silver Commander is not physically involved in dealing with the incident; they are strictly used for tactical planning. On larger incidents, they will typically be in a command vehicle or at an improvised command center with their counterparts from other disciplines. This command center will be identified as the Joint Emergency Services Control Centre (JESCC). After being given strategic direction by the Gold Commander, they will begin to formulate the tactics needed to meet the overall strategy for an incident. The tactical actions they develop will keep in mind the overarching strategy's that should be met, and plan accordingly. Once they develop these tactical plans, they then provide tactical direction to the Bronze Commander, or in cases where multiple commanders are used, the appropriate Bronze Commander (Future Learn, n.d.).
A Bronze Commander is in direct command of resources at the incident, and they ensure
