Suchergebnisse

This report provides a summary of the topics discussed and the results of the third CARISMAND Stakeholder Assembly conducted in Lisbon, Portugal on 27-28 February 2018. In order to promote cross-sectional knowledge transfer and gather a variety of attitudes and perceptions, as in the first and second CARISMAND Stakeholder Assemblies held in Romania and Italy in the previous years, the audience consisted of a wide range of practitioners who are typically involved in disaster management, e.g., civil protection, the emergency services, paramedics, nurses, environmental protection, Red Cross, firefighters, military, and the police. Further, these practitioners were from several regions in Portugal, including the island of Madeira. The 40 participants were recruited via invitations sent to various Portuguese organisations and institutions, and via direct contacts of the Civil Protection Department in Lisbon which is one of the partners in the CARISMAND consortium. The event consisted of a mix of presentations and discussion groups to combine dissemination with information gathering (for the detailed schedule/programme see Appendix 1). Furthermore, this third Stakeholder Assembly was organised and specifically designed to discuss and collect feedback on a comprehensive set of recommendations for disaster practitioners, which will form one of the core elements of the CARISMAND Work Package 9 'Toolkit'. These recommendations, which have all been formulated on the basis of Work Packages 2-10 results, were structured in four, main "sets": 1. Approaches to ethnicity in disaster management; 2. Culturally aware disaster-related training activities; 3. Cultural factors in disaster communication, with the sub-sets: a. Cultural values and emotions; (cross-)cultural symbols; "physical" aides and methods; b. Involvement of cultural leaders; involvement of specific groups; usage of social media and mobile phone apps; and 4. Improving trust, improving disaster management. In an initial general assembly, the event started with presentations of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts, including the concept of culture adopted by CARISMAND, and the planned CARISMAND Toolkit architecture and functionalities. These were followed by a detailed presentation of the first of the above mentioned sets of recommendations for practitioners. Then, participants of the Stakeholder Assembly were split into small groups in separate breakout rooms, where they discussed and provided feedback to the presented recommendations. Over the course of the 2-day event, this procedure was followed for all four sets of recommendations. To follow the cyclical design of CARISMAND events, and wherever meaningful and possible, the respective Toolkit recommendations for practitioners provided also the basis for a respective "shadow" recommendation for citizens which will be discussed accordingly in the last round of CARISMAND Citizen Summits (Citizen Summit 5 in Lisbon, and Citizen Summit 6 in Utrecht) in 2018. The location of the Third Stakeholder Assembly was selected to make use of the extensive local professional network of the Civil Protection Department in Lisbon, but also due to Portugal being a traditional "melting pot" where, over more than a millennium, people from different cultural backgrounds and local/ethnical origins (in particular Africa, South America, and Europe) have lived both alongside and together. All documents related to the Working Groups, i.e. discussion guidelines and consent forms, were translated into Portuguese. Accordingly, all presentations, as well as the group discussions were held in Portuguese, aiming to avoid any language/education-related access restrictions, and allowing participating practitioners to respond intuitively and discuss freely in their native language. For this purpose, simultaneous interpreters and professional local moderators were contracted via a local market research agency (EquaçãoLógica), which also provided the basic data analysis of all Working Group discussions and an independent qualitative evaluation of all recommendations presented in the event. The results of this analysis and evaluation will demonstrate that most recommendations were seen by the participating practitioners to be relevant and useful. In particular, those recommendations related to the use of cultural symbols and the potential of mobile phone apps and/or social media were perceived as stimulating and thought-provoking. Some recommendations were felt to be less relevant in the specific Portuguese context, but accepted as useful in other locations; a very small number was perceived to be better addressed to policy makers rather than practitioners. These and all other suggestions for improvement of the presented CARISMAND Toolkit recommendations for practitioners have been taken up and will be outlined in the final chapter of this report. ; The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020). ; peer-reviewed

Experience gained from NATO operations shows that the basis for an effective solution to a crisis is a combination of a comprehensive political, civilian and military approach. The cooperation of all stakeholders is thus a basic prerequisite for the effective resolution of crisis situations. These aspects and stakeholders include emergency management. This paper deals with civil-military cooperation in times of emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic. It qualitatively evaluates the findings resulting from the questionnaire survey focused on the state of crisis preparedness of the Army of the Czech Republic and the functionality of emergency management in cooperation with rescue work with other teams of the rescue system. The questionnaire was carried out at military units in all regions of the Czech Republic; organizational units of the Ministry of Defence with nationwide competence, which were directly involved in securing measures related to the declaration of a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March-May, 2020; Operations Command, which currently manages operations in the Czech Republic designed to manage the consequences of a pandemic; and members of the Ministry of Defence participating in the activities of the Strategic Command and Control Group. A total of 21 stakeholders took part. The experience in managing the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that armed forces around the world have an irreplaceable position in dealing with nonmilitary crises. The conclusions and recommendations obtained from the research survey are the content of this paper.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Chapter 1 -- Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)* -- Abstract -- Introduction -- Purpose of the NFIP -- Reduction of Comprehensive Flood Risk -- Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) -- Flood Zones -- Updating Flood Maps -- Map Corrections -- State and Local Land Use Controls -- Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants -- Primary Flood Insurance through the NFIP -- Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIPs) -- Mandatory Mortgage Purchase Requirement -- Preferred Risk Policies (PRPs) -- Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) Coverage -- Servicing of Policies and Claims Management -- Pricing and Premium Rate Structure -- Pre-FIRM Subsidy -- Newly Mapped Subsidy -- Grandfathering Cross-Subsidy -- Community Rating System -- Affordability Study and Framework -- Nonparticipating Communities and Community Suspension -- Funding -- Premium Fees and Surcharges -- Appropriations and Offsetting Receipts -- Borrowing from the U.S. Treasury, NFIP Debt -- NFIP Purchase of Reinsurance -- Expiration of Certain NFIP Authorities -- Chapter 2 -- Federal Disaster Assistance: The National Flood Insurance Program and Other Federal Disaster Assistance Programs Available to Individuals and Households after a Flood* -- Abstract -- Introduction -- Federal Assistance Available to Individuals and Families -- The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) -- Availability of Flood Insurance through the NFIP -- The Coastal Barrier Resources System and Flood Insurance -- Primary Flood Insurance through the NFIP -- Preferred Risk Policies -- Standard Flood Insurance Policies -- NFIP Coverage Limits: Single Family Dwellings -- NFIP Coverage Limits: Other Residential Buildings and Condominiums -- NFIP Claims -- Advance Payments from the NFIP

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze scholarly discussions and findings regarding collaborative emergency management (CEM). Several aspects such as leadership, decision making, intergovernmental and interorganizational relations, technology applications in CEM have been investigated.Design/methodology/approachLiterature review was conducted using three popular search data bases, Academic Search Premier, Academic OneFile, and Info Track OneFile using the following keywords: CEM, collaborative and emergency and management, collaborative networks, emergency networks, emergency network, interorganizational networks, Interorganizational and networks, intergovernmental and networks, and National Emergency Management Network (NEMN).FindingsThe paper emphasizes that high expectations of public and stakeholders in emergency and disaster management require effective use of resources by collaborative networks.Practical implicationsEmergency and disaster managers should be able to adopt their organization culture, structure and processes to the collaborative nature of emergency management.Originality/valueThe paper focuses on a very important subject in emergency and disaster management using NEMN as example.

Intro -- FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS -- FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION -- SUMMARY -- INTRODUCTION -- KEY CONCEPTS AND APPROACHES IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT -- All-Hazards Model -- NIMS and ICS -- Phases of Emergency Management -- Mitigation -- Preparedness -- Response -- Recovery -- The Framework Approach -- National Prevention Framework -- National Protection Framework -- National Mitigation Framework -- National Response Framework -- National Disaster Recovery Framework -- FEDERAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH STAFFORD DECLARATIONS -- Major Disaster Declarations -- Assistance Provided Under Major Disaster Declarations -- Emergency Declarations -- Assistance Provided under Emergency Declarations -- Fire Management Assistance Grant Declarations -- Assistance Provided under Fire Management Assistance Grants -- COST-SHARES -- DISASTER RELIEF FUND -- CLOSEOUT -- Other Types of Federal Declarations -- FEDERAL TO FEDERAL SUPPORT -- Stafford Act Incidents and Mission Assignments -- Non-Stafford Act Incidents -- OTHER KEY FEDERAL LAWS AND POLICIES -- Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 -- Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act -- Homeland Security Presidential Directives -- Homeland Security Act -- National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan -- KEY FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERRESPONSE AND RECOVERY -- National Guard -- Department of Agriculture -- Department of Defense -- Immediate Response -- Requests for Assistance -- Army Corps of Engineers -- Department of Health and Human Services -- Department of Housing of Housing and Urban Development -- Community Development Block Grants -- Department of Transportation -- Federal Highway Administration -- Environmental Protection Agency -- Forest Service

This report provides a synthesis of the results of three CARISMAND Stakeholder Assemblies held in A) Bucharest,Romania on April 14-15, 2016; B) Rome,Italy on February 27-28, 2017; and C) Lisbon,Portugal on February 27-28, 2018. These Stakeholder Assemblies, together with six Citizen Summits (see Deliverables D5.3 – D5.9) were part of the CARISMAND cycle of events (see Figure 1 below). This cycle of events was the key concept at the core of the CARISMAND project which aimed to ensure a comprehensive feedback loop betweendisaster practitioners and citizens. It also allowed for the progression of ideas co-created by disaster practitioners and citizens. The locations of the three Stakeholder Assemblies were chosen due to their rather different "backgrounds". The three countries had been struck at the time of the respective event by different types of disasters. In addition, the three countries have very different "cultures", or cultural impacts, at a societal level. Romania has a comparatively strong authoritative systems due to its political history; Italy has experienced a strong direct in-flow of migrants in the last years due to its geological location; and Portugal has long been a traditional "melting pot" where, over more than a millennium, people from different cultural backgrounds and ethnic origins (in particular North Africa, South America, and Europe) have lived together. Accordingly, these differences were expected to allow a wide range of practitioners' attitudes and perceptions related to cultural factors in disaster management to emerge. In order to not only gather a variety of attitudes and perceptions but also promote cross-sectional knowledge transfer, the audience in all three events consisted of a wide range of practitioners who are typically involved in disaster management, e.g., civil protection agencies , the emergency services, paramedics, nurses, environmental protection agencies, the Red Cross, firefighters, the military, and the police. Further, these practitioners were from several regions in the respective country; in Portugal, the Stakeholder Assembly also included practitioners from the island of Madeira. The 40-60 participants per event were recruited via invitations sent to various organisations and institutions that play a role in disaster management, and via direct contacts of local partners in the CARISMAND consortium. Each assembly consisted of a mix of presentations and discussion groups to combine dissemination with information gathering (for detailed schedules see Appendices A1-A3). In an initial general assembly, the event started with presentations of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts. Then, participants were split into small working groups in separate breakout rooms, where they discussed and provided feedback on a specific topic. After each working group session, panel discussions allowed the participants to present the results of their working group to the rest of the audience. After each panel discussion, keynote speakers gave presentations related to the topic that had been discussed during the working groups. This schedule was designed to ensure that participants are provided with detailed information about recent developments in disaster management, but without influencing the attitudes and perceptions expressed in the working groups. In the third Stakeholder Assembly, different sets of recommendations for practitioners (related to the use of cultural factors in disaster management) were presented to the general audience, followed by small discussion group sessions as described above. ; The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014–2020). ; peer-reviewed

Made available by the Northern Territory Library via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT). ; This plan is predominantly a pre-hospital response plan for major emergencies or disasters, mass casualty emergencies or major disease outbreaks, providing information to enable effective and coordinated medical, public health and welfare response. Policy and guidelines included will assist public health, medical and welfare personnel in response and recovery operations, in conjunction with other emergency management/counter disaster plans that may be operating. - Introduction ; Introduction -- Operations -- Business continuity planning -- Logistics -- Plan Administration -- Appendix 1-2.