Emergency Response Guidelines and Regulations

Variation in Standards Content

The content of standards varies substantially in the fields of disaster risk reduction and response. Some, like the United Kingdom's Standards for Civil Protection in England and Wales of 1999, are very general and couched more as a set of recommendations than a list of regulations. Others, like the U.S. National Fire Protection Association's NFPA-1600 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs (2000–7), are highly detailed specifications that result from many hours of committee work. Standards have also been issued for risk management, humanitarian aid, emergency training, medical response, and communications technology. However, there is no universal standard for emergency response; it may be too large and varied to be subjected to such an instrument.

The Minimum Standards for a Local Plan of Civil Protection, produced in 2007 by the European interregional project called Interregional Response to Natural and Man-made Catastrophes, or more simply, SIPROCI, exemplify some of the difficulties encountered with standards. In endeavoring to be applicable to the widest possible range of circumstances and users, the document becomes somewhat vague and general in its treatment of the problem. A balance must be struck between breadth of applicability and the amount of specific detail a standard can include. For example, a training standard may list all the topics that students of emergency response should be expected to learn, but it must recognize that there are many different circumstances in which they operate and thus many variations in their training needs.

Despite the variable nature of standards, there is a general feeling that they are good ideas and worth adhering to. However, less taxing alternatives exist, such as guidelines, benchmarks, and best-practice summaries. These merely indicate appropriate responses, or provide guidance on background issues. They are preferred in cases where standards are feared to inhibit rather than facilitate creativity, flexibility, and appropriateness of response. Nevertheless, due to the vagaries of culture, politics, and other circumstances, what is best practice in one area may not be so in another.

...