Emergency Response and Preparedness - Essay Example

Emergency Response and Preparedness Name: Student Number: Course Code: Word Count: Date of Submission: Introduction Emergencies arise repeatedly at different scales of levels that determine the seriousness or amount of hazard that it presents to humans. Nevertheless, the key component of an emergency planning mission is to ensure that enough defensive and protective measures are in place to protect the health and safety of the public. Governmental departments responsible to ensure the safety of citizens are with the responsibility of ensuring that these measures are executed properly with the availability of adequate resources. In the United Kingdom, there is flawed status of the government departments to undertake contingency planning. Some observations and researches argue that this is due to the fact that in the UK there are two categories of emergency responders. Confidence in the government’s department responsible for the protection of public health can only be achieved through results that the public sees. The government gains this by timely inspection of requirements in emergency preparedness and necessary evaluation of policy implementations. Basic knowledge of governance dictates that the most important role of the government, both nationally and locally, is to protect the people from harm. Protecting them from harm does not only mean responding to hazardous emergencies but also to help the people themselves prepare for and respond to such emergencies. This preparation involves making response resources and programs accessible to all including those with disabilities, as an essential part of this responsibility that the government is charged with. This essay paper seeks to discuss emergency preparedness and response in relation to its state in the United Kingdom, with respect to the categorization of emergency responders. In a general context, emergency preparedness and response basically defines the ability of a government system, department, communities and the people to prevent, guard and swiftly respond to health emergencies as well as respond to them. According to Perry and Lindell (2003), a flawed emergency response results from poor planning. This points out that between preparedness and response is planning which most organizations have somehow disregarded or taken for granted and this is identified in the U.K case. It is effective planning for emergency preparedness that equips the emergency personnel adequately to execute timely response, identification, evaluation and reaction to a wide range of emergencies. Relatively, emergency management system in the United Kingdom has undergone significant improvements and changes with the most important goal being a reduction of human casualties. Historical information has demonstrated that the experienced increase in incidences of threats and other disasters that may be natural, biological, social, technological, chemical or environmental, affecting the UK result from flawed planning in emergency preparedness (Sahin, Kapucu, & Unlu 2008). The effects and casualties that the people in this region have suffered raise the question about the readiness of the United Kingdom to effectively deal with large disasters and mass casualties. Emergency Management and Categorization in the United Kingdom The UK government defines emergency as a series of events that compromise the well being of humans and the environment. This happens with the health hazards and threats that these events pose to human beings, the environment and even properties. To effectively evaluate the state of emergency preparedness in the UK, it is necessary to consider the contingency planning bit and the effect of categorizing emergency responders. This part involves a coordination of continuous processes that rely on monitoring performance and taking counteractive actions. The UK government categorizes local responders on the first level and the most basic unit to respond to any eventualities in that kingdom. This implies that major incidents are routinely attended to by local emergency authorities, without or with little involvement of the central government departments. According to Civil Contingencies Act of 2004, (Cabinet Office 2009), the list of local responders includes: Emergency services Police forces British Transport Police Fire authorities Ambulance services Maritime and Coastguard Agency Port Health Authorities Health bodies Primary Care Trusts Acute Trusts Foundation Trusts Local Health Boards Any Welsh NHS Trust which provides public health services Health Protection Agency The only government department in the level one category is the Environmental Agency. Planning for emergencies has become critically vital all over the world including the United Kingdom. This is owed to the dynamically changing and unpredictable patterns of weather and rise in hazardous global issues and risks (Babou 2008). However, at the end of the day, responsibility in emergency preparedness and response really lies with the public people in collaboration with the government. The government actually only plays the major role of providing response resources and availing it to everyone. Since emergencies also touch on the environment, discussion on environmental issues is a vital element of the society since the subject is a common factor whose interest is shared amongst all. This is because environmental issues affect all, from individuals to organizations, industries and the nations (McQueen 2006). Category two emergency responses relate more to the environment emergencies. Evidently, degradation or compromise of the natural environment has more direct and serious effects on human health. The American Bureau of Statistics (2003) points out that reduction of waste production can be achieved by implementing policies for waste minimization like reducing resource consumption, advocating for reuse and renewal of materials and recycling resources where possible. This consequently reduces the risk of suffering hazardous happenings. The Cabinet Office (2009) lists category two responders as: Utilities Electricity distributors and transmitters Gas distributors Water and sewage undertakers Telephone service providers (fixed and mobile) Transport Network Rail Train Operating Companies (passenger and freight) London Underground Transport for London Airport operators Harbour authorities Highways Agency Health bodies Strategic Health authorities Government agencies Health and Safety Executive To enhance a detail on the level of government involvement in emergency responses, this research includes a graphical representation of how much the central government departments get engaged, depending on the level of the emergency. It shows that the government is not much involved at the basic levels of emergencies and this makes local departments as the cornerstone and most reliable agencies for recovery form eventualities. Figure 1: Level of Central Government Engagement Source: Cabinet Office 2005. Demerits The flawed nature of emergency response in the UK can be blamed, not on categorization of emergency responders but on lack of much involvement of the central government. To improve on this, the subject government department should take a more central role in response and recovery responsibility to consider factors that have the greatest impact on disabled people and such factors include notification, evacuation, access to medication, emergency transportation, sheltering, access to mobile devices and services as well as access to information (Burningham, Fielding & Thrush 2008). The UK government’s little involvement and category 2 position compromise accurate and shared understanding of the risks given that it is the government with the resources. Consequently, there is poor planning with a flawed foundation which at times is out of proportion with the risks and emergencies. In addition, there is a probable absence of rational basis for prioritization of objectives, work and allocation of resources. At Category 1, the central government can assess adequacy of plans and the country’s capabilities, highlighting of existing measures and their appropriateness. The effectiveness of this is flawed given that the local authorities are at category 1 and are the basic unit of response. Being at category 2, the central government is without the ability to facilitate joined-up local planning that is based on consistent planning assumptions. This contributes to a flawed emergency preparedness in the UK all the other local agencies mostly function independently. It also leads to a flawed or poor provision of an accessible overview of the emergency planning for the public and concerned officials. With local responders at category 1 instead of the central government, there is poor information and reflection of regional and national risk assessment. Consequently, emergency planning and support of capability development is flawed. It is the central government’s responsibility to sensitize the locals that emergencies are not one agency’s responsibility but requires the collective effort of a large number of agencies. It also establishes a national framework to manage local multi-agency response and recovery from emergencies. By taking a more central role, the UK’s government must ensure that the local agencies understand their roles and responsibilities in response and recovery actions, otherwise the systems remains flawed. To this extent, it is appreciable that categorization makes the work easier but the central government should a category 1 responder. Figure 2 shows a multi-agency management system whereby the different agencies participating in emergency response and recovery work in collaboration with collective effort and a common goal. Figure 2: Interagency command - National Crisis Management and Coordination Source: Arbuthnot 2005. COBR/COBRA – Cabinet Office Briefing Room CSS – Civil Contingencies Secretariat SCC – Strategic Coordination Centre SCG – Strategic Coordination Group PNICC – Police National Information and Coordination Center JIG – Joint Intelligence Group JHAC – Joint Health Advisory Cell MoD – Ministry of Defense RCCC – Regional Civil Contingencies Committee Reasons for Central government as a Category 2 Emergency Responder The United Kingdom government basically consists of 19 central government departments and other agencies that are with different levels of independence. Most probably the central government is classified as category 2 responders to allow more independence of the agencies in their functionality. The essentiality for the UK government is to implement a flexible, quick, fast and efficient emergency response mechanism. This ensures that the most appropriate lead government department is appointed. Appointment of these departments is a decision made by the Cabinet Office. Such a categorization of the central government departments is guided by the principle that arrangements of emergency response and recovery should remain flexible modification to reflect current circumstances. The principles are applied to guide emergency response from local to national levels. The government considers that the factors that constitute an appropriate response range from local to national levels. Emergency nature, potential impacts, complexity and duration of the emergency and geographical extents are some of the determining factors. The United Kingdom is a unitary state region with Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland as the only four countries in it. It is an island country with water bodies such as the Irish Sea, Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel and the North Sea surrounding it. The United Kingdom connects to France by the Channel Tunnel through its largest island. It has an approximated land area of is 244,820 square kilometers. With a temperate climate, it receives plentiful rainfall though its eastern regions are relatively drier. The much know Atlantic currents, are warmed by the Gulf Stream and bring mild and wet winters to the island (Cabinet Office 2009). Functions of Government in Emergency Response and Recovery The government has made an appreciable effort of identifying these dangerous flood zones but still there is inefficiency within the local governments in terms of their capacities. This makes it rather difficult for the people and the region as a whole to cope with the impacts and consequences of natural disasters or emergencies. (Brooks 2003). More than five million people and two million properties are considered to be located in a flood risk zone. Deprived population and lower social classes are the ones who reside in these areas that are considered to be less aware of flood risk. The lack of public education about the threat of flooding risk and reluctance of accepting it makes the lower social population, economically and socially, two or three times more vulnerable than the higher class population (Burningham, Fielding, & Thrush 2008). The central government has the responsibility of exercising leadership that relates to emergency management. This leadership is executed by coordinatin management activities among the governmetn institutions and agencies, to cooperate with the locals. The government also establishes policies, programs and counteractive measures, with respect to preparation, implementation and maintenance of these emeergency management plans. The central government also plays to the role of providing advice to the independent agencies, apart from providing nationally required resources for the responders and to the victims of disasters. In the occurrence of a level 2 emergency category, the government functions to initiate a response framework that activates national emergency management facilities (Cabinet Office 2009). Such facilities include the Cabinet Office Breifing Rooms (COBR) which facilitates fast coordination and effective decision-making. The exposure of a region to health hazards can be determined by a number of factors. Even though it may be almost impossible to state how the emergency response and preparedness of a country like the UK is flawed, looking at its susceptibility and response policies give a clearer picture on the subject. UK is an island region that experiences the effects of the global climatic change and this makes it a target point for hazardous storms, winds and other severe weather conditions which have destructive impacts on plants and crop production generally (Brooks, 2003). For historical purposes, reference is made to Parker and Handmer (1992) who document a number of significant disaster cases experienced in the United Kingdom. Conclusion Emergency planning and preparedness have become critically important and have formed the part of the priority list for governments like that to the United Kingdom. Such regions a quite succeptible to natural disasters and hazards as compared to other areas like countries in africa. The discussion above achieves it objective of dicussing the subject matter as it is in the United Kingdom. By a discussion entailing information about emergency preparedness, planning and response, the historical disaster the country has experienced and its resultant vulnerability, the essay is able to bring out the real state of this department. The government has takens steps and designed policies but froms facts and reports, the results of these hazards have not been much different. Therefore, the responsible governmental departments should do much more in ensuring the safety of its citizens and its properties. References American Bureau of Statistics. 2003. Year Book Australia. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2013]. Association of British Insurers. 2003. The Vulnerability of UK Property to Windstorm Damage. London: Association of British Insurers. Arbuthnot, K. 2005. Multi-Agency Incident Command in the UK: International Workshop on Emergency Response and Rescue. Republic of China: Taipei. Babou, K. 2008. Why do we need to categorize risks? [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2013]. Brooks, N. 2003. Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A conceptual framework. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2013]. Burningham, K. Fielding, J. and Thrush, D. 2008. ‘It’ll never happen to me:’ understanding public awareness of local flood risk. Disasters, 32(2). p. 216-238. Cabinet Office. (2005, March 31). Central Government Arrangements for Responding to an Emergency. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2013]. Cabinet Office. 2009. Management and Co-ordination of Local Operations. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from Cabinet Office. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2013]. Cabinet Office. 2009. UK Government. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2013]. Coninx, I. and Bacus, K. 2007. Integrating social vulnerability to floods in a climate change context. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from Higher Institute of Labor Studies. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2013]. McQueen, K. M. 2006. Construction in a fragile world: Environmental issues’ review and checklist. Little Rock: Perkins & Trotter, PLLC. Parker, D. and Hadmer, J. 1992. Hazard Management and Emergency Planning: Perspectives on Britain. U.K: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Perry, R. W. and Lindell, M. K. 2003. Preparedness for Emergency Response: Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process. Disasters, 27(1). Risk Management Solutions. 2000. U.K. Floods, November, 2000: Preliminary Report of U.K. Flood Damage From Increased Rainfall in November 2000. London: Risk Management Solutions Inc. Sahin, B. Kapucu, N. and Unlu, A. 2008. Perspectives on Crisis Management in European Union Countries: United Kingdom, Spain and Germany. European Journal of Economic and Political Studies, 1(1). Read More