Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PreparedbyKirstenNakjavaniBookmiller,PhDPROFESSOR,DEPARTMENTOFGOVERNMENTANDPOLITICALAFFAIRSDIRECTOR,GLOBALPARTNERSHIPSINITIATIVE,CENTERFORDISASTERRESEARCHANDEDUCATIONMILLERSVILLEUNIVERSITYOFPENNSYLVANIAKIRSTEN.BOOKMILLER@MILLERSVILLE.EDU
NorthAmericanHumanitarianResponseSummitProject
MultinationalLegalandPolicyPreparednessScan
COMMISSIONEDBYTHEAMERICANREDCROSSSUBMITTEDAUGUST14,2017
i|P a g e
Author’sBiography
Dr.KirstenNakjavaniBookmillerisaProfessorofGovernmentandPoliticalAffairsandDirectoroftheGlobalPartnershipsInitiativeattheCenterforDisasterResearchandEducationatMillersvilleUniversity,UnitedStates.Specializingininternationaldisasterrelieflawandpolicy,Dr.Bookmiller’sresearchagendafocusesuponpolicyandoperationalaspectsofinternationaldisasterlawimplementation.RecentpublicationsappearintheResearchHandbookonDisastersandInternationalLaw,TheInternationalLawofDisasterRelief,VanderbiltJournalofTransnationalLawandInternationalJournalofEmergencyManagement.Sheco-foundedtheAmericanSocietyofInternationalLaw’sDisasterLawInterestGroupandcurrentlyservesasapolicyadvisortotheNorthAmericanHumanitarianResponseSummitinitiativeorganizedbytheAmericanRedCross.
Acknowledgements
IwishtothankDr.RobertJ.Bookmillerforhisresearch,analyticalanddraftingcontributionsrelatedtoCanadianandCanadian-USemergencymanagementframeworksandNorthAmericanborderpoliciesaswellasMr.AndrewWeitzelforhisresearchandtranslationassistancefortheMexicocasestudy.IwouldalsoliketoexpressmydeepestappreciationtoMs.IsabelleGranger,LegislativeAdvocacyCoordinator,InternationalFederationofRedCrossandRedCrescentSocieties,forhervitalassistanceinsecuringprimarydocumentsandprovidingvaluableprofessionalfeedbackrelatedtokeyaspectsofthisstudy.Lastly,IwanttoacknowledgethemanyNorthAmericanNationalSocietiesandgovernmentalstakeholderswhogenerouslysharedtheirtimeandinvaluableinsightsrelatedtotheNorthAmericanHumanitarianResponseSummitinitiative.
ii|P a g e
Acronyms
CBP CustomsandBorderPatrol(UnitedStates)
CBSA CanadianBorderServicesAgency
CIFFC CanadianInteragencyForestFireCentre
CNE ComitéNacionaldeEmergenciasorNationalEmergenciesCommittee (Mexico)
DHS DepartmentofHomelandSecurity(UnitedStates)
DOS DepartmentofState(UnitedStates)
DRR DisasterRiskReduction
EIHP EnhancingInternationalHumanitarianPartnership
eTA ElectronicAuthorizationProgram(Canada)
FEMA FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(UnitedStates)
FERP FederalEmergencyResponsePlan(Canada)
GAC GlobalAffairsCanada
GOC GovernmentOperationsCentre(Canada)
IASCONOPS InternationalAssistanceSystemConceptofOperations(UnitedStates)
ICRC InternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross
IDRLGuidelines GuidelinesfortheDomesticFacilitationandRegulationofInternational DisasterReliefandInitialRecoveryAssistanceor“theGuidelines”
IFRC InternationalFederationofRedCrossandRedCrescentSocietiesor“the Federation”
INAC IndigenousandNorthernAffairsCanada
INSARAG InternationalSearchandRescueAdvisoryGroup
L3 UnitedNationsLevel3Emergencies
MOU MemorandumofUnderstanding
NAFTA NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement
NAHRS NorthAmericanHumanitarianResponseSummit
NICC NationalInteragencyCoordinationCenter
iii|P a g e
NORAD NorthAmericanAerospaceDefenseCommand
NRP NationalResponsePlan(UnitedStates)
OECD OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment
PNWBHA PacificNorthwestBorderHealthAlliance
PSC PublicSafetyCanada
RCMP RoyalCanadianMountedPolice
SINAPROC SistemaNacionaldeProtecciónCivilorNationalCivilProtectionSystem (Mexico)
SEGOB SecretaríadeGobernaciónortheInteriorMinistry(Mexico)
SRE SecretaríadeRelacionesExterioresortheForeignMinistry(Mexico)
UNDAC UNDisasterAssessmentandCoordination
US UnitedStates
USNORTHCOM UnitedStatesNorthernCommand
iv|P a g e
TableofContents1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Objectives.....................................................................................................................................1
1.2 KeyFindings..................................................................................................................................2
2 Methodology........................................................................................................................................3
3 ReferencePointsforScanandAnalysis................................................................................................4
3.1 NatureofEvent............................................................................................................................4
3.2 NatureofCross-BorderDisasterResponseFollowingCatastrophicEvents.................................5
3.3 LegalandPolicyOrientedDisasterPreparedness........................................................................5
3.4 TheIDRLGuidelinesasLegalPreparednessBenchmarkingTool.................................................6
3.5 ANoteAboutDocumentReadinessasPartofLegalPreparedness.............................................8
4 NationalGovernmentLegalandPolicyFrameworksforDomesticFacilitationofCross-BorderDisasterAssistance.......................................................................................................................................8
4.1 Canada..........................................................................................................................................8
4.1.1 NationalLegalandPolicyContext........................................................................................8
4.1.2 ApplicableNationalLegal,PolicyandRegulatoryFrameworks..........................................10
4.1.3 NAHRSDialoguePoints......................................................................................................13
4.2 Mexico........................................................................................................................................14
4.2.1 NationalLegalandPolicyContext......................................................................................14
4.2.2 ApplicableNationalLegal,PolicyandRegulatoryFrameworks..........................................16
4.2.3 NAHRSDialoguePoints......................................................................................................19
4.3 UnitedStates..............................................................................................................................20
4.3.1 NationalLegalandPolicyContext......................................................................................20
4.3.2 ApplicableNationalLegal,PolicyandRegulatoryFrameworks..........................................21
4.3.3 NAHRSDialoguePoints......................................................................................................24
5 APolicyNoteAboutIndigenousPeoplesinNorthAmericanBorderlands........................................24
6 IntergovernmentalAgreementsandArrangements..........................................................................25
6.1 CanadaandtheUS.....................................................................................................................25
6.1.1 BilateralContext.................................................................................................................25
6.1.2 IntergovernmentalAgreementsandUnderstandings(NationalLevel)..............................26
6.1.3 IntergovernmentalAgreementsandUnderstandings(Provincial-Statelevel)...................28
6.2 MexicoandUS............................................................................................................................29
6.2.1 BilateralContext.................................................................................................................29
v|P a g e
6.2.2 IntergovernmentalAgreementsandUnderstandings(NationalLevel)..............................30
6.3 TrilateralArrangementsBetweenCanada,MexicoandUS.......................................................32
7 NorthAmericanRedCrossSocietiesCooperationandCross-BorderDisasterResponse..................32
7.1 ContextforCooperation.............................................................................................................32
7.2 FrameworksforNorthAmericanRedCrossSocietyCooperation..............................................35
7.2.1 MemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenTheAmericanRedCross,TheMexicanRedCross,TheCanadianRedCross(yeartobeconfirmed).....................................................................35
7.2.2 2009MutualAidAgreementbetweenAmericanRedCross,SanDiego/ImperialCountiesChapterandLaCruzRoja,BajaCaliforniaDelegacion........................................................................36
7.3 NAHRSDialoguePoints..............................................................................................................37
8 ConcludingComments.......................................................................................................................37
9 References..........................................................................................................................................38
1 Introduction1.1 ObjectivesThismultinationallegalandpolicyscanandanalysisissubmittedaspartoftheNorthAmericanHumanitarianResponseSummit(NAHRS)initiative.CommissionedbytheAmericanRedCross,thestudy’sobjectivesstemfromthefollowingtwoNAHRSinitiativeelements:
TheAmericanRedCrossTermsofReferenceforNAHRSProject
Themultinationalpolicyscanwillcovertheanalysisofexistingagreements,partnershipsandkeystakeholdersamongthethreecountriesandrelevantoperationalpoliciesandproceduresofthethreeRedCrossNationalSocietiesandtheirrespectivegovernments.(GlobalEmergencyGroup,May17,2017,p.17)
TheNAHRSProjectPurpose
ThepurposeoftheNAHRSprojectistoengagetheAmericanRedCross,MexicanRedCrossandCanadianRedCrossandtheirrespectivegovernmentsineffortstoincreaseefficienciesandbetteralignoperationalproceduresincross-borderdisasterresponse,aswellasimproverelevantpolicyanddiplomaticrelations.(GlobalEmergencyGroup,May17,2017,p.3)
Thisscanwillaccordinglyincorporatethefollowingperspectives,throughthelensoflegalandpolicypreparedness,principallyastheyrelatetonationalfacilitationofefficientandeffectivemutualassistanceamongtheAmerican,MexicanandCanadianRedCrossNationalSocietiesafteracatastrophicevent:
1. Thepolitical,legalanddiplomaticoperatingenvironmentwithinandacrossthethreecountrieswhichinformsthedevelopmentofNorthAmericancross-borderdisasterresponselawandpolicytodate;
2. Alegalandpolicypreparednessmappingandanalysis,highlightingthecurrentstateofreadinessinkeyareasasidentifiedbythestakeholdersthemselvesaswellasthroughexternalevaluation.Assuch,thisscanwillnotserveasacomprehensivesurveyofalllaws(nationalandsubnational),policiesandregulationsineffectwithinandacrossthesixparties.Insteaditdrawsattentiontocurrentareasofstrengthandvulnerabilityinthissphereonanoperationallevel;and
3. OpportunitiesforfurthergrowthinthelegalandpolicypreparednessdomainamongsttheNationalRedCrossSocietiesandgovernmentsofNorthAmerica.
Aspecialnote:Giventhisinitialstudy’sacceleratedtimeframe,theinherentchallengesassociatedwithamulti-partysurveyinwhichrelevantmaterialmaynotbepubliclyaccessibleand/oravailableonlyinSpanish(requiringtranslation)andthelimitedinterviewavailabilityofkeystakeholders,thisscanisa“livingdocument”thatwillcontinuetoberevisedandupdatedasappropriatethroughoutthedurationoftheNAHRSproject.
2|P a g e
1.2 KeyFindingsLegal,policyandregulatorypointsofinterfacecoveringcross-borderdisasterreliefamongthesixstakeholdersareextensive,multi-facetedandcomplexdueto
1. themulti-sectorandmulti-dimensionalnatureofincomingassistance,correspondinglytriggeringextensiveregulatorymechanismshorizontallyacrossnumerousnational-levelgovernmentalagenciesineachcountry.
2. thethreecountries’federalgovernmentalsystems(aswellasindigenouscommunitymodesofsovereignty)verticallyallocatingdomesticregulationofincomingdisasterrelieftobothnationalandsubnationallevels.
3. thethreecountries’contrastingperceptionsoftheroleoftheinternationaldisasterresponsesystemasaidprovider,potentiallyresultinginproblematicresponsecoordinationamongthem.
4. thethreenationalgovernments’respectivediplomaticagendasandconcerns,leadingtoanevershiftinglegal,politicalandpolicycontextwithinwhichNorthAmericancross-borderdisasterresponseoccurs.
5. thethreeNationalSocieties’distinctiverelationshipswiththeirowngovernments,potentiallygeneratingdifferingpolicyexpectationsoftheircontributionsduringacross-borderdisasterresponse.
6. thethreeNationalSocieties’decentralizedorganizationalstructurebetweennationalheadquartersandlocalchapters,producingamulti-levelnetworkofrelationshipsandoperatingvalues.
7. thebordercommunities’keeninterestinmutualaidprovision--irrespectiveofinternationalboundariesandnationalpolicies--shapingtheircriticalbutoftenoverlookedroleasthefirstwaveofcross-borderdisasterresponse.
Givensuchcomplexity,findinganappropriateentrypointforadialogueonNorthAmericancross-borderassistancemayappearoverwhelminglydauntingfromtheoutset.YetalandscapeanalysisofthisintricatewebhintsatwaysforwardinadvancinglegalandpolicypreparednessforbothparticipatinggovernmentsandtheNationalSocieties.Morevitally,trinationalstakeholderinterviewsstronglyindicatenotonlyareceptivenessbutahighlevelofcommitmenttoelevatingtheleveloflegalandpolicypreparednessinthisdomain.Fromtheperspectiveofthisscanandanalysis,potentialstartingpointsfortheNAHRSdialoguepertinenttobuildinglegalandpolicycapacitymightinclude
1. empoweringlocalRedCrosschaptersalongtheUS-CanadianandUS-MexicanbordersorotherwisegeographicallyproximatechapterswithMemorandumsofUnderstanding(MOU)orsimilarinstrumentstoenhanceoperationalpreparedness.ForthoseMOUsthatarecurrentlyinexistence,reviewandupdatethemwhereappropriate.
3|P a g e
2. facilitatinganinformationsharingprocessacrossthethreenationalgovernments--ideallyinacompendiumformatinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish—thatidentifiesandsynthesizesnationalandsubnationalregulationswithineachcountryapplicabletocross-borderdisasteraidinallforms(goods,personnel,equipment).Along-rangegoalshouldoptimallyinvolveanadditionaldialoguefocusingonwaystoreduceregulatorybarrierstomutualaidprovision.Stillaninitialunderstandingoftheregulatorylandscapeisanimportantfirststepinmovingawayfromwhatiscurrentlyananecdotalbasedunderstandingofsuchchallenges.
3. updatingthetrilateralMOUbetweentheAmerican,CanadianandMexicanRedCrossNationalSocietiessothatitmorefullyrecognizestheoperationalconditionsgeneratedbytheregulationsnotedin#2above.
4. determiningthebestmodesfor“documentpreparedness”(seebelowunderSection3.5)withinandbetweenthethreeNationalRedCrossSocietiesaswellaswiththeirrespectivegovernments.Disasterreadinessinthisformallowsforimmediateeaseofaccess(bothphysicallyandmulti-lingually)andasharedunderstandingbyallrelevantpartiesastomutualassistanceprotocolsinforcefollowingacatastrophicevent.
5. consideringpotentialvalue-addedcontributionsandresourcesofotheractorsoutsidethatofthethreeNationalSocieties,includingtheInternationalFederationoftheRedCross/RedCrescent(IFRCor“theFederation”).
Thereareotherpolicyareasalsoessentialtoefficientcross-borderdisasterresponseoperations,requiringsustainedpolicyattentionatthehighestdecisionmakinglevelsofthenationalgovernmentsofCanada,MexicoandtheUnitedStates.TheNationalSocietiesmaywanttoconsiderinitiatingadialoguewiththeappropriategoverningauthoritiesrelatedtothefollowingfourareas:
1. Facilitatedborderentryofexternaldisasterresponsepersonnel;2. Facilitatedentryofpersonnelprovidingemergencymedicalprovisionspecificallyasit
relatestoissuesoflicensing/credentialrecognitionandliability;3. Facilitatedcross-borderpopulationmovementinthewakeofacatastrophicevent;and4. Advanceoperationalplanningbetweenthethreegovernmentsforcoordinatedentryof
relief-relatedgoodsandequipment,particularlyastheyrelatetotheimpactedstates’regulatoryauthorities.
2 MethodologySeveralqualitativeresearchmethodswereemployedforthemappingandanalysisprocess.Thefirstwasaprimarydocumentreviewofavailabledomesticlegislation,policies,regulationsandinternationalagreementsinexistencebetweenthethreecountries’governmentsaswellasMemorandumsofUnderstandingsinplacebetweentheNationalSocietiesorlocalchaptersrelevanttocross-borderdisasterresponse.Itshouldbenotedthatthereviewisnotexhaustiveorcomplete,duetothelegalandpolicycomplexityofthesubjectarea,thenumberofstakeholdersparticipatingandcountriesinvolved.Thescanthereforereliesheavilyon
4|P a g e
publiclyaccessiblematerials.Internaldocumentswerealsoprovidedbystakeholdersandotherauthoritativepartieswhenauthorizedtodosoandweresharedbasedonthecontributor’sindividualunderstandingofthelawsandpoliciesinplace.OriginalpolicydocumentsrelatedtothenationalgovernmentofMexicowerenotavailableinEnglishandtranslatedforthepurposesofthisproject.
Semi-structuredinterviewswithNAHRSinitiativestakeholdersandfieldexpertconsultationsalsoprovidedanimportantbasisforthestudy’skeyfindings.Again,duetothemultipleperspectivesgermanetothescan,theproject’sacceleratedtimeframeandschedulingchallenges,interviewswerenotconductedwithallcontributorstoNorthAmericancross-borderdisasterresponse.Instead,completedinterviewsprovidea“snapshot”intotheconcernsofthosecloselyinvolvedwithdaytodaymanagementand/oroperations.IndividualswereaskedtoexpresstheirviewsconcerningthecurrentstateoflegalandpolicyreadinessrelatedtoNorthAmericancross-borderdisasterresponseaswellastheirdesiredoutcomesfortheNAHRSinitiative.
Thoseconsultedrepresentthefollowingentities:American,CanadianandMexicanRedCrossNationalSocieties,theCanadianandUSgovernments,theIFRC,theInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross(ICRC)andtheUnitedNationsOfficefortheCoordinationofHumanitarianAffairs(UNOCHA).Atotalof20sessionswereconductedviaphoneorSkype.Itshouldbenotedthatseveralotherparticipantswerehighlywillingtoparticipateinthestudybutwerenotabletobescheduledbeforethisdocument’sfinalsubmission.TheyincludeotherrepresentativesoftheCanadiangovernment,includingGlobalAffairsCanada(GAC)andthegovernmentofMexico’sMinistryofForeignAffairs(SRE).i
Finally,acomprehensivesecondaryliteraturereviewalsosupportsthescan’sconclusionandrecommendations.Thesearchincludedmediareports,relatedorganizationalhomepagesandspecializedacademicstudiesfromthefieldsofinternationaldisasterresponse,internationaldisasterlaw,domesticemergencyresponseaswellaspoliticalscienceandinternationalrelations.
3 ReferencePointsforScanandAnalysis3.1 NatureofEventThisstudywillexaminepolicyandlegalpreparednessastheyprincipallypertaintorapidonset,largescaledisasters.IntheNorthAmericancontext,theseeventshavebeenhistoricallytriggeredbynaturalhazardslikeearthquakesandhurricanes.Thethreecountries’respectivenationalauthoritieshavebeenableasaruletoabsorbtheensuingimpacts.Yetundercertainconditionsagovernment’sinternalcapacitytorespondwillbeoverwhelmed,promptingappealsforexternalaidandwithfellowcountrieskeentoassist.Notablecasesgermanetothisstudyincludethe1985MexicoCityearthquake(Mexico)and2005HurricaneKatrina(US).
iInSpanishknownasSecretaríadeRelacionesExteriores.
5|P a g e
TheUnitedNationscurrentlyclassifiessuchepisodesas“Level3”or“L3”emergencies,duringwhichthefollowingfiveelementsbecomeparticularlyheightened:
• Scale(amountofpeople,territory,countriesimpacted)• Urgency(crudemortalityrates,extentofpopulationmovement,etc.• Complexity(multipledynamicsatplayincludingcauses,impactsandresponse)• Capacity(nationalandinternationalresourcecapabilityforeffectiveresponse)• ReputationalRisk(publicandmediaexpectationsforresponse)(Inter-Agency
StandingCommittee,2012,p.6)
3.2 NatureofCross-BorderDisasterResponseFollowingCatastrophicEventsL3crises,especiallyrapidlyunfoldingoneswithanelementofsurprise,generatewidespreadglobalmediaandpublicattention.Accordingly,theaffectedgovernmentfindsitselfatthecenterofamaelstrom,encounteringaphenomenonknownas“externalconvergence”.Followingacatastrophicepisode,theimpactedcountryisbarragedbyinformationalinquiriesandoffers(informationalconvergence)outsidegoodsandmaterials(materialconvergence)andaninfluxofpeople(physicalconvergence).(Fritz&Mathewson,1957)Evencountrieswithsubstantialdomesticemergencymanagementcapacitieshavenotbeenimmuneonthisfront,astheUS,NewZealand(2011ChristchurchEarthquake)andJapan(2011Earthquake,TsunamiandNuclearDisaster)canindividuallyattest.(Bookmiller&Bookmiller,2016)Giventhemulti-sectoralimpactofsuchevents,therapidlygrowingnumberofdiverseexternalaidconduits(fellowgovernments,intergovernmentalandnongovernmentalentities,theglobalpublicandmultinationalcorporations)andconflictingdomesticandinternationalpoliticalagendasonasizeablescale,anycatastrophicallyimpactedstatewillbesignificantlychallengedtoeffectivelymanageincominginternationalassistance.TheIFRChasdocumentednumerousglobalcontemporaryexampleswhereinternationalaidhasbeenrefused,delayedorundistributed,evenwhenassistancewasdesiredbytheaffectedcountry.(Fisher,2007)Obstaclessuchascustomsclearances,searchdogsquarantines,domesticprofessionallicensing,credentialingandliabilityrequirementsandtechnicalregulationspertainingtofood,medicinesandotherreliefsuppliesallcontributetosignificantbottlenecksatthepointofentryforcross-borderdisasterresponse,costingprecioushoursfollowingalargescaledisaster.Converselyoverwhelmedauthoritiesmayexerciselittleregulationoverinboundrelief,diminishingthequalityandintegrityofincomingaidforitsintendedrecipients.Theresultingchaoticnatureofsuchresponsesineitherformwillimpacttheaffectedcommunitiesforyearstocome.
3.3 LegalandPolicyOrientedDisasterPreparednessWhilecross-borderaidprovisionandacceptancefollowingamassivedisasterwillalwaysposeintrinsicchallenges,governmentsandotherhumanitarianassistancestakeholderscan
6|P a g e
mitigatesucheffectsbyproactivelyengaginginlegalandpolicypreparednesstoelevateefficiencylevels.AsonelegalpreparednessstudycoveringtheAmericasnoted:“Oftenoverlookedinpreparednessplanning,solidlegalframeworksarefundamentaltohowsocietiesreducetheirexposuretorisk,aswellasguidingtheirpreparationandresponsetodisasters.”(IFRC,2011,p.1)Fornearlytwodecades,theIFRC,inpartnershipwithnationalgovernments,theNationalRedCrossandRedCrescentSocietiesandotherhumanitarianaidproviders,hasbeentheleadingglobaladvocateinpromotingtheimportanceoflegalandpolicypreparednessrelatedtointernationaldisasterresponse.Followingthe2001biennialmeetingoftheIFRC,ICRCandtheNationalSocieties,theCouncilofDelegatesurgedtheIFRCandtheNationalSocietiestoworkwithgovernments“topromoteappropriatedisasterresponselawsandregulations,allowingreliefactorstomeettheneedsofthedisastervictimsinthemosteffectiveway…”(CouncilofDelegates,2002)
Sincethen,thefundamentalconnectionbetweendevelopingandstrengtheningnational,regionalandinternationallegalframeworksandeffectivedisastermanagementpertainingtoallphases,includingresponse,isincreasinglyacknowledgedbygovernmentsandothermajoractorsinthehumanitariancommunity.TheSendaiFrameworkforDisasterRiskReduction,2015-2030isamongthemostrecentinternationallegalinstrumentstorecognizeitscriticalimportance.(SendaiFrameworkforDisasterRiskReduction2015-2030,2015)
3.4 TheIDRLGuidelinesasLegalPreparednessBenchmarkingToolThemostgloballyprominentbenchmarkingtoolforassessinglegalandpolicypreparednessinthesendingandacceptanceofcross-borderassistancefollowingacatastrophicepisodeisthatoftheGuidelinesfortheDomesticFacilitationandRegulationofInternationalDisasterReliefandInitialRecoveryAssistance(IDRLGuidelinesor“theGuidelines”)promulgatedbytheIFRCin2007.(IFRC,2007(a))TheIDRLGuidelinesseektostrikeabalancebetweentheinterestsofinternationaldisasterreliefprovidersseekingstreamlinedborderentryprocessesfortheirhumanitarianpersonnel,goodsandequipment(facilitation)andthoseofthehostcountry,whosegovernmentsdesirerespectfortheirdomesticsovereigntyandattendantlawsrelatedtoincomingassistance(regulation).
TheIDRLGuidelinesaddressmanyofthecommonsourcesofconfusionthatariseduringtheprovisionofcross-borderdisasterresponse.Theyincludetheinitiationandterminationofinternationaldisasterassistance,legalfacilitiesforentryandoperationsincludingpersonnel,goodsandequipment,transport,taxationandseveralotherpotentialtensionpoints.AscontainedintheGuidelines’introduction:
TheirpurposeistocontributetonationallegalpreparednessbyprovidingguidancetoStatesinterestedinimprovingtheirdomesticlegal,policyandinstitutionalframeworksconcerninginternationaldisasterreliefandinitialrecoveryassistance.Whileaffirmingtheprincipleroleofdomesticauthoritiesandactors,theyrecommendminimumlegal
7|P a g e
facilitiestobeprovidedtoassistingstatesandtoassistinghumanitarianorganizationsthatarewillingtoandabletocomplywithminimumstandardsofcoordination,qualityandaccountability.(IFRC,2007(a),p.13)
Todate,22countrieshaveusedtheGuidelinestodeveloporupdatetheirrespectivenationallawsandpoliciesapplicabletoincominginternationalassistance,withafurtherdozenconsideringthesame.(IFRC,2017)Ofthethreecountriesexaminedhere,MexicohasespeciallyembracedthespiritandsubstanceoftheGuidelineswhileupdatingitsowndomesticframeworkin2012(tobefurtherelaboratedonbelow).Areviewofthesenationaleffortshighlightsthemultipleformsthatsuchpreparednessmayassume.Someexamplesinclude:
NationaldisastermanagementactsorframeworksiiInterdepartmental/InteragencyInstructionsRegulationsGuidelinesManualsPlansPoliciesStandardoperatingproceduresExecutivedecreesDirectivesRules
Inaddition,theGuidelinesalsourgestatestodevelopbilateralandregionalframeworksthatfurtherpromotecooperationinthefacilitationofcross-borderdisasterrelief.Bindingandnon-bindinginstrumentsinthissector--beyondthemoreconventionaltitlesoftreatiesandagreements--frequentlyaretermed:
MutualAid/AssistanceAgreements,FrameworksorCompacts MemorandumsofUnderstanding Arrangements ProtocolsItshouldbenotedthatcross-bordercooperativeframeworksarenotlimitedtonationalgovernmentsalone.Highlyrelevanttothisanalysisistheparallelexistenceofarrangementsbetweensubnationalauthoritiesofneighboringbordercommunities,whethermid-levelgovernmentalentities(provincialtostateinthecaseoftheUS-Canadianborderasoneexample)oronthemunicipallevel.Manysuchagreementsarelabeledsimilarlytothosebetweennationalgovernments.
iiIn2013,theFederationalsoissuedaModelActfortheFacilitationandRegulationofInternationalDisasterReliefandInitialRecoveryAssistanceasafurtherreferencetoolforgovernments.TheModelActisgroundedinthekeyprinciplesoutlinedintheGuidelines.
8|P a g e
TheGuidelinesalsoserveasanessentialvehiclefortheNationalSocieties.TheSocietiescanutilizethemtoadvancelegalandpolicypreparednessinrelationtotheirownandothergovernmentsaswellaswiththeirfellowSocieties.TheGuidelines’introductorynotessuggesttheymayserveasausefultemplateindraftingmemorandumsofunderstandingsbetweentheSocietiesandconcernedgovernmentsaswell“asachecklistofpotentiallegalissuesforwhichtoprepareinadvanceofareliefoperation”.(IFRC,2007(a),p.11)3.5 ANoteAboutDocumentReadinessasPartofLegalPreparednessWhilelegalpreparednessprimarilyfocusesuponthedraftingandrevisingofrelatedframeworks,thereisanotherequallycrucialelementtotheprocess.Borrowingfromthedomesticemergencymanagementsectorandtheconceptofemergencyoperationsplansforgovernmentsandotherentities,itisalsocriticalthatanyrelevantlaws,policies,regulationsandinternationalunderstandingspertinenttoNorthAmericancross-borderdisasterresponsebemadeeasilyandquicklyaccessiblebyallinvolvedparticipants.Easeofaccessisnotonlymeasuredtechnologically(dashboards,shareddrives,etc.)butalsobylanguage.NorthAmericancross-borderresponsemayinvolveuptothreeofficiallanguages,includingEnglish,FrenchandSpanish(aswellasthoseoftheIndigenousNations).Documentreadinesswillsavevitaltimeintheimmediatehoursanddaysafteramajordisaster.Theprocessoforganizingsuchmaterialsalsopromotessharedunderstandingsandexpectationsamongkeystakeholders.
4 NationalGovernmentLegalandPolicyFrameworksforDomesticFacilitationofCross-BorderDisasterAssistance
4.1 Canada4.1.1 NationalLegalandPolicyContextInprofoundcontrasttoitsNorthAmericancounterparts,CanadahasfortunatelyneverexperiencedasignificantcatastrophiceventakintothatfacedbyMexicoandtheUS,partlyowingtoitscomparativelysmallerpopulationdispersedoveralargelandmass.Asdisastermanagementreformtypicallytakesplaceonlyafterhardlessonsarelearnedfollowinganationaltrauma,Canada’slegalandpolicypreparednesseffortsarecontinuingtoevolve,athemereiteratedbyseveralstakeholderinterviews.Itwasthecollateralimpactofacrisisstrikingitssouthernneighbor,theSeptember11,2001terroristattacksintheUS,thattransformedCanada’sapproachtodisasterresponse.Onthatday,over200US-destinedaircraftwerereroutedtoCanadianairfields.TheexperiencepromptedOttawatoinitiateamajorreorganizationofitsemergencymanagementstructuresandpolicies,leadingtoanewfederalministrynowcalledPublicSafetyCanada(PSC)in2003.Thenewministrycentralizedpublicsafetystructuresandinitiativeswithinonefederaldepartment,bringingtogetherfiveagenciesthatincludetheRoyalCanadianMountedPolice(RCMP)andtheCanadianBorderServicesAgency(CBSA).
ThePSChomepagenotes,“OurmandateistokeepCanadianssafefromarangeofriskssuchasnaturaldisasters,crimeandterrorism.”(GovernmentofCanada,PublicSafetyCanada,2017)
9|P a g e
Whilethenewly-organizedPSCconcentratedemergencymanagementattentionatthehighestgovernmentallevels,PublicSafetyCanadadoesnothouseauniqueagencycomparabletotheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA),locatedintheUSDepartmentofHomelandSecurity(DHS).CanadahoweverdidcreateaGovernmentOperationsCentre(GOC)in2004withthemandatetoprovideanallhazards,integratedfederalemergencyresponse.TheGOCistheCanadianGovernment’s“singlepointofcontactduringemergencies,supportsprovincialandlocalauthorities,andcoordinateshorizontallywithotherfederalgovernmentdepartments,non-governmentalorganizations,theprivatesectorandalliedgovernments.”(GovernmentofCanada,PublicSafetyCanada,2011,p.8)Whileoperationalforadozenyears,theGOChasrepeatedlycomeunderscrutinyinvariousgovernmentaudits.ThemostrecentOctober2016reviewstatesthattheGOC’s“currentinfrastructurewouldlikelybeunabletosupporttheconcurrentmanagementoftwoormoreevents.”(GovernmentofCanada,PublicSafetyCanada,2016,p.10)
Intandemwiththisinstitutionalreorganization,Canadareplaceditsoutdateddisasterlegislationwithanew2007EmergencyManagementAct.ThisactmandatedemergencyplanningwithineveryfederaldepartmentandnamedtheMinisterofPublicSafetyasthecentralcoordinator.PublicSafetyCanada’sFederalEmergencyResponsePlan(FERP)wasapprovedin2009andupdatedin2011.FERPplanningseekstoharmonizenationalandprovinciallevelemergencyresponsesaswellasthatoftheCanadianRedCrossandotherorganizations.TheFERPframeworkalsocoordinatesanemergencyresponseunderfederaljurisdictionwhenfederalassetsorpersonnelareimpactedbyanevent.
CanadahasmorerecentlyturneditspolicyattentiontoreadinesstoreceiveexternalaidbeyondthatprovidedbytheUS,withwhichithasarobustsetofcooperativeframeworkslonginplace(refertoSections5.1.2and5.1.3).LiketheUS,Canadahastraditionallyvieweditselfasaninternationalassistanceproviderratherthanabeneficiary.Yetstakeholderinterviewsindicatethatwhilethedevastating2016FortMcMurrayfiresacceleratedpolicydiscussionsinthisarea,theincreasingfrequencyofdisastersimpactingCanadaoverthepastseveralyearshasmadeinteragencycoordinationandaidfacilitationanincreasingconcernforsometime.Whilethe2011FERPoutlinesagencyresponsibilityforincominginternationalassistanceduringanemergency,Canadiangovernmentinterestintheissuedatesbackevenearlier.In2007,Canada--amajorfinancialsupporteroftheIFRC’sDisasterLawinitiatives--pledgedatthe30thInternationalRedCrossandRedCrescentConferencetostrengthenitsincomingassistanceframeworks.Thepledgeincluded:
Tocontinuetoexaminedomesticemergencymanagementpoliciesandregulationswithaviewtoidentifyingandaddressing,asnecessary,potentialobstaclestoreceivinginternationalassistanceintheeventofamajordomesticemergency.TheDepartmentofForeignAffairs(theleadontheInternationalDisasterResponseLawsfilefortheGovernmentofCanada)andPublicSafetyCanada(theleadondomesticemergency
10|P a g e
managementforCanada)willworkjointlywithfederaldepartmentsandotherlevelsofgovernmenttoassessandidentifypossiblesolutions.(IFRC,2007(b))
In2009,theCanadianRedCrosscommissionedanearlystudyonthesubject,highlightingseveralpolicyattentionareastobeaddressedinSection4.1.2.(See,2009)TheCanadianArmedForces’2015JointTaskForcePacificHumanitarianAssistanceandDisasterResponseSymposium,whichexaminedlegalandpolicyreadinesstoreceiveinternationalassistancefollowingapotentialearthquakealongtheCascadiaFaultinthePacificNorthwest(oneofthehighpriorityscenariosidentifiedbynumerousstakeholdersininterviews),isamorerecentmanifestationofthisconcern.(JointTaskForcePacificHumanitarianAssistanceandDisasterResponse(HADR)SymposiumMeetingAgenda,1May2015)However,therearenocurrentlyexisting,publiclyavailabledocumentsprovidingcomprehensiveregulatoryguidanceforexternalaidproviders,comparabletothatwhichexistsinMexicoandtheUS.SuchaguideisnaturalnextprogressioninCanada’sevolvingapproachtodomesticlegalandpolicyfacilitationofinternationalassistance.Asa2014CanadianRedCrossstudynoted:“Whenacatastrophicdisasteroccurs,theworldwilllandonourdoorstep.”(Nemrava,2014)4.1.2 ApplicableNationalLegal,PolicyandRegulatoryFrameworks
CanadianConstitutionalFrameworkiiiCanada,likeitsMexicanandUScounterparts,hasafederalsystemwhichdividespowerbetweenthefederalandprovinciallevels.Differenthoweverfromtheothertwocountriesistheformthisarrangementassumes,knownas“asymmetricalfederalism”.Owingtobothhistoricaldevelopmentandtheabilityofeachprovinceto“optout”ofspecificnationalpolicies/programsandcreatetheirown,thetenprovinceshaveuniquelydistinctrelationshipswithOttawa,includingfacetsrelatedtoemergencymanagementsuchasfirstresponderprovision.
Historicallyemergencymanagementhasbeenthepurviewoftheprovincialgovernments,eachpossessingtheirownresponseentityandoperatingprocedures.Nearlyallemergenciesarehandledonthemunicipaland/orprovinciallevelwithoutfederalinvolvement.Ottawawillnottypicallyinterveneunlessmunicipalandprovincialresourcesareexhaustedoroverwhelmedbythemagnitudeofadisaster.Eventhen,interventionoccursonlywhenthereisaspecificrequestforfederalassistancebyaprovince.Whilemostemergenciesmaybeaddressedonthelocal/provinciallevel,itisnowacceptedinCanadathatemergencymanagementisa“sharedresponsibility”betweenalllevelsofgovernment.
Stillonepolicyarearemainingfirmlyunderthecontrolofprovincialauthoritiesinvolvesrecognitionofmedicalpersonnelcredentials.Theseregulationsapplywhetherthemedical
iiiUnlikeMexicoandtheUnitedStates,theCanadianConstitutionisnotasingle,writtendocumentbutrather“composedofwrittenandunwrittenstatutes,customs,judicialdecisions,andtradition.”(ParliamentofCanada)
11|P a g e
provideriscomingfromafellowprovinceivorfromoutsidethecountry.Whilesomeprovinceswillallowfortemporarywaiversundercertaincircumstances,thewaiverprocessesstillentailvariousregistrationrequirementsthatwillcausesignificantdelayduringaresponsetoacatastrophicevent.SeveralstakeholdersinterviewedidentifiedCanada’sprovincial-basedcredentialingsystemasoneoftheirmostpressingpolicyconcernsrelatedtoefficientandtimelycross-borderaidtoCanadaafteracrisis.Someexceptions,however,maybemadeforpersonnelarrivingfromtheUSbasedonbilateralarrangementsbetweenthetwocountries(seeSection5.1.2).
1988EmergenciesActThisAct,whichreplacedthe1914WarMeasuresAct,allowsforfederalauthoritiestotakespecificmeasuresthatmayhavetheeffectofoverridingprovinciallaws,includingthosecoveringmedicalcertificationduringa“publicwelfareemergency”.However,thisActhasneverbeeninvokedsinceitspassage.TheearlierWarMeasuresActwasonlyutilizedthreetimesinCanadianhistory,thelasttimebeingin1970andthetwotimespriorduringbothWorldWars.Itthereforeremainstobeseenhowthedeclarationwouldworkinpracticerelatedtocross-borderassistancetoCanadaandfederal-provincialrelations.(GovernmentofCanada,1988)
2007EmergencyManagementActWhiletheActimportantlyestablishesanationalcoordinationframeworkforemergencymanagement,therearenoreferencesmadetothedomesticfacilitationofinternationalassistance.Notably,theActcontainsaprovisionrelatedtoassistingtheUSduringacrisis:
TheMinistermaydevelopjointemergencymanagementplanswiththerelevantUnitedStates’authoritiesand,inaccordancewiththoseplans,coordinateCanada’sresponsetoemergenciesintheUnitedStatesandprovideassistanceinresponsetothoseemergencies.(GovernmentofCanada,2007,p.3)
2011FederalEmergencyResponsePlanFERPdelegatesleadagencyresponsibilitydependingonthenatureoftheevent.Forthosedisastersrequiringinternationalassistance,GlobalAffairsCanada(GAC)vservesastheprimaryfacilitatorbetweenexternalaidprovidersandtheGOC.Secondarysupportmaybeprovidedbyanadditional18nationaldepartments,agenciesorservices.(GovernmentofCanada,2011)
ivForthelegalintricaciessurroundingtheissueofCanadianinterprovincialmedicalassistance,refertoVickyEdgecombe’sstudyofdeployingCanadianRedCrossEmergencyResponseUnitsandFieldAssessmentCoordinationTeams.(Edgecombe,2011)vReferredtoasDepartmentofForeignAffairsandInternationalTrade(DFAIT),thepreviousnameofGAC,indocument.
12|P a g e
2002ImmigrationandRefugeeProtectionActandRegulations:VisasviPerthisActandsubsequentimplementingregulations,UScitizensrequireapassporttoenterCanadaifarrivingthroughaCanadianairport,buttheydonotneedavisaortocompletetheElectronicAuthorizationProgram(eTA).IftheUScitizenisenteringCanadabycar,train,busorboat,apassportisnotrequired,butanotherformofcitizenshipdocumentationmustbeprovided,suchasabirthornaturalizationcertificateaswellasphotoidentification.Pleasenote,however,AmericancitizensreturningtotheUSwillstillneedtheirpassporttoreenter,eveninthoseinstanceswhereitwasnotoriginallyrequiredtotraveltoCanada.ThisrequirementhasposedaproblemforUSassistanceprovidersreturningfromCanadaonprioroccasions.(GovernmentofCanada,2002)(GovernmentofCanada,GlobalAffairsCanada,2017(b))
AsofNovember25,2016,MexicannationalsnolongerrequireavisatoenterCanada(apolicyinplaceforsixyearsprior),inadditiontohavingapassport.YetunlikeUScitizens,theywillstillberequiredtocompletetheeTAifarrivingthroughaCanadianairport(aswellaspossessapassport).Thisisanexpeditedonlineauthorizationprocess,withapprovalgivenasquicklyasafewminutesoraday.Ifenteringbylandorwatertransportation,apassportisstillrequiredbuttheeTAauthorizationisnot.(GovernmentofCanada,GlobalAffairsCanada,2017(b))
ThislatestpolicychangehasbeenpraisedforprovidingagreatereaseofaccessforMexicannationalsdesiringtoenterCanadacomparedtotheearlier,morecumbersomevisaapplicationprocess,includingduringtimesofemergency.StillthereisconcernthattheeTAprocessmaynotbeabletohandleadramaticspikeinapplicationsifexternalaidprovidersfromMexico(andothereTAeligiblecountries)wouldinundatethesystemfollowingamajordisasterinCanada.
Fromtheperspectiveofamasscross-bordermovementofpeoplefromtheUSintoCanada,asfarasnationallawstands,thepotentialisthereforamorefacilitatedentrygiventhelowerdocumentthresholdrequiredforUScitizensenteringspecificallybylandorsea.Thismechanismwouldnotapplytonon-UScitizensenteringCanadafromtheUS,anddependingonthenationalityinvolved,afullvisaprocessmaystillberequired.AfewCanadian-USbilateralagreements,coveredinSection5.1.2,urgethatthetwocountriesaspiretofacilitatethemovementofevacuees.Howthismechanismwouldoperateinpracticeremainstobeseen.
Therehavebeencasesaftermajorinternationaldisasterssuchasthe2004SouthAsianTsunamiandthe2010HaitianEarthquakeinwhichimpactbynaturaldisastersmaybeconsideredforexpeditedentryintoCanada,buttypicallyafamilyorotherkindoflinkto
viForacomprehensivethematicoverviewofdisaster-inducedmigrationrelatedmattersthroughouttheAmericas,refertoa2015studyconductedundertheauspicesoftheNansenInitiativetitledLaw,PolicyandPracticeConcerningtheHumanitarianProtectionofAliensonaTemporaryBasisintheContextofDisasters(Cantor,2015)
13|P a g e
Canadamustbedemonstrated.Theselegalissuesremainopentoexplorationregardingentranceofnon-UScitizensintoCanadafollowingalarge-scaleevent.
2002ImmigrationandRefugeeProtectionActandRegulations:WorkPermitsCanadianlawdoescontainawaiverforenteringemergencyservicespersonnelfromabroad.AccordingtoRegulation186(t),aforeignnationalmayworkinCanadawithoutaworkpermit,“asaproviderofemergencyservices,includingmedicalservices,fortheprotectionorpreservationoflifeorproperty…”(GovernmentofCanada,2016,p.167)
PleasenoteinrelationtoSections4.1.2.5and4.1.2.6,thatentryintoCanadaisnotautomatic,evenifmeetingthedocumentrequirementsstatedabove.TheCBSAremainsthefinalauthorityattheborderregardingentry.
AdministrationofTemporaryImportationRegulation,MemorandumD8-1-1,GoodsforEmergencyUseRemissionOrder
ThisremissionorderallowsforawaiveroncustomsdutiesandtaxesrelatedtogoodsandequipmententeringCanadadesignatedforemergencyuse.AccordingtoD8-1-1:
Asthegoodsarerequiredonsitequickly,theinspectingofficerwilltrytoexpeditetheclearanceofthegoods.Nosecuritydepositwillbecollectedand,wheretheinspectingofficerdeemsitnecessary,onlyasimpleblotterrecordonaFormE29Bwillbekeptdescribingthegoodsingeneralterms.Dependingonthecircumstances,aFormE29Bcanalsobeissuedafterthefact.IncaseswheretheemergencysituationrequiresthereleaseofthegoodswhereofficersorRCMPofficersarenotinattendance,arecordkeptbyaresponsibleindividualsuchasachiefofpolice,afirechief,amunicipalmayor,arepresentativeoftheprovincialgovernmentorotherindividualchargedwiththeresponsibilityofdirectingtheemergencycountermeasuresisacceptable.(GovernmentofCanada,CanadianBorderServicesAgency,2016)
Whilehighlylaudablefromtheperspectiveofcross-borderassistancefacilitation,thereisadebateamonglegalobserverswhetherthisprovisionappliesonlytofellowrespondinggovernmentsorcoversassistinghumanitarianorganizationsfromabroadaswell.Inaddition,whilecustomsdutiesandtaxesmaybewaived,borderauthoritiesmaystillhaltentranceofgoodsduetoregulatoryprohibitionsbasedonsafety,environmentalandotherconcerns.
4.1.3 NAHRSDialoguePointsThissectionhasexaminedCanada’scurrentdomesticlegalframeworkforreceivingincomingassistanceapartfromitssignificantbilateralcommitmentswiththeUSinthisarea,tobeaddressedinSections5.1.2and5.1.3.InanticipationofacatastrophiceventinCanadarequiringoutsideassistance,andwiththeviewofelevatingtheefficiencyofcross-borderresponse,potentialfocusareasforupcomingNAHRSdiscussionsmightinclude:
1. Federalvs.provinciallawsandregulationscoveringforeignmedicalteamsseekingtoenterandoperatewithinCanada;
14|P a g e
2. Anew,comprehensiveguideofallCanadiangovernmentlaws,policiesandregulationsapplicabletoincomingdisasterassistance,comparabletothosepreviouslydevelopedbytheMexicanandUSgovernments;
3. Furtherto#2,theprocessbywhichcontrollingCanadiangovernmentlaws,policiesandregulationsrelevanttocross-borderdisasterresponsearemadeavailableintheSpanishlanguageandpubliclyaccessibleinbothEnglishandSpanish;and
4. Canadianimmigrationpoliciesrelatedtoaspontaneous,cross-borderpopulationmovementintoCanada.
4.2 Mexico4.2.1 NationalLegalandPolicyContextMexicohasemergedasoneoftheleadingexamplesofnationaldisasterriskreduction(DRR)andpreparednessplanningintheworld,asmostrecentlyevidencedbyitshostingoftheGlobalPlatformforDisasterRiskReductioninCancuninMay2017.Itconfrontsachallengingmulti-hazardenvironmentasoneofthetopglobal30mostexposedcountriestonaturalhazards(WorldBankGroup,2013),withearthquakes,floodsandhurricanesleadingtoanespeciallyhighproportionofhumanandeconomicloss.viiYettheMexicangovernmenthasdiligentlyworkedfordecadestostrengthenitsmulti-facetedcivilprotectionsysteminordertomitigatesuchcatastrophicdamage.Thefactthatnoliveswerelostfollowingthe2015landfallofHurricanePatricia--oneoftheWesternPacific’sstrongesteverrecordedhurricanes—wasinpartattributedtothegovernment’sDRReffortslonginplace.(LessonsofPastDisasters,2015)
The1985MexicoCityearthquake—andtheinternationalresponsetoit--wasthecatalystthattransformedthecountry’sapproachtopreparednessplanning,includingonthelegalandpolicyfronts.Thequakecostatleast5,000livesaccordingtogovernmentestimates,withanother30,000injured.Withanincreasinglygloballyinterconnectedcommunityduetocommunicationandtransportationadvancements,the1985eventisoftenrecognizednotonlyasanationalbutalsointernationalwatershedregardingdisasterassistance.Theworldwideoutpouringofaidwashistoricforitstime.TheMexicangovernmentwasbarragedwith250reliefoffersbygovernmentsaswellasintergovernmentalandnongovernmentalorganizations,ultimatelyacceptingaidfrom52countriesandfourinternationalorganizations.Whilethisglobalexpressionofcompassionwaslaudable,theensuingreliefchaoswasnot.Asonepost-assessmentreportindicatedatthetime:“Food,medicalsupplies,heavyequipment,clothingandothergoodsbeganarrivingbythetonatMexicoCityInternationalAirport,muchofitunrequested;mostofituntargeted,withnodesignatedrecipientorganizationorgroup.”(Comfort,1986,p.1)Similardisarraywasalsoreportedconcerningarrivinginternationalaidpersonnel.
viiAccordingtotheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),thesethreehazardsalonecausednearly80%ofMexicandisastersbetween1970-2011,aswellas89%ofdisasterrelatedfatalitiesand93%ofeconomiclosses.(OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment,2013,p.31)
15|P a g e
The1985tragedyhadanimmediatelygalvanizingeffectuponMexico’sdisastermanagementapproach.OneyearlaterthegovernmentestablisheditscurrentNationalCivilProtectionSystem,knownasSINAPROCviii,acoordinatingframeworkbringingtogetherallrelatedstakeholdersfromthepublicandprivatesectors,fromthenationaltothegrassrootslevel.Overthenext25yearsthegovernmentalsoimplementedaseriesoflegalandpolicyreforms.Themostrecentlaw,theGeneralCivilProtectionAct,waspassedin2012.ix
AsSINAPROCsoughttoaugmentMexico’sdomesticcivilprotectioncapacity,firstfocusinguponresponseandlaterexpandingtopreventativemeasures,itcorrespondinglyreducedtheneedforpost-disasterinternationalassistanceintheyearsafterthe1985event.NumerousNAHRS-relatedinterviewsandafieldliteraturebasedcasestudyreviewaffirmthatthisdecreasingrelianceonpost-disasterexternalaidisapointofgreatnationalprideforboththeMexicangovernmentandwidersociety.Yetoneunintendedeffectmayhavebeenanincreasingpolicydisconnectbetweennationalandinternationaldisasterresponsesystems.Itwasanother20yearsbeforeMexicoCitynextrequestedinternationalassistance,duringthedevastating2007Tabascofloods.TheeventimpactedoveramillionpeopleandranksasoneoftheworstdisastersMexicohaseverencountered.Accordingtoonestudyofthecrisis:
…whentherequestcameandtheinternationalassistancestartedflowingin,itwascomplicatedpreciselybecausetheUNhumanitarianpresencewasalmostwithoutprecedent.Inotherdisaster-pronecountriesthereisastrongpresenceofNGOsandUNbodies,withlongstandingprotocolsforhumanitarianwork.Governmentsandagenciesarefamiliarwithoneanother’smodusoperandi….AlthoughmostUNagenciesandmajorNGOswererepresentedinMexicoin2007,thegovernmentlackedexperienceofworkingwiththeseorganisations,andthetwosideshadtolearnhowtoworktogetherinashorttimeandundergreatpressure.(WeissFagan,2008,p.20)
Mexicowouldsoonassumealeadershiprole,inbuildingLatinAmericanandCaribbeanreadinessforcross-borderdisasterresponse,byco-sponsoringwithUNOCHAaforumevolvingintoanannualmeetingknownas“EnhancingInternationalHumanitarianPartnership”(EIHP).By2010,EIHPparticipatingcountriesagreedtocontributetoasurveytitledTheRegionalCompendiumofRegulatoryInstruments(or“RegionalCompendium”).Eachgovernmentwouldengageinacomprehensiveself-study—utilizingtheIDRLGuidelines—toidentifyexistingnationallaws,policiesandregulationswithintheirrespectivecountriescoveringincomingassistance.
ForMexicoandotherpartakinggovernments,theprocessalsohighlightedcriticalareaswarrantingfurtherattentionfromthesendingandhostcountries’perspectives.AsAnneLiceviiiSINAPROCinSpanishstandsfor“SistemaNacionaldeProtecciónCivil”.ixixFortwoexcellentsurveysofMexico’sdomesticcivilprotection/emergencymanagementlegalandpolicyframework,refertotheOECD’sReviewofMexicanNationalCivilProtectionSystem(OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment,2013)andtheUNDevelopmentProgram’sMexico:CountryCaseStudy.(UNDevelopmentProgram,June2014)
16|P a g e
HernándezAlba,ReliefCoordinatorandInter-institutionalFocalPointoftheMexicanCivilProtectionDepartment,characterizedthevalueofhergovernment’sself-studyatthetime:
Itallowedustoseegapsinourlawsandprocedures,identifybestpracticesthathavenotyetbeeninstitutionalizedyet,andtoplanimprovements.ItcreatedanexcellentopportunityforustotakeastandonstrengtheningourapproachincaseanemergencyinMexicoorabroad(IFRC,2012).
TheimpactoftheRegionalCompendiumreviewuponthe2012GeneralCivilProtectionActrevisionsandsubsequentgovernmentalguidelineswillbenotedunderSection4.2.2.
OnefurtheroutcomeoftheEIHPinitiativeisthatMexicohassincethe2007Tabascocrisisfosteredstrongertieswithkeyactorsfromtheinternationaldisasterresponsesystem,chiefamongthemtheIFRCandUNOCHA.Partneringwiththelattersuggestsanincreasinglyintegratedpost-disasterinterfacewiththeUNDisasterAssessmentandCoordination(UNDAC)processshouldexternalassistancebewarranted.MexicoinfactengagedinatrialrunbyhostingtheUNDAC-linkedInternationalSearchandRescueAdvisoryGroup(INSARAG),forthatbody’s2012RegionalSimulationExerciseofEarthquakeResponse,heldinMexicoCity.ThisdevelopmentinjectsanotherpotentialvariableintotheoperationsofNorthAmericancross-borderdisasterresponse,addingamultilateraloverlaytobi-ortrilaterallyorientedefforts.
4.2.2 ApplicableNationalLegal,PolicyandRegulatoryFrameworks TheMexicanConstitution
TheMexicanConstitutionestablishesafederalsysteminwhichallthreelevels,includingthefederalgovernment,the31statesandtheFederalDistrictandover2400municipalitiesallhaveasharedresponsibilityforcivilprotection,withcorrespondingsystemsandlawsinplacefromthefederaltothelocallevel.(GovernmentofMexico,2015)WhiletheConstitutionexplicitlygrantsregulatorypowerovercivilprotectiontofederalauthorities,theConstitutionandimplementinglegislationestablishesthemunicipalitiesasthefrontlineofpublicsafetyresponseandchargedwithdeterminingwhetherfurtherstateorfederalassistanceiswarranted.Regardless,therehavebeenexperienceslikethe2007Tabascofloodingcrisisthatrevealedoperationaltensionsonthisfront.Thefederalgovernmentpreemptedlocalauthoritiesandimmediatelyorganizedanemergencyresponse,includingacallforinternationalassistance,withoutfirstconsultinglocalorstatelevelauthorities.
SpecialNote:Thefollowingthreeitems(4.2.2.2.-4.2.2.4)arecurrentlynotpubliclyavailableinEnglish.Thecommentsbelowarebasedontranslationstriangulatedbythreenon-certifiedtranslators,includingtheauthor.Translationsshouldthereforebeformallyverifiedbyafield-relatedprofessionalbeforeusedforofficialpurposes.
17|P a g e
2012GeneralCivilProtectionActxMexicopassedthisActasanupdateofitsexistingcivilprotectionlegislation(datingbackto2000),basedonfindingsgeneratedfromitsRegionalCompendiumgeneratedself-review.Domestically,itservedtosharpentheunderstandingoftherespectiverolesofthefederal,stateandmunicipalauthoritieswithinthecontextofSINAPROC,amongmanyotherenhancements.
The2012Act,fromthestandpointofcross-borderdisasterrelief,possessesseveralkeyelements.TheAct
1. establishedtheNationalEmergenciesCommittee(CNE)xi,taskedwiththeresponsibilityforoperationalcoordinationduringanemergencyordisaster.TheCNEistheleadentityfollowingamajoreventresponsibleforconductinganimpactandneedsassessmentandmakingdeterminationsastothenatureandamountofreliefrequired.
2. mandatedthatregulationsandguidelinesbeimplementedrelatedtodonations,whethernationalorinternationalinorigin(seeSection4.2.2.3).
3. chargeditsNationalBoardofCivilProtectionwithdevelopingplansrelatedto“internationalcooperationandassistancemodalities”inconjunctionwiththeSRE.(GovernmentofMexico,2012(a))
2012GeneralGuidelinesfortheIssuanceofVisasIssuedbytheMinistriesofInteriorandForeignAffairsxii
TheMexicangovernmentin2011passedanewLawofMigrationthatcontainedsweepingreformsrelatedtothestatusofnon-citizensalreadyincountryandforthoseseekingtoenter.Thelegislationisnoteworthyforseveralnewvisaclassificationspossessingahumanitarianbasis,partlyinspiredbyMexico’sexperiencereceivingHaitiannationalsfollowingthelattercountry’s2010catastrophicearthquake.The2012GeneralGuidelinesprovideproceduralguidancerelatedtothevisaexpeditingprocess.Onecategoryisdedicatedspecificallytohumanitarianresponsepersonnel,definedas:“aforeignpersonwhointendstoundertakereliefactionsorrescueinsituationsofemergencyordisasterinthecountryandisamemberofanygroupofpublic,privateorsocialcharacterthathavethatobject.”(GovernmentofMexico,2012(b),p.26)TheGeneralGuidelinesincludeapplicationinstructionsandthetermofvalidity,whichis15daysfollowingthegrantingofthevisa.TheinclusionofahumanitarianpersonnelcategoryisonerecommendationoftheIDRLGuidelines.The2012GeneralGuidelinesalsoestablishproceduresforgrantingandexpeditingavisafornon-citizenstoenterMexicoduetoanaturaldisasterintheircountryofresidence(thisisdistinctfromthosealreadyinMexicoduetotourismorotherreasons).Whileexpedited,axInSpanishtitledasLeyGeneralDeProtección.xiInSpanishknownastheComitéNacionaldeEmergencias.xiiInSpanishknownasLineamientosGeneralesparalaExpedicióndeVisasqueEmitenlasSecretaríasdeGobernaciónydeRelacionesExteriores.
18|P a g e
formalapplicationprocessisrequiredthoughtherelevantMexicanembassyorconsulateincountry.Peralreadyexistingpolicy,USandCanadiancitizens(aswellasfromothervisa-waivercountries)mayenterMexicowithaUSorCanadianpassportalone.Inthecaseofamorespontaneous,cross-bordermassmovementofpeoplefromtheUSintoMexicoduetoacatastrophicevent,itremainstobeclarifiedwhetherMexicanborderauthoritieshavethediscretiontowaivetherequirementsforUScitizenswhoarenotpassportholders(aswellasothernationalitiesrecognizedinMexico’svisawaiverprogram)aswellasfornon-citizenswhowouldcustomarilyrequireanentrancevisa.(GovernmentofMexico,2012(b))Outsideofthisframework,a2008bilateralagreementbetweenMexicoandtheUnitedStates(refertoSection5.2.2.3)recommendsthateachcountryworktomutuallyfacilitatepromptentryofpersonnel,materialsandequipmentbutdoesnotestablishprotocolsinthisregard.
2014GuideforReception,Organization,Distribution,andDeliveryofHumanitarianAssistance/ProvisiontoAssistPopulationsAffectedbyaDisasterxiii
TheMexicangovernment’sMinistryofInterior(SEGOB)xiv,inpartnershipwithSRE,preparedthisguideasonemeanstomeetthespiritandintentofthe2012Act.ThedocumentaddressesmanyoftheinsightsgainedthroughtheRegionalCompendiumreviewprocessaswellasfeedbackprovidedbytheIFRC’sDisasterLawProgramfortheAmericas.Whilespecificproceduresandregulationsforfacilitatingincominginternationalassistanceareincluded,thisdocumentaddressesaidprovisionprotocolsastheyapplybothtodomesticaswellasfromexternalsources.InadditiontotheGeneralCivilProtectionAct,theGuideincorporatesprovisionsfromnationallawandregulationscoveringcustoms,foreigntradeandairports,thegovernment’s2006OrganizationandOperationsManualoftheNationalCivilProtectionSystemxvandseveralinternationalinstruments,includingtheIDRLGuidelinesandtheearlier1994CodeofConductfortheInternationalRedCrossandRedCrescentMovementandNGOsinDisasterRelief.
Accordingly,the67-pageguideimpressivelyendeavorstobalancethemultipleagendasandperspectivesofalarge-scaleresponsewithanoverlayofpotentialinternationalinvolvement.ThroughitMexicosignalsitswillingnesstoreceivepost-disasterassistancebutalsoassertstheleadingroleofitsgovernmentduringtheentiretyoftheprocess,particularlythatofSINAPROC,SEGOBandSRE.Furtheritconditionsthataidbeneedsbased,ofsuitablequalityandculturallyappropriate,whethersourcednationallyorinternationally.Accordingly,thedocumentprovidessignificantregulatorydetailapplicabletoin-kinddonations.Forinternationalrequests,sendingauthoritiesmustworkthroughMexico’sdiplomaticmissionsabroadandultimatelySRE.
xiiiItsSpanishtitleisGuíaparalaRecepción,Organización,Distribución,yEnvíodeSuministrosHumanitariosparalaAsistenciadePoblacionesAfectadasporunDesastre.xivInSpanishknownasSecretaríadeGobernación.xvInSpanishknownasManualdeOrganizaciónyOperacióndelSistemaNacionaldeProtecciónCivil.
19|P a g e
FromtheviewpointofNorthAmericancross-borderresponse,thefollowingareseveralkeyhighlightsfromtheguide:
1. Formsofassistancecoveredinclude:• Technicalsupport,searchandrescueteamsandmedicalstaff,whichmustbe
previouslyrequested,arrivesufficientlyequippedandhavecoordinatedtheirinvolvementthroughSEGOBandSREinordertoassessitsrelevanceamongotheraspects
• Accesstonationalorinternationalfunds• Cashdonations• Remoteshoppingingrocerystores• In-kinddonations
2. Twelvespecificcategoriesofin-kinddonationsarelistedwithstipulations,inmostcasesmandatingthattheybenewalongwithotherquality-relatedconditions.
3. ItisassumedthatmedicalsupportinmostinstancescanbeprovidedfromwithinMexico.DomesticrequestsforforeignmedicalsupportmustgotoSREincoordinationwithSINAPROC.Regardingcredentials,theonlystipulationisthat“thestaffbequalifiedand/orauthorizedbySINAPROCincoordinationwiththeHealthMinistry.”Theexactnatureofneededqualificationsisnotincluded.
4. Thedocumentnotesthatregulationsandproceduresofupto14governmentministriesandagenciesmaybeinvolveddependingontheformofassistance.Accordingtotheguide:“ThesemeasureswillbemadeknownbytheMinistryofForeignAffairs.”
5. Theguiderecommendsthatsimplifiedlegalfacilitiesareprovidedforbothrespondinggovernmentsandhumanitarianorganizations,includingvisasandcustomsprocessingforstaff,goodsandrescueteams,exemptionfromtaxes,dutiesandfeesforreliefandthetemporarygrantingoflegalstatusinorderforpersonneltooperatelegallyinthecountry.Furtherconfirmationisneededastowhetherimplementinglawsandregulationsexistatthistime.
6. TheRedCrossMovementisnotedthroughouttheguide.InadditiontoreferencesmadetotheIDRLGuidelinesandthe1994CodeofConduct,theIFRCisnotedasanimportantinternationalpartnerforthepurposesofajointneedsassessment(alongwiththeUnitedNations).TheMexicanRedCross,whilelegallyanauxillarytotheMexicangovernment,ismentionedasoneofseveralrecognizedcivilsocietyorganizationsimportanttoaiddistributioncenters.(GovernmentofMexico,MinistryoftheInterior,2014)
4.2.3 NAHRSDialoguePointsMexicohasproactivelypursuedlegalandpolicymeasuresthatexpeditetheentryofinternationalassistancewhilepromotingprovideraccountability,especiallythroughits2014Guidelines.InanticipationofacatastrophiceventinMexicorequiringoutsideassistance,and
20|P a g e
withtheviewofelevatingtheefficiencyofcross-borderresponse,potentialfocusareasforupcomingNAHRSdiscussionsmightinclude:
1. ThespecificproceduresbywhichtheMexicangovernmentwillfacilitatecustomswaivers,legalstatusofenteringpersonnelandotherrelevantmattersthatarenotexplicitlyaddressedinthe2014Guidelines;
2. Requiredcredentials,liabilityrequirementsandothermandatesforforeignmedicalteamstoenterandoperateincountry;
3. ThepotentialcoordinationinterfacebetweentheMexicangovernmentandtheUNDACsystemontheonehand,andbilaterally-orientedassistanceeffortsbytheUnitedStatesandCanadaontheother;
4. Mexicanimmigrationpoliciesrelatedtoaspontaneous,cross-borderpopulationmovementintoMexico;and
5. TheprocessbywhichcontrollingMexicangovernmentlaws,policiesandregulationsrelevanttocross-borderdisasterresponsearemadeavailableintheEnglishlanguageandpubliclyaccessibleinbothEnglishandSpanish.
4.3 UnitedStates4.3.1 NationalLegalandPolicyContextPriortoHurricaneKatrinain2005,itwasinconceivablethattheUS--oneoftheworld’smostpowerfulcountriesandatopaiddonor--wouldeverrequireinternationalassistancefollowingamajordisaster.“FEMAmanagersanticipatedusinginternationalaidonlyduringaperiodofmartiallawintheUnitedStates.”(Richard,2006)KatrinathereforemarkedamajorwatershedinUSemergencymanagementhistory.RankedasoneofthefivedeadliesthurricanesevertohittheUSandoneofthemostdestructiveofanynaturaldisasterinthenation’shistory,itdevastated93,000squaremilesalongitsGulfCoast.
Intotal,over150countriesandinternationalorganizationsmadereliefoffersfollowingthecatastrophe,thegreatestexpressionofinternationalfinancial,materialandtechnicalassistanceevermadetotheUS.Ultimatelythegovernmentwouldacceptassistancefrom108countriesandorganizations.FindingitselfintheunfamiliarroleofaidrecipientfollowingKatrina,thereliefdelugeprofoundlychallengedthegovernmentlegally,politicallyandadministratively.TheprevailinglegislativeframeworkinplaceatthetimeofKatrinawas--andcontinuestobe--the1988RobertT.StaffordDisasterReliefandEmergencyAssistanceAct,commonlyknownasthe‘StaffordAct’.StaffordoutlinestheproceduresforadomesticdisasterdeclarationandgrantsauthoritytothePresidentorhisdelegatetoacceptandusedonations.FEMAisdesignatedastheofficialentityforrespondingtodisasterswithintheUS,locatedwithinDHSsincetheSeptember11thattacks.The2004NationalResponsePlan(NRP)directedtheUSDepartmentofState(DOS)tocoordinateincomingaidassistanceoffers,whileFEMAwasassignedtheresponsibilityofacceptingtheassistanceandmanagingitsdistribution.NoprovisionintheNRPaddressedhowmaterialdonationswouldactuallyentertheUS,bejudgedforappropriatenessorbetrackedordeployedonceaccepted.Officialsandotherstakeholders
21|P a g e
improvisednumerousad-hocproceduresandworkaroundstodothebesttheycouldunderdifficultcircumstances.
InresponsetotheKatrinaexperience,theBushadministrationcompletelyoverhauledtheUSgovernmentoperationalpolicyframeworkrelatedtoincominginternationalassistance.ThenewpolicybecameknownastheInternationalAssistanceSystemConceptofOperations(IASCONOPS),firstreleasedin2010andupdatedin2015.IASCONOPSaddressesmanyofthechallengesencounteredduringthe2005crisisaswellasformalizesseveralofthemechanismsimprovisedinresponse.WhileIASCONOPSdoesnotacknowledgetheIDRLGuidelinesasafoundationforitsapproach,thedocumentmeetstheintentofwhattheFederation’sGuidelinessetouttoachieve.
4.3.2 ApplicableNationalLegal,PolicyandRegulatoryFrameworks TheUSConstitution
TheUSConstitutionestablishesafederalframeworkinwhichtheprimaryresponsibilityforpublichealthandsafetyrestswiththestates.(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates)AsenshrinedsubsequentlyintheStaffordAct,thefederalgovernmentonlybecomesengagedifastaterequestsassistanceorlocalresponsecapacityisoverwhelmed.
LikeCanada,theAmericanfederalsystemhasimportantimplicationsforincominginternationalassistance,particularlyasitappliestoprofessionallicensingandliabilityrequirementsforincomingpersonnel.IntheUS,theseregulatorymattersarefullyunderthelegalpurviewofstateauthorities,withvastlydifferentrequirementsacrossthem.Numerousstakeholdersinterviewedhaveexpressedprofoundconcernoverthechallengesthisarrangementposesforthecross-borderprovisionofmedicalandurbansearchandrescue(USAR)teams,asmoststatelevelframeworksrendersuchinternationalassistanceimpossible.TheUSgovernmenthasdevelopedpoliciesinwhichthenationalauthoritiescan“federalize”pre-certifiedAmericanUSARteamsandDisasterMedicalAssistanceTeams(DMAT).Thiswillallowtherespectivesectorstoprovideassistanceacrossthecountry,byhavingtheircredentialsrecognizednationallyaswellasextendcriticalliabilitycoverage.However,thisframeworkdoesnotextendtoincominginternationalteams.
The1988StaffordAct(amended2016)TheStaffordActestablishesthecountry’snationalemergencymanagementstructureandoperatingprocedurestoalignwiththeUSconstitutionalframework.The2016amendedversioncontainstwokeyprovisionsgermanetocross-borderassistance:
1. TheIASCONOPSsystemcannotbeengageduntilthereisa“StaffordAct”declarationofadisasterbythefederalgovernment(asopposedtosubnationalauthorities);
2. Staffordrecognizestheimportanceofemergencypreparedness-basedmutualaidframeworksinrelationto“neighboringcountries”,definedintheActasCanadaandMexico.(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,2016)
22|P a g e
2015IASCONOPSAswithMexico’sGuideonhumanitarianassistance,thisoperationalplanislaudedforbringingpolicycoherencetoUSgovernmentacceptanceofincominginternationalaid.UnliketheMexicangovernmentguidelines,however,IASCONOPSonlyappliestoassistancefromfellowgovernmentsandinternationalorganizationsandnotfromnongovernmentalorganizations,theprivatesectororprivatecitizens.Nordoesitcoveraidgiventostate,local,ortribalgovernmentsorreplacemutualaidagreementsalreadyinplace.StillitprovidesimportantlegalandpolicyguidanceapplicabletoallinternationalpartiesseekingtooffersupporttotheUSfollowingasignificantdisaster.Atthistime,thedocumentisnotpubliclyavailableinSpanish.
Thedocumentachievesthreeprimarypurposes:
1. Itestablishesaninter-agencyunderstandingofrespectiveresponsibilitiesandcoordinationprotocolsonthefederallevel,withakeyroletobeplayedbyFEMAregardingneedsassessmentandaidofferacceptancewhileDOShandlesintergovernmentalcommunications.
2. Itdisseminatesinformationtopotentialexternalaidprovidersrelatedtoappropriatechannelsofcommunication,thegovernment’saccept/declinesystemandregulatorymechanismsapplicabletoincomingassistance.
3. Itoutlinesallrelevantimmigrationandborderrequirementsforarrivingpersonnelfromabroad.
This59-pagedocument,comparabletoMexico’sframework,establishestheprimacyoftheUSgovernmentindeterminingwhetherexternalassistancewillberequiredandthatinternationalaidwillonlyberequestedinthemostextraordinarycircumstances.Italsostatesthatthepreferredformofassistanceisintheformofmonetarydonationstoappropriatedomesticrelieforganizations.Todateithasnotbeenformallyinvoked,butprovidedinformalguidancefollowingeventssuchasHurricaneSandyin2012.
FromtheviewpointofNorthAmericancross-borderresponse,thefollowingareseveralkeyhighlightsfromIASCONOPS:
1. DuetotheirheavilyregulatednaturewithintheUnitedStates(upto15USagencies)andstatecontroloversomemattersasnotedabove,a“No-Go”listaddressingpotentialincominggoodsandpersonnelisprovided.OnlyunderthemostextraordinarycircumstanceswouldFEMArequestthem,andeventhen,significantscrutinyandmajorpolicyadjustmentswouldberequired.The“No-Go”listincludes:“foodandwater,medicalsuppliesandequipment,personnel(foreignfirstresponders),andmiscellaneousequipmentandsupplies.”
2. A“Pull”listofpossiblegoodsthatFEMAhasidentifiedaspotentiallyneededbutrequiringlessregulationincludes:“emergencysuppliesnotsubjecttoAntidumpingorCountervailingDuties,hygienekits,blankets,andtarps.”
23|P a g e
3. USCustomsandBorderPatrol(CBP)canwaiveduties/taxesonrescueandreliefequipmentfortemporaryuseandifcertainconditionsaremet.
4. Undertheexceptionalcasewhereforeignreliefpersonnelwillbeaccepted,apassportwillberequiredatminimumforallenteringindividuals.ApassportalonemaybeacceptableforenteringCanadiancitizensinmostcases.xviMexicannationals,aswithothercountriesnotcoveredbythegovernment’sVisaWaiverProgram,mustalsoobtainaBusiness-relatedcategoryvisa.(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,USEmbassyandConsulatesinMexico)Yettheguidelinesalsoindicatethatthesedocumentrequirementsmaybewaived“onthebasisofunforeseenemergencyinindividualcases”,whichincludesinternationaldisasterservicespersonnel.IntergovernmentalarrangementsbetweentheUSandCanadamayalsohastentheprocess,ascoveredinSection5.1.2.Afeeandpriornotificationprocessisinvolvedwhichmaytoobewaivedundercertaincircumstances.Further,a2008bilateralagreementbetweenMexicoandtheUnitedStates(refertoSection5.2.2.)callsforeachcountryto“useitsbesteffortstofacilitatepromptentryintoandexitfromitsterritoryofpersonnelinvolvedinandmaterialsandequipmentforuseincooperativeprogramsunderthisAgreement”butdoesnotestablishprotocolsinthisregard.StakeholderinterviewshighlightedawidespreadconcernthatunderthecurrentUSpresidentialadministration(refertoSection5.2.1.),MexicanreliefpersonnelseekingtoentertheUSwouldencountermajordifficultiesinreceivingapprovaltodoso.
5. AnyforeignpersonnelwhowouldberequestedbyFEMAtocometotheUSwouldstillberequiredtoaddressmattersrelatedtoworker’scompensation,liabilitycoverageandcredentialandlicensingrequiredbystateswheretheproviderwouldoperatepriortoarrival.
6. Finally,itshouldbenotedthatUNOCHA’sUNDACprotocolsareintegratedintotheplan,butonlyinrelationtothereceiptofinternationalUSARteams,anexceptionalcircumstanceundercurrentlegalandregulatoryframeworks.(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,FEMA,2015)
AFinalNote:Cross-BorderMovementintotheUnitedStatesInthecaseofamorespontaneous,cross-bordermassmovementofpeopleeitherfromCanadaorMexicointotheUnitedStatesduetoacatastrophicevent,USimmigrationlawandregulationsrelatedtothosematterstermed“humanitarian”currentlydonotexplicitlyaddressthisscenario.LikeCanada,therehavebeenexceptionalcircumstanceswherebyimmigrationauthoritiesmayconsiderimpactbyanaturaldisaster,butonlyifaUS-basedfamilylink,financialsponsorshipandotherelementscanbedemonstrated.Twobilateralagreements
xviTherearespecialcategorieswhereavisaforCanadianpassportholderswillstillberequiredundernormalconditions,includingforCanadiangovernmentofficials,internationalorganizationrepresentativesandNATO-officialpersonnelontemporaryorpermanentassignment.(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,USEmbassyandConsulatesinCanada)
24|P a g e
betweentheUnitedStatesandCanada,coveredinSection5.1.2,urgethetwocountriestofacilitatethemovementofevacueesinseveraldisastercontexts,butdonotspecifydetails.
Assuch,itremainstobeclarifiedwhetherUSborderauthoritieshavethediscretiontowaivetherequirementsforenteringCanadiancitizenswhoarenotpassportholdersandforMexicannationals(aswellascitizensfromothernon-visawaivercountries)whowouldalsoadditionallyrequireanentrancevisa.StakeholderinterviewsubjectsindicatethattheremayalsobeapoliticalhesitationbytheUSgovernmenttopubliclyannounceapolicythataddresseslargescale,cross-bordermovementfollowingamajordisaster.
4.3.3 NAHRSDialoguePointsTheUShasmadesubstantialprogresssinceitspainfulKatrinaexperiencetoenhanceitspolicyandoperationalcapacitytoreceiveinternationalassistancefollowingamajorcatastrophicevent.Ithasdonesowithinacontextofsignificantlegalandregulatoryconstraints.StillinanticipationofacatastrophiceventintheUSrequiringoutsideassistance,andwiththeviewofelevatingtheefficiencyofcross-borderresponse,potentialfocusareasforupcomingNAHRSdiscussionsmightinclude:
1. HowIASCONOPSwouldrecognizetheassistanceprovidedbytheCanadianandMexicanRedCrossSocieties;
2. Federalvs.statelawsandregulationscoveringforeignmedicalteamsseekingtoenterandoperatewithintheUS;
3. USimmigrationpoliciesrelatedtoaspontaneous,cross-borderpopulationmovementintotheUS;and
4. TheprocessbywhichIASCONOPSandothercontrollingUSgovernmentdocumentsrelevanttocross-borderdisasterresponsewillbemadepubliclyavailableinSpanish.
5 APolicyNoteAboutIndigenousPeoplesinNorthAmericanBorderlands
ItisalsoimportanttonotethepresenceofIndigenousNations(eitherlivingonreservedortraditionallands)onboththeCanadian-USborderandtheMexican-USborder.AsRachelRoseStarksobserves:“Ofthe40orsoIndigenousNationswhosepeoplenowliveonbothsidesofaninternationalU.S.border,twelvehavereservationsthateithertouchorarewithinamileoftheCanadianorMexicanborder.Manymorehaverelationships—includingkinshipties--thatstraddletheseborders.”(Starks,McCormack,&Cornell,2011,p.6)IntheNorth,therearesixUSfederallyrecognizedtribeswhoselandscrosstheinternationalborder,includingthe28,000membersoftheMohawkNation.MohawklandsstretchfromNewYorkstateintopartsofQuebecandOntario.Inthesouth,themostexpansiveterritorybelongstotheTohonoO’odhamNationandits25,000plusmembers.Itstraditionallandsspan2.8millionacresacrossthestateofArizonaandintoSonora,Mexico.However,theMexicangovernmentdoesnotformallyrecognizethesetraditionallands.(Marchbanks,2015)
25|P a g e
Fromadisastermanagementperspective,onlyinrecentyearshavethethreeNorthAmericannationalgovernmentsmorefullysoughttoincorporateIndigenousNationconcernsintotheirpreparednessplans.IntheUS,whileFEMAhasestablishedTribalLiaisonsineachofitstenregionsandthe2013SandyRecoveryImprovementActrecognizedTriballeaders(ratherthanstategovernors)ashavingtheauthoritytodirectlyrequestadisasterdeclarationfromthepresident,avastmajorityoftheNationscannotapplyforFEMAfunding.(Peek&Carter,2016,p.52)Only20%ofthenearly600tribesintheUShaveFEMA-recognizeddisastermitigationplansinplace.(Peek&Carter,2016,p.53)Elsewhere,IndigenousandNorthernAffairsCanada(INAC)requiresFirstNationcommunitiestodevelopemergencymanagementplansandINACfundsthoseefforts.However,asMinisterofPublicSafetyandEmergencyPreparedness,RalphGoodale,toldaCanadianRedCrossgatheringinMay2017,“HereinCanadasomeofthebiggestgapsinemergencypreparednessandemergencyplanningareinIndigenouscommunities.”(HonorableRalphGoodale,2017)
6 IntergovernmentalAgreementsandArrangementsThisstudyemphasizesthedomesticlegalandpolicyframeworksofCanada,MexicoandtheUS,especiallyastheyimpactmutualcross-borderassistanceacrosstherelatedNationalSocieties.Thesenationalframeworksoperateintandemwithaprolificnetworkofbilateralagreements,chieflyamongCanadaandtheUSbutalsotoalesserextentbetweenMexicoandtheUS.Thefollowingsectionwillnotengageinacomprehensiveoverviewofallsuchagreementsinplace.RatheritwillprovideawiderbackdropfortheirexistenceandhighlightthoseinstrumentsthatserveasmajorreferencepointsforNAHRSstakeholdersinterviewedtodate,particularlyastheysupplyacontextforNationalSocietycooperation.
Note:WhiletheCanadian-Mexicandiplomaticrelationshipisverystrong,intergovernmentalunderstandingsbetweenthetwogovernmentsfalllargelyundermultilateralarrangementsatthistime.
6.1 CanadaandtheUS6.1.1 BilateralContextAt5,525miles(8,891kilometers),theCanadian-USborderisthelongestinternationalboundarybetweentwocountries.ThisborderregionencompasseseightofCanada’sthirteenprovincesorterritories(Yukon,BritishColumbia,Alberta,Saskatchewan,Manitoba,Ontario,QuebecandNewBrunswick)andthirteenUSStates(Alaska,Washington,Idaho,Montana,NorthDakota,Minnesota,Michigan,Ohio,Pennsylvania,NewYork,Vermont,NewHampshireandMaine).Some75%ofCanada’spopulation(of36millionpeople)livewithin100miles(161kilometers)oftheborder.Estimatesplace12%(of321million)oftheUSpopulationwithin100milesofthecommonborder.
Atonetime,thisboundarylinewasknownastheworld’s“longestundefendedborder”,butwithchangesenactedaftertheSeptember11,2001terroristattacksintheUS,theborderhassignificantly“hardened”thuscreatingmanychallengesforcross-borderdisasterassistance.
26|P a g e
TheborderremainsaveryactivespacegiventhatCanadaandtheUShavetheworld’slargesttradingrelationship.TheUS-Canadiantwo-waytradeingoodsandserviceswasnearly$628billion(US)in2016.(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,OfficeoftheUnitedStatesTradeRepresentative,2016)AccordingtoGAC“closeto400,000peoplecrossoursharedborderseverydayforbusiness,pleasure,ortomaintainfamilyties.”(GovernmentofCanada,GlobalAffairsCanada,2017(a))Militarily,CanadaandtheUSshareinthemutualdefenseoftheircommonaerospace(andsince2006,maritimeareas)throughtheNorthAmericanAerospaceDefenseCommand(NORAD).ItisimportanttonotethattheAmericancommanderofNORADalsoheadsUSNorthernCommand(USNORTHCOM)whose“civilsupportmissionincludesdomesticdisasterreliefoperationsthatoccurduringfires,hurricanes,floodsandearthquakes.”(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,USNorthernCommand)
6.1.2 IntergovernmentalAgreementsandUnderstandings(NationalLevel)Undertheheadingof“civildefense”or“civilemergencyplanning”,OttawaandWashingtonhavehadalonghistoryofintergovernmentalcooperation,datingbacktothe1967Canada-UnitedStatesAgreementConcerningCivilEmergencyPlanning.Mostobserversmarkthestartofthemoderneraofthetwocountries’collaborationwiththesigningofthe1986AgreementbetweentheGovernmentofCanadaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaonCooperationinComprehensiveCivilEmergencyPlanningandManagementin1986andperhapsmostimportantly,withitssuccessoraccord,the2008AgreementbetweentheGovernmentofCanadaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaonEmergencyManagementCooperation.Overthepastdecade,thetwogovernmentshavecontinuedtoexpandtheircooperationregardingmutualassistanceandaidfacilitationmechanisms.
ApplicablebilateralagreementsarecompiledinTheCompendiumofUS-CanadaEmergencyManagementAssistanceMechanisms(“US-CanadaCompendium”),itselfaproductofaWorkingGroupestablishedbythe2008Canada-USAgreement.AsecondeditionoftheUS-CanadaCompendium(whichonlyaddressesnationalgovernment-to-nationalgovernmentunderstandings)wasissuedjointlybyDHSandPSCinOctober2016.OfthethirtysomedocumentsincludedintheUS-CanadaCompendium,over75%ofthesearrangementswereonlyestablishedafter2006(inthepost-9/11andpost-Katrinaera).Theirsubjectmatterrunsthegamutfromjointcooperationoverpollutiontocriticalinfrastructuretocybersecuritytonuclearemergencies.(TheCompendiumofUS-CanadaEmergencyManagementAssistanceMechanisms,2016)
ThefollowingbilateralframeworkswerehighlightedasinstrumentalbyUSandCanadianstakeholdersastheyapplytocross-borderdisasterassistancebetweenthetwocountries:
1982Canada/UnitedStatesReciprocalForestFireFightingArrangementandOperationalPlan(Updated2017)
ThisarrangementfacilitatescooperationbetweentheCanadianInteragencyForestFireCentre(CIFFC)andtheUSNationalInteragencyCoordinationCenter(NICC)relatedtoequipment,personnelandaircraftas“neededacrosstheinternationalboundary.”The2017
27|P a g e
OperatingPlanforthisreciprocalarrangementassertsthatinadditiontothenationalgovernment-to-governmentinterchange,“Localagenciessharingcommoninternationalbordersareencouragedtoenterinto‘BorderAgreements’tofacilitatepre-suppressionandsuppressiononfiresposingcommonthreat.”Asafurthernote,theCanadiansidehasextendedthisframeworktoseveralothercountries,includingMexico.(Canada/UnitedStatesReciprocalForestFireFightingArrangementandOperationalPlan,2017)
Overthepastfewyearstherehavebeenseveralhigh-profilewildfiresinCanadawhichnecessitatedrequestsforassistanceofhundredsofexternalfireservicepersonnelfromtheUnitedStates,Mexicoandothercountries.WhiletheCanadianwildfirecrisesin2015and2016gainedsignificantmediaattentionduetotheseinternationalarrivals,mutualassistanceinthefireservicesectorstretchesbackdecades.
2008AgreementbetweentheGovernmentofCanadaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaonEmergencyManagementCooperation
Thismilestoneagreementbetweenthetwocountriesstructuresnearlydaily,on-goingcooperationbetweentherespectivegovernmentsrelatedtomutualinterestsinemergencymanagement.InadditiontoformalizingaWorkingGroupforhigh-levelconsultations,theinstrumentestablishestheprinciple--butnottheoperationaldetail--formutuallyfacilitatedentrycoveringemergencyservicespersonnel,goods,equipmentandtransportationsupport.Italsourgesthat“EachPartyshalluseitsbesteffortstofacilitatethemovementofevacuees,emergencypersonnel,equipmentorotherresourcesintoitsterritoryoracrossitsterritorywhenitisagreedthatsuchmovementwillfacilitateemergencyoperationsbybothParties”,furtheraddingthatevacueesshouldbesupportedaccordingtothesamestandardastheirowncitizens.(AgreementbetweentheGovernmentofCanadaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaonEmergencyManagementCooperation,2008)
2009Canada-UnitedStatesFrameworkfortheMovementofGoodsandPeopleAcrosstheBorderDuringandFollowinganEmergency(andMaritimeAnnex)andPlanfortheMovementofPeopleandGoodsDuringandFollowinganEmergency(Canada,Revised2014)
TheFrameworkcomesintoeffectifthereisa“significantborderdisruption”asaresultof“(a)AnattackorthreatofattacktotheUnitedStatesorCanadabyterrorists;(b)Anaturalorman-madeincident,includingapandemicorotherhealthincident,thatimpactslargenumbersofcitizensand/oraffectsCriticalInfrastructureandKeyResourcesofnationalinteresttooneorbothcountries;or(c)Federal,State,Local,Provincial,TerritorialorU.S.TribalGovernmentsrequestnational-levelassistancethroughexistingprocedures”TheAnnexcanbeinvoked“intheeventofanincident[describedabove]thataffectsthesharedmaritimetransportationsystems”ofCanadaandtheUnitedStates.
Itshouldbenotedthatthegovernmentsestablishcommunicationchannelstosupporttheagreementand“totakestepstoensurethatCanadaandtheUnitedStateshaveactivatedtheirrespectivedecision-makingprocessestomanagethemovementofgoodsandpeopleacrosstheborder”.However,thearrangementisnotinternationallylegallybindinganddoesnotreplace
28|P a g e
USandCanadianstatutoryandregulatoryframeworksinthisarea.(Canada-UnitedStatesFrameworkfortheMovementofGoodsandPeopleAcrosstheBorderDuringandFollowinganEmergency,2009)
2012AgreementbetweentheGovernmentofCanadaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesfortheSharingofVisaandImmigrationInformation
AccordingtotheUS-CanadianCompendium,“ItisintendedtostopthreatsbeforetheyarriveinCanadaortheU.S.[by]improvinginformationavailableforvisadeterminations,”throughtheestablishmentandverificationoftravelers’identities.(AgreementbetweentheGovernmentofCanadaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesfortheSharingofVisaandImmigrationInformation,2012)
6.1.3 IntergovernmentalAgreementsandUnderstandings(Provincial-Statelevel)Ontheprovince-to-statelevel,threeregionalcompactsexistwhichlinkalltheadjacentandterritorialsubunitsofCanadaandtheUnitedStatesintooneofthreeemergencymanagementarrangements.SinceundertheUSConstitutionstatescannotenterintointernationalagreements,thesecompacts–signedatthestate/provinciallevel--mustbeapprovedbyCongress(expostfactoinallthreecases).xviiThefederalgovernmentdoesnothaveasimilarroleinCanada.
AsBeverlyBellexplains,untilthecreationofthesecompacts,“state-to-provinceassistance—orviceversa—wasn’tclear-cut.Whilehelpwouldcome,itprobablywouldbedeliveredonapiecemealbasis,repletewithurgentphonecallsandemails,andplentyoflong-distancenegotiation.”Nowsheargues,theprovince-to-stateagreements“canfacilitatetheexchange.”(Bell,March/April2017)OtherobserverssuchasTimothyBoucheraremorecriticaloftheagreements.Bouchertermstheagreements“insufficient”as“theydonotprovidethebasisormeansforwhichemergencyresponderscancrosstheborderinanexpeditiousandsecuremanner.”(Boucher,2016,p.152)Hefurthernotesthatwhilethesecompactsareattheprovincial-statelevel,federalauthoritiesstillcontrolthebordercrossingsand“whenfirefightersrushfromtheirhomesinthemiddleofthenighttorespondtoacall,theydonotusuallystoptothinkiftheyhavetheirpassportsorlicenses.”(Boucher,2016,p.157)
Thethreecompacts(inorderoftheirestablishment)are:
1996PacificNorthwestEmergencyManagementArrangementCoveringBritishColumbiaandtheYukonplusAlaska,Idaho,OregonandWashington.(PacificNorthwestEmergencyManagementArrangement,1996)
xviiThetextofUSCongressionalauthorizationsofthevariouscompactscoveredinthissectioncanbefoundinthe2015CompendiumofAuthoritiesforFEMA’sInternationalAffairsEngagement.(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates.FEMA.InternationalAffairsDivision.,2015)
29|P a g e
2000InternationalEmergencyManagementAssistanceCompactCoveringNewBrunswick,NewfoundlandandLabrador,NovaScotia,PrinceEdwardIslandandQuebecplusConnecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,NewHampshire,RhodeIslandandVermont.(InternationalEmergencyManagementAssistanceCompact,2000)
2013NorthernEmergencyManagementAssistanceCompactCoveringAlberta,Manitoba,OntarioandSaskatchewanplusIllinois,Indiana,Ohio,Michigan,Minnesota,Montana,NewYork,NorthDakota,Pennsylvania,andWisconsin.(StateandProvinceEmergencyManagementAssistanceMemorandumofAgreement:ExecutiveSummary(NEMAC),2013)
Inadditiontothesethreecompacts,severalsector-specificprovincial-stateagreementsexist.ForemostamongthemisthePacificNorthwestBorderHealthAlliance(PNWBHA).ThePNWBHAgrewoutofthePacificNorthwestEmergencyManagementAgreementbyinstitutionalizing“thepreviouslyadhoccrossborderworkinggroups.”ItencompassesAlberta,BritishColumbia,SaskatchewanandtheYukonplusAlaska,Idaho,Montana,OregonandWashington.Goalsincludeprovidinganorganizationalstructurethatcanhelp“[t]opreventand/ormitigatethepotentialimpactofahealthincident,suchas;anaturally-occurringpandemic;adevastatingenvironmentalorgeologicalevent;oraterroristattackwithchemical,biologicalorradiologicalweapons,throughdynamicandopencollaboration.”Since2004,thisgroupinghasheldanannualcross-borderworkshopwhichhasaddressedissuesasvariedastrackinginfectiousdiseasesacrossborderstothehealthimpactsofseismicevents.(PacificNorthwestBorderHealthAlliance,n.d.)
6.2 MexicoandUS6.2.1 BilateralContextTheMexican-USborderisanestimated1,933miles(3,111kilometers)inlength.TheborderregionincludessixMexicanstates(BajaCalifornia,Sonora,Chihuahua,Coahuila,NuevoLeonandTamaulipas)andfourUSstates(California,Arizona,NewMexicoandTexas).UndertheLaPazAgreement(1983),theborderregionisdefinedas100kilometers(63miles)northandsouthoftheinternationalboundary.Withinthiszonethereareapproximately12millionpeople–apopulationwhichisexpectedtodoubleby2025.(UnitedStates-MexicoBorderHealthCommission)MexicoistheUnitedStates’third-largesttradingpartner(afterCanadaandChina).TheUS-Mexicantwo-waytradeingoodsandserviceswasnearly$580billion(US)in2016.(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,OfficeoftheUnitedStatesTradeRepresentative)Additionally,remittances--fundssentfromMexicansworkingintheUS--reachedarecordhighof$27billion(US)in2016.(Harrup,2017)Generally,thesefundsgodirectlytofamilymembersinMexico,butsomeare“collectiveremittances”whichareusedforcommunityprojects.LegalbordercrossingsalongthesharedUS-Mexicanboundaryaresignificantgiventhecommercial,employment,familyandeducationaldynamicsoftheborderregion.Unlikethenorthernborder,inthesouththerearemajoradjacentcitiesthatseeminglytranscendtheborderline(forexample,SanDiego/TijuanaorElPaso/CiudadJuarez).Dailylegalbordercrossingsnumberinthehundredsofthousandstoperhapsupwardstoamillionpeopleaday,makingitoneofthemosttraveledbordersintheworld.(Valverde,2016)
30|P a g e
Regardingtheborder,theUSDOSassertsthat“TheUnitedStatesandMexicohavealonghistoryofcooperationonenvironmentalandnaturalresourceissues,particularlyintheborderarea,wherethereareseriousenvironmentalproblemscausedbyrapidpopulationgrowth,urbanization,andindustrialization.”(GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,DepartmentofState,2017)Howeverasofthiswriting,thesix-montholdadministrationofUSPresidentDonaldTrumphascastaprofoundshadowovertheselong-standingbilateralareasofcooperation.Theadministration’sdecisiontorenegotiateratherthanterminateNAFTA(perhisoriginalposition)hastakenpressureoffoneelementofUS-Mexicanrelations.StillPresidentTrump’ssteadfastinsistenceuponheightenedbordersecuritymeasureswithMexico(includingthebuildingofaUS“wall”atMexico’sexpense)andincreasedimmigration-relatedarrestsofMexicannationalscurrentlyresidingintheUnitedStates,haveseveralNAHRSstakeholdersconcernedabouthowthisdiplomaticatmospherewillaffectcooperationincross-borderassistancematters.Otherstakeholdersinterviewed,however,believethatclosetiesandnetworkslonginplacebetweenMexicanandUSpublicservantsintheassistancesectorwillmitigatesomeofthenegativeimpactofhighlevelpoliticalrelations.
6.2.2 IntergovernmentalAgreementsandUnderstandings(NationalLevel)WhilenotasextensiveinnumberorasdeepinlegalobligationasthebilateralarrangementsbetweenCanadaandtheUnitedStates,thereareseveralemergencymanagementrelatedframeworksinplacebetweenMexicoandtheUnitedStates,primarilywithintheenvironmental,industrialandpublichealthsectors.Mostarecircumscribedtoinformationexchangesfocusingonpreparedness,informationsharingduringeventshavingasimultaneousimpactuponbothcountriesandtechnical/scientificcooperation.Theyarelessdedicatedtocross-borderresponsespecifically,buttherearesomeexceptions.Afewreferencedasimportantbystakeholdersrelatedtothisproject:
1983AgreementonCooperationfortheProtectionandImprovementoftheEnvironmentintheBorderArea(LaPazAgreement)
Whileheavilyorientedtowardenvironmentalprotectionprotocolscoveringtheborderarea--definedas62miles(100km)tothenorthandsouthoftheinternationalboundary--thisagreementalsocontainsprovisionsrelatedtojointcontingencyplanningandemergencyresponsefollowingapollution-baseddisasterintheidentifiedzone.Thesespecificsectorsofcooperationwerefurtherelaborateduponina1985Annextotheoriginalagreementanda1999JointContingencyPlan.LaPazemphasizescoordinationbetweenthecountry’sgovernmentswithintheirownnationalspheres,butdoescontainasectionrelatedtofacilitatingincomingassistanceineitherdirection:“InaccordancewithnationallegislationandassoonastheAgreemententersintoforce,specialcustoms,immigrationandothernecessaryauthorizationmechanismswillbesoughtbyeachParty.”(AgreementonCooperationfortheProtectionandImprovementoftheEnvironmentintheBorderArea(LaPazAgreement),1983)
OneofLaPaz’smorerecentimplementingmechanisms,Border2020,stronglyemphasizeslocalbordercommunitycooperationfollowingahazardoussubstancerelease,akintotheUS-
31|P a g e
Canadianstate-provinciallevelinstrumentsdiscussedearlier.Contingencyplanningforemergencyresponseisoneoftheareascoveredwithinthe15sister-cityplansspanningtheUS-Mexicanborder.ThearrangementalsocoverstheTohonoO'OdhamNation.(Border2020:US-MexicoEnvironmentalProgram,2012)
1999WildfireProtectionAgreementBetweentheDepartmentofAgricultureandtheDepartmentoftheInterioroftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandtheSecretariatofEnvironmentNaturalResourcesandFisheriesoftheUnitedMexicanStatesfortheCommonBorder(updatedin2003)
Thisagreement,likethatbetweenCanadaandtheUS,createsmoreexplicitcommitmentsaroundcross-borderassistanceduringwildfireevents:“ThepurposeofthisAgreementistoenablewildfireprotectionresourcesoriginatingintheterritoryofonecountrytocrosstheUnitedStates-Mexicoborderinordertosuppresswildfiresontheothersideoftheborderwithinthezoneofmutualassistanceinappropriatecircumstances.”A“zoneofmutualassistance"coversanareaofupto10milesor16kilometers(10miles)oneachsideoftheUnitedStates-Mexicanborder,althoughtheneedtogobeyondthiszoneisalsoenvisioned.
GiventhechallengesraisedregardingUSliabilitywaiversandotherlegalrequirementsinSection4.3.2.3.,thisagreementnotablyarrangesfor“crosswaiver”ofliabilityclaims(withafewexceptionssuchascriminalconduct).Thetwopartiesalsocommittocooperating“withtheinvolvedagenciesoftheirrespectivegovernments,toprocessappropriatelegaldocumentation,withintheapplicablelawsandregulationsofbothcountries,andtootherwisefacilitateentrytoandexitfromitsterritoryofallpersonnelengagedinwildfireprotection”.Thesameappliestothecross-bordermovementofgoods,specializedequipmentandtransportation.(WildfireProtectionAgreementBetweentheDepartmentofAgricultureandtheDepartmentoftheInterioroftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandtheSecretariatofEnvironmentNaturalResourcesandFisheriesoftheUnitedMexicanStatesfortheCom,1999;Updated2003)
2011AgreementbetweentheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofMexicoonEmergencyManagementCooperationinCasesofNaturalDisastersandAccidents
Whilesimilarintenortothe2008US-Canadianagreementonemergencymanagementcooperation,thispactfocusesprimarilyonestablishingchannelsofcommunicationthroughabinational,high-levelWorkingGrouptoaddressissuesinthissector.Nonethelessoneprovisiondoesurgethatthetwoparties“useitsbesteffortstofacilitatepromptentryintoandexitfromitsterritoryofpersonnelinvolvedinandmaterialsandequipmentforuseincooperativeprogramsunderthisAgreementsubjecttoapplicablelawsofeachcountry.”(AgreementbetweentheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofMexicoonEmergencyManagementCooperationinCasesofNaturalDisastersandAccidents,2011)
32|P a g e
6.3 TrilateralArrangementsBetweenCanada,MexicoandUSTheUS-CanadaCompendiumlistsonetrilateralunderstanding,the2012(NorthAmericanPlanforAnimalandPandemicInfluenza,2012).Thisdocumentidentifieshowthethreecountrieswouldcollectivelyprepareforandmanagealarge-scaleoutbreakofinfluenza(humanoranimal)impactingthecontinent.
Onthepoliticallevel,trilateralmeetingsofthenationalleaders–dubbedbysomeasthe“ThreeAmigosSummit”--datebacktoatleast2005whenitwaspartofthenowdefunctSecurityandProsperityPartnershipofNorthAmerica.Althoughoriginallyanannualgathering,ithasbecomemoreinfrequentinrecentyearswithdisagreementsandotherissuesleadingtosummitcancelations.ThelastwasheldinJune2016betweenPrimeMinisterJustinTrudeau,PresidentEnriquePenaNietoandPresidentBarackObama.ItisunclearwhetherthegatheringwillcontinueunderPresidentDonaldTrump.PresidentTrump’sMay2017decisiontore-opennegotiationsontheNorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA)mayalsoshapethefuturecourseoftrilateraldisasterassistance.WhileNAFTA’sfocusisontrade-orientedrulesandregulationsbetweenthethree,discussionsrelatedtocross-bordermovementmechanismsunderarevisedNAFTAmayhaveimplicationsforNorthAmericanmutualaid.
7 NorthAmericanRedCrossSocietiesCooperationandCross-BorderDisasterResponse
Uptothisjuncture,thisstudyhasmappedandanalyzedCanadian,MexicanandUSgovernmentallegalandpolicyframeworksrelatedtocross-borderassistancefollowingacatastrophicevent.ThissectionwilladdresstheinterfacebetweentheseofficialframeworksandtheagreementsinexistencebetweentheAmerican,CanadianandMexicanRedCrossNationalSocietiesinvariouscombinations.ItwillalsohighlightareasofinterestandconcernamongstakeholderinterviewparticipantspertainingtomutualassistancebytheNorthAmericanNationalSocietiesandtheirrespectiveborderchapters.
7.1 ContextforCooperationNumerouselementssetthecontextualstageforthequalityofNorthAmericanNationalSocietycooperation.Severalstrengthsinclude:thedeeppridethateachsocietytakesinassistingtheothersthroughasharedsenseofhumanitarianimperative,andspecificallytheRedCross/RedCrescentMovement’sseven“FundamentalPrinciples”xviii;thepivotalvalueofthethreeorganizations’seniorleadershipmeetingannually;andthelegallyenshrinedauxiliarystatustheNationalSocietiespossesswithintheirrespectivehomecountries.YetinterviewedstakeholdershavealsohighlightedseveralfactorsthatmayimpacttheoverallefficiencyofNorthAmericancross-borderdisasterresponseoperationsinvolvingthethreeSocieties.TheyincludevaryingdegreesofpublicunderstandingrelatedtoaNationalSociety’sspecialrolein
xviiiTheyinclude:humanity;impartiality;neutrality;independence;voluntaryservice;unityanduniversality.(IFRC)
33|P a g e
aidprovision,theSocieties’respectivedecentralizedorganizationalstructuresandpotentiallymissedopportunitiestocapitalizeonIFRCresourcesandnetworks.
Duringprojectinterviewsaswellasinmediacoverage,representativesofthethreeNationalSocietiesexpressedconsiderableprideinthefactthattheyhavehelpedeachotheroutduringtimesofcrisis.TheCanadianandMexicanNationalSocietiesnoteassistancegiventotheUSduringHurricanesKatrina(thefirsttimeeveronbehalfoftheMexicanRedCross),Ikein2008andSandyin2012.(AmericanRedCross,2012(a))(AmericanRedCross,2012(b))TheMexicanRedCrossalsoinstrumentallyprovidedcross-borderaidtotheUSduringthe2007SouthernCaliforniawildfiresandthe2015Hidalgo,Texasand2016BatonRouge,Louisianafloodingevents.(Weaver,2009)(Jarrell,2016)MexicanNationalSocietypersonnelnotethattheirassistancetotheUS(andbyextensionCanada)ismorethanthetangibleelementsoffoodortents.TheMexicanstaffalsomakeameaningfuldifferenceinprovidingtranslationservicestoSpanishonlyspeakers.Equallycrucially,manyundocumentedMexicannationalsresidingindisasterimpactedareasintheUSfeeltheycanapproachtheMexicanRedCrossforassistancewhiletheyarepotentiallymorefearfultodosowithAmericanreliefpersonnel.AsoneAmericanRedCrossprovidercapturedtheroleoftheMexicanNationalSocietyfollowingtheSouthernCaliforniawildfires:
WhenAmericanandMexicanRedCrossvolunteerswalkedside-by-sidethroughaffectedHispaniccommunities,manymorepeoplecameuptousforhelp…TheMexicanRedCrossuniformsaredifferentthanoursandwell-knownbyallMexicansfortheirdisasterassistancebecausetheyaretheprimaryemergencyrespondersintheircountry.Sowereachedagreaternumberofpeoplethisway.(AmericanRedCross,2008)
ARCpersonnelweredispatchedtoCanadaduringthe2013AlbertaFloodsandthe2015Saskatchewanand2016FortMcMurryfireemergencies.(CanadianRedCross,2013)(AmericanRedCross,2016)TheAmericanRedCrossalsopartneredwiththeMexicanRedCrosstoproviderelieftothoseimpactedinMexicobyHurricaneDeanin2007,the2010Laredofloods,2014HurricaneOdileandattheborderduringthe2014CentralAmericanunaccompaniedminorscrisis.(AmericanRedCross-Texas/CruzRojaMexicanaCrossBorderMeeting[MeetingNotes],Laredo,Texas,2011)(Weaver,2009)(DeFrancis,2015)WhilephysicalCanadianRedCrossassistancetoMexicoisrarer(andvice-versa),theCanadianNationalSocietyhaschanneledCanadiangovernmentandprivatedonationstotheMexicanRedCrossduringmajordisasterssuchasthe2007TabascoFloods.(CanadianRedCross,2007)
Outsideofthesehighmediaprofileexamples,localborderchapters—particularlyontheUS-Canadianborder—reportnearlydailyexampleswherebytherespectiveSocietiesassisteachotherduringthemyriadsmallemergenciesthatoccur.AmericanandMexicanRedCrosslocalchaptersexpressasimilardesiretoengageinmutualassistancebutexpressconcernthatUSimmigrationpoliciesandpersonalsecurityconcernsontheMexicansidenearthebordermakesuchad-hocaidmuchmoredifficult.
34|P a g e
AnotherreinforcingelementtoNorthAmericanNationalSocietycooperationisthateachyearsince2009,thePresidentsofthethreeNationalSocieties,SuinagaCardenas(Mexican),GailMcGovern(American)andConradSauvé(Canadian)havemettodiscussmattersrelatedtocross-borderresponsealongwiththeirseniorleadership.(DeFrancis,2015)Theirhighlycollegialworkingrelationship—thethreearedubbedthe“threeamigos”—iscreditedwithfacilitatinghighlypositiveinteractionsacrosstherespectiveorganizationsandhaveledtosignificantcapacitybuildingmeasuresregardingmutualassistance(refertoSection6.2).
ManystakeholdersalsoaffirmtheimportanceoftheirrespectiveNationalSocieties’specialauxiliarystatuswithintheirhomecountries,alegalprinciplelongestablishedbyInternationalHumanitarianLaw,rulesoftheRedCross/RedCrescentMovementandnationallegislationwithineachcountry.YetwhilethisarrangementmakestheSocietieslegallyuniqueamongalldomesticrelieforganizationswithintheirowncountries,severalRedCrossrepresentativeshaveexpressedconcernthatthisrelationshipisnotalwaysclearlyunderstoodbygovernmentofficialsorthepublic,dependingonthenationalcontextandthenatureofthecrisis.AnIFRCmediaitemechoesthissentiment:“TheauxiliaryroleisoneofthedefiningcharacteristicsoftheRedCrossRedCrescent’srelationshipwithgovernments.Itisalso,arguably,oneoftheleastwellunderstoodaspectsoftheMovement.”(Zambello,2012)ThislackofclarityregardingtheuniquecontributionsoftheparticipatingSocietiescouldpotentiallygeneratedifferingpolicyexpectationsoftheirrolesduringacross-borderdisasterresponse.
Finally,theNationalSocieties’internalorganizationalmakeupandtheirexternalaffiliationwiththeIFRCinjectadditionalvariablesintothecalculusofcross-borderassistance.Theendresultsarebotharichpoolofresourcesfromwhichtodrawduringtimesofcrisisbutalsoamuchmorecomplexresponselandscape.ThethreeNationalSocieties’decentralizedorganizationalstructurebetweennationalheadquartersandlocalchapters,producesamulti-levelnetworkofrelationships,operatingvalues,expectationsandevenITsystems,adynamicclearlyrecognizedbyallstakeholdersinterviewedfortheproject.WhilethenationalleadershipofthethreeSocietieshaveforgedstrongbondsamongeachother,itshouldbealsorecognizedtheequallysignificanttiesbetweenlocalcommunitiesandchaptersresidingacrossfromeachotheralongtherespectiveborders.Akeensenseofsharedinterestsisevidentrelatedtodisasterreliefirrespectiveofinternationalboundariesandnationalpolicies,shapingtheircriticalbutoftenoverlookedroleasthefirstwaveofcross-borderdisasterresponse.“Helpcan’twait”wasaphraseofteninvokedbyRedCrossborderchapterpersonneloneverysideoftherespectiveinternationalbordersduringinterviewsforthisproject.
Conversely,thefederalrelationshipsbetweentheGeneva-basedRedCrossandRedCrescentMovementandtheindividualNationalSocietiesaddyetanotherlayertotheconductofcross-borderoperations.SomeinterviewsubjectssuggestedthatopportunitiesexisttofosterstillstrongertieswiththeIFRC,andthatitsmultinationalinformationalandnetworkresourcescouldbefurthercapitalizeduponduringacatastrophicNorthAmericanevent.
35|P a g e
7.2 FrameworksforNorthAmericanRedCrossSocietyCooperationThreeMOUswereprovidedbytheAmericanRedCrosscoveringcross-borderassistancebetweenthethreeNationalSocieties.Theyinclude:1)the2008MOUbetweentheAmericanandCanadianRedCrossNationalSocieties(MemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenTheAmericanNationalRedCrossandTheCanadianRedCross,2008);2)thetrilateralMOUbetweentheAmerican,CanadianandMexicanNationalSocieties(dateunconfirmed;butbelievedtobe2009);and3)a2009borderchapterMOUbetweenSanDiego/ImperialCounty,CaliforniaandBajaCalifornia,Mexico.
Whileitdoesnotexplicitlystateit,itappearsthatthetrilateralMOUhasthecontractualeffectofreplacingthebilateralAmerican-CanadianRedCrossagreement.Researchindicatestheexistenceofa2008counterpartbilateralagreementbetweentheAmericanandMexicanNationalSocieties,butnocopyhasbeenprovided.AccordingtoauthoritativeofficialsinvolvedwithUS-Mexicanborderchaptercooperation,therearenootherlocalMOUsthatexistamongthesouthernborder.ItremainstobeconfirmedastowhethertherearelocalchapterMOUsalongtheUS-Canadianborder.ThisscanwillbeupdatedasfurtherdocumentsareprovidedbutatthistimethetrilateralagreementandtheSanDiego-BajaCaliforniaMOUwillbeexaminedmorecloselyhere.
7.2.1 MemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenTheAmericanRedCross,TheMexicanRedCross,TheCanadianRedCross(yeartobeconfirmed)
Thistrilateralagreementcoverssixaspectsofcooperation,withDisasterPreparednessandResponseidentifiedasthefirstarea.TheMOUestablishesseveralpointsofunderstanding,including:
1. Supportfortherespectiveborderchaptersand“theirtraditionalestablishedneighborlyrelations”aswellasfortheirindividualmutualaidagreements“intimeofborderdisastersaffectingtheirrespectivepopulations”;
2. Participatingborderpersonnelmustrespectthenationallawsofthecountrytowhichtheyaredeployed;
3. BorderchaptersshouldkeeptheirrespectiveNationalHeadquartersinformedofaresponsetoa“significant”incident;
4. PersonnelareexchangedonlyafterarequestismadeinwritingbytherequestingSociety;
5. ThesalariesofparticipatingpersonnelwillbecoveredbythesendingSocietywhilecostsareabsorbedbythehostingSociety;and
6. SendingSocietieswillprovidedetailedinformationregardingpersonnel,includingbackgroundcheckresults.(MemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenTheAmericanRedCross,TheMexicanRedCross,TheCanadianRedCross,n.d.)
TheMOUdoesnotaddressanyspecificelementsrelatedtothenationallawsandregulationsofthehostcountriesapplicabletocross-borderassistance,assurveyedinSection4ofthis
36|P a g e
study.MOUstypicallypossessmoregeneralprovisionstoallowforoperationalflexibilityasyearspass.StillitmaybetimetoupdatethetrilateralNationalSocietyagreementtorecognizesomeoftheinherentlegalandregulatorychallengesthatwillimpedecross-SocietycooperationandtodeterminejointcoursesofactionthattheNationalSocietiescanpursueinrelationtotheirhomegovernmentstofacilitateborderentryofpersonnel,goodsandequipment.ThispointisperhapsfurtheremphasizedbyatrilateralmeetingofthethreeNationalSocietypresidentsin2013,whosetalksthatyearfocusedonestablishing“protocolsforhumanitarianassistancethatareunifiedwiththeauthoritiesineachcountry”accordingtoanIFRCpressrelease.(RedCrossSocietiesinCanada,MexicoandtheUnitedStatestoCooperateFurtherDuringMajorDisasters,2013)
7.2.2 2009MutualAidAgreementbetweenAmericanRedCross,SanDiego/ImperialCountiesChapterandLaCruzRoja,BajaCaliforniaDelegacion
Thisborderchapteragreementwasconsideredlandmarkforitstimeandemergedbecauseofthepreviouscooperationbetweentheinvolvedlocalchaptersduringthedevastating2007SouthernCaliforniafires.Itestablishesmutualexpectationsinthefollowingareas:
1. Theagreementwillcoverplanning,trainingandspecializedassistancerequestsbetweenthechapters;
2. LikethetrilateralagreementbetweentheNationalSocieties,itestablishesprotocolsforassistancerequests,responsibilityforcostsandliabilityandothermatters;and
3. Importantly,itrecognizestheresponsibilityoftherespectivechapterstoworkwithgoverningauthoritiestodomesticallyfacilitatetheassistanceprovidedbythesendingchapter:“TheRequestingPartyshouldfacilitatetherapidentryoftheresourcesandpersonneloftheRespondingPartywiththeirrespectivefederalimmigrationandcustomsauthorities.Thisdoesnotexempttherespondingpartyfromtherequirementofhavingthenecessarydocumentstolegallyenterthecountrythathasrequestedtheassistance.”(MutualAidAgreementbetweenAmericanRedCross,SanDiego/ImperialCountiesChapterandLaCruzRoja,BajaCaliforniaDelegacion,2009)
In2010,Texas-basedRedCrossborderchaptersactivelypursuedtheirownMOUwiththeirimmediatecounterpartsinCoahuila,TamaulipasandNuevoLeonStatesinMexicoandsubsequentlyheldameetinginTexasin2011.(Sano,2011)(AmericanRedCross-Texas/CruzRojaMexicanaCrossBorderMeeting[MeetingNotes],Laredo,Texas,2011)Despitestrongsupportexpressedbyallsidesastothedesirabilityofsuchanagreement,subsequentimmigrationandfinancialdifficultiespreventedfurtherprogressontheinitiative.Still,AmericanandMexicanRedCrossrepresentativeshaveindicatedsignificantinterestinrelaunchingtheproject,particularlyduetoincreasedunpredictabilityunderthecurrentUSpresidentialadministrationandheightenedtensionstowardMexicannationalswithinTexasitself.BorderAmericanRedCrossprovidersnotethattheyhavestillbeenabletofurnishassistancewhenrequestedbypro-activelybuildingarapportwithUSborderauthoritiesand
37|P a g e
relatedconsulates.Yettheyprefertomovefromanimprovisational,adhocapproachtoonethatismoreformalized.
Conversely,borderchaptersontheUS-Canadianborderreporthighlevelsofinteractionandcollaborationonaregularbasis,anddosowithoutformalizedprotocolsandsignificantinvolvementwithnationalheadquarters.Stakeholdersinterviewedfortheprojectbelievethattodatethemoreflexible,lessinstitutionalizedapproachhasservedthemwell.Nonethelesstheyhavenotedthattherehavebeenperiodicissues--particularlywithUSborderauthorities--thatmaybecomeheightenedduringamoreextremeevent,warrantingamorestructuredapproachinsomecases.
7.3 NAHRSDialoguePointsFromtheperspectiveoftheNorthAmericanNationalSocietiesandtheirrespectiveborderchapters,theNAHRSSummitinitiativerepresentsanexcitingopportunity.Theprojectprovidesanoccasiontorevitalizealreadyexistingagreements,byaligningthemwithcurrentbestpracticeapproachestolegalandpolicypreparednessapplicabletocross-borderdisasterresponse.Forthoseborderchaptersdesiringgreaterformalization,theNAHRSinitiativesuppliesnewenergyandmomentumtoconcludelocalagreements,especiallyconsideringlargerpoliticalanddiplomaticdevelopmentsontheUS-Mexicanborder.
AnotherachievablebutextremelyusefuloutcomefortheNationalSocietiesduringthisprocessistopursue“documentpreparedness”.Throughouttheconductofthepolicyscan,therewasalackofclarityacrossandwithintheNationalSocietiesregardingtheexistence,locationandstatusofagreementsineffect.ThisphenomenonisinnowayuniquetotheRedCross.Stillanessentialelementofanysuccessfulemergencyresponseplanwithinandacrosspartneringorganizationsisimmediateandwidelyavailableaccesstodocumentsvitaltoanefficientandtimelyresponse.Whileitmayseemlikeasimplestep,pursuingsuchmeasureswillhaveaprofoundlytransformingeffectduringcross-borderdisasterresponse.
8 ConcludingCommentsToechotheopeningcommentsofthisstudy,findingapolicylaunchingpointforaproductivemulti-stakeholderdialogueoncross-borderdisasterresponseacrossthreeverydifferentcountriesmayseeminitiallyformidable.Yetinterviewswithnearly20NAHRS-relatedstakeholdershighlightthepresenceoftwovitalingredientsnecessarytoensuringthesuccessoftheproject.ThefirstisthatparticipantsfirmlybelieveinthefundamentalimportanceofsuchaninitiativeanduniversallylaudtheAmericanRedCrossfortakingtheleadonit.Secondly,NAHRSstakeholders—whethertheyarehigh-levelgovernmentofficialsordecadeslongvolunteerswithlocalRedCrosschapters--wanttheprojecttoachievemaximumsuccess.Thesetwointangiblebutessentialelementswillbeimportantinthecomingmonthsofpolicydiscussions.
38|P a g e
9 ReferencesAgreementbetweentheGovernmentofCanadaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesforthe
SharingofVisaandImmigrationInformation.(2012).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-policy/agreements/can-usa-agreement.asp
AgreementbetweentheGovernmentofCanadaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaonEmergencyManagementCooperation.(2008).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.state.gov/documents/organization/142916.pdf
AgreementbetweentheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandtheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofMexicoonEmergencyManagementCooperationinCasesofNaturalDisastersandAccidents.(2011).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.state.gov/documents/organization/161801.pdf
AgreementonCooperationfortheProtectionandImprovementoftheEnvironmentintheBorderArea(LaPazAgreement).(1983).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/lapazagreement.pdf
AmericanRedCross.(2008,September19).USA:RedCrossVolunteersReachAcrossBordersinHourofNeed.ReliefWeb.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://reliefweb.int/report/united-states-america/usa-red-cross-volunteers-reach-across-borders-hour-need
AmericanRedCross.(2012(a),December10).CruzRojaMexicanaAnswersaCallforNorthAmericanRelief.DisasterOnlineNewsroom.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://redcross.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/story-cruz-roja-mexicana-answers-a-call-for-north-american-relief/
AmericanRedCross.(2012(b),December14).VolunteersRespondtoSandyfromCanada,Mexico.redcross.org.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.redcross.org/news/article/Volunteers-Respond-to-Sandy-from-Canada-Mexico
AmericanRedCross.(2016,May12).AmericanRedCrossDeploys50TeamMemberstoCanada.redcross.org.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.redcross.org/news/article/American-Red-Cross-deploys-50-team-members-to-Canada
AmericanRedCross-Texas/CruzRojaMexicanaCrossBorderMeeting[MeetingNotes],Laredo,Texas.(2011,January20).
Bell,B.(March/April2017).MutualAid,MutualBenefits:AgreementsBetweenCanada,USStatesCanBringEmergencyAssistanceMoreQuickly.TheCouncilofStateGovernments.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/2013_sept_oct/internationalmutualaid.aspx
Bookmiller,R.J.,&Bookmiller,K.N.(2016).DonorCountriesasAidRecipients:theUSA,NewZealandandtheLessonsofHurricaneKatrina.InternationalJournalofEmergencyManagement,12(3),263-283.
Border2020:US-MexicoEnvironmentalProgram.(2012).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/border2020summary.pdf
39|P a g e
Boucher,T.(2016).CrossBorderEmergencyResponse:DecreasingInternationalBorderCrossingWaitTimesandMaintainingHeightenedSecurityVigilanceinthePost9/11Era.SyracuseJournalofInternationalLawandCommerce,44,149-178.
Canada/UnitedStatesReciprocalForestFireFightingArrangementandOperationalPlan.(2017).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.nifc.gov/nicc/logistics/International%20Agreements/Canada%20Support.pdf
Canada-UnitedStatesFrameworkfortheMovementofGoodsandPeopleAcrosstheBorderDuringandFollowinganEmergency.(2009).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/border_management_framework_2009-05-27.pdf
CanadianRedCross.(2007).MexicoFloods.redcross.ca.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.redcross.ca/how-we-help/current-emergency-responses/past-emergency-responses/past-emergencies-and-disasters/international/2007/mexico-floods
CanadianRedCross.(2013,July15).AmericanRedCrossAssistsResponseinAlberta,Canada.redcross.org.RetrievedJuly17,2018,fromhttp://www.redcross.org/news/article/American-Red-Cross-Assists-Response-in-Alberta-Canada
Cantor,D.J.(2015,February).Law,PolicyandPracticeConcerningtheHumanitarianProtectionofAliensonaTemporaryBasisintheContextofDisasters:BackgroundPaper.TheNansenInitiative.
Comfort,L.(1986).InternationalDisasterAssistanceintheMexicoCityEarthquake.FMHIPublications,#24.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://scholarcommons.usf.edu/fmhi_pub/24/
CouncilofDelegatesoftheInternationalRedCrossandRedCrescentMovement,Resolution5,Paragraph2,Geneva,11–14November2001.(2002).RevueInternationaleDeLaCroix-Rouge/InternationalReviewoftheRedCross,84(845),p.277.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/263-288_resolutions.pdf
DeFrancis,S.(2015,October23).InternationalCollaborationKeytoInternationalDisasterResponse.redcrosschat.org.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://redcrosschat.org/2015/10/23/international-collaboration-key-to-disaster-response/
Edgecombe,V.(2011,May).DeploymentoftheCanadianRedCrossEmergencyResponseUnitandFieldAssessmentCoordinationTeaminCanada:AnOverviewoftheLegalIssues.
Fisher,D.(2007).LawandLegalIssuesinInternationalDisasterResponse:ADeskStudy.Geneva:InternationalFederationoftheRedCrossandRedCrescentSocieties.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/125735/113600-idrl-deskstudy-low-en.pdf
Fritz,C.,&Mathewson,J.(1957).ConvergenceBehaviorinDisasters:AProbleminSocialControl.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyofSciences/NationalResearchCouncil.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://ia800304.us.archive.org/10/items/convergencebehav00fritrich/convergencebehav00fritrich.pdf
40|P a g e
GlobalEmergencyGroup.(May17,2017).Annex3:TermsofReferenceforNAHRSReferenceGroup.MargaretA.CargillPhilanthropy(MACP)NorthAmericanHumanitarianResponseSummit(NAHRS)ProjectInceptionReport.
GovernmentofCanada.(1988).EmergenciesAct.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/E-4.5.pdf
GovernmentofCanada.(2002).ImmigrationandRefugeeProtectionAct(includesamendmentsandregulationsthrough2017).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/I-2.5.pdf
GovernmentofCanada.(2007).EmergencyManagementAct.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/E-4.56.pdf
GovernmentofCanada.(2011).FederalEmergencyResponsePlan.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mrgnc-rspns-pln/mrgnc-rspns-pln-eng.pdf
GovernmentofCanada.(2016).ImmigrationandRefugeeProtectionRegulations.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2002-227.pdf
GovernmentofCanada,CanadianBorderServicesAgency.(2016).MemorandumD8-1-1.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d8/d8-1-1-eng.html
GovernmentofCanada,GlobalAffairsCanada.(2017(a)).CanadaandUnitedStatesRelations.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://international.gc.ca/world-monde/united_states-etats_unis/relations.aspx?lang=eng&_ga=2.25393085.12556078.1497101074-1945257028.1497101074
GovernmentofCanada,GlobalAffairsCanada.(2017(b)).VisasandImmigration.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/ci-ci/visa.aspx?lang=eng
GovernmentofCanada,PublicSafetyCanada.(2011).NationalEmergencyResponseSystem.Ottawa:OperationsDirectorate,PublicSafetyCanada.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ntnl-rspns-sstm/ntnl-rspns-sstm-eng.pdf
GovernmentofCanada,PublicSafetyCanada.(2016).AuditoftheGovernmentOperationsCentre.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-dt-goc/2016-dt-goc-en.pdf
GovernmentofCanada,PublicSafetyCanada.(2017,April10).AboutPublicSafetyCanada.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/index-en.aspx
GovernmentofMexico.(2010).Compendium[Mexico'sContributiontoEIHPRegionalCompendiumofRegulatoryInstrumentsProject].
GovernmentofMexico.(2012(a)).GeneralCivilProtectionAct[LeyGeneralDeProtecciónCivil].RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/156695/LeyGPC.pdf
GovernmentofMexico.(2012(b)).GeneralGuidelinesfortheIssuanceofVisasIssuedbytheMinistriesofInteriorandForeignAffairs[LineamientosGeneralesParaLaExpedicióndeVisasQueEmitenLasSecretaríasDeGobernaciónydeRelacionesExteriores].RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/156695/LINEAMIENTOS%20generales%20para%20la%20expedici
41|P a g e
%C3%B3n%20de%20visas%20que%20emiten%20las%20secretar%C3%ADas%20de%20Gobernaci%C3%B3n%20y%20de%20Relaciones%20Exteriores.pdf
GovernmentofMexico.(2015).Mexico'sConstitutionof1917withAmendmentsThrough2015.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2015.pdf?lang=en
GovernmentofMexico,MinistryoftheInterior.(2014).GuideforReception,Organization,Distribution,AndDeliveryOfHumanitarianAssistance/ProvisionToAssistPopulationsAffectedByADisaster[GuíaparalaRecepción,Organización,Distribución,yEnvíodeSuministrosHumanitariosparalaAsistencia).
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates.(2016).TheStaffordAct,asamendedandEmergencyManagement-relatedProvisionsoftheHomelandSecurityAct,asamendedFEMA592.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/15271?fromSearch=fromsearch&id=3564
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates.(n.d.).TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,DepartmentofState.(2017,January25).USRelationswithMexico.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,FEMA.(2015).InternationalAssistanceSystemConceptofOperations(IASCONOPS).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1444411200092-5b09869d53801ceb5640c00b2f337e64/2015_IAS_CONOPS_Public_Version_Accessible.pdf
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,OfficeoftheUnitedStatesTradeRepresentative.(2016).US-CanadaTradeFacts.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,OfficeoftheUnitedStatesTradeRepresentative.(n.d.).US-MexicoTradeFacts.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,USEmbassyandConsulatesinCanada.(n.d.).CanadiansRequiringVisas.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://ca.usembassy.gov/visas/do-i-need-a-visa/
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,USEmbassyandConsulatesinMexico.(n.d.).Visas.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://mx.usembassy.gov/visas/
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,USNorthernCommand.(n.d.).AboutUSNORTHCOMM.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.northcom.mil/About-USNORTHCOM/
GovernmentoftheUnitedStates.FEMA.InternationalAffairsDivision.(2015).CompendiumofAuthoritiesforFEMA’sInternationalAffairsEngagement.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1466080733162-5da2a27ffe8055b70c11ab4dea8c4773/FEMA_International_Engagement_Compendium_2015.final.pdf
42|P a g e
Harrup,A.(2017,February1).RemittancestoMexicoHitRecord$27Billionin2016.TheWallStreetJournal.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/remittances-to-mexico-hit-record-27-billion-in-2016-1485978810
HonorableRalphGoodale.(2017).RemarkstotheRedCrossandEconomicClubofCanadaonEmergencyPreparedness.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2017/05/red_cross_speechnotes.html
IFRC.(2007(a)).IntroductiontotheGuidelinesfortheDomesticFacilitationandRegulationofInternationalDisasterReliefandInitialRecoveryAssistance.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/41203/1205600-IDRL%20Guidelines-EN-LR%20(2).pdf
IFRC.(2007(b)).PledgesonIDRL:Section3.1-StrengtheningtheLegalframework.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/41203/idrl-ic2007-pledge-chart.pdf
IFRC.(2011).DisastersintheAmericas:TheCaseforLegalPreparedness.Geneva:InternationalFederationoftheRedCrossandRedCrescentSocieties.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://preparecenter.org/sites/default/files/Disasters%20in%20Americas_2011.pdf
IFRC.(2012,October31).IDRLProgressinMexico:Interview.DisasterLawNewsletter.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/idrl/latest-news/disaster-law-newsletter-october-2012/idrl-progress-in-mexico-interview-60167/
IFRC.(2017).AdoptedLegislationandRules.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.ifrc.org/what-we-do/disaster-law/about-disaster-law/international-disaster-response-laws-rules-and-principles/idrl-guidelines/new-legislation-adopted-on-idrl/
IFRC.(n.d.).TheSevenFundamentalPrinciples.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.ifrc.org/who-we-are/vision-and-mission/the-seven-fundamental-principles/
Inter-AgencyStandingCommittee.(2012).TransformativeAgendaReferenceDocument:HumanitarianSystem-WideEmergencyActivation.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/IASC%20System-Wide%20Activation.pdf
InternationalEmergencyManagementAssistanceCompact.(2000).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.iemg-gigu-web.org/mou-e.asp
Jarrell,R.(2016,September24).MexicanRedCrossTravelstoBatonRougetoJoinAmericanRedCrossinFloodRecovery.WBRZ(television).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.wbrz.com/news/mexican-red-cross-travels-to-baton-rouge-to-join-american-red-cross-in-flood-recovery/
JointTaskForcePacificHumanitarianAssistanceandDisasterResponse(HADR)SymposiumMeetingAgenda,1May2015.(n.d.).
LessonsofPastDisastersHelpedMexicoSidesteptheBruntofaHurricane.(2015,October24).TheNewYorkTimes.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/world/americas/planning-helps-mexico-avoid-major-problems-from-hurricane-patricia.html?_r=0.
43|P a g e
Marchbanks,R.(2015,Spring).TheBorderline:IndigenousCommunitiesontheInternationalFrontier.TribalCollege:JournalofAmericanIndianHigherEducation,26(3).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://tribalcollegejournal.org/borderline-indigenous-communities-international-frontier/
MemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenTheAmericanNationalRedCrossandTheCanadianRedCross.(2008).
MemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenTheAmericanRedCross,TheMexicanRedCross,TheCanadianRedCross.(n.d.).
MutualAidAgreementbetweenAmericanRedCross,SanDiego/ImperialCountiesChapterandLaCruzRoja,BajaCaliforniaDelegacion.(2009).
Nemrava,K.(2014,May22).CanadianRedCrossSocietySubmissiontotheB.C.StakeholderConsultationonCatastrophicEarthquakePreparedness.
NorthAmericanPlanforAnimalandPandemicInfluenza.(2012).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/international/Documents/napapi.pdf
OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment.(2013).OECDReviewsofRiskManagementPolicies:Mexico2013:ReviewofMexicanNationalCivilProtectionSystem.OECDPublishing.
PacificNorthwestBorderHealthAlliance.(n.d.).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.pnwbha.org/
PacificNorthwestEmergencyManagementArrangement.(1996).RetrievedJuly18,2018,fromhttp://www.pnwbha.org/reports/PNEMA-annex-a-and-b.PDF
ParliamentofCanada.(n.d.).AbouttheConstitution.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://lop.parl.ca/ParlInfo/Compilations/Constitution.aspx?Menu=Constitution
Peek,L.,&Carter,L.(2016,Fall).AnExplorationofUnitedStatesFederalPolicyTargetingAmericanIndianandAlaskaNativeDisasterVulnerability.HazNet,8(2).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://haznet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/haznet-fall-2016-reduced-3.pdf
RedCrossSocietiesinCanada,MexicoandtheUnitedStatestoCooperateFurtherDuringMajorDisasters.(2013,July5).IFRC.org.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.ifrc.org/fr/nouvelles/nouvelles/common/red-cross-societies-in-canada-mexico-and-the-united-states-to-cooperate-further-during-major-disasters-62637/
Richard,A.C.(2006).RoleReversal:OffersofHelpfromOtherCountriesinResponseToHurricaneKatrina.Washington,DC:CenterforTransatlanticRelations,PaulH.NitzeSchoolofAdvancedInternationalStudies,JohnsHopkinsUniversity.
Sano,S.(2011).AmericanRedCrossandCruzRojaMexicanaCrossBorderInitiativeSummary.
See,E.(2009).InternationalDisasterResponseLaws,Rules,andPrinciples:Canada’sDomesticAdministrationandFacilitation&ImplementationoftheGuidelines.
SendaiFrameworkforDisasterRiskReduction2015-2030.(2015).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
44|P a g e
Starks,R.R.,McCormack,J.,&Cornell,S.(2011).NativeNationsandUSBorders:ChallengestoIndigenousCulture,Citizenship,andSecurity.Tuscon,Arizona:UdallCenterforStudiesinPublicPolicy,TheUniversityofArizona.
StateandProvinceEmergencyManagementAssistanceMemorandumofAgreement:ExecutiveSummary(NEMAC).(2013).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.nemacweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ExecutiveSummaryState-ProvinceAgreement.pdf
TheCompendiumofUS-CanadaEmergencyManagementAssistanceMechanisms.(2016).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/cmpndm-ntdstts-cnd-2016/cmpndm-ntdstts-cnd-2016-eng.pdf
UNDevelopmentProgram.(June2014).Mexico:CountryCaseStudyReport;HowLawandRegulationSupportsDRR.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/disaster/MEXICO%20COUNTRY%20CASE%20STUDY%20REPORT%20How%20Law%20and%20Regulation%20Supports%20DRR.pdf
UnitedStates-MexicoBorderHealthCommission.(n.d.).BorderRegion.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php
Valverde,M.(2016,September14).TrumpSays1MillionLegalCrossingsAlongU.S.-Mexicoborder.Politifact.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/14/donald-trump/trump-says-1-million-legal-crossings-along-us-mexi/
Weaver,A.(2009,April17).ChapterPartnerswithMexicanRedCrossforFutureDisasters.redcross.org.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://reliefweb.int/report/mexico/chapter-partners-mexican-red-cross-future-disasters
WeissFagan,P.(2008,October).NaturalDisastersinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean:National,RegionalandInternationalInteractions.HPGWorkingPaper.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/D4B04197663A2846492575FD001D9715-Full_Report.pdf
WildfireProtectionAgreementBetweentheDepartmentofAgricultureandtheDepartmentoftheInterioroftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandtheSecretariatofEnvironmentNaturalResourcesandFisheriesoftheUnitedMexicanStatesfortheCom.(1999;Updated2003).RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttps://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122940.pdf
WorldBankGroup.(2013).StrengtheningDisasterRiskManagementinMexico.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2013/09/04/disaster-risk-management-mexico.
Zambello,G.(2012,May21).StrengtheningtheRedCrossRedCrescentAuxiliaryRole:aHumanitarianImperativeinaFast-changingWorld.IFRC.org.RetrievedJuly18,2017,fromhttp://www.ifrc.org/fr/nouvelles/nouvelles/common/strengthening-the-red-cross-red-crescent-auxiliary-role-a-humanitarian-imperative-in-a-fast-changing-world-57718/
45|P a g e