Читать книгу Emergency Incident Management Systems - Mark Warnick S., Louis N. Molino Sr - Страница 80

Japan is in a unique situation when it comes to utilizing an IMS method. Japan is similar to the United States in many ways, yet there are some stark differences as well. Much like the United States, there are three basic levels of government. In the United States there is primarily the federal level, the state level, and the local level (with a few exceptions such as tribal government). In Japan, the three levels of government are national level, the prefecture level, and the local level. A myriad of laws, most of them dating back to the late 1940s, are the basis for disaster and emergency response, including the Disaster Relief Act of 1947, the Fire Services Act of 1948, and the Flood Control Act of 1949. These three laws helped to define emergency response in the nation of Japan (Nazarov, 2011). Only a small amount of information is available on the implementation of IMS methods used in Japan.

The Japanese government employs the Incident Command System (ICS), but due to the limited role of prefecture level of government, the ICS method appears to be relegated primarily to local governments. The local agency initiates the ICS method in the same manner as is done in the United States; however, it does not integrate into an overarching national incident management method that would help to integrate resources. From the limited information available, it appears that the Japanese government realizes that all incidents begin and end locally, and that local incident management is critical to mitigating the effects of the incident. The same basic principle is employed in the United States, and much like the United States, it appears as if the Japanese model of ICS makes the prefecture available to assist the local government when their resources are overwhelmed (Nazarov, 2011).

There is some question whether the ICS method used in Japan can expand similar to its US counterpart. Because the Japanese IMS method is not mandated nationwide, integrating outside resources such as nonprofit organizations, business, and other agencies that are not regularly involved in emergency response is problematic. A 2013 Crisis Response Journal article contended that due to the intermittent and pieced together approach of Japan's IMS method, there has been a breakdown in command, control, communication, collaboration, and coordination. Past disaster responses failed to integrate all resources under one command, and it led to a more confusing and less productive response. In many instances, nonprofits, businesses, and other nongovernmental resources acted independently of the command structure in place (Howitt et al. 2013). This helps provide insight that a haphazard implementation of an IMS method is equally as detrimental to a response as having no IMS method used.

It does appear as if Japan is working toward a national IMS method. Howitt et al. (2013) suggests that Japan was considering the ICS method and another overarching method to integrate resources; however, any strides in that area appear to have been without significant gains. A 2018 article in the Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management revealed that while many strides have been made to improving information flow and chains of command, there are still obstacles that prevent it from being more functional. In fact, the authors even state that the largest barrier to an integrated IMS method for Japan is the sectionalism that is inherently built into the Japanese government (Okada & Ogura, 2014).

While Japan has seen issues in the ICS method that they use, they have also seen great success in customizing and utilizing a Japanese version of the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS). In fact, when they began to customize the American version, the University of Tokyo School of Medicine included the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) in the customization process. The reason that the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) was consulted is twofold. The first reason is that they are considered by many around the world to be the foremost authority in Hospital Incident Command System (HICS). The second reason was that they needed clarification on some issues to enable a better translation (Backer, 2016). In 2016, the University of Tokyo released the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) guidebook (based on the 2014 revision) in Japanese, as well as guidance on Incident Planning Guides (IPGs) and the Incident Response Guide (IRG).