north american humanitarian response summit project … · given such complexity, finding an...

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



4.3 UnitedStates..............................................................................................................................20

4.3.1 NationalLegalandPolicyContext......................................................................................20



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