The primary aim of emergency services is to reduce the extent of damage to human life, property and the environment when hazards strike. For most countries, the main approach is to reduce the vulnerability of her people and infrastructure to hazards. With the increasing threat of disasters such as biological, social, chemical, natural and environmental threats, it is almost impossible for everything to be handled through preventative action and, therefore, response and mitigation of disasters becomes necessary. Different countries have varying emergency management systems to respond to disasters and the particular vulnerabilities that they face.
Great Britain as an island is vulnerable to many hazards including the effects of global climate change. It is a target and destination of severe winds and storms while at the same time having to face challenges of old property and infrastructure that increase vulnerability (Pitt, 2008) . In light of the complexity, scale , and diversity of challenges, Great Britain has developed a robust emergency management system. The overall structure of the UK of disaster and emergency management has remained generally the same for years with the central government playing the role of coordinator and offering guidance while local governments and agencies respond and deal with disasters.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Given the highly decentralized nature of emergency management in the UK, most incidents and emergencies are handled by the local governments with little to no involvement by the central government (Pitt, 2008) . In many ways, local police departments are considered the lead responders. In such cases, the Police Gold Commander is appointed by the local chief officer and is usually chaired by the Strategic Coordination Group (SCG), which is made up of senior executive authorities of local organizations. Depending on the gravity of the emergency, the SCG may through the government Liaison office establish coordination linkages with COBR (Cabinet Office, 2009) . However, if the response is being handled by other agencies other than the police, for instance, an animal disease breakout, relevant local offices of lead governments take charge with necessary support being offered by the appropriate central government office. If the impact of a disaster is very severe and normally outside the boundaries of a local government, the involvement of the central government becomes essential. This intervention is done through the Lead Government Department (LGD). The 2004 Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) states that through such central government involvement, the COBR is activated to support decision making and coordination of the LGDs. In so doing, the LDG takes full charge for the overall management of the incident.
Therefore, emergency management in Great Britain is not the problem of only one organization or agency. Depending on the extent of the emergency, it demands the collaborative effort of multiple agencies and tiers of government. This demands clarity of the levels of emergency. The cabinet office (2005) identifies three levels of emergency. Level 3 means a catastrophic disaster. It is a disaster that is widespread with high impact and demands the immediate intervention of the central government. The chief responding agencies are the Civil Contingencies Committee and COBR. A level 2 disaster is one that has a prolonged and wide impact. Any level 2 disasters are coordinated from COBR through the LGD with the overall management by the cabinet. Level 1 disaster is one with narrow implications and demands narrow focus such as riots and severe natural disasters. These are left to local governments and agencies though the threat of spillover demands intervention from Cabinet.
On the other hand, the Russian disaster management system is divided into various layers to respond to multiple disasters within the Russian Federation. Local and regional administration all have a role to play in the mitigation of disasters. To respond to a multiplicity of threats, functional subsystems have been established by various federal agencies to handle disasters within the various agencies (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2003) . There are about thirty sub -systems that respond to disasters within various industries such as the forest fire subsystem in the Federal Forest Service and the Seismological and earthquake forecasting system found in the Russian Academy of Science.
The Russian State System of Disaster Management is the system meant to ensure a comprehensive response to various disasters (Porfiriev, 2001) . It provides a complex system for the monitoring and reporting of threats and handling disasters. It creates a system of disaster management that allows local authorities to respond to various emergencies based on their capabilities. Despite the existence of regional and local players, the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense, Emergencies, and Mitigation of the consequence of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM of Russia) is the central body that handles emergency management in Russia. The ministry is primarily charged with developed policy and initiatives on issues within its competence and manages Civil Defence and takes the lead in Search and Rescue. The civil defense role of the ministry means that it is charged with the protection of Russians from any natural or human-made disasters (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2003) . Through the Prime minister’s office, the ministry may seek the assistance of the National Guard of Russia and the Ministry of Defence. In other words, the ministry can tap into local and federal resources to handle disasters. Much of the training for disaster management teams is done by the Civil Defense Academy as well as specialized centers such as the All Russian Scientific Research Institute.
Both the Russian and the British emergency systems incorporate elements of centralized and decentralized emergency management though the British system has embraced greater decentralization. Unlike the British, the Russians have a single entity that sits at the helm of disaster management. Challenges, however, abound for the two countries. Britain faces a particularly acute problem of low citizen awareness about vulnerability and disasters despite the country’s geographical vulnerability. People generally tend to be reluctant in recognizing and accepting the possibility of future risk. In Russia, the degree of centralization has not allowed regional authorities to be completely proactive in developing their emergency response partly due to reliance on the federal level. This is not encouraging for a country as vast as Russia which possesses diverse emergency needs.
References
Cabinet Office. (2005). Central Government Arrangements for Responding to an Emergency . Retrieved from http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/132685/conops.pdf.
Cabinet Office. (2009). Civil Contingencies Act . Retrieved from Cabinet Office: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ukresilience/preparedness/ccact.aspx#part2
Pitt, M. (2008). Learning lessons from the 2007 floods . Retrieved from Cabinet Office: http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/_/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/flooding_review/pitt_review_full%20pdf.pdf
Porfiriev, B. (2001). Institutional and legislative issues of emergency management policy in Russia. Journal of Hazardous Materials , 145-167.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2003). Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM) . Retrieved from https://www.unisdr.org/partners/countries/rus
