I. International (bi- and multilateral) Agreements
A. Convenio de 14 de julio de 1959 de asistencia mutua entre servicios contra incendios y de socorro franceses y españoles (Agreement of July 14, 1959, about mutual assistance between French and Spanish firefighting services).
B. Convenio sobre resguardo de bosques fronterizos contra incendios, Santiago, 5 de abril de 1967 (Agreement about the prevention of border forests against fires, Santiago, April 5, 1967).
C. Convenio sobre cooperación técnica y asistencia mutua en materia de proteción civil entre el Reino de España y el Reino de Marruecos, firmado en Rabat el 21 de enero de 1987 (Agreement about technical cooperation and mutual assistance in the field of civil protection, between Spain and Morocco, signed in Rabat on January 21, 1987).
D. Protocolo entre el Reino de España y la República Portuguesa sobre cooperación técnica y asistencia mutua en materia de proteción civil, hecho en Evora el 9 de marzo de 1992 (Agreement between Spain and Portugal about technical cooperation and mutual assistance in the field of civil protection, Evora, March 9, 1992).
E. Acuerdo entre la República Argentina y la República de Chile sobre cooperación en materia de catástrofes, Santiago, Chile 8 de agosto de 1997 (Agreement between Argentina and Chile about cooperation in the field of catastrophes, Santiago, Chile, August 8, 1997).
F. The Northwest Wildland Fire Protection Agreement, (US-Canadian, States, Provinces, Territories) PUBLIC LAW 105-377, Nov. 12, 1998.
G. Wildfire Protection Agreement between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture of the United States of America and the Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries of the United Mexican States for the Common Border, June 4, 1999.
H. International Agreement between USA and ANZ, August 2000, FS Agreement No. 0011130200-0148, BLM Agreement No. 1422RAA00-0001.
I. Agreement on Cooperation for Forest and Steppe Fire Protection between Russian Federation and Mongolia, 2001.
J. Wildfire Arrangement between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture of the United States of America and the National Rural Fire Authority of New Zealand, 2001.
K. International Agreement for Technical Fire Cooperation between British Columbia, Canada, and Ghana, 1999.
L. Cooperation and Assistance on Natural Disaster Management between Malaysia and Indonesia, 2001.
M. International Agreement between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, date unknown.
N. The Agreement of Joint Control of Forest Fire Between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Russian Federation, 1995.
II. Operating Plans/Operational Guidelines
A. Northwest Wildland Fire Protection Agreement (Northwest Compact), Cooperative Operating Plan 2000 (May 5, 2000).
B. Mexico/United States Wildfire Protection Agreement, Operational Guidelines for 2000.
C. Canada/United States Reciprocal Forest Fire Fighting Arrangement, Operational Guidelines for 2001 (January 15, 2001).
D. Northwest Wildland Fire Protection Agreement (Northwest Compact), Cooperative Operating Plan 2001 (May 5, 2001).
III. In-Country Agreements
A. Convenio de coordinación en la prevención y combate de incendios forestales, 23 de Febrero de 1998 (Chile).
B. Acuerdo de colaboración palena protección conjunta para la zona limítrofe de las regiones X - los lagos Y XI - Aysen, La Junta, Noviembre 1998 (Chile).
C. Convenio de colaboración para la protección contra incendios forestales entre la Corporación Nacional Forestal VII región y Forestal Celco S. A., 01 de Diciembre de 1999 (Chile).
IV. Negative Responses
A formal request was sent out to FAO Representatives located in many countries throughout the world asking them to identify those countries that had entered into International Fire Agreements with other countries. The FAO Representatives contacted the appropriate Ministries and reported back to FAO regarding the absence of such Agreements for emergency fire assistance in the following countries:
The Bahamas
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil (Technical Fire
Management Agreement with the United States, but no agreements regarding
emergency responses to wildfires)
Cambodia
Caribbean
Islands
Cyprus
El
Salvador
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Guatemala
Laos
Lebanon
Nigeria
Peru
Rwanda
Sierra
Leone
Senegal has no Agreements with other countries, but has plans to
develop Agreements with the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Guinea Conakry
Syria
Thailand
Togo
Uruguay
Venezuela
Zambia
The frequently found provisions to the frequently asked questions presented below have to be considered as examples and propositions. They are mainly based on review of some already existing Agreements9 and on practical experience.
General legal considerations
1. What is the procedure of entering into Agreements concerning forest firefighting?
This depends very much on the procedure required by
the Constitution of the individual countries. In the United States, for
instance, the responsible legislative body has to pass a law authorising the development of Agreements concerning forest firefighting.10
Then the authorised
organisation will develop the Agreement. In other countries, the
Constitution may have a provision that permits specified organisations to enter into Agreements in general; afterwards ratification by Parliament may be required.
2. What is considered to be the main purpose of such an Agreement?
The main purpose of an Agreement concerning forest firefighting will be to promote effective prevention, presuppression and control of forest fires by providing mutualaid (B, Art. 1).The Agreement will provide a framework within which one Party may request and receive forest firefighting resources from the other Party (C, Art. I, 1).
3. Once in effect, does the Agreement bind one party to help the other in an emergency or is it optional?
Generally, when the Parties enter into an Agreement, they agree to be legally obligated to render assistance under the circumstances specified in the Agreement and clarified in the Annual Operating Plan/Annual Operational Guidelines, when an Annual Plan exists (see below). Nevertheless, there might be the right to consider whether in the actual case, it is possible to render the requested aid (B, Art. V) (C, Art. III, 1), or whether the Sending Party might need its own resources at home. The right to the withdrawal of resources in appropriate circumstances is usually covered in the Agreement (see below) (C, Art. III, 6) (E, Art. III, E) (F, Art. IV, E).
4. Which criteria can be used when competition for resources between the Parties arises?
The following standard criteria can be used to decide whether to provide requested aid and equipment or whether to keep it at home:
- human life
- property and resource values
- Is the wildfire an immediate threat to the Sending Party's resources?
- Will the international mobilisation adversely affect the agency's ability to respond to a domestic incident/emergency?
- Will the wildfire assignment involve significant health and safety threats to Sending Party's personnel?
- Will large numbers of personnel be requested for a
long duration assignment?
(G, Art. III).
5. Do new Agreements have any impact on already existing Agreements?
Generally, a new Agreement will not prejudice rights and obligations of the Parties under other bilateral and multilateral agreements (A, Art. IX) (B, Art. VIII).
6. What happens if a dispute arises between the Parties?
Disputes concerning interpretation or application of provisions of the Agreement or of the Annual Operating Plan will be resolved by the Parties by means of discussions, negotiations and consultations (A, Art. X) (C, Art. XI).
7. How long will the Agreement remain in force?
Generally, but not always, the Parties will make a provision indicating an explicit
termination date. The Agreement can either continue in force for each Party until such Party takes action to withdraw therefrom (B, Art. X), or the Parties can fix a date (e.g. five or ten years after entering into force), when the Agreement shall terminate (A, Art. XI, 1) (D, Art. X, 4). The Parties can also provide that the Agreement shall continue after the first term from year to year unless it is terminated (C, art. XII, 3).
8. Can the Agreement be terminated before the established termination date?
Generally, the Agreement can be terminated earlier. But the terminating Party has to provide the other Party with reasonable, written notice (C, Art. XII, 3). It might be necessary to give the notice a certain period before the Agreement can be actually terminated (e.g. six month) (A, Art. XI, 3).
9. What is an Annual Operating Plan? And what is the difference between an Agreement and an Annual Operating Plan?
An Annual Operation Plan is an accord concluded under an existing Agreement between the authorised officials of the Parties to that Agreement and having its authority in the latter. Whereas the enabling Agreement deals with more general issues and designates the basic lines of mutual assistance, the Annual Operating Plan specifies more practical subjects and technical details. Thus, it contains among others the appropriate methods of reimbursement, how to request other Party's resources, the names of officials to be contacted, a clear structure of delegation of authority, logistical matters, etc. The Annual Operating Plan has to be developed, as its name indicates, year by year. The enabling Agreement may be in force for a certain period of time, or indefinitely. It can be prescribed to review the enabling Agreement annually, but this is not necessarily the case.
10. Is it imperative to develop Annual Operating Plans?
This depends on the provisions of the enabling Agreement. This can prescribe the
development of an Annual Operating Plan (A, Art. III) (C, Art. VII, 1), or it can leave the matter to be decided by the Parties (B, Art. III). Nevertheless, the development of Annual Operating Plans will generally be recommended to generate a more efficient collaboration in firefighting.
11. Which aspects need to be covered by the Annual Operating Plan?
It is recommended to cover the following aspects, each one to the extent required by the Parties to the Agreement. It is important to remember that the Operating Plan should have concrete practical and technical procedures.
12. Is it necessary to develop Regional/Local Operating Plans in addition to the general Annual Operating Plan?
This may depend on the area covered by the Agreement and on the extent the general Operating Plan goes into detail. When the latter generates efficient collaboration, Regional/Local Operating Plans might be superfluous. Otherwise, especially when the area covered by the Agreement is quite large, Regional/Local Operating Plans might facilitate collaboration because the Plan is closer to the people who actually work under it. For example there are three Regional Operating Plans along the international border between Canada and the United States.
13. Do any general standards exist, serving as a common base of understanding, concerning vocabulary, standards of equipment and personnel?
To avoid misunderstandings and difficulties in collaboration the Parties can give definitions of specific vocabulary in the beginning of the Agreement (A, Art. II) (C, Art. II). Alternatively, they can make reference to the "FAO Forestry Paper 70, Wildland fire management terminology" (updating currently in process).Concerning standards of equipment and personnel no general standards exist. It seems to be important, that standards should, as far as possible, meet the Receiving Party's conditions and needs. It could be specified that the Receiving Party will send documentation outlining the major requirements of the position requested and that the Sending Party will certify that personnel sent will meet the requirements (E, Art. III, B, 5) (F, Art. IV, B, 4) (G, Art. III, D, 4).
With regard to aircraft, Parties could agree that all aircraft will meet the Receiving Parties specifications for standards and pilot qualifications and that those will be inspected prior to being put into service (E, Art. III, D, 4) (G, Art. III, G, part 2, 6).
14. Is it possible to withdraw the resources once sent to the Receiving Party?
It is possible to recall the resources from the Receiving Party. A certain time before actual withdrawal, e.g. 24 or 48 hours, notice should be given by Sending Party to Receiving Party wherever possible (C, Art. III, 6) (E, Art. III, E) (F, Art. IV, E, 1), and then the Receiving Party should make every effort to send back the withdrawn resources as quickly as possible (F, Art. IV, E, 2).
15. Who has to provide for safety equipment?
The Sending Party provides all the safety equipment required to meeting their regulations; should additional equipment be required by the Receiving Party, the Receiving Party supplies at their expense (E, Art. III, B, 12) ( F, Art. IV, B, 3) (G, Art. III, D, 5).
16. Who has to bear the costs of the Sending Party's firefighting resources?
In general, the Sending Party will be reimbursed by the Receiving Party for the expenses resulting from the firefighting assistance. But this is not necessarily the case. Where it seems appropriate, the Agreement or the Annual Operating Plan should contain different provisions for reimbursement. There are instances where the Sending Party may pay for the resources being sent to the Receiving Party.
17. Who will have the responsibility for overall coordination?
The Parties to the Agreement could decide to delegate overall coordination to one specified State organisation of one of the Parties.
18. Which will be the authorised organisation to request assistance?
The authorised agencies will be named generally in the Annual Operating Plan or in the Agreement (D, Art. X) (E, Art. III, A, 1, 2) (G, Art. III, B). The agencies of one Party should provide the other Party with the names and phone numbers of the authorised State's officials at an appointed day of the year (E, Art. III, A, 3) (F, Art IV, A, 2) (G, Art. III, B).
19. What is the best way to deal efficiently with customs' regulations?
To minimise delays at border crossings for Customs and Immigration clearances, the indicated agency of the assisting State should supply to the Customs Point of Entry, along with all transport and arrival information, in the form specified, (e.g. 24 hours prior to mobilisation) containing but not limited to the following items:
Resources travelling through non-port of entries, i.e., firefighters, should have pre-season clearance through local State Customs and Immigration. Custom Declaration forms have to be completed for presentation to Customs at Point of Entry (E, Art. III, A, 6).
20. Which logistical matters should be covered by the Agreement or by the Annual Operating Plan?
Following logistical matters should be covered:
21. Who will provide medical assistance?
The Receiving Party ensures that immediate medical services are afforded to any member of the incoming forces regardless of the nature of the requirement or the type of medical aid required (E, Art. III, B, 13) (F, Art. IV, B, 7). Costs for medical services should be covered by the Receiving Party until the employee is returned to the fireline or to Sending Party (E, Art. III, B, 13). Alternatively, the Sending Party could ensure that their personnel are adequately covered for any hospital and/or medical costs incurred while on assignment (F, Art. IV, B, 7).
22. Can the Sending Parties personnel be sued for any action taken while performing duties under the Agreement?
There should be no liability if the action is taken pursuant to the Agreement (B, Art. 6). Otherwise, the Sending Party might hesitate to render assistance.
23. Is one Party liable towards the other for loss, damage, personal injury, or death?
Each Party should waive its claims against the other Party for compensation for loss, damage, personal injury, or death occurring as a consequence of the performance of the Agreement or of activities undertaken pursuant to the Annual Operating Plan (A, Art. 5) (C, Art. V, 1). The cross-waiver of liability should not apply to claims arising from wilful misconduct or criminal conduct (A, Art. 5).
24. Is the Receiving Party liable for damages or destruction of the firefighting equipment?
The costs of refurbishing are reimbursable by the Receiving Party unless the Sending Party agrees that the receiving agency will perform the work. In the event that any equipment or supplies are damaged beyond repair or not returned, they have either to be replaced by the Receiving Party with new equipment or supplies of the same quantity and to the Sending Party's standards, or full replacement cost has to be reimbursed by the Receiving Party (E, Art. III, C, 2, 3) (F, Art. IV, C, 2, 3) (G, Art. III, F, 2, 3). Further, the Agreement might provide that, unless otherwise agreed upon between the Parties, maintenance and damage to a Sending Party's aircraft is the responsibility of the contractor or owner, and is not reimbursable. Damage to an aircraft caused as a direct result of Party's personnel actions are the Receiving Party's responsibility and are reimbursable (E, Art. III, E, 1) (F, Art. IV, D, 3, 5) (G, Art. III, G, part 2, 1, 2, 3, 4).
25. Can Agreements be used to facilitate other than emergency responses?
An Agreement can be used to encourage and strengthen other cooperative fire management activities, through sharing among the Parties, fire management techniques, skills, and innovations. The Agreement may explicitly provide for a regular exchange in non-emergency situations (e.g. of senior fire and aviation management officials, as well as firefighting personnel, operational staff and specialists). For that purpose, reciprocal Personnel Exchange Protocols might be developed that provide the guidelines for the initiation, implementation and reporting of exchange programs by individuals from participating agencies and countries.
26. How can international assistance be requested when no formal Agreement exists?
A State seeking international assistance in forest firefighting can make a request to OCHA (Organization for the Coordination of Human Affairs). A special form has to be compiled and sent to OCHA, which will try to send the aid requested. Similar mechanisms of assistance can be requested from international aid organisations. Further, assistance could also be requested from other countries on a bilateral basis.
This mailing list can be copied and pasted into the heading of an e-mail message:
[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
To improve the international response to Environmental Emergencies the Environmental Emergencies Section (formerly the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit) of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) was established in 1994, following extensive consultations with Governments. The Section, which is organizationally located within OCHA's Emergency Services Branch, is a partnership between UNEP and OCHA that serves as the integrated United Nations emergency response capacity to activate and provide international assistance to countries facing environmental emergencies. The Section is available for urgent assistance on a 24-hour a day, 7 day-a-week basis through OCHA's established emergency response system to assist those in need.
The Section provides practical assistance to countries affected by environmental disasters such as chemical and oil spills, industrial and technological accidents, forest fires and other sudden-onset emergencies that cause or threaten environmental damage leading to potentially serious health and environmental implications. The Geneva-based Environmental Emergencies Section is able to intervene anywhere in the world through a global network of National Focal Points consisting of governmental organizations responsible for environmental emergencies at the national level. Of special interest to the FAO/ITTO Fire Management Network is the fact that the Section has responded to four forest fire incidents in recent years: twice in Indonesia, once in Russia, and once in the State of Roraima in Brazil in April 1998.
The Environmental Emergencies Section ensures a prompt international response to environmental disasters in the following ways:
Monitor - Ongoing communication with an international network of contacts and permanent monitoring of news services and web sites, for early notification of environmental occurrences.
Notify - Promptly alert the international community and issue situation reports to a comprehensive list of worldwide contacts;
Broker - Quickly establish direct contacts between affected countries and donor governments that are ready and willing to assist;
Inform - Serve as a clearinghouse to channel available information, technical data and advice from donor sources and institutions to relevant authorities in the affected country;
Mobilize - Swiftly mobilize and coordinate multilateral assistance when requested to do so by the affected country;
Assess - Arrange for the urgent dispatch of international experts to assess the impacts of an emergency and make impartial and independent recommendations for response and remediation.
Emergency Cash Grants - In specific cases, the Section is able to mobilize emergency cash grants of up US $50,000 to address immediate needs.
OCHA has expressed an interest in coming to Rome to meet with FAO to discuss a variety of mutual interests. At that time OCHA would be prepared to brief FAO on their Mission and to suggest ways that FAO (Forestry) and OCHA might cooperate more actively in the future through "Interface" procedures. Mr. Sakharov provided copies of the "Interface Procedures" that presently exist between Environmental Emergencies Section and the following organizations:
The role of the United Nations' Disaster Assessment and Coordination Team (UNDAC) was described. The team is composed of experienced disaster management professionals funded by member governments and fielded in support of the disaster response role of UN/OCHA. After the UNDAC team arrives at the disaster site, they transmit information to OCHA's Emergency Services and Response Coordination Branches. The Response Coordination Branch's Regional Desk Officers mobilize assistance by immediately advising governments and international humanitarian organizations about casualties, damage and priority relief needs through situation reports. More can be learned about the operations of OCHA and UNDAC at the following website: www.reliefweb.int
Copies of the four UNDAC reports produced as a result of responses to recent forest fires are available through OCHA:
1. Indonesia Forest Fires, September-November 1997
2. Brazil, Fires in the State of Roraima, August 1997-April 1998
3. Indonesia, Land, Bush, and Forest Fires, March-April 1998
4. Russian Federation, Forest Fires on the Island of Sakhalin and the Khabarovsk Krai, September-October 1998
The Fire Management Consultant visited the Global Fire Monitoring Center at Freiburg University, Freiburg, Germany, on 12-13 July 2001. Center staff, including Director Johann Goldammer, Ms. Mirjam Blasel, Mr. Alex Held, and Mr. Florian Resch, provided an in-depth briefing regarding the Mission of GFMC.
The GFMC was established in 1998 at the Fire Ecology and Biomass Burning Research Group of the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry, Germany. The GFMC was initially sponsored by the Government of Germany, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance, as a German contribution to the UN International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). With the end of the IDNDR (1990-2000) the GFMC intends to support the implementation of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), and the work of the UN Interagency Task Force for Disaster Reduction and its Early Warning Programme.
The GFMC was designed as an information and monitoring facility which national and international land managers, fire managers, disaster managers, scientists, and policy makers can use for planning and decision making. The fire documentation, information, and monitoring system is accessible through the Internet at http://www.uni-freiburg.de/fireglobe
During discussions in Geneva with UNECE and UN/OCHA, it became obvious that these two organizations benefit substantially from cooperative arrangements with GFMC. Thus, a draft Agreement between FAO and GFMC was developed by the Fire Management Consultant before departing Freiburg, so that FAO Forestry and GFMC could realize similar benefits. This draft Agreement was presented at the close-out briefing in Rome and later modified by FAO. The revised draft Agreement is presented in Annex 9.
In line with the recommendations of the FAO/ITTO International Expert Meeting on Forest Fire Mangement in March 2001, which encouraged international cooperation, and subsequent discussion between the Consultant for Forest Fire Management and the Head of the Global Fire Monitoring Center, Germany, discussions should be pursued to enter into a formal agreement between FAO and GFMC.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING
COLLABORATION IN THE FORESTS SECTOR
between
THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO)
and
GLOBAL FIRE MONITORING CENTER
(GFMC)
Background
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has a mandate to monitor and assess forest resources and uses, to analyse the data, to make information about forests and forestry widely available to member countries, and to provide a neutral forum for discussions on technical and policy issues.
The Expert Consultation on Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 held in Kotka, Finland, in June 1996, recommended that FAO provide annual estimates in the Forest Resources Assessment 2000 on the number and extent of forest fires.
The above priorities have been confirmed in sessions of the Committee on Forestry (13th, 14th, 15th Sessions), and have been included in the work programme of the Forestry Department.
Subsequently FAO, within the framework of the FRA 2000 programme, was able to institute a system for collecting country-based forest fire data for developing countries. This work was supported by the Global Fire Monitoring Center.
The Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), which cooperates closely with the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), monitors, forecasts and archives information on vegetation fires (forest fires, land-use fires, smoke pollution) at global level.
This information provides support to decision makers at national and international levels in the evaluation of fire situations or precursors of fire, which potentially endanger human life or which may negatively affect the environment. The GFMC was inaugurated at the time of the FAO Consultation on "Public Policies Affecting Forest Fires", held in Rome, 28 to 30 October 1998. The GFMC has its headquarters in the Fire Ecology and Biomass Burning Research Group of the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry, located at Freiburg University, Germany. The GFMC products, up-dated on a daily basis, are public domain, and are accessible through the Internet.
Purpose
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to draw upon common interests in order to improve collaboration between the organizations/institutions and thus jointly to play a more effective role in working together to address the underlying causes of forest fires, to improve the coordination of efforts to manage, prevent and combat forest fires and to disseminate reliable data and information on forest fires.
Areas of Mutual Interest
Topics of mutual interest include, but are not necessarily limited to:
1. Improved dissemination of information about forest fires
2. Development of fire management information systems.
3. Initiation and maintenance of wildland fire databases.
4. The development and display of Country Fire Profiles.
5. Joint organization of regional and international fire management workshops.
Potential Modalities of Cooperation
Plan of Work
On a periodic basis, and not less than once every two years, the organizations will develop a plan of work outlining specific areas of cooperation during the next one to two years. This plan of work to be determined.
Points of Contact
FAO
GFMC
Mr Johann G.
Goldammer
Global Fire Monitoring Center
E-mail: [email protected]
Approvals
M. Hosny El-Lakany
Assistant Director-General
Forestry Department
Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations
GFMC
Mr Johann G. Goldammer
Head
Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC)
c/o Freiburg
University
P.O. Box
D-79085 Freiburg
Germany
|
Agreement |
Purpose |
Parties to Agreement/ Involved Organizations |
Defini-tions |
Main Obligations |
Reimburse-ment of costs |
Liabilities |
Operating Plan/ Guidelines |
Customs Provisions |
Other Provisions |
Duration/ Termination |
France-Spain,1959 |
X |
X |
o |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Chile-Argentina, 1967 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
o |
o |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Spain-Morocco, 1987 |
X |
X |
o |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Spain-Portugal, 1992 |
X |
X |
o |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Chile-Argentina, 1997 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
o |
X |
X |
X |
US-Canada, 1998 |
X |
X |
o |
X |
X |
X |
X |
o |
X |
X |
US-Mexico, 1999 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
US-Australia, New-Zealand, 2000 |
X |
X |
o |
X |
X |
X |
o |
X |
X |
X |
Russian Fed.-Mongolia, 2001 |
X |
o |
o |
X |
X |
o |
o |
X |
X |
X |
US-New Zealand, 2001 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Note: X means element is present; o means element is absent.
Annual Operating Plan/ Operational Guidelines |
Authority (Authorizing Agreement) |
Purpose |
Terminology & Command Systems |
Request |
Personnel |
Equipment & Supplies |
Aircraft |
Recall |
Billing & Payment |
Situation Reporting |
Administrative/ Organizational Matters |
US-Canadian, States, Provinces, Territories, 2000 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
o |
X |
US-Canadian, States, Provinces, Territories, 2001 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
o |
X |
Mexico-US, 2000 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
o |
X |
o |
X |
Canada-U.S., 2001 |
X |
X |
o |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Note: X means element present; o means element absent.
