DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE

https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2020.1809636

PRACTICAL NOTE

Two levels of decision-making in receiving international search

and rescue teams
Yosuke Okita and Rajib Shaw

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In recent years, many international search and rescue (SAR) teams have Received 14 December 2019
been deployed to large-scale disasters across state borders. However, Accepted 7 April 2020
previous lessons show that, in some cases, the affected countries
KEYWORDS
received unnecessary, unqualified, or too many teams, resulting in Aid – Aid effectiveness,
further burdens on them. The practical note aims to provide a model for Capacity development;
decision-making for affected governments in receiving international SAR Governance and public policy
teams. Decision-making occurs on two levels: whether to receive
international SAR teams, and how to limit the number of incoming teams.

Introduction
In recent years, many international search and rescue (SAR) teams have been deployed to large-scale
disasters across state borders. However, the number of teams deployed does not necessarily corre-
spond to the scale of the disasters and the needs in the field. Table 1 shows the list of major disasters
that received international SAR assistance from 2008 to 2017, along with the numbers of international
SAR teams deployed and lives rescued by them.
Shenhar, Adamcheck, and Hopmeier (2016) argue that the value of international SAR teams should
not be judged only by the number of lives rescued, and that their contribution to recovery tasks and
facilitating diplomatic relationships should not be ignored. While we agree with this, the cost-effec-
tiveness of international SAR deployments needs to be carefully considered. Except for a few cases,
such as the Haiti earthquake, international SAR teams did not contribute significantly to life-saving
activities.
Reviews of previous responses show that it is sometimes difficult for the affected governments to
decline offers of SAR assistance from other countries due to diplomatic considerations (e.g. DHA 1995;
McLean et al. 2012). As Kelman (2006) points out, offering, declining, sending, and receiving inter-
national SAR teams can positively or negatively affect the diplomatic relationship between assisting
and receiving countries. Governments are often under intense pressure, with international and local
media immediately broadcasting images of people buried under rubble to the world, and the visible
presence of international SAR teams on-site might give the impression that the government is taking
action (Katoch 2006).
However, receiving unnecessary international SAR teams can hinder SAR efforts in the affected
countries. For example, the “open the sky” policy of the Iranian government in the 2003 Bam earth-
quake, where it received any team, allowed too many and unqualified teams in, resulting in further
burdens on the government (INSARAG 2004). According to the Office for the Coordination of Huma-
nitarian Affairs (OCHA), within two days of the earthquake, 34 international SAR teams from 27
countries arrived in Bam, even though international teams were not effectively used due to the
nature of the collapse of adobe buildings. A total of 13 field hospitals with 560 doctors and nurses

CONTACT Yosuke Okita yosukeokita@mac.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. OKITA AND R. SHAW

Table 1. Disasters and international SAR responses 2008–2017.

Number of deployed Number of lives
Death toll international rescued by international
Disaster (approx.) SAR teams SAR teams
2008 Sichuan earthquake 69,000 5 0
2009 Padang earthquake 1,115 15 0
2010 Haiti earthquake 200,000 52 132
2011 Christchurch earthquake 185 8 1 (by Australia)
2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami 19,000 20 0
2015 Nepal earthquake 9,000 76 16 (11 by India)
2017 Mexico earthquake 361 9 0
Source: Created by the authors based on OCHA (2010, 2017) and Okita and Shaw (2019).

were also set up, and within five days, approximately 1,600 international staff from 44 countries were
operating in the field (OCHA 2004).
Receiving international assistance also requires the capacity to deal with it, and affected countries
are in a very challenging situation. In addition to sudden, overwhelming needs in the field, damaged
infrastructure makes communication more difficult. Local government staff are often victims of the
disaster while also having to deal with incoming assistance (Katoch 2006).
Thus, affected governments need to make decisions on two levels: (1) whether to receive
international SAR assistance; and (2) how to limit incoming SAR teams in cases where they
decide to receive assistance. If affected countries can deal with disasters using their own
resources, they do not have to accept international teams. Even if they do receive them, the
number of incoming teams should be limited by considering, for example, technical capabilities
and diplomatic relationships.
Affected governments need to make these decisions immediately, and usually, they do not have
prior experience to draw on. This note aims to provide a useful model for decision-making in receiv-
ing international SAR teams by reviewing previous lessons and publications in this field.

First level decision-making: whether or not to receive international SAR teams

Once large-scale disasters, especially earthquakes, happen, affected governments need to decide
whether to receive international SAR assistance. The needs in the field and diplomacy should be
taken into consideration when making a decision.

Balance between the needs in the field and the capacity of the affected country
The basic principle of disaster management, recognised by the international community, is that
“[e]ach state has the responsibility first and foremost to take care of the victims of natural disasters
and other emergencies occurring on its territory”. This is stipulated in the UN General Assembly Res-
olution 46/182: Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the
United Nations (UN 1991), which outlines the framework for humanitarian assistance.
In cases where the impact of a disaster overwhelms the capacity of a country, it might need to seek
international assistance. Here, the Resolution also stipulates that
[t]he sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity of States must be fully respected in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations. In this context, humanitarian assistance should be provided with the consent of the
affected country and in principle on the basis of an appeal by the affected country. (UN 1991)

Receiving international SAR teams does not always increase the possibility of live rescues. Walker
(1991) analyses the conditions where international SAR teams, which usually need more than 24
hours to reach affected areas, can contribute to life-saving activities: Teams can contribute to
saving lives only in affected areas where multi-story concrete buildings collapsed, leaving voids
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 3

inside them. They need to have a robust capacity to locate and extricate trapped people from col-
lapsed buildings and provide immediate medical care. Carefully consideration should be given to
when international SAR assistance should be sought.
The affected country must have the capacity to deal with incoming international assistance in
order to avoid confusion. If the affected country needs help in terms of receiving assistance, OCHA
can provide support such as the On-Site Operations Coordination Centre (OSOCC), which is estab-
lished by the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) team (Katoch 2006).
For example, UNDAC teams supported the governments in the Haiti and Nepal earthquakes.

Diplomatic considerations
In some cases, it is difficult for affected countries to decline offers of assistance. In the Christchurch
earthquake, the 185 victims included many foreigners, especially students from China and Japan
killed at the collapsed Canterbury Television (CTV) building. Considering the impact of the disaster
and the capability of the New Zealand SAR authorities, the earthquake could have been managed
using local resources only. However, the New Zealand government received eight international
SAR teams, including ones from China and Japan. Both teams operated at the CTV building. The gov-
ernment review mentions that it was difficult to decline the offers of assistance from other countries
(McLean et al. 2012), particularly from countries whose citizens were affected.
In the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan, although there was no request for foreign SAR teams from
the local SAR authorities, the central government decided to receive three international teams based
on repeated offers of assistance from their respective embassies. It is reported that these teams could
not save lives, and because of differences in their rescue procedures, they could not conduct smooth
SAR activities in the field. The staff of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA, the current
OCHA) who were in charge of coordinating international assistance later concluded that, in this
case, cash contributions were the most effective means of assistance (DHA 1995).

Second level decision-making: how to limit the number of incoming teams

Once affected governments decide to receive international SAR assistance, the next step is how to
limit the number of international SAR teams, or what criteria they should apply to prioritise teams.
This section suggests some standards used in recent responses.

Limit by region
Considering the time for international travel and cost of transporting heavy SAR equipment, assist-
ance from neighbouring countries should be sought. In the 2015 Nepal earthquake, the neighbouring
country, India, immediately sent a large team with more than 720 personnel. They arrived in Nepal
within 24 hours of the earthquake and contributed to 11 live rescues out of the 16 conducted by
international teams (Okita and Shaw 2019).
Some regions have a regional agreement on disaster response, with the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) region a good example. In 2016, ASEAN agreed on the ASEAN Declaration on
One ASEAN, One Response (ASEAN 2016). Based on the Declaration, ASEAN member states conduct
joint disaster response exercises and established a regional coordination mechanism, ASEAN Coordi-
nating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre).
When Indonesia was hit by an earthquake in Aceh in 2016, the government prioritised assistance
from ASEAN countries. While Indonesia did not request international assistance widely, it accepted
relief goods from the ASEAN stockpile “[i]n solidarity and in the spirit of One ASEAN One Response”
(AHA Centre 2016). The same arrangement was used in the 2018 Lombok and Sulawesi earthquakes.
4 Y. OKITA AND R. SHAW

Limit by diplomatic considerations

Another way to limit incoming teams is based on diplomatic considerations. Regional agreements are
part of diplomacy, but there are two other examples.
In the Christchurch earthquake response, the New Zealand government received eight inter-
national SAR teams from six countries: Australia, China, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. Teams from Australia, China, Japan, and Singapore can be explained by
regional proximity and the existence of foreign victims. The acceptance of the UK and US teams
could be based on strong diplomatic ties such as the Commonwealth.
In the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, the SAR authorities (Police and Fire Department)
in Japan did not request foreign SAR teams. However, the Japanese government (Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the Cabinet Office) tried to receive many international SAR teams, mentioning that it
would be useful if they were deployed in the field (Katayama 2013). The government checked
with the local SAR authorities if they could accept foreign teams. Where local authorities agreed,
the government officially accepted foreign SAR teams (Sakamoto 2013). Thus, the number of incom-
ing teams was controlled by the government.

Limit by technical classification

The network of international SAR teams, International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG),
introduced a classification system, the INSARAG External Classification (IEC), in 2005. Teams are
classified as heavy or medium level if they meet all the checklist items set by INSARAG. By the end
of 2019, more than 50 teams have been classified (Table 2). INSARAG has encouraged all the inter-
nationally deployed teams to go through the IEC process, and urged affected countries to prioritise
IEC-classified teams when they receive international SAR assistance (INSARAG 2010).
Of the eight international SAR teams New Zealand received in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake
response, six were classified teams. The two teams from New South Wales (NSW) in Australia and Taiwan
were not classified at that time, but the NSW team was later classified in 2012. Although the Taiwanese
team has not been classified, China had one classified team, which was also deployed to Christchurch.
The review report by the government indicates that it is not clear if it prioritised IEC-classified teams
(McLean et al. 2012). However, the government has clarified its position to prioritise IEC-classified teams.
The East Asia Summit (EAS) Rapid Disaster Response Toolkit was issued in 2015, and each member state
stipulates how they receive international SAR assistance. Countries such as Australia, Korea, Malaysia and
New Zealand clarify that they would give priority access to IEC teams (EMA 2015).
In the 2015 Nepal earthquake, the government did not apply the IEC classification as criteria for
receiving international SAR teams. Only 18 of the 76 international SAR teams were IEC-classified
(Okita and Shaw 2019). At the INSARAG Global Meeting in 2015, where the response to the Nepal
earthquake was discussed, the Nepalese government representative mentioned that only IEC-
classified teams would be allowed into the country in future responses (INSARAG 2015).

A decision-making model for receiving international SAR assistance

Figure 1 presents a proposed model based on the discussion above, outlining the two levels of
decision-making.
At the first level, affected governments decide whether to receive international SAR teams. Gov-
ernments should receive international teams if they cannot manage the disaster with their own
resources and receiving teams increase the possibility of live rescues. There are some situations
where international SAR teams can contribute to a life-saving activity. In other cases, affected govern-
ments might need to receive assistance from a diplomatic point of view. Both assisting and receiving
countries should carefully consider if other types of assistance, such as cash contributions, can be
more effective for long-term recovery efforts.
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 5

Table 2. List of IEC-classified teams (as of the end of 2019).

No. Year Teams Country Region Level
1 2005 Central Rescue Services of Budapest (CRSB) Hungary AEME Heavy
2 2006 UK ISAR UK AEME Heavy
3 2007 USAID Fairfax County USAR TF1 US Americas Heavy
4 2007 USAID LA County USAR TF2 US Americas Heavy
5 2007 USAR.NL Netherlands AEME Heavy
6 2007 Technisches Hilfswerk (THW) Germany AEME Heavy
7 2007 ISAR Germany Germany AEME Medium
8 2008 Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team Singapore AP Heavy
9 2008 Swiss Rescue Switzerland AEME Heavy
10 2008 Queensland Fire and Rescue Service TF1 Australia AP Heavy
11 2009 USAR Poland Poland AEME Heavy
12 2009 Icelandic International USAR Team (ICE-SAR) Iceland AEME Medium
13 2009 China International Search and Rescue (CISAR) China AP Heavy
14 2009 Abu Dhabi Police USAR Team United Arab AEME Heavy
Emirates
15 2010 Japan Disaster Relief Team (JDR) Japan AP Heavy
16 2010 Danish Search and Rescue Team (DEMA) Denmark AEME Heavy
17 2010 Belgium First Aid and Support Team (B-Fast) Belgium AEME Medium
18 2010 Czech Urban Search and Rescue Team (USAR CZ) Czech AEME Heavy
19 2010 Pompiers de l’Urgence Internationale (PUI) France AEME Medium
20 2011 Lithuanian Emergency Response Team (LERT) Lithuania AEME Medium
21 2011 Search and Rescue Unit Vorarlberg (SARUV) Austria AEME Medium
22 2011 Central Airmobile Rescue Team of EMERCOM of Russia Russia AEME Heavy
23 2011 AKUT Search and Rescue Association Turkey AEME Medium
24 2011 Korea Disaster Relief Team (KDRT) Korea AP Heavy
25 2011 Emergencia Respuesta Immediata Comunidad de Madrid (ERICAM) Spain AEME Medium
26 2011 Unidad Militar de Emergencias USAR (SP USAR UME) Spain AEME Medium
27 2012 Sultanate of Oman National Search & Rescue Team Oman AEME Medium
28 2012 FinnRescue (FRF) Finland AEME Heavy
29 2012 New South Wales Task Force (NSWTF/1) Australia AP Heavy
30 2012 Austrian Forces Disaster Relief Unit (AFDRU) Austria AEME Heavy
31 2012 Hungarian National Integrated Organisation for Rescue Services Hungary AEME Medium
(HUSZAR)
32 2012 Istanbul AFAD USAR Team (TURKUSAR) Turkey AEME Heavy
33 2013 Jordanian SAR Team (JSAR) Jordan AEME Heavy
34 2013 Republican Special Response Team Belarus AEME Heavy
35 2014 Military Units of French Civil Protection HUSAR (UIISC 1) France AEME Heavy
36 2014 Military Units of French Civil Protection HUSAR (UIISC 7) France AEME Heavy
37 2014 RO USAR Romania AEME Medium
38 2014 Mobile Rescue Team Ukraine AEME Heavy
39 2014 Morocco USAR Team Morocco AEME Heavy
40 2015 New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue New Zealand AP Heavy
41 2015 Saudi Search and Rescue Team (SASART) Saudi Arabia AEME Heavy
42 2015 ARMENIA URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE TEAM (AMUSAR) Armenia AEME Medium
43 2015 Estonian Disaster Relief Team (EDRT) Estonia AEME Medium
44 2015 Qatar Search and Rescue Team (QSART) Qatar AEME Heavy
45 2016 Special Malaysia Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team (SMART) Malaysia AP Heavy
46 2016 Siberian Regional USAR Russia AEME Medium
47 2017 USAR-SOUTH AFRICA South Africa AEME Medium
48 2017 AFAD-2 Ankara USAR Team Turkey AEME Heavy
49 2017 H-USAR, Algeria Algeria AEME Heavy
50 2017 Bomberos de Chile Chile Americas Medium
51 2018 SNGRD Team Colombia Colombia Americas Medium
52 2018 USAR Italy ITA-1 Italy AEME Heavy
53 2018 ISRAEL National Search and Rescue Unit (NRU) Israel AEME Heavy
54 2019 China International Search and Rescue (CSAR) China AP Heavy
55 2019 Pakistan Rescue Team Pakistan AP Medium
56 2019 Indonesia Rescue Team (INA SAR) Indonesia AP Medium
Note: Created by the authors based on the INSARAG website (www.insarag.org). Regional classification is based on INSARAG’s:
Africa, Europe, and Middle East (AEME), Asia-Pacific (AP), and Americas. The Abu Dhabi team (No.14) was first classified as
medium but later upgraded to heavy in 2013.
6 Y. OKITA AND R. SHAW

Figure 1. Decision-making model in receiving international SAR assistance.

Once they decide to receive SAR teams, at the second level, governments then have to consider
how to limit incoming teams. Previous responses show that “open the sky” policies will allow too
many and unqualified teams to come in, resulting in further burden than help. Possible standards
for prioritising teams are regional proximity, diplomatic considerations, and technical classification.
Affected governments can apply either one or a combination of the three.
This model is developed for affected governments but can also be used by assisting countries. In
cases where the need for SAR assistance seems low, assisting countries can offer other types of assist-
ance. If they wish to contribute to international SAR activity, they should be prepared: organising joint
exercises based on regional agreements, and having an IEC classification are possible options for this.

Conclusion
The note has reviewed lessons from previous international SAR responses and important guiding
documents in this field. It puts forward a decision-making model in receiving international SAR
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 7

teams that consists of two levels: first, whether to receive international SAR assistance, and second,
how to limit the number of incoming teams.
The model aims to help affected governments to make quick decisions on the reception of inter-
national SAR teams. Affected governments must consider the balance between the needs in the field
and the capacity of the affected country, including the management of incoming SAR teams. The
number of incoming teams can be controlled by regional proximity, diplomatic relationships, and
technical classification of assisting teams. If receiving SAR assistance seems inappropriate, affected
countries should also consider accepting other types of assistance such as cash contributions,
which can support long-term reconstruction efforts.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Yosuke Okita is a PhD student of the Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, Fujisawa, Japan.
Rajib Shaw is a Professor of the Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, Fujisawa, Japan.

References
AHA Centre. 2016. “Situation Update No. 2 Aceh Pidie Jaya Earthquake, Friday, 9 December 2016 09:30 hrs (UTC+7).”
ASEAN. 2016. “ASEAN Declaration on One ASEAN, One Response: ASEAN Responding to Disasters as One in the Region
and Outside the Region.” Accessed November 6, 2019. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Declaration-
on-One-ASEAN-One-Response.pdf.
DHA. 1995. The Great Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake in Japan 17 January 1995: The Earthquake, On-Site Relief and
International Response. New York: United Nations.
EMA (Emergency Management Australia). 2015. “East Asia Summit Rapid Disaster Response Toolkit.” Accessed December
4, 2019. www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2015/June/EAS_toolkit/EAS-Toolkit-3.pdf.
INSARAG. 2004. “INSARAG Lessons Learned Meeting Following the Earthquakes of Iran/Bam and Morocco, Hammamet,
Tunisia, 27 April 2004.” Geneva: OCHA.
INSARAG. 2010. “INSARAG Hyogo Declaration from the First Global Meeting of the International Search and Rescue
Advisory Group (INSARAG), Kobe, Japan 14–16 September 2010.” Accessed July 16, 2019. www.insarag.org/images/
stories/Documents/Global_Meeting/Hyogo-Declaration-English.pdf.
INSARAG. 2015. “INSARAG Global Meeting 2015 Chairman’s Summary 18–19 October, 2015 Abu Dhabi UAE.” Geneva:
OCHA.
Katayama, Y. 2013. “Higashinihondaishinsai ji no kokusai kinkyu shien ukeire to gaimusho [Reception of International
Assistance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan in the Great East Japan Earthquake].” Kokusai Kyoryoku
Ronshu (Journal of International Cooperation Study) 20 (2–3): 45–70.
Katoch, A. 2006. “The Responders’ Cauldron: The Uniqueness of International Disaster Response.” Journal of International
Affairs 59 (2): 153–172.
Kelman, I. 2006. “Acting on Disaster Diplomacy.” Journal of International Affairs 59 (2): 215–240.
McLean, I., D. Oughton, S. Ellis, B. Wakelin, and C. B. Rubin. 2012. “Review of the Civil Defence Emergency Management
Response to the 22 February Christchurch Earthquake.” Accessed April 30, 2018. www.civildefence.govt.nz/assets/
Uploads/publications/Review-CDEM-Response-22-February-Christchurch-Earthquake.pdf.
OCHA. 2004. “Iran: UNDAC Mission Report following the Bam Earthquake of 26 Dec 2003.” Accessed March 10, 2020.
https://reliefweb.int/report/iran-islamic-republic/iran-undac-mission-report-following-bam-earthquake-26-dec-2003.
OCHA. 2010. Haiti Earthquake Response: An After-Action Review of Response. Geneva: United Nations.
OCHA. 2017. “Mexico: Earthquake 7.1 USAR Teams Snapshot (as of 2nd October 2017).” Accessed November 12, 2019.
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/MX-Snapshot%20USAR%20Earthquake%207.1-OCHA-20161002%
20English.pdf.
Okita, Y., and R. Shaw. 2019. “Effects of the Classification System in International SAR: The Case of the 2015 Nepal
Earthquake.” Disaster Prevention and Management 28 (3): 359–370.
Sakamoto, M. 2013. “Higashinihondaishinsai ni okeru kokusai kinkyu shien no ukeire chosei ni kansuru kenkyu: hisai
chiho kokyo dantai ni yoru kokusai sosaku kyujo chi-mu no ukeire ni chumoku shite [The Coordination System to
Receive International Assistance in the Great East Japan Earthquake: Focusing on the Coordination of Disaster
8 Y. OKITA AND R. SHAW

Stricken Municipalities for Receiving International US&R Team].” Chiiki Anzen Gakkai Ronshu (Journal of Social Safety
Science) 21: 199–207.
Shenhar, G., R. Adamcheck, and M. Hopmeier. 2016. “The Need for International Search and Rescue (SAR) Teams During
an Earthquake: Nepal Case Study.” Development in Practice 26 (7): 949–953.
UN. 1991. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/182 Strengthening of the Coordination of Humanitarian
Emergency Assistance of the United Nations. Accessed November 6, 2019. https://undocs.org/A/RES/46/182.
Walker, P. 1991. International Search and Rescue Teams: A League Discussion Paper. Geneva: League of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies.