Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #4380

    I have been watching the Zoom sessions and am enjoying the interaction with everyone, albeit not in person. 3:00 AM in real time just doesn’t work for me, I’m afraid!


    The review of the ELHRA scoping study was very interesting and especially Chapter 7 (Competencies) and then followed by Chapter 8 (Certification).
    In Chapter 7, the authors have done a great job of articulating the most appreciated behaviours and aspects of human interaction in the three levels as described in the table. I can see an emphasis beginning in level 2 which identifies and supports key project management attributes, something of a skill set I have found is a necessary requirement for more advanced leadership and supervisory roles..

    The key attributes in levels 2 and 3 clearly emphasize leadership, continuous oversight and decision-making as core attributes, and especially in responding to team health and welfare concerns and cultural sensitivity.

    Chapter 8 is also very interesting in noting the organizations that are currently developing or have developed skill measurement and other criteria for determining skill competencies. I note the authors emphasize the use of certification, as opposed to their well justified avoidance of licensing and other types of credentialing. I noted RedR UK and Bioforce are merging their priorities to encompass a field-level assessment process.

    I would like to see how universally accepted language, nomenclature and definitions of such usage as ‘Certificate’ are standardised. For example, in a previous life, I was accredited as a (Marine) Ship’s Master, with clear definitions as to the limits of my certification, certainly in Canada and in all foreign waters. However, when I looked at the same marine standards on a projects in Mexico and several countries in the Caribbean and South America, a much watered down version of competencies was allowed, so my marine competencies were not gauged universally at all, but with an obvious bias and difference in these other jurisdictions. I am simply saying that a true ‘universal’ certification process would be very useful in the long run, especially on major disaster responses with a lot of various stakeholders.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.