These public health emergencies have reinforced the recognition of potential and real barriers to effective mutual assistance and have highlighted legal “gaps” to be filled, both inside and outside the EMAC. Although EMAC facilitated the transfer of unprecedented mutual assistance to the affected areas affected by Katrina, response gaps have been improved. For this reason, many states have not been able or unsure of how they can use the services of volunteers (who were not protected from legal liability) 4. However, some states are trying to address this problem.5 In addition, the provisions of the EMAC are triggered only by a governor`s declaration, the sharing of small-scale resources, emergencies not declared by agreements separated by the EMAC, must take effect. The same applies to the exchange of epidemiological or laboratory data to detect endangered infectious diseases. In some circumstances, it may even be argued that routine public health functions would be more effective in concluding mutual assistance agreements for the exchange of relevant information, supplies or equipment. Expanding the scope of response know-how can be beneficial for businesses in the event of an emergency or disaster. Interoperability and the resulting agreements with local, governmental and federal authorities can provide additional resources based on specific experiences, research or vocational training in a given area, which could shorten response time in a difficult situation. The exchange of planning information will likely be included in existing grants from the legal authority, even in the absence of an eMAC emergency declaration, and involves little or no legal risks. The EMAC, for example, which has been enacted as law in each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, requires each state to formulate intergovernmental cooperation plans and programs, including to notify other municipalities across borders, provide services and resources, and provide inventory resources for state sharing.6 Emergency officials should meet regularly with government authorities.

, community organizations and specialized response organizations to discuss likely emergencies and their ability to provide resources. Mutual assistance agreements should facilitate the rapid and short-term delivery of emergency assistance before, during and after an incident. However, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) planning guide indicates that a response from public or federal resources can take up to 72 hours or more. Regardless of the type of mutual assistance, mutual assistance agreements are essential in defining the rules, procedures and procedures to be followed in terms of the exchange of information, resources or personnel. In particular, with regard to the sharing of resources or staff, binding agreements must necessarily deal with the issues of liability, reimbursement and compensation for workers. It may be advisable to identify and review other cross-border government and local agreements that currently exist, some of which contain formal written documents. Fire protection agreements can be particularly instructive. The Great Lakes Forest Fire Protection Agreement, signed in 1989 by natural resource officials from Michigan, Minnesota, Ontario and Wisconsin, and the Northwest Wildland Fire Agreement passed by Congress on November 12, 1998 (Table 2▶). The agreement contains provisions that appear to bind states in terms of liability, compensation and reimbursement.

Many other cross-border cooperation relationships are based on informal handshake agreements.