CDEM Group Plan Review

Transcription

1 CDEM Group Plan Review Director s Guideline for Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups [DGL 09/09] Resilient New Zealand Aotearoa Manahau

2

3 Contents 1. Foreword...2 PART A: ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE Introduction to this guideline CDEM Group Plans Purpose and structure of this guideline Requirements to review CDEM Group Plans Process for reviewing CDEM Group Plans A note on planning...4 PART B: CONTENTS OF THE CDEM GROUP PLAN Overview of the contents of a CDEM Group Plan Introduction section Introduction Purpose and components of the introduction section Further information for developing the introduction section References for the development of the introduction section Risk Profile Section Introduction Purpose and components of the risk profile section Challenges and opportunities in developing the risk profile Methods for developing the risk profile References for the development of the risk profile section Reduction Section Introduction Purpose and components of the reduction section Context for risk reduction in New Zealand Challenges in risk reduction planning Reduction principles Developing reduction objectives References for the development of the reduction section Readiness Section Introduction Purpose and components of the readiness section Identifying issues to be addressed in the readiness section Developing readiness objectives Methods for delivering on readiness objectives Readiness organisation Ongoing readiness activities Processes for developing the readiness section References for the development of the readiness section Response Section Introduction Purpose and components of the response section Principles for response planning Challenges in response planning Developing response objectives Methods for delivering on response objectives Response organisation Levels of response coordination References for the development of the response section Recovery Section Introduction Purpose and components of the recovery section Developing recovery objectives Further information for the development of the recovery section A Note on recovery planning References for the development of the recovery section Monitoring and Evaluation Section Introduction Purpose and components of the monitoring and evaluation section Context for monitoring and evaluation Types of monitoring and evaluation National monitoring and evaluation Methods for monitoring and evaluation References for the development of the monitoring and evaluation section Management and Governance Section Introduction Purpose and components of the management and governance section Further information for the management and governance section Cooperative arrangements with other CDEM Groups References for the development of the management and governance section Supporting Documents Possible CDEM Group Plan annexes Glossary and Abbreviations Glossary Abbreviations CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 1

4 1. Foreword Our approach in New Zealand to civil defence emergency management encompasses undertaking activities in risk reduction, readiness, response and recovery. In implementing this approach, we expect communities and their governing bodies, the councils, to plan how they intend undertaking initiatives across the four Rs to make their communities more resilient. Planning promotes the identification of likely consequences and deep thinking about how they can be best managed. It should draw on specialist advice that melds with local experience and knowledge to produce options and actions that are tailored to the situation and circumstances. The plan is expected to be integrated, scalable and flexible. Most importantly, the plan that is developed has to be owned by those who have the responsibility for implementing it, the constituent members of the CDEM Group. This Guide has been developed with the assistance of the CDEM Groups and their emergency management staff. It is a distillation of what our sector regards as the critical elements that should be included in an effective Group plan. Applying the advice contained in this Guide will assist Groups to have plans that are thorough, oriented to their area and practical. The Group s members have a legislated responsibility, as well as a moral responsibility, to ensure they have the capacity and capability to manage an emergency in their area and manage the wellbeing of their communities in times of stress. The plan alone will not provide the action or the assurance communities need. Practice and refinement will help, as will strong leadership and decision making across the four Rs. I commend this guideline to CDEM Groups as they review their plans. John Hamilton Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management 2 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

5 PART A: ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE 2. Introduction to this guideline 2.1 Purpose and structure of this guideline The purpose of this guideline is to provide a nationally consistent approach to the review of Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plans. It is a planning guideline for CDEM Groups to promote comprehensive emergency management through reduction, readiness, response and recovery (the 4 Rs). This guideline supports information from other Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (MCDEM) publications, including the Guide to the National CDEM Plan, and the Response Management, Recovery Management and Declaration guidelines. This guideline is set out in sections reflecting the suggested structure for CDEM Group Plans. Each section provides a number of examples for which objectives could be developed to assist in the development of that section of the CDEM Group Plan. Once identified, objectives should be inserted at the beginning of each section of the CDEM Group Plan. A methodology is provided in each section of this guideline to assist in achieving the objectives of the section. The recommended methodologies have been developed through experience and knowledge, relevant statutory requirements and the identification of best practice. 2.2 CDEM Group Plans The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (the CDEM Act) came into force on 1 December 2002, providing the legislative basis for establishing CDEM Groups. A key responsibility of a CDEM Group is the development and implementation of a comprehensive, publicly consulted CDEM Group Plan. CDEM Group Plans form an important part of the CDEM framework in New Zealand as they state and provide for the hazards and risks to be managed by the CDEM Group, as well as specify the CDEM arrangements necessary to meet those hazards and risks and state the roles and responsibilities of those involved. In December 2002, the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (MCDEM) produced a Director s Guideline called Working Together: Developing a CDEM Group Plan (DGL 2/02), which described the process for developing CDEM Group Plans through a consultative, multi-agency, all-hazards approach, incorporating the 4Rs of reduction, readiness, response and recovery. This 2009 guideline supersedes the 2002 document. A CDEM Group Plan is required to address the requirements of section 49(2) of the CDEM Act, to state and provide for: local authorities membership of the CDEM Group hazards and risks to be managed by the CDEM Group CDEM measures necessary to manage the hazards and risks objectives of the CDEM Group Plan and the relationship to the National CDEM Strategy apportionment of liability for the provision of resources for the activities of CDEM Group members arrangements for declaring states of emergency arrangements for cooperation and coordination between CDEM Groups, and the period for which the CDEM Group Plan remains in force. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 3

6 2. Introduction to this guideline This guideline has been developed from a number of workshops with CDEM Group officials, and a Working Group comprising representatives from Auckland, Waikato, Manawatu-Wanganui, Wellington, Nelson Tasman and Canterbury CDEM Groups, and MCDEM staff. 2.3 Requirements to review CDEM Group Plans The CDEM Group Plans have a five-year operational period mandated by the CDEM Act. Most CDEM Groups have well-established processes for planning, monitoring and review of documentation. It is expected that this guideline will add value to those processes. The CDEM Act provides the legislative basis for the review of CDEM Group Plans. The first generation of CDEM Group Plans identified activities that were to be undertaken. Consideration of the status of these activities should be made in the next generation, taking into account how many have been achieved and how incomplete activities can be transferred into the revised CDEM Group Plan. 2.4 Process for reviewing CDEM Group Plans The formal review begins when the proposed plan is publicly notified. However, work on the new plan can start earlier than the review date. A CDEM Group may amend, revoke and replace, or leave the plan unchanged during this review period. While this process is taking place, the present plan remains in force. Section 56 of the CDEM Act states that a review under the CDEM Act is commenced when a proposed CDEM Group Plan is publicly notified in accordance with section 52, with sections 49, 51, and 55 applying as necessary: Section 49 Proposed plan to be sent to Minister. Section 51 Incorporation by reference. Section 52 Procedure for making CDEM Group Plans. Section 55 Currency of CDEM Group Plans. The consultation process for the development and review of CDEM Group Plans is comparable to those for developing other local government plans. Before making a CDEM Group Plan, the CDEM Group must: give public notice allow a period of time for submissions not less than one month or greater than three months unless the CDEM Group otherwise directs provide a reasonable opportunity for submissions to be heard make written submissions available to the public, and finally adopt the plan at a meeting of the CDEM Group. The reviewed CDEM Plan will have a life span of five years from the date it is adopted and will have to be reviewed again at the end of the five-year period. 2.5 A note on planning Effective planning requires a team effort in a collaborative environment. The most realistic and complete plans are prepared by a multi-agency team involving people who will be affected by the plan and people who will use the plan, including senior managers as well as operational workers. 4 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

7 PART B: CONTENTS OF THE CDEM GROUP PLAN 3. Overview of the contents of a CDEM Group Plan To encourage a nationally consistent approach to CDEM Group Plans, the following plan sections are suggested. Example of contents of the CDEM Group Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Risk Profile Reduction Readiness Response Recovery Monitoring and Evaluation Management and Governance Glossary Supporting Documents The Introduction section of the plan includes the vision, goals and objectives of the plan, along with the context and regional profile. It should also provide linkages to previous and future plans. The Risk Profile section describes the hazardscape for the CDEM Group and its communities. It describes and systematically analyses the risks associated with hazards, and establishes priorities for risk management relevant to the region. The Reduction section presents a process of mitigating those risks to the CDEM Group s communities. The link between the CDEM Group Plan and other local authority arrangements should be shown, including the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP), community outcomes and the Regional Policy Statement. To contribute to community resilience, it is important to link the local community planning processes to CDEM planning to enable the risk reduction to take place within every local authority and community. The Readiness section describes how the CDEM Group prepares for the management of emergencies, through planning, training and education, exercising, public education and relationship-building with partner organisations. The Response section outlines the operational arrangements and requirements of all CDEM Group partner organisations with response roles. The structure, roles, functions, activation and management of the Group Emergency Operations Centre (GEOC) or Emergency Coordination Centre (ECC) 1, local Emergency Operations Centres, their respective senior appointees, staff and partner agency representatives, operational roles of the Group Emergency Management Office and the Group Warning System are vital components of this section. 1 The terms Group Emergency Operations Centres and Emergency Coordination Centres are interchangeable. They both describe CDEM Group-level coordination facilities from those coordinating responses at a local level, in the form of a Local Emergency Operations Centre or EOC; however, this may differ for unitary authorities as CDEM Groups. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 5

8 3. Overview of the contents of a CDEM Group Plan The Recovery section provides an outline of recovery arrangements within the CDEM Group area, with reference to, or inclusion of, the CDEM Group Recovery Plan. As recovery can last for years if not decades, it is vital that recovery is planned and coordinated with the range of stakeholders who will need to be involved. Success will be enhanced through effective relationship management. The Monitoring and Evaluation section provides guidance on what success looks like and how to effectively identify where objectives are being achieved. This section links to the national CDEM monitoring and evaluation programme. The Management and Governance section outlines the structure of the CDEM Group, the joint committee of the CDEM Group, the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG), Administering Authority and the Group Emergency Management Office. It also encourages CDEM Groups to show how they are funded and how the costs are apportioned. The Supporting Documents section provides an opportunity to refer to the supporting plans, arrangements and procedures that are in place to support the CDEM Group Plan and show how they are incorporated into the CDEM Group Plan. These supporting documents are essential to the success of the CDEM Group Plan. These plans may include the arrangements for managing specific consequences that are not covered by the CDEM Group plan. By incorporating each of the above sections, it is intended that a common foundation can be laid for all CDEM Groups to have similar and compatible structures. This approach will make it easier for people, organisations and agencies working across CDEM Group boundaries. The Glossary provides definitions or interpretations of terminology, acronyms and abbreviations. This is advantageous to readers, particularly if they are not everyday users of CDEM language. 6 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

9 4. Introduction section 4.1 Introduction The Introduction section of the CDEM Group Plan should briefly state how the plan was developed and describe the structure, purpose, legislative requirements, geographical area and target audience of the plan. This section should also state the CDEM Group s vision and goals, and how they link with community outcomes, sustainability and resilience. It is essential to explain the CDEM Group Plan s relationship to the National CDEM Strategy and the National CDEM Plan and Guide. Reference to the previous and future CDEM Group Plans should also be integrated into this plan, providing continuance for CDEM within the region. 4.2 Purpose and components of the introduction section PURPOSE OF THE INTRODUCTION SECTION To provide an overview of the plan purpose, audience, structure and development. COMPONENTS OF THE INTRODUCTION SECTION The purpose of the CDEM Group Plan. The vision and goals of the CDEM Group. A description of the geographical area the plan covers. A definition of the target audience (who the plan is for). A description of the plan structure and how to use it. An explanation of the relationship of the CDEM Group Plan to the National CDEM Strategy and National CDEM Plan and Guide. A description of the processes used in developing the plan. 4.3 Further information for developing the introduction section Stating the purpose of the CDEM Group Plan The plan is a statutory requirement under the CDEM Act (s48). The broad purpose of the CDEM Group plan is to enable the effective and efficient management of hazards and risks for which a coordinated approach will be required. The plan will set a strategic direction, providing CDEM Group objectives and a framework for continuous improvement to the management of emergencies. A CDEM Group Plan should: strengthen relationships between agencies involved in CDEM, including those involved in risk reduction encourage cooperative planning and action between the various emergency management agencies and the community, and demonstrate commitment to deliver more effective CDEM through an agreed work programme. Planning outcomes (such as agreed targets and actions or operational arrangements) are committed to by incorporating them within the existing planning processes of each CDEM Group member s own arrangements. Outlining the vision and goals of the CDEM Group This section of the CDEM Group Plan provides the opportunity for the CDEM Group to clearly state its vision and goals. It is recommended that these are aligned as closely as possible to the vision and goals of the National CDEM Strategy (see Describing CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 7

10 4. Introduction section the relationship of the CDEM Group Plan to the National CDEM Strategy and National CDEM Plan and Guide on page 16.) The vision and goals should be clear, simple and able to be easily understood by all stakeholders. Describing the geographical area Use a good quality map to indicate the operational boundaries of the CDEM Group to provide the reader with clarity. Many CDEM Groups have the ability to create maps through GIS, which is an excellent way to provide a good quality geographical picture and gives a visual context to the challenges of individual CDEM Groups. Defining the target audience The CDEM Group must meet the needs of two main target audiences the CDEM sector and communities: The CDEM sector includes the members of the CDEM Group directly involved in CDEM and partner organisations involved in CDEM activities. Communities require the plan to inform and involve them in understanding the hazards and risks they face. The community play a very important role in being prepared and being able to get through emergencies when they happen. CDEM is for all of New Zealand communities and individuals. The creation of resilient communities is only achieved through partnerships, and the combined efforts of the CDEM sector and communities in New Zealand. Detailing the plan structure At the beginning of each section, provide a brief summary of the content to provide the user with an understanding of the areas that section covers. The plan should be read in its entirety by all involved, as the sections are inextricably linked with each other for example, reduction can also take place during the recovery period. The recommended structure of the CDEM Group Plan is outlined in section 3 of this guideline. Describing the relationship of the CDEM Group Plan to the National CDEM Strategy and National CDEM Plan and The Guide Under the CDEM Act (s37(1), s42 and s53(1)), the National CDEM Plan and CDEM Group Plans must not be inconsistent with the National CDEM Strategy. The National CDEM Strategy sets out the vision for CDEM in New Zealand: This vision can only be achieved if we have participation and commitment at all levels 8 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

11 4. Introduction section of the CDEM sector. The National CDEM Strategy provides the vision and strategic direction and is implemented through the National CDEM Plan and Guide, and CDEM Group Plans. It relies on the support and participation of central and local government, emergency services, lifeline utilities, other general infrastructure providers, businesses, and volunteer agencies who are implementing the CDEM arrangements. The four goals and associated objectives in the National CDEM Strategy are based on the vision contained in the Strategy, and reflect the 4Rs and the provisions of the CDEM Act. NATIONAL CDEM STRATEGY GOALS Goal One: Increasing community awareness, understanding, preparedness and participation in civil defence emergency management. Goal Two: Reducing the risks from hazards to New Zealand. Goal Three: Enhancing New Zealand s capability to manage civil defence emergencies. Goal Four: Enhancing New Zealand s capability to recover from civil defence emergencies. Under the CDEM Act s49(2)(d), the relationship of each objective in the CDEM Group Plan to the National CDEM Strategy is to be considered. This may be done in a tabular form or in text, as there may be occasions where two CDEM Group goals would relate to one National CDEM Strategy Goal, for example: CDEM Group Goals National CDEM Strategy Goals Goal a Goal 3 Goal b Goal 2 Goal c Goal 1 Goal d Goal 3 Goal e Goal 4 Links to National CDEM Plan The National CDEM Plan identifies core functions for national management of the consequences of civil defence Emergencies. It may also address the consequences of other emergencies not otherwise able to be managed by a lead agency This includes the direction and coordination of CDEM during states of national emergency or emergencies of national significance, and national support to CDEM Groups in states of local emergency. The CDEM Group Plan must also take account of the guidelines, codes, or technical standards issued by the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM Act s53(2)). CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 9

12 4. Introduction section CDEM planning relationships The diagram below demonstrates the links to other documents, and relationships to plans and legislation. Local risk reduction e.g. local RMA plans, river management, infrastructure design, Business Continuity Planning and LTCCPs CDEM Group plans and local arrangements CDEM Groups, local authorities Government agency operational plans Health, MAF, Police, MetService etc Non- government agency operational plans Lifeline utility, voluntary welfare, SPCA, etc, Links between operational plans Central government policies for risk reduction e.g. Building code, GeoNet, hazard research, sustainable land management flood risk managment The Guide to the National CDEM Plan National CDEM Plan Other national strategies and legislation e.g. RMA National CDEM Strategy Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 Describing the CDEM Group Plan development and consultation process The CDEM Act sets out to encourage and enable communities to determine acceptable levels of risk. This is achieved through the actions of representative bodies such as local authorities who are required to identify, assess, manage, consult on and communicate risks. This can be undertaken through a process similar to the special consultative procedure used by local government as defined in section 83 of the Local Government Act Local government has well-established consultation processes; therefore, this guideline does not attempt to provide guidance on consultation other than that stated above. Before approving a CDEM Group Plan, the Minister of Civil Defence must be allowed 20 working days to comment (s49(1) of the CDEM Act). In practice, the Minister s representatives (MCDEM) will assist with and advise on plan development across New Zealand to promote consistency. This guideline is the basis upon which the Minister s assessment will be made. 4.4 References for the development of the introduction section Legislation (available at CDEM Act, sections 12 21, 37(1), 53(1), and Local Government Act 2002, section 83 CDEM framework documents (available at National CDEM Strategy, Department of Internal Affairs National CDEM Plan 2005 and Guide Previous CDEM Group Plans Other documents and resources LTCCPs Regional Policy Statement 10 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

13 5. Risk Profile Section 5.1 Introduction For a CDEM Group to manage risks effectively, it is essential to understand the risk management context within the CDEM Group s area, to know what can happen, what hazards and risks are most important and what risks should be managed as a matter of priority. Developing a clear understanding of the CDEM Group area s risk profile is fundamental to guiding the appropriate application of resources and effort across the 4Rs. The purpose of the risk profile section of a CDEM Group Plan is to understand the environments within which the CDEM Group operates. The risk profile provides a broad picture of the social, natural, built and economic environments within the CDEM Group s area and outlines how the various hazards are likely to impact on the area s communities. The risk profile includes an analysis of the likelihood and consequences (the risk) of those hazards. The section concludes with an evaluation of current and potential reduction, readiness, response and recovery decisions and actions in relation to the CDEM Group s prioritised risks. It is important that a risk profile builds upon local knowledge of local hazards and risks to account for the diversity of hazards and communities across New Zealand. A robust risk profile will: characterise hazard and risk information that will be vital to the engagement of CDEM Group members and key stakeholders, including for public awareness and education purposes provide a snapshot in time of the CDEM Group area s hazards, vulnerabilities and risks and key trends enable a qualitative comparison of significant risks at the CDEM Group level provide a basis for monitoring and measurement of high-level risk management outcomes through time, and set a sound foundation for comprehensive emergency management. 5.2 Purpose and components of the risk profile section PURPOSE OF THE RISK PROFILE SECTION To characterise the risk environment and provide an evidence base for sound prioritisation of resources and effort in risk management-based CDEM planning. COMPONENTS OF THE RISK PROFILE SECTION A comprehensive summary of the natural, social, built and economic environments of the CDEM Group area. Descriptions of all hazards that could impact upon the CDEM Group and characterisation of their likelihood and consequences. A qualitative assessment of the risks in the CDEM Group area, through risk analysis and evaluation. An evaluation of the current and potential decisions and actions across the 4Rs in relation to the CDEM Group s prioritised risks. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 11

14 5. Risk Profile Section 5.3 Challenges and opportunities in developing the risk profile While generic guidance exists for a standardised approach to the identification, assessment, analysis and evaluation of hazard risks, CDEM Groups have previously applied different methodologies and used assumptions to complete their analyses. The result of this has been: variations between CDEM Groups in the level of detail of hazard and risk assessments increased workload for local authority staff in applying the guidance on hazard and risk assessments in their local context barriers to correlation of risks between CDEM Groups in situations where cross-boundary hazard risks exist, such as the Central Plateau volcanic hazard risks, and limitations on aggregating a national picture of risk in the CDEM context. The more robust the CDEM Group s risk assessment, the more likely it is to be useful in prioritising CDEM Group risk reduction and planning activities, raising awareness and encouraging stakeholder participation. There is a need to clarify assumptions surrounding the relative level of importance of different risks. The protection of human life and safety is the most significant priority for CDEM Groups, and this needs to be appropriately reflected in the methodology and results of risk assessments. There is a need to keep the CDEM Group requirements for risk assessment and analysis to a reasonable level enough to provide a sound basis for CDEM Group decision-making without leading to paralysis by analysis. 5.4 Methods for developing the risk profile Background In the first generation of CDEM Group plans, it was recommended that the risk management context, goals, risks and reduction components of a CDEM Group Plan were bundled together under a section titled Strategic Issues. For the CDEM Group Plan review, the recommendation is to separate (and therefore emphasise) the components of the AS/NZS 4360 risk management process into the Risk Profile and Reduction sections as follows: Risk management context, risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation are addressed by the Risk Profile section of the CDEM Group Plan. Risk treatment is addressed by the Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery sections of the CDEM Group Plan. The approach to developing the Risk Profile section of the CDEM Group Plan as outlined: builds upon the foundation provided by the first generation of CDEM Group planning emphasises the AS/NZS 4360 risk management process as the basis for identifying, assessing and treating risks addresses the key issues and challenges that arose from the outcomes of the first generation CDEM Group Plans seeks a nationally consistent approach to developing CDEM Group-based risk profiles, and retains the flexibility for CDEM Groups to make local decisions about the relative importance of risks and the level of risk they will manage up to. 12 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

15 5. Risk Profile Section Risk management context CDEM Groups should provide a comprehensive summary of the natural, social, built and economic environments within the CDEM Group area. The purpose of summarising these environments is to give the CDEM Group a clear and agreed picture of the broad parameters within which CDEM operates. A description of each of the environments above should include a summary of at least the following factors: Social: population, social structures, vulnerable groups, ethnic diversity and tangata whenua Natural: geography, geology, and climate Built: residential, commercial, key lifelines utilities, and industrial and agricultural infrastructure Economic: regional economy, growth, employment, income, tourism and resources Particular attention should be paid to trends in any of these factors which may add to risk over the life of the CDEM Group Plan. Much of the information required for the risk management context may be found within the current CDEM Group Plan, and may simply require updating with current information. The information may also be found within documents such as LTCCPs, State of the Environment Reports and Regional Growth Strategies. Risk assessment Risk assessment involves the specific steps in the risk management process of hazard identification, an initial description of risks, risk analysis and risk evaluation. A detailed description of the risk assessment process is provided in the AS/NZS 4360 risk management process standard. Use of the risk profile template for risk assessment The use of the Risk Profile Template is strongly encouraged for the development of information within this section of a CDEM Group Plan. The template provides a readymade assessment tool tailored specifically to the development of second generation CDEM Group Plans, and should lead to significant time savings for CDEM staff during plan development. It is also expected to lead to a greater level of consistency between the risk profiles of CDEM Groups. The template needs to be populated as a result of a risk assessment workshop or similar cooperative process to analyse the risks that threaten the CDEM Group. The group brought together for this should include subject matter experts from a range of disciplines and agencies who can provide informed input. Remember that it is not just the numbers recorded that should be the output of this assessment, but also the issues, challenges and opportunities identified during the collaboration. Therefore, it is very important to have an accurate record of the proceedings of the assessment. The following points will help to clarify details for users of the template. The template is generic it is not based on the hazards within any specific CDEM Group, but on hazards that are commonly identified as significant within existing CDEM Group Plans. The hazard list should be updated and amended as required by CDEM Groups. There are two versions of the template simplified and detailed but both are identical in terms of assumptions and formulae. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 13

16 5. Risk Profile Section The simplified template is of most use where the hazardscape is small and relatively well defined and a single maximum likely event is used for each hazard (see below). The detailed template will be of more use to CDEM Groups who wish to assess various hazards in detail, for example, the individual components of lifeline utility failure hazards, such as electricity, water supply and communications. There are worked examples within the templates that need to be updated by each CDEM Group. Illustrated below is a screenshot of the template spreadsheet. The blue text should be manipulated, but the black text is fixed. Risk identification Start by identifying hazards of relevance to the CDEM Group add, delete or modify the hazard list within column A of the template and customise it to meet the local CDEM Group needs. It is recommended that the breakdown of hazards be within the three commonly accepted hazard categories natural, technological and biological. Begin by using the hazards listed within the current CDEM Group Plan, plus any other hazards that may have been considered within the background material when the current plan was produced. There may be recent risks from hazards that have emerged within the past few years that may alter the earlier risk assessment. It is important to describe risks that are deemed relevant to the CDEM Group. Most, if not all, CDEM Groups completed the exercise of describing risks as a part of previous plans. Risk descriptions are essential for communication with partners and are the basis of accurate risk assessment. 14 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

17 5. Risk Profile Section In general, the existing risk descriptions that underlie or form a part of the current CDEM Group Plans may not require a full rewrite, but rather checking, validating and updating. Consideration of the validity of existing Group risk descriptions could be the first phase of the collaborative risk assessment workshopping. Risk analysis Once completed, the hazard identification and risk descriptions will help to inform risk analysis. Risk analysis involves considering the likelihood and consequences of each type of hazard (defined by the risk description above), as the first stage in determining priorities. Qualitative analysis of risk is recommended using the following measures of consequence and likelihood: Measure of consequence of impact Level Descriptor Detail description 1 Insignificant No injuries, little or no damage, low financial loss. 2 Minor First aid treatment, minor building damage, medium financial loss. 3 Moderate Medical treatment required, moderate building and infrastructure damage, high financial loss. 4 Major Extensive injuries, high level of building and infrastructure damage, major financial loss. 5 Catastrophic Deaths, most buildings extensively damaged and major infrastructural failure, huge financial loss. Measure of likelihood generic Level Descriptor Detail description A Almost certain Is expected to occur in most circumstances. B Likely Will probably occur in most circumstances. C Possible Might occur at some time. D Unlikely Could occur at some time. E Rare May occur only in exceptional circumstances. A quantitative measure of likelihood is unlikely to be useful for an initial risk analysis, but should be considered as part of more detailed hazard-specific risk management at the local level, for example for flood risk management. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 15

18 5. Risk Profile Section Qualitative risk matrix The qualitative risk is determined using a risk analysis matrix, defined two factors; likelihood and consequence. The levels of risk defined in the matrix are a modification of the risk analysis matrix in the AS/NZS 4360 risk management standard. These modifications reflect: the need to tailor the analysis for a broad, multi-risk and multi-organisational environment, and the need for a more nuanced distinction of levels of risk. The use of the modified qualitative risk analysis matrix below is recommended: Likelihood 1 Insignificant 2 Minor Consequences 3 Moderate 4 Major 5 Catastrophic A Almost certain Moderate High Very high Extreme Extreme B Likely Low Moderate High Very high Extreme C Possible Low Moderate Moderate High Very high D Unlikely Very low Low Moderate High Very high E Rare Very low Very low Low Moderate High This modified matrix has six rating levels compared to four in the previous matrix it adds very high and very low to the possible outcomes. The process for risk analysis using the updated matrix is the same as for the previous matrix, and is usually a collaborative effort involving key stakeholders who can draw upon previous risk analyses, new hazard and risk information and experience. The result of the analysis will rate each hazard risk as either very low, low, moderate, high, very high or extreme, as shown above. Thresholds for prioritisation of risks Once the risk analysis is complete and each hazard has been rated for risk, the CDEM Group reaches a decision point regarding the cut-off level of risk for further evaluation. This decision is entirely at the discretion of each CDEM Group, and most may decide to include at least moderate-rated risks for evaluation as part of the development of CDEM Group Plans. As an example, the CDEM Group may decide to undertake risk evaluation only for those risks rated high, very high or extreme, and may decide not to do a risk evaluation for risks rated moderate, low or very low. Risk evaluation Application of the SMG model Risk evaluation provides a useful way of determining priorities for significant CDEM Group risks. The experience provided by development of first generation CDEM Group Plans has identified opportunities to modify the way evaluation criteria are applied. Recommended modifications are listed below. Removal of urgency as an evaluation criterion, noting that it is already addressed during the risk analysis, thereby focussing on Seriousness, Manageability, and Growth (SMG) criteria. 16 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

19 5. Risk Profile Section Replacement of the HESIG 2 evaluation model with the commonly accepted CDEM model that resolves the human/social issues using the four environments commonly used in recovery management, being the social, built, economic and natural environments. The Seriousness criterion should be weighted higher than either Manageability or Growth. For the purposes of CDEM, seriousness should always be the key driver and is inherently more important than the other two criteria. It is recommended that Seriousness be weighted twice as important as the other two criteria, thus making it half of the overall rating. The Seriousness criteria should be amended to reflect the relative importance of the four factors social, built, economic and natural environments. The following weighting is advised: Social 50% of the total value, due to the high priority of protection of human life and safety and community readiness, response and recovery in CDEM. Built 25% of the total value, due to the importance of protecting lifelines and other critical infrastructure in relation to social concerns. Economic 15% of the total value, reflecting a secondary priority and the fact that the built environment will normally account for most of the economic damage. Natural 10% of the total value, reflecting the relatively low level of concern within the CDEM sector (noting that environmental concerns are primarily covered within other sectors). The process for risk evaluation using the risk profile template is as follows: Seriousness Assign a consequence rating (number from 1-5) to each of the four environments within Seriousness (columns E, F, G, H) of the spreadsheet (refer to the screenshot on page 14) using the following measures of consequence: Level Descriptor Detail description 1 Insignificant No injuries, little or no damage, low financial loss. 2 Minor First aid treatment, minor building damage, medium financial loss. 3 Moderate Medical treatment required, moderate building and infrastructure damage, high financial loss. 4 Major Extensive injuries, high level of building and infrastructure damage, major financial loss. 5 Catastrophic Deaths, most buildings extensively damaged and major infrastructural failure, huge financial loss. Once complete, the risk profile template assigns a seriousness value in the sub-total column (column I). The minimum possible value is 2, and the maximum possible value is 10. Each environment is automatically weighted per the assumptions above, and the sub-total represents half the total maximum possible value of HESIG = Human, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, and Geography CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 17

20 5. Risk Profile Section Manageability The manageability rating is shown below. A rating is developed from 1 to 5 based on the combination of management difficulty and current level of effort being applied. The rating is developed and entered on the template for each of the 4Rs Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery (columns J, K, L, M). The sub-total represents an average manageability value in column N and has a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5. Management difficulty Current effort (4Rs) Rating Low High 1 Low Medium Medium High Low Medium High Medium High Medium High Low Low Medium High Low Growth The growth rating is shown below. A rating is developed from 1 to 5 based on the combination of the probability of occurrence of the event arising and the changes in community exposure to the event. The rating is developed for each hazard and entered on the template in column O. Event occurrence probability rise Changing community exposure Rating Low Low 1 Low Medium 2 Medium Low Medium Medium 3 Low High Medium High High Low 4 High Medium High High 5 Once all the rating values have been completed, the template will provide a risk total in column P for each hazard identified. The template can then be sorted via column P to give a list of hazards ranked by risk. This ranked list can then be used to help underpin the approach to risk management outlined within the other sections of the CDEM Group Plan. 18 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

21 5. Risk Profile Section Evaluation of decisions and actions across the 4Rs Completion of the risk profile will provide useful information on progress towards achieving objectives across the 4Rs. The breakdown of the seriousness criteria allows for CDEM Groups to focus on the aspects of hazards that are of most concern to the CDEM Group, such as the consequences of hazards to human life regardless of the likelihood. The manageability criteria allows for an assessment of current management across the 4Rs for each hazard, and for an assessment of management progress within the reduction, readiness, response and recovery areas. While qualitative, these results should provide an indication of where most effort is required, and provide an evidence base for planning the distribution of effort across the reduction, readiness, response and recovery sections. There are strong linkages therefore between the risk profile and monitoring and evaluation sections of the plan. The risk profile should be considered as part of the foundation for developing the entire CDEM Group Plan across the 4Rs. 5.5 References for the development of the risk profile section Legislation (available at CDEM Act, sections 17(1)(a), and 49(2)(b) CDEM framework documents (available at National CDEM Strategy (2008), Department of Internal Affairs, (specifically Goals One and Two, pages 10 11) National CDEM Plan 2005 and Guide Previous CDEM Group Plans Other documents and resources National Hazardscape Report (2007), ODESC, (available at www. civildefence.govt.nz) LTCCPs (available at The application of risk analysis tools in Civil Defence Emergency Management Planning in New Zealand Cunningham, D. (2006). Summary available at ANZ Standard 4360:2004, Risk Management CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 19

22 6. Reduction Section 6.1 Introduction The Reduction section within CDEM Group Plans relates directly to Goal Two of the National CDEM Strategy: Goal Two: Reducing the risks from hazards to New Zealand. The National CDEM Strategy defines reduction as: activities and measures taken to analyse long term risks to human life and property from natural or man-made hazards and to eliminate or reduce those risks, as practicable. 6.2 Purpose and components of the reduction section PURPOSE OF THE REDUCTION SECTION To provide guidance for CDEM Groups on the arrangements, frameworks, structures, roles, responsibilities and processes that may be implemented in order to achieve long term comprehensive risk reduction. COMPONENTS OF THE REDUCTION SECTION OF THE CDEM GROUP PLAN A clear and concise statement of principles or criteria for risk reduction within the CDEM Group. A description of how risk reduction is managed and how reduction challenges are addressed within the CDEM Group. A statement of the outcomes sought from CDEM Group reduction activities and descriptions of specific, measurable and achievable risk reduction objectives. Descriptions of specific policies, methods and/or tools for delivery of the desired outcomes. 6.3 Context for risk reduction in New Zealand In the New Zealand context, risk reduction has the following characteristics: Integrated planning and risk management is accepted as the basis for comprehensive risk reduction. Successful, comprehensive risk reduction requires a collaborative, multiagency and all-of-government approach. A range of policy, regulatory, service delivery and self-help arrangements, supported by agencies at local, regional and national level contributing to risk reduction initiatives. A focus on effects or outcomes of activities that may result in undue risk, rather than the regulation of the hazard or activity per se. The policy framework for strategic risk management in New Zealand is set by a number of statutory and non-statutory instruments and the linkages between these instruments. The primary instruments include: the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 and its integrated hierarchy of instruments such as policy statements and district plans. the Local Government Act 2002 and its instruments, such as LTCCPs. the Building Act CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

23 6. Reduction Section the CDEM Act and its integrated hierarchy of instruments, with CDEM Group Plans as an important component, and non-statutory instruments that support the above legislative framework, such as urban growth strategies, guidelines and plans. While managing hazards and risks is only one goal within this framework, there is an opportunity to improve the collective understanding, awareness and management of significant risks across all stakeholders in achieving all aims within the framework. 6.4 Challenges in risk reduction planning In general, the strategic risk management framework in New Zealand provides a sound basis for integrated risk reduction. Risk reduction can be challenging and at times these challenges can lead to an increase in risks due to a lack of integration or the adoption of a systems approach. A number of common challenges are summarised below. Developing a common understanding and interpretation of the purpose, principles and status of reduction practice The CDEM Group will need to consider ways to: develop an in-depth understanding of the state of reduction practice in the CDEM Group s area, for example, who the stakeholders are, who is responsible for the reduction initiative and where the key points of influence are, what is being carried out and what is being achieved promote a shared understanding amongst all stakeholders of the common objectives to be achieved by risk reduction and how this is to be done establish realistic objectives around what CDEM Groups need to achieve, and develop an understanding of how to maximise the political influence and leverage afforded by the CDEM Group. Promoting and developing clear linkages between planning for reduction and the broader social, economic and environmental outcomes sought by the CDEM Group The CDEM Group will need to consider ways to: increase the connection and coordination between CDEM Group Plans and other statutory and non-statutory mechanisms as they relate to risk reduction (such as LTCCPs, regional policy statements, and regional and district plans) influence across cross-jurisdictional boundaries to achieve shared objectives, and encourage the mainstreaming of CDEM within key stakeholder groups. Ensuring adequate implementation capacity and capability The CDEM Group will need to consider ways to ensure a level of reduction capability and capacity in order to: deliver on the reduction objectives of the CDEM Group Plan be clear on what is achievable, what the realistic timeframes are and the costs and benefits of reduction, and enable monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 21

24 6. Reduction Section 6.5 Reduction principles Reduction principles help to clarify and guide reduction activities and can assist collective buy-in and understanding of reduction objectives. Establishment of principles will help to define each CDEM Group s philosophy and approach to reduction. It is recommended that principles are established within the CDEM Group Plan. EXAMPLES OF REDUCTION PRINCIPLES Events that have the potential to cause a significant number of deaths or injuries to people are unacceptable human life and safety will therefore take precedence over all other risk priorities. Risks that have the potential to cause severe economic losses, substantial damage to buildings, infrastructure or lifeline utilities will have high priority. Risks that are readily manageable and are of most concern to local communities will be managed as a priority. Risks that can be readily addressed by improving coordination and cooperation between emergency management agencies will be given priority. Risks with a high likelihood and high consequence will be given priority. Reduction is not achieved solely through sustainable land-use planning. It also requires other methods such as adequate building codes, general infrastructure resilience, and community resilience building (individuals understanding and managing their hazards). In addition, it is not always possible to draw a clear boundary between reduction and the other 3Rs of readiness, response and recovery, hence the importance of integrating risk reduction. 6.6 Developing reduction objectives Objectives are measurable goals that contribute to the planning outcomes sought through the life of the CDEM Group Plan. They are a statement of conditions to be met or a situation to be achieved. Objectives must be set by the CDEM Group and should be clear, achievable and measurable. Methods are the processes, resources and actions that will deliver or achieve the objectives set by the CDEM Group. CDEM Group Plans should identify the most important objectives contributing to the CDEM Group s outcomes; too many objectives will dilute the focus and will result in suboptimal outcomes. As with all objectives in CDEM Group Plans, the relationship between each reduction objective and the National CDEM Strategy (CDEM Act s49(2)(d)) is to be considered. This can be achieved using a table containing a row for each objective with columns for reduction issues, National CDEM Strategy Goals, CDEM Group objectives, methods, and tools and actions. Reduction issue Relationship to National CDEM Strategy Reduction objective Method (to achieve objective) Tools and actions/notes Reduction objectives and relationship between objectives, methods and tools Reference #: Issue outline Goal/issue In outline, including measure and timeframe, if appropriate There may be several of these for a particular objective Resources available and the actions required to carry out the objective using the resources 22 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

25 6. Reduction Section EXAMPLES FOR WHICH REDUCTION OBJECTIVES COULD BE PREPARED Long term, strategic reduction of the risks from hazards through collaborative planning with stakeholders. Integrated risk management framework developed and maintained, in collaboration with stakeholders. Hazard risk programmes and outcomes are monitored and evaluated. Appropriate capacity and capability are advocated for. National CDEM Strategy examples Improving the coordination, promotion and accessibility of CDEM research. 3 Developing a comprehensive understanding of New Zealand s hazardscape. Encouraging all CDEM stakeholders to reduce the risks from hazards to acceptable levels. Improving the coordination of government 4 policy relevant to CDEM. Methods to achieve reduction objectives Methods are the how to processes, actions and resources that will deliver or achieve the objectives. EXAMPLES OF REDUCTION METHODS Examples of methods for achieving the above outcomes may include: development and maintenance of a baseline assessment of all current and planned reduction activities among key stakeholders within the CDEM Group development of an integrated risk reduction framework by: confirmation of reduction roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders, clarification of expectations of the CDEM Group and development of realistic and achievable outcomes risk reduction planning and development of strategic partnerships in collaboration with local authorities and other relevant stakeholders establishment of a common approach to reduction, clear linkages between the activities of all reduction stakeholders and an increase in the coordination of reduction activities establishment and maintenance of linkages between all relevant statutory and non-statutory risk management policies and plans within the CDEM Group development of a risk reduction monitoring and evaluation programme across the CDEM Group, and establishment of a capability and capacity assessment for reduction across the CDEM Group and provision of appropriate CDEM Group resources, training and education to ensure that objectives are achievable. 3 Substitute New Zealand for the name of your region. 4 Substitute government for council, local or similar. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 23

26 6. Reduction Section Tools and actions There are many tools that may be employed and actions that may be undertaken when delivering on specific methods. The use of the most appropriate tool is up to the discretion of the CDEM Group, depending upon its circumstances. The following recommended tools and actions can be used to deliver on the methods mentioned earlier. Collaborate with local authorities and other stakeholders in the risk reduction area: Local authorities A useful starting point is to link the CDEM Group reduction efforts or programme to the work of the regional council or unitary authority risk reduction programme, territorial authority plans and LTCCPs. Integration between emergency management, hazard management, planning and asset/infrastructure management staff and programmes is highly desirable, both within and between local authorities. Emergency services Identify complementary reduction programmes such as fire safety or health programmes and assess opportunities for collaboration. Lifelines utilities Assess Lifelines Group work programme and identify opportunities for improvement. Establish cross-boundary groups and/or working parties and programmes to address risk reduction, such as the Waikato/Manawatu Central Plateau Volcanic Advisory Group. Integrate the CDEM Group Plan with other risk reduction-related instruments, such as: regional policy statements, regional development strategies and regional plans district plans, community development activities LTCCPs and community plans, and other relevant statutory and non-statutory instruments such as District Health Board (DHB) strategies, Ministry of Social Development (MSD) regional strategies, sustainable development or growth strategies, local asset management and structure plans and local or regional hazard management plans and strategies. Ideally, integration will be through joint development of these plans, but may also occur through consultation and submissions. Provide input into and influence resource consent processes where these relate to hazards and emergency management. Actively participate in developing community outcomes to ensure that the importance of risk management is recognised as a core component within community safety outcomes and community resilience. Provide a reduction advocacy role across the CDEM Group. Ensure effective communication with stakeholders including all relevant forms of media, in particular, the use of participatory processes such as workshops and meetings with key stakeholders and the community using multi-media or similar interactive techniques to raise risk awareness. Conduct stakeholder surveys to identify gaps and opportunities. Develop monitoring and reporting frameworks that are aligned with the annual reporting of outcomes from key stakeholders. 24 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

27 6. Reduction Section Facilitate adequate research and its implementation. Provide targeted and coordinated education and training as part of a professional development programme. Contribute to general infrastructure and community resilience-building as appropriate. It is important to note that the objectives, methods, tools and actions suggested above are not comprehensive and are only examples. Each CDEM Group needs to develop its own set of methods and relevant tools, depending on their priority risks and wider environment. 6.7 References for the development of the reduction section Legislation (available at Building Act 2004 and Building Code (also see CDEM Act 2002, section 17(1)(a) Local Government Act 2002 Resource Management Act 1991 Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 Land Drainage Act 1908 Biosecurity Act 1993 Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977 CDEM framework documents (available at National CDEM Strategy (2008), Department of Internal Affairs, (specifically Goal Two, page 11) Previous CDEM Group Plans Other documents and resources National Hazardscape Report (2007), ODESC, (available at www. civildefence.govt.nz) Natural Hazards Quality Planning Guidelines (available at www. qualityplanning.org.nz) LTCCPs Frequently asked questions on LTCCPs (available at cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?bib=3526) Regional plans Regional policy statements CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 25

28 7. Readiness Section 7.1 Introduction This section of the CDEM Group Plan is intended to outline the emergency readinessrelated activities of the CDEM Group, its local authority members and partners. The Readiness section within CDEM Group Plans relates directly to Goals One and Three of the National CDEM Strategy: Goal One: Increasing community awareness, understanding, preparedness and participation in civil defence emergency management. Goal Three: Enhancing New Zealand s capability to manage civil defence emergencies. Readiness means developing operational systems and capabilities before a civil defence emergency happens, including self-help and response programmes for the general public, and specific programmes for emergency services, lifeline utilities and other agencies. Readiness comprises two distinct but related aspects: Organisational readiness tends to focus on the readiness of emergency response organisations, emergency services, local authorities, health service providers, NGOs, and so on. For local and CDEM Group readiness planning to be effective, relevant private businesses should be involved in CDEM processes and partnerships. Community readiness focuses on the ability of communities, families and individuals to be able to meet their own needs during and after emergencies. Links to safety or security community outcomes in LTCCPs should be used to reinforce the community readiness component of the CDEM Group Plan. The public education activities of CDEM Groups, their member local authorities and partner local, regional and national agencies play a key part in developing community readiness. 7.2 Purpose and components of the readiness section PURPOSE OF THE READINESS SECTION To provide an overview of current levels of organisational and community readiness. To provide assurance that the CDEM Group has the capacity and capability to respond to and recover from a civil defence emergency. COMPONENTS OF THE READINESS SECTION A description of the current levels of both organisational and community readiness, based on the readiness-related results of the Risk Profile section of the CDEM Group Plan. A description of the issues that arise from current levels of readiness within the context of the hazardscape of the respective CDEM Group area. A statement of the readiness objectives relating to the maintenance and enhancement of readiness across the CDEM Group, including planning, training and education. An outline of methods and resources required to achieve these readiness objectives. A statement of the arrangements in place to support readiness planning. A description of ongoing readiness activities. 26 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

29 7. Readiness Section Identify issues/areas for development Risk assessment, response and recovery issues Develop objectives Community input Process for developing the readiness section Develop methods to address objectives SUPPORTED BY: Well-defined organisational arrangements Community input 7.3 Identifying issues to be addressed in the readiness section The readiness-related issues that the CDEM Group identifies from the outputs of the risk analysis process will form the basis for the readiness objectives that the CDEM Group and its local authority members and partner organisations will work towards in the CDEM Group Plan. Issues will be one of the products of the risk assessment process adopted by the CDEM Group. 5 Emphasis should be put on those issues that are most pressing and that will deliver the most net benefit to the response partners and the community. Organisational EXAMPLES OF READINESS ISSUES Insufficient numbers of local authority, partner response organisation or volunteer personnel to adequately staff local or CDEM Group response and recovery coordination functions. Response and recovery coordination staff are not adequately trained to carry out functions as confidently and effectively as possible. Emergency Information Management Systems do not currently meet the coordination needs of the CDEM Group, its member authorities and partner organisations. The transition from level 2 to level 3 emergency events is not as well understood or delivered as it should be (for levels, see section 9.8 of this guideline). The number of capable community-based response volunteers is declining. Lack of knowledge of resources and critical assets, and of how to procure and deploy them. Coordination between key response organisations in large-scale events, beyond their normal range of experience, is not as effective as it should be. Only a small proportion of businesses in the CDEM Group area have business continuity plans. Fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) providers, a critical part of response and recovery during emergencies, are not being included in emergency management plans in the CDEM Group area. CDEM Group, local authority and partner organisation plans are inconsistent. 5 See the Risk Assessment section of this guideline for an outline of this process. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 27

30 7. Readiness Section Community EXAMPLES OF READINESS ISSUES (continued) The level of community awareness of (specific) hazards, their consequences and potential community actions is not sufficient to provide a solid basis for effective community readiness. Community capacity to respond appropriately to warnings (formal, informal and natural) needs to be improved. Key indicators of community readiness are missing (such as the proportion of communities with sufficient emergency water, food, cooking facilities, shelter, household emergency plans) and low levels of readiness are identified in some (specific) communities within the CDEM Group area. Involvement in community-based organisations such as NGOs and community groups may be low or declining. Some community members may not be responding positively to risk reduction measures, such as risk avoidance behaviour/decisions, district plan or regional policy statement development, resource consent processes, or physical protection works. 7.4 Developing readiness objectives Objectives are measurable goals that contribute to the planning outcomes sought through the life of the CDEM Group Plan. They are a statement of conditions to be met or a situation to be achieved. Objectives must be set by the Group and should be clear, achievable and measurable. Methods are the processes, resources and actions that will deliver or achieve the objectives set by the CDEM Group. CDEM Group Plans should identify the most important objectives contributing to the CDEM Group s outcomes; too many objectives will dilute the focus and will result in suboptimal outcomes. As with all objectives in CDEM Group Plans, the relationship between each reduction objective and the National CDEM Strategy (CDEM Act s49(2)(d)) is to be considered. This can be achieved using a table containing a row for each objective, with columns for readiness issues, National CDEM Strategy Goals, CDEM Group objectives, methods, and tools and actions. Reduction issue Relationship to National CDEM Strategy Reduction objective Method (to achieve objective) Tools and actions/notes Readiness objectives and relationship between objectives, methods and tools Reference #: Issue outline Goal/issue In outline, including measure and timeframe, if appropriate There may be several of these for a particular objective Resources available and the actions required to carry out the objective using the resources 28 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

31 7. Readiness Section Organisational EXAMPLES FOR WHICH READINESS OBJECTIVES COULD BE PREPARED To enhance professional development for all emergency management staff and personnel so they are suitably qualified and experienced for the positions they hold. To develop consistency between all member local authority and partner organisation emergency management plans within the CDEM Group. To state the financial arrangements at CDEM Group and local authority level. To advance coordinated and integrated emergency planning by key agencies. To establish telecommunications and Emergency Information Management Systems to provide for effective response coordination. To provide and promote standards of education and training for key roles within the CDEM Group. To establish and maintain a GEOC/ECC for the effective support of local events and coordination of responses to regional events. To develop and maintain appropriate documentation (guidelines, standard operating procedures, aides-memoire and so on) to describe key activities, systems and protocols in support of the CDEM Group Plan. To prepare, maintain and (where needed) enhance plans to describe predetermined functional responses to identified consequences. To develop a process of recording critical assets and resources and procedures for procurement and deployment. To maintain an accurate contacts database. To establish and maintain a mechanism for supporting communities, families and individuals in times of emergency. To develop a professional development programme including opportunities to learn from other CDEM Groups experiences across the 4 Rs. To establish and maintain a mechanism for providing support to emergency services and other agencies as appropriate. To establish and maintain a mechanism for the effective coordination of response to locally significant events. Community To improve public education messages so that the public receives consistent messages about their individual, family and community roles and responsibilities in emergency management. To increase the opportunities for individuals to gain the skills necessary to deal with an emergency. To enhance the ability of communities to support each other during an emergency. To increase commitment to respond proactively and appropriately to receipt of emergency notifications. To increase appreciation of the role of the community and community groups in readiness, response and recovery. To enhance community-based readiness, response and recovery resources. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 29

32 7. Readiness Section EXAMPLES FOR WHICH READINESS OBJECTIVES COULD BE PREPARED (contiuned) National CDEM Strategy examples To increase the level of community awareness and understanding of the risks from hazards. To encourage and enable wider community participation in hazard risk management decisions. To improve individual, community and business preparedness. To improve community participation in CDEM. To promote continuing and coordinated professional development in CDEM. To enhance the ability of CDEM Groups 6 to prepare for and manage civil defence emergencies. 7.5 Methods for delivering on readiness objectives The method describes the processes and resources necessary to achieve each of the stated objectives. EXAMPLES OF READINESS METHODS The CDEM Group Emergency Management Office will: conduct a professional development needs analysis of all key emergency management functions and appointees, including elected members, staff and volunteers prepare a professional development plan for all key emergency management functions oversee implementation of the professional development plan and report to the CEG on progress annually develop an agreed emergency management local arrangements template to be implemented by all CDEM Group member authorities which can be used to inform partner future organisation emergency plans, and develop a record of resources, critical assets and contacts and procedures for procurement and deployment. 7.6 Readiness organisation Most CDEM Groups have established a range of committees and/or advisory groups to support their CEG. These committees and groups enable and support collaborative approaches to developing or enhancing arrangements, plans, capabilities, resources and actions across the 4Rs. Reviewing CDEM Group Plans provides an opportunity for CDEM Groups to re-examine their readiness-related committees or advisory group arrangements (see section 11.1 for an example of a generic CDEM Group organisational structure). 6 Could replace CDEM Groups with partner agencies or similar. 30 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

33 7. Readiness Section EXAMPLES OF READINESS-RELATED COMMITTEES OR ADVISORY GROUPS The following are examples of committees or groups that may already be established or maintained by the CDEM Group: Readiness Response Committee Emergency Management Committee (EMC) Emergency Services Coordinating Committee (ESCC) Welfare Advisory Group (WAG) Lifelines Advisory Group (LAG) Health Advisory Group (HAG) Rural Advisory Group (RAG) Business Advisory Group (BAG) Training (or Professional Development) Advisory Group/Committee Reduction Committee Public Education Committee 7 8 One of the issues that became apparent during the life of the previous generation of CDEM Group Plans was that committees or advisory groups established for planning and development purposes were also relied upon to carry out operational response functions. Although this may work in some instances, staff from partner organisations assigned to strategic readiness-related roles may not be the right people to perform operational roles. Therefore, it is recommended, that CDEM Groups (in the broad sense) take the opportunity to review their structure and terms of reference, and establish a set of response arrangements to most effectively meet their collective needs. Suggested response arrangements are outlined in Section 9. Separation (or at least very clear explanation) of readiness, response and recovery functions assists to clarify roles and responsibilities, particularly during emergencies when ambiguity and uncertainty should be minimised (see section 9). 7.7 Ongoing readiness activities Each CDEM Group will have readiness activities that they will need to plan for, commit resources to and deliver on an ongoing basis (whether issues have been identified in relation to those activities or not). These activities should be outlined in this section of the CDEM Group Plan. In many cases, readiness activities will relate to reduction, response or recovery issues or objectives. Reference to those other Rs should be made in the respective part of the Readiness section. 7 ESCCs were originally established within NZ Police instructions to bring about enhancements to multi-agency response prior to the adoption of CIMS. The need for ESCCs has changed since the introduction of the CDEM Act and CEGs. ESCCs perform an important role in providing a basis for relationship-building and planning for smaller-scale local incidents, but the operational role, particularly for larger incidents or emergencies, is better provided for within actual response coordination structures (Local EOCs and GEOCs/ ECCs) outlined in the Response section of the CDEM Group Plan. Provision should also be made for seamless transition from ESCC to GEOC/ECC and back again, as emergencies escalate and de-escalate. 8 The Welfare Advisory Group (WAG) concept was originally established to provide for collective emergency welfare planning within CDEM Groups essentially a readiness function. This role has grown in most CDEM Groups to provide the basis for coordination of emergency welfare functions during response and recovery. CDEM Groups will need to determine whether they also need a Local Emergency Welfare Committee to provide local emergency welfare readiness, response and recovery, as well as how operational coordination emergency welfare will be provided within the context of their GEOC/ECC for potentially protracted activations. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 31

34 7. Readiness Section EXAMPLES FOR RELATING READINESS TO THE OTHER Rs Testing the warning system described in the Response section. Education and training and for personnel involved in response and recovery roles. Planning for, and delivery of, response and recovery exercises. 7.8 Processes for developing the readiness section A clear process for developing the Readiness section of the CDEM Group Plan should be agreed by all member and partner representatives of the CEG prior to the section being developed. Setting up a multi-agency working party from within the CEG with the specific objective of developing this section may be the most effective option available, and has proven effective in previous emergency management planning processes. EXAMPLES OF PROCESSES TO FOLLOW Examples of processes intended to assist in clarifying enhanced readiness may include: a facilitated workshop with well-informed and constructive representation from all member and partner organisations with readiness, response and recovery roles several workshops may be required in larger or more complex CDEM Group areas, and developing a table of readiness roles, responsibilities and capabilities by organisation and geographic area References for the development of the readiness section Legislation (available at CDEM Act, sections 17(1)(b),(c),(g) and 18 CDEM framework documents (available at National CDEM Strategy (2008), Department of Internal Affairs, (specifically Goal One, page 10, and Goal Three, pages 12 13) Guide to the National CDEM Plan (2006), MCDEM, (specifically sections 13 17, incorporating sections of the National CDEM Plan) Previous CDEM Group Plans Other documents and resources (available at Spontaneous Volunteer Management Planning: Best Practice Guideline [BPG 3/06] (2006), MCDEM Public Information Management: Information for the CDEM sector [IS9/07] (2007), MCDEM National Hazardscape Report (2007), ODESC Building Safety Evaluation Guidelines (2009), New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineers ( 9 This is distinct from response roles and responsibilities that should be identified in the Response section of the CDEM Group Plan. 32 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

35 8. Response Section 8.1 Introduction Response describes the actions taken immediately before, during, or directly after a civil defence emergency to save lives and protect property, and to support communities to recover. The Response section of CDEM Group Plans is directly related to Goal Three of the National CDEM Strategy: Goal Three: Enhancing New Zealand s capability to manage civil defence emergencies. The Response section of all CDEM Group Plans is intended to provide an outline of the operational arrangements, structures, processes and responsibilities that are to be deployed during emergencies. The Response section should be concise, yet sufficiently detailed to enable readers to rapidly gain an adequate working understanding of the key roles and relationships. The objectives of the Response section should focus on operational arrangements and other documents empowered by, or referred to in, the section. The Response section can be kept concise because it will rely on more detailed documents, such as EOC and partner organisation operational procedures. 8.2 Purpose and components of the response section PURPOSE OF THE RESPONSE SECTION To provide key stakeholders, partner organisations and the community with an outline of the response principles, priorities, systems and organisational framework intended to be activated, deployed and coordinated during incidents and emergencies within the CDEM Group area. COMPONENTS OF THE RESPONSE SECTION A clear and concise statement of principles or criteria for response within the CDEM Group. Objectives developed from the issues identified for current response practice that seek to develop or enhance current arrangements. Specific policies, methods and/or tools for delivery of the desired outcomes. A clear organisational framework for all organisations to work within at CDEM Group level and, where relevant, local levels in emergency response. A clear description of roles, functions and responsibilities for response to prevent duplication of effort and to ensure a coordinated response. Clearly stated information protocols so that information relating to the emergency and its consequences is effectively collected, collated, analysed and shared. A description of the transition process between different levels of emergency response including declared states of emergency. A statement of the relationship with national support agencies. A description of how the CDEM Group will support other CDEM Groups during emergencies. A description of the process relating to declarations of states of emergency. A description of the process for transition to Recovery. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 33

36 8. Response Section Particular emphasis should be given to transition from incidents managed by one or a few emergency response organisations at the site of the event, through to emergencies requiring a significant coordinated response. Consideration should also be paid to providing for level 1 to 3 incidents or emergencies (see 8.8 in this section) that would benefit from the additional powers and projection of leadership, coordination and direction provided by declaration of a state of emergency. 8.3 Principles for response planning From the National CDEM Plan: (1) Agencies should respond to an emergency by activating their own plans and co-ordinating with the lead agency. (2) Within the constraints that the emergency creates, each agency, operating within its own jurisdiction, must co-ordinate with interdependent agencies to (a) assess the impact of an event on its own staff, assets, and services; and (b) activate its own continuity and emergency arrangements; and (c) maintain or restore the services it provides; and (d) communicate with lead agencies, other responders, and the public; and (e) align response activities with other agencies to avoid gaps and duplications. (3) In addition, the emergency services are expected to (a) assess the effect of an event on the community; and (b) co-ordinate the local efforts of their agency; and (c) communicate assessments and actions with the appropriate lead agency. (4) Emergency response objectives include (a) preservation of life; and (b) prevention of escalation of the emergency; and (c) maintenance of law and order; and (d) care of sick, injured, and dependent people (first aid, medical, and evacuation facilities, and welfare); and (e) provision of essential services (lifeline utilities, food, shelter, public information, and media); and (f) preservation of governance (continuity of the machinery of government); and (g) asset protection, including buildings and historic heritage assets (including structures, areas, landscapes, archaeological sites, and wahi tapu); and (h) protection of natural and physical resources (to the extent reasonably possible in the circumstances); and (i) preservation of economic activity. 8.4 Challenges in response planning As the Response section of the CDEM Group Plan is intended to represent arrangements and capabilities that are in place at the time the plan becomes effective, there is less need to systematically identify response issues against which response objectives will be written. A major challenge is to be able to clarify the arrangements, functions, roles, responsibilities, delegations, and resources that are necessary for an effective response. 8.5 Developing response objectives Objectives are measurable goals that contribute to the planning outcomes sought through the life of the CDEM Group Plan. They are a statement of conditions to be met or a situation to be achieved. Objectives must be set by the CDEM Group and should be 34 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

37 8. Response Section clear, achievable and measurable. Methods are the processes, resources and actions that will deliver or achieve the objectives set by the CDEM Group. CDEM Group Plans should identify the most important objectives contributing to the CDEM Group s outcomes. As with all objectives in CDEM Group Plans, the relationships between each CDEM Group response objective and the National CDEM Strategy (CDEM Act s49(2)(d)) is to be considered. This can be achieved using a table containing a row for each objective, with columns for response issues, National CDEM Strategy Goals, CDEM Group objectives, methods, and tools and actions. Response issue Relationship to National CDEM Strategy Response objective Method (to achieve objective) Tools and actions/notes Response objectives and relationship between objectives, methods and tools Reference #: Issue outline Goal/issue In outline, including measure and timeframe, if appropriate There may be several of these for a particular objective Resources available and the actions required to carry out the objective using the resources EXAMPLES FOR WHICH RESPONSE OBJECTIVES COULD BE PREPARED To ensure an effective level of engagement from all agencies in response planning. Where there is an identified need, to develop a community-based emergency response capability that is regularly tested. To improve cooperation and coordination between CDEM Group members during the response phase of a civil defence emergency. To ensure response plans are implemented effectively during emergencies. To improve arrangements so that decision making in a civil defence emergency is supported by appropriate scientific and technical advice. To have the ability to support other CDEM Groups if required. National CDEM Strategy examples Enhancing the ability of CDEM Groups to prepare for and manage civil defence emergencies. Enhancing the ability of emergency services to prepare for and manage civil defence emergencies. Enhancing the ability of government agencies to prepare for and manage civil defence emergencies. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 35

38 8. Response Section 8.6 Methods for delivering on response objectives The method describes the processes and resources necessary to achieve each of the stated objectives. EXAMPLES OF RESPONSE METHODS The following are factors that need to be considered for effective response. Describing the levels of response adopted by the CDEM Group (see 8.8). Outlining the response roles, functions and capabilities of all emergency response organisations within the CDEM Group area. Describing the arrangements for cooperation and coordination with other CDEM Groups. Describing the CDEM Group warning system and its respective functions, roles and responsibilities. Describing the financial, coordination and direction delegations made to, and by, the CDEM Group and others, to give effect to the emergency management arrangements described in the CDEM Group Plan. 10 Describing the structure, functions and roles of the GEOC/ECC for effective coordination in support of local events and in response to regionally significant events. Stating the activation process for the GEOC/ECC and the role of the CDEM Group Emergency Management Office prior to any activation. Providing links to plans to describe predetermined responses by agencies to specific consequences. Outlining the telecommunications and information management systems and processes used by emergency response organisations in the CDEM Group area. Describing the arrangements within the CDEM Group for making declarations under the CDEM Act. Providing the common response principles for all organisations involved in responses under the CDEM Group Plan. Describing national support and the National Crisis Management Centre, including the National Controller, and requesting support of national resources such as USAR and NZDF resources. Describing the process for building safety evaluation following a damagecausing event. 8.7 Response organisation A standard model across New Zealand for GEOCs/ECCs and Local EOCs greatly assists in the ability of staff from partner organisations to train for, work with, supplement and support one another s facilities. Although there is some degree of variability across the country, most centres are based on the New Zealand Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS) or similar models in other countries. A generic GEOC/ECC model is shown overleaf. 10 The terms Group Emergency Operations Centres and Emergency Coordination Centres are interchangeable. They both describe CDEM Group-level coordination facilities from those coordinating responses at a local level, in the form of a Local Emergency Operations Centre or EOC; however, this may differ for unitary authorities as CDEM Groups. 36 CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09]

39 8. Response Section Recovery Safety/Risk GROUP CONTROLLER Public Information Management Liaison Example of GEOC/ ECC structure. Planning/Intelligence Operations Logistics Situation Planning Advanced planning TA EOC Coordination Emergency welfare Health Police Fire Rescue Critical infrastructure Coordination Inwards Outwards It is essential that the CDEM Group Plan outlines the response control, coordination and communication relationships between the various member authorities, partner response organisations and infrastructure providers at local and CDEM Group level. This should include brief descriptions of the coordination arrangements in place for level 2 5 incidents and emergencies (see section 8.8), and how coordination will transition from one level to another including, but not limited to, declared states of emergency. 8.8 Levels of response coordination The levels of response to be used for CDEM Group planning should be based on those described in section 13.3 of the Guide to the National CDEM Plan. A generic approach to those levels of response is provided on the following page. CDEM Group Plan Review [DGL 09/09] 37