augusta margaret river local emergency management committee · feature of obrm’s support is an...

Augusta Margaret River Local Emergency

Management Committee

Attachments

For the meeting to be heldTuesday, 11 February 2020St John Ambulance Augusta14 Donovan Street, Augusta

Commencing at 4.30pm

Summary of 2017-2018

Fuel Management Activities in Western Australia

dfes.wa.gov.au

Attachment 7.4.1

2 | Fuel Management Activities in Western Australia Summary of 2017-18

Message from the Executive Director Rural Fire DivisionI am pleased to present the Fuel Management Activities in Western Australia Summary of 2017-18 that demonstrates the ongoing commitment of local government, state government agencies and other land management organisations to reduce fuel levels and protect the Western Australian community from the risk of bushfire. This data provides a picture on the state of bushfire risk in WA and assists in the development and enhancement of strategies and programs to support ongoing improvement in bushfire management across the State.

April 2018 saw the formal launch of the Rural Fire Division (RFD) and the announcement of a significant financial commitment to bushfire risk mitigation. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES), through the RFD will guide the implementation of the Bushfire Risk Management Planning Program and allocation of funding to support organisations undertaking mitigation activities. The RFD is working to establish a new Bushfire Centre of Excellence (BCoE) to support the established network of partner agencies and organisations by functioning as a collaborative space for contemporary learning and training, at its hub facility in the Shire of Murray. The BCoE will be accessible to all of the bushfire management sector, with the aim to empower members of the public with the skills and information they need to mitigate their bushfire risk. The additional elements that add value to the RFD is the integration of DFES Land-Use Planning function, Bushfire and Technical Services and Office of Bushfire Risk Management (OBRM).

In a warming and drying climate, particularly in the South West of WA, fuel management is critical to protect social, environmental, cultural and economic assets, but it is not without its challenges in a large and varied landscape such as WA. The number of planned burn escapes in late May 2018 in the Southwest and Great Southern Regions highlighted the impacts of a drying climate and the highly varied level of awareness that some landowners and some decision makers have in regards to how they can manage bushfire risk. The escapes provided an excellent opportunity for private property owners, state government agencies/departments and local governments to reflect on what is working well and where there are opportunities for improvement. A culture of learning from burn escapes is fundamental to ensuring risk is well managed into the future.

Data reported to OBRM in 2017-18 indicates that important steps are being taken at local, regional and state levels to reduce the impact of bushfires on communities and the things they value. It is worth noting that fuel mitigation does not solely involve planned burning but a combination of measures including slashing, mulching and spraying.

OBRM works collaboratively with local governments, state government agencies and non-government organisations on strategies to improve the way they identify, assess and mitigate bushfire risk. A fundamental element of this has been the alignment to risk management principles that require integration of risk management across an organisation. For government this translates to being able to identify areas of greatest risk and appropriately allocate resources to addressing these risks. OBRM will maintain its focus on strategic bushfire management policies, programs and projects that enhance collaboration in risk management. In the coming year OBRM will be collaborating to enhance some key programs that improve bushfire risk management including the OBRM Assurance Program, refinements of the Bushfire Risk Management Planning Process and key legislative measures such as the s33 Notice (Firebreak Notice).

I take this opportunity to congratulate the reporting organisations on their bushfire mitigation achievements for 2017-18.

Murray Carter Executive Director Rural Fire Division DFES

Fuel Management Activities in Western Australia Summary of 2017-18 | 3

Planned burning on Cape Arid in heath vegetation. Source DBCA – Parks and Wildlife Service

Quick Stats99 local governments and 16 State, Federal and private sector organisations reported on their fuel reduction activities in 2017-18, totalling:

– 9.1 million hectares of planned burning; and

– 65 thousand hectares and 1,800 kilometres of other fuel reduction activities.


Introduction The Office of Bushfire Risk Management (OBRM), as part of the Department of Fire and Emergency Services’ (DFES) Rural Fire Division, is tasked with supporting continuous improvement in the management of risks related to bushfire in Western Australia. One key feature of OBRM’s support is an annual summary of fuel management activities undertaken by organisations (government, non-government and private sector) for the financial year. The Fuel Management Activities in Western Australia Summary of 2017-18 provides a useful insight into fuel management activities reported to OBRM across Western Australia.

Not all of the fuel management activities undertaken in Western Australia are captured by OBRM’s reporting process and OBRM does not validate respondents’ submissions. As such, while this report is indicative of the work undertaken in 2017-18, it may not be comprehensive.

Report Contribution RateIn November 2018, OBRM wrote to local governments and selected State, Commonwealth and other organisations with land or fire management responsibilities in Western Australia, requesting data on the fuel management activities they undertook during the 2017/18 financial year. The requested data included:

– The area treated by planned burning;

– The area treated by other fuel reduction activities;

– The number and effects of any escapes from planned burns;

– Any limitations to completing fuel management; and

– Impressions of community perceptions of their fuel management.

Responses were received from 99 local governments (see Figure 1), and 16 State, Federal and private sector organisations. Figure 1 depicts the 99 responding local governments. A list of the 115 total responding organisations is provided in Table 1.

9.1 MILLION HECTARES OF PLANNED BURNING WAS REPORTED IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN 2017/18


Traditional owners fire walking in the Kimberley. Source DFES


Figure 1. Local Government response to OBRM request for data 2017-18

LGA response received


Figure 1. Local Government response to OBRM request for data 2017-18

Planned BurningPlanned burning is the most effective way to manage fuel over large areas and is an important tool for reducing bushfire risk to people and cultural, environmental and economic assets. The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) and DFES are the state agencies with the most significant roles in fuel management. They reported the following planned burning activities in Western Australia during 2017-18:

– DBCA - 4.9 million hectares; and

– DFES - 0.3 million hectares.

The other 14 State, Commonwealth and other land management organisations reported 2.8 million hectares of planned burning, which included almost 2.1 million hectares of burning completed by the Kimberley Land Council. Large scale planned burns are conducted in the Kimberley during the early dry season to reduce the impact of late dry season bushfires. Reduced monsoonal rainfall has limited the opportunities for planned burning in recent years, which has correlated with larger bushfires in subsequent seasons.

Of the 99 responding local governments, 47 reported planned burning activities consisting of 406 planned burns, totalling more than 1.1 million hectares across the State.

This represents a 54% increase in the area burned compared with that reported for the 2016-17 financial year. This shows more organisations are using planned burning to reduce fuel loads across broad areas.

Planned burning in the Pilbara. Source Kevin Haylock

Aerial view of planned burn for the protection of Solomon Mining Camp. Source Kevin Haylock

Planned burning in Jarrah Forest. Source DFES

13%

28%

59% State Government Agency 5,433,000

Other 2,545,000

Local Government 1,165,000

Total 9,143,000

Planned Burning – 2017/18


Other Fuel Management Activities Mechanical and chemical fuel management methods were used widely in 2017-18. These methods are most commonly applied to create strategic buffers along roads and rail lines, close to towns or to maintain access in vegetated areas. They may be the primary fuel management method in areas where planned burning is inappropriate or too risky.

Eighty-two (82) local governments reported a total of 16.5 thousand hectares and 500 kilometres of mechanical or chemical treatments. Other organisations reported about 49 thousand hectares and 1,300 kilometres of mechanical or chemical fuel reduction treatments.

Strategic fire breaks in Shire of Jerramungup. Source DFES

Parkland clearing in the South West of WA. Source DFES

Mechanical and Chemical Fuel ManagementArea – Type Treatment (ha)

Local Government 16,500

State Government Agency 45,000

Other Organisation 4,000

Total 65,000

Length – Type Treatment (km)

Local Government 500

State Government Agency 1,150

Other Organisation 150

Total 1,800

Planned Burn EscapesWhile planned burning is fundamental to managing bushfire risk in Western Australia, it also creates its own risks. Most notable of these is the possibility that a burn may escape from its planned area. OBRM’s Assurance Program is a key strategy to support improved risk management by organisations utilising planned burning across Western Australia.

In May 2018, more than 150 planned burns in the South West and Great Southern Regions escaped during the passage of a severe weather system. OBRM reviewed the nature and impact of these escapes and published the Report of the circumstances that led to the escapes of planned burns in the South West and Great Southern Regions of Western Australia on 24 and 25 May 2018. The report identified several opportunities for improvement, including in local level governance arrangements, resource sharing and improved consistency in messaging leading up to severe weather events. The review into the escapes identified the involvement of additional organisations in the OBRM Assurance Program as an opportunity.


Focus on Working Together BetterThe increased focus on collaboration in bushfire management is reflected by 15% of responding organisations having Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) for the management of bushfire fuel. These include MoUs between DFES and Department of Education, for management of areas around schools and between Department of Planning Lands and Heritage DFES and DBCA for the management of unallocated crown land.

The Fuel Management Activities in Western Australia Summary of 2017-18 is the first time that OBRM has gathered data about the use of volunteers and contractors to support fuel management. The continued rollout of the Bushfire Risk Management (BRM) planning process encourages collaboration between land owners and managers to determine appropriate treatment strategies for areas with high bushfire risk. Some of the treatment options, such as planned burning, require consultation within the community and collaboration between volunteer and paid firefighters to implement. In addition to facilitating planned burning, this collaboration provides opportunities for the exchange of knowledge about fire behaviour and fire management.

Planned burning is the main activity supported by volunteer brigades. Sixty-two per cent of respondents have some reliance on volunteer brigades to achieve planned burning with 34% of being very or extremely reliant on Local Government Volunteer Bushfire Brigades, and 20% being very or extremely reliant on DFES Volunteer Brigades. This highlights the important role of volunteers in bushfire management. Additionally, planned burning provides an important opportunity to understand fire behaviour and appropriate strategies to manage fire in different vegetation types. This is essential to enhancing the effectiveness and safety of fire fighters in Western Australia.

Contractors are frequently engaged to undertake chemical and mechanical fuel management, with 54% of respondents being very or extremely reliant on contractors for this purpose. Bushfire consultants were engaged to support planning by 15% of respondents.

OBRM will continue to monitor the trend of increasing reliance on volunteers and contractors during the ongoing rollout of the BRM Planning Program.

Note that many of these escapes are not represented in the tallies of escapes from planned burns as they occurred from burns being conducted by individual landholders on private property. Data regarding the fuel management of private landholders was only included in this report if it was submitted by a local government.

62% OF ORGANISATIONS USED VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS TO UNDERTAKE PLANNED BURNING.

Additionally, OBRM has been working on contemporising key governance tools for local governments to manage bushfire risk. For example, an editable online permit to burn that local governments can access through their Western Australia Local Government Association (WALGA) Subscription Service. In 2019-20 OBRM will also be working with local government, WALGA and some state organisations to improve the consistency and scope of section 33 Notices.

Ten of the sixty-three organisations that reported burning activities reported some escapes. Generally, the reported escapes were during the restricted burning period when local governments require land managers to acquire a permit to burn.

The diverse landscapes managed for bushfire risk in Western Australia Source: DBCA- Parks and Wildlife


Factors influencing Fuel ManagementAbout 33% of respondents were unable to complete their planned fuel management program in 2017-18. However, most of these did complete more than 80% of scheduled works.

Climate and seasonal weather conditions were the greatest limitation to completing fuel management, with 81% of respondents limited by them in some way. Having the flexibility to undertake activities when appropriate conditions arise throughout the year is critical to overcoming seasonal constraints and achieving successful long-term fuel management programs. Effective planning processes foster flexibility by adopting a strategic approach to identifying priorities and planning and scheduling treatments across multiple years.

The next most commonly cited limitation on fuel management was access to funding, with 73% of respondents identifying this as an issue. The State Government has recently taken steps to address shortfalls in funding for fuel management. In 2017, $15 million was allocated through the Mitigation Activity Fund (MAF) to manage bushfire risk on Crown land. In April 2018, Government announced in excess of $50 million to fund the BRM Planning Program for four years, supporting the development of BRM Plans and implementation of mitigation activities arising from that process. 2017-18 was the first year of operation for the MAF and only 18% of respondents reported have accessed it during the reporting period.

Fuel management can require short-term trade-offs between bushfire risk reduction and effects on the natural environment. Seventy-one percent of respondents reported the presence of environmental assets or the need to complete an environmental assessment process impacted their fuel management program. This was only identified as ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ limiting by 21% of respondents, however. Environmental asset protection was also one of the most common concerns raised by the community regarding fuel management programs with 30% of organisations having had the community raise this concern with them. This highlights the importance of having the community involved in setting objectives for fuel management outcomes at a local level.


Working with CommunitiesEngagement with communities is an increasing focus when developing fuel management strategies. Seventy-five per cent of organisations reported undertaking external engagement in preparing and undertaking their fuel management plan. This engagement covered working with other organisations and government organisations (70%), volunteer fire brigades (55%) and the community including, environmental groups and other interest groups (41%). While most respondents found the community to be generally supportive of fuel management, some issues were reported. Community concerns were most frequently related to environmental issues; with consultation and engagement, the amount or location of fuel management and health impacts from smoke being other frequently cited issues.

75% OF ORGANISATIONS REPORTED UNDERTAKING EXTERNAL ENGAGEMENT AROUND THEIR FUEL MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

Organisations working in land and fire management put considerable effort into balancing risk management outcomes and environmental impacts. Where fuel management is required in environmentally sensitive areas, however, designing and employing appropriate strategies may increase the duration, complexity or costs of the work. The State Government continues to support simplifying and improving processes to synchronise fuel management and environmental outcomes where possible. The BRM Planning process has been designed with this principle in mind and guides BRM planners through the consultative processes.

Type Reason (% respondents)

Climate and seasonal weather conditions 81

Availability of funding 73

Environmental assets 71

Funding cycle/application process 62

Planning complexity 60

Contractor availability 57

Volunteer fire brigades availability 54

Machinery or resource limitation 54

Factors Influencing Fuel Management 33% of respondents were unable to complete their planned fuel management program. The most common reasons were:


Several respondents identified that early engagement was important in assisting the community to understand and support fuel management. This was particularly important with planned burning, as it allows people to predict and plan for possible smoke impacts. Both the Wine Growers of Western Australia and Asthma Foundation of WA have been working with State Government organisations and the Bureau of Meteorology to facilitate more effective smoke notification processes.

Improving community understanding of bushfire risk and fuel management are critical in improving the safety of people in Western Australia. This is particularly important in areas with high population growth, transient populations or high levels of tourism. Improved understanding helps communities to engage in fuel management programs on public land, plan and implement better fuel management on private land, and plan for bushfire events.

Collaborative learning through a field trip to Perth Hills to discuss bushfire at the 2017 Australian New Zealand Emergency Management Conference. Source SEMC

Working with Communities 75% organisations engaged with other stakeholders in conducting their treatments. These stakeholders included:

Local Governments

Volunteer Brigades

DFES, DBCA and other State Government agencies

Environmental groups

Aboriginal groups

Community and other interest groups

Activities in the South West of Western AustraliaThe south west of Western Australia has a concentration of people, communities and industries alongside extensive areas of heavy fuel in a highly fire-prone environment. Intense bushfires are common throughout summer, and increasingly, during spring and autumn. While accounting for a relatively small proportion of the State’s fuel management program, activities completed in the south west contribute heavily to the protection of these important assets and so are critical for managing bushfire related risk in Western Australia.

Activities in the Rural Urban InterfaceThe area where urban development meets rural or vegetated landscapes is often an area of higher bushfire risk. The expansion and intensification of urban development along the Darling Scarp and to the north and south of Perth on the Swan Coastal Plain, has exposed many more people to bushfire in these areas. The introduction of the bushfire planning and building reforms in 2015 will reduce the bushfire risk to future developments, however, fuel management is critical to managing the existing risk in the rural urban interface. Fuel reduction activities in interface areas tend to be complex and resource intensive and require extensive planning to design and execute. This work is ongoing and supported in particular through the BRM Planning Program.

Other Key Findings – The amount of fuel management being completed across the state is increasing. Funding, approvals and

reporting processes need to improve to support ongoing increases in fuel management activities.

– Current reporting arrangements are not adequately capturing fuel reduction activities on private land, particularly where these activities do not require a permit. Mitigation work on private land is often critical to reducing bushfire risk close to communities, towns and assets. To fully understand the state of bushfire risk there needs to be a better awareness of the mitigation activities undertaken on private land.

– The most commonly reported mechanism for supporting fuel management on private land was the issuing by local governments of notices under section 33 of the Bush Fires Act 1954 (Firebreak Notices). These notices tend to be generic and do not offer site specific advice to landowners. Some local governments have developed processes for providing individualised support and information for higher risk properties and this practice should be encouraged for wider adoption.

– Community education and awareness programs are increasingly being considered as critical to support management activities. These programs include social media campaigns, advertising, letters to land holders, Bushfire Ready Groups, targeted campaigns and community meetings (including events such as ‘Street Meets’). Most local governments reported that community awareness or education campaigns are a key part of a holistic bushfire risk management strategy.



What next?The Department of Fire and Emergency Services will continue to support many facets of bushfire management, including:

– Revising the BRM Planning Guidelines and piloting the reformed process. This revision aims to improve the way in which bushfire risk is quantified and addressed at a landscape level, ensuring the best application of mitigation activities ranging from fuel management to community education and planning.

– Reviewing the section 33 Firebreak Notices. OBRM will work with the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) and local government personnel to improve the effectiveness of notices issued under section 33 of the Bushfires Act 1954.

– Establishing an Interdepartmental Committee (IDC) focused on bushfire mitigation on Crown Land.

– Developing a robust mitigation funding model. This will ensure mitigation activities are appropriately supported and subject to proper financial accountability.

– Commencing operation of the Bushfire Centre of Excellence in mid-2019. The Bushfire Centre of Excellence aims to improve rural fire management outcomes through leadership, collaboration and innovation across the entire sector. This will include elements of research and training for all bushfire practitioners.

– Forming a a new State Bushfire Advisory Council (SBAC). As part of the reforms to the rural fire sector in Western Australia the SBAC is anticipated to be operational by the end of 2019. It will provide advice and recommendations to both the Minister for Emergency Services and Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner.

For further information on this report or the reporting requirements, please contact OBRM by email at [email protected]


Table 1 – Reporting organisations 2017-18

Local GovernmentsAlbany Fremantle NarembeenArmadale Gingin NarroginAshburton Gnowangerup NedlandsAugusta Margaret River Goomalling NgaanyatjarrakuBassendean Gosnells NorthamBelmont Greater Geraldton NorthamptonBeverley Harvey Peppermint GroveBoddington Jerramungup PerenjoriBroome Joondalup PerthBunbury Kalamunda PingellyBusselton Karratha Port HedlandCambridge Katanning QuairadingCanning Kellerberrin RavensthorpeCapel Kent RockinghamCarnamah Kulin South PerthCarnarvon Kwinana StirlingChapman Valley Lake Grace SubiacoClaremont Laverton TamminCockburn Leonora ToodyayCocos (Keeling) Islands Mandurah TrayningCoolgardie Manjimup Upper GascoyneCranbrook Meekatharra Victoria ParkCuballing Menzies Victoria PlainsCue Merredin VincentCunderdin Moora WannerooDandaragan Morawa WaroonaDardanup Mosman Park West ArthurDenmark Mount Magnet WickepinDumbleyung Mt Marshall Wongan-BalliduDundas Mukinbudin WoodanillingEast Pilbara Mundaring Wyndham East KimberleyEsperance Murchison YilgarnExmouth Murray YorkState and Commonwealth Government organisationsDepartment of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions Department of DefenceDepartment of Communities - Housing Authority Department of EducationDepartment of Fire and Emergency Services Department of JusticeDepartment of Planning, Lands and Heritage Central Regional TAFEForest Products Commission Department of HealthMain RoadsNon-Government organisationsArc Infrastructure Kimberley Land Council Horizon PowerAustralian Wildlife Conservancy Western Power


20 Stockton Bend Cockburn Central WA 6164T: +61 8 9395 9300E: [email protected]

ABN: 39 563 851 304www.dfes.wa.gov.au

National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework

Attachment 7.4.2

Department of Home Affairs

Acknowledgements

The National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework is a multi- sector collaboration led by the National Resilience Taskforce within the Australian Government Department of Home Affairs.The framework was co-designed with representatives from all levels of government, business and the community sector. Over 100 participants from a diverse range of over 80 organisations came together at a three-day intensive ‘policy sprint’ in June 2018 to develop key components of the framework. The National Resilience Taskforce worked closely with an inter-jurisdictional Steering Committee to develop, refine and undertake further broad consultation on the framework.The Department of Home Affairs thanks all sectors, organisations and individuals involved in co-design for their time, effort and expertise. This framework would not have been made possible without these contributions.

© Commonwealth of Australia 2018

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, all material presented in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

This means this license only applies to material as set out in this document.

The details of the relevant license conditions are available on the Creative Commons website at https://creativecommons.org/ as is the full legal code for the CC BY 4.0 license at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

Use of the Coat of ArmsThe terms under which the Coat of Arms can be used are detailed at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet website – https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/commonwealth-coat-arms.

Contact usEnquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document are welcome at:

Department of Home Affairs PO Box 25 BELCONNEN ACT 2616


Page 3

Foreword

In Australia, we are all too familiar with the devastation and disruption that natural hazards such as bushfires, cyclones and flooding can cause. Over the last decade we have made great progress towards being more resilient to natural hazards and in reducing disaster risk. However, with the driver of a changing climate there is growing potential for some natural hazards to occur at unimagined scales, in unprecedented combinations and in unexpected locations.

Many natural hazards are becoming more frequent and intense. More people and assets are exposed and vulnerable to these hazards. The essential services we rely on – power, water, telecommunications, the internet and finance – are also exposed to these impacts. As a result, the cost of disasters is increasing for all sectors of society – governments, industry, business, not-for-profits, communities and individuals. These costs include not only direct costs but the indirect ones, including costs from all the flow-on effects that disasters have.

Across all sectors, we are already working together to enrich Australia’s prosperity, wellbeing, economic growth and international standing. By taking collective action now to reduce disaster risk, we can ensure Australia continues to sustainably enjoy the benefits of global change.

Investment in reducing disaster risk can deliver benefits beyond avoiding loss and suffering. Disaster risk reduction can unlock economic opportunities. Broader social and economic benefits can also be realised even without a hazard occurring. This can be true of investment in disaster risk reduction by all sectors across the built, social, economic and natural environments.

We are better positioned now than ever before to take a comprehensive approach to addressing the causes of disaster risk, rather than only dealing with the symptoms. We can give urgent priority to this sophisticated program of work. This will ensure Australian communities can endure more frequent and intense natural hazards. It will also ensure Australian communities can thrive and prosper following these events.

Responding to these opportunities and challenges, the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework outlines a national, comprehensive approach to proactively reducing disaster risk, now and into the future.

Introduction

As Australians see the growing potential for natural hazards to trigger devastating disasters, we rightfully expect that all sectors of society will work together to limit these impacts.In 2011, for the first time in Australia, the Council of Australian Governments’ National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (NSDR) established a national resilience-based approach to disaster management. Australia’s resilience to disaster impacts is critical to our continued wellbeing and prosperity. However, our capacity to be resilient to disasters diminishes as disaster risk, and potential impacts, grows.

In 2015, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030 (the Sendai Framework) was adopted by Australia and other members of the United Nations at the third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction. Through the Sendai Framework, countries around the world recognise the importance of not only managing disasters, but managing disaster risk.

The Sendai Framework states that to strengthen resilience, countries must prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk. It also outlines four global priorities for action to reduce disaster risk: understanding disaster risk; strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk; investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience; and enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, and to ‘Build Back Better’ in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

The Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (including the Sustainable Development Goals) were also agreed on in 2015. Both agreements highlight the importance of climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction recognises that progress in implementing the Sendai Framework supports the global community in meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.

Reducing disaster risk is critical to supporting communities and economies to be resilient when a shock occurs. Recognising this, in early 2018 the Australian Government invited all states and territories, local government, and key private sector representatives to work together to co-design and develop this framework.

The framework outlines a coordinated approach to reducing disaster risk. This is one critical component to enable resilience. It is designed to leverage the great work and progress made across all sectors since the release of the NSDR in 2011 to better understand and reduce disaster risks, improve resilience, and bolster the capability and capacity of communities to withstand natural hazards.

Disaster resilience and risk reduction is a shared responsibility, but often not equally shared. While individuals and communities have their roles to play, they do not control many of the levers needed to reduce some disaster risks. Governments and industry in particular must take coordinated action to reduce disaster risks within their control to limit adverse impacts on communities. More than ever, limiting the impact of disasters now and in the future requires a coordinated effort across and within many areas including land use planning, infrastructure, emergency management, social policy, agriculture, education, health, community development, energy and the environment.


Page 5

Drivers for action

NATURAL HAZARDS ARE MORE FREQUENT AND INTENSEMany natural hazards are becoming more frequent and more intense, driven by Australia’s changing climate. The Bureau of Meteorology/CSIRO’s 2018 State of the Climate report describes the effect of Australia’s changing climate, including warming temperatures, rising sea level, more severe fire weather, and increased rainfall in Australia’s north and decreases in the south. It is predicted that these changes will continue, while new natural hazard threats will emerge. There is growing potential for cumulative or concurrent, large-scale natural hazards to occur.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES ARE INTERCONNECTED AND INTERDEPENDENTAustralians depend on reliable and affordable food, water, energy, telecommunications, transport networks (including road, rail, aviation and maritime), and financial services. These functions also depend on each other. The networks that ensure the sustained delivery of food, water and energy involve complex interactions between infrastructure, people, the environment, money and technology. A failure in any of these elements could have wide-ranging consequences across communities, businesses, governments and economies.

PEOPLE AND ASSETS ARE MORE EXPOSED AND VULNERABLEAs cities and regional centres expand to accommodate growing populations, the buildings and infrastructure needed to support our future communities will be exposed and vulnerable to natural hazards. The 2015 Intergenerational Report highlights that our population is growing and ageing. Our overall standard of living has improved, yet socioeconomic differences among communities remain, and people and assets continue to be located in at-risk areas such as coastal zones, floodplains and areas where bushland meets cities and towns.

DISASTER IMPACTS ARE LONG TERM AND COMPLEXThe impacts of disasters can be long term, complex, and intangible. Collectively, we are only now beginning to fully understand indirect, flow on and cumulative effects of disasters. We do know that disasters can trigger long-term challenges across a range of areas, including reduced education and workforce participation, increased crime, and physical and mental health and wellbeing. These impacts are often felt disproportionately by vulnerable or susceptible groups. Factors such as health and wellbeing, economic resources, social capital and knowledge influence a person’s ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.

THE COSTS OF DISASTERS ARE GROWINGIn 2017 Deloitte Access Economics, reporting to the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities, found that over the past 10 years disasters have cost the Australian economy around $18 billion per year. Assuming current development patterns and population growth continue, this is forecast to reach $39 billion per year by 2050. This forecast does not account for the effects of a changing climate, which are expected to magnify these costs; nor does it account for losses that cannot be quantified but are no less important to people. Deloitte Access Economics found in 2015 that the intangible costs of disasters – including increased family violence, mental health impacts, chronic disease, alcohol and drug use, short and long-term unemployment, changes to school academic outcomes, and crime – are at least equal to, if not greater than, tangible costs.

MOMENTUM TO ADDRESS FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF A CHANGING CLIMATE IS BUILDINGThere is significant momentum building across sectors to address climate and disaster risks. The release of the 2017 Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosure report increased market understanding of climate risk and demand for services to help identify and manage that risk. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and Australian Securities and Investment Commission have stated that climate-related physical and economic transition risks are foreseeable and material financial risks that should be addressed by company directors alongside all other financial risks. Mainstream investors are divesting from stock in exposed industries, credit rating companies are reassessing credit ratings to factor in climate-related risks and several banks have commissioned analysis of their mortgage books based on location. The Investor Group on Climate Change, in its 2018 Investing in Resilience report, predicts that the ability to differentiate investment opportunities by climate risks will be a key financial metric within the next 3-5 years. These developments provide additional reasons to take action to reduce disaster risk and position Australia for the future.

PurposeThe National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (‘the framework’) guides national, whole-of-society efforts to proactively reduce disaster risk in order to minimise the loss and suffering caused by disasters.

ScopeThis framework is designed to guide Australia’s efforts to reduce disaster risk associated with natural hazards. It translates the first three Sendai Framework priorities into action for the Australian context; though the strategies outlined in this framework are applicable to disaster preparedness and recovery efforts, the fourth priority of the Sendai Framework is largely progressed through other national strategies, primarily the Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework.

The framework establishes a 2030 vision, goals and priorities broadly aligned to the Sendai Framework and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, and outlines foundational strategies for action to meet these across the five years from 2019 – 2023. The framework will be reviewed and updated at the end of this five-year period to ensure its relevance and accuracy across the remaining years to 2030.

It is not exhaustive nor prescriptive, and should be holistically applied across and between four key environments: built, social, natural, and economic.


Page 7

BUILT ENVIRONMENTPhysical and social infrastructure assets such as transport, energy and telecommunications, water utilities, housing, cultural and commercial precincts, and other assets.

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTSocioeconomic and demographic trends, social networks and relationships, cultural practices, technology, innovation, wellbeing, essential services such as health and education, and lifestyles.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENTNatural assets such as wetlands, rivers, land, forests, oceans, other complex natural ecosystems, agriculture, and water sources.

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTPublic sector, private sector and individual economic activities; workforce participation; credit, debt, and finance; and small, medium, national and multinational business.

The fundamentals – natural hazards, disaster risk, climate risk and resilience The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction defines disaster risk as the potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets that could occur to a system, society or a community.

This framework recognises that disaster risk is a product of hazard (a sudden event or shock), exposure (the people and things in the path of potential hazards), vulnerability (the potential for those people and things to be adversely impacted by a hazard) and capacity (the ability for those people and assets and systems to survive and adapt).

It focuses only on natural hazards: shocks caused by a natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury, damage and disruption. Natural hazards include bushfires, floods, cyclones, storms, heatwaves, earthquakes and tsunamis.

Natural hazards trigger disasters when they impact what people value.

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction recognises climate change is an underlying driver of disaster risk. Climate change can increase disaster risk in a variety of ways, including by altering the frequency and intensity of natural hazards, affecting vulnerability to natural hazards, and changing exposure patterns. These impacts are outlined in reports such as the

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), the National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, and Bureau of Meteorology/ CSIRO State of the Climate 2018 Report.

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction defines disaster resilience as the ability to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard. As disaster risk increases, the capacity of communities and systems to be resilient is diminished. This framework focuses on reducing disaster risk as one key component of enabling resilient communities and economies in Australia.

Figure 1 Framework overview

Sendai Framework Outcome 2030The substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health, and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries.

2030 Vision for Disaster Risk Reduction in AustraliaIn Australia, we are enabled and supported to actively reduce disaster risk and limit the impacts of disasters on communities and economies. All sectors of society understand and respond to social, environmental, technological and demographic changes which have the potential to prevent, create or exacerbate disaster risks. All sectors of society:– make disaster risk-informed decisions,– are accountable for reducing risks within their control, and– invest in reducing disaster risk in order to limit the cost of disasters when they occur.

2030 Disaster Risk Reduction Goals

Take action to reduce existing disaster risk

Minimise creation of future disaster risk through decisions

taken across all sectors

Equip decision-makers with the capabilities and information they

need to reduce disaster risk and manage residual risk

Framework Priorities

Understand disaster risk

1

Accountable decisions

2

Enhanced investment

3

Governance, ownership and responsibility

4

Guiding Principles

Shared and defined responsibilities All sectors have

shared but defined responsibilities to

reduce disaster risk.

Cultural change All sectors cultivate

a culture of disaster risk reduction awareness

and action.

Integrated action Efforts to reduce disaster risk must

be integrated across sectors, not progressed in silos.

Inclusive engagement All sectors connect with

diverse stakeholders to ensure inclusive

decision-making leading to more effective

solutions.

Practical change at local, state and national levels

Continual improvement All sectors continuously learn

and innovate to improve practices and share our lessons, data and

knowledge widely.

Data-driven decision making Data and information

informs implementation planning and execution.

Leadership Commitment is required at all

levels and in all sectors to effectively reduce disaster risk.


Page 9

Figure 2 Priorities and strategies at a glance

PRIORITY 1: Understand disaster risk

• Improve public awareness of, and engagement on, disaster risks and impacts

• Identify and address data, information and resource gaps

• Address technical barriers to data and information sharing and availability

• Integrate plausible future scenarios into planning

• Develop cohesive disaster risk information access and communication capabilities to deliver actionable disaster risk data and information

• Support long-term and solution-driven research, innovation and knowledge practices, and disaster risk education

• Improve disclosure of disaster risk to all stakeholders

PRIORITY 2: Accountable decisions

• Consider potential avoided loss (tangible and intangible) and broader benefits in all relevant decisions

• Identify highest priority disaster risks and mitigation opportunities

• Build the capability and capacity of decision-makers to actively address disaster risk in policy, program and investment decisions

• Establish proactive incentives, and address disincentives and barriers, to reducing disaster risk

• Maintain planning and development practices that adapt to rapid social, economic, environmental and cultural change

• Promote compliance with, and embed resilience requirements into, relevant standards, codes and specifications

PRIORITY 3: Enhanced investment

• Pursue collaborative commercial financing options for disaster risk reduction initiatives

• Develop disaster risk reduction investment tools to provide practical guidance on investment mechanisms

• Leverage existing and future government programs to fund priority risk reduction measures

• Identify additional current and future potential funding streams

• Improve the accessibility, variety and uptake of insurance

• Empower communities, individuals and small businesses to make informed and sustainable investments

PRIORITY 4: Governance, ownership and responsibility

• Establish a national mechanism to oversee and guide disaster risk reduction efforts and cross-sector dependencies

• Establish a national implementation plan for this framework

• Support and enable locally-led and owned place-based disaster risk reduction efforts

• Incentivise improved transparency of disaster risk ownership through personal and business transactions

• Consistently report on disaster risk reduction efforts and outcomes

• Create clear governance pathways for pursuing disaster risk reduction projects

ACTION TO

REDUCE DISASTER RISK


Page 11

Priorities and strategies for action

National Priority 1Understand disaster riskRelates to Sendai Framework priority 1: understanding disaster risk

FIVE-YEAR OUTCOMES

Legal liability of decision-makers relating to disaster risk information is further understood and acted upon

Australia is supported with enduring and cohesive national capabilities that enable the creation, capture and sharing of useful disaster risk information

Meaningful disaster risk information is freely disclosed, shared and integrated into risk planning across sectors

To be reduced, all components of disaster risk and impacts must be understood by all sectors: vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics, and the environment.

Across all sectors, there is an urgent and growing demand for trusted and authoritative disaster risk information and services to inform operational and strategic decisions.This information must be matched by investments in the capabilities and technology required to meet these demands. Disaster risk can be unintentionally created or exacerbated when decisions are made without understanding future consequences, including climate change impacts.

It is our collective responsibility to efficiently equip decision-makers in all sectors with the information and capabilities they need to make decisions that reduce disaster risk. Change will come from improved access to reliable information and capability development, and through greater public awareness of direct and indirect disaster risks and impacts.

A wealth of disaster risk data, information and knowledge already exists. Over the last five years states and territories have developed a sophisticated understanding of state-wide risks and have released these findings. Some states have developed state-wide infrastructure strategies and critical infrastructure resilience strategies informed by a comprehensive understanding of natural hazards, exposure and resilience. Industries and other non-government sectors have also invested significantly in improved natural hazard and disaster risk information.

However, much existing data relates to historical natural hazard patterns and while useful, it cannot be relied on as a sole predictor of future risk. This is due to the rapidly changing nature of many natural hazards and the uncertain speed of climatic changes.

Despite progress, disaster risk data and information is not always available to those who need it and it does not adequately integrate climate science. More needs to be done to properly connect and leverage existing data, information and services that are not accessible or affordable. Also, we need to better understand and address key data and information gaps and overcome barriers to sharing it.

To make sensible long-term decisions and prevent new risks being created, we need to understand possible future disaster risks and impacts. All sectors seek trusted, credible and consistent approaches to developing and using scenarios and risk forecasting methods; the right information is needed at the right level.


Page 13

Priority 1 – Strategies for action: 2019-2023

STRATEGY AImprove public awareness of, and engagement on, disaster risks and impacts

Greater awareness of the potential long-term and highly uncertain direct and indirect impacts of disasters on all sectors requires formal and informal education and community-driven engagement. An improved understanding of the systemic nature of disaster risk and what that means for all sectors, including communities, is critical.

STRATEGY BIdentify and address data, information and resource gaps

New data sets and information relating to all components of disaster risk should be collated to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of disaster risk. Information gaps at the intersection of disaster risk and climate science should be addressed and resourcing needs identified.

STRATEGY CAddress technical barriers to data and information sharing and availability

Technological advancements, including smart infrastructure, should be leveraged to create improved disaster risk information. Clarification on liability, copyright, privacy and intellectual property issues is needed to facilitate improved data sharing and release.

STRATEGY DIntegrate plausible future scenarios into planning

Scenario-based risk and vulnerability assessment can provide a structured and rigorous method to factor future climate and disaster risks into decision-making, in the context of a variety of social, environmental, demographic and economic changes. It is designed to inform both straightforward and complex decisions, including management of residual risk, and is a useful method for navigating future uncertainties.

STRATEGY EDevelop cohesive disaster risk information access and communication capabilities to deliver actionable disaster risk data and information

Existing knowledge and technological capabilities can be better utilised and connected, and existing data better analysed and integrated with future scenarios, to improve the availability of useful disaster risk information. Useful disaster risk information should improve understanding of the systemic nature of disaster risk, consider interactions between all components of disaster risk, and inform management of residual risk. Links between policy, research, operational expertise and formal education should be strengthened to support and contribute to these capabilities.

STRATEGY FSupport long-term and solution-driven research, innovation and knowledge practices, and disaster risk education

Greater policy-research connection and innovation is needed to ensure necessary evidence bases are available to inform efforts to identify, prioritise and reduce disaster risks. A greater variety of knowledge practices, including Indigenous knowledge practices, should also be better integrated in research and knowledge application. Diverse ways of understanding and reducing disaster risk are needed to address disaster risk in all of its components.

STRATEGY GImprove disclosure of disaster risk to all stakeholders

Information about disaster risks and their implications for all sectors of society should be disclosed to better enable all sectors to reduce risks within their control. This should include information about residual disaster risk.

National Priority 2Accountable decisionsRelates to Sendai Framework priority 1: understanding disaster risk; priority 2: strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk; and priority 3: invest in disaster risk reduction for resilience

FIVE-YEAR OUTCOMES

Decision-making processes and models, including cost benefit analyses, adequately address current and future disaster risks

Priority disaster risks are identified and actively mitigated

Integrated and robust frameworks are used to assess and reduce disaster risk in all environments, but particularly infrastructure, land use and development planning

Greater understanding of disaster risk has limited value unless actively applied. Decisions made today must respond to identified immediate and long-term disaster risks and related challenges.

All types of decisions – from where to build infrastructure or where to invest funds to where to buy a home, where to place services or how to design public assets – have the potential to reduce, create or prevent disaster risk.

Decisions and trade-offs made in all sectors matter, whether those decisions relate to a multi-billion dollar infrastructure investment, small business continuity planning, or residential property purchases. Reducing disaster risk through better decision-making requires informed trade-offs and accountability for those decisions.

The obligations of decision-makers to actively address disaster risk within their areas of responsibility are becoming increasingly explicit. For example, in 2017 Infrastructure Australia released national guidelines requiring that all project proposals consider climate risk.

To enable Australians to act on their respective responsibilities, decision-makers must use improved risk information to manage the potential for decisions to create or exacerbate disaster risk. They also need tools and methods to appropriately and consistently assess a broad range of opportunities and associated costs, and prioritise risk reduction efforts accordingly.

To improve resilience in the built environment, further attention is needed to remove disincentives and strengthen planning and development practices while ensuring the sustainable needs of Australia’s growing population are met. Earlier work to implement the Enhancing Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment Roadmap should be leveraged to help deliver this.

Public, private and community sector decision-makers are working towards addressing disaster risk along with other risks


Page 15


STRATEGY AConsider potential avoided loss (tangible and intangible) and broader benefits in all relevant decisions

Measured assessment of disaster risk and impacts should be undertaken for investments of all types, across all sectors. To appropriately determine the costs and benefits of reducing existing and future disaster risk, opportunities and losses should be quantified. Those that cannot be quantified should be accounted for in a consistent manner. These methods should be able to consider unexpected and unknown risks, as well as flow on risks and impacts.

STRATEGY BIdentify highest priority disaster risks and mitigation opportunities

It is often not possible to reduce all identified risks. Efforts and resources should be targeted to reduce risks with the greatest potential impact. Highest priority risks and vulnerabilities and appropriate mitigations should be identified using consistent principles and strategic risk assessment methods. Consideration of residual risk should be a key component.

STRATEGY CBuild the capability and capacity of decision-makers to actively address disaster risk in policy, program and investment decisions

STRATEGY DEstablish proactive incentives, and address disincentives and barriers, to reducing disaster risk

Use sector-specific professional development and guidance materials to build the capability of decision-makers to use improved disaster risk information to appropriately identify and address current and potential future disaster risks and impacts within their area of responsibility.

Current and future policy, legislative, regulatory, cultural, knowledge, behavioural and financial settings should be adjusted to enable and support decision-makers to actively reduce risk within their area of responsibility. This should be pursued while ensuring the sustainable development needs of Australia’s growing population are met.

STRATEGY EMaintain planning and development practices that adapt to rapid social, economic, environmental and cultural change

Infrastructure, land use and development planning and practices must be integrated, strategic and adaptive to avoid creating new disaster risk.

STRATEGY FPromote compliance with, and embed resilience requirements into, relevant standards, codes and specifications

Leverage existing mechanisms for reviewing standards, codes and specifications to minimise disaster risk being built into the urban environment and regional landscape, recognising that preservation of life must remain a priority.

National Priority 3Enhanced investmentRelates to Sendai Framework priority 3: investment in disaster risk reduction for resilience

FIVE-YEAR OUTCOMES

Existing and future disaster risk reduction investments target high priority locally and nationally significant disaster risks

Where possible, investment in disaster risk reduction is designed to maximise broader outcomes including increased productivity, improved connectivity, and social inclusion

Investments in disaster risk reduction and resilience limit future disaster recovery costs

The total economic cost of disasters is increasing along with the cost of disaster recovery. Current federal and state government spending on direct recovery from disasters is already around $2.75 billion per year and indirect recovery costs may be borne by many sectors across multiple years.

Much of the work needed to reduce disaster risk and contain this growing cost will require upfront financial investment.

All sectors must invest in reducing disaster risk, through both funding and financing, to limit the cost of disasters in the future.

Existing stresses or pressures in the natural and social environments may cause natural hazards to disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. Investing in disaster risk reduction across each of natural, social, built and economic environments can reduce our vulnerability to disasters and help achieve broader social and economic benefits.

Investment in risk reduction and resilience can deliver a triple dividend:

• Avoid loss and suffering • Reduce future disaster costs• Unlock economic opportunities

and broader economic and social benefits to be realised even in the absence of a natural hazard.

All levels of government, communities and the private sector already make significant investments to reduce disaster risk but are now actively seeking a return on that investment in terms of immediate outcomes and avoided losses.

This presents a significant opportunity for public and private sectors to work together to identify and leverage the broader economic value and opportunity created by investments in disaster risk reduction and resilience. In particular, there is a need to focus on:

(1) Finding or developing financing and funding pathways to address existing high priority risks across all environments, and

(2) Identifying financing mechanisms and pathways to pursue disaster risk reduction measures in planned projects, particularly infrastructure and development projects.


Page 17


STRATEGY APursue collaborative commercial financing options for disaster risk reduction initiatives

Commercial financing and investment models such as loans, equity contributions, guarantees and Public-Private Partnerships can be applied to disaster risk reduction projects. These models can deliver financial returns on investment, unlock economic opportunities, and deliver not only avoided losses but broader sustainability and productivity outcomes.

STRATEGY BDevelop disaster risk reduction investment tools to provide practical guidance on investment mechanisms

Investment literacy and capability should be improved across all sectors to ensure potential investment opportunities can be properly identified and leveraged by decision-makers across governments, the private sector and communities.

STRATEGY CLeverage existing and future government programs to fund priority risk reduction measures

Governments at all levels should collaborate to align and leverage existing and future funding streams to create clearer funding pathways for disaster risk reduction projects. Significant existing investment in infrastructure across all environments, climate adaptation and energy security can also be leveraged to deliver disaster risk reduction outcomes.

STRATEGY DIdentify additional current and future potential funding streams

All sectors should leverage improved disaster risk information to proactively identify current and future risk reduction funding needs and establish funding pathways to meet these needs.

STRATEGY EImprove the accessibility, variety and uptake of insurance

All sectors should work to diversify the variety of insurance products, better communicate these products, and address barriers to insurability – for example, by supporting assessment of asset conditions.

STRATEGY FEmpower communities, individuals and small businesses to make informed and sustainable investments

Communities and individuals can own their role as informed and active investors in disaster risk reduction, subject to their capacity, capability and financial position, to their own benefit and the benefit of their broader networks and economies. This requires communities to be supported to understand disaster risks and impacts relevant to what they value and the choices they make. It is essential to identify what support may be needed by those with limited capacity and capability to act as an informed investor.

National Priority 4Governance, ownership and responsibilityRelates to Sendai Framework priority 2: strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk

FIVE-YEAR OUTCOMES

All sectors and communities understand the extent to which they have a responsibility to reduce disaster risk

Mechanisms are in place nationally to identify and reduce disaster risk arising from cross-sector interdependencies

Transferred ownership of disaster risk through commercial exchanges is transparent and acknowledged

All sectors and communities are engaged in a national mechanism to connect and guide efforts to reduce disaster risk

To be effective, action to reduce disaster risk must be transparent, sustainable, accountable and undertaken in partnership.

Disaster risk reduction is a shared responsibility. However, it is not equally shared and it can often be unclear where certain responsibilities lie.

Disaster risk reduction requires strong governance that not only responds to the uncertain and changing nature of disasters and a changing climate, but to the interrelated and complex distribution of responsibility for identifying, managing and reducing disaster risk. It is critical that governance mechanisms include all relevant stakeholders and clearly identify roles and responsibilities.

In the same way that disaster risk can be inadvertently created or exacerbated by decisions made across all sectors, the impact of disaster risk can knowingly or unknowingly be transferred to others. Disaster risk governance mechanisms play a critical role in ensuring any transfer of risk from one sector or entity to another is informed and understood by all relevant stakeholders.

To improve disaster risk reduction outcomes, there is significant potential for a nationally-owned and multi-stakeholder led coordination mechanism. Such a mechanism could bring together relevant cross-sectoral expertise to support effective implementation and monitoring of disaster risk reduction efforts across the country. It would provide an important link between local and national efforts.


Page 19


STRATEGY AEstablish a national mechanism to oversee and guide disaster risk reduction efforts and cross-sector dependencies

This mechanism should be partnership-based, agile and dynamic. It could comprise multiple components and forums, and should create and leverage partnerships that support coordination, collaboration and advice between all sectors to reduce disaster risk.

STRATEGY BEstablish a national implementation plan for this framework

The implementation plan should include initiatives at a national and jurisdictional level, as well as place-based locally-led initiatives and sector-specific initiatives. It should also be leveraged to clarify roles and responsibilities for reducing disaster risk and improving resilience.

STRATEGY CSupport and enable locally-led and owned place-based disaster risk reduction efforts

Where disaster risks are location-specific, governments and other relevant sectors should support local ownership and delivery of place-based disaster risk reduction and resilience measures.

STRATEGY DIncentivise improved transparency of disaster risk ownership through personal and business transactions

All sectors should explore opportunities to ensure there is appropriate transparency of disaster risk and potential impacts in transactions where disaster risk may be shifted from one party to another.

STRATEGY EConsistently report on disaster risk reduction efforts and outcomes

To minimise duplication of effort and allow success to be shared and leveraged, all sectors should regularly share and report on work being undertaken to identify, prioritise and reduce disaster risks and losses.

STRATEGY FCreate clear governance pathways for pursuing disaster risk reduction projects

Aligning decision-making practices across sectors and levels of government, where possible, would allow a clearer line of sight from identifying disaster risks to prioritising and taking action to reduce them. In the first instance, this will require disaster risk reduction to be incorporated into existing governance arrangements across all sectors. This should apply to various types of decision-making in all sectors and environments. It will also help to clarify the movement of disaster risk, including residual risk, among sectors.

Figure 3 Strategic context and policy environmentThis figure outlines how the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework is situated within the broader disaster resilience policy context, and demonstrates the breadth of the disaster risk reduction ‘world’ within this broader context. Arrows represent interactions. The diagram is indicative, rather than exhaustive.

2030 Agendafor SustainableDevelopment

Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk

Reduction 2015–2030Paris Agreement

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE

Disasterpreparedness

Disasterresponse

Disasterrecovery

Critical infrastructure

Climate adaptation

Education

Standards and codes

Essential public services

Economics

Telecommunications

Land use planning anddevelopment

Natural resourcemanagement

Emergencymanagement

Community services

Community development

Housing

Insurance

Social policy

Energy

Infrastructure, transportand assets

Finance and investment

Agriculture

HealthNationalDisaster Risk

ReductionFramework

Disasterrisk reduction


Page 21

Implementation

Who is the Framework for?The framework is designed to be implemented by decision-makers within all sectors at national, state and local levels.

The framework should not prompt the question ‘who will do this?’, but rather:

How can my sector, organisation or community implement this framework within our areas of responsibility?

What national or cross-sectoral actions or initiatives may be required to implement it, and what role can my sector, organisation or community play in progressing these?

Figure 3 (see page 20) outlines examples of sectors with a role to play in reducing disaster risk.

Figure 4 below demonstrates the different types of decision-making that this framework should inform, and indicates the relevance of these types of decision-making to various sectors of society.

Figure 4 Types of decision-making relevant to this framework and the indicative relevance to various sectors

Decision types Individual Communities Governments Industries Business Not-for-profit sector

Investment and spending ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Public policy ✔ ✔

Development/ land use decisions

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Legislation/ regulation ✔

Program and resource decisions

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Implementation planThe framework will be supported by a five-year national implementation plan to be developed in conjunction with all levels of government and non-government sectors.

The national implementation plan, to be released in 2019, will detail initiatives to be undertaken by all sectors of society to reduce disaster risk and limit the impacts of disasters on communities and the economy.

Measuring successThe five-year outcomes listed under each of the National Priorities set a collective measure of success for each framework priority in the short term. In the long term, the success of the framework will be measured against nationally relevant targets of the Sendai Framework, including the reduction of disaster mortality, number of people affected by disasters, direct economic loss, damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services.

Acknowledging that disasters have growing potential to undermine economic and social development, the success of the framework should also be measured against relevant Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those relating to the reduction of poverty, health and wellbeing risks, education, protection of the natural environment including marine and coastal ecosystems, development of resilient infrastructure and increased number of sustainable cities.

Glossary

Climate riskClimate risk refers to how climate change could impact social, economic and natural environments. Climate risk is made up of two primary types of risk, physical and transitional, which also give rise to secondary risks including liability.

Physical: The physical risks associated with rising aggregate global temperatures. For example, this could be direct impacts to the built environment from increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.

Transitional: These are associated with activities that may (or may not) occur in the processes of adjusting towards a lower-carbon economy.

Liability: Liability risks can arise when a person or entity may be held responsible for not acting sufficiently on physical or transitional risks, causing damage to others.

CommunityA social group with a commonality of association and generally defined by location, shared experience or function, and with a number of things in common such as culture, heritage, language, ethnicity, pastimes, occupation or workplace.

Decision-makersIndividuals, groups, organisations or entities who make investment, spending, policy, program, legislative, regulatory, resource allocation, planning or lifestyle decisions.

DisasterA serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts.

Disaster mitigationThe lessening or minimising of the adverse impacts of a hazardous event.

Disaster riskThe potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could occur to a system, society or a community.

Disaster risk reductionDisaster risk reduction is aimed at preventing new and reducing existing disaster risk and managing residual risk, all of which contribute to strengthening resilience and therefore to the achievement of sustainable development.

FinancingThe investment of capital or money for a specific purpose.

FundingThe provision of financial resources, whether through a supply of money or commercial resources, for a specific purpose.

Nationally significantConsidered to have significant national and cross-jurisdictional effect, impact or influence.


Page 23

Natural hazardsA natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation.

Residual riskThe disaster risk that remains even when effective disaster risk reduction measures are in place, and for which emergency response and recovery capacities must be maintained. The presence of residual risk implies a continuing need to develop and support effective capacities for emergency services, preparedness, response and recovery together with socioeconomic policies such as safety nets and risk transfer mechanisms, as part of a holistic approach.

ResilienceThe ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management.

SectorsAll sectors of society including government, industries, business, not-for-profits, communities and individuals.

SystemsA complex network or networks of interconnecting and related rules, structures and mechanisms that work towards a common goal.

VulnerabilityThe conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards.

Attachment 8.1.1

augusta margaret river local emergency management committee · feature of obrm’s support is an...

Documents