Hazard Risk Assessment Workshop

Why are we here?• Emergency events and disasters impose significant social, economic and

environmental costs on Australia.

• WA’s large geographical expanse subject to a wide variety of hazards

•

• A range of potential ‘vulnerabilities’ exist that may be impacted by any of these hazards.

• Gain a robust understanding of the risks the State faces • To strategise appropriate and cost effective mitigation activities.

• To prioritise these mitigation strategies with aim to lower risk and in turn build a

resilient State.

27 hazardsNatural

IntegratedMan-Made

Background

• In the 2012 & 2013 Emergency Preparedness Reports

• Four key themes run throughout1. Shared responsibility2. Improving coordination

particularly in response3. Continuous improvement ethos4. Embedding a Risk Management

approach

Embedding Risk Management

Embedding a Risk Management philosophy will assist in:

The emergency management sector keeping pace with growing challenges

such as:• Climate Change (e.g. drying climate)• Growing population• Changing population distributions• Expanding infrastructure and resource

developments regionally

Realignment of resourcing priorities

Promoting greater emphasis on proactive Preparation and Prevention

Embedding Risk Management• State Emergency Management Policy 2.9 –

“Management of Emergency Risks”

• Covers all Public Agencies involved in the Emergency Management Sector

Over next few years the State will: Gain a ‘comprehensive’ understanding of

the risks in which they are involved Apply ‘consistent’ Risk Assessment

methodologies at state, district & local scale

Develop appropriate treatment strategies where necessary

Embedding Risk Management

• also known in the Risk Assessment process as Impact Categories.

*Infrastructure and Economy merged in NERAG 2014

• ‘States Core Objectives’ cover 6 categories. They are*:

• protect lives and well-beingPeople

• maintain and grow the States productive capacityEconomy

• maintain key infrastructure such as transport & utilities

Infrastructure

• maintain public order, safety, sanitation, education, health, culture

Social

• maintaining public administration, democracy, rule of law

Government

• protect ecosystem and biodiversityEnvironment

Risk Management ApproachSEMP 2.9 calls for a consistent and comprehensive approach in WA

– Consistent approach• ISO 31,000 standard, National Emergency Risk

Assessment Guidelines (NERAG 2014)

• WA Emergency Risk Management Guide

– Comprehensive approach (over coming years)

• All Hazards covered (27 gazetted hazards in WA)

• State, District and Local Scale covered

• Aggregate and Integrate between all levels

State Risk Project

To gain a comprehensive and consistent understanding of the risks that the State faces at multiple levels:

– State– District– Local

• Assist State in planning for potential emergency situations

• Help prioritise future resource allocations

• Emphasis towards prevention and preparedness activities

Benefits and OutcomesIncreased understanding of major risks and impacts at a State, District

and Local scale

Assist resource allocations at all levels, emphasis towards prevention and preparedness activities

Data to evaluate mitigation activities including assessing the benefits to the cost

Improved basis for development of LEMAs and Westplans

Increased awareness of risk across WA and knowledge of the State, District and Local framework for managing risk.

Risk Assessments• Extensive and diverse state, subject to innumerable events

• To constrain the scope & complexity, conduct risk assessment workshops:

• Output of workshops allows for comparison across the state and between different scales (State, district and local)

Use credible worst-case scenarios for

events that require a large-scale response

Address top priority hazards first

RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Risk Assessment ProcessChristchurch NZ 2011

We will undertake the risk assessment process in three stages:

• Stage 1 – Risk Identification

• Stage 2 – Risk Analysis

• Stage 3 – Risk Treatment (Next stage)

Takes all forms of expertise and domain knowledge to robustly identify and analyse the risks

Agenda

Resources for workshop

WA ERM Guide and materials

NERAG 2014

Preparedness Report

Regional Information

Appropriate Westplan

Later:

Risk Criteria, Scenarios, Impact Tables, Risk Statements

Hazard Assessment

Risk Identification

Stage One:

Generate risk statements identifying the relationship between the source of risk, the hazard event, the credible

consequence of the event and the impact area.

Identify specific vulnerabilities & controlswithin the six key areas (people, economy, social setting, infrastructure, environment, public

administration)

Agree on common criteria for risk assessment e.g. AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009, NERAG, ERM Guide

Establish the Context using predetermined credible scenario

Risk Identification

Establish the Context

• Objective: Conduct an assessment of the risks to >insert area< from a >insert hazard< event in order to direct and prioritise the community’s emergency management efforts through prevention, preparedness, response and recovery activities.

• Scope:The assessment will address the risks from a >insert hazard< event to the >insert area< and consider possible impacts to people, the environment, the economy, public administration, the social setting and infrastructure. Events to be considered are:

>Insert Scenario<

Establish the Context

The Hazard

Establish the Context

The Impacts

Establish the Context

The Scenario(s)

Risk Criteria • SEMP 2.9 Criteria:

ISO 31000 standard

• State Risk Project Criteria: National Emergency Risk Assessment Guide

Western Australia Emergency Management Guide

Specific guidelines: Bushfire Risk Management Planning Guidelines

• Criteria Elements: Consequence Table

Likelihood Table

Risk Matrix

Risk Criteria

Six key elements being assessed:

Risk Criteria

Consequence Table

WA specific Risk Criteria

The State specific consequence criteria for people is based upon:

• Western Australian population of 2,239,170 people • the agreed State Context • the mortality rates given in the NERAG• Thus: Catastrophic > 200 death

Major > 20 deaths

The State specific consequence criteria for economy is based upon:

• The Western Australia State Government revenue of $25.477 Billion • This figure is applied to the financial loss limits as set out in the NERAG• Thus: Catastrophic > $750M

Major $250M - $750M

Risk Criteria

Likelihood Table

WA specific Risk CriteriaLikelihood

= Event likelihood e.g. frequency of cyclone

(AEP)

xRisk Statement likelihood

e.g. chance of house flooding

(% chance)

WA specific Risk Criteria

Min MaxAlmost Certain 0.3 1Likely 0.031 0.3Possible 0.0031 0.03Unlikely 0.00031 0.003Rare 0.000031 0.0003Very Rare 0.0000031 0.00003Almost Incredible <0.0000031

Example Likelihood = (AEP) x (Risk Statement %) = (1% chance in year) x (17% chance) = 0.01 x 0.17

= 0.0017

= UNLIKELY

Risk Criteria

Risk Matrix

Identify Vulnerabilities

• Key assets in <insert area> that may be vulnerable:

People Environment Social Setting

Infrastructure EconomyPublic

Administration

Identify Vulnerabilities

• Controls: Things that are in place now which lower the

vulnerability of the assets.

Keep these in mind when looking at the risk statements!

Risk Statements

Hazard Assessment

Risk Analysis

Stage Two:

Steps of AnalysisFor our purposes imagine the event IS taking place, for each Risk Statement:

• Consider any Prevention, Preparedness, Response and/or Recovery Controls (PPRR) already in placeStep 1:

• Assess maximal possible ConsequenceStep 2:

• Assess the Likelihood of that ConsequenceStep 3:

• Assign a risk levelStep 4:

• Assess Confidence of the decisionsStep 5:

Group decision, Majority rule

Macro-enabled Risk Assessment Tool

Step 2: Assess the maximal Consequence

The risk statement need only fulfil one of the consequence criteria points of a level, not all, for it to be assigned that consequence level.

For each risk assessment, assign a consequence level.

Start at the highest level ‘Catastrophic’ and work down towards ‘Insignificant’

NoNoYes

Almost certain

50/50

Extremely rare

100%

50%

0.01%

Risk Statement

Table

Probability of Risk Statement

Probability of event

Likelihood of consequence

What we are going to assess :

Determined by expert

Step 3: Assess the Likelihood of that Consequence

Step 3: Assess the Likelihood of that Consequence

Chance that the risk statement will occur:

Certain 100%

50/50 X %

Near Impossible 0.001%

= Medium Risk

Step 4: Assign a risk rating

Conclusion: Moderate Consequence x Unlikely Likelihood

Step 5: Assess Confidence of decision

• Assess the confidence in the assessment – Depending on level of knowledge, level of data, level of agreement

– Default to moderate (time saving)

WORKSHOP RISK ASSESSMENT

Spilt into Groups

In order to progress through this workshop in a timely manner we propose, with your agreement, to break the assessment into three parallel streams of impact category specialists:

1. People and Public Admin

2. Infrastructure and Environment

3. Economy and Social Setting•You will be able to choose the stream in which you will work

Thank you