AFTER THE TSUNAMI – HARNESSING AUSTRALIAN EXPERTISE FOR RECOVERY
Canberra, 31 March 2005

Follow-up group reports and case studies
Group 5: Risk – governance and policy

Summary

Australia has the capacity to develop risk assessments to assist policy makers reduce the vulnerability of communities, both in Australia and our region, to natural disasters. As researchers, bureaucrats and industry professionals, we now see our obligation in the realm of policy and governance to employ best practice risk management measures, and consider risk assessments as an effective and sustainable form of international aid.

The Australian Government’s risk management environment

Australia’s current governance structure and policy making framework has supported strong response and relief efforts in the event of natural disasters, stemming from a tradition of military assistance after natural disasters. Under our Constitution, the States and Territories are responsible for emergency management, only calling on Federal assistance when a situation becomes unmanageable, in terms of containing the hazard and associated costs. Our timely military and civilian assistance has rescued many people over many years and provided immediate relief in the wake of natural hazards that have devastated communities. However, the recent Council of Australian Governments’ Review into Natural Disasters (2004) has recognised that more is needed on disaster risk management measures other than just relief and response. In order to support safe and sustainable communities, policy development needs to support mitigation and long-term recovery. This recommendation is aligned with developments in emergency risk management, which often refers to risk management practices as ‘PPRR’ – Prevention (now referred to as Mitigation), Preparation, Response and Recovery.

It is timely that we address our capacity to assist our neighbours in the event of natural disasters, especially Indonesia, in light of the COAG Review’s recommendations to include mitigation and recovery as integral aspects of managing risks. The risk management framework currently being developed by all levels of Australian Government provides the opportunity to assist our Asia-Pacific neighbours through a similar process. Australia has the capacity to assist with the mitigation of devastating natural disasters in our region, such as the Boxing Day tsunami, through an emphasis on the development of risk assessments and evidence-based decision making as a form of best practice policy making. Risk assessments were identified as a sustainable risk management practice during the International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction in the 1990s to which Australia was a contributing member. It is just as relevant today in a world where our neighbourhood, the Asia-Pacific region, suffered 75% of the world’s major natural disasters between 1970 and 1997 (ADB 2000).

Recommendations

Natural disasters will continue to overwhelm communities, both in terms of loss of lives and long-term economic devastation. In order to seize on Australia’s capacity to reduce costs to natural disasters, both at home and in our region, we need:

• Leadership of holistic risk management and evidence-based decision making: response, relief, recovery AND mitigation, so that we can better utilise our capacity, and resources for the benefit of Australian and regional communities.
• Greater inclusion of mitigation measures during the long-term recovery process – a sustainable risk management approach.
• Mechanisms for incorporating invaluable local knowledge and local organisations into high-level decision making.
• Greater cross-disciplinary research that contributes to a holistic picture of risk.
• Using risk assessments as a way to give public confidence and communicate information about expectations surrounding risk.
• Link regional risk assessments, including hazard and vulnerability assessments, to ongoing aid and development programs.