@article {bnh-7296, title = {Compound natural disasters in Australia: a historical analysis}, number = {605}, year = {2020}, month = {09/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Compound disasters pose complex disaster coordination and recovery challenges. To inform disaster planning for catastrophic disasters it is essential to understand their frequency and characteristics. In this study we utilise natural disaster loss databases to identify the frequency of historical compound disasters in Australia, considering their characteristics and climate influences. Results show that compound disasters have occurred frequently and are associated with the highest seasonal losses in terms of both insured financial losses and fatalities. They may occur coincidently with other societal stressors such as wars, recessions and pandemics further exacerbating their consequences. Though their component disasters most frequently occur in eastern Australia, events can comprise disasters in both the east and west of the continent.\  There is no temporal trend in their frequency when considering financial losses, but there is a downward trend when considering only fatalities. \ It is essential that future disaster risk assessments and plans consider compound disaster scenarios. Relationships with climate drivers may assist to forecast their occurrence.

}, keywords = {compound, historical analysis, Natural disasters}, issn = {605}, author = {Andrew Gissing and Matthew Timms and Stuart Browning and Coates, Lucinda and R Crompton and John McAneney} } @article {bnh-7705, title = {Planning and capability requirements for catastrophic and cascading disasters - final project report}, number = {634}, year = {2020}, month = {12/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Background

Planning and capability requirements for catastrophic and cascading disasters\ was a three-year research project focusing on the research questions of:

The research\ was based on literature reviews; interviews with representatives from emergency management organisations, businesses and community organisations; analysis of historical disaster loss data and content analysis of previous business contributions to disaster responses.

Findings

While\ a truly catastrophic disaster is by definition unmanageable, emergency managers can still help reduce loss of life and property and assist in sustaining the continuity of affected communities (Harrald, 2006). However, business-as-usual response strategies that work for smaller, more frequent events will not cut it in truly catastrophic circumstances. Often the success of the response is reliant upon the capacities already present in communities. Emergency managers must look to bolster these extant capacities.

Emergency services need to conceptualise how their service delivery models will have to adjust to the overwhelming demand for services and the complexity of catastrophes, including how they will anticipate and work with community first responders. Emergency management organisations must define capabilities they are best able to deliver in support of wider community efforts. For other capabilities, planners should look to community-based sources to supplement those available within government and consider altering service delivery standards.

Our results support existing well defined principles for disaster planning and risk reduction (Alexander, 2005): however, we found they are not effectively implemented to develop plans that consistently inform decision making. Planning is being inhibited by cultural, knowledge and resource constraints dominated by reactive response-oriented approaches.

There is a lack of knowledge regarding collective capability requirements and gaps to manage severe-to-catastrophic disasters. Unlike the defence forces, emergency services collectively lack a long-term view of capability\ requirements. There is need for a collective national view of future capability\ requirements to inform investment.

Severe-to-catastrophic disasters will require resources beyond the impacted\ jurisdiction. Although resources are already shared between jurisdictions, there is\ a need to bolster approaches for jurisdictions to work seamlessly together,\ including investments to enhance interoperability and to strengthen\ mechanisms of national coordination. The Commonwealth{\textquoteright}s role must also be\ defined by Commonwealth emergency management legislation as has\ previously been recommended (Eburn et al., 2019).

The need for strengthening national coordination arrangements is reinforced by\ analysis of historical compound disasters, which shows that it is possible for\ numerous concurrent or sequential severe disasters to occur across multiple\ jurisdictions, resulting in potential resource conflicts across jurisdictions.

Our research ultimately supports the principle of shared responsibility. The whole-of-community approach recognises that any severe-to-catastrophic disaster will\ involve whole-of-society responses. Despite the recognition of the value of\ businesses and community organisations in the National Strategy for Disaster\ Resilience, emergency management approaches are based on an inadequate\ view of community organisation and business capabilities and the culture\ remains largely government-centric.

Governments, whilst considering the lessons of previous disasters, must be\ proactive, forward looking and risk-based. Capability and capacity\ requirements for severe-to-catastrophic disasters will likely evolve into the future\ due to societal, environmental and technological changes. Technology offers\ significant opportunities to enhance capabilities.

Ultimately, our research supports the need for further efforts to mitigate disaster\ risk and build resilience, similar to recommendations of the Productivity\ Commission and APRA.

Utilisation\ 

The\ project adopted a collaborative approach with end-users assisting to define\ research questions and utilisation outputs. A key utilisation output from the\ research has been an emergency management capability maturity assessment\ tool that can be utilised by jurisdictions and organisations to better understand\ potential capability gaps in the context of severe-to-catastrophic disaster\ scenarios. Through utilisation funding provided by the Bushfire and Natural\ Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, this tool will be promoted for use across\ all jurisdictions.

Following analysis of emergency management legislation, a model\ Commonwealth Emergency Management Act was drafted for consideration by\ end-users.

Outcomes of the research were presented as evidence to the 2020 Royal Commission\ into National Natural Disaster Arrangements.

}, keywords = {Capability, cascading, Catastrophic, disasters, Planning}, issn = {634}, author = {Andrew Gissing and Steve George and Michael Eburn and John McAneney and Matthew Timms and Stuart Browning} }