@article {bnh-8136, title = {Capability Maturity Assessment facilitators guide}, number = {681}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

Catastrophic events pose unique challenges and are inevitable. Previous reviews have highlighted gaps in Australia{\textquoteright}s preparedness for catastrophic disasters. Australia has no recent experience of a catastrophe that has truly overwhelmed our society.

An essential component of planning for severe-to-catastrophic disasters is to develop an understanding of capability maturity to deliver the desired effect. Knowledge of capability gaps can then be used to enhance planning and identify alternate sources of capability.

The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements stated:

Jurisdictional approaches to capacity and capability development have served fire and emergency services well in the past. However, climate and demographic changes are likely to increase the demand on fire and emergency services. The ability of individual jurisdictions to meet this demand at peak times is likely to become increasingly difficult, prompting a need for increased resource sharing. There is a need to consider capabilities nationally, and for a more consistent and connected approach to capability planning across jurisdictions.

The Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework outlines a direction to improve understanding of national capability in the context of severe-to-catastrophic disasters.

Purpose

This guide provides instructions on how to conduct a first-pass capability maturity assessment for a jurisdiction to identify capability gaps and development priorities.

Audience

This guide is directed towards those who may manage or participate in the capability maturity assessment process.

}, keywords = {assessment, Capability, Emergency management, guide, maturity, Policy, Preparedness, tool}, issn = {681}, author = {Andrew Gissing} } @article {bnh-7903, title = {Diversity and inclusion: building strength and capability {\textendash} final project report}, number = {655}, year = {2021}, month = {03/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In 2016, the emergency management sector (EMS) acknowledged that action was needed to address the low representation of diversity in its workforce. This was being driven by a moral imperative to better represent the communities they serve (AFAC, 2016). The role of the EMS was also changing in response to ongoing unprecedented natural hazard events and the need for more strategic approaches to building resilience. This meant renegotiating the relationship between emergency management organisations (EMOs) and their communities, reinforcing the importance of D\&I. This brought to the fore the need to understand how to improve the effectiveness and value of D\&I in EMOs.

The main goal of the three-year project was to work with those in the sector engaged in D\&I practice and develop an evidence-based framework capable of supporting more effective management and measurement of D\&I. This was carried out in three phases: (1) understanding the context, (2) development of the framework, and (3) testing. Each phase was subject to annual review and the program was adjusted in response to the outcomes of those reviews.

The project used the {\textquoteleft}working from the inside out{\textquoteright} methodology to provide the framework for its activities (see p17 for details). This is a transdisciplinary approach that aims to develop workable solutions to seemingly intractable problems through collaborative research codesigned with end-users. The transdisciplinary aspect integrates different knowledge systems. It starts with understanding user needs and context, surveys available knowledge from a wide range of sources, puts this knowledge into a format that can be used in practice, and lastly tests the research outputs and refines this with end-users. The process is iterative with the key features of systemic assessments, integration into decision-making systems, translation, learning, adjustment and communication with end-users. Its key purpose is to ensure that research is fit-for-purpose and useable.


Following the scoping phase of the research project, three lines of inquiry were established to analyse the key systems that most directly influence D\&I for EMOs {\textendash} organisational, economic and community. A mixed methods approach was undertaken that incorporated case studies, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, decision-making assessments, desktop reviews of organisational documents, informal and formal literature, and ongoing review and feedback with end-users.

The initial literature review (Young et al, 2018a) assessed where D\&I practice was considered effective, the contributing factors to effectiveness and its benefits throughout the emergency services. It also reviewed the organisational change and innovation literature. In more recent years, the literature has changed focus from addressing diversity towards understanding the role of inclusion. It highlights the role of systemic approaches and the importance of understanding context in relation to achieving effective outcomes. The literature had stagnated in some areas, with few examples of successful implementation. The emergency services were not well-represented.

The final conclusion was that there were no suitable frameworks available and that information about the specific contexts for D\&I in the emergency services was limited. To provide a focus for the project and to inform practice, a definition of effective diversity (see p16) was developed.

We undertook case studies in three EMOs to inform the sectoral context. D\&I was present in all organisations, but not well-integrated into systems and processes, or connected to day-to-day decision making and tasks. The largest barrier was culture, and the largest need was in the area of management. Strategic vision and supportive organisational frameworks and processes were limited, resulting in shorter term, reactive approaches dominating the implementation of D\&I.

Predominantly response-based and hierarchical cultures and tactical decision making were often at odds with the more strategic-based softer skills required for D\&I. Many activities had not been effectively socialised or communicated, resulting in confusion, fear, resistance and difficult behaviours. There were also cultural gaps between upper and lower tiers in organisations. Implementation often focused on {\textquoteleft}obtaining (gender-based) diversity quotas{\textquoteright}, and rather than creating an inclusive culture, was felt to have polarised gender-based issues. There was a lack of awareness of what constituted appropriate language use and behaviours in relation to diverse communities and individuals. There was also no compelling narrative as to why it would be a business imperative or even perceived as such.

At the end of phase one, key components for the framework were identified. These were organised across the following areas: a strategic process of change, a programmatic continuous-improvement process and organic bottom-up growth. To develop these, further mapping and investigation of skills and capabilities in organisations and communities, and greater understanding of the economic value generated by programs were needed.

A turning point for the project was during phase two, following the {\textquoteleft}Into the future: building skills and capabilities for a diverse and inclusive workforce{\textquoteright} workshop in December 2018. Exploration of three scenarios revealed the extent of D\&I-related risk to EMOs. These related to the mitigation and management of social, human and innovation risk. These were not being formally managed or, in some cases, even recognised. It also highlighted the need to manage innovation risk during implementation activities. A better understanding of these risks provided the connection between day-to-day tasks and the business imperative for EMOs.

The participants in the workshop displayed a high level of skill and capability in these areas. Other work undertaken with Women and Firefighting Australasia (WAFA) indicated that the sector was becoming more aware of these risks, but needed further development of systems, skills and capabilities to manage them.

The risks associated with D\&I are not new, but are still largely unrecognised as part of formal risk management within organisations. Skills and capabilities associated with D\&I practice were, for the most part, being given a lower priority than those required to manage more established and accepted risks. If left unmanaged, D\&I risks are likely to {\textquoteleft}impair the ability of EMOs to perform their functions effectively{\textquoteright} (Young et al, 2019). \ 

Two economic case studies highlighted the benefits that could be achieved by successful programs. The Indigenous Fire and Rescue Employment Strategy (IFARES) program produced $20.00 of benefits for every dollar invested (Rasmussen and Maharaj, 2019). However, existing economic models need further development before programs for different cultural cohorts can be comprehensively assessed. Appropriate data also needs to be collected from the beginning of programs to support this.

The community case studies (Pyke, 2018b; Macdonald, 2020a, 2020b) illustrated some of the complexities in relation to the capabilities of diverse cohorts and young people, but each has its own context that needs further exploration. Although culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities have many capabilities, these have not been examined with respect to various needs, so are unlikely to be harnessed effectively in an inclusive manner (Pyke, 2018b; MacDonald, 2020a).

The final D\&I framework \ (Young and Jones, 2020) is constructed around four components:

This is developed to be flexible and adaptable, to aid decision making in a range of different contexts, and to be useful in full or in parts, depending on the situation an organisation may encounter and the context is which this is occurring. The strategic and programmatic processes are supported by guidance that outlines the key phases and question-focused considerations for practitioners (Young and Jones, 2020) and three practitioner manuals (Macdonald, 2020a; Ooi, 2020; Young et al, 2020). Progress over the three years of the project has culminated in the following conclusive statements (Young and Jones, 2020):

Common aspects found to support effective programs include:

This project has experienced a high level of uptake and use during its three-year term. This has been aided by the sector{\textquoteright}s focus on progressing the D\&I agenda, and the work of peak agencies and end-user organisations to develop programs and leadership. It has also contributed to the repositioning of the D\&I agenda as a risk-based business imperative, and has developed and provided materials to support the integration of D\&I into resilience, risk and workforce planning frameworks. Its effectiveness and impact are due to the collaboration and commitment of the end-user group who have actively participated, supported and promoted the work over the life of the project.

Considerable work is still needed in developing measurement protocols, particularly those related to economic evaluation and the effectiveness of inclusion. Further work is also needed to identify and document the specific capabilities and skills needed to support this. As D\&I is a long-term and dynamic issue, longitudinal evaluation is needed to assess returns on investment, ensure that visibility is maintained, and deeper understandings continue to develop.\ 

The final framework, which has been developed in close collaboration with practitioners in EMOs, provides a basis on which to build. The collateral from this study also captures and consolidates some of the considerable knowledge that already exists within these organisations to be used as reference material. This project has shown that achieving truly diverse and inclusive organisations is a long road, but it is one that EMOs are already travelling.

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, inclusion, strength}, issn = {655}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and McDonald, F and Bruce Rasmussen} } @article {bnh-8000, title = {Growing the seeds: recovery, strength and capability in Gippsland communities}, year = {2021}, month = {04/2021}, institution = {Victoria University}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

{\textquoteleft}Adversity is a cloak that shrouds great gifts. It is up to us to cast away the cloak and reveal all that lies within. This is the journey.{\textquoteright} {\textemdash} Milena Cifali, Mallacoota Time: The Lost Summer 2020

The 2019{\textendash}20 East Gippsland fires occurred during the most severe fire season ever recorded on the east coast of Australia. They burned from November 2019 to February 2020, damaging over half of the East Gippsland Shire, an area of over 1.16 million hectares. Over 400 dwellings and businesses were lost and four people lost their lives. Recovery had just begun when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. In the same way that the Black Saturday Bushfires have fundamentally changed how bushfires are seen, these events have changed how recovery will be thought about. Writing this report has been a confronting and humbling experience.

In initial conversations, it became clear that the community members who participated wanted a different conversation to the one they had been having. They were seeking to be heard and understood {\textendash} not as victims of the bushfires, but as people who needed support because of the bushfires. To accommodate this, the research has been shaped around the conversation they wanted to have, which is focused on community strengths and capabilities.

This study was undertaken when COVID-19 restrictions were in place, extending for two weeks after Melbourne{\textquoteright}s lockdown ended. As a result, this report represents a snapshot of the recovery process at that time, and contains material that may distress individuals who have been affected the bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic.

This report does not aim to represent all community issues or speak for the whole community, but rather to identify overarching themes around capabilities raised by those who wished to participate in the study. Participants have spoken about their experiences; those observed in their home communities and other communities they are working with. We also acknowledge that since the end of Melbourne{\textquoteright}s lockdown and the easing of COVID-19-related restrictions, circumstances may have changed, affecting communities{\textquoteright} contexts; and government and non-government agencies may be acting on issues contained in this report.

The purpose of this report

The purpose of this report is to provide a starting point for assessing and understanding community capability practically, and to provide an indicative status of these in East Gippsland and Wellington Shires following the bushfires. It uses a systemic assessment of social, economic and risk contexts to examine community strengths and capabilities, and identify potential future pathways.

The first section of this report has a specific focus on the capabilities involved in community recovery and how they have been experienced by diverse groups within the East Gippsland and Wellington community. This is viewed through a strengths-focused lens. It also provides an initial assessment of the status of the capabilities identified, and the challenges, needs and opportunities that have arisen as part of the recovery experience.

The second section provides a broader picture of the comparative strengths, capabilities and needs identified in an online survey of those impacted by the bushfires in New South Wales and Gippsland through established community panels. The results show which aspects are shared more broadly, those partitioned by direct and indirect experience, and those specific to the East Gippsland community.

The third section provides an economic assessment of two local government areas {\textendash} East Gippsland and Wellington Shires {\textendash} to provide a high-level assessment of the economic influences and impacts on the intersection of the COVID-19 pandemic and bushfire recovery.

}, keywords = {black summer, Capability, communities, gippsland, recovery, strength}, isbn = {978-1-86272-829-5}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and Craig Cormick} } @conference {bnh-8275, title = {Long-range fire weather predictions developed and service established as new capability for Australia}, booktitle = {AFAC21}, year = {2021}, month = {10/2021}, publisher = {AFAC}, organization = {AFAC}, address = {Online}, abstract = {

Factors providing long-range predictability for this system include the pre-existing moisture content of vegetation (using agricultural drought measures), large-scale modes of variability (e.g., El Nino), sudden stratospheric warmings (e.g., polar vortex variations contributed to the severity of the 2019/20 summer) and long-term climate change.

The guidance products were designed with a user-driven approach, based on strong end-user engagement throughout the project. These long-range predictions are part of broader efforts to deliver seamless guidance over a wide range of time scales. Fire weather predictions and data are now available in a consistent form for long-range predictions out to several months ahead, historical records back to 1950 and future climate projections throughout this century. A seamless service across different time scales is intended to enhance planning capabilities from short to long time-scales, leading to enhanced resilience and disaster risk reduction for natural hazards. These fire weather outlooks have been described as a step change in improved capability, developed through user engagement, including for supporting risk reduction in prescribed burning and operational planning requirements.

}, keywords = {Capability, Fire, predictions, weather}, url = {https://www.afac.com.au/events/proceedings/06-10-21/article/long-range-fire-weather-predictions-developed-and-service-established-as-new-capability-for-australia}, author = {Dowdy, Andrew J} } @article {bnh-8127, title = {The southwest Tasmania fires of summer 2018-2019 - a post event review capability study}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, pages = {64}, institution = {Zurich}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

The summer of 2018-19 (December 2018 {\textendash} February 2019) was devastating for the Australian state of Tasmania. Fire services were overwhelmed by the multiple, large fires that burned over 200,000 ha across the western half of the island from the end of December through to early March. This report analyses these fires using the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance{\textquoteright}s Post Event Review Capability (PERC) methodology. It focuses on community and business resilience; while there have been several reviews into firefighting operations, a more systemic view of resilience is less common.

The summer 2018/19 fires officially began on 24 December 2018, in one of the hottest and driest summers on record. On 15 January 2019, 2402 dry lightning strikes hit the state, igniting 70 fires that formed into four massive fire complexes. More than 210,000 hectares burned, including 95,000 hectares in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA). Fortunately, no deaths were directly attributed to the bushfire, although an unknown number of people are believed to have died due to smoke and 114 injuries or accidents were recorded.

The event saw a significant and protracted evacuation, with the Huonville evacuation centre open for 15 days, accommodating up to 700 people daily. The lingering effects on impacted communities are still being felt. It resulted in the destruction of tourism assets, forestry resource and globally precious, protected ecosystems of the TWWHA. Smoke from the fires impacted health and the burgeoning viticulture industry in Tasmania. These impacts, along with others, have had significant flow-on effects to the already-struggling Tasmanian economy and communities.

There is much to learn from this event for Tasmania and other jurisdictions which will likely face similar events. This report outlines the risk landscape in southwest Tasmania, examining trends in climate-change charged bushfire conditions, exposure of people and assets, and their vulnerabilities. It outlines what happened during the event, with a focus on the community safety response. Direct and indirect impacts on people and economies are explored. Key insights are identified across all phases of the disaster cycle. Below we present an abridged version of the final recommendations of the study

}, keywords = {Capability, fires, post event, review, southwest, summer, Tasmania}, url = {https://www.zurich.com.au/content/dam/au-documents/news/the-southwest-tasmania-fires-of-summer-2018-2019-a-post-event-review-capability-study.pdf}, author = {Adriana Keating and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-6810, title = {Diversity and inclusion: Building strength and capability - Annual Report 2019}, number = {558}, year = {2020}, month = {03/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Emergency Management Sector (EMS) is a diverse and complex sector whose key purpose is the protection of life and property by implementing {\textquoteleft}a range of measures to manage risks to communities and environments{\textquoteright} (Emergency Management Australia, 1998, p39). Their scope of activities spans the prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR) spectrum and requires a range of activities that contribute to the wellbeing of communities.

The context in which many of these organisations operate is changing due to:

As these drivers are dynamic and systemic, they are changing the focus of EMS activities from shorter-term tactical approaches across the PPRR spectrum, to longer-term strategic approaches that focus on future outcomes. These drivers are also driving the need to innovate across the EMS and develop new services that aim to increase resilience of both the organisations themselves and the community. This is fundamentally changing the nature of the relationship EMS has with the community from delivering a service to them to working with them. (Young et al. 2018). There is also a recognition that emergency services need to better reflect the communities they work to serve (NEMC 2011) to achieve this outcome. Effective diversity and inclusion are central to this agenda.

Currently, there are {\textquoteleft}unacceptably low levels of diversity{\textquoteright} in the EMS (AFAC 2016). There is however, a growing awareness that there are a number of benefits that can result from increasing diversity in organisations. However, effective implementation is complex due to:

If EMS organisations are to capitalise on the emerging opportunities and fulfil their future potential in this area, they will need to develop new ways of thinking and working. Diversity is not new to EMS organisations and there are existing strengths and knowledge that can be built upon. Understanding what is effective, and why and how this agenda can be progressed, is critical to achieving future outcomes.

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, inclusion, strength}, issn = {558}, author = {Celeste Young} } @article {bnh-7468, title = {Diversity and inclusion: building strength and capability {\textendash} annual report 2019{\textendash}2020}, number = {623}, year = {2020}, month = {10/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

{\textquoteleft}Diversity and inclusion: building strength and capability{\textquoteright} is a three-year project commissioned by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, which commenced in July 2017 and has just completed its third year of exploration. It has been a challenging year in terms of delivery, and the project has had to adjust its research plan to accommodate the unprecedented bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic, which have impacted the university and the stakeholder organisations. As a result, the project will now deliver the final outputs for the project in the second half of 2020.

During the third phase, we have focused our activities around consolidating key findings in the organisational stream and testing these in another industry to look for commonalities and points of divergence. New needs that emerged from the second year review highlight the necessity for further indepth review in relation to the economic and community areas. Activities have continued with a case study approach and three reports have been completed.

Key areas of focus for this phase have been as follows:

Key findings from this phase of the research are as follows:

Stakeholder engagement has been limited during this phase, as it was put on hold between November 2019 and April 2020. Where possible, we have maintained contact through individual interactions. We have also had a reduced level of outreach such as presentations due to the cancellation of a number of conferences, however the project team was involved in three presentations at the 2019 AFAC conference.

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, inclusion, strength}, issn = {623}, author = {Celeste Young} } @article {bnh-8140, title = {Diversity and inclusion: towards a better understanding of management and measurement - policy paper}, number = {696}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

Having effective diversity and inclusion (D\&I) in emergency management organisations (EMOs) can improve their internal\ performance, and contribute to organisational and community capacities to manage disaster risk and resilience building. A\ diverse workforce provides a broad range of perspectives, experiences and skills. An inclusively-managed diverse workforce\ can support better decision making. It can also support better management of the increasingly unfamiliar risks that\ society is experiencing. Inclusion is also central to building productive working relationships and trust with the community. However, the benefits of D\&I are poorly understood, and are often overlooked because they are hard to measure and\ account for.

This paper summarises the main concepts, findings and the framework that has been developed to support more effective\ management and measurement of D\&I in EMOs.

Key findings in relation to D\&I in the emergency management sector (EMS) are:

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, Emergency management, inclusion, management, measurement, strength}, issn = {696}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @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} } @article {bnh-6809, title = {Planning and capability requirements for catastrophic and cascading disasters}, number = {557}, year = {2020}, month = {03/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Catastrophic events pose unique challenges and are inevitable. Previous reviews have highlighted gaps in Australia{\textquoteright}s preparedness for catastrophic disasters. Australia has no recent experience of a catastrophe, with the Spanish Flu (1918-19) and Cyclone Tracey (1974) being perhaps two historic examples that have overwhelmed systems of management. Catastrophic events require the adoption of a whole community approach. However, this is challenged by the culture of emergency services and wider community apathy. This report provides insights into the preparedness for catastrophic disasters based upon a review of the global literature. Implications for practitioners are discussed to assist in strengthening capability and capacity to reduce the likelihood of becoming overwhelmed.

}, keywords = {Capability, cascading disasters, Catastrophic, Planning}, issn = {557}, author = {Andrew Gissing and Michael Eburn and John McAneney} } @article {bnh-7792, title = {Building emergency management capacity in remote north Australian communities {\textendash} status report, November 2019}, number = {639}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

This status report addresses the following activities:

Current research activities

1. Developing effective EM partnerships

1.1 Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku

i. Reinstating traditional governance authority

ii. Recent progress at Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku

1.2 Ramingining

i. Recent progress at Ramingining

ii. Lessons learnt

2. Scenario planning for remote community risk management\ 

Proposed workshop activity

1. Developing a BNHCRC utilisation project focused on building effective EM partnerships with remote communities

1.1 Background

1.2 Utilisation proposal

i. Phase 1

ii. Phase 2

1.3 Participants

1.4 Expected benefits\ 

}, keywords = {Capability, communities, emegency management, northern Australia, remote}, issn = {639}, author = {Jeremy Russell-Smith and Glenn James and Sithole, B and Kamaljit Sangha and Andrew C. Edwards} } @article {bnh-5772, title = {Risky business: Why diversity and inclusion matter}, number = {499}, year = {2019}, month = {08/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Effective diversity and inclusion (D\&I) is at the heart of what emergency management organisations (EMOs) are and do. It is now clear that if they are not inclusive of the difference that diversity brings, they are placing at risk their organisations and the communities they work with.

Australian communities and the risks they face are changing. For the Emergency Management Sector (EMS), this emphasises the importance of building resilience and developing community partnerships. EMOs need to see themselves represented within the community and communities need to see themselves represented within EMOs. As a result, effective D\&I, which can support these activities, is starting to be seen as a core capability. There is also a growing recognition that if EMOs are to become agile, learning organisations who can effectively manage diversity and change, D\&I will need to move from a peripheral activity to a central focus. A clear message from this project is that the key to this is for EMOs to focus on developing an inclusive culture.

A key barrier to achieving effective D\&I is a limited understanding of how to join conceptual aspects of D\&I to practical application and tasks, and to use that to develop a set of focused activities capable of achieving their goals. Specifically, understanding why D\&I is important for core business and how it enhances service delivery {\textendash} particularly in lower levels of organisations. Without answers to these questions, it can be difficult to develop the strategies needed to support and guide the multiple areas of activity required to achieve a diverse and inclusive workforce.

The workshop {\textquoteleft}Into the future: building capabilities and skills for inclusive and diverse organisations{\textquoteright} held in December 2018 at Victoria University, aimed to explore these issues. In particular, it aimed to understand:

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, inclusion}, isbn = {978-1-86272-807-3}, issn = {499}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @conference {bnh-6400, title = {What{\textquoteright}s wrong and what needs fixing? Stakeholder perspectives on making the future of emergency volunteering}, booktitle = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC Research Day AFAC19}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The modern landscape of emergency volunteering in Australia is characterised by far-reaching change, converging challenges and emerging new opportunities. In this context, a key concern within the emergency management sector today is how the changing landscape threatens the long-term sustainability of Australia{\textquoteright}s formal emergency management volunteer capacity. Some volunteer-based emergency management organisations are responding to the changing landscape with new volunteer strategies, models and management practices. While the pace of change has picked up in recent years, overall it has been slow.

This paper posits that greater engagement in frame reflexive learning and practice can help enable further and faster adaption of emergency volunteering models and approaches to better meet the challenges and opportunities presented by the changing landscape. It aims to support frame reflexive learning and practice by articulating the different ways that {\textquoteright}what{\textquoteright}s wrong and what needs fixing{\textquoteright} is framed among a range of emergency volunteering stakeholder groups. The results are based on interviews and questionnaires conducted with over 180 stakeholders, including representatives from emergency service agencies, disaster welfare organisations, volunteer representative groups, volunteering peak bodies, local governments, and community sector organisations. The paper identifies and describes four key frames currently in use by stakeholders: Competition, Professionalisation, Expectation-Capacity Gap, and Culture Clash. It concludes that deeper and wider collaboration at the sector and community level is needed to enable frame reflexive practice through which multiple frames and their implications can be made more visible and a wider range of options for addressing complex cross-boundary volunteering problems revealed.

}, keywords = {Capability, Emergency management, voulnteering}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/australian-journal-of-emergency-management-monograph-series/}, author = {Blythe McLennan} } @article {bnh-4688, title = {Changing capabilities of emergency service organisations}, year = {2018}, month = {08/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

In our literature review on the costs and benefits of increasing diversity, we also outlined the changing context in which emergency service organisations (ESOs) (that include emergency management) were operating. In summary, the change in the context was due to:

{\textbullet} The increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters due to climate change (National Strategy for Disaster Resilience) (COAG, 2011)

{\textbullet} The increased availability of new and improved technology to respond to natural disasters

{\textbullet} The increased need to serve a much more diverse community (Smiley, 2010, pp 24, 30).

This has meant that both the capabilities and the tasks undertaken by the ESOs have had to change to respond to this changing context, and tasks have changed as demonstrated by the types of incidents and emergencies attended.\  These new capabilities and new tasks could be undertaken by retraining the existing workforce. However, the development of these new capabilities and new tasks provides an opportunity to recruit new staff with the required skills from more diverse backgrounds to undertake these new and/or expanding tasks. The literature review suggested that a well-managed, more diverse workforce could produce better performance outcomes for tasks of increasing complexity. In some areas such as new technology capabilities and communication with diverse communities, it may be necessary to recruit those with more diverse backgrounds to meet basic operational objectives.

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity., emergencies, Emergency management, Learning}, issn = {364}, author = {Neelam Maharaj and Bruce Rasmussen} } @article {bnh-6049, title = {Identifying the evidence to support incident management team capability}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {33}, year = {2018}, month = {07/2018}, pages = {44-49}, abstract = {

In 2015, the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) commissioned a review of the evidence base to establish the rationale for capabilities central to effective incident management. The review focused on the capabilities required for senior AIIMS Level 31 Incident Management Team roles. Results were used to inform standards for the AFAC Emergency Management Professionalisation Scheme. The review considered the human factors and emergency management literature as well as research conducted through the Bushfire CRC. Analysis and synthesis of the evidence identified three broad capabilities, each with three sub-capabilities important in incident management. The three categories were to model leadership and teamwork, to think and plan strategically and demonstrate self-awareness. This article outlines the evidence base and the capabilities developed through this review and contributes to the evidence base for incident management capability. Guidance on what will be needed in continuing professional development program is provided.

}, keywords = {Capability, incident management, standards}, url = {https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=792881583519986;res=IELAPA}, author = {Owen, Christine and Peter Hayes and Brooks, B and Cameron Scott and Geoff Conway} }