Review of the State Emergency Management Plan
Submission
May 2016 Review of the State Emergency Management Plan Report for the Local Government Association (LGA) of South Australia (SA) Reference ECM 637037 This project was funded by the Local Government Research and Development Scheme and the Natural Disaster Resilience Grants Scheme. This report was produced by Noetic Solutions Pty Limited.
Version Control Date Author Comments Version 1 14 April 2016 Noetic Solutions Consultation Draft Version 1.1 3 May 2016 Noetic Solutions Addendum added incorporating consultation process & feedback
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 2 of 16 ECM 637037 Table of Contents
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 3 of 16 ECM 637037 1) Introduction A Bill to amend the Emergency Management Act 2004 was introduced to Parliament on 11 February 2016. The proposed provisions relating to local government reflect the agreed position endorsed by the LGA Board and advised to the State Government. Running in parallel to the amendment of the legislation is a review of the State Emergency Management Plan (SEMP). This is in line with the periodic review of individual components of the SEMP, which occurs every six months. However, the current review is the first major one since the inception of the Plan. The Local Government Association of South Australia (LGA) has undertaken engagement with councils and with other stakeholders (SAFECOM, South Australian Police, State Emergency Service, Country Fire Service) with the objective of identifying areas of the SEMP that require revision or refinement. Engagement and drafting was conducted on behalf of the LGA by Noetic Solutions (Noetic), who have provided the LGA with the submission for the SEMP Review Steering Committee.
2) Overview A number of key drivers are increasing the overall complexity of the disaster and emergency events that Australia is experiencing. These drivers include changes in climate and other broader environmental changes, an ageing population, increasingly diverse communities, and changes in land use and patterns of settlement. Amongst other drivers, these are making resilience much harder to achieve. The net result is that effective emergency management is increasingly moving beyond the reach of any single local, state or federal agency. In response to these pressures, the National Disaster Resilience Strategy has established the focus for future developments within the emergency management sector. The key idea – resilience – sets the outcome for emergency management as the swiftest possible return to normality for effected communities. Resilience rests on a collaborative effort that demonstrates ‘a shared responsibility between governments, communities, businesses and individuals’1 for the holistic management of emergencies across the Prevent-Prepare-Respond-Recover (PPRR) continuum. This shared responsibility means that all segments of society have a mutual obligation to participate in the emergency management continuum. Local government has a unique and critical role to play in emergency management, when it is viewed through the lens of mutual obligation. The Australian Emergency Management Arrangements agreed by the Council of Australian Governments lists the following responsibilities for local governments:2 ‘Local governments play a fundamental enabling role in emergency management because of their strong relationship with their local community networks and knowledge of locally available resources... Local governments have responsibilities, in partnership with respective state and territory governments, to contribute to the safety and wellbeing of their communities by
1 Coalition of Australian Governments, Foreword, National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, p.III, February, 2011.
2 Australian Government, Australian Emergency Management Arrangements – Handbook 9, paragraph 2.4.1 LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 4 of 16 ECM 637037 participating in local emergency management... The principal roles and responsibilities of local governments may include: building and promoting disaster resilience undertaking cost-effective measures to mitigate the effects of emergencies on local communities, including routinely conducting emergency risk assessments systematically taking proper account of risk assessments in land-use planning to reduce hazard risk representing community interests in emergency management to other spheres of government and contributing to decision-making processes ensuring all requisite local emergency planning and preparedness measures are undertaken ensuring an adequate local emergency response capability is in place, including resources for the local volunteers undertaking public education and awareness to support community- preparedness measures • ensuring appropriate local emergency warnings are provided ensuring appropriate local resources and arrangements are in place to provide emergency relief and recovery services to communities, and participating in post-emergency assessment and analysis.’
Many of these responsibilities are inherent in the normal business of local government that delivers a range of essential services related to the PPRR continuum. These include, but are not limited to: land use planning, building and environment code enforcement, community planning, hazard, risk and emergency management planning. They also include broader services, such as tree clearing/felling, storm water drain maintenance and fuel load reduction, that are directly related to the emergency management continuum. These activities are local governments’ normal business. When viewed as preparedness or prevention activities, they have a clear line of sight to broader emergency management arrangements. When conducted as part of a response or recovery, they are delivered under special circumstances, and with greater intensity of effort. Experience shows that in emergencies, communities will often look first to their local council for information and support. Local government is central to engaging local communities in meeting their mutual obligations. They are also uniquely well informed of how to optimise community resilience before, during and after an emergency. Therefore, local government should be seen as central to achieving resilience, with a critical role in facilitating resilience-focussed education and action at a localised level. Local government is best positioned to respond to the unique and often highly contextualised local environment. This understanding places local government in a unique position in South Australia’s emergency management machinery. The SEMP needs to be changed to:
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 5 of 16 ECM 637037 make explicit the central role of local government in emergency management across the PPRR continuum empower local government in its role by clarifying the arrangements intended to connect it with other emergency management agencies, including: the State Emergency Management Committee the various Zone Emergency Management Committees (ZEMC) the Zone Emergency Centres Committee (ZECC) and Zone Emergency Centres (ZEC) ensure that local government planning (ZEMC) and operational (ZECC) entities are suitably resourced, supported and engaged by other emergency management agencies. Topic 1: The Role of Local Government Section Reference (from version 2.15 of the SEMP) Preface paragraphs 2 and 4 Legal and Administrative Framework – paragraphs 17 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DURING EMERGENCIES: paragraph 141 Annex I – Evacuation Guidelines – Evacuation Process paragraph 2.1
Background of Proposed Changes 1. At present, local government is mentioned in many places throughout the SEMP, but arguably as an afterthought. It is important that the unique contribution that local government has to make to building resilience by participating in all stages of the PPRR continuum is both recognised and made explicit in any revision of the SEMP. 2. The responsibilities listed in the Australian Emergency Management Arrangements (AEMA) were outlined above and accurately reflect local governments’ emergency related activities in South Australia. These activities should be restated in the SEMP and include: building and promoting disaster resilience undertaking cost-effective measures to mitigate the effects of emergencies on local communities, including routinely conducting emergency risk assessments systematically taking proper account of risk assessments in land- use planning to reduce hazard risk representing community interests in emergency management to other spheres of government and contributing to decision-making processes ensuring all requisite local emergency planning and preparedness measures are undertaken
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 6 of 16 ECM 637037 ensuring an adequate local emergency response capability is in place, including resources for the local government volunteers undertaking public education and awareness to support community-preparedness measures ensuring appropriate local resources and arrangements are in place to provide emergency relief and recovery services to communities, and participating in post-emergency assessment and analysis.
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 7 of 16 ECM 637037 3. The operationalisation of these responsibilities discussed in Topic 2. Actual Proposed Changes Requested Local government should be recognised as a key contributor to activities conducted under PPRR. Local government should be represented within the SEMP. Specific changes to the SEMP include: including a description of the role of local government and the associated emergencyrelated activities. This should occur prior to the description of the Emergency Management Zones at paragraph 26 updating Annex I to outline the role of local government in supporting evacuations.
3) Topic 2: Operationalising Local Governments’ Role in Emergency Management Section Reference (from version 2.15 of the SEMP) Section 68 SEMP Glossary Annex B Legal and Administrative Framework - paragraph 47, 48; - Zone Emergency Centre (ZEC) Response – Reporting paragraph 113 & Response – Action para 116, 118 & Response – Build Up paragraph 119 & Response – Operation paragraph 121 - 122 Glossary (page 59) Acronyms (page 60) Pages 111, 112, 114, 121
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 8 of 16 ECM 637037 Background of Proposed Changes The SEMP establishes the machinery for the management of emergencies and disasters. To properly operationalise local governments’ responsibilities, a number of enhancements to that machinery are required, including: making Local Government a Functional Service in its own right abolishing the Zone Emergency Centre (ZEC) and ZECC and replacing them with a Zone Emergency Support Team (ZEST) clarifying the relationship between the ZEMC and the ZEST, and establishing ZESTs for Adelaide (a role presently performed by the State Emergency Centre (SEC)). 1. Local Government as a Functional Service Functional Services are groupings of agencies that perform functional roles that support response and recovery activities during an emergency. Functional Services contribute to the coordination role of the SEC. At present, local government is represented in five of the thirteen functional services that facilitate the integration of aspects of local government activities into these focus areas. However, this arrangement does not help to coordinate the total effort available from local government. Nor does it help to de-conflict the need to provide ongoing support to Control Agencies during response or recovery, while continuing to provide services to their communities. The introduction of the i-Responda program has facilitated the inclusion of local Government capabilities in emergency responses. The coordination of the contribution of local governments within and between zones potentially offers a substantial increment in the amount of effort available for some aspects of support to emergency response, relief and recovery. If local government were established as a Functional Service within the SEC, LGA representatives could engage with other functional services and with the broader group of local governments either impacted by, or able to contribute to, responses to an emergency or disaster. This arrangement would particularly enhance responses to larger scale emergencies that engaged a number of zones. The role of the Local Government Functional Service would be to support the Control Agency by providing a coordinated response from local government entities and personnel during an emergency and assisting in the relief and recovery of effected communities.
2. Zone Emergency Support Teams (ZESTs) Under the current SEMP, each country zone has at least one location designated as the ZEC. The role of the ZEC is to provide coordination of local resources that supports the Control Agency in resolving an emergency by: undertaking tasks assigned or delegated to it by the Control Agency supporting the sharing of information between the agencies involved supporting community impact planning and assessment supporting the development of public information messages and dissemination to affected communities supporting relief and recovery operations.
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 9 of 16 ECM 637037 The nominated functions of the ZEC are critical during response and recovery. However, the ZEC is a fixed facility and may not be appropriately located to perform its functions in all emergencies. As a facility, the ZEC is intended to support the functioning of a ZECC. ZECCs are not described in the SEMP and their membership, functioning and relationships are undefined. To resolve this, the ZEC and ZECC should be abolished and each zone should have a ZEST with the same responsibilities as the current ZEC. The ZEST should not be tied to a location but should establish itself in a position that facilitates close interaction with the control agency or Incident Management Team. The membership and functioning of each ZEST are matters for the relevant ZEMC and are discussed below.
3. ZEMC – ZEST Relationship Each zone establishes a ZEMC responsible for the zone-level planning to support the SEMP. The ZEMC uses an all-hazards approach across the PPRR continuum to: conduct emergency risk assessments identify and evaluate risk treatment options and develop Risk Treatment Plans develop a Zone Emergency Management Plan and any other plans required. In the event of an emergency or disaster, the ZEST will lead the coordination of the implementation of the plans and arrangements made by the ZEMC.
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 10 of 16 ECM 637037 At the same time, the work of the ZEMC will have led to the establishment of a web of personal relationships between its members that facilitate the exchange of information and the sharing of resources during an emergency. For these reasons, the ZEST should itself be a product of ZEMC planning and each ZEMC should determine the membership and functioning of its ZEST. Appointing the ZEMC Executive Officer as the ZEST Executive Officer is the most efficient mechanism to link the ZEMC’s planning role with the operational support focussed role of the ZEST South Australian Police (SAPOL) has a legislated role in emergency management which, at the zone level, is presently partially exercised through the provision of the ZEC facility and coordination of the ZEC’s functioning. The arrangements described above do not prejudice these responsibilities. The Local Police Commander or their representative would still chair meetings of the ZEST but, in their absence, the work of the ZEST would continue coordinated by the Executive Officer. This means that the Police Commander is not tied to a single place and task but, equally enhances the scalability of the application of the ZEST. For example, in the event that a storm engages a few local councils, the ZEST could be established and work at a level that may not engage the full state machinery, if these councils believe that coordination of their actions is desirable. For this arrangement to work, the number of ZEMC/ZEST Executive Officers would need to be increased. 4. ZESTs for Metropolitan Adelaide At present, ZECs are not established within the four emergency zones covering the Adelaide metropolitan area. In their stead, it is intended that when the need arises, their functions will be performed by the SEC. The reasons for this principally lay in the density of settlement and the close linkages of metropolitan councils. The current arrangement lacks scalability and only works when the emergency is sufficient to trigger the activation of the full state machinery. Properly established and exercised ZESTs will greatly facilitate communication and resource sharing between councils. They will provide a single community point of contact for control agencies dealing with relatively localised emergencies that, however, span more than one council area. In the event of a large scale emergency, metro-ZESTs will ease the coordination challenge faced by the SEC and facilitate the workings of the Local Government Functional Service proposed above. Actual Proposed Changes Requested 1. Local Government as a Functional Support Group Local government should be elevated to a Functional Area or as a Functional Support Group (in line with the proposed change of title proposed by SAPOL in their submission to the SEMP Review). The formation of this functional support group would facilitate better coordination of all local government resources and provide clearer engagement for Hazard Leaders coordinating both state and local capabilities. The elevation of local government to a Functional Support Group level would ensure that local government is better represented at the State Emergency Centre and other incident management centres. The role of the Local Government Functional support Group would be to support the Control Agency by facilitating a coordinated and consistent response from local government entities and personnel during an emergency. Specific changes to the SEMP include: LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 11 of 16 ECM 637037 paragraph 69 should be updated to include local government as a Functional Service a Local Government Functional Support Group should be included within Annex B. 2. Zone Emergency Support Teams The terms ZEC and ZECC should be removed from the SEMP and replaced with ZEST. This change should be reflected throughout the SEMP and its associated glossaries, annexes etc. The roles and responsibilities of the ZEC and ZECC should be transferred to the ZEST. Paragraph 47 should be revised to include the new definition of the ZEST and a new set of responsibilities. These would include: Role: the role of the ZEST is to support the Control Agency through the provision of local knowledge, the coordination of local resources that support the Control Agency in resolving an emergency; and to assist in the relief and recovery of effected communities. Responsibilities: coordination of local resources provision of local knowledge to support planning and/or response activities performing assigned or delegated tasks from the Control Agency supporting the sharing of information between the agencies involved supporting community impact planning and assessment supporting the development of public information messages and dissemination to affected communities supporting relief and recovery operations management of a central Zone Emergency Registry which details local governments’ capability and capacity to respond to emergencies including: contact details for local government personnel (including those assigned to ZEMCs or ZESTs) who have appropriate capabilities, skills, or authority that would benefit response operations details on the various plant or equipment available from councils, including details on which plant or equipment would be available for the short, medium or long term operations all references to the ZEC are revised to reflect the change of name and function, including the glossary. 3. ZEMC – ZEST Relationship The Executive Officer assigned to each of the ZEMCs shall be assigned as the Executive Officer for each ZEST. The Executive Officer role should be undertaken by a member of a local government. That person should be of an appropriate level of management, with authority to make decisions, delegate; and direct work relating to local government entities. The description for local government representatives is still relevant – ‘Senior Managers from Local Government that know Local Government EM
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 12 of 16 ECM 637037 arrangements, capabilities etc. within the Zone’3. Providing the Executive Officer meets those criteria, they would be able to provide a local government link between the ZEMC and the ZEST. Resourcing this position change is discussed in Topic 3: Resourcing Local Government. Specific changes to the SEMP include: Annex G – ZEMC should be: updated and revised to reflect the changes to the role of the Executive Officer section 2.7 Membership of the ZEMC should be changed to reflect a change in Executive Officer from a mandated SES position to a position allocated by each ZEMC section 3.8 and 3.9 should be revised to reflect the proposed changes to the role and position of the Executive Officer. Zone Emergency Management (EM) Coordinator should be retained by SAPOL.
4. ZESTs for Metropolitan Adelaide ZESTs should be established and resourced for all zones across South Australia, including the metropolitan Adelaide related zones. Specific changes to the SEMP include: paragraph 47 should be revised to state that ‘each zone has a designated ZEST’ Annex G should be revised to reflect that each zone has an allocated ZEST: a support function within all Emergency Management zones (including metropolitan) where the representatives of local agencies, selected by the ZEMC, meet to share information. The ZEST will undertake tasks allocated by either the control agency (if one is managing the incident) or from the CEO of the relevant and appropriate local government area (if the event does not require control agency oversight). These activities may be in support of response and recovery operations. The ZEST may operate from a pre-planned facility or at the control agency’s incident management team location, or other locations as determined by the emergency.
4) Topic 3: Resourcing Local Government Background of Proposed Changes 1. The expectations from community that local government to provide appropriate, timely and sustainable responses, underpinned by appropriate emergency risk management planning, continue to grow. At the same time the on-going constrained budget environment has eroded local government capability and capacity to engage effectively as it could in the emergency management space. This situation is reflected in the LGA state budget 3 South Australian Government, State Emergency Management Plan – Annex G – Zone Emergency Management Committee Operating Guidelines, Section 2.7 LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 13 of 16 ECM 637037 submission for 2016/17 which seeks commitment to continuing provision of about $1m per annum to support the continuing work of the 11 emergency management zones. 2. The SEMP does not refer to or direct the allocation of financial resources to support its implementation. Nor is it appropriate that it does so. However, during the development of this submission, a consistent view was provided that further constraining the budgetary resources allocated to local government emergency management programmes would be detrimental to the overall emergency risk management profile of the state. Feedback gathered during the development of this submission strongly suggests that there is a significant risk posed by the existing, and any future, reductions in resourcing for local government based emergency management initiatives. 3. This includes funding to continue the implementation of the Zone Emergency Risk Management Systems (ZERMS) project, being conducted by SAFECOM and the ZEMCs. It also includes resourcing to support project officers assigned to support the various ZEMCs. The reduction in resourcing has seen a directly linked reduction in the number of FTE undertaking project officer roles. This has had, and is expected to continue to have, a degenerative impact on the overall effectiveness of the ZEMCs. If appropriate resourcing is not available, it can reasonably be expected that current initiatives to improve local government’s capability and capacity to effectively contribute to emergency management planning and response and recovery operations will be diminished. 4. Both the proposed ZEST and Local Government Functional Support Group are operational entities that will be required to work smoothly during major emergencies. To prepare them for this it is important that they are included in state level exercises and, for the ZESTs, are provided the opportunity to exercise zone arrangements in the lead-up to those state level exercises. 5. The proposed changes to ZEMC/ZEST Executive Officer (i.e. shifting the position from the SES to local government) will require additional budget. It is to be proposed that this change be put into effect for 2017/18 with a budget submission to accompany that change. Actual Proposed Changes Requested NA
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 14 of 16 ECM 637037 5) Addendum: Summary of Consultation
1. This submission is the result of wide consultation with councils across the state. This included 18 face-to-face and telephone interviews with a selection of: Zone Emergency Management Committee Chairs (all coming from councils), Council representatives that had recently experienced disaster events; Council representatives who responded to LGA circulars and wished to provide input; and Senior emergency service personnel. As well as the interviews listed above, an online survey seeking input on a number of specific questions was prepared and circularised to all councils. 2. Throughout the consultation there was widespread and strong support for two existing programs:
I-Responda. The I-Responda program was initiated by the LGA of SA (and supported with funding from the Natural Disaster Resilience Program) in order to facilitate local government support to emergency responses. Support for this program is near universal and it is seen as a critical means to manage council risk in supporting response agencies.
Zone Emergency Risk Management Systems project. ZERMS, and the need to continue funding it, has already been mentioned. ZERMS represents only a part of the risk management challenge faced by local government. However it has seen the increased inclusion of emergency risk management thinking into the normal management functions of councils including land use planning and the annual operating budget. This should be seen as an important step forward in fully realising the aspirations underpinning notions such as mutual obligation and community resilience. 3. Following the initial consultation period, the LGA published the draft of this submission in LGA Circular 15.6. and sought feedback. Five councils (City of Playford, Berri Barmera Council, City of Port Adelaide Enfield; City of Salisbury and Rural City of Murray Bridge) provided formal responses. All the responses supported the proposed changes and some offered some enlarged detail on internal structures and management. Importantly, the need for clarity and certainty in resourcing the emergency management function was a general concern. There was particular emphasis on the need to appropriately resource the ZEMC and the proposed ZESTs.
LGA of SAReview of the State Emergency Management Plan – Submission Page 15 of 16 ECM 637037 148 Frome St Adelaide SA 5000
GPO Box 2693 Adelaide SA 5001
T (08) 8224 2000
F (08) 8232 6336