<strong>Australian</strong> & <strong>New</strong> Zeal<strong>and</strong> <strong>Disaster</strong> <strong>and</strong> Emergency Management Conference 28-30 May <strong>2013</strong> I Mercure Hotel, Brisbane EARTH: FIRE & RAIN POSTER ABSTRACTS <strong>2013</strong> www.anzdmc.com.au DISASTER & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT In association with
Mr Mark Armstrong Director, Full Capacity Co Author - Mr Don Quinn, Associate, Full Capacity Beyond recovery …………. Reconstruction as the ‘fifth phase’ <strong>of</strong> disaster management The PPRR (Prevention Preparedness Response Recovery) model has been a widely accepted model for emergency management planning in <strong>Australian</strong> in recent decades. Yet the political <strong>and</strong> policy legacies <strong>of</strong> recent major disaster events suggest that PPRR is not as ‘comprehensive’ as it is <strong>of</strong>ten described. An analysis <strong>of</strong> practice suggests that there is actually a distinct ‘fifth phase’, commonly called reconstruction. Cyclone Larry, The Victorian Bushfires <strong>of</strong> 2009, the Queensl<strong>and</strong> flood <strong>and</strong> weather events <strong>of</strong> 2010/11 <strong>and</strong> <strong>2013</strong> all saw extensive post-recovery activities undertaken by specially formed authorities. These bodies all had roles not defined in State <strong>Disaster</strong> Management Arrangements <strong>and</strong> they had to be integrated within the normal machinery <strong>of</strong> government to achieve their purposes. They conducted a range <strong>of</strong> activities including coordinating NDRRA funding submissions, making recommendations for medium term mitigation measures <strong>and</strong> coordinating the management <strong>of</strong> donations. These Authorities, whilst successful, all formed from scratch, in the midst <strong>of</strong> crisis, without an existing legislative or conceptual framework to guide activity <strong>and</strong> facilitate integration. This situation, underst<strong>and</strong>ably, resulted in missed opportunities, friction amongst participating agencies, bureaucratic inertia <strong>and</strong> ad-hoc arrangements. These experiences suggest that there is an opportunity to anticipate <strong>and</strong> plan for reconstruction activities as part <strong>of</strong> a truly comprehensive approach. In doing so, there is an opportunity to bring together two groups <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionals to collaborate more: emergency planners <strong>and</strong> emergency managers. The latter develop their own emergency operations plans, which are in the vast majority <strong>of</strong> cases focused almost exclusively on immediate response <strong>and</strong> recovery functions following a disaster. Moreover, the discussion between planners <strong>and</strong> emergency managers, particularly if augmented by environmental <strong>and</strong> sustainable development perspectives, could open up new opportunities <strong>and</strong> approaches for post-disaster betterment. This paper will seek to summarise the important common themes from the post-recovery activities in recent <strong>Australian</strong> disasters <strong>and</strong> then provide a conceptual policy <strong>and</strong> organisational framework for a fifth, ‘reconstruction’, phase. Ms Amara Bains Director, Strategy & Operations, QLD Alliance for Mental Health Inc. Co Author - Ms Joanne Durham, Lecturer, Aust Centre for Tropical <strong>and</strong> International Health Community based organisations: developing organisational resilience to build back better Most community disaster management plans include reference to an important role for community based organisations (CBOs), yet there is little published information about how resilient these organisations are - an essential capability that enables them to participate in meeting community needs during both acute <strong>and</strong> recovery phases. The advantage <strong>of</strong> CBOs, <strong>of</strong> being community-based, is also their vulnerability, as in all likelihood they too are affected by the disaster. While organisational resilience is <strong>of</strong>ten used synonymously with business continuity, for these groups working at grassroots level, organisational resilience goes beyond business continuity. It includes the ability for an organisation to continue its day-to-day business <strong>and</strong> meet a surge in the dem<strong>and</strong> for services it may not normally provide, as well as the ability stay connected to the community so that it remains a viable entity within the community for building resilience. Therefore, organisational resilience in this context refers to CBO’s capacity to adapt to the needs postdisaster <strong>and</strong> manage its own organisational transformation post-disaster in order to ‘“build back better’” <strong>and</strong> preserve its role in building <strong>and</strong> promoting community resilience. Despite the crucial role CBOs play in all stages <strong>of</strong> the disaster management process, there is limited underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> how to evaluate <strong>and</strong> develop CBOs’ resilience. The purpose <strong>of</strong> this paper is to begin to address this crucial gap in the literature. Drawing on <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>New</strong> Zeal<strong>and</strong> published research <strong>and</strong> a comprehensive literature review followed by a qualitative analysis <strong>of</strong> the literature <strong>and</strong> the authors’ experience in Indonesia, Cambodia <strong>and</strong> south Sudan, this paper uses a systems approach to analyse CBO resilience. We
Change language