Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group ......(CEG) at its meeting on 14th February...

Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Joint Committee

Agenda

Date: Monday, 2 March, 2020

Time: 1:00 pm

Location: Te Puia Room, Genesis Building

Bryce Street

Hamilton

Members: Cr H Vercoe (Waikato Regional Council) - ChairCr A Park (Taupō District Council) - Deputy ChairCr M Bunting (Hamilton City Council)Cr P Buckthought (Hauraki District Council)Cr K Tappin (Matamata Piako District Council)Cr A Williams (Otorohanga District Council)Cr T Lee (South Waikato District Council)Cr S Christie (Thames - Coromandel District Council)Cr N Smith (Waikato District Council)Cr L Brown (Waipa District Council)Cr A Goddard (Waitomo District Council)

Alternates: Chair R Rimmington (Alternate - Waikato Regional Council)Cr K Naidoo-Rauf (Alternate - Hamilton City Council)Mayor T Adams (Alternate - Hauraki District Council)Mayor A Tanner (Alternate - Matamata Piako District Council)Mayor Max Baxter (Alternate - Otorohanga District Council)Cr P Schulte (Alternate - South Waikato District Council)Mayor D Trewavas (Alternate - Taupō District Council)Mayor S Goudie (Alternate - Thames - Coromandel District Council)Mayor J Mylchreest (Alternate - Waipa District Council)Mayor J Robertson (Alternate - Waitomo District Council)

Notice of Meeting:I hereby give notice that an ordinary Meeting of the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Groupwill be held as detailed above. VRJ PayneChief Executive Officer

Pages

1. Apologies

2. Confirmation of Agenda

3. Disclosures of Interest

4. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meeting 6

Confirmation of the minutes of the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency ManagementGroup Joint Committee Meeting held on 9 December 2019.

5. Tsunami Warning Sirens: Waikato CDEM Group 11

Report to provide the Joint Committee an opportunity to consider the position of theWaikato CDEM Group in relation to the use of tsunami warning sirens, specifically in thecontext of compliance with the NEMA (MCDEM) Technical Standard [TS03/14].

6. Appointment of Local Controllers - Otorohanga District Council 19

Report to provide the Joint Committee with an opportunity to approve the appointment ofa Local Controller.

7. Report to consider method of strategic planning for recovery 25

Report sets out the strategic planning for recovery approach that is proposed to be used bythe Group as set out in the draft Group Recovery Plan document.

8. CDEM Group and Local Welfare Managers - Retrospective Confirmation of Appointments 55

Report to provide the Joint Committee with an opportunity to confirm and acknowledgethe appointments of Local Welfare Managers previously made to the Group MemberCouncils.

9. Summary Report- CEG Meeting 57

Report to provide a summary of what was discussed by the Coordinating Executive Group(CEG) at its meeting on 14th February 2020.

10. Verbal report on the Hamilton City Council response in support of Whakaari 58

Report to provide information about Hamilton City’s response in support of the Whakaariemergency in December 2019.

11. Group Managers Report 59

Report to provide an opportunity for Joint Committee to receive an update on somecontemporary issues for emergency management and to allow consideration of theseissues in the context of members’ responsibilities in the four (4) R’s.

12. Group Work Plan - Progress towards completion of priority 1 actions 60

Report to provide the Joint Committee with an update on the activities of the GEMO andGroup Member Councils, relative to the priority one actions in the Group Plan.

13. Update from the National Emergency Management Agency 64

Report to provide information from the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

14. Presentation of certificates 68

To provide an opportunity for the Joint Committee to acknowledge those personnel whohave deployed in support of emergency responses.

15. Items for next meeting

Members to raise any items for discussion at the next meeting

Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group REPORTING TO:

Each participating territorial authority within the Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group.

CONSTITUTION:

Mayor of each participating territorial authority or delegated elected member One (1) Councillor from Waikato Regional Council Any appointing authority may appoint an alternate who shall have full voting rights in the absence of the member they are representing

QUORUM: Six (6) members.

MEETING FREQUENCY:

Quarterly or as required.

CONTINUITY:

The Waikato CDEM Group is not discharged as a consequence of the triennial local government election process.

OBJECTIVE:

To provide governance and oversight of all planning, co-ordination and delivery of Civil Defence Emergency Management within the Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group area.

SCOPE OF ACTIVITY: The functions of the Group and of each member of the Group are to1:

1. In relation to relevant hazards and risks:

(a) identify, assess, and manage those hazards and risks; and

(b) consult and communicate about risks; and

(c) identify and implement cost-effective risk reduction; and

2. Take all steps necessary on an ongoing basis to maintain and provide, or to arrange the provision of, or to otherwise make available suitably trained and competent personnel, including volunteers, and an appropriate organisational structure for those personnel, for effective civil defence emergency management in the Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group area; and

3. Take all steps necessary on an ongoing basis to maintain and provide, or to arrange the provision of, or otherwise to make available material, services, information, and any other resources for effective civil defence emergency management in the Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group area; and

4. Respond to and manage the adverse effects of emergencies in the Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group area; and

5. Plan and carry out recovery activities; and

6. When requested, assist other civil defence emergency management groups in the implementation of civil defence emergency management in their areas (having regard to the competing civil defence emergency management demands within the Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group area and any other requests for assistance from other civil defence emergency management groups); and

1 Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 s 17

7. Within the Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group area, promote and raise public awareness of, and compliance with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (the act) and legislative provisions relevant to the purpose of the Act; and

8. Monitor and report on compliance within the Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group area with the Act and legislative provisions relevant to the purpose of the Act; and

9. Develop, approve, implement, and monitor the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan and regularly review the plan; and

10. Participate in the development of the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy and the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan; and

11. Promote civil defence emergency management in the Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group area that is consistent with the purpose of the Act.

POWER TO ACT:

1. The Waikato Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group has all the powers that are reasonably necessary or expedient to enable it to perform its functions, including the power to delegate any of its functions to members, the Group Controller, or other persons2.

2. Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Group may3—

a. recruit and train volunteers for civil defence emergency management tasks:

b. conduct civil defence emergency management training exercises, practices, and rehearsals:

c. issue and control the use of signs, badges, insignia, and identification passes authorised under this Act, regulations made under this Act, or any civil defence emergency management plan:

d. provide, maintain, control, and operate warning systems:

e. provide communications, equipment, accommodation, and facilities for the exercise of its functions and powers during an emergency:

f. exercise any other powers that are necessary to give effect to any civil defence emergency management plan.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

1. Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002

2. Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group - Constitution Pursuant to the Civil Defence Emergency

Management Act 2002 (Doc # 2157189)

2 Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 s 18 (1) 3 Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 s 18 (2)

Doc # 15574531

Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Group Joint Committee

MINUTES

Members Present: Cr H Vercoe (Waikato Regional Council)

Cr M Bunting (Hamilton City Council)

Cr P Buckthought (Hauraki District Council)

Cr K Tappin (Matamata Piako District Council)

Cr A Williams (Otorohanga District Council)

Cr T Lee (South Waikato District Council)

Cr A Park (Taupō District Council)

Cr S Christie (Thames - Coromandel District Council)

Cr L Brown (Waipa District Council)

Cr A Goddard (Waitomo District Council)

Others Present: L Cavers - Chair - Co-ordinating Executive Group (CEG)

S Vowles - Senior Regional Emergency Management Advisor - National

Emergency Management Agency

J Snowball - Group Controller - Waikato Group Emergency Management

Office

M Bang - Team Leader Western Waikato Group Controller - Waikato Group

Emergency Management Office

M Meads - Independent contractor to the Waikato Group Emergency

Management Office

B Kiely - Assistant Area Commander - Fire and Emergency NZ

Inspector K Thornton - District Operations Manager - Waikato - NZ Police

G Talbot - Group Recovery Manager - Waikato Group Emergency

Management Office

V Oosthoek - Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Officer -

Matamata Piako District Council

J Regler - Administrative Coordinator - Waikato Group Emergency

Management Office

W Allan – Controller and CEG Member - Waipa District Council

S McLeay - Acting Democracy Advisor

Date:

Location:

Monday, 9 December, 2019, 10:03 am

Te Puia Room, Genesis Building

Bryce Street

Hamilton

Minutes – Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Joint Committee

Doc # 15574531 Page 2

1. Apologies

CD19/37

Moved by: Cr T Lee

Seconded by: Cr L Brown

RESOLVED (SECTION A)

That the apologies of Cr Smith for absence; Cr Buckthought for lateness and Cr Bunting for

early departure be accepted.

The motion was put and carried

2. Election of Chair

The report was presented by L Cavers. Cr Vercoe was nominated for the position of Chair by

Cr Christie. The nomination was seconded by Cr Bunting. There were no other nominations.

Voting unanimously supported the appointment. Cr Vercoe was declared Chair.

Cr Vercoe nominated Cr Park as Deputy Chair. The nomination was seconded by Cr Lee. There

were no other nominations. Voting unanimously supported the appointment. Cr Park was

declared Deputy Chair.

CD19/38

Moved by: Cr S Christie

Seconded by: Cr T Lee


1. That the report 'Election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson 2019-2022 Triennium'

(Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Joint Committee 9 December

2019) be received.

2. That pursuant to clause 25 of schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Waikato

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Joint Committee (WCDEMJC) adopts

system B as the voting procedure for the election of the Chair and Deputy Chair of

WCDEMJC.

3. That in the event of a tie, the tie shall be resolved by way of random selection of names

from a hat.

4. That Cr H Vercoe be appointed the Chair of Waikato Civil Defence Emergency

Management Joint Committee for the 2019-2022 triennium.

5. That Cr A Park be appointed the Deputy Chair of Waikato Civil Defence Emergency

Management Joint Committee for the 2019-2022 triennium.



Doc # 15574531 Page 3

3. Confirmation of Agenda

CD19/39

Moved by: Cr H Vercoe

Seconded by: Cr A Park


That the agenda of the meeting of the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Joint Committee of 9 December 2019, as circulated, be confirmed as the business of the

meeting.


4. Disclosures of Interest

There were no disclosures of interest.

5. Minutes of Previous Meeting

CD19/40

Moved by: Cr A Goddard



That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency

Management Joint Committee held on 2 September 2019 be received and accepted as a true

and accurate record.


6. Financial Year 2020 / 2021 Budget

The report was presented by the Group Controller Waikato (J Snowball).

CD19/41

Moved by: Cr M Bunting

Seconded by: Cr S Christie


1. That the report 'Group Emergency Management Office Budget - FY 2020 / 2021' (Waikato

Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Committee 9 December 2019) be received.

2. That the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Office Budget for the financial

year 2020 / 2021 be approved.


Cr Buckthought joined the meeting at 10.25am.


Doc # 15574531 Page 4

7. Monitoring and Evaluation Report

The report was presented by independent contractor to the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency

Management Office (M Meads).

CD19/42

Moved by: Cr A Park

Seconded by: Cr K Tappin


That the report 'Waikato CDEM Group monitoring and evaluation assessment' (Waikato

Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Committee 9 December 2019) be received.


8. Induction

The report was presented by the Team Leader Western Group Controller (M Bang) and Group

Manager and Controller (J Snowball).

Cr Bunting left the meeting at 10.57am.

CD19/43

Moved by: Cr L Brown

Seconded by: Cr A Park


That the report 'Joint Committee induction' (Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management

Joint Committee 9 December 2019) be received.


9. Group Work Plan - Progress Report on Priority 1 Actions

The report was presented by the Group Controller Waikato (J Snowball).

CD19/44

Moved by: Cr S Christie



That the report 'Group Work Plan – Progress towards completion of priority 1 actions'

(Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Committee 9 December 2019) be

received.



Doc # 15574531 Page 5

10. National Emergency Management Agency Update

The report was presented by the Senior Regional Emergency Management Advisor - National

Emergency Management Agency (S Vowles).

CD19/45

Moved by: Cr A Goddard



That the report 'Update on the formation of the National Emergency Management Agency'

(Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Committee 9 December 2019) be

received.


The meeting was closed at 12.30pm.

15845183

Report to Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee

Date: 20 February 2020

Author: Mark Bang – GEMO Team Leader

Authoriser: Julian Snowball – Group Manager / Controller

Subject: Tsunami Warning Sirens: Waikato CDEM Group

Section: A (Committee has delegated authority to make decision)

Purpose

1. To provide the Joint Committee an opportunity to consider the position of the Waikato CDEM Group in relation to the use of tsunami warning sirens, specifically in the context of compliance with the NEMA (MCDEM) Technical Standard [TS03/14].

Executive Summary 2. In 2014, MCDEM released a technical standard for tsunami sirens. The technical standard is relevant

to both the siren-signal (tone) and the public education regarding the meaning of the siren. A warning siren for tsunami is intended to mean “seek further information”; not automatically ‘evacuate’.

3. None of the sirens in the Waikato CDEM Group currently conform to the 2014 MCDEM technical

standard for siren-signal. Our public education activities promote a consistent message of the importance of the recognition of natural warning signs, meeting some of the MCDEM technical standard. Currently, the public education regarding the siren meaning, does not currently meet the technical standard.

4. The date for full compliance with the Technical Standard, is 30th June 2020. Not all Waikato CDEM

Group members will be able to be compliant with the siren-signal standard by the due date. Strong representations have been made by Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC), informing the CDEM Group that they require additional time, beyond 30th June 2020, for them to be compliant.

5. TCDC’s current thinking regarding their approach to compliance, is not to have sirens in the long-term.

This phase out of sirens is expected to occur as new technology is phased in and/or the current sirens become operationally unviable (whichever comes first).

6. TCDC have stated they will prioritise what they believe are the safety needs of their community, over

compliance with the standard in the short to medium-term.

Staff Recommendation: 1. That the report “Tsunami Warning Sirens: Waikato CDEM Group be received, and; 2. That Joint Committee resolves that all sirens used for tsunami warnings are compliant with all aspects

of the Technical Standard [TS03/14] with effect from 30th June 2020 (preferred option - Option 1 below) 3. The Joint Committee considers representations made by Thames-Coromandel District Council

regarding additional time being necessary, beyond 30th June 2020, for them to be compliant (see option 3)

15845183

4. That Joint Committee directs the GEMO to prepare and coordinate a strong, targeted and continuous public education and awareness campaign, to ensure consistent messgaing across all coastal communities in the CDEM Group area,

Background 7. Many coastal communities within the Waikato CDEM Group currently rely on warning sirens for their

tsunami risk. 8. The existing sirens are a mixture of community owned; community purchased, and council adopted;

or Fire Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) owned and operated, with Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) with local authorities and communities.

9. In 2014, MCDEM released a Technical Standard for tsunami sirens. This technical standard states;

a. This standard should be applied by CDEM Groups and territorial authorities for all new siren

installations from the date the standard is published.

b. The signals of existing sirens used for tsunami warnings at the time of publication of this

standard should conform to this standard by 30 June 2020.

c. All other aspects of this standard should be applied to existing sirens used for tsunami

warnings from the date the standard is published.

10. None of the sirens in the Waikato CDEM Group conform to the 2014 MCDEM technical standard for

siren signal.

11. TCDC is the member authority most impacted by the 2014 MCDEM technical standard, as they have the highest risk exposure to a local-source tsunami, and therefore have the most sirens in our region (circa 30 sirens)

12. Our public education activities meet some of the 2014 MCDEM technical standard, in that we promote

a consistent message of the importance of the recognition of natural warning signs. 13. This matter has been discussed at the 14th February 2020 CEG meeting and the key points discussed

were:

The Waikato CDEM Group provided the original leadership, at a national level, to establish a consistent approach to tsunami sirens.

An upgrade of existing siren systems will require a significant financial undertaking for a member authority. (A revised financial impact assessment of circa $5m, for TCDC alone, has been provided).

The development of alternative public warning systems, since 2014, means that there are many more, non-siren, alerting options available to coastal communites; such as Emergency Management Alerts (EMA) for cell phones and the Red Cross Hazards App.

Work is at an advanced stage, by TCDC, to develop additional alerting devices for those locations which cannot receive Emergency Management Alerts on cell phones; or have limited mobile data connectivity for mobile apps.

Some communities are financially and psycologically invested in existing siren networks.

14. On 19th Februaury the Director of National Emergency Management Agency wrote to the Waikato CDEM Group CEG Chair, in respect to the tsunami sirens technical standard and this is shown in Attachment 2. In the letter the Director wrote: “Please provide me by 1 April 2020 with a report on your CDEM Group’s progress towards meeting the Standard. For those Groups who will not meet the Standard by 30 June 2020, please include with your reprots, the plans for conforming with TS03/14”.

Issue

15845183

15. There is currently no group-wide consistent policy to ensure the sirens in the Waikato CDEM Group conform with the technical standard; such as ensuring the meaning / intent of the tsunami siren is “seek further information” and not automatically ascribed to ‘evacuate’.

16. One CDEM Group member council, TCDC, has identified they are unable to be compliant with the

siren-signal standard by the due date. TCDC have stated they will prioritise what they believe are the safety needs of their community, over compliance with the standard in the short to medium-term.

Options and analysis

Option One – comply with the technical standard

Description of option

The Joint Committee resolves that all sirens used for tsunami warnings are compliant with all aspects of the Technical Standard [TS03/14] with effect from 30th June 2020;

Impact assessment

Legal Implications This will achieve compliance with the Technical Standard

Risk Many sirens will not be compliant and, therefore, their use for warning communities of a tsunami risk, should be discontinued. If the use of non-compliant sirens is discontinued, some communities may not receive warning from Emergency Mobile Alert and Red Cross Hazard App due to gaps in cell phone coverage, or a lack of knowledge of alternative warning solutions; due to the hitherto dependence on sirens as a primary warning tool. CDEM Group member councils may decide to continue to operate sirens and public associated education that is not compliant with the standard.

Policy Implications / Strategic Links

The Group warning system strategy, which is binding on CDEM Group members (as it is referenced in the group plan) highlights the most effective warnings for local source tsunamis are the natural warning signs. Sirens are identified as being less effective; however, there is no directive regarding the siren standard within the strategy. A decision to require all CDEM Group members to comply with the Technical Standard [TS03/14], would have unintended implications for a member of the CDEM Group that did not comply. For example, there are implications for the continued use of shared resources / shared services, such as CDEM Controllers and/or 24/7 duty officers, in member councils who continue to operate sirens and public associated education that is not compliant with the standard.

Financial Implications

The cost of making existing sirens compliant will be significant (circa $5m) and largely affects one District Council (Thames Coromandel District). The implementation of this option will need to be accommpanied by a strong,

targeted and continuous public education and awareness campaign.

Community Outcomes

There would be implications on LTP outcomes for the affected Councils.

Community Views

There are high levels of community investment (psychological and financial) where tsunami sirens are present.

Customer impact People expect to be warned of disasters. It is perceived by many in our coastal communities that sirens are vital to public safety, especially in high tourist / visitor

15845183

areas. The withdrawal of non-compliant sirens may create public concern regarding their safety.

Option two – Status Quo


The Joint Committee (JC) accepts that sirens used for tsunami warnings do not form part of a warning system that is provided by, maintained by, controlled by or operated by the CDEM Group. The JC acknowledges the sirens managed by member authorities will not comply with the Technical Standard [TS03/14]. It is a matter for member authorities to manage their individual warning systems and be accountable for their effectiveness.

Impact assessment

Legal Implications This may make the Group subject to compliance measures from NEMA.

Risk Public safety is compromised due to domestic and international visitors to our coastlines not recognising or understanding our sirens. The Group and/or its members risk legal challenge in the event of injury (or worse) attributed to public safety being compromised. There is a reputational risk for the CDEM Group and its members; especially as the Waikato CDEM Group lobbied central government for this consistent siren standard, which we are subsequently not compliant with. Going forward, there is nothing in place to prevent any Waikato CDEM Group member councils procuring or commissioning new sirens that are non-compliant, which will exacerbate this issue.


The Group warning system strategy, which is binding on CDEM Group members (as it is referenced in the group plan) highlights the most effective warnings for local source tsunamis are the natural warning signs. Sirens are identified as being less effective, however there is no directive regarding the siren standard within the strategy.


None

Community Outcomes

None – Status quo.

Community Views

There are high levels of community investment (psychological and financial) where tsunami sirens are present.

Customer impact People expect to be warned of disasters. It is perceived by many in our coastal communities that sirens are vital to public safety, especially in high tourist / visitor areas. The continuation of non-compliant sirens may be well-received by many locally; however, these same customers are potentially put at risk when they travel to other coastal areas outside our CDEM Group area, and potentially don’t recognise or understand the meaning of the nationally consistent siren.

15845183

Option three – Wider Regional Compliance with an Extension period for TCDC


The Joint Committee (JC) resolves that all sirens used for tsunami warnings are compliant with all aspects of the Technical Standard [TS03/14] with effect from 30th June 2020 (the due date). In the case of Thames-Coromandel District Council only; the JC recognises the cost implications for making all their siren-signals compliant by the due date. The JC therefore requires TCDC to provide a detailed plan, outlining how, when and over what timeframes they intend to phase out non-compliant siren-signals. JC to agree a start and completion date for the TCDC plan and use its CDEM Act monitoring role to give oversight to the delivery. TCDC must adopt the technical standard, regarding the meaning ascribed to a tsunami warning siren, with immediate effect. This is irrespective of the extension agreed by JC to meet the technical standard for the siren-signal.

Impact assessment

Legal Implications This may still make the Group subject to compliance measures from NEMA

Risk Public safety is compromised due to domestic and international visitors to our coastlines not recognising our siren signals in the short to medium-term. The Group and/or its members risk legal challenge in the event of injury (or worse) attributed to public safety being compromised. There is a reputational risk for the CDEM Group and its members; especially as the Waikato Group lobbied central government for a consistent siren standard, which we have had six (6) years to comply with and still require more time. Any agreement by JC to officially support this proposal, creates a transference of some risk to the Waikato CDEM Group. Should TCDC not deliver on any plan agreed by JC, the remedies for the JC maybe limited.


The Group warning system strategy, which is binding on CDEM Group members (as it is referenced in the group plan) highlights the most effective warnings for local source tsunamis are the natural warning signs. Sirens are identified as being less effective, however there is no directive regarding the siren standard within the strategy.


The cost of the compliance measures is currently considered disproportionate (circa $5m) by TCDC. The implementation of this option will need to be accommpanied by a strong,

targeted and continuous public education and awareness campaign; which may

require additional resource in the short-term

Community Outcomes

Communities will have a consistent understanding of the meaning ascribed to a Tsunami siren and know what is expected of them.

Community Views

There are high levels of community investment (psychological and financial) where tsunami sirens are present. The continued presence of a siren, irrespective of a change of signal and meaning, will be viewed positively. A proposed increased council rate (general or targeted) to finance the changes required, may be viewed negatively.

Customer impact People expect to be warned of disasters. It is perceived by many in our coastal communities that sirens are vital to public safety, especially in high tourist / visitor areas. The continuation of non-compliant sirens, in the short to medium-term, may be well-received by many locally. These same customers / communities will have a

15845183

consistent understanding of the meaning ascribed to a Tsunami siren and know what is expected of them when they travel to other coastal communities within NZ.

Legislative context

17. Section 17 of the CDEM Act states the functions of a CDEM Group, and each of its members, are to…”(h)monitor and report on compliance within its area with this Act and legislative provisions relevant to the purposes of this Act”…

18. Section 18 of the CDEM Act states; “A Civil Defence Emergency Group has all the powers that are reasonably necessary or expedient to enable it to perform its functions”… and “a Group may- provide, maintain, control and operate warning systems.”

Preferred Option 19. Option one (1) – to comply with Technical Standard [TS03/14] is the recommended option for the

Group:

Public safety is maximised

Legal risk is reduced

Reputational risk is mitigated

Policy Considerations 20. The CDEM Group does not have a binding policy relative to tsunami sirens. There is a Group warning

system strategy, which is binding on CDEM Group members, as it is referenced in the Group Plan. The strategy highlights the most effective warnings for local source tsunamis as being natural warning signs. Sirens are identified as being less effective. The strategy contains no reference to the Technical Standard [TS03/14].

Conclusion 21. The date for full compliance with the Technical Standard for tsunami sirens, is 30th June 2020. Not

all Waikato CDEM Group members will be able to be compliant with the siren-signal standard by the due date.

22. Strong representations have been made by Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) regarding additional time being necessary, beyond 30th June 2020, for them to be compliant with the standard.

23. TCDC have stated they will prioritise what they believe are the safety needs of their community, over compliance with the standard in the short-term.

24. The Director of NEMA has requested the Group give an update on its compliance to TS03/14, by 1 April 2020.

25. The Joint Committee is requested to consider the options outlined and decide the position of the Waikato CDEM Group in relation Tsunami Siren Technical Standard [TS03/14].

Attachments Letter to Waikato CDEM Group CEG Chair from NEMA Director – “Tsunami Sirens Technical Standard”

References CDEM Group Plan - https://www.waikatoregioncdemg.govt.nz/policy-and-plans/group-plan/ CDEM Act 2002 - http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0033/latest/DLM149789.html?src=qs NEMA Tsunami Warning Sirens – Technical Standard [TS03/14] - https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/resources/tsunami-warning-sirens/ Review of public alerting options with recommendations for the Waikato CDEM Group – GNS Science Report 2015/41 Waikato CDEM Group “Warning Systems Strategy 2014 – 2020” approved 01/09/2014

https://www.waikatoregioncdemg.govt.nz/policy-and-plans/group-plan/

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0033/latest/DLM149789.html?src=qs

https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/resources/tsunami-warning-sirens/

National Emergency Management Agency Te Rakau Whakamarumaru

19 February 2020

Langley Cavers

Waikato CDEM Group, Coordinating Executive Group Chair

cc: Julian Snowball, Waikato CDEM Group Manager

Suzanne Vowles, Regional Emergency Management Advisor

Dear Langley,

Tsunami Sirens Technical Standard

In July 2014, the then Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management issued Technical Standard

[TS03/14] to achieve national consistency in the use of sirens for tsunami warnings across New

Zealand. The Standard was issued under section 9(3) of the CDEM Act, and applies to all CDEM

Groups and territorial authorities. It required all new tsunami siren installations to conform with the

Standard from the date of publication, and for the signals, use and public education of existing sirens

used for tsunami warnings at the time of publication to conform to the standard by 30 June 2020.

Over recent years , and especially since the Kaikoura earthquake and tsunami warning of November

2016, we have made significant advances with regards to tsunami warning in New Zealand. This

includes launching Emergency Mobile Alerts, establishing a 24/7 monitoring and assessment capacity

by GNS Science, improving our understanding of the Kermadec Trench, developing warning

templates for local source tsunami events, and rolling out the "long or strong, get gone" public

education campaign.

Further to the above, New Zealand is establishing a network of twelve Deep-ocean Assessment and

Reporting of Tsunami (DART) buoys to detect tsunami close to New Zealand and in the Pacific. Four

buoys have already been deployed and are operational and more are scheduled for deployment this

year. This network will provide valuable data to the 24/7 monitoring and assessment capability at GNS

Science. The data from the DART buoys supports more accurate tsunami warnings and also more

rapid confirmation of no threat situations.

However, our efforts towards improvement cannot end there. As recently as 2018, the Government

reinforced the importance of effective tsunami warnings in its response to the report Better Responses

to Emergencies and Other Disasters in New Zealand. Consistent use of sirens for tsunami warning is

Level 4, Bowen House, Parliament Buildings I PO Box 5010, Wellington 6145, New Zealand

Tel: +64 4 830 5100 I Fax: +64 4 817 8554 1em [email protected] I www.civildefence.govt.nz

The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMAJ was established on 1 December 2019, replacing the Ministry of Civil Defence &

Emergency Management. NEMA is an autonomous departmental agency, hosted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

•

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/

a key component of improving New Zealand's tsunami warning system, which is why compliance with

the Tsunami Sirens Technical Standard is so important.

CDEM Groups were instrumental in the decision to create a national standard for tsunami sirens. The

Standard was developed at the request of and in collaboration with CDEM Groups, who also advised

that a compliance date of June 2020 would provide sufficient lead-in time for all CDEM Groups to

meet the Standard.

Only four months remain for CDEM Groups and territorial authorities to ensure they conform with

TS03/14. In accordance with sections 8(2)(f) and 9(1) of the CDEM Act, I am writing to request an

update from your Group on progress in meeting the Standard. I have also asked our Regional

Emergency Management Advisors to discuss this matter with you at your next Coordinating Executive

Group and Joint Committee meetings.

Please provide me by 1 April 2020 with a report on your CDEM Group's progress towards meeting

the Standard . For those Groups who will not meet the Standard by 30 June 2020, please include with

your report, the plans for conforming with TS03/14.

Nga mihi,

Sarah Stuart-Black

Director, CDEM

15839260

Report to Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee Date: 20 February 2020 Author: Mark Bang – GEMO Team Leader Authoriser: Julian Snowball – Group Manager / Controller Subject: Appointment of Local Controllers – Otorohanga District Council Section: A (Committee has authority to make decision)

Purpose 1. To provide the Joint Committee with an opportunity to approve the appointment of a Local Controller. Executive Summary 2. In accordance with the Waikato CDEM Group Controller Policy, Otorohanga District Council (OTODC) have

nominated the appointment of the Council CEO, Tanya Winter, as a tier 3 local controller. 3. In accordance with the Group Controller Policy, the candidate has been assessed and is recommended for

appointment to tier 3 Controller for Otorohanga District Council area, by the Joint Committee. 4. On this occasion, as the candidate is a Chief Executive, the Statutory Roles Advisory and Appointment

Committee (STRAAC) recommends this appointment be reviewed in the event of any significant change to the governance and/or executive of OTODC.

Staff Recommendation: 1. THAT the report Appointment of Local Controllers – Otorohanga District Council (Waikato CDEM

Group Joint Committee 2 March 2020) be received, and; 2. THAT the Joint Committee appoint T Winter as a Local Controller for Otorohanga District Council, and; 3. THAT the Joint Committee directs this appointment be reviewed in the event of any significant change

to the governance or executive of OTODC.

Background 5. Section 27 of the CDEM Act 2002, states:

A Civil Defence Emergency Management Group may appoint 1 or more persons to be a Local Controller, and direct that person or persons to carry out any of the functions and duties of, or delegated to, the Group Controller of the Group and to exercise the powers of Controllers in the area for which the Group Controller is appointed, including, but not limited to, the powers in sections 86 to 94.

Despite anything in subsection (1), a Local Controller must follow any directions given by the Group Controller during an emergency.

6. The Waikato CDEM Group Plan states, “Within the Waikato CDEM Group, Local Controllers are appointed

to direct or coordinate the response to an emergency at the local level. Where these appointments are made, the functions and powers available to local controllers are derived from those provided to the Group Controller by the CDEM Act, but with the following important distinctions:

Local Controllers are authorised to exercise the functions and powers only within the territorial authority(s) to which they are appointed

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0033/51.0/link.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed81785e94_27(1)_25_se&p=2&id=DLM150799#DLM150799

15839260

7. The Group Controller Policy further states that, given the duties that Council CEOs need to perform, they should not be appointed as Controller, unless they can demonstrate the ability to provide adequate and sustained back fill.

8. In this instance the candidate is CEO for OTODC. The OTODC has provided written assurance, via a Council resolution, that there is enough executive level resource and redundancy, within the District Council, to provide sustained backfill of the CEO function, if required.

9. There is sufficient resilience within the Controller Pool for OTODC, provided through shared arrangements with neighbouring local authorities, to mitigate the risk of the candidate being regularly abstracted to perform the role of Local Controller.

10. The Controller Candidate is suitably experienced, having performed a Controller role at a Group and Local level, elsewhere in NZ. She meets the requisite qualification criteria in Group Controller Policy. See attached short biography.

11. In recommending the appointment, the STRAAC noted that; “Ms. Winter is a strong candidate who brings passion for emergency management, organisational leadership experience at the highest levels and a depth of relevant emergency management experience. The candidate’s home council (OTODC) has well established, and mature, governance and executives. This stability and maturity within OTODC, provides STRAAC with confidence that any potential conflicts of interest, between the Controller role and CE role, are well understood and will be managed appropriately. Any significant change to OTODC’s governance and/or executive, should trigger a review of this appointment, to seek assurances that the roles and responsibilities continue to be well understood and/or the resilience at executive level, to backfill for the CE, can continue to be provided”.

Legislative context 12. The decision of the Joint Committee is made pursuant to Section 27(1) of the Civil Defence Emergency

Management Act 2002. Policy Considerations 13. To the best of the writer’s knowledge, and subject to the Joint Committee approving the amendments to

the Group Controller Policy, this decision is not significantly inconsistent with nor is anticipated to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with any policy adopted by the Waikato CDEM Group or any plan required by the Local Government Act 2002 or any other enactment.

Click or tap here to enter text.

ITEM APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE CIVIL DEFENCE LOCAL CONTROLLER

To: His Worship the Mayor & Councillors Otorohanga District Council

From: Environmental Services Manager

Date: 20 August 2019

Relevant Community Outcomes

The Otorohanga District is a safe place to live

Ensure services and facilities meet the needs of the Community

Manage the natural and physical environment in a sustainable manner

Foster an involved and engaged Community Summary The purpose of this report is to seek approval from Council to recommend to the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group (CEG) (and ultimately the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Joint Committee) that Chief Executive Tanya Winter be appointed an alternate Local Controller for the Otorohanga district. Staff Recommendation That Council recommend to the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group (CEG) that Tanya Winter, Chief Executive, Otorohanga District Council be appointed as an alternate Local Controller for the Otorohanga district. Background Local Controllers are appointed to provide for any situation where an emergency arises within one or more territorial authorities, and to ensure that effective response operations can be conducted throughout the Waikato Region during a state of emergency. The Local Controllers must, during a state of emergency for the area for which they are authorised, direct and coordinate the use of personnel, materials, information, services and other resources made available by departments, CDEM Groups and other persons. The position of Local Controller for the Otorohanga District is currently held by the Environmental Services Manager, Andrew Loe. In February 2019 Council endorsed the appointment of two alternative Local Controllers – David Simes and Terrena Kelly. Their appointment was subsequently confirmed by the Joint Committee. The expectations and liabilities for Local Controllers have significantly increased over time, and the role is becoming “professionalised” with high expectations that Controllers will have appropriate training, skills and experience. Current Situation Otorohanga currently has one Controller – Andrew Loe - and two alternate Controllers – David Simes (Waipa District) and Terrena Kelly (Waitomo District). In terms of numbers, three Controllers ensures that the district has a good depth of coverage should a disaster strike, both in terms of the availability of a Controller when the emergency occurs and our ability to ensure that there is a Controller on duty at an activated civil defence headquarters

for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Having said that it is worth noting that both Mr Simes and Ms Kelly are primarily responsible to their “home” councils (Waipa and Waitomo), and would only be available to Otorohanga if they were not required in those districts. In February 2019 Tanya Winter joined Council as Chief Executive. Ms Winter brought with her extensive knowledge, skills, experience and training in Civil Defence and Emergency Management. These are summarised in Appendix 1. Options There are two options. Option 1: That Council supports the recommendation that commences the process to enable Ms Winter be appointed as an alternate Local Controller for the Otorohanga district. Option 2: That Council does not support the recommendation. Legal Considerations The Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002 requires every territorial authority to appoint a Local Controller. In the event of an emergency situation or declared emergency the Controller will direct and control Councils’ response to the event. Policy/Plan Considerations Through the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan, the Waikato CDEM Joint Committee recognises the importance of the Local Controller function to the effective management of CDEM. The Waikato CDEM Group Controller Policy outlines the decision making related to the selection, appointment and review process for local controllers. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Joint Committee to appoint Controllers, based on the endorsement of the relevant local authority. The selection process requires approval at a number of levels:

- Seek Council endorsement for Controller. - Seek CEG endorsement and recommendation to Joint Committee for Controller

Appointment. - Joint Committee to approve appointment of Controller.

In this case the recommendation is to appoint a Chief Executive to the role of Local Controller, and therefore Council’s attention is drawn to Clause 7.2 of the Policy which states:

7.2 Considerations for role exclusion Given the other duties that elected members, CEOs and local authority response staff need to perform during emergencies, they should not be appointed as Waikato CDEMG controllers unless they can demonstrate the ability to provide adequate and sustained backfill.

To address this clause, it is proposed that in situations when Ms Winter is in the role of Local Controller, Corporate Services Manager, Graham Bunn be appointed Acting Chief Executive, with full delegation to act in the role. Ms Winter had a similar arrangement in place in her previous Chief Executive role at Westland District Council and reports that it worked well.

Mr Bunn is selected because he would not have a CDEM role to play in an emergency event, whereas Mr Loe is a Local Controller, and Mr Brady is currently Recovery Manager in the CDEM structure. Financial Considerations While there is no direct financial impact associated with this decision, as was previously stated, Controllers are expected to be appropriately trained for the role, and to attend meetings from time to time. There would be costs associated with this. Significance and Engagement Considerations The appointment of Controllers is assessed against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as being administrative and a low level of significance. This is a Council decision about whether to approve its Chief Executive to undertake other duties alongside her “business as usual” role. Community engagement has not been undertaken, nor is it recommended by staff. Discussion has taken place between Ms Winter and the Chair of the Waikato CEG, Langley Cavers, and the Group Controller, Julian Snowball. Both support this recommendation as long as Council is satisfied that the role of Chief Executive is adequately provided for should Ms Winter be required in the Local Controller role. This is discussed further under Policy/Plan Considerations above. Assessment of Options Option 1: The advantages of Option 1 are that Otorohanga would have a fourth Local Controller available in an emergency. Ms Winter has performed the role in several other Councils and has the appropriate skills, experience and training. She also lives in the Otorohanga district. The disadvantages are that her attention and energy could be taken away from her Chief Executive role to undertake training, attend meetings, and, should an emergency arise, perform the Controller role. Option 2: The advantages of Option 2 are that Ms Winter remains solely focused on her Chief Executive role. The disadvantages are that Otorohanga district misses out on the opportunity to have someone with the appropriate skills, experience and training in a Local Controller role. Preferred Option and Reasons Staff are recommending Option 1. Supporting Ms Winter to be appointed as a Local Controller for the Otorohanga district would increase Council’s CDEM capacity and ensure that the training, skills, experience gained over fifteen years in a range of Councils, would not be lost. Ms Winter would mitigate Clause 7.2 in the Controller Policy by appointing Mr Bunn as Acting Chief Executive with full delegation when she is in the Local Controller role. Andrew Loe ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE FOR TANYA WINTER

2000-04 Welfare Manager at Hutt City Council 2005-19 Over 15 years as a CDEM Controller 2005-17 Local Controller at Waitaki, Hastings and Westland District Councils 2005 Attended two day Controller training programme 2014 Attended a three day CIMS4 course at Tai Poutini Polytech 2015-16 Mentor for Regional Manager, West Coast CDEM Group 2015-16 Halfway through Post Graduate Diploma CDEM at Massey University 2016-17 West Coast CEG Chair 2018 Group Controller Otago Regional Council 2016-17 Attended a five day residential Controller Development Programme

run by Massey University and achieved Certificate of Completion with the three components of the programme completed:

o Online o Residential o Ongoing professional development

2018 Invited to be on the LGNZ Advisory Group that provided advice to Minister Faafoi on the ‘Review: Better Responses to Natural Disasters and Emergencies’

Managed CDEM staff directly at both Waitaki and Westland District Council Controller for many flooding events, including the Waiho River breach of the stopbank

in Franz Josef in April 2016 where a local state of emergency was declared

15859442


Date: 2 March 2020

Author: Gary Talbot, Group Recovery Manager

Authoriser: Julian Snowball, Group Manager / Controller

Subject: Report to consider method of strategic planning for recovery


Purpose 1. This report sets out the strategic planning for recovery approach that is proposed to be used by the Group

as set out in the draft Group Recovery Plan document. This plan is intended to replace the Waikato CDEM Group - Group Recovery Plan 2013 necessitated by changes to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. The proposed methods will require a decision by the Joint Committee to accept the following two models that will be used to support Strategic Planning for Recovery. Those models are;

International Association of Public Participation IAP2 community engagement model, and the

Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways decision making model applied where uncertainty exists

Executive Summary 2. The Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 resulted in a number of changes

pertaining to recovery activities. It is now a requirement under the Civil Defence Emergency management Act 2002 for Groups to undertake strategic planning for recovery along with other recovery activities which includes planning to recover from emergencies.

3. The proposed draft Waikato CDEM Group Recovery Plan comprises two (2) key parts. Part one addresses operational recovery and Part Two – Strategic planning for recovery recommends the use of the International Association for Public Participation IAP2 Community Engagement Model to more effectively work with communities so that they can understand the hazards and risks they are exposed to, and to participate in informed and meaningful decision making for themselves and future generations around the management of those hazards and the risks they pose.

4. A number of Councils including the Waikato Regional Council make use of IAP2 as a community engagement tool.

5. IAP2 as an engagement approach when executed well ensures:

a robust, transparent and collaborative decision-making process,

better shared outcomes with our partners, stakeholders and communities,

increased visibility and public trust of our organisation, and

increased understanding of each other's issues and needs.

6. In the draft plan it is also recommended that the Group make use of the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) model to manage hazards and risks with communities as this approach recognises the dynamic world we live in where needs and priorities are subject to change. This approach recognises that many of the issues communities face are very complex with no one single simple answer.

15859442

7. A number of Councils use IAP2 as a community engagement platform and Hauraki District Council is using the DAPP approach as part of its Kaiaua Coast 2120 projects. The Ministry for the Environment currently endorses the DAPP approach for coastal hazards but over time the same framework could be applied to other hazards.

8. The adoption of these models is in line with the vision and goals of the National Disaster Resilience Strategy (2019);

Our Vision: New Zealand is a disaster resilient nation that acts proactively to manage risks and build resilience in a way that contributes to the wellbeing and prosperity of all New Zealanders

Our Goals: To strengthen the resilience of the nation by managing risks, being ready to respond to and recover from emergencies, and by enabling, empowering and supporting individuals, organisations, and communities to act for themselves and others, for the safety and wellbeing of all.

9. The recommendation is also in alignment with the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Act 2019 that has resulted in a change in the purpose of local government, which is to promote community well-being. Measuring outcomes across social, economic, environmental and cultural environments.

10. It is envisaged that the IAP2 training that may be required for some Councils will initially comprise emergency management professionals’ development training opportunities and selected planning staff.

11. Details of training programmes can be found at https://www.iap2.org.au/Training/. 12. The DAPP approach is envisaged as be encapsulated in projects which initially deal with coastal issues

confronting communities but ultimately over time the same approach could be applied to managing other hazards.

13. At the emergency management level strategic planning for recovery is seen as comprising part of the current community response planning and material has been produced support this work. The common linkage been educating communities on their hazards and the risk created by those hazards. Producing response plans to keep communities safe and ultimately overtime communities exploring options on post emergency recovery that builds back better and safer.

14. A discussion paper is attached to this recommendation report – Strategic Planning for Recovery – prepared by the Group Recovery Manager Gary Talbot.

Staff Recommendation: 1. That the Report to consider method of strategic planning for recovery (Waikato CDEM Group Joint

Committee 2 March 2020) be received, and 2. That the IAP2 consultation model and DAPP decision making model are used to support strategic planning for recovery.

Background 15. Assent was given to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 on the 15th

November 2016. This amendment created some significant changes to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, as well as the Civil Defence Emergency Management Regulations 2003. The amendments set out to formalise recovery and strategic planning for recovery. The principal amendments included the following;

Provide an interpretation of what Recovery is,

Provide an interpretation of what Recovery Activities include,

Allow for the written appointment and delegation of powers to a National Recovery Manager,

Allow for the mandatory appointment of a Group Recovery Manager in each Civil Defence Emergency Management Group,

Optional provision for a Local Recovery Manager to be appointed in each District or City,

Creation of Transition Periods to facilitate the seamless management from Response to Recovery activities,

https://www.iap2.org.au/Training/

15859442

Amend the powers of a persons authorised to declare states of local emergency to also give Notice of a Local Transition Period,

Give powers to the Group and Local Recovery Managers during a Local Transition Period,

Require reporting on the use of Recovery Manager Powers during a Local Transition Period

Allow for extension and termination of a Local transition period,

A number of changes to incorporate new language and other changes in other relevant Acts, and

Require amendment to the Group Plans to incorporate Strategic Planning for Recovery. 16. As the amendments to the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan 2016 – 2021 were

significant the changes were required to be made available for public consultation. Following a public consultation period as well as a review of the changes by the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) and the Minister of Civil Defence (the Hon. Kris Faafoi), the final plan changes were approved by the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Committee at an extra ordinary meeting on Monday May 14, 2018.

17. The amendments required to the Waikato CDEM Group Plan 2016 – 2021 in effect made the Waikato CDEM Group – Group Recovery Plan 2013 obsolete.

18. A new Group Recovery Plan is currently in draft and is made up of two key parts;

Part One: Operational Recovery – which sets out how recovery following an emergency will be conducted noting that recovery activities begin and operate in parallel to the response phase.

Part Two: Strategic Planning for Recovery – comprising a Group and member approach to the activity supported by a community engagement model and a planning model.

19. Fundamental to all Councils business is engagement with their communities. Today the role of shared

decision making where appropriate is recognised as essential to building resilient individuals and communities. The IAP2 suite of tools provides a proven platform to achieve constructive and meaningful engagement. This field of learning provides a number of levels of learning to develop practitioner skills.

20. It was recognised as part of reviewing and drafting a new recovery plan that community engagement was essential in progressing strategic planning for recovery.

21. Many of the decisions Councils face today have to be made under uncertainty and the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) supports decision making under uncertainty This approach is used internationally for many investment and policy decisions in water management projects and is currently been used by Hauraki District Council as part of its Kaiaua Coast 2120 Project to address coastal inundation.

22. DAPP is proven to be fit for purpose as it is structured and tested. It is adaptive to an uncertain and unfolding future, it ensures stakeholder engagement and provides clear communication with the public. . For more detailed explanation see https://www.deltares.nl/en/adaptive-pathways/.

23. By including strategic planning for recovery in a Group Recovery Plan highlights the significance of the activity because ultimately the practice has the potential to better inform the fields of emergency management practice of reduction, readiness, response and recovery itself.

24. The Monitoring and Evaluation Report (2019) identified the following areas for improvement in relation to recovery planning;

“The Waikato CDEM Group Recovery Plan1 has been drafted but awaiting finalisation post the release of the revised Director’s Guideline on Recovery. Not all local authorities have Local Recovery Plans in place. The M&E interviews also highlighted that there were a number of local authorities currently reviewing outdated recovery plans. It is considered best practice to develop a Local Recovery Plan with alignment to the Waikato CDEM Group Plan, Group Recovery Plan and national guidance, in particular the Director’s Guideline for Strategic Planning for Recovery2. The M&E interviews highlighted that ‘whole-of-local authority’ recovery planning by most local authorities was still to be conducted along with the operationalisation of Local Recovery Plans. After a reviews of the Local Recovery Plans are finalised, plans should be included as part of local authority Exercise Programme.”

1 Waikato CDEM Group Recovery Plan 2016-2021(draft) 2 Director’s Guideline for Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups (DGL 20/17) Strategic Planning for Recovery, December 2017

https://www.deltares.nl/en/adaptive-pathways/

15859442

25. Approval of the two models indicated in this report will enable a collective approach to strategic planning for recovery at the Group and Local level.

Issue 26. The draft Group Recovery Plan cannot be progressed unless the Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee

approve the adoption of two proposed models. 27. The draft Group Recovery Plan has been in limbo awaiting the publication of the Directors Guideline:

Recovery Preparedness and Management Recovery [24/20] which was published in December 2019 and released in January 2020.

28. The Members of the Joint Committee need to undertake strategic planning for recovery as identified in the CDEM Act 2002 and the Waikato CDEM Group Plan 2016 – 2021, section 7.3 Recovery Planning.

29. The Monitoring and Evaluation Report has identified recovery planning areas the need improvement.

Options and analysis 30. Two options are currently identified

Option One: Incorporate the proposed models into the proposed Group Recovery Plan to ensure strategic planning for recovery is considered as part of all recovery activities for the Group and Members planning processes

Option Two: Remain with the existing format of the current Group Recovery Plan

Option One – Status Quo


Adopt the proposed models in the draft Group Recovery Plan to enable the plan to go through its own approvals process.

Impact assessment

Legal Implications The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, section (17) (e) requires the Group to plan and carry out recovery activities. Section 49 (2)(ca) requires the Group to undertake strategic planning for recovery of the hazards and risks managed by the Group.

Risk Strategic Planning for Recovery supports the risk approaches currently undertaken by the Members and supports District and Long Term Planning activities


There are no major impacts as the models proposed as they are already implemented by some Councils and strengthen the requirements of the Group and Members to engage their communities in relation to understanding the hazards and the risk those hazards pose to the communities.

Regional costs and benefits

International research supports the need for effective community engagement supported by dynamic planning processes that ensure the best possible choices are been made at the time.


The IAP2 training needs will form part of the emergency management professional personal development where the need is identified. Members will need to identify suitable staff members if they are not currently available.

Annual Plan / LTP Implications

Community engagement forms part of activities undertaken by Councils. Opportunities will exist with future District and Long Term Plans to integrate strategic planning into them. Waitomo District Council is already exploring this approach

Community Outcomes

The adoption of these two models will support community outcomes across the Waikato CDEM area

Community Views

Councils already engage communities in decision making

Customer impact Communities are already engaging in emergency management education programmes and decision making such as community response planning. The opportunity to further educate communities will be enhanced if strategic planning

15859442

for recovery is supported through the use of IAP2 and the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways.

Option Two – Status Quo


Keep the current Group Recovery Plan 2013 which is only focused on operational recovery matters but will be required to be updated to include changes to the CDEM Act 2002 as a result of amendments in 2016

Impact assessment

Legal Implications The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, section (17) (e) requires the Group to plan and carry out recovery activities. Section 49 (2) (ca) requires the Group to undertake strategic planning for recovery of the hazards and risks managed by the Group.

Risk Strategic Planning for Recovery supports the risk approaches currently undertaken by the Members and supports District and Long Term Planning activities


Regional costs and benefits

None as the Group is still required to undertake strategic planning for recovery


Internal costs associated with GEMO Recovery Office

Annual Plan / LTP Implications

N/a

Community Outcomes

The current plan structure still requires significant amendment but will only address recovery from the operational perspectives of recovery in response, transition and post emergency response phases without strategic planning informing those decisions.

Community Views

Communities are already engaging in emergency management education programmes and decision making such as community response planning. The opportunity to further educate communities may be lost if strategic planning for recovery and the approaches taken are not clearly articulated.

Customer impact

Assessment of Significance 31. Having regard to the decision making provisions in the LGA 2002 and Councils Significance Policy, a

decision in accordance with the recommendations is not considered to have a high degree of significance.

Legislative context 32. This Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 required the Waikato CDEM Group and its Members

to plan for and carry recovery activities including strategic planning for recovery.

Preferred Option 33. Option one (1) is the preferred option as both proposed models to support strategic planning for recovery

are internationally accepted as robust approaches.

Policy Considerations

15859442

34. To the best of the writer’s knowledge, this decision is not significantly inconsistent with nor is anticipated to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with any policy adopted by this local authority or any plan required by the Local Government Act 2002 or any other enactment.

Conclusion 35. The Waikato CDEM Group has a legislative responsibility under the Civil Defence Emergency Management

Act plan for and carryout recovery activities and must also state in its Group Plan how it will undertake Strategic Planning for Recovery.

36. The two methods proposed to support strategic planning for recovery will provide good foundations to engage with communities to understand and manage their hazards and risks collectively with the Group and its Members.

37. If the author or authoriser has no conflicts of interest a statement of declaration to be made here.

Attachments 38. Discussion Paper – Strategic Planning for Recovery – Gary Talbot (2020)

References

Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002

Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016

Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Act 2019

National Disaster Resilience Strategy (2019)

Director’s Guideline – Recovery Preparedness and Management [DGL24/20]

Director’s Guideline – Strategic Planning for Recovery [DGL21/17]

Discussion Paper – Strategic Planning for Recovery – Gary Talbot (2020)





Doc # 13957327

Strategic Planning for Recovery

Discussion Paper

Gary Talbot Waikato Group Recovery Manager Version 1: May 2019

Contents 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 2

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5

3 Need for strategic recovery planning .................................................................................. 6

4 Resilience building ............................................................................................................ 8

5 Engaging in strategic planning for recovery ......................................................................... 9

6 Integrating with Community Response Planning ................................................................ 12

7 The DAPP approach ........................................................................................................ 14

8 IAP2 Engagement ............................................................................................................ 16

9 Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 17

9.1 Level One: Group .................................................................................................... 17

9.2 Level Two: Member ................................................................................................. 18

10 Publications & information .......................................................................................... 18

11 References ................................................................................................................. 19

1

THE CHALLENGE OF POST DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING

“You will be thrust into the world of instant life or death decisions, mounds of building permit applications, daily dealings with a new bureaucracy with incredible paperwork requirements, and unremitting pressure to get things back to normal. Everyone will want a plan, but few will want to take the time to plan. You will be expected to have answers to problems you have not even thought about before. You will be dealing with new experts - geologists, structural engineers, and seismologists with information you will not understand. Inadequacies in existing plans and applications will be glaringly apparent. Nothing in your planning education has adequately prepared you to deal with the problems and responsibilities now on your desk.”

(Spangle, 1991)

Figure 1: TVNZ – On Demand – Documentary - The day that changed my life. (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/the-day-that-changed-my-life)

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/the-day-that-changed-my-life

2

Strategic Planning for Recovery

1 Executive Summary This paper offers an applied approach for consideration to proceed with strategic planning for recovery at the Group (Regional) and Member (District level). The paper also informs the Members of the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group (Waikato Joint Committee) about the challenges of implementing strategic planning for recovery, as there are some commonly identified misconceptions around pre-disaster recovery planning. The adoption of the suggested approach to strategic planning for recovery will also enable progression on amendments to the Waikato CDEM Group Recovery Plan by allowing the existing plan to be structured into two parts to incorporate operational recovery activities and strategic planning for recovery approaches. Strategic Planning for recovery is now a requirement of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 along with a number of other changes instrumented by the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016. Those amendments included the following;

Provide an interpretation of what Recovery is,

Provide an interpretation of what Recovery Activities include,

Allow for the written appointment and delegation of powers to a National Recovery Manager,

Allow for the mandatory appointment of a Group Recovery Manager in each Civil Defence Emergency Management Group,

Optional provision for a Local Recovery Manager to be appointed in each District or City,

Creation of Transition Periods to facilitate the seamless management from Response to Recovery activities,

Amend the powers of a persons authorised to declare states of local emergency to also give Notice of a Local Transition Period,

Give powers to the Group and Local Recovery Managers during a Local Transition Period,

Require reporting on the use of Recovery Manager Powers during a Local Transition Period

Allow for extension and termination of a Local transition period,

A number of changes to incorporate new language and other changes in other relevant Acts, and

Require amendment to the Group Plans to incorporate Strategic Planning for Recovery.

As the amendments to the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan 2016 – 2021 were significant the changes were required to be made available for public consultation. Following a public consultation period as well as a review of the changes by the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) and the Minister of Civil Defence (the Hon. Kris Faafoi),

3

the final plan changes were approved by the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Committee at an extra ordinary meeting on Monday May 14, 2018. Changes were also made to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Regulations 2003 and included the following;

Form of notice of transition period

Addition to Schedule 2 to include Ministerial and Non-Ministerial forms for national/local transition periods, extension and termination

There is now a need to revisit Group and Local Recovery Plans to incorporate the amendments, particularly providing for approaches to strategic planning for recovery. Significant national and international research to supports strategic planning for recovery and is detailed in this report to support the recommendations for moving forward. Many authors refer to strategic planning for recovery as pre-disaster post disaster recovery planning but no matter what the name given to the process it has some identified benefits which include;

Creates a comprehensive understanding of what is needed to support communities to overcome the consequences from specific hazards and risks, and to build on the opportunities to reduce risk and strengthen resilience;

Communities are engaged, have an enhanced ability to adapt, and decision-makers understand what is important to the communities;

Immediate, medium-term and long-term recovery outcomes, and a community recovery vision, are defined;

Recovery risks are identified and managed through additional reduction, readiness, response and recovery measures;

Local and regional capacity and capability to prepare for, manage and deliver recovery (across a range of emergencies) is readily accessible, with a clear understanding of the local, regional and central government roles and responsibilities;

Collaborative relationships and processes are established, managed and maintained at local, regional and central government level;

Performance frameworks are developed to monitor and evaluate the progress and effectiveness of recovery preparedness and the management of recovery, which in turn prompts improvements to be implemented; and

Local authorities engage business, iwi and community leaders to: allow a two-way exchange of information about the risks, and encourage leaders to actively demonstrate leadership in the management of risk and community preparedness.

This report recommends that the best option for commencing part of the journey of strategic planning for recovery at the Joint Committee level it is to incorporate the activity into the community response planning activities already being undertaken across the Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group. In addition to Group activities the report also recommends individual Members of the Group work at the Territorial Authority level to incorporate strategic planning approaches into their business as usual, District and Long Term Planning activities as well as their other community engagement activities. There is also the bigger piece of work at the Group Level to identify the 5 hazards for the Waikato region and then to build scenarios on which to develop strategic plans for recovery

4

from these significant risks stemming from those identified hazards. Based on the Waikato CDEM Group Plan 2016 – 2021 the following natural hazards potentially pose the greatest risks to the Waikato Region

Tsunami

Earthquake

Significant ash fall

Coastal inundation/erosion

Flooding / debris slide There is a need for more work in this area to more accurately define the treatment options to aid the reduction of uncertainty of the Group meeting its objectives collectively and as individual Members. At the Territorial Authority level some local communities will already be facing extreme risks from particular hazards so there is the opportunity for members to engage in strategic planning for recovery with those communities now. A key to successful strategic planning for recovery is through effective community engagement using approaches such as IAP2 for effective community engagement and the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) model that works to identify multiple options based on evaluated trigger points that communities and governance have agreed on. Importantly, the American Planning Association (2014, p. 7) aptly states, “The most essential element of resilient management may be a purely human one; the courage to make tough decisions.” The Association also states “There are distinct advantages for communities that take the trouble to plan for and assess recovery needs ahead of an actual event. These can be summarised as:

Building a local culture of disaster awareness.

Providing a focus for pre-disaster exercises.

Establish clear lines of responsibility.

Considering and reviewing financial needs.

Assessing overall preparedness stance.” The above summary aligns to the recently approved National Disaster Resilience Strategy (2019) that has 3 priorities, managing risk, effective response to and recovery from emergencies, and enabling, empowering and supporting community resilience. Johnson and Olshansky ( (2016) identify that recovery poses many challenges and will lead to many competing demands requiring high levels of collaboration to minimise disagreements and conflicts as the challenges to manage finances and information streams creates enormous pressures on existing and emerging organisations who are all working in an environment of balancing speed to achieve results with the need for negotiation under huge time pressures. It makes sense then to undertake a strategic approach to recovery by engaging with as many groups as possible to build a picture of what recovery might look like, what opportunities might become available in the post emergency environment to enhance the resilience and sustainability of communities. Ideally the recovery plans should anticipate the next potential emergency and also the next one. (Johnson & Olshansky, 2016).

5

“Strong evidence, and common sense, indicates that much can be done before a disaster to alleviate recovery planning demands after the disaster.”

(UNISDR - International Recovery Platform, 2012)

2 Introduction The Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 was given assent on November 15, 2016 and brought about a number of changes to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. These changes included provisions for;

Defining the terms “Recovery” and “Recovery Activity”,

Requiring Civil Defence Emergency Managements Groups to amend their Group Plans to incorporate strategic planning for recovery from hazards and risks by June 1, 2018,

The establishment of National, Group and Local Recovery Managers,

Setting out the functions of Recovery Managers,

Enabling the issuing of a Notices of National or Local Transition Periods,

Providing powers for Recovery Managers in relation to Transition Periods, and

Allowing for consequential amendments to other enactments.

It is also the responsibility of the CDEM Group and each Member to ensure their communities are well-placed and supported to recover from any emergencies created from the hazards and risks identified in the Waikato CDEM Group Plan 2016 -2021. In addition to the Group Plan, each territorial authority must review their own Local Recovery Plan ensuring they integrate with the group-wide recovery arrangements described in the Waikato CDEM Group Recovery Plan ensuring:

1. A community engagement approach which includes a recovery vision and outcomes,

Figure 2: Street art by Lucy McLeod and students from College House UC (Gapfiller, 2012)

6

2. A community understanding of the consequences from specific hazards and risks and

identification of the opportunities to reduce risk and strengthen resilience from specific hazards,

3. A focus on collaborative relationships and processes, including the engagement of local business and community leaders,

4. A local recovery work programme, and

5. A connection of the local plan/arrangements to the Waikato CDEM Group Plan,

including reporting on the performance framework to monitor the effectiveness of recovery preparedness.

These approaches support the concepts of community engagement as the cornerstone to successful recovery from emergencies through the development of effective recovery plans which includes those strategic recovery plans developed prior to an emergency occurring.

3 Need for strategic recovery planning The international evidence emphasises that it is essential that time is giving to strategic planning for recovery as this approach will not only improve recovery post an emergency, but will also inform better outcomes for reduction, readiness and response approaches ( (Smith, 2011). Researchers have identified that even though there is a level of awareness of the consequences of various emergencies there are strongly held common misconception that you cannot plan for long term recovery in advance as the predictability is uncertain and varied by the type of emergency encountered (Abramson, Culp, Sury, & Johnson, 2011, p. 14). Spangle (1991) cited in UNISDR publication, Guidance Note on Recovery – Pre Disaster Recovery Planning (2012) highlights the complexity of dealing with recovery post an emergency. Research post Christchurch 2011 has also confirmed the reality, that despite all the academic literature that supports community engagement, in the early period of disaster recovery both the state and communities alike demonstrated resistance to meeting best practice to support meaningful recovery activities (Vallance, 2011). The complexity of recovery is such that it is not a linear process and Professor Suzanne Wilkinson (University of Auckland) in one of her presentation1 explains why recovery is not a linear process and that across the four dimensions of recovery (Social, Economic, Built and Environmental) there will be varying rates of progress over time before a new normal is realised for affected communities (See Figure 3 below).

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QROM7s2kwo -Learning from past disasters - phases of recovery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QROM7s2kwo

7

PHASE TIME PERIOD COGNITIVE RESPONSE

Chaos Up to 6 months What do we do?

Realisation 6 months to 1 year It’s bigger than we thought

Mobilisation 1 year to 2 years We’re getting on with it

Struggle 2 years to 4 years It’s really hard, it’s not going to plan

New Normal After 4 years This is how it is, there is no going back now

Understanding and accepting the realities, such as the chaos and struggle phases of recovery, better positions those responsible for the governance and leadership of their communities to lead and support their communities. Ultimately in the Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) context the true test of successful recovery efforts is whether it leaves survivors less vulnerable to natural hazards (Clinton, 2006).

Figure 3: Professor Suzanne Wilkinson – Non-linear progress across the recovery environments

8

4 Resilience building In the New Zealand context the responsibilities of governance is shared across central, regional and local government statues and regulations. The National Resilience Strategy (2019) is focused on “working together to manage risk and build resilience” across three key headings

1. Managing risk, 2. Effective response and recovery from emergencies, and 3. Enabling, empowering and supporting community resilience.

The vison of the National Resilience Strategy identifies the wellbeing and prosperity of all New Zealanders at the heart of the strategy and seeks to strengthen resilience of the nation by managing risk, having the capability to respond to and recovery from emergencies through the creation of capability for individuals, organisations and communities to act for themselves and others too. Dietz et al. (2003), cited in (Gotham & Powers, 2015) have through their research identified “transformability” as an essential measure of resilience of urban ecosystems. Dietz et al. (2003), inform that this type of resilience is the capacity for renewal, regeneration and re-organisation of an urban eco system following a significant disturbance. Abramson et al., (2011) researched 4 cities in the United States of America as case studies confirming that planning for long term recovery before a significant emergency occurs is essential to timely and effective recovery. These researchers emphasis that although data can be applied to covered and uncovered dollar losses following a disaster, the impact on large scale social disruption (diminished mental and physical health of people and loss of sense of community) is much harder to determine and that these consequences can cost far more to manage than the costs of pre-disaster recovery planning (PDRP), or what we now refer to as strategic planning for recovery which is seen as a very purposeful approach to pre-disaster recovery planning. The Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management (MCDEM) publication, Strategic Planning for Recovery: Director’s Guidelines for Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups [DGL 20/17] supports a purposeful approach to planning for and carrying out recovery and sets out the aims of strategic planning for recovery as follows; Strategic planning for recovery focuses on five strategic areas and aims to achieve the following outcomes:

Comprehensive understanding of: what is needed to support communities to overcome the consequences from specific hazards and risks, and to build on the opportunities to reduce risk and strengthen resilience;

Communities are engaged, have an enhanced ability to adapt, and decision-makers understand what is important to the communities;

Immediate, medium-term and long-term recovery outcomes, and a community recovery vision, are defined;

Recovery risks are identified and managed through additional reduction, readiness, response and recovery measures;

9

Local and regional capacity and capability to prepare for, manage and deliver recovery (across a range of emergencies) is readily accessible, with a clear understanding of the local, regional and central government roles and responsibilities;

Collaborative relationships and processes are established, managed and maintained at local, regional and central government level;

Performance frameworks are developed to monitor and evaluate the progress and effectiveness of recovery preparedness and the management of recovery, which in turn prompts improvements to be implemented; and

Local authorities engage business, iwi and community leaders to: allow a two-way exchange of information about the risks, and encourage leaders to actively demonstrate leadership in the management of risk and community preparedness.

(Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management, 2017, pp. 9-10) Abramson et al., (2011) reminds us recovery is based on , “Instrumental objectives,” i.e., goals that would seem, on the surface, to be essential accomplishments for any jurisdiction that wishes ultimately to get its citizens re‐housed, its economy clicking, its physical infrastructure repaired and rebuilt, and for its citizens to feel safe, at home, and positive about life again.” Although there is no universally accepted model of pre-disaster recovery planning, sufficient evidence exists that affirms the logical approach is to proactively develop scenario based recovery plans that will inform and support the actual post emergency actions plans which have to be developed in a period of uncertainty where time is limited (UNISDR - International Recovery Platform, 2012). As stated previously, in New Zealand this approach is now referred to as strategic planning for recovery and is a requirement for Members under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.

5 Engaging in strategic planning for recovery Strategic Planning for Recover is a purposeful approach to Pre Disaster Recovery Planning (PDRP) and is a planned attempt to strengthen disaster recovery plans, initiatives, and outcomes – before a disaster occurs. The concept of PDRP is built on the recognition that much can be done before a disaster happens to facilitate recovery planning after a disaster and improve recovery outcomes (UNISDR - International Recovery Platform, 2012). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015- 2030 reflects the purposeful approach and has set out 4 priorities for focused action and include;

Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk. Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk. Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience. Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

These four priorities are paralleled in MCDEM’s publication (Strategic Planning for Recovery: Director’s Guideline for Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups [DGL 20/17]) which identifies five strategic areas and aims that require Members to understand the variety of communities in their area and their communities’ values and priorities to inform strategic planning for recovery. The five strategic areas include;

10

1. Fully understanding community values and priorities for recovery 2. Working with communities to develop a desired recovery vision and outcomes through

engagement with the communities;

3. Using existing hazard identification and risk assessment information, engage with the communities to understand the following by local authority area:

a) the consequences from the specific hazards and risk that will need to be addressed to support the community to recover; and

b) strategic opportunities that may arise from the specific hazards and risks to allow future risk management options and decisions to be taken:

4. Identify and build the capability, capacity, collaboration, and leadership needed to

recover from emergencies resulting from the identified hazards and risks;

5. Develop performance frameworks to monitor and evaluate recovery preparedness and management,

Application of these 5 strategic areas will enable Members to prioritise and implement strategic actions to prepare for, manage and deliver recovery in a timely and effective manner post a significant emergency. Ultimately communities have to develop a clear vision of their desired recovery outcomes across the built, economic, natural and social environments (Abramson, Culp, Sury, & Johnson, 2011, p. 15). These authors also attribute the cost and of expense between response and recovery as a 20/80 split and cite hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in the United States of America as a collective example where response was estimated at $30 billion dollars, mitigation at $5 billion dollars and recovery at $135 billion dollars. By entering into strategic planning for recovery activities communities also become aware of mitigation opportunities which in turn reduce disaster impacts thus reducing recovery costs. During the 1980’s a number of significant pieces of research were undertaken into the recovery process which included identifying the differences between communities that had entered into pre-emptive recovery planning before possible disasters had struck and those that chose not to. Clare Rubin and a group of researchers developed a framework known as the “elements of recovery” (See Figure 4). (As cited in Abramson et al., 2011). Abramson and his fellow researches undertook a major literature review and also undertook a case study of 4 major cities in the United States of America that had experienced a significant natural disaster and long-term recovery. As a result of this research Rubin’s framework (Model of Long-term Recovery) has been developed into a pyramid style “Long-term Recovery Planning Framework” (See Figure 5). (Abrahams et al., 2012).

11

The model in Figure 4 clearly demonstrates the interconnectedness needed between Central (Federal), Regional (State) and Local Government to support the Community. Gotham and Powers (2015) remind us that the policy makers and elected officials can no longer take up a position of “wait and see”, especially when dealing with climate change. Elected officials and their policy makers have to be proactive and engage fully with their communities using reflexive learning processes so that they (communities) understand the causes of universal change. Talbot (2012) developed “reflexive audiencing practices” for couples to explore their relationships more fully but also called on the use of reflexive audiencing in other areas of practice. Reflexive audiencing requires people in relationship to take up a position of “audience” rather than the “actor” in the relationship. Moving forward civil defence emergency management professionals and others engaged in community engagement will need well developed engagement skills to support communities in learning about hazards and risks as well as to also enable them to collaboratively seek solutions to prepare for and recover from emergencies that will arise.

Key messages for the Waikato CDEM Group Members in in the work of Abraham et al., (2011) findings are (in abridged format) the following:

1. Context matters – culture, history, demography, threats, vulnerabilities and assets may be unique to a given community, and influence their thinking in specific ways.

2. Governance matters – it is perhaps self-evident that those municipalities with sound

Governance structures are more likely to survive a significant insult and continue to be functional. The elements of good governance include strong administrative management which is supported by political leaders, and sheltered from political interests, experienced managers and community leaders who have weathered past crises; and fiscally stable governments with substantial contingency funding. Although recovery involves many individuals and institutions within a community, local government (city and county) is the cornerstone for the acquisition and exchange of key resources.

3. Framework matters – this framework begins with a set of recovery endpoints.

Communities have to have a clear vision of their desired recovery outcomes – critical infrastructure, housing, economic environment, and a population’s “life recovery.” How those outcomes are expressed – what types of housing, what economic engines, what should be

Figure 4: Elements of the Recovery Process (Rubin et al., 1985)

12

included in critical infrastructure – depend upon various deliberative processes, which should include community engagement efforts. The recovery actions and processes which will lead to such recovery outcomes include: (1) continuity of public sector operations, (2) the acquisition and equitable exchange of external resources, (3) deliberative processes for resource allocation, and (4) organic community and civic actions. And in order for these processes to be enacted, the community needs the appropriate political and administrative structure toachieve them. This could include specific legal authorities, strategic planning documents, command structures, and memoranda of agreement. Altogether, these structures, processes and outcomes define a long‐term recovery framework.

4. Resources matter – lastly a broad understanding of what constitutes Resources is necessary. Scholars, planners, and theorists generally adopt an econometric view of resources, in which they are regarded as funds and supplies. The recent literature on community resiliency suggests other resources which should be considered, including those that contribute to collective self-efficacy, social capital, and communication and information sharing. For the purpose of long-term recovery planning, should consider resources to include

a) External sources, such as federal financing and insurance pay-outs, b) Community decision making c) Inherent urge of business to recover (a market model), d) Inherent urge of households to rebuild and communities to reconstitute themselves,

in order to resume (or commence) socially and economically productive (or sufficient) lives,

e) Internal resources, such as community institutions, markets, civic leaders, expertise, old money, etc.)

(2011, pp. 15 - 16)

The above reinforces the need to commit to effectively engaging with communities to begin the recovery process prior to disaster impacting at risk communities’. The ability to recover is part of a community/individual been resilient and Gotham and Powers (2015) remind us that “resilience is a conflictual process that plays out in different historical, political structures, cultures, socio economic conditions and crisis triggers.” Understanding and working with communities to understand what is important to them is the first steps to creating meaningful recovery plans pre-emergency. Research post Christchurch 2011 suggests that New Zealand disaster response approaches may also be improved through the inclusion of Maaori approaches to initiating disaster risk mitigation, recovery of communities and increasing social resilience (Kenney & Phibbs, 2014).

6 Integrating with Community Response Planning A significant amount of work has already been undertaken with a number of communities across the Waikato CDEM Group in relation to community response plan. Engaging communities in meaningful pre-emergency recovery planning is a natural extension of this work as it invites communities to reflect on what is meaningful and important to them. They can then have informed input into decisions.

13

Section 4 of the Waikato CDEM Group Plan (2016 – 2021) (Being ready – Our Communities) of the Waikato CDEM Group Plan 2016 – 2021 already identifies a number of actions to either sustain or improve community engagement including the development of community response plans (See Figures 6 & &). Engaging communities in the initial phases of strategic planning for recovery can be incorporated into the community response planning engagement process. The American Planning Association (2014) has identified four components that shape an effective public engagement system:

1. Design a system with the end in mind. 2. Next, select tactics that invite a broad range of stakeholders to participate. 3. Frame and reframe issues, questions, and options in a way that the community

discussion deals with interests, not positions. 4. Finally, the public needs to understand how its input will inform the decision-making

process and how the ongoing implementation results will be communicated. It is the public official’s role and responsibility to create a structure for the conversation.

The natural linkage between Community Response Planning and Strategic Planning for Recovery are also reflected in the advantages identified by the American Planning Association (2014, pp. 7-8). Those advantages for communities who take the time and trouble to evaluate the recovery needs before an emergency occurs are;

The community builds a local culture of disaster awareness,

That awareness informs pre-disaster exercising,

Clear lines of governance and responsibilities are identified and agreed to,

Financial needs and considerations can be openly assessed and reviewed,

Overall preparedness can be evaluated including changes to reduction activities that enhance resilience.

Figure 5: Waikato CDEM Group Plan 2016 – 2021 (4.2.3 Actions)

14

Figure 6: Waikato CDEM Group Plan 4.3.3 Actions

Through the processes of developing heightened community awareness using community response planning and strategic planning for recovery in a combined approach will create meaningful opportunities to better engage communities, enabling them to reflect on and choose their own future. This work can also serve to initiate more in depth conversations as part of District and Long Term Planning initiatives that need to focus on more sensitive issues such as land use and land retirement.

7 The DAPP approach Where community response planning and strategic planning for recovery are combined the processes creates a stronger focus on the hazards, risks and potential emergencies community face. This in turn can give rise to a positive impetus to not only plan to respond to an emergency but it will also better inform the short and medium term recovery activities required to aid the community’s holistic regeneration and enhancement. It will also build a strong foundation to enable long-term recovery. A number of specialised tools and methodologies can enrich these approaches including application of the IAP2 Model for public participation and the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathway (DAPP) approach. The Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) approach aims to support the development of an adaptive plan that is able to deal with conditions of deep uncertainty. Originally developed by Deltares and TU Delft2 it has been used successfully in the creation of the Adaptive Delta Management Programme in Holland. Dr Judy Lawrence (2015) Adjunct Research Fellow New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute Victoria University of Wellington explains the benefits of DAPP in her presentation as;

Adaptation PATHWAYS provide insights into options, lock-in possibilities, and path dependencies to identify short-term actions to mitigate adverse impacts and seize opportunities and keep options open to adaptations later

Adaptation TIPPING POINTS (policy use-by date) help in identifying if and when to take actions at earliest or at latest

2 https://www.deltares.nl/en/adaptive-pathways

https://www.deltares.nl/en/adaptive-pathways

15

Adaptive planning supports decision making under uncertain change “invest not too little nor too much, and not too early nor too late”

MONITORING plan and CONTINGENCY actions help to stay on track. Autonomous adaptation of stakeholders can be important

Rittel (1972) cited in De Wit and Meyer ( (2010, p. 30) coined the phrases “tame problems” and “wicked problems” of which the latter can clearly be identified with the processes of engaging with the community and developing plans such as recovery plans. Wicked problems have no one solution and are mirrored with the interconnectedness of challenges, complicatedness due to numerous elements and relationships, uncertainty as they exist in dynamic and uncertain situations, create ambiguity as there are many viewpoints, create conflict because of demands by multiple actors necessitating trade-offs and are subject to societal constraints both political, technological and societal. Mason and Mitroff (1981) cited in De Wit and Meyer (2010, pp. 32 - 33) have identified key approaches to deal with the problem solving of complexity created by wicked problems and include;

Participative (involve as many groups of people, including their resources, as possible,

Adversarial (allow for and engage in the opposition to arguments),

Integrative (develop plans from the unified set of assumptions that have developed through the participation and adversarial discussions), and

Managerial mind supporting (wicked problems are ongoing and complex so the insights will continue to evolve therefore policy writers and managers need to be well supported over long periods of time.

The Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) approach is designed to deal with real world wicked problems (uncertainty of the future) it is recommended that the Group build its capacity to incorporate and apply the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) for working with communities to better understand the choices they can adopt to manage change, respond to emergencies and recover from the impacts. Ultimately to continue to be more resilient and sustainable (individually and collectively) in an ever changing dynamic world.

Figure 7: Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathway Approach - (DAPP) approach (simplified from Haasnoot et al. 2013)

16

Richard Renin-Hemil (Coastal Engineer, Tonkin + Taylor) when discussing the award winning “Living at the Edge” project deployed to deal with Hawke’s Bay’s coastal erosion challenges as part of the Resilience to Nature’s Challenge National Science Challenge explains the adaptive strategy as; “An adaptive strategy is “a no regrets approach. We’ve taken a long term view to prevent over engineering defence options now, that may stop us employing a more suitable response in the future, and that may be of greater benefit.” Part of the success of the adaptive management strategies approach is the full engagement of communities with the technical experts to understand their hazards and risks, then fully engage in the decision making to identify the preferred options for now with an educated eye on the future that will continue to enhance their resilience

(Tonkin + Taylor, 2018)

Currently in New Zealand the DAPP approach is applied to coastal hazards under the guidance of the Ministry for the Environment and a number of case studies have been completed (Jackson, 2018). Haurak District Council is currently using the same approach to support the development of the Kaiaua Coast 2120 project. Going forward there is the opportunity to research the application of the DAPP approach to the other hazards and risks the Waikato CDEM Group may find themselves exposed to.

8 IAP2 Engagement

Figure 8: Source - https://www.tonkintaylor.co.nz/news/2018/3/hawke-s-bay-prepares-for-climate-change-nz-s-first-adaptive-strategy/

https://www.tonkintaylor.co.nz/news/2018/3/hawke-s-bay-prepares-for-climate-change-nz-s-first-adaptive-strategy/

https://www.tonkintaylor.co.nz/news/2018/3/hawke-s-bay-prepares-for-climate-change-nz-s-first-adaptive-strategy/

17

The International Association of Public Participation framework IAP2 provides a spectrum of different levels of engagement organisations can use to engage with communities and other stakeholders. Many Councils have staff trained in IAP2 already and although experience practitioners acknowledge that it is not a silver bullet (Hardy, 2015) the spectrum provides options for community/stakeholder engagement. Noting that the spectrum is not read from left to right but the most suitable approach is adopted as part of the development of a programme of engagement and may be varied from time to time as required. Smith (2011, p. 309) in his work has concluded that collaborative planning in disaster recovery pre-emergency is lacking and by engaging in this type of activity it will lead to better shared problem solving, better plan making and the development of better procedures to support pre and post recovery. Figure 9: IAP2 Spectrum of

engagement.

It is also recommended that the Group build its capacity to incorporate and apply the IAP2 model for engaging with communities to aid all parties to work cooperatively together to make the best choices possible to manage change, respond to emergencies and recover from the impacts. Ultimately to be more resilient and sustainable (individually and collectively) in an ever changing dynamic world.

9 Recommendations

To enable the Waikato Group Recovery Plan 2013 to be updated, this report recommends that the Waikato CDEM Group (Joint Committee) adopt the following 2 levels to address Strategic Planning for Recovery at this time. The author of this report is cognisant of Ministerial changes that will continue to occur over the next 5 years and the revision of the Director’s Guideline for Recovery for late 2019 but believes the proposed changes will enable revision of the Group and Local recovery plans so that the Group and Members are well positioned to initiate operational recovery and begin strategic planning for recovery activities with their communities at greatest risks.

9.1 Level One: Group

The Waikato CDEM Group Plan 2016 - 2021 (2016) sets out the arrangements for Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) in the Waikato CDEM Group (the Group) and its future over the five year period 2016 – 2012 noting that the Plan was amended in 2018 to incorporate changes made to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 in 2016. The Group Plan sets out a number of Issues/Opportunities with Response and Actions required within certain Timeframes under a number of Sections (10).

18

To initiate the first steps on the strategic planning for recovery journey it is recommended that at the Group Level;

– The integration of strategic planning for recovery activities into the community

response planning activities currently being undertaken – Amendment of the community response plan template – Amend the Waikato CDEM Group Recovery Plan 2016 to incorporate the 2016

amendments to the CDEM Act 2002 and provide a 2 part plan under the broad headings of “Operational Recovery” and “Strategic Planning for Recovery”.

– separate Work to Strategic Planning for Recovery section in the revise plan – Work to identify the 5 most significant natural hazards for the Waikato CDEM

Region by fully engaging with the National Science Challenge – Resilience to Nature’s challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākino o Te Ao Tūroa to develop the top 5 scenarios.

– Continue to work with technical hazards experts within and outside of the Councils to enable meaningful education packages to be developed to support communities understanding and decision choices.

9.2 Level Two: Member

At the individual Waikato CDEM Member Level – Amend their individual Local Recovery Plans to incorporate CDEM Amendment Act 2016

changes in line with the Waikato Group Recovery Plan (2019/20) – Add a Part 2 to the Local Recovery Plan that addresses strategic planning for recovery – Identify those communities that are at risk of impact from the risks presented by various

hazards that have a high likelihood and consequence – Prioritise those communities that pose the highest risk – Engage with those communities through an integrated community response and recovery

planning approach informed through IAP2 and DAPP. – Identify opportunities to include strategic planning for recovery into business as usual

practices, annual and long term planning Paton and Johnston (2006) state; “What we know, however, is that natural hazards cost society to much (in terms of loss of property and human suffering), given the state of knowledge of the physical aspects of the hazards and our improving understanding of the interaction between natural hazards and the human-use system. It is between these two areas where better linkage is needed and only through continued integration of models for hazards and the human-use system will we begin to understand the most efficient and effective ways to reduce the rising toll of disasters.” The application of DAPP and IAP2 approaches combined with technical expertise appear at this time to provide the best platforms for well informed decision making now. The tools also provide opportunities for research into and application of the models.

10 Publications & information Note: The Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management is currently preparing further information to assist CDEM Groups to undertake strategic planning for recovery and revising the Recovery Management Director's Guideline. CDEM Groups and Recovery Managers will

19

be consulted during the development of these documents and informed when they are published. It is anticipated that anew Director’s Guideline on Recovery will be released in the last quarter of 2019. The Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management has issued the following publications;

Strategic Planning for Recovery: Director’s Guideline for Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups [DGL 20/17]

Recovery Management: Director’s Guideline for Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups [DGL 4/05]

Focus on Recovery: A Holistic Framework For Recovery In New Zealand – Information For The CDEM Sector[IS5/05]

The Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management also provides extensive information on recovery on its website: See: https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/the-4rs/recovery/

11 References Abramson, D., Culp, D., Sury, J., & Johnson, L. (2011, September 15). Planning for long-

termrecovery before disaster strikes: Case studies of 4 US cities: A final project report. New York, New York, United States of America. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from https://www.google.com/search?q=David+Abramson+-+Planning+for+long+term+recovery+before+disaster&oq=David+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.4535j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

American Planning Association. (2014). PAS Report 576: Planning for post-disaster recovery: next generation. American Planning Association, Research Department. Chicago: APA Publication Office. Retrieved October3 2018, from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1425503479190-22edb246b925ba41104b7d38eddc207f/APA_PAS_576.pdf

Clinton, J. W. (2006, December 1). Lessons learned from tsunami recovery: Key propositions for building back better: A report by United Nations Secretary-Generals special envoy for tsunami recovery, Willam J Clinton. New York, New York, United States of America.

De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy: Process,content, context an international perspective (4th ed.). (U. Kingdom, Ed.) Andover, Hampshire: RR Donnelley.

https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/the-4rs/recovery/

20

Gapfiller. (2012, October 8). Oct 8, 2012 "I hope Christchurch will...", Colombo St. Christchurch, New Zealand. Retrieved February 14, 2019, from https://gapfiller.org.nz/news/2012/i-hope-christchurch-will/

Gotham, F. K., & Powers, B. (2015, January 30). Constructing and contesting resilience in post-disaster urban communities. doi:DOI: 10.1177/0094306114562201a}

Hardy, M. (2015, February 21). Reflections on the IAP2 spectrum. Retrieved January 2019, from http://maxhardy.com.au/reflections-on-the-iap2-spectrum/

Jackson, D. (2018). Coastal hazards guidance: Case Study - Marlborough - An early example of using the coastal hazards and climate change guidance. Wellington, Wellington: Ministry fro the Environmetn .

Johnson, L. A., & Olshansky, R. B. (2016). After great disasters: How six countries managed community recovery. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Retrieved January 17, 2019, from https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/after-great-disasters-full_0.pdf

Kenney, C., & Phibbs, S. (2014). Shakes, rattles and rolls out: The untold story of Māori engagement with community recovery, socia; resilience and urban sustainability in Christchurch, New Zealand. 4th International Conference on Building Resilence (pp. 773 - 762). Salford Quays: Elsevier B. V. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00999-X

Miles, S. B. (2018). Participatory disaster recovery modelling for community resilience. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-018-0202-9

Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. (2017, December 1). Strategic Planning for recovery: Director's guidelines for civil defence emergency management [DGL 20/17]. Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved December 1, 2017, from https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/guidelines/strategic-planning-for-recovery/

Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. (2019, April 10). National disaster resilience strategy: Rautaki manawaroa aituā ā-motu. Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/PAP_84937/5f64afb39838f03b43f943b88cb5d397e199b422

National Institute of Standards and Technology \: US Department of Commerce. (206). NIST special pubication 1190: Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure sytems (Vol. 1). Washington DC, Washington, United DStates of America: Department of Commerce United States of America. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1190v1

Paton, D., & Johnston, d. (2006). Disaster resilience: An integrated approach. Springfield, Illinois, United States of America: Charles C Thomas.

Smith, G. (2011). Planning for post-disaster recovery: A review of the United States disaster assistance framework. Fairfax, Virginia, United States of America: Public Entity Risk Institution.

Talbot, W. (2012). Reflexive audiencing practices for couple relationships-in-action: Thesis Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) . Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand . Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/6100/thesis.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Tonkin + Taylor. (2018, March 16). Tonkin + Taylor. Retrieved March 15, 2019, from https://www.tonkintaylor.co.nz/news/2018/3/hawke-s-bay-prepares-for-climate-change-nz-s-first-adaptive-strategy/

UNISDR - International Recovery Platform. (2012). Guidance note on recovery: Predisaster recovery planning. Kobe: The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Retrieved June 8, 2018, from https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/31963

Vallance, S. (2011). Early disaster recovery: A guide for communities. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 19 -25.

Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group. (2016). Group Plan 2016 - 2021 Mahere o te Rōpō Whakahaere Raru-Ohata o Waikato - We are all civil defence (2nd 2018 ed.). Hamilton: Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group.

21

Retrieved November 30, 2018, from http://www.waikatoregioncdemg.govt.nz/policy-and-plans/group-plan/

Waikato Regional Council. (2016). The Waikato Regional Policy Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapahere O Te Rohe O Waikato. Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand: Waikato Regional Council. Retrieved March 26, 2019, from https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/WRC/Council/Policy-and-Plans/RPS-Regional-Policy-Statement/RPSv2018.pdf

Danielle Kruger Comment Thank you for the opportunity to review your document. I’ve got a few comments below – my thoughts only, do with them as you see fit.

1. Your document refers to tsunami, earthquake, significant ash fall, coastal inundation/erosion and flooding/debris slide as the greatest risks to the Waikato Region. I think we need a bit more reasoning to support this information as currently it states “based on the Group Plan”, but under the Group Plan these hazards range from “very high” risk to “moderate risk” – further support or rational behind this analysis would make it easier to understand the rating with a recovery lens applied.

2. MfE have outlined the guidance for application of DAPP in New Zealand in their

publication “Preparing for Coastal Change”, but this publication has been constrained to applying DAPP to coastal areas at threat from climate change – it is probably worth spelling out the need to extend this approach across all the identified hazards rather than constraining it to coastal adaptation as I think in local government the thinking around DAPP is largely constrained to coastal adaptation due to the MfE guidance constraints.

3. There is probably value in linking the responsibilities of a local council under the to identify primary hazard zones (Primary hazard zone – an area in which the risk to life,

property or the environment from natural hazards is intolerable. Waikato Regional Council will

identify primary hazard zones in consultation with key stakeholders including but not limited to

territorial authorities, tāngata whenua, infrastructure providers, and affected communities and

these shall be recognised and provided for in regional and district plans. Regional plans shall control any use or development of structures within identified primary hazard zones to reduce the risk from

natural hazards to an acceptable level over time) to their obligations to engage with the community and strategically plan for recovery. There is a guidance document on the application of this that was presented to the last Regional Hazards forum that might help with this, but perhaps a presentation from Rick or someone from policy implementation would be the easiest way to explain this linkage.

4. (Waikato Regional Council, 2016)

Happy to discuss further if any of this is not clear.

https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/council/policy-and-plans/regional-policy-statement/rps2016/glossary/



15840904





Subject: CDEM Group and Local Welfare Managers – Retrospective confirmation of appointments


Purpose 1. To provide the Joint Committee with an opportunity to confirm and acknowledge the appointments of

Local Welfare Managers, previously made to the Group Member Councils.

Executive Summary 2. Group Member Councils have appointed people to the role of Local Welfare Manager. The Group Plan

and formation of the Statutory Roles Advisory and Appointments Committee (STRAAC) has aligned the appointment processes for all statutory roles. “Statutory roles” include Controllers, Recovery Managers and Welfare Managers. The Joint Committee are being asked to confirm the appointments of existing local welfare managers.

Staff Recommendation: 1. That the report CDEM Group and Local Welfare Managers – Retrospective confirmation of

appointments (Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee 2 March 2020) be received, and

2. That the appointment of the following Local Welfare Managers to Group Member Councils be confirmed: Veronica King Taupō District

Vicky Oosthoek Matamata-Piako District Helen Paki Hamilton City Rachel Stubbs Otorohanga District Liz Riley Waitomo District Cathie Shaw Waipa District Brett Otto Hauraki District Angela Parquist Waikato District Ebony Curtin South Waikato District Helen Flynn Thames Coromandel District

Background 3. In the process of making improvements and amendments to the Controllers Policy, the appointment

processes of other statutory appointments have been aligned and improved. In so doing the Statutory Roles Advisory and Appointments Committee (STRAAC) has been formed and replaces the former Controllers Appointment Sub-Group. STRAAC assess applications and make recommendations regarding appointments of all statutory appointments. This includes Group Controller and Recovery Managers and

15840904

Group Welfare Manager required by the CDEM Act and CDEM National Plan respectively. To provide consistency, the same process is applied to the Group Member Council “local” equivalent positions (Local Controller, Local Recovery Manager and Local Welfare Manager). Section 8 of the CDEM Group Plan requires appointment of Local Welfare Managers to be aligned with the processes used for Controllers and Recovery Managers.

4. Previous decisions by Joint Committee have confirmed appointments of Local Controllers and Local Recovery Managers.

5. The Local Welfare Managers, listed below, have all been appointed by various mechanisms including; approval by their Council CEG representative, approval by the local CDEM committee, or as a function of the job description for Emergency Management Officers. With the exception of those for whom Welfare Manager is part of their job description, all Local Welfare Managers have been recommended by the Group Welfare Manager.

Table of Local Welfare Managers

Name Territorial Authority

Veronica King Taupō District

Vicky Oosthoek* Matamata-Piako District

Helen Paki Hamilton City

Rachel Stubbs Otorohanga District

Liz Riley Waitomo District

Cathie Shaw* Waipa District

Brett Otto* Hauraki District

Angela Parquist Waikato District

Ebony Curtin South Waikato District

Helen Flynn* Thames Coromandel District

*Full time Emergency Management Officer

Assessment of Significance 6. Having regard to the decision making provisions in the LGA 2002 and Councils Significance Policy, a

decision in accordance with the recommendations is not considered to have a high degree of significance.

Policy Considerations 7. To the best of the writer’s knowledge, this decision is not significantly inconsistent with nor is anticipated

to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with any policy adopted by this local authority or any plan required by the Local Government Act 2002 or any other enactment.

Conclusion 8. The Joint Committee are being asked to confirm the appointments of the current Local Welfare Managers

who have been previously appointed to Group Member Councils.

Attachments Nil

15841742





Subject: Summary Report – CEG Meeting – 14 February 2020

Section: B (Received by the Committee for information only)

Purpose 1. To provide a summary of what was discussed by the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) at its meeting on

14th February 2020

Executive Summary 2. The Coordinating Executive Group meets quarterly to monitor performance of Group Emergency

Management Office (GEMO) and local authority CDEM delivery in the Group area. A summary of the matters discussed is provided to Joint Committee for their information.

Staff Recommendation: That the report Summary Report – CEG Meeting – 14 February 2020 (Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee 2 March 2020) be received.

Background 3. The CEG held its latest quarterly meeting on 14th February 2020. The items discussed included:

a. Group work plan progress - A consolidated report detailing status of priority one actions in the Group Plan. This combines progress against work of the Group Emergency Management Office (GEMO) as well as Group member Councils.

b. Long Term Plans – consideration of including uniform KPI’s in the Long-Term Plans of Group member Councils.

c. Tsunami Sirens – discussion regarding the NEMA technical standard relating to Tsunami warning sirens and the current position of the Waikato CDM Group members

d. Group Recovery – reports on the recent activity in the Recovery workspace and proposed structure of the new Group Recovery Plan.

e. Tsunami hazard zones – The Waikato CDEM Group’s approach to educating our communities regarding tsunami hazard zones and evacuation areas.

f. Response and deployments – a presentation on the Hamilton City Council support to the Whakaari (White Island) emergency response and recent deployments to support the Southland Group in response to recent flooding.

Attachments Nil

15853241



Author: Mark Bang, GEMO Team Leader

Authoriser: Kelvin Powell, Unit Manager & Local Controller, Hamilton City

Subject: A verbal report on the Hamilton City Council response in support of Whakaari emergency

Section: For information only

Purpose 1. To provide information about Hamilton City’s response in support of the Whakaari emergency in

December 2019; highlighting the important support roles provided by CDEM to other lead agencies, particularly consequence management.

Executive Summary 2. Kelvin Powell, Unit Manager and Local Controller, from Hamilton City Council, will update the Joint

Committee on the City’s’ response in support of the emergency response to the Whakaari (White Island) eruption in December 2019.

Staff Recommendation: That the report A verbal report on the Hamilton City Council response in support of Whakaari emergency (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 2 March 2020) be received.

END OF REPORT

15871874



Author: Julian Snowball – Group Manager / Controller


Subject: Group Manager’s Report

Section: B (Received by the Committee for information only)

Purpose 1. To provide an opportunity for Joint Committee to receive an update on some contemporary issues for

emergency management and to allow consideration of these issues in the context of members’ responsibilities in the four (4) R’s.

Executive Summary 2. There have been several recent events and emergencies that have required engagement by staff from the

Waikato CDEM Group. Some of these events / emergencies would not ordinarily be considered as a conventional operating environment for CDEM.

3. Some of the events / emergencies have identified potential opportunities and justification for an increased CDEM presence in the Reduction and Recovery space of the 4R’s.

4. Using the recent, real-life, examples of events / emergencies; there are opportunities for members of the Joint Committee to raise awareness of, and promote, the role of Emergency Management in the Reduction and Recovery space.

Staff Recommendation: That the report Group Manager’s Report (Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee 2 March 2020) be received.

Background 5. There have been several recent events and emergencies, that have required engagement by staff from the

Waikato CDEM Group. The Group Manager / Controller will provide a verbal briefing on the opportunities identified in the following recent emergencies / events:

a. Whaakari (White Island) eruption b. Southland Flooding c. Current water restrictions

Attachments Nil

15850704


Date: 21 February 2020 Author: Mark Bang – GEMO Team Leader Authoriser: Julian Snowball – Group Manager / Controller Subject: Group Work Plan – Progress towards completion of priority 1 actions Section: For information only

Purpose 1. To provide the Joint Committee with an update on the activities of the GEMO and Group Member Councils,

relative to the priority one actions in the Group Plan. Executive Summary 2. There are some parts of the Group work plan that for one reason or another are behind the intended

schedule, however there are no issues being raised by TAs which raise concern for completion of the priority actions.

3. The CEG meeting (14 February 2020) considered the detail behind the various Group Plan actions which contribute to the Goals reported here.

Staff Recommendation: THAT the report Group Work Plan – Progress towards completion of priority 1 actions (Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee 9 December 2019) be received.

Background 4. This report gives a progress update on the relevant Group Plan goals. Versions of this update have been

reported to both CEG and Management & Governance CEG Sub Committee (in respect of GEMO’s performance), with correspondingly greater levels of granularity i.e. at “action” level.

5. The report below is for only those goals which are actively being worked on by TA Group members, GEMO or both. The reporting period is for the months October, November & December 2019 and is a consolidation of reports from GEMO and Group member councils.

6. There are a total of thirty one (31) priority actions in the work programme. Eighteen (18) are completed which is 58%. Another eight (8) are substantially complete and are still being reported due to their ongoing nature (in sustainment or improvement phase). Accordingly, 84% of priority actions can be considered complete or are in sustainment / improvement phase.

15850704

Group work plan: Status Key:

On track.

Off track – not meeting planned dates / actions. Mitigation plan in place & no overall risk to action.

Off track – not meeting planned dates / actions. There is risk to the action and help is needed.

Notes on work plan reporting

Joint Committee reporting is at Group Plan Goal level and the table below includes the Group Plan Strategic Objectives so the reporting has context.

Group Plan Goal Strategic Objective Status Commentary

Goal 2.1.1: Build and sustain an understanding of hazards and risks that affect the Group

2.2.1 A comprehensive

understanding of the hazards

that affect the Group and the

associated risks and the

consequences to inform risk

reduction, readiness, response

and recovery activities.

Hazards workshops at TLA’s are now complete with last 2 held late 2019.

It is anticipated any gaps in hazard information will be included in the Hazard Technical

Advisory Group (HTAG) and WRC Hazards Team work program and this will be an ongoing

check and adjust of knowledge.

No overall risk to the Goal.

2.3.1 Communities understand

their risks This action has been complete in respect of “development” of a platform for collection and

collation of hazards. Ongoing work will continually improve the platform and add to the data

displayed.

The action to approach Worksafe to incorporate their major hazardous facility GIS information

into the hazards portal is behind due to staff resignation. Resourcing has been identified and

method discussed with WRC to make this possible.

A pilot to trial with HCC (overland storm water flow) information is behind.

15850704

Two of the three actions are completed

Goal 4.1.1: Increase

community awareness,

understanding,

preparedness and

ownership

4.2.1 The community

understands its hazards and

the associated risks

“Hazards database” include WRC hazards portal which is now launched. In addition, locally

held hazard info is being identified through the hazards workshops and this continues to be

available at TA’s. This is generally available to CDEM Professionals for prioritisation of efforts.

Public education about hazards will receive greater focus and is an ongoing activity for

emergency managers.

4.3.1 Ownership of individual,

community and business

preparedness

One of the 3 actions is complete.

The other 2 actions include community response planning and communication between

community and CDEM. These are both ongoing BAU for emergency managers

Two TA’s are behind with their programme and have plans to get back on track with their

intended progress.

4.4.1 Appropriate Civil Defence

Centre (CDC) facilities are

provided

TA’s are at various stages of implementation of the Civil Defence Centre Plan. Some are in the

planning stage and under discussion with stakeholder e.g. removal of signs from school

properties.

Over 50% of TA’s are either on track with some having completed the relevant actions.

4.5.1 Community volunteers

are capable and available for

disaster response and recovery

activities.

One of the two action is complete and the other is on track

Goal 5.1.1 : Enhance

capability to deliver an

effective, expedient and

efficient response &

recovery

5.2.1 The Group's EOCs and

ECC are maintained at a high

level of readiness to support

local, regional and national

events

Most high priority situational awareness tools are functional and available with GIS support

now. The remainder high to medium priority tools will be complete by end June 2020 with

lower priority tools targeted for development next financial year.

The alignment of Group standard operating procedures is ongoing and also identified as an

opportunity area in the M&E audit. This action may be broadened to include all operational

documents and plans.

HCC EOC activation for Whakaari used the EOC IT system and this identified some additional

support requirements from GEMO staff and some incompatibility with HCC IT systems.

Despite this the system was well used and received good feedback from EOC staff.

15850704

5.3.1 Capable people are

available to support an

appropriate level of response

One of the four actions is complete and the other three are on track.

5.4.1 Effective and expedient

warning systems are in place An audit of actions in the warning system strategy has been undertaken and a report to CEG

was deferred from the last agenda (Feb 2020).

The agenda item relating to Tsunami warning sirens aligns with this part of the Group Plan

5.5.1 Effective and efficient

interagency communications

are in place

Group PIM hui took place last week and this bought together TA communication staff (PIM),

media organisations and partner agencies.

Goal 7.1.1 : Enhanced

capability to prepare for

and recover from civil

defence emergencies

7.3.1 Comprehensive recovery

arrangements are in place One TA reports this is off-track – risk, and they are considering the resources required to

complete the review of their recovery plan. Coordination with the Group Recovery Manager

has taken place.

All other TA’s are on track, or complete.

One of the 2 actions is complete.

7.4.1 Capable people are

available to lead and support

recovery

Goal 8: Build and

sustain effective

partnerships

Build and sustain effective

partnerships One TA reports welfare plan is off track and the process will begin early 2020.

One of the three actions is complete. Another action is an ongoing BAU activity and the third

action; 50% TA’s are complete or on track.

15850506




Authoriser: Suzanne Vowles, Regional Emergency Management Advisor NEMA

Subject: Update from the National Emergency Management Agency


Purpose 1. To provide information from the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

Executive Summary 2. Suzanne Vowles, Regional Emergency Management Advisor (REMA), from NEMA, will update the Joint

Committee.

Staff Recommendation: That the report Update from the National Emergency Management Agency (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 2 March 2020) be received.

Background 3. The Director of NEMA issues a monthly update to CEG Chairs. In addition, the REMA will give a verbal

update on the priority focus areas for NEMA, since the last Joint Committee meeting.

Attachments December CEG Chairs update from Director NEMA

December 2019 Ref: 4198830

To: Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) Chairs

Cc: CDEM Group Managers, NEMA Leadership Team and Development Unit staff

Tēnā koutou katoa,

It has been a hard year for communities across New Zealand, bracketed by the tragic events in

Christchurch and on Whakaari White Island, as well as the Tasman District fires, and several

severe weather events, including most recently flooding and landslips affecting Timaru and

Westland.

Staff, those across your CDEM Groups and for us in the National Emergency Management

Agency, have once again demonstrated their dedication to supporting those affected by the

range of emergencies experienced in 2019. And through it all, day-in and day-out, in roles seen

and unseen, across agencies and partners, people have worked with real commitment and

pride. Please pass on our thanks and gratitude to your staff, particularly recognising this work

can intrude into private lives in unexpected and sometimes unwanted ways, so we also

recognise the sacrifices made by family and friends.

As this is the first CEG Chairs update since the National Emergency Management Agency

(NEMA) was successfully stood up on 1 December 2019, we thought it would be helpful to

confirm our two roles:

The Deputy State Services Commissioner appointed Carolyn Schwalger as the interim Chief

Executive. Carolyn has been the Programme Director for the NEMA transition since July

2019. Before this, she held several senior public sector positions, including the Ambassador

and Deputy Permanent Representative at New Zealand’s Permanent Mission to the UN and

the Principal Capability Adviser and Deputy Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and

Trade.

Sarah (Norm) Stuart-Black continues in the statutory role as the Director of Civil Defence

Emergency Management, bringing continuity in operational excellence, skills and

relationships to NEMA. Under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, the

Chief Executive of NEMA and the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management cannot

be the same person. Therefore, she has become the NEMA Deputy Chief Executive.

We remain keen to continue engaging with you and the broad range of stakeholders to help to

realise the Government’s intentions for emergency management system reform. We had

intended to reach out with a proposed plan of engagement before Christmas but recent events

have impacted timelines. Instead, we’ll be in touch in the New Year with opportunities for you to

contribute and co-create the future.

2 DPMC: 4198830

Our thoughts are with those affected by the Whakaari / White Island volcanic eruption on

Monday 9 December. The loss of life and terrible injuries are devastating. For the families and

communities directly involved the personal recovery will be a long and complex.

We hope you and your whānau enjoy a happy, safe and relaxing holiday. Thank you for your

engagement, commitment and support over this long and hard year.

Ngā mihi o te Kirihimete me te Tau Hau.

Carolyn Schwalger Chief Executive Sarah Stuart-Black

Director, Civil Defence Emergency Management

Summary of Progress

New Zealand Emergency Management Assistance Team (NZ-EMAT) [previously described as the New Zealand Fly-in Teams (NZ-FIT)]

In response to the severe weather on the West Coast, EMAT deployed a small team consisting

of three cadre member (from Whanganui District Council, Ministry of Social Development and

NEMA) and an EMAT Fire and Emergency New Zealand Operational Support and Logistics

specialist (aka a Loggie) to support West Coast Emergency Management and Westland District

Council. One member supported welfare and planning in Hokitika EOC, while the other three

deployed into Frans Josef to support surge staffing provided by the regional council. Together

with CDEM volunteers from the community in Hokitika led by the local DOC manager, they

planned and managed the successful escorted convoy movement of approximately 450 people

and 150 vehicles from Frans Josef to Haast.

This first deployment went extremely well and demonstrated one of the team capabilities in

undertaking detailed tactical planning and operations in a small team at the local level. The team

integrated well with staff from the West Coast and again the value in working relationships was

evident as the EMAT Team Leader and the deployed West Coast Emergency Manager had

recently completed their Tier 1 Response and Recovery Leadership Programme together in

Hamilton.

Development of the deployable coordination centre caches continues with Fire and Emergency

New Zealand and a further two 6x9m Covertex Airshelters were delivered at the end of

November to the Palmerston North cache. Other coordination centre equipment has been

ordered for all four caches (Auckland, Palmerston North, Wellington and Christchurch).

The GETS procurement of high-speed Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) satellite

communication equipment has now been completed and is due for delivery early next year.

Three Comms Kits will be established in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch utilising the

latest Cobham VSAT terminals. These will provide a satellite broadband connection

3 DPMC: 4198830

approximately 20 times faster than previous BGAN units have offered and should enable a

coordination centre of 30 people to operate effectively.

Planning is well underway for the delivery of the second EMAT initial training and confirmation

course confirmed Sunday 16 to Friday 28 February 2020 and this will be run Wainuiomata

Marae and Camp Wainui in Wellington.

A third EMAT initial training and confirmation course will also run Sunday 28 June to Friday 10

July.

Candidates selected from the recent selection round have been allocated across the two course

dates and will be joined by agency participation from a number of other specialist teams in

agencies.

Contact: Charlie Blanch, Manager NZ-EMAT, phone 021 576 879 or email: [email protected] / [email protected]

15853242




Authoriser: Julian Snowball, Group Manager / Controller

Subject: Presentation of certificates to Group personnel who have deployed in support of other CDEM Groups


Purpose 1. To provide an opportunity for the Joint Committee to acknowledge those personnel who have deployed

in support of emergency responses

Executive Summary 2. The Chairman of the Joint Committee will present certificates to personnel who have deployed to:

a. Bay of Plenty CDEM Group - Whakaari (White Island) – December 2019 b. Southland CDEM Group – flood response – February 2020

These certificates not only recognise commitment to emergency management, but they are also an important record of experiential learning in the capability building of each individual.

Staff Recommendation: That the report Presentation of certificates to Group personnel who have deployed in support of other CDEM Groups (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 2 March 2020) be received.

END OF REPORT

Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group ......(CEG) at its meeting on 14th February...

Documents

Transcript of Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group ......(CEG) at its meeting on 14th February...