Emergency Risk ManagementAuthor(s): Alan HodgesReviewed work(s):Source: Risk Management, Vol. 2, No. 4 (2000), pp. 7-18Pub...
RiskManagement: InternationalJournal                                                               An                 Emer...
Risk Management: InternationalJournal               An                             The risk management standardIn 1992, St...
RiskManagement: InternationalJournal                                                                An                Figu...
AnRisk Management: InternationalJournalThe first step is to examine the strategic,organizationaland risk managementcontext...
Risk Management: InternationalJournal                                                                 An   * Avoidingthe r...
Risk Management: InternationalJournal               AnThere is an agreedmethodology which is well understoodand acceptedan...
Risk Management: InternationalJournal                                                                AnThe Guidelines     ...
Risk Management: InternationalJournal               AnIn September1996 these recommendations                              ...
Risk Management: International                                                                An            Journal      i...
AnRisk Management: International                             Journal   * inclusion of concepts of resilience and susceptib...
An                                                Risk Management: International                                          ...
Risk Management: International               An            Journal17    Salter,J. (1995a) Disasters as Manifestationsof Vu...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

3867920

220 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
220
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

3867920

  1. 1. Emergency Risk ManagementAuthor(s): Alan HodgesReviewed work(s):Source: Risk Management, Vol. 2, No. 4 (2000), pp. 7-18Published by: Palgrave Macmillan JournalsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3867920 .Accessed: 30/01/2012 00:47Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspJSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Risk Management.http://www.jstor.org
  2. 2. RiskManagement: InternationalJournal An Emergency Risk Management byAlanHodges1 Thepublicationin 1995 of an Australian -New Zealand on Standard RiskManagement provideda logical andsystematic processfor examining anddetermining risk treatment options. After national consultation, the approachtaken by the standard has been adaptedto makeit appropriateto the needs of theAustralianemergencymanagement community. resultant The policy of emergencyriskmanagement now underpinning is management-level emergencymanagement trainingand is to be appliedat a practical level in communitysettings. Key Words: Risk; risk management; emergency management; disaster management IntroductionTheprotectionof life, property the environment and fromtheeffects of disastersis a responsibilityof State governmentsin Australia.The Federalgovernment no constitutionalrole, but it has hasan obvious interestin such matters. addition,disastersareinevitablypoliticalandmediaevents, Inand are the focus of widespreadattention.Twenty-fiveyears ago the FederalGovernmentestablishedEmergencyManagement Australia2(EMA) to coordinatephysical assistanceto the Statesduringdisasters.While this coordinationisan importantand continuingrole, EMA is also heavily involved in working with the States toraise emergency managementcapabilities across the nation.It does this throughdevelopmentanddelivery of educationandtrainingat middle-to upper-management levels, and by providingleadershipin promotingpolicies, practicesand arrangements throughcooperativeFederal-Statecommittee arrangements. is in this environmentthatEMA, over the last five years, has been Itpromoting emergencyriskmanagement the fundamental as basisfordetermining how to minimizethreatsto life and propertyfrom both naturaland technologicaldisasters. -In this paperthe approachtakenin the Australian New ZealandRisk ManagementStandard isexamined. Variouscatalysts of change for the integration risk managementinto emergency ofmanagementare then identified. Finally, the implicationsfor emergency risk managementareexamined. For this paper,the following definitionsapply: * risk: the chance of somethinghappeningthat will have an impact upon objectives. It is measuredin terms of consequencesand likelihood;3 * risk management: the culture, processes and structuresthat are directed towards the effective managementof potentialopportunities adverseeffects;4 and * emergencyrisk management:a systematicprocessproducinga rangeof measureswhich contributeto the well-being of communitiesandthe environment.5Copyright© 2000 PerpetuityPress Ltd Page 7
  3. 3. Risk Management: InternationalJournal An The risk management standardIn 1992, StandardsAustraliaraisedby circularletterthe needfor a standard risk management. onThe following year,JeanCross, Professorof Safety Engineeringat the Universityof New SouthWales,chaireda widely-representative JointTechnicalCommitteewhichworkedduringthe nexttwo yearsto develop an Australian- New Zealand Standard Risk Management(ANS/NZS on4360: 1995). Before publicationof the standard,ProfessorCrosswrotethat: since its impact depend the extentto which Theimplications as yet uncertain are will on and government major decide takeupthestandard industry to ...6Althoughthe standard mightreceive littleattention,she consideredthat,in view of the significantinterestat the public comment stage of its development,this was unlikely.Herconfidencewas well placed. The standard had a significantimpactin Australiaand New hasZealandand has attractedworldwide attention.It was revised and republishedin April 1999,7and it is this later publication which will be used here in describing the approach to riskmanagement.Figure 1 below providesan outline of the main steps in the process.In essence, risk managementis the systematicapplicationof managementpolicies, proceduresand practices to the tasks ofestablishingthe context, and to those of identifying, analyzing,evaluating and treatingrisks.Monitoring review,andcommunication consultation, alsokey elementsof the process. and and are Figure I. Risk management overviewA more detailedexplanationof the risk managementprocess is shown in Figure 2 below. Thestandardprovidesquite detailed guidancefor each aspect of thatprocess. Page 8 Alan Hodges
  4. 4. RiskManagement: InternationalJournal An Figure 2. Risk management process i T- Establish the context * The strategiccontext * The organizationalcontext * The risk managementcontext * Develop criteria * Decide the structure v Identify risks 4 * What can happen? 4 t * How can it happen? v Analyze risks Determine existing risks cj-~ Determine Determine likelihood consequences 0 ct a0 E: E l I .- 0 tt C Estimatelevel of risk 0 ;.. .1 r: u 0 v Evaluate risks * Compareagainstcriteria * Set risk priorities t Treat risks * Identify treatment options * Evaluatetreatment options * Select treatmentoptions * Preparetreatment plans * Implementplans I IAlan Hodges Page 9
  5. 5. AnRisk Management: InternationalJournalThe first step is to examine the strategic,organizationaland risk managementcontext withinwhich the analysis will take place. In this step it is appropriate examinethe criteriaagainst towhich risks will be evaluated and to determinethe structure, set of elements, for subsequent oranalysis.It is important examinationof the context is undertaken the outset,to providethe that atframework the following risk analysis.This requiresa thoroughexamination the operating for of andenvironment a full understanding organizational of policies andgoals, so as to decidewhethera risk is acceptableor not.The second step involves identificationof all the risks which need to be managed,togetherwithpossible causes and effects. If risks arenot recognizedin this step, it is unlikelythatthey will becontrolled.In an organizationalsetting, it is also necessary to considerrisks which are outsidethe entitys control.Analysisof risk,the thirdstep, has two key elements:likelihoodandconsequences. combining Byanalyses of these elements, an estimate of the level of risk can be derived in the context ofexisting controlmeasures. During the analysis stage, minor, acceptablerisks can be identifiedand put to one side. Depending on the degree of risk and the availabilityof accuratedata andresources available, analysis may be qualitative, semi-quantitativeor quantitative.When a isqualitativeapproach used, the level of risk can be estimatedas extreme,high, moderateor low.A possibleallocationof these estimatesfor differentcombinations likelihoodandconsequences ofis shown in Table 1 below. Table I. Qualitative level of risk Consequences Likelihood Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic Almost H H E E E certain Likely M H H E E Moderate L M H E E Unlikely L L M H E Rare L L M H H Legend:E = extreme,H = high, M = moderate,L = low.Aftertheanalysisprocess,the riskscan be evaluated. This involves a comparisonbetweenthe levelof riskidentified the previously-established criteria. and risk Fromthiscanbe deriveda list of risksin priorityorder.Some of these mightbe at such a level thatthe riskcanbe acceptedandtreatmentmaynotbe required. Nevertheless, theyshouldbe documented, monitored periodically and reviewedto ensurethatthey remainacceptable.The otherrisks will requirefurther consideration.Forthoseriskswhich areunacceptable,fouroptions (which arenot necessarilyall appropriate ormutuallyexclusive in all circumstances)are available:Page 10 Alan Hodges
  6. 6. Risk Management: InternationalJournal An * Avoidingthe risk. Very careful considerationneeds to be given to such a course, as the level of otherrisks might potentiallybe increased. * Reducingthe likelihood.Modifying the hazardcan be undertaken a range of measures, by dependingon the circumstances.For instance, it might requirerevision of organizational arrangements, of of implementation preventativemeasures,application technicalcontrols, or initiationof researchand development. * Reducing the consequences. The impact can be reduced by such means as contingency planning,recovery plans, engineeringand structural and barriers, design features. * Transferringthe risk. By use of contracts, insurance arrangements and organizational structures(such as partnerships),the risk can be transferred shared. However, such or arrangements may not reduce the level of risk to society. Additionally,there is the added dangerthat the organizationwhich has the new responsibilitymay not manage that risk.Despite these actions, there may be residual risk which is retained.Planningwill thereforeberequiredto managethe consequencesof this.Following the identificationof options for risk treatment,therewill be a need for an assessmentprocess. The process should take account of the extent of risk reductionand the likely benefitswhich can be achieved. Obviously, high reductionin risk for low cost should be implemented.As the costs rise and the benefits diminish, careful judgement will be required, and theremay come a point where it is clearly uneconomic to increase expenditure to lower the riskfurther.Again, in such cases judgement is required so as to reduce the risk impact to as lowa level as is reasonably practicable.Plans must then be prepared,for implementing the selected options, to enable managementto control the risks. Such plans should identify responsibilities, the actions required,performancemeasures, and the expected outcomes of treatments,and should provide a basisfor assessing effectiveness. While responsibility for risk treatmentis best placed with thoseable to control the risk, a management system is also requiredwhich ensures that the plan iseffectively implemented.As shown in Figures 1 and 2 above, the need to monitor and reviewis part of a closed loop sequence. There is a constant need to be alert to changingcircumstances,as risks will change over time, in respect of eitherthe likelihood of occurrences,or their consequences, or both. Identification of a regular review process would be a verysensible inclusion in the plan.A majordifferencebetween the 1995 and 1999 standards inclusionin the latterof the need for iscommunication consultation.Experiencehas shown thatthese actions,for both internaland andexternalstakeholders, requiredfor every stage of the process.Communication to be two- are hasway to enable effective consultationto occur.Eachstage also requiresdocumentation be completedso as to satisfyan independent to audit.Theinclusionof assumptions,methods,datasourcesandresultswill producean audittrailwhich willdemonstrate process. Such documentation the will also make subsequent monitoringand reviewmuchsimpler.Whilethe standard not introduced has significantlynew conceptsto theanalysisandmanagementof risk, its developmentand subsequentendorsementhas definitely been of immense benefit.The thoroughprocess of consultation,implementationand eventualrevision has resulted in arisk-management approachwhich has gained wide acceptancein Australiaand New Zealand.Alan Hodges Page 11
  7. 7. Risk Management: InternationalJournal AnThere is an agreedmethodology which is well understoodand acceptedand, as a result, use ofthe standardsapproach now being increasinglydemandedin riskanalysis,by bothgovernment isand privateenterprise.A majorbenefit of the standardis the strongemphasis it gives to identifyingrisk as an integralpartof the management teamto undertake process, as well as to the need for a multi-disciplinaryrisk analysis. On the other hand, undertaking thoroughrisk analysis should not be taken on alightly. The step-by-stepprocess in the standardcan demand a majorcommitmentof staff tocarryit out thoroughly, certainlyrequiresfull supportat managementlevel. andThere has been interestby other countriesin the approach,but none has so far gone to the nextstep of developing an agreed standard.This is surprising, given the internationalinterest inthis topic and the benefits which would flow from the formal endorsementof a standardbynational or multi-nationalstandardsorganizations.Such a developmenttask need not appeardaunting;in fact, it is likely to result in wide interest and involvement. It requires,however, asmall group of championswho are preparedto take chargeof the projectand drive it throughto fruition. Catalysts of change in emergency managementGuidelinesfor managingrisk in the AustralianPublic ServiceThe mere publicationof a standardwhich provides a generic guide on risk managementis, initself, insufficientto ensure that it is adoptedby an industrysector.Althoughthe standardcancontributeto change, other drivers are required;several of those relating to the emergencymanagementsectorare describedin the following paragraphs.In 1995 the Management Advisory Committee and Management Improvement AdvisoryCommitteeof theAustralian PublicServiceissuedan exposuredrafton GuidelinesforManagingRisk in the AustralianPublic Service. The final document8was publishedthe following year.Althoughit was directedprimarilyat goverment agencies, the approach was widely applicablein the community.In essence, the Guidelinesprovidedan easily-readableexplanationof the useof the risk managementstandardin government,and also included a numberof case studiesillustratingpersuasivesuccess stories.The Guidelinesnotethatthe alternative riskmanagement riskymanagement. to is They highlightthatmanagingriskrequiresrigorous,responsible,balancedandforwardthinking.They promotethe standards formalstep-by-stepprocess for significantdecisions, such as:* policy changes;* projectmanagement;* the management sensitive issues; of* involving significant sums of money; and expenditure* the introduction new proceduresand strategies. of even if only in an informalmanner,Moreover,the Guidelinesalso encourageuse of the approach,in all decision-making,as risk is inherentin all we do.Page 12 Alan Hodges
  8. 8. Risk Management: InternationalJournal AnThe Guidelines in were significant raisingawareness the standards of withingovernment approach andcertainlyagencies, inpreparing ground change thefieldof emergency assisted the for in management.National emergency risk managementworkshopThe publicationof the standardin 1995 excited interest among a numberof staff members ofEMA and otheremergency managementpractitioners. a result of their influence, in March As1996 EMA conducteda nationalworkshopat its AustralianEmergencyManagementInstitutetoconsiderthe application the risk managementconceptto emergencymanagementin Australia. ofThere was an awareness,however, that this workshophad potentialto create division, as therewas strongnationalacceptanceof the existing approachto emergencymanagementin Australia.This approach involved concepts of: * all hazards single set of management (a of all capable encompassing hazards); arrangements * all agencies (the establishmentof arrangements involving all agencies); * a comprehensive (planning approach whichinvolvesall fourelementsof a PPRRprocess, ie prevention, preparedness,response and recovery);and community (recognizingthe communityas a primaryfocus of emergency * the prepared management).Although the PPRRareas are not mutuallyexclusive, there had been a tendency for each to beseen to some extent as separatefunctions, thereby leading to differing levels of interest andsupport,regardlessof communitybenefits.Over 30 participants from emergencyservice organizations,local government, State governmentagencies, the insuranceindustryand industrialorganizations attendedthe workshop.Followingpresentations,discussions breakout and agreed9 the risk sessionsoverthreedays,theparticipants thatmanagement standardwouldbe of valuetoAustralianemergency management arrangements because:* governmentsand corporationsare increasinglyusing risk management processes;* the risk management process provides a common language and process across all organizations;* it is a formalized,systematicprocess of analysis and decision-making;* emergencymanagementcan be promotedmore effectively throughrisk management;and* emergencymanagementshould dovetail into the broaderrisk management process.Workshop participants agreedthatspecific guidelineswere necessaryfor the implementation alsoof the standardwithin the emergency managementindustry.It was also proposedthat the termemergencyriskmanagementbe adoptedto reflect the multi-agencyaspect of the industry.Two key recommendations from the workshopwere that:* Australianemergencymanagementshould embody risk management principles;and* guidelines (based on the standard)should be developed appropriate the Australian to emergencymanagementindustry.Alan Hodges Page 13
  9. 9. Risk Management: InternationalJournal AnIn September1996 these recommendations were put to Australiaspeakemergencymanagementpolicy body, the NationalEmergencyManagementCommittee,l°which agreed: * to commendrisk managementprinciplesas a tool for use in the emergencymanagement community; * thatemergencyrisk managementdocumentation based on the risk management standard shouldbe developedappropriate theAustralian to emergencymanagement needs; industrys and * to incorporatethe risk managementapproachinto relevant educationand trainingand into principlesand practicepublications."Subsequent action was by no means immediate. There was a lack of understanding the ofimplicationsin manyareasand a fear thatexisting concepts andprinciples,whichhave stood theemergencymanagement communityin good stead, would be abandoned. Whatfollowed was anextensive periodof communicationand consultation,an experience which was to be influentialin includingthese approachesin the 1999 revision of the standard. Supporting publicationsIn mid-1996 PatrickHelm, of the Department the PrimeMinisterandCabinetin New Zealand, ofpublisheda paper12 a Ministryof Civil Defencejoural. This was important raisingawareness in inof the applicationof the risk managementprocess in the disastercontext.Thegeneralriskmanagement approach not new to New Zealand, was whichsince 1987hadadopteda policy of sharing management risk betweencentralgovernment local authorities. policy and Therequired localauthorities identifyhazards theirareasof responsibility to introduce to in and strategiesto reducethe consequences disasters. of Thisrequired comprehensive a to approach loss preventionand risk management. somewhatsimilarscheme has more recentlybeen adoptedin Australia, Awherebythe Federal governments financialcontribution Statesto assistrecoveryfromrecurrent to isdisasters contingent appropriate on mitigationmeasures beingtakenat Stateandlocalgovernmentlevels. The concepthas not been universallywelcomedby local governments, theyalreadyhave asmany competingpressures for expenditures. Nor have the New Zealandprinciples been adopteduniversallyby local authoritiesin that country.3Neverthelessthere is a clearmessage in bothcountriesthatdisaster is mitigation an important in component a totalriskmanagement approach toprotecting communities fromthe effects of disasters.Helm also notedthatrisk management... offers a structured,systematicandconsistentapproachthatforces the analystinto understanding total riskpicture.Importantly, saw thatit forms the hean overlay on the emergency/disaster process, and herehe was challengingthe statusquo. WhileAustraliaandNew Zealandsubscribeto the comprehensiveapproach emergencymanagement tovia the PPRRprocess, it would be fair to say thatthe majoremphasisin both countrieshas beenon the capabilityto respondto disasters.Risk management,however,requiresa more thoroughanalysis of solutions.For instance,the marginalbenefitfrom the applicationof resourcesto bothpreventionandresponseshouldbe equal.Helm emphasizedthateach step in disaster managementrequiredsupport... commensurate with its importance potentialfor improving outcome.4 or theIn concluding,he statedthat: Riskmanagement of strategies themselves cannot better guarantee performance because of boththe role thatchanceand uncertainlyplay, andthe vagariesassociated withhumanPage 14 Alan Hodges
  10. 10. Risk Management: International An Journal intervention. themethodologies forassessing cancontribute understanding But used risk to where mostserious the components Theycanpoint themore lie. to control promising options, assistpolicydevelopment, inform allocation resources.15 and the ofIn mid-1996 an articleby Smithet a116foresaw the possibility of the conceptof riskmanagementproviding botha foundation a culturalshift anda stimulusfor integrating for services.The authorssaw the move towardsthe risk managementapproachas leading to a shift towardspreventionand increasedservicediversity,to communityempowerment responsibility, to increased and andinter-agencycooperation.They also considered that the major focus in Australiahas been onevent management,and so significant capabilitieshave been developed, using both permanentstaff and trainedvolunteers, to combat hazardous events. This has inevitably led to furtherinvestmentof resources responsecapabilities,rather in thanrecognizinga moreholisticapproach. issues questioningthe prioritiesgiven to the variousPPRRelements,This articleraisedimportantand recognized the need both for close involvement of the community in risk managementprocessesanddecisions,andfor a muchgreaterunderstanding the vulnerability communities of ofor elements of communities.Hence, in the emergency managementcontext,risk managementcan be very much concernedwith people, with the impact of a hazardon them and with theirresponse to a situation.Papers by Salter, Koob and Tarrant17were also important in promoting emergency riskmanagement. Implications of emergency risk managementNotwithstanding influenceof the NationalEmergencyManagementCommittee its views the andon the usefulness of the risk managementapproach,there was a need to have wide industryinvolvement in buildinga consensus for adoptingthe risk managementapproach in taking andthe next step of producing guidelines for emergency risk management.A national steeringcommitteewas formedto develop guidelines which blendedtraditionalemergency managementapproacheswith emergencyrisk management.The EmergencyRiskManagementGuidelines which resultedfollow the varioussteps in Figure2, but with some variations.Whereasthe standardis directedprimarilytowardsthe analysis oforganizationalrisk, its application to emergency managementrequires a strongemphasis oncommunity consultation and involvement. This is in distinct contrast to earlier emergencymanagementapproaches, whose prime focus was on hazardanalysis. Such analysisis now partof a much more comprehensiveapproach.Communityconsultation raises the complex issue of involving residentsin identification the of oftypes of risks affectingthemandthe probabilities those risksoccurring. outcomecould, for Theinstance,reveal unperceived flooding risks, with a consequentialdownwardeffect on real estatevalues, or highlighta small, but neverthelessreal, risk of catastrophic dam failure.Such mattershave the potentialto attractmedia attentionand to escalatevery rapidlyto the politicallevel.The Guidelinesaretailoredto the emergencymanagementenvironmentin relationto: * natural,technological,civil/political (terrorism, sabotage)and biologicalhazards; * recognitionof various community groupings (geographically-based, shared-experience, and sector-based,functionally-based);Alan Hodges Page 15
  11. 11. AnRisk Management: International Journal * inclusion of concepts of resilience and susceptibility,to assist in determiningcommunity vulnerability.A key to the acceptanceof the emergencyrisk managementapproachhas been to incorporatePPRR as options in the treatment risks - importantly,this is the last step in the sequential ofprocess (see Figure 1). Prevention, preparation, responseandrecoveryeach needto be examined,and the benefitsassessed as options,in the light of the judgementsmade in the riskmanagementanalysisup to thatpoint.The analysismay well lead to the need for greaterresponsecapabilities,butsucha decisionwill be madeaftercomparing benefitsof, for instance,enhanced the preventativemeasures.The Guidelines have been incorporated into a comprehensiveApplications Guide18 have andbeen endorsed by Standards Australia as an appropriatederivation of AS/NZS 4360: 1999.Concurrently with this development,the Public Safety IndustryTrainingAdvisory Body19has riskincorporated management conceptsandprocessesin the identification commonandsector- ofspecific trainingcompetencystandards nationaladoption. forAs an example, in the competencystandardsmanagementstream, which is common to allemergencyservices, fourtraining units have been developed, covering the five mainsteps in theriskmanagement process.Eachof the unitshasthenbeen brokendown intocontributing elements,with associated performance criteria.For instance, the unit Establishcontext and develop riskevaluationcriteriahas Clarifystakeholders roles andrequirements one of its five elements. asOne of the performance criteria this elementis: Stakeholders informedof aims,objectives for areand the risk managementcontextand structure within which they must operate.At the Australian Emergency Management Institute, three new courses (Introduction toEmergency Risk Management, Understanding Emergency Risk Management andImplementingEmergencyRisk Management)are being conductedor are in development,asthe foundationof the Institutescurriculum.Publicationsto supportthe ApplicationsGuide arealso being developed, in the form of ImplementationGuides and an annotatedbibliography.The courses are criticalcomponents the implementation of strategyas, over time, therewill be acommon nationalapproach implementingemergencyrisk managementwhile the philosophy toandthe languagearedisseminated Australia-wide.Moreover,they will be an importantmeansofproviding who are skilledin implementingthe Guidelinesin conjunction well-trainedfacilitatorswith communitygroups.The next stepis to applytheapproach a practical in way. EMAstaffwill workwithStateemergencymanagement staff to undertakecomprehensive risk assessments at community level. Initial incommunityareasselectedforthesestudiesarethe outerMelbournesuburb Cardinia Victoria, ofthe North-WestTasmaniaregion,a ruraltown in South Australia and the Jarrahdale-SerpentineShire, south of Perthin Western Australia.Furthermore, National EmergencyManagement theCommittee recently approveda strategic plan which includes an intention to undertakecasestudies in each of the eightAustralianStates and Territories.If the enthusiasm participants the new coursesis any guide,the development anemergency of on ofrisk management approach has been worthwhile. However, it is still at an early stage ofimplementation it will be some time beforeenough people have been throughcoursesfor the andconcept way. A majorchallenge still aheadof us will be to to be applied in a business-as-usualensurethat the approachis acceptedat the executive level.Page 16 Alan Hodges
  12. 12. An Risk Management: International Journal ConclusionThe publicationof the riskmanagementstandard 1995 has providedan extremelyuseful and insystematic basis for examiningrisk. In its applicationto emergency management, standard thehas resulted in widespreadcritical re-examinationof the traditionalAustralianapproachto Theprotectionof life, property the environment. development,through and extensiveconsultation,of emergencyriskmanagement guidelines is now providinga completelynew basisforexaminingrisks to communitiesand for determiningtreatmentoptions as partof the process. The optionsstillrequireconsideration traditional of conceptsof prevention, responseandrecovery, preparation,and so the old and the new have been successfully blendedtogetherto createan approach whichis now being introduced nationallythough publications,training and case studies. Notes1 Director AlanHodgeswasuntilrecently of General Emergency Management whichis Australia, the Federal agencyresponsible reducing impactof natural man-made government for the and disasters theAustralian on community.2 known theNatural Formerly as Disasters Organisation.3 StandardsAustralia,StandardsNew Zealand (1999) Risk Management,AS/NZS4360: 1999. NSW: Strathfield, Association Australia, 3. Standards of p4 Ibid,p 4.5 EmergencyMangement Glossary.Canberra: Australia(1998) AustralianEmergencyManagement EMA,p 41.6 Standard. Australian Cross,J. (1995)TheRiskManagement The Journalof Emergency Management. Vol. 10,No. 4, pp4-7.7 Standards Standards Zealand, cit. Australia, New op8 Advisory Management and Committee Management Improvement Australian Committee, Advisory PublicService(1995)ReportNo 22: Guidelines ManagingRiskin theAustralian for PublicService. Government Australian Canberra: Service. Publishing9 EmergencyManagement RiskManagement Australia(1996) Emergency MountMacedon Workshop. Paper 5. Canberra: No. Australian Government Service. Publishing10 TheNational Emergency ManagementCommittee comprises Director the of General Emergency Management as chair, thechairs executive Australia, and and officers eachStateandTerritory of management peakemergency committee other or nominatedofficers11 Minutes theNational of Emergency Committee, Management Emergency Australia, Management September1996.12 for and Disasters. Helm,P. (1996)Integrated Management Natural Technological Risk Tephra. Vol.15,No. 1,pp5-13.13 Ibid,p 5.14 Ibid,p 11.15 Ibid,p 13.16 Smith, Nicholson, andCollett, (1996)RiskManagement theFire Emergency P., J. L. in and Services. InNDR96. Proceedings the National of Disaster conference. Reduction of Institution Canberra: EngineersAustralia, 377- 87. ppAlan Hodges Page 17
  13. 13. Risk Management: International An Journal17 Salter,J. (1995a) Disasters as Manifestationsof Vulnerability. AustralianJournal of Emergency Management. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp 9- 10; Salter,J. (1995b) Towardsa BetterDisaster Management Methodology.AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement.Vol. 10, No. 4, pp 8 - 16; Salter,J. (1997) Risk Management a DisasterManagementContext.Journalof Contingenciesand Crisis in Management.Vol.5, No. 1, pp 60 - 5; Salter,J. (1999a) PublicSafetyRisk Management: Assessing the LatestNationalGuidelines.AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement.Vol. 13, No. 4, pp 50 - 3; Salter,J. (1999b) A Risk ManagementApproachto Disaster Management.In Ingleton,J. (ed.) Natural Disaster Management.Leicester: Tudor Rose, pp 111-13; Koob, B. (1996) The Contextof EmergencyManagement. AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement.Vol. 11,No. M. 2, pp 1-4; Tarrant, (1997) Risk Communicationin the Context of EmergencyManagement: PlanningWithRatherThan For Communities.AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement. Vol. 12,No.4,pp20-8.18 Emergency ManagementAustralia (2000) Emergency Risk ManagementApplications Guide: AustralianEmergencyManual.PartII, Vol. 1. Melbourne:EMA.19 A company establishedunderFederalgovernmentarrangements the furtherance education for of andtraining thepublicsafetyindustry. boardcomprisesemployerandemployeerepresentatives in Its from the fire, police, emergencyservices, defence and emergencymanagementsectors.Page 18 Alan Hodges

×