Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper

Transcription

1

2 Document / Report Control Form Project Name: Project number: Proposal for: Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) PREPARATION, REVIEW AND AUTHORISATION Revision # Date Prepared by Reviewed by Approved for Issue by Draft Report 11 December 2006 Justine Jenkins Rinske Poulier Alison Stone Anne Bignell Alison Stone Jasmine Westerman Adam Isitt Final Report 22 December 2006 Justine Jenkins Rinske Poulier Alison Stone Alison Stone ISSUE REGISTER Distribution List Date Issued Number of Copies Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) 1 ed (PDF) 1 CD-Rom 4 printed copies SMEC staff: Associates - IID Melbourne Office Library: 1 ed (PDF) 1 (hard copy) Expression of Interest Project File: SMEC Australia Pty. Ltd. 133 Waverley Road, Malvern East, VIC PO Box 559, Carnegie, VIC Tel: Fax: alison.stone@smec.com.au The information within this document is and shall remain the property of SMEC Australia Pty. Ltd. The document and its contents may only be used for the purpose of assessing and engagement of our services.

3 Acknowledgements SMEC Australia and IID would like to acknowledge the many people who provided input into this research paper. In particular, the project team would like to thank those who contributed their time to provide their ideas and insights into this field through the consultation process. Without exception, all people involved through the consultation gave their time and insights willingly and generously. The report would not have been possible without their efforts and support. The project team would also like to thank the project officers from ALGA Sharyn Csanki, who guided the project through the inception stages, Rolf Fenner who gave support throughout the consultation process and Rosemary James who provided comments on the draft report and assisted in finalising the project. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... 1 Abbreviations... 4 Executive Summary Introduction Aim of research paper Background to the research paper Approach Risk Management Emergency and risk management in Australia Explanation of risk An all-hazards approach Contribution of Land Use Planning to Risk Management Land use planning: statutory and strategic Risk mitigation through the application of land use planning controls Examples of land use planning and development controls to reduce risk Overview of Local Government How does local government participate in risk management? Local government functions Legislative responsibilities of local government Constraints and Limitations on Local Government Improved understanding Funding for risk management Limitations restricting local governments ability to apply for funding Relationship between state / territory governments and local governments Regional collaboration between local governments Skill shortages in local government Access to information Lack of knowledge and expertise Need for ongoing education programs Training for local governments Learning from leading practise Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

5 6.12 Resources and size of councils Electoral pressures on local governments Community pressures Impacts on the Community Community safety Economic impacts Social impacts of risk Informing communities The role of the insurance industry Conclusion and Future Directions Glossary References List of Figures Figure 3-1: The risk- hazard exposure-vulnerability relationship (based on Crichton, 1999) Figure 5-1: Survey respondents opinions of the role of Council Figure 6-1: Survey respondents rating of the importance of factors that restrict applying for funding Figure 6-2: Survey respondents rating of the level of accessible information available for risk assessment and management List of Tables Table 4-1: Examples of land use planning and development controls that mitigate the impacts of natural hazards Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

6 Abbreviations ABS AEMI ALGA ARI AS BCA COAG DOTARS EMA ESD FEMA GIS ICA IID IDNDR LGPMC LPP NDO NDMP NDRA NDRMSP NZS PIA PLANET ROC SES SMEC SPP TCCIP UNDRO Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Emergency Management Institute Australian Local Government Association Average Recurrence Interval Australian Standard Building Code of Australia Council of Australian Governments Department of Transport and Regional Services Emergency Management Australia Ecologically Sustainable Development Federal Emergency Management Agency (USA) Geographic Information Systems Insurance Council of Australia Institute for International Development International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction Local Government Planning Ministers Council Local Planning Policy National Disaster Organisation Natural Disaster Mitigation Program National Disaster Relief Arrangements Natural Disaster Risk Management Studies Program New Zealand Standard Planning Institute of Australia PLAning NETwork Regional Organisation of Councils State Emergency Services Snowy Mountain Engineering Corporation State Planning Policy Tropical Cyclone Coastal Impacts Program United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

7 Executive Summary SMEC Australia (SMEC) and the Institute for International Development (IID) were engaged by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) to undertake the project Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation A National Research Paper. Both the Natural Disasters in Australia report and the National Bushfire Inquiry, written for the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), have noted land use planning as the single most important mitigation measure for limiting future disaster losses in areas of new development. The project was overseen by ALGA with advice from the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA). The project involved a review of relevant information and reports on the mitigation of all-hazards and the use of planning instruments in this respect. The project also involved consultation with 32 organisations nominated by ALGA spanning planning, risk and emergency management disciplines. The results and findings were also informed by the National Local Government Emergency Management Survey undertaken by ALGA in In focusing on risk mitigation, the readiness and preparedness elements of risk management are highlighted; however, the response and recovery aspects of risk management are also touched on where relevant. While the project adopted an all-hazards approach, some of the examples cited, demonstrate how land use planning can be used to mitigate risks for a specific hazard. The paper provides conclusions and offers future directions for investigation to advance understanding in this area. In summary, the key findings of the research paper are: 1. Overall, there appears to be a solid base of research around the key issues relevant to risk mitigation and land use planning issues at the national level and, to a large extent, at state and local government levels. Much of this research has been undertaken and coordinated nationally, through government agencies and professional bodies. 2. There is widespread knowledge and understanding of risk management frameworks and how these are applied to natural disaster management at the local government level and within state and territory agencies. This has been due in part to the significant advances made through the national frameworks (at the COAG and Ministerial Council level) and in part to the increased professionalism applied to risk management more broadly within public sector agencies. 3. Land use planning (incorporating both strategic and statutory planning) provides a comprehensive set of tools to reduce exposure to hazards and consequent risk by controlling where development occurs. Increased assistance to local government at the implementation Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

8 and interpretation stage would strengthen the coordination and consistent application of state and territory planning policies with the planning controls available to local government. 4. There is a strong commitment from all levels of government to work together on a national approach to risk and disaster management. However, it was also acknowledged that the Australian system of government does, at times, prevent this being progressed. For example, inconsistencies and inefficiencies in approach can be introduced where policy is set at a national or state level and the implementation and interpretation is left to local government with little or no support. This is not unique to the area of risk and disaster management. 5. Land use planning could become a much stronger instrument in the risk mitigation area if state and territory governments provided higher level support to local governments. This could be through shared mapping, data and information, training and assistance with interpretation and implementation of state planning policy. However, state governments are often wary of becoming too involved in planning issues due to a perception that this may reduce the need for local government in planning and they will be accused of interfering in local issues and decision making. 6. Capacity of local government is perhaps the most severe constraint on how effectively local government can implement land use planning to address risk management. The capacity issues identified through this research include: Planning staff it is well documented and highlighted that all local governments are experiencing high vacancy rates in planning positions and have difficulty in attracting and retaining planning staff for both statutory and strategic roles. The reasons for this are many, including changing work and career choices, changes in generational work choices, ability to provide attractive salary packages against corporate careers and workload issues caused by property and development booms. Increasing breadth of responsibilities all local governments now have an increased breadth of responsibility, above and beyond the traditional roads, rates and rubbish, including a range of community pressures, governance and compliance issues. They must also provide dedicated staff and resources to risk management and planning, which is challenged by day-to-day demands and the management of other corporate issues. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

9 7. There appears to be a low level of satisfaction with the funding programs and level of funding available to assist local government to undertake risk management planning. This also extends to implementing improvements in risk management through land use planning mechanisms. However, for many programs funding is allocated through a submission process. Hence, those local governments that experience capacity issues are limited in their ability to apply. Therefore, funding may not be well targeted to priority areas rather to local governments that can prepare good submissions. 8. The difference in size and scale of local governments and the corresponding differences in revenue bases constrain some local governments in their ability to allocate resource (cash) contributions which are a requirement of some funding programs. Again, this could be introducing a bias toward funding better resourced Councils, rather than those that are in most need of the funding. This is not unique to the disaster risk management area but rather is a feature of many funding programs. 9. Capacity building could assist in increasing the effectiveness of land use planning controls in the risk and disaster management area for communities, the development industry and local government planning staff. Communities need to better understand the reasons behind land use planning and development controls in risk mitigation. While it is evident that understanding of the need to apply land use planning controls is growing in some specific areas (for example bushfire prone areas), increased effort in this regard is warranted. The development industry could be better informed of the need to introduce planning controls for risk mitigation and management. The insurance industry could be engaged or partnered with to progress this, given its profile in the risk and disaster management area. Increasing the number of planners that participate in Emergency Management Australia (EMA) or similar courses targeted to risk and emergency management, would increase the understanding and integration of capacity across the disciplines. 10. The emerging prominence of climate change and the predicted changes to the nature of natural hazards (increased frequency and intensity of bushfires, cyclones and storm surge etc.) warrants attention. While land use planning is an effective tool for controlling inappropriate future development, there is a lag in most statutory and strategic planning processes that limits their response to the future scenarios of anticipated climate change. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

10 1 Introduction 1.1 Aim of research paper The Australian Local Government Association engaged SMEC Australia and Institute for International Development to undertake this project to progress the understanding of local government s contribution to the National Framework for Natural Disaster Management (national framework) using integrated land use planning and development controls. Both the Natural Disasters in Australia 1 report and the National Bushfire Inquiry 2, written on behalf of COAG, have noted land use planning as the single most important mitigation measure for limiting future disaster losses in areas of new development. The recommendations of the Natural Disasters in Australia report are listed in Appendix 1 with those elements most relevant to this research paper, in Recommendations 4 and 5, highlighted. This research paper highlights local governments capability and capacity to contribute to this national framework, through the application of land use planning and development controls. ALGA s strong links with PIA presents the opportunity to identify the needs of local government planners in this area and to resource planners with appropriate information and tools. An all-hazards approach to mitigation through the application of land use planning controls, with a focus on natural hazards, is examined in this research paper. In particular, the paper: Provides a history of risk management in Australia and explains a number of terms that are relevant to the research and its findings; Provides a national overview of how local government currently contributes to all-hazard risk mitigation through land use statutory planning controls; Describes existing land use planning instruments and processes which create significant constraints to effective all-hazards risk management by local government; Provides an overview of legislative and institutional frameworks that contribute to risk management in Australia to understand the similarities, differences and how this may impact on the development of a national approach; 1 Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) (2004) National Disasters in Australia: Reforming mitigation, relief and recovery arrangements, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

11 Investigates local governments capacity and identifies constraints on their response to a trilevel national framework for further attention or investigation; Describes gaps that exist in resources and support for planners and resource managers to integrate mitigation of risk using land use planning measures; Describes broad-scale social and economic impacts on local communities caused by applying land use development controls for all-hazard disaster mitigation; Identifies existing resources and examples of land use planning initiatives that successfully reduce community vulnerability and exposure to hazards using a risk management approach; and Adds to existing understanding of impacts on the local community that result from disaster mitigation using land use planning measures. The findings from this research paper will assist all levels of government to appropriately inform and resource local government to respond to the recommendations made by COAG. This will be progressed through identifying and acknowledging the real constraints that influence how effectively local governments can participate in the national emergency management framework. It is important to note that this project does not focus on local government s role and responsibility within a response and recovery arrangement - this research paper is only concerned with how land use planning contributes to risk mitigation and preparedness. Finally, the report will assist ALGA to respond to the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council (LGPMC) which has been tasked with the implementation of the recommendations from the Natural Disasters in Australia report relating to disaster mitigation through land use planning and development controls. 2 Ellis, S, Kanowski, P and Whelan, R (2004) National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

12 1.2 Background to the research paper In June 2001, COAG commissioned Natural Disasters in Australia - a review of the national arrangements for dealing with national disasters. The Terms of Reference called for a review of: Australia s approach to natural disaster relief, recovery and mitigation against disasters. The objective of the review is to determine whether current arrangements provide an effective framework to meet the needs of those affected by natural disasters. This would have a premise that any arrangements should facilitate maximum involvement of state, territory and local governments in contributing to disaster relief and mitigation and continued Commonwealth cost-sharing arrangements. 3 A total of twelve reform commitments (Recommendation 4) were developed and agreed to by all levels of government. A five year package to reform the way that Australia manages and responds to natural disasters has also been agreed to which aims to achieve safer, more sustainable communities and regions in economic, social and environmental terms. 4 The findings of this research paper will enhance understanding of the involvement of local governments within the national framework and identify constraints that limit their participation with state, territory and Australian governments. One of the key drivers for investigating the management and response to natural disasters is the cost of natural disasters and the impacts on social and economic factors. It has been estimated that the average annual cost of natural disasters from 1967 to 1999 (in 1999 values) was $1.14 billion. This estimate is influenced by three extreme events Cyclone Tracey (Darwin 1974), Newcastle Earthquake (1989) and the Sydney hailstorm (1999). Even if the costs of these three events are removed from the estimate, the average annual cost is still significant at $860 million. 5 Investment in risk and disaster mitigation programs provides significant returns and benefits to the community and private landowners. For every dollar spent on mitigation measures, there are substantial savings on response and recovery elements. 3 Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) (2004) National Disasters in Australia: Reforming mitigation, relief and recovery arrangements, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, page 2. 4 Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) (2004) National Disasters in Australia: Reforming mitigation, relief and recovery arrangements, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, page vi. 5 Bureau of Transport Economics (2001) Economic Costs of Natural Disaster in Australia: Report 103, Commonwealth of Australia, page xvi. Note: This study only looked at hazards covered by the NDRA and did not include heatwave as a natural hazard, which has accounted for more deaths than all other hazards combined. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

13 The impacts of natural disasters can change substantially from year to year depending on the population levels affected, timing, magnitude, intensity and location of the event. It is, therefore, important to examine these aspects through how well the current risk management and planning frameworks can adapt to changing circumstances. This is also facilitated to some degree through taking an all-hazards approach to risk management. The definition of an all-hazards approach was developed through the COAG Natural Disasters review and provides national consistency when referring to the management of different types of emergencies through a consistent approach. For example, natural disaster management is one aspect of emergency management; and by applying the term all-hazards, it allows the arrangements for natural disasters to be compatible with the future directions taken for other emergencies in Australia. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

14 2 Approach The inputs to the project were conducted in five stages as follows: Stage 1 involved a half day face-to-face inception meeting to debate and form the research questions and clarify the key objectives of the project. Key agencies and individuals to be contacted during stage 3 were also identified. Stage 2 involved reviewing literature, reports and other information relating to land use planning as it has been applied to risk mitigation, by local government in particular. Stage 3 involved consulting with 32 people engaged in land use planning, risk management and emergency services from all Australian state and territories and New Zealand to gain a nation-wide perspective. All members of the Planning Officials Group (which reports to the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council) were interviewed, along with Emergency Management Australia (EMA), Planning Institute of Australia and various State Emergency Service (SES) representatives. Local governments were not contacted directly as they had recently participated in the ALGA National Local Government Emergency Management Survey 2006, as stated in Stage 4. A full list of organisations contacted during the consultation process can be found in Appendix 2A. The majority of interviews were conducted by phone (teleconference if there were more than one person present) with two face-to-face meetings held in Victoria and one in Queensland. All interviews ran for between 30 and 90 minutes. Each person (or group of people) was contacted by phone to arrange a time for the interview and sent an information brochure by (Appendix 2B). An interview sheet was used to standardise the questions and maintain a level of consistency (Appendix 2C). In some cases, respondents also provided additional written information outside of the structured consultation times, via . The interviews were conducted in October and November Stage 4 involved reviewing the information collected by ALGA in its National Local Government Emergency Management Survey This survey was made available online to all local governments across Australia during May-June The survey was designed as a stocktake of local government s roles and responsibilities in emergency management and to determine the state of development of emergency management and preparedness in local government. The information will assist ALGA identify areas for capability development and to improve the definition of the role of local government in all-hazards emergency management 6. A total of 350 responses 6 The actual data from the stocktake survey are not available within this report. A report on the principal survey findings will be released in Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

15 were received from 673 local governments across Australia. The survey targeted emergency managers or officers with responsibility for emergency management within Council. The analysis of the survey forms a separate project to this research paper; however, some of the results were highly relevant to this research paper and are included where they confirm, contribute to or support the findings of this research paper. Stage 5 involved analysis of the information sourced through stages 1 4 against the key objectives, and the identification of key findings to assist ALGA in taking the results of this project forward. Key areas for future research and investigation were also identified. Note - For the purposes of discussion throughout the research paper, individuals from the consultation (Stage 3) are identified as participants, and individuals from the ALGA 2006 survey (Stage 4) are identified as survey respondents or respondents. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

16 3 Risk Management 3.1 Emergency and risk management in Australia The evolution of risk mitigation, as it is known today, has been an undercurrent of emergency management for many years. In fact, the concept of risk has been under consideration in the disaster and emergency management arena since at least the 1970s. The Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation (UNDRO) held a conference in 1979 during which it explored the relationship between natural hazards, community elements and their vulnerability. Definitions of these were developed as well as one of risk. In the 1980s the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed the PPRR approach Prevent, Prepare, Respond, Recover - to emergency management and this was adopted in Australia in 1984 by the then Natural Disasters Organisation (NDO). A major advance and concentrated research effort into reducing the losses resulting from disasters was stimulated by the declaration of the 1990s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) by the United Nations. Australia, led by NDO, which became the Emergency Management Authority (EMA) in 1994, was a very active participant in the IDNDR program. Perhaps the most significant pioneering research program with a natural disaster risk management focus in Australia was the Tropical Cyclone Coastal Impacts Program (TCCIP), led by the Bureau of Meteorology. This program involved input from a wide range of academic and professional disaster managers and although its initial focus was in Queensland its scope soon became international. It remains one of the most influential international disaster risk management research programs and became the model for other successful disaster risk management research programs including the Cities Project hosted by Geoscience Australia since In 1995 Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand published the first edition of the AS/NZS 4360 Risk Management Standard. This standard was developed with the objectives of providing a generic framework for identification, analysis, assessment, treatment and monitoring of risk 7. The standard was intended to enable organisations to minimise losses and maximise opportunities for any situation. It was the worlds first risk management standard and remains a model for similar standards now being introduced in many countries. 7 Standards Australia/ Standards New Zealand (2004) Australia New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk management, Standards Australia, Homebush, and Standards New Zealand, Wellington. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

17 In November 1995 the Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI) EMA s training establishment at Mt Macedon hosted a workshop for senior disaster managers from all states and territories to introduce the AS/NZS 4360 standard and initiate discussion on how it might be adopted within the disaster and emergency management fields. The workshop was led by Professor Jean Cross, the Chair of the committee that developed the very same standard. In March 1996 a subsequent workshop was held at AEMI to actually advance the implementation of AS/NZS 4360 standard into the disaster/emergency management fields. According to the historical overview contained in the Emergency Risk Management Applications Guide the aim of the workshop was: to identify, in the context of public administration, whether a systematic risk management approach (as represented by AS/NZS 4360) could enhance emergency management 8. It was subsequently decided that risk management should be promoted as the basis for emergency management over the next 3-5 year period. Most states and territories embraced the concepts and principles of the AS/NZS 4360 very quickly and the Guidelines for Emergency Risk Management were developed over the next two years. They were endorsed by the National Emergency Management Committee, Australia s peak emergency management body, in October Queensland was the first to publish and implement explicit guidelines for local governments in undertaking natural disaster risk management studies 9 - these served as a model for other states such as those produced by the NSW State Emergency Management Committee (2001). Local governments gradually began to embrace disaster risk management towards the end of the 1990s. This was largely due to changes to the administration of Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements (NDRA) in These changes meant that efforts to reduce the level of risk from natural hazards, especially flood, were taken into account when allocating NDRA funds. These changes are still reflected in the current description of the arrangements provided on the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) web site: 8 Emergency Management Australia (2000) Emergency Risk Management Applications Guide, Australian Emergency Manual Series, Part II Approaches to Emergency Management, Volume 1 Risk Management, Manual 5. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December Zamecka A. and Buchanan G. (1999) Disaster risk management, Department of Emergency Services, Brisbane.

18 The NDRA applies to any one of, or a combination of, the following natural hazards: bushfire; earthquake; flood; storm; cyclone; storm surge; landslide; tsunami; meteorite strike; or tornado. These arrangements do not apply to disasters where poor environmental planning, commercial development, personal intervention (other than arson) or accident are significant contributing factors to the event. 10 (Emphasis added) In , the Natural Disaster Risk Management Studies Program (NDRMSP) commenced to stimulate research into natural hazard risk and the development of risk management strategies, especially at the local government level. The funding for this program was divided equally between the Australian, state and local governments involved. The NDRMSP was integrated into the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) in The Local Grants Scheme, administered by EMA, also provides funding for local governments to undertake such studies. The PPRR approach initially introduced and adopted in the 1980s has come under review in recent years. As a result of the COAG Bushfire Mitigation and Management Inquiry, 11 a new and broader approach has developed. The five Rs approach Research, information and analysis; Risk modification; Readiness; Response; and Recovery is now endorsed and is being adopted and applied by all state and territory governments. In the National Bushfire Mitigation and Management Inquiry, it was concluded that this approach is a better basis for understanding the integrated elements of bushfire mitigation and management. 11 This research paper focuses on Risk modification aspects, and discusses how risk can be modified, or mitigated, through the application of land use planning and development controls by local government. 3.2 Explanation of risk The terminology in the risk management, mitigation and disaster management areas has historically overlapped, and at times has caused great confusion as they are inherently linked. Confusion can also arise through lack of clarity in the type of risk or disaster being managed, and whether reference is being made to a specific natural disaster or to an all-hazards approach. Accordingly, some definitions are provided below. 10 Department of Transport and Regional Services website, 11 Ellis, S, Kanowski, P and Whelan, R (2004) National Bushfire Inquiry Mitigation and Management, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

19 The Australian Standard for risk management AS/NZS defines risk as: the chance of something happening that will have an impact upon objectives. It is measured in terms of consequences and likelihood. The Queensland Department of Emergency Services provide a similar definition of risk, namely: A concept used to describe the likelihood of harmful consequences arising from the interaction of hazards, community and the environment 13. The likelihood component of both statements is derived largely from consideration of the hazard phenomena involved and the assessed probability of events of differing magnitude or severity occurring. It can also include measures of the likelihood that those elements exposed to the hazard will be harmed, i.e. their degree of vulnerability. Consequences are usually measured in terms of lives lost, people injured, damage to property and disruption to economic activity. Risk can thus be assessed in terms of the interaction between three key elements the hazard, the community elements exposed to that hazard and their vulnerability. The relationship between these three elements is shown in Figure 3-1. EXPOSURE RISK VULNERABILITY HAZARD Figure 3-1: The risk- hazard exposure-vulnerability relationship (based on Crichton, ). 12 Standards Australia/ Standards New Zealand (2004) Australia New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk management, Standards Australia, Homebush, and Standards New Zealand, Wellington. 13 Zamecka A. and Buchanan G. (1999) Disaster risk management, Department of Emergency Services, Brisbane. 14 Crichton D., (1999) The risk triangle, in J. Ingleton (ed), Natural disaster management, Tudor Rose, London. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

20 In Figure 3-1, the triangle portrays each variable as being equal with risk being represented by the area of the triangle. The amount of total risk may be diminished by reducing the size of any one or more of the three contributing components. In the smaller (hatched) triangle the total risk has been reduced by mitigating the exposure and vulnerability components. The reduction of any of the factors to zero (e.g. by eliminating flood plain development) would consequently eliminate the risk. Conversely, an increase in any one of the elements (e.g. an increase in poorly designed development in high hazard areas) will increase the risk. The process of risk reduction is linked to sustainability as it must address social, economic and environmental factors to ensure effective and sustainable outcomes 15. Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) has been widely accepted by all levels of government in Australia. ESD principles are now commonplace and play an important role in everyday life. Incorporating sustainable development principles into risk reduction assists to broaden the approach taken by governments and more particularly, the community. A sustainable development approach to risk reduction does not solely focus upon hard infrastructure risk reduction measures but allows a broader depth of considerations to be developed that will not impact adversely on the environment, economic or social factors An all-hazards approach An all-hazards approach deals with all types of emergencies and disasters using the same set of management arrangements 17 such as the five Rs described previously. For the purposes of this research paper, hazards have been defined as natural hazards or other hazards. Natural hazards are meteorological and geological phenomena that have the potential to create emergency or disaster situations for communities and the environment. The economic, social and environmental losses can be significant and may be magnified if these events repeatedly affect the same areas. 15 Emergency Management Australia (2002) Planning Safer Communities: land use planning for natural hazards, Part 2 Approaches to Emergency Management, Volume 2 Mitigation Planning, Commonwealth of Australia. 16 Ibid. 17 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) Project Brief- Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper, Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

21 The Natural Disasters in Australia report recommended that key terms used in relation to natural disaster management should be adopted for consistent national use. Natural disasters are defined as: A natural disaster is a serious disruption to a community or region caused by the impact of a naturally occurring rapid onset event that threatens or causes death, injury or damage to property or the environment and which requires significant and coordinated multi-agency and community response. Such serious disruption can be caused by any one, or a combination of the following natural hazards: bushfire; earthquake; flood; storm; cyclone; storm surge; landslide; tsunami; meteorite strike; or tornado. (pp 103) Most natural disasters are very complex and actually involve several elements. A tropical cyclone, for example, may be seen as the main hazard, but it is the associated elements that actually produce the damage, such as storm tide, coastal erosion, destructive winds, widespread rainfall, riverine flooding and landslides. Other hazards broadly incorporate a range of biological phenomena that are anthropogenic in nature (such as pandemic human disease, plant or animal disease, pest plagues), as well as technological hazards, heatwave and secondary (or flow on) impacts from a natural hazard. While the focus of this research paper is on the mitigation of impacts of natural hazards, reference is also made to other hazards where appropriate. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

22 4 Contribution of Land Use Planning to Risk Management 4.1 Land use planning: statutory and strategic Land use planning involves the control and designation of land uses and can encourage, discourage or prohibit development in certain areas. Two levels of planning commonly referred to are statutory planning and strategic planning 18. Statutory planning is the general combination of requirements that can control or define how land is used and the types of development that can occur. It is generally referred to as the regulatory side of land use planning and involves, amongst other functions, the processing of planning applications for the development and use of land. The assessment of applications is undertaken to ensure it is consistent with the relevant state planning legislation and complies with the performance criteria or standards set out in local planning schemes. Strategic Planning involves the development of a planning scheme or similar instrument. It is a statutory instrument developed and applied to the local level that should be consistent with relevant Commonwealth and state legislation and regulations. Strategic Plans are known by different names in each state, (e.g. Planning Scheme in Queensland/Victoria/Tasmania, Local Environment Plan in New South Wales and Development Plan in South Australia) and are developed to set the strategic direction for a local area. Strategic Plans establish policy positions for a number of key issues, and include outcomes, objectives, performance criteria and acceptable solutions. Strategic Plans include zoning maps that designate the location, type and density of land use and development. Land use and development applications are assessed against these Plans and each assessment must consider the cumulative effects of development within the local area. The Plan formulates the policy basis that provides guidance and direction for the whole of a region, local area, municipality or state/territory. The creation of planning policy is governed by both state/territory and local governments. State/territory governments provide broad land use policy direction for the whole state or territory. This policy direction is then consistent across all local municipalities and is referred to as State Planning Policy (SPP), or similar. SPPs cover a whole range of elements including social, economic, environmental, cultural/historical and business development. Local governments can provide localised policies that are relevant to their own municipality and set more focused 18 Emergency Management Australia (2002) Planning Safer Communities: land use planning for natural hazards, Part 2 Approaches to Emergency Management, Volume 2 Mitigation Planning, Commonwealth of Australia, Chapter 1. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

23 objectives or directions for land use and development. This is referred to as Local Planning Policy (LPP), or similar, and is translated into an overall strategic policy statement for the whole municipality. Local planning policies may include land uses or developments such as subdivision in rural areas, building with wildfire or floodplain areas and land management in high conservation areas. These directions may be guided by the state/territory government, but are reinforced and enhanced through the creation and application of local policy. 4.2 Risk mitigation through the application of land use planning controls Land use planning policies are most effectively applied at the local level when there is cooperation and collaboration between all levels of government. It is important that there is an integrated approach to decision making and a strong partnership between governments, the private sector and the community. When all of these competing interests are balanced and integrated, land use planning can assist to sustain economic and environmental development and create safer communities 19. As described in EMA s manual, Planning for Safer Communities: land use planning for natural hazards (2002) 19 : Land use planning can play a key part in reducing current and future community risk. Responsible management of the environment and its resources, and flexible and responsive development can prevent or mitigate negative impacts. Land use planning requires the balancing of many, often competing, interests: private sector needs, public policy requirements, equity, long term economic development, environmental conservation, amenity and community safety and wellbeing. Land use planning is an important mechanism to reduce community exposure to risk. The Plan preparation process assists in identifying potential hazards based on a review of the physical, social and economic environment. Land can be designated (e.g. by zoning or classification) to reflect the most compatible uses appropriate for the environment. For example, in areas of an identified hazard or high risk, development may be prohibited, restricted or designed in such a way to mitigate impacts. The designated area can then be suitably managed using the direction of the Plan (or planning scheme) and specific development and building controls. Any development applications submitted for new, and in some cases existing, development will need to comply with the requirements of the Plan. 19 Emergency Management Australia (2002) Planning Safer Communities: land use planning for natural hazards, Part 2 Approaches to Emergency Management, Volume 2 Mitigation Planning, Commonwealth of Australia. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

24 Development controls can be applied to restrict, limit or control the physical development of the built form. These can have an influence over the: Location and density of development; Materials and type of building form; and Height, bulk and scale of development. Examples of development controls include the height of habitable floors levels in flood prone areas, setbacks (or distances) from known high risk areas, or minimum provision of on-site water supply in fire prone areas. The use of development controls in the context of risk management in the built environment is most commonly applied through building regulations. The Building Code of Australia (BCA) provides a consistent national standard for building compliance. The Code seeks to reduce the vulnerability of buildings (and hence their occupants) to impacts such as severe winds, earthquakes and bushfires. The building standards of the BCA for severe wind risks have been in place since the mid 1970s, those for earthquake since the mid 1980s and for bushfire since the early 1990s. Each has been subject to ongoing review and revision. For domestic buildings constructed before these codes were introduced, there are now guidelines produced by Standards Australia and the Insurance Council of Australia for the retrofit of buildings to bring them up to current earthquake and severe wind loading standards. 4.3 Examples of land use planning and development controls to reduce risk Australia is exposed to a range of natural hazards that carry varying levels of risk that can be mitigated by appropriate land use planning. Table 4-1 briefly describes how the impacts of each of these hazards can be mitigated by the application of land use planning and development controls and lists some examples in various states and territories This table is not intended to provide an exhaustive summary of all hazards and their impacts. It is intended to provide a very succinct overview and a few relevant examples. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

25 Table 4-1: Examples of land use planning and development controls that mitigate the impacts of natural hazards Type of Natural Hazard How are impacts of hazards reduced? Flood Prohibits or controls land use and development within flood-prone land through the application of zones or overlays. Minimum finished floor levels above the applicable flood level Strategic direction to designate flood prone land for particular land uses such as recreation, conservation or agriculture. Bushfire Prohibits or controls land use and development within high fire risk areas through the application of zones or overlays. Cyclone (including damage from both high winds and flooding by sea as a result of storm surge) Requires fire retardant building materials Requires buffer zones (or fire breaks) to separate bushland and residential areas Provision of static water supply Setbacks from coasts to avoid inundation from storm surge Loading strength of building materials (in high winds) Earthquake Loading strength of building materials Severe (including storms wind, Engineered design and construction in high risk areas Provision of adequate drainage infrastructure within new Examples of Land Use Planning or Development Controls Floodplain Development Manual New South Wales 21 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO)- Victoria State Planning Policy 1/03 Mitigating the adverse impacts of flood, bushfire and landslides, Queensland 22 Designation of Bushfire Prone Areas and Country Fire Service referral areas- South Australia State Planning Policy 1/03 Mitigating the adverse impacts of flood, bushfire and landslides- Queensland 22 Planning for Bushfire Mitigation for new development and redevelopment 23 - ACT NSW State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 71- Coastal Protection 24 Building Code of Australia 25 Building Code of Australia 25 State Planning Policy 3.4 Natural Hazards and Disasters- April 2006, Western Australia Residential subdivision provisions, Victorian Planning 21 NSW Government (2001) Floodplain Management Manual: The Management of Flood Liable Land, Sydney: New South Wales Government. 22 Department of Local Government & Planning and Department of Emergency Services (2003) State Planning Policy 1/03 Mitigating the adverse impacts of flood, bushfire and landslides, Queensland Government. 23 ACT Planning & Land Authority (2006) Planning for Bushfire Mitigation for new development and re-development, ACT Government, Adopted onto the Register of Planning Document, 3 February New South Wales Government (2002) State Environmental Planning Policy Number 71, from legislation NSW website, 25 Australian Building Codes Board website, Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

26 rain, hail damage and local flooding); development to accommodate for flash flooding Landslip/ landslides Prohibiting or restricting development on high risk or steep sites through application of zones or overlays Coastal erosion (which may occur without being associated with an actual hazard event). Prohibit all development downhill of a high risk area Buffer zones along coastlines to prevent development areas being affected by long term coastal recession Designation of land uses along coastlines such as recreation and conservation areas to avoid damages to infrastructure Provisions (Clause 56) 26 State Planning Policy 3.4 Natural Hazards and Disasters- April 2006, Western Australia Erosion Management Overlay (EMO)- Victoria State Planning Policy 1/03 Mitigating the adverse impacts of flood, bushfire and landslides, Queensland 27 State Coastal Planning Policy 2.6- June 2003, Western Australia (currently under amendment) NSW Coastal Policy 1997 State Coastal Policy Tasmania Australia is subject to a range of other hazards including a range of biological phenomena that are anthropogenic in nature (such as pandemic human disease, plant or animal disease and pest plagues), as well as technological hazards, heatwave 29 and secondary (or flow on) impacts from a natural hazard. These other hazards impact upon the lives, health and behaviour of humans and animals and are beyond the direct control of land use planning. These other hazards are regulated and controlled through other mechanisms such as vaccination against the spread of human or animal disease or use of pesticides to control pest plagues and plant disease. Land use planning can assist to reduce the indirect impacts of other hazards through, for example, the provision of closed sewerage to control the spread of disease or the creation of buffer zones between different land uses to reduce off-site impacts following a chemical explosion or spill. The impacts of heatwave, for example, could be indirectly reduced through energy efficient building 26 Department of Sustainability and Environment website, 27 Department of Local Government & Planning and Department of Emergency Services (2003) State Planning Policy 1/03 Mitigating the adverse impacts of flood, bushfire and landslides, Queensland Government. 28 Tasmanian Government, State Coastal Policy Heatwave is considered to be a public health issue rather than a natural disaster under the Commonwealth Government s Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements (NDRA). None-the-less, heatwave is clearly the most lethal of all natural hazards in Australia, probably killing more people than all other natural hazards combined (Coates, L. (1996) 'An Overview of fatalities from some natural hazards in Australia', in R.L. Heathcoote, C. Cuttler, and J. Koetz, (eds), Natural Disaster Reduction conference proceedings, Institute of Engineers Australia, Canberra, pp ) Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

27 design to decrease the reliance on air conditioners and reduce the unnecessary cause of death and discomfort during summer to those that are at risk. The importance of land use planning as a critical mitigation measure for all-hazards is widely recognised, as noted by the Natural Disasters in Australia report and the National Bushfire Inquiry, written on behalf of COAG. As discussed above, there are situations where land use planning can either directly, or indirectly, reduce the impacts of both natural and other hazards. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

28 5 Overview of Local Government 5.1 How does local government participate in risk management? It is well known and researched that local government plays a key role in risk and emergency management given it is the closest level of government to communities 30 & 31. What this translates to is that local governments: possess a detailed and intimate knowledge of the community they serve on a day-to-day basis and of the environment in which they operate. (Eggleston and Koob, 2004) Local government s role in risk and emergency management now includes not only the protection of infrastructure, health and welfare services from risks but the participation in emergency planning. Its responsibilities for land use planning, zoning and building control standards, according to each state and territory statutory and policy frameworks, sees local government play a vital role in mitigating against risks 32. According to Eggleston and Koob (2004), in most Australian jurisdictions, local government is recognised and relied on in the whole-of-government emergency management arrangements. As part of these arrangements local government: prepares, or participates in local risk assessments and risk management reports; uses building and planning approval processes to reduce risk; prepares or participates in local emergency plans, including planning for the mobilisation of local government and contracted resources; participates in training and exercising programs; and supports the emergency services and the community during and after emergencies 33. It was widely recognised during the consultation that local governments play an important role in developing and implementing land use planning controls and planning schemes. Many participants 30 Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, 2001; Montgomery, M., 2003; NSW SEMC Committee, & 32 Gabriel, P., The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol 18 No. 2, May Eggleston and Koob (2004) The role of local government in agricultural emergencies, The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, August 2004 Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

29 commented that local governments hold much of the local knowledge. They interact closely with their communities and are often the first to know what is going on in the area, be it that a mitigation measure needs to be put in place or that an emergency has just occurred. As well as the legislative role they are required to play, their on-ground knowledge is invaluable in both understanding their local risks and providing a strategic direction for their area. Local government is the closest level of government to the community and is well placed to mitigate against risks through the development and application of land use planning controls. The Australian Government provides a variety of assistance programs to local government for emergency management and planning. One of the most recent and well known of these is the Working Together to Manage Emergencies initiative which provides funding through the Local Grants Scheme and the National Emergency Volunteer Support Fund. The ALGA 2006 survey sought information on how local government viewed the importance of their role across a number of risk and emergency management functions. Figure 5-1 indicates that 62% (205 responses) acknowledged that local government plays a leading role in conducting local emergency planning and preparation. The consultation confirmed this with comments received that local governments are in the best position to prepare local emergency plans given their close links to the community. More importantly to this research, however, is that Figure 5-1 shows that 76% (255 respondents) felt that they had a lead role in managing the implementation of land use planning to reduce risk. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

30 In your opinion, is it Council's role to... Number of Responses Internal corporate role only No role Supporting role Leading role Conduct local emergency planning & preparation Use land use planning to reduce risk Undert ake cost ef fect ive measures to mitigate the eff ect s fo natural disasters Educat e business on emergency preparedness Type of role Actively encourage resident preparedness Figure 5-1: Survey respondents opinions of the role of Council As discussed in Chapter 4, land use planning controls make a significant contribution to mitigating the impacts of natural disasters. The responsibility for applying these land use planning controls rests with local government in all states except the Northern Territory (NT) where local governments role is as a referral agency only. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has no system of local government. As such, the NT and ACT survey responses are illustrated by the no role and internal corporate role only classifications in Figure 5-1. Local government clearly acknowledges that it has a lead role in the application of land use planning to reduce risk. 5.2 Local government functions Local government bodies determine service provision according to local needs and the requirements of state/territory legislation relating to local government. Generally they provide governance, advocacy, service delivery, planning and community development and regulation roles within their specified area. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

31 The perception of core local government services being roads, rates and rubbish has changed considerably in recent times. Local government now delivers a greater range of services, above and beyond those it is traditionally associated with; broadening its focus from hard infrastructure provision to include spending on social services such as health, welfare, safety and community amenities 34. However, all levels of government have a role to play in each of these areas. Thus, there is scope for both duplication of roles and the chance that some areas and issues are overlooked or ignored. The increase in responsibility and service provision has come at a cost, with a strong view that cost burdens have shifted between levels of government, with local government bearing an unfair share. The Fair Share report of 2003, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration s inquiry into local government and cost shifting, states the impact of cost shifting on local government is costing between $500 million and $1.1 billion each year. 35 One of the areas identified to address cost shifting is for local government to be involved in decision making around the delivery of services at an early stage. The adoption of such an approach is reflected in the commitment for all three tiers of government to work together on disaster management. Local government s role has increased in complexity and level of responsibility, which has caused cost burdens to shift between the levels of government with local government bearing an unfair share. 5.3 Legislative responsibilities of local government The Australian Constitution 36 outlines that the responsibility for establishing the legal and regulatory framework for local government lies with state and territory governments. This introduces significant differences as to how the state and territory systems administer responsibility for overseeing local government and the roles, functions and responsibilities of local governments and 34 ALGA (2004) Australia s Ageing Population, Economic implications for local government, September Australian Government (2003) Rates and Taxes: A fair share for responsible local government, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 36 Parliament of Australia website, Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

32 the services they deliver. This aspect of Australia s system of government means that national approaches need to be worked on collaboratively, yet they must also be able to respect different jurisdictional arrangements. It was noted during the consultation that while the state and territory governments play a significant role in developing policy guidelines and structures that apply to land use planning, the decentralised nature of local government can be counter-productive and lead to inconsistent policy frameworks and inconsistent use of resources. The system is different in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), where local government functions are centralised, hence there is no formalised local government structure in the ACT. In the Northern Territory, local governments do not have any statutory powers in regard to land use planning or risk mitigation. In the past, local government roles were detailed in prescriptive legislation by the states and territories. Local government bodies in all jurisdictions now have the authority to provide generally for the good governance of their local government area. This has been viewed as conferring on local government the powers of general competence, or the power to take action in any area not expressly precluded by other legislation. Legislative frameworks have an implicit impact on the funding arrangements for each state and territory. The way funding, resources and information are provided and accessed does not always match local government needs or capacity. Several participants in the consultation commented that more effective mechanisms for fostering partnerships across these three tiers of government would result in more efficient land use planning, risk mitigation and responses to emergencies. These themes are explored in more detail in the remainder of this paper. Legislative and institutional frameworks impact local government s capacity to carry out their roles. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

33 The application of land use planning controls to mitigate against risks also enables local government to respond to public liability issues. In the 1990s, local governments were faced with an increasingly litigious environment and an increasing number of claims being made against them; adequate levels of public liability insurance became prohibitively expensive. Since 2002 a series of tort law reforms have been implemented by all jurisdictions to achieve a better balance between the interests of the community as a whole and the continuing right of individuals with significant injuries to seek redress 37. The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has, and continues to, contributed significantly to local government s understanding of risks and mitigation strategies for local communities. It is interesting to note that the links between the ICA and local government were not identified by any of the consultation participants or survey respondents. Local government has become increasingly aware of its responsibility for public liability and the links should be strengthened between the Insurance Council of Australia and local government. 37 ALGA (2005), Ministerial Forum on Insurance Issues, April 2005 Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

34 6 Constraints and Limitations on Local Government 6.1 Improved understanding The National Disasters in Australia report encouraged the adoption of a national framework to establish a unified approach to natural disasters. The recommendations called upon the Australian, state and territory governments and ALGA to endorse and jointly implement a five year reform package to create safer and sustainable communities and regions 38. The role of local government within this context needs to be qualified and understood to ensure that its participation is supported and encouraged by the Australian, state and territory governments. Throughout the consultation phase, participants identified a range of barriers real and perceived, that inhibit local government s capacity to participate effectively and efficiently in the national framework. Some of these barriers are well known and have been identified previously (e.g. training, capacity and resources) while others have been illuminated through this research, as will be discussed within this chapter. Irrespective, one of the ways in which they can be addressed is to improve the understanding of these barriers across all levels of government so that they can be acknowledged and addressed. This was a common theme in the consultation. There needs to be improved understanding and appreciation at the state and federal levels of the real barriers that limit local government s capacity to participate in a national framework. 6.2 Funding for risk management As outlined previously, the Australian Government plays a key role in the coordination of policy and programs at the national level, with implementation lying largely with local, state and territory governments. It was widely acknowledged by the consultation participants that allocating funding to implement mitigation measures reduces the amount of funding spent on response and recovery activities, after an emergency. Historically, it has been easier to justify spending more on improved response 38 Department of Transport and Regional Services (2004) National Disasters in Australia: Reforming mitigation, relief and recovery arrangements, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

35 capability due to difficulty associated with putting a value on prevention/ mitigation strategies using a performance based approach. The Victorian Bushfire Inquiry 39 has noted that this historical approach is starting to turn around. The long term financial savings on response capability that are made from genuine commitment to prevention and mitigation strategies is increasingly being acknowledged and accepted 39. This is a significant change to previous times, when the emphasis has been on response and recovery activities. Local governments cannot sustain the increasing responsibilities placed on them in relation to risk management if they are to rely solely on rate revenues. Many rural and regional local governments are severely limited in resources as their relative rate base is historically small, and in some areas declining. Consultation participants suggest that alternative revenue increasing opportunities should be further explored to reduce councils reliance on external funding, such as using development contributions to assist the implementation of risk mitigation measures. The Australian Government s investment through the National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) greatly assists local governments. The ALGA 2006 survey shows 76.3% of survey respondents indicated that the Australian Governments financial support is a very or quite important factor and contributes to improving local government s capacity in this area 40. Furthermore, participants in the consultation strongly believe that the Australian Government should continue to provide funding. Local governments rely heavily upon the NDMP funding to allow them to prepare plans and conduct other risk management / mitigation measures. 39 Department of Premier and Cabinet (2003) Report of the Inquiry into the Victorian Bushfires, State Government of Victoria. 40 The classifications of responses used in the ALGA 2006 survey were not important, a little important, moderately important, quite important and very important. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

36 The NDMP funding guidelines require that local governments contribute one third of the funding, with state and Australian Governments providing a matching contribution. Most participants commented that many local governments still find it difficult to source their share of the funding. This often results in their inability to make the application to attract additional funding at all. The difference in size and scale of local governments and the differences in revenue bases constrain some local governments in their ability to allocate resources (cash) contributions. This could be introducing a bias leading to funding of better resourced councils, rather than the areas that are in most need of the funding. This situation is not unique to the risk and disaster management area rather is a feature of many funding programs. There is high level support for the Australian Government to continue to provide NDMP funding to assist local government. Consultation participants have noted that the distribution of risk mitigation funding is often not getting to the areas that need it most. As discussed, it is common for a bias to be created towards councils that can generate their share of the funding and prepare the necessary funding application. Councils who have reduced capacity to apply for funding, such as small isolated rural councils, may continue to be out-bid by larger cash-rich councils. These disadvantaged councils are therefore often unable to contribute effectively to risk mitigation measures. It was suggested by participants that a prioritisation arrangement to distribute funding may assist to address this matter and would more effectively deliver funding to areas that have a higher priority for risk mitigation measures. While no suggestions were made by participants as to how this might be arranged or delivered, it was identified as an area that warranted further investigation. Further investigation is warranted to explore the feasibility of a prioritised funding arrangement for delivery of risk mitigation funding. It was also found that while the NDMP was a positive initiative, the three year program approach presented some issues for local government. It was noted that most of the funds received are expended on planning exercises and staff or human resources. While there was strong recognition that the planning was fundamental, there is often a very limited amount left for actual implementation of plans, recommendations and actions. This creates significant difficulty for long term ongoing mitigation programs, or larger projects, that need to continue over several years. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

37 As with many funding programs, participants commented that local government would prefer assurance that NDMP funding will continue over a longer time frame (perhaps 10 years) to allow for more efficient planning and delivery of mitigation programs. It would be beneficial if the funding for NDMP continued over longer time frames to encourage efficiency in delivery of longer term research and ongoing mitigation projects 6.3 Limitations restricting local government s ability to apply for funding As discussed previously, local governments must allocate a portion of their own funds to be eligible to receive additional grant funding through the Australian and state governments. Allocation of budgets specifically to risk management can prove to be difficult for many local governments, as they have to balance many competing budget interests and prioritise accordingly. In addition to the need for local governments to allocate funding, there is also a number of factors that limit local government s ability to prepare and lodge funding applications, including: The time and resources required to prepare applications; In-house expertise in developing applications; Knowledge of the programs available; and Project management ability and capacity. The outcomes of the ALGA 2006 survey (Figure 6-1) illustrate the level of importance attributed to these factors. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

38 Number of Responses Rate how important these factors are in restricting capacity to apply for emergency management funding Council's funding contribution Time to develop applications Staff expertise to develop applications Factors Knowledge of programs Ability to manage projects Inadequate program funding Not important A little important Moderately important Quite important Very important Figure 6-1: Survey respondents rating of the importance of factors that restrict applying for funding The highest restrictive factor identified was time to develop applications. It was also noted during the consultation that the time required to prepare and develop funding applications was considered lengthy and onerous. Local governments frequently don t have the resources, knowledge or expertise to prepare appropriate funding applications. Again, this may be inadvertently introducing a bias into allocating funding to better resourced councils who have the skills and resources to prepare high quality applications, rather than to areas of greatest need. The second highest restrictive factor identified was inadequate program funding. As discussed previously, the Australian Government is responsible for the distribution of funding through the NDMP. The survey respondents suggested that the amount of available funding restricts local governments from making an application, because they are aware of the likelihood of not being successful to receive funding. Overall, it appears that despite the benefits provided by additional funding, time pressures, lack of contributory funds, stretched and inadequate resources and uncertainty of continuous longer term funding all contribute to why local governments find it difficult to make the most of NDMP and other funding. The ability of local government to access funding for risk management is restricted by a variety of constraints with the two main issues being time and the level of program funding available. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

39 6.4 Relationship between state / territory governments and local governments There is a legislative relationship that connects local governments with their respective state / territory governments. However, it was noted during consultation that state and territory governments do not typically engage well with local governments as a community. It was stated that when state and territory governments develop and set policy direction, it is then left up to local governments to incorporate and implement the policy into their local strategic plan with little support or instruction from their state/territory governments. Local governments, due to a range of constraints, find it difficult to know what is expected by the state/territory governments and do not necessarily understand how best to incorporate the policy direction into their local planning schemes. In order to establish more effective partnerships, communication and information sharing between the levels of government need to improve substantially. The types of assistance that state and territory governments can provide to local governments, as suggested by participants, include: Information sharing; Hazard mapping; Expertise, knowledge and technical assistance; Providing additional resources (staffing) to assist in implementing and interpreting state government planning policy, or translating it into planning controls; Consistent and standardised approaches to dealing with risk classes; More support for regional planning; and Improved communication with and empowerment of local governments. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

40 It was suggested that improved relationships with local governments needed to be fostered as a priority. The increased assistance in the areas listed above would serve to empower local governments and improve the implementation of risk management planning, with the longer term aim of achieving integration throughout council business. There are many areas where state and territory governments can provide more support to local government through establishing strong partnerships or agreements with local governments. 6.5 Regional collaboration between local governments The importance of communication at the regional level between neighbouring councils to improve risk management was widely acknowledged by participants in the consultation. Collaborative regional approaches to risk mitigation and risk management are increasingly being adopted, and in some jurisdictions regional organisations of councils (ROCs) are well established 41. These approaches have been shown to be effective forums for wide area planning, for consistent environmental management strategies, water resource management and for disaster risk management. A number of mechanisms were highlighted through the consultation as being particularly important to successful regional models, including: clear objectives and leadership on the issues; the formation of collaborative partnerships with a sharing of roles and responsibilities; agreements (formal or informal); sharing of resources (staff, knowledge, expertise); joint submissions for funding; and improving communication through established council networks. From a risk mitigation perspective, regional collaboration between councils is critical as hazards, risks and disasters do not occur within administrative or jurisdictional boundaries. For large-scale 41 A list of established ROCs can be found at: Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

41 hazards, such as whole-of-floodplain or bushfire areas, several jurisdictions and levels of government may be involved. In such cases the need for coordinated multi-jurisdictional risk management is evident, since a piecemeal approach may result in land use and risk management measures in one jurisdiction having an adverse effect on the risk environment or response capability in another. Most jurisdictions have established various forms of standards or guidelines by which local governments may achieve a degree of conformity with their neighbours. This is especially relevant with flood management where a whole-of-catchment approach is advantageous. The legislative frameworks described previously have an impact on the funding arrangements for each state and territory. Having councils work together collectively has seen some areas increase their ability to secure funding and it is recognised by many participants, as mentioned above, that this model has proved to be effective. It is also evident that the establishment of Catchment Management or Regional Authorities, as has been implemented through the Australian Government s framework for delivering the Natural Heritage Trust program, may offer some assistance in this regard. While these regional bodies do not generally have responsibility for risk and disaster management, as a regional presence, they are beginning to broker some important regional relationships involving land managers, state and local governments and other authorities. The interaction between natural resource management and risk management would be beneficial to foster as the natural resource agencies are responsible for planning around many relevant factors for example native vegetation (bushfires) and floodplain management. Local governments benefit from working together and with other regional bodies to secure funding, share knowledge and resources across their region. 6.6 Skill shortages in local government Local governments find it difficult to attract and retain staff in particular planning staff. Some of the reasons for this are general in nature. For example, while career public sector workers from the Baby Boomer generation with long employment histories with their councils are still widespread through local government, the subsequent X and Y generations are choosing not to follow this pattern and change employers more frequently in pursuit of career improvements. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

42 However, there are a couple of reasons that are more specific to local government. For example, local government is not well marketed as a career option for new graduates. This aspect may become more of an issue as the workforce ages, and generational issues affect employment more. Furthermore, the retention of staff is an ongoing issue for local governments, as they compete with the attractive salaries of the private sector. Many participants consulted in this project commented that local government is finding it difficult to attract and retain staff across many disciplines, not just planners. This is of significance as the level of localised knowledge and expertise held within local government officers is slowly diminishing as older staff retire and take their knowledge with them. Local government is experiencing difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled staff from many disciplines. In recognition of the seriousness of the capacity issues in the planning disciplines, the National Inquiry into Planning Education and Employment, Planning for Tomorrow, was undertaken in 2004 by the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA). The inquiry responded to serious concerns about the shortage of planners, their workplace environments and professional training and was supported by all state and territory planning departments. The Inquiry found serious labour-market deficiencies, concerns that planners were not always able to access appropriate training, and widespread acknowledgement that most planners are subject to very high workloads and time pressures leading to unacceptable stress in the workplace 42. The report also found that; Over the past three years, there has been on average a 16% vacancy rate in planning positions. Around half of Australia s 5,400 planners worked in local government, 30% in the private sector and 20% in state and territory government. 42 Comments from participants have highlighted that the fundamental nature of planning and the overriding skill of planners is to be able to balance the many competing land use pressures. They must consider a whole suite of issues to make informed decisions based on many competing factors. Risk mitigation is just one element of the decision making process. In addition to this they are required to keep abreast of all current land use legislative requirements and are constantly bombarded with new policies, changes and directions. 42 Planning Institute of Australia (2004) Findings and Recommendations of the National Inquiry into Planning Education and Employment, August Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

43 The Inquiry proposed a range of recommendations to address the full range of employment, workplace pressures, professional development and training issues. A full copy of the report and recommendations can be downloaded from the PIA website 43. One recommendation of the Inquiry has led to PIA introducing a national certification program for planning professionals - Certified Practising Planner (CPP), in June This program aims to ensure that that the planning profession maintains a high level of competency in areas relevant to the day-to-day practice of planning and that standards are being upheld. This program attempts to keep planners informed on contemporary issues through the provision of shorter and focused workshops, rather than extensive (3-5 day) training sessions, which were noted to be impractical and unrealistic given planners high workloads. Formal university courses for planners are currently available in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory and Queensland, at numerous locations. Many of these courses are accredited by PIA, with accredited courses being at the Graduate Diploma, Bachelor and Masters levels. The Australian Capital Territory does not currently have any planning related courses 43. While the Inquiry provides a number of suggestions to address ways of attracting and retaining more staff into planning, comments made during consultation suggest that the time delay will limit the immediate implementation of the findings. By the time graduates complete their education, gain some experience and find permanent employment, it could be between 5-10 years before any relief is experienced, in terms of skills shortages and workplace pressures. Local government is experiencing a wide-spread skills shortage and in some areas there is a critical shortage of planners which impacts directly on the ability to use planning controls in the risk and disaster management area. 6.7 Access to information The ability to make appropriate and timely decisions in relation to risk management is underpinned by the access to accurate, up-to-date and appropriate information. This is true for land use planning based mitigation strategies, as well as for disaster response and recovery. 43 Planning Institute of Australia website, Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

44 Emergencies and disasters are, after all, very much real world events. They can only be effectively managed by having as comprehensive a collection of information as possible with which to develop an appreciation of the total real world situation. This requires a holistic and eclectic collection of not only data, but also the processes with which to generate meaningful and useful information that improves the knowledge of those managing the emergency or disaster on which to base their decisions. The lack of a comprehensive data set and ways to interpret it will inevitably result in inappropriate or wrong decisions being made, or decisions being deferred, as was demonstrated in New Orleans before, during and after the impact of Hurricane Katrina in Granger and Johnson (1995) observe that information-free decision making is a wide spread activity in disaster management at most levels, including at the local government level. It is simply not possible to manage any potential disaster, particularly events as complex and dynamic as those posed by bushfires and cyclones for example, without access to equally dynamic and comprehensive information on which to base decisions. Experience in undertaking risk mitigation studies indicates that information management (especially of spatial information) in many local authorities is not well placed to effectively support an operational disaster management strategy. Many local governments, especially smaller rural councils, are really behind the eight ball when it comes to having the breadth and depth of information needed to manage disasters and risks effectively. Issues that work against them include organisational structure and the capacity of staff, as well as technical elements such as suitability of software, currency of datum and completeness of data. In most jurisdictions local governments do not have responsibility for key utility services, facilities or infrastructure (for example, water supply and power supply assets). As the control of these assets is held by other state-level or even commercial entities, they may not appreciate the significance of the data they possess in managing these assets. Local governments currently have limited access to this information, which often compromises their ability to undertake to comprehensive risk management. These silos of information pose a very significant risk in themselves. Local government s access to adequate information is affected by many factors which are much broader than the more obvious technical data elements. 44 Handmer J., 2006: American exceptionalism or universal lesson? The implications of Hurricane Katrina for Australia, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 21 (1), pp 29-42, Emergency Management Australia, Mount Macedon. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

45 Supporting thematic data that could be introduced to a council s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), such as historical records of disaster events and data on the location and availability of resources that could be called on in times of emergency, are frequently overlooked. Given that risk management ideally functions as a seamless part of overall community governance, it is important that the information systems used to underpin community governance are also suitable for and available to risk managers. It would be appropriate for all councils to consider the development of a local spatial data infrastructure that establishes, amongst other things, data standards, transfer protocols, classification standards and data custodianship arrangements appropriate to a disaster risk management GIS environment 45. The national inquiry into bushfire mitigation and management undertaken for COAG makes the following observation 46 : The quality and currency of digital mapping databases are critical for the provision of up-todate mapping products. The Inquiry supports and encourages state and territory and Australian Government initiatives to digitise existing spatially explicit data and develop digital mapping databases according to nationally agreed procedures and standards and to make these products available in operationally useful form. The Inquiry strongly supports the role of national bodies and representative groups in facilitating nationally consistent and accessible spatial data and data products. (Finding 5.1) Regardless of what form the information is made available in, information-free decision making should not be allowed to impinge on community safety. Risk mitigation and risk management within local government is constrained by the lack of adequate hazard information available. The outcomes of the ALGA 2006 survey, combined with comments from participants, support this view. The information available to local governments, in particular technical officers such as 45 See Granger K., (1999) An information infrastructure for disaster management in Pacific Island countries, AGASP Record 1999/35, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra) for a discussion of information infrastructures for disaster management. 46 Ellis, S, Kanowski, P and Whelan, R (2004) National Bushfire Inquiry Mitigation and Management, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

46 planners, engineers and risk managers, is thought to be of a good 47 standard by 38.8% of survey respondents. This is not as high as other areas, such as emergency coordinators, with 53.7% of survey respondents believing there is a good level of information available, or first response (response teams and volunteers) with 51% of respondents indicating a good level of available information. These results indicate that the perceived level of available information for mitigation (prevention & preparedness) officers is less than for response and recovery officers. These observed results were echoed in the comments from consultation participants; there is a distinct lack of available natural hazard information in a useable format for local governments across the board, which severely limits their capacity. Figure 6-2 illustrates the perception from survey respondents on the availability and currency of information that local governments can access for individual hazards. Does council have access to hazard management information to support risk assessment and management? If yes, is it complete? Number of Responses Cyclone East Coast low Storm tide Severe storm Bush fire Heat wave Type of Hazard Flood Tornado Earthquake Landslip Yes, complete Yes, but out-of-date Yes, incomplete No Erosion Tsunami Figure 6-2: Survey respondents rating of the level of accessible information available for risk assessment and management For nine out of the twelve hazards listed in Figure 6-2, respondents indicated that councils had no access to management information to support risk assessment and management. The hazards that do have complete information available include severe storm, bushfire and flood - three widespread hazards experienced in Australia. 47 The classification of responses used within the ALGA 2006 survey were exceptional, good, less than adequate, poor and council does not need this information. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

47 Participants in the consultation process suspected that much of this information is held by state/territory or Australian Governments and that there needs to be more proactive sharing of information with local governments from both levels of government. Local government s capacity to undertake risk mitigation would benefit from a greater level of information sharing between all levels of government It was commonly acknowledged that land use planning and risk mitigation activities are often based upon historic data for natural hazards and other identified risks. A few respondents commented that this approach needs to shift to enable the future consequences of climate change (e.g. sea level rise) to be adequately accounted for. Land use planning is seen as a long term strategic visioning tool, with results often not seen for years. Public safety is the main priority of land use planning controls and risk mitigation. The effects of not having effective land use planning controls in place can be seen in many places around Australia, particularly on coastal areas and flood plains. The impact of natural disasters has often occurred because historically the risks were not well understood and / or legislative requirements were not in place at the time of development. Furthermore, it is difficult and costly to retrofit planning controls once development has already occurred. Whilst climate change was not specifically identified as a discussion topic during the consultation, it was a subject that was often raised by participants without prompting. Many participants mentioned that local governments in particular are finding it difficult to understand the science and predictions about climate change, and subsequently to begin to understand the impacts it will have on their communities. The type and level of risks are changing and previously relied upon historic data is not reliable in predicting future events or scenarios. It was acknowledged that some of the work underway through the Australian Greenhouse Office for example the Australian Government s Cities for Climate Change program, was assisting in this regard. Other sources of professional support and information that could be more readily accessed include information developed and held by professional associations. It is acknowledged that there are already strong partnerships and association between the Planning Institute of Australia and local government officers. Engineers Australia (also known as the Institution of Engineers) has also established a number of national committees that continue to work on issues that are increasingly relevant in the risk and emergency management areas. For example, the National Committee for Coastal and Ocean Engineering has produced and published guidelines on responding to the Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

48 effects of climate change in coastal engineering design which begins to address engineering standards in this area. 48 Land use planning and risk assessments commonly rely upon historic data and information for natural hazards. This approach will need to be reviewed to adequately respond to mitigating climate change impacts and predicting future scenarios. 6.8 Lack of knowledge and expertise One of the key barriers that prevents local governments from implementing adequate land use planning controls is the lack of knowledge or expertise to conduct adequate risk assessment and management. Participants in the consultation have commented that more training is required to educate local government staff about risk management, and this should also apply to land use planners. The ALGA 2006 survey indicates that 36.2% of respondents see there is a quite important 49 need for training in mitigation planning and 36.5% see a very important need for preparedness planning within local government. The previous work experience of planners may also play a role in a council s ability to undertake effective risk mitigation measures. Often planners are only exposed to the local risks of the area and will learn on the job. Due to the high levels of staff turn over, exposure to local risks may not occur during a planner s employment period or they may only have a very limited exposure to it, thus limiting their depth of understanding of that risk. Local governments often do not have adequate knowledge or expertise to conduct risk assessments and apply them to their planning or local government area. 48 Engineers Australia website: 49 The classifications of responses used in the ALGA 2006 survey were not important, a little important, moderately important, quite important and very important. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

49 6.9 Need for ongoing education programs The importance of having ongoing education programs was strongly voiced from the consultation participants. The training programs offered by the AEMI at Mt Macedon Victoria were very well received, but there is still a need for ongoing training programs and education courses undertaken within and targeted to local governments. Fifty nine percent of the ALGA 2006 survey respondents state there is no ongoing education program within their council to support preparedness. The importance of ongoing training for local government staff is also critical for the ongoing education of the community and their awareness of mitigation and preparedness activities. Given the previously discussed lack of information available to local governments, they are unlikely to force what may seem difficult economic decisions unless they are supported at all levels of government. There can be an underlying attitude that it is too hard and should a situation worsen then other levels of government (the experts ) will step in the incentive to be proactive is tenuous. Ongoing education and training programs are critical for local government staff, in particular planners, to understand their involvement in risk mitigation and management. The consultation identified two main areas where education regarding natural hazard risks and mitigation require attention. First, the education of local government officers and elected officials on the importance of their role and their ability to make decisions now that will save the community from future loss and dislocation. Second, the level of community understanding about the need for controls and how these controls are seen as being consistent, positive and non-discriminatory. This can positively influence the level of comfort that local government will have in the implementation of land use controls and consequently the level of effort and advocacy that they are prepared to undertake. Education of elected officials in local government is crucial to ensure transparent processes and decision making and an ongoing commitment to mitigation programs. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

50 6.10 Training for local governments The AEMI offers formal accredited courses that are relevant to council staff who may be involved in either emergency management or in land use planning. These include: Introduction to Emergency Risk Management, Emergency Management for Local Government, and Risk Based Land Use Planning. Whilst these courses were highly regarded by all of the participants, it was noted that not many council officers from planning departments or in planning roles attend these courses. Participants suggested that one of the key reasons for the lack of attendance was that the courses are often too long for planners to be able to commit the time, given their workloads. In most instances, shorter targeted sessions were considered to work better. It was suggested that planners are not usually directly associated with risk or emergency management, gaining approval to attend such courses was often difficult. Further, the EMA courses are often not seen as an accepted or approved pathway for further study by planners. Planners are not directly associated with emergency management activities in their role. However, one element of planning is to consider and assess all contributing issues in relation to risk management, which may require planners to consider the council s emergency management plan (EMP). Given this requirement, the education of planners is a critical factor to understand the importance of emergency management and encourage them to attend EMA courses. Many of the state and territory government Planning Departments provide information sessions, training programs and practising updates to local governments and planners. An example of this is PLANET (PLAning NETwork) - a professional development and training program that provides continuous improvement for planners in the public and private sectors in Victoria. The program has been designed to suit all planners seeking to upgrade their skills. The program is led by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) together with the Municipal Association of Victoria and PIA. PLANET benchmarks best practice, professional standards, and provides a quality foundation to build planning skills, competencies and knowledge Victorian Government- Department of Sustainability & Environment website, Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

51 As a result of the PIA Inquiry, the NSW Department of Planning declared in September 2006 that it is providing 11 student scholarships per year in NSW. Councils will also contribute to the scholarships as they will be facilitated through councils and will be specifically focussed on planning. As seen in other industries, it is expected that by offering scholarships through councils, the content of the university courses may change to more appropriately reflect the future changes in that industry. Risk mitigation and emergency management training should be made more relevant to planners and more effort should be made to attract planners to these courses. Whilst the State Emergency Services (SES) are well known for carrying out response and recovery activities, they also play an important role in mitigation (planning and preparedness) activities. In many states, one of their primary functions is to advise and assist local government, government departments and statutory bodies on appropriate mitigation measures. Nation-wide, the SES has a general commitment to educating and increasing the awareness in their communities about the risks in their local areas to enable the community to become better prepared, more responsive and better able to make informed decisions before, during and after an emergency. Many SES Units also provide education and awareness programs for kindergarten and school children. Emergency services agencies should be supported and encouraged to continue their education of mitigation activities with local governments and communities Learning from leading practice Identifying leading practice is widely accepted as an effective mechanism to share knowledge and experience on a whole range of issues. It also encourages innovation and excellence and fosters collaborative solutions for common problems. The importance of learning from individual examples has been noted by participants during the consultation as a useful tool to assist local governments and land use planners with understanding risk mitigation measures. The Australian Government s National Awards for Local Government are the peak national awards that reward and highlight outstanding achievements in local government. The Awards and the Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

52 associated Leading Practice Seminar series are elements of the capacity building role the Australian Government plays in local government 51. The Leading Practice Seminar Series is a DOTARS initiative that began in Since that time, entrants in the Awards have shared their experiences and the lessons learned and have had the opportunity to discuss their experiences first-hand with well over 200 other local government bodies across Australia. The seminars provide an excellent opportunity for local government staff to meet to hear from their peers and to discuss how particular project case studies might apply in their specific situations 52. Learning from leading practice is a useful tool for planners and local government staff to increase their knowledge and understanding of risk mitigation strategies Resources and size of councils The size of the rate base is an important factor in a council s capacity to satisfactorily undertake the full range of its responsibilities, including its risk management and land use planning responsibilities. It was widely recognised during the consultation that the smaller the council, the less revenue it has access to. This has far reaching impacts including the amount of resources, both human and equipment, available to the council. The ability to access technical knowledge and experience is also often severely restricted, hampering a council s ability to make linkages to neighbouring councils and state resources. Comments from participants suggest that the size of a council often dictates the salaries that can be provided to attract and retain staff. Rural councils are constantly dealing with the tyranny of distance; they want to attract new staff, but do not have the financial resources to compete with larger urban councils and match salaries. This is further compounded when the lifestyle attributes of the location are not as attractive as other rural councils. The physical location barrier with small rural councils makes communication and interaction very difficult with other jurisdictions. Local governments are stretched to adequately address their responsibilities in a whole range of areas, not just risk management and mitigation. Many participants suggested ways to overcome some of these resourcing shortfalls one of the most 51 For additional information on the National Awards for Local Governments, refer to 52 For additional information on the Leading Practice Seminar Series, refer to Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

53 consistent messages was to provide better partnership mechanisms to support local government s ability to share resources through regional networks and state governments. It was also recognised by many of the participants that local governments have great existing networks that could be utilised more effectively to communicate consistent messages and increase awareness levels. These are particularly important in rural areas. Having one representative trained with the ability to train other staff in their local government areas was also seen as a way to increase awareness and skill sets. Local governments are restricted by their relative size and location, which, in turn, limits their ability to access resources Electoral pressures on local governments Several features of the system of elected local government present barriers to efficient and effective delivery of responsibilities. This is not unique to the risk management area, and some of the issues raised during the consultation included: The impact of three or four year electoral cycle on the continuity and longevity of policies and programs; The fact that local government decision making can be extremely sensitive to local issues and lobbying pressures. A poorly managed event can lead to a change in direction that may undo policies and plans that, if continued, would have delivered results; and The election of new Mayors on an annual basis 53, combined with the three year election cycle, can also be a destabilising force on a council s focus. It was noted during the consultation that the terms of the sitting council are not long enough to match with the strategic business planning cycle of local governments. The uncertainty of long term commitment to, and funding of, programs at all levels of government was a common issue raised by participants. As mentioned previously, local governments have many competing demands that they must respond to when developing planning schemes. These demands range from pressures from developers and short term economic returns versus the legislative requirements for public safety 53 The frequency of election of Mayors can vary between states and territories. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

54 and risk mitigation. The consultation also highlighted the difficulty local governments face when trying to balance the sometimes competing policy and legislative requirements established by state government. Examples provided were the need to balance bushfire safety and the retention of native vegetation and the fact that environmental legislation is often compromised by the legislative requirements for improvements to fire safety and vice versa. Local government can be influenced by electoral pressures, which can impact on consistent and transparent decision making Community pressures The community has an expectation of all levels of government, including at the local government level, that community interests are being looked after. Yet there is often a resistance by the community to accept the controls put in place potentially leading to a loss of support for council and their policies. It is also easy for communities to display a short-term memory when it comes to accepting the need to plan appropriately for the impacts of natural disasters. Examples given during the consultation included: Resistance to increased building controls in fire prone areas previously burnt (sometimes as recently as 20 years ago); and New residents not appreciating flood levels experienced in previous events. Participants in the consultation also noted that communities mostly live with a naïve hope that it won t happen here, despite seeing almost daily evidence through the media that natural disasters do occur and impact on the lives of thousands of people. Greater education and increasing the level awareness amongst communities of the risks in their local areas would be one way of pushing through the short-term memory barrier. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

55 As the Insurance Council of Australia noted: Flood is not purely an insurance issue, it is a community issue and international experience clearly shows that governments and communities must be integral partners in any solution. 54 Local governments are under constant scrutiny from their communities. The population of Australia s coastal regions is increasing at a rapid pace, much more rapidly than elsewhere in Australia. Coastal regions are subject to natural disasters such as cyclones, coastal erosion and storm surge 55. Local governments are struggling to keep up with the rate of development in many coastal locations through infrastructure provision and other associated services. Many individuals who have opted for seaside living are also often unaware of, or choose to remain ignorant of, the risks and potential natural hazards along Australia s coastline. The sheer scale of development in coastal areas is creating a multitude of cumulative and conflicting pressures that local governments have to address and respond to. These conflicting pressures are hampering local governments ability to adequately respond to risk mitigation and management within their jurisdictions. Local governments are subject to conflicting pressures from their communities. 54 Insurance Council of Australia (2006) ICA response to the report of the Council of Australian Governments on natural disasters in Australia, March Resource Assessment Commission 1993, Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. The trend for south-east Queensland is described in detail in Granger, K & Hayne, M (eds) 2001, Natural Hazards and the Risks they pose to South East Queensland, Geoscience Australia, Chapter 3. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

56 7 Impacts on the Community 7.1 Community safety The development and application of land use planning controls and risk mitigation mechanisms contribute towards improvements to public safety. As described in Chapter 5, all levels of government have a legal responsibility for ensuring the safety of the general public particularly local government. Local governments have considerable capacity to mitigate and reduce the level of exposure to natural hazards by applying land use planning regulations and principles. Restricting or directing the standard of development in known hazard-prone areas is prescribed within specified and accepted parameters such as: the 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood line; setback lines in coastal erosion areas; and development restrictions for high risk landslip areas. The application of controls is designed to, at minimum, prevent a significant increase in community exposure to risk, as well as to reduce council liability. This technique is most effective with hazards such as floods, bushfires and landslides that are spatially constrained. They are not as effective in reducing exposure to hazards such as severe storms as their spatial spread is more difficult to predict. Whilst there is a high capacity for local governments to manage risks through the use of land use planning controls, some participants suggested that there should be a greater focus on community safety within the local government agenda. It is therefore no surprise that during the consultation most participants stated that the whole community, from the individual property owner to commercial developers, was the main beneficiaries of the application of appropriate land use planning controls. Public safety is one of the main responsibilities of local government and there is a net community benefit when land use planning controls are applied to reduce the community s exposure to risks. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

57 The vulnerability of some individuals within communities is influenced by a range of factors including physical, economic, social and cultural attributes. The Geoscience Australia Cities Project 56 pioneered techniques for quantifying such attributes using data from the various national census information. Attributes that contribute to an individual s vulnerability that were incorporated in their analyses include: For physical vulnerability individuals under 5 years and over 65 years of age, and people with physical or mental disabilities, etc; For economic vulnerability low income households, unemployed, tenants and individuals who are renting, etc.; For mobility vulnerability households with no vehicle, single parent households, large families, etc.; For awareness vulnerability new residents, people with poor English, people without access to the Internet, etc. Increases or reductions of the proportion of the community that fall within those (and other) attributes will change the quantum of the community risk. A major increase in the numbers of non- English speakers with low incomes and no cars in an area would greatly increase the overall vulnerability of that community, as was evidenced by Hurricane Katrina. A similar effect would be experienced in a community in which the younger, working age population moved away for work, leaving a smaller but predominantly elderly community behind. This demographic trend is becoming evident in many rural areas across Australia, as is demonstrated in the Victorian Government s Regional Atlas 57. Indeed, many regional areas in Victoria are attracting older age groups through retirement migration, further increasing the overall vulnerability of those communities. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has also published a set of indexes, based on census data, which provide measures of socio-economic disadvantage and educational and occupational 56 Geoscience Australia Cities Projects: Granger K., (1999) An information infrastructure for disaster management in Pacific Island countries, AGASP Record 1999/35, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra. Granger, K., Jones, T., Leiba, M. and Scott, G. (1999) Community risk in Cairns: a multi-hazard risk assessment, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra. Granger, K. and Michael-Leiba, M. (editors) (2001) Community risk in Gladstone: a multi-hazard risk assessment, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra. Middelmann, M. and Granger, K. (editors) (2000) Community risk in Mackay: a multi-hazard risk assessment, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra 57 Department of Sustainability & Environment Regional Atlas Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

58 disadvantage, amongst others. These indexes provide a well developed tool for making comparisons between areas within a local government area (at the census collectors district level) and with national mean and standard deviation statistics for the nation as a whole. The level of risk for communities as a whole is highly dependent upon the physical, economic, social and cultural composition of that community. 7.2 Economic impacts The designation of hazard-prone land, and the consequential development limitations on this land, will inevitably be challenged by individuals who have a commercial interest in that land. Local councils are frequently criticised, by those with vested interests, for displaying maps showing flood, bushfire or landslip prone areas, as this will have a negative impact on the value of the land. Participants in the consultation commented though that some developers may not fully understand the level of risk, thus perceiving themselves to be at a disadvantage when actually they are benefiting from the application of the land use planning controls. Many developers and landowners are however currently bearing the increased costs of development controls through the requirements to undertake mitigation studies and urgent mitigation measures. For example, a cost is incurred to developers and land holders when building designs are required to be modified at the council s or fire authority s request, to better satisfy the mitigation requirements of the applicable fire management plan. It was also raised during the consultation that developers and landowners often regard such controls as costly and an unnecessary interference. These parties may seek to degrade or remove controls through local pressure or through legal appeals. This dimension of risk management is particularly difficult to manage, especially where there is uncertainty in the hazard models or the accuracy of the basic mapping used. Many developers and/or property owners are currently bearing the cost of risk mitigation studies and will often challenge the application of land use planning controls. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

59 As more areas are identified that require development controls, the area of land available for development is reduced. For example, developments in coastal or tidal areas that are subject to inundation or erosion are set back. This results in a reduction in development intensity in some areas and an increase in development intensity in others. It is also likely that land that is unaffected by hazards will become more expensive as it will be more sought after. People and communities in the lower socio-economic bracket may consequently be forced into the less expensive areas that carry a higher risk. As discussed in Section 7.1, this would increase the overall vulnerability of those communities. Vulnerable individuals and communities may be forced into areas of higher risk as they are more affordable than land unaffected by hazards. 7.3 Social impacts of risk The level of public awareness of risk and the need to plan for emergencies or disaster is not high, unless there has been a recent event. As noted during consultation, the response and recovery efforts after large events (e.g. Cyclones Tracy and Larry, Ash Wednesday and the 2003 ACT fires) do well to focus the community on the need to plan and prepare better, however, this impetus fades with time. Furthermore, communities do not have a good appreciation of the true costs of natural disasters or of how to assess the risks and costs of rare events and as stated, many live in the hope that it won t happen here. The complacency of the community, and to some degree, governments, was raised by participants in the consultation as a need that could be better addressed to ensure the community accepts risk and understands the need for land use planning and other mitigation mechanisms to overcome it. In support of this, some participants indicated that once a major disaster occurs it is much easier to raise awareness on an ongoing basis. A good example is the significant increase in community awareness of bushfires in the ACT, NSW and Victoria in recent years after the devastating fires. The feedback loops provided through the Five Rs approach are showing an impact and effect in this regard. For regulators such as local governments, this complacency and lack of awareness pose a significant (if not impossible) challenge that is to determine the ultimate comfort levels of an informed public and to satisfy their concerns over the inevitable trade-offs affecting their safety. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

60 Morgan (1997) 58 observes: It follows that if we are able to quantify the risk, then we should be able to contemplate what levels of risk are acceptable to society; this being the basis of the concept of safety. The level of the public s awareness of risk is not sufficient. 7.4 Informing communities It was noted by many participants during the consultation phase of this project that land use planning controls are only one mechanism that can inform the community and increase the awareness of risks in their area. Community consultation during strategic planning processes, information sessions, application of the BCA and land owner meetings are some other mechanisms used in the various states and territories to raise public awareness of risks. Again, during the consultation phase of this project, a few participants felt that these tools tend to only engage those directly or immediately interested in land use planning. For example, information about land use planning controls are only sought after or known when individuals are in the process of development applications and access to such information may incur a fee. Accessibility to information on development controls is increasingly being used as a revenue generator by some councils, further restricting community awareness. The media and the implementation of Wildfire Management Overlays are some of the tools successfully being used by Victorian local governments to address identified risks, increase individual preparedness and general community awareness of bushfire risks in their areas. Land use planning is only one method amongst many that can be used to increase the awareness of risks and hazards. As mentioned in Chapter 6, the community is often quick to allocate blame when a disaster occurs however they don t often really know who they are blaming. It was commented by many participants that it should be the responsibility of local governments and organisations such as the 58 Morgan, G (1997) A regulatory perspective on slope hazards and associated risks to life, in Cruden D and Fell R (eds) Landslide risk assessment, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

61 SES to educate their communities about the risks in their areas and who is responsible for what. Other participants suggested that perhaps the reverse should also occur communities lobbying local governments in order to get them to act and address issues that are of most importance to them. The empowerment of the community s collective voice will force local governments to listen to their communities and cause a review of their land use planning and public safety policies. Empowering communities to speak up about these issues will not only increase their understanding of land use planning as it applies to risk mitigation but also enable them to understand the responsibility individuals have in reducing the level of risk to which their community is exposed. Communities need to understand the importance of their own involvement in risk mitigation. 7.5 The role of the insurance industry Of relevance in the debate on community impacts and the need to improve understanding and awareness of risk mitigation is the role of the insurance industry. The ICA represents the general insurance industry in Australia, covering both insurers and re-insurers. For many people, one of the primary mechanisms in which they are made aware of risk is through the process of insuring or re-insuring property. In 2006, the ICA provided a response 59 to COAG on the National Disasters in Australia report. While the report focused on flood risk, the positions that the ICA have taken in this regard are highly informative. As the ICA states in its response: A critical element of promoting the importance of insurance is for individuals and communities to understand what risks they are insuring against. As such it is equally important that communities are informed of their risk and that information on risk is made publicly available to individual. Some of the recommendations that the ICA proposed have relevance here and are summarised below: Minimum mitigation standards be set, based on national risk maps, and that appropriate measures, incentives and penalties be developed to ensure that such standards are met; 59 Insurance Council of Australia (2006) ICA response to the report of the Council of Australian Governments on natural disasters in Australia, March Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

62 Minimum development and land use standards be set based on national risk maps; Natural disaster relief payments may be seen as an alternative to purchasing insurance 60. As such the availability of relief funding should be reviewed to ensure that it does not provide a disincentive for the purchase of insurance and that consideration be given to the use of disaster relief as a greater incentive for community and individual mitigation actions; and Jointly improved national practices in community awareness and education should become standards and requirements to ensure adequate disclosure to residents of their risks to various hazards. This last point is perhaps the most relevant. Communities are made aware of risk through the process of insuring or re-insuring their property. 60 Recent experience with bushfires has raised this issue as individuals who held insurance were in some respects penalised as they received less funding through disaster relief than those who were not insured. 59 Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

63 8 Conclusion and Future Directions This paper has: Taken an all-hazards approach to mitigation, with a focus on natural hazards; Provided a national overview of how local government currently contributes to all-hazard risk mitigation through land use statutory planning controls; Described existing land use planning instruments and processes which create significant constraints to effective all-hazards risk management by local government; Provided an overview of legislative and institutional frameworks that contribute to risk management in Australia to understand the similarities, differences and how this impacts the development of a national approach; Investigated local governments capacity and identified constraints on their response to a trilevel national framework that require further attention or investigation; Described gaps that exist in resources and support for planners and resource managers to better integrate the mitigation of risk using land use planning measures; Described broad-scale social and economic impacts on local communities that are caused by applying land use development controls for all-hazard disaster mitigation; Identified that current land use planning initiatives are successfully reducing community vulnerability and exposure to hazards using a risk management approach; and Added to existing understanding of impacts on the local community that result from disaster mitigation using land use planning measures. Importantly, the overall driver for this project was to assess the implications of the recommendations of the National Disasters in Australia review and the National Bushfire Inquiry by COAG. The project s conclusions have been formulated from the information gathered during the literature review, consultation with representatives in each state and territory and a review of the some initial results from the ALGA National Local Government Emergency Management Survey Overall, it can be concluded that risk mitigation and its application to reducing the exposure to hazards is widely understood at the local government level. Further, local government appears to Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

64 accept its role in taking a lead in this area and that the application of land use planning can greatly assist in this regard. Local government is already using a comprehensive range of land use planning instruments that assist in reducing exposure to hazards. There are both similarities and differences in the application of planning instruments across Australia and within states/territories, making national coordination more complex than would be the case if national approaches were adopted. The key barriers and constraints to effective all-hazard risk management at the local government level can be summarised as: skill shortages and limited availability of planners generally within local government for both statutory and strategic planning roles; limited capacity of local government planning staff to integrate risk mitigation into planning work (primarily due to workload issues); limited capacity (human resources and funding) of local government to adopt, implement and apply state planning policies though land use planning instruments even where net benefit can be demonstrated; limited training for planning staff in risk mitigation (and emergency management), and for emergency management staff in the use and benefits of land use planning instruments; limited access to information (often held by state/territory agencies) that is relevant to risk mitigation and planning at the local government level; general capacity issues within local government which limits their ability in a number of key areas from working regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils, amending planning schemes to take account of policy changes at the state level, applying for funding, sharing of information etc.; resourcing issues within local government which limit their ability to commit to contributing funding; awareness in, and acceptance by, the community of the need to apply land use planning to mitigate risks; and the constant need to educate new councillors in risk management (and inadvertently due diligence and liability issues). Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

65 Throughout the project, and in particular through the consultation, several areas for improvement were identified. The following provides a summary of areas, that, if addressed may improve the ability of local government to better integrate risk mitigation and land use planning measures. 1. Ongoing consultation with local government through existing and new mechanisms to improve understanding of the constraints faced in effectively applying land use planning in the risk mitigation area. 2. Investigation into why and how successful state/territory and local government partnerships are established to develop strategies for renewed collaboration and to encourage more supportive relationships. This may include inviting regional representatives from the local government authorities, EPA, Emergency Services, catchment, energy and water authorities to be involved in developing a risk profile that ranks local governments according to an all-hazards approach to allow funding to be allocated to the areas in most need. 3. Improved arrangements for information and data sharing between all levels of government, to enable local government to better access information which assists in risk mitigation and land use planning. 4. Assistance to improve the capacity of local government to apply information and policy relating to risk mitigation at the local level through land use planning mechanisms. 5. Improved delivery of the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program funding arrangements with respect to the needs and timeframes of local governments. 6. Development of strategies to improve the attractiveness of local government as a career choice to new graduates, particularly in the planning area. 7. Increased opportunities for planners to attend training and education programs in risk mitigation (and where relevant) emergency planning. 8. Increased community awareness and understanding of risk mitigation and the need for land use planning controls to reduce community vulnerability to hazards and disasters. 9. Increased support to developing regional partnerships to encourage efficiencies and more consistent approaches in land use planning controls. 10. The system of land use planning needs to be further investigated to be able to understand its ability to respond to the impacts on climate change. 11. Consultation with the insurance industry to strengthen the links between local government and the insurance industry for consistent strategies to risk mitigation. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

66 9 Glossary Acceptable Risk The level of risk that is sufficiently low that society is comfortable with it. Society does not generally consider expenditure in further reducing such risks justifiable. Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) Average Recurrence Interval is the average period of years between the occurrence of a flood of given size or larger. The ARI of a flood event gives no indication of when a flood of the size will occur next. Code A document setting out the criteria and standards to be used in making decisions about the use and development of resources and building design and construction. Community A group of people who live in the same area or share the same interests. Development Plan A development plan is a legal instrument that sets out the provisions for land use, development, and protection. This is the name given within South Australia (see also Local Environment Plan for New South Wales and Planning Scheme for Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania). Ecologically Sustainable Development Use of natural resources in such a way so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are conserved, enhanced and maintained so the total quality of life now and into the future is secure. Emergency An event, actual or imminent, which endangers or threatens to endanger life, property or the environment, and which requires a significant and coordinated response. Environment Conditions or influences comprising natural, built, physical and social elements, which surround or interact with the community. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

67 Hazard A source of potential harm or a situation with a potential to cause loss. In emergency risk management, a situation or conditions with potential for loss or harm to the community or environment. Local Environment Plan A local environment plan is a legal instrument that sets out the provisions for land use, development, and protection. This is the name given within New South Wales (see also Development Plan for South Australia and Planning Scheme for Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania). Mitigation Measures taken in advance of a disaster aimed at decreasing or eliminating its impact on society and environment. Natural Disaster A natural disaster is a serious disruption to a community or region caused by the impact of a naturally occurring rapid onset event that threatens or causes death, injury or damage to a property or the environment and which requires significant and coordinated multi-agency and community response. Such serious disruption can be caused by any one, or a combination, of the following natural hazards; bushfire, earthquake; flood; storm; cyclone; storm surge; landslide; tsunami; meteorite strike or tornado. Planning Scheme A Planning Scheme is a legal instrument that sets out the provisions for land use, development, and protection. This is the name given within Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia (see also Development Plan for South Australia and Local Environment Plan for New South Wales). Preparedness Arrangements that ensure that, should an emergency occur, all those resources and services which are needed to cope with the effects can be efficiently mobilised and deployed. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

68 Prevention Regulatory and physical measures to ensure that emergencies are prevented, or their effects mitigated. Public Awareness The process of informing the community as to the nature of the hazard and actions needed to save lives and property prior to and in the event of disaster. Risk A concept used to describe the likelihood of harmful consequences arising from the interaction of hazards, communities and the environment. Risk Analysis A systematic use of available information to determine how often specific events may occur and the magnitude of their likely consequences. Risk Assessment The process used to determine risk management priorities by evaluating and comparing the level of risk against predetermined standards, target risk level of other criteria. Risk Evaluation The process used to determine risk management priorities by evaluating and comparing the level of risk against predetermined standards, target risk levels or other criteria. Risk Management The systematic application of management policies, procedures and practise to the tasks of identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating and monitoring risk. Statutory Has the full force of the law. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

69 Storm Surge The difference between the actual water level under influence of a meteorological disturbance (storm tide) and the level which would have been attained in the absence of the meteorological disturbance (astronomical tide). Vulnerability The degree of susceptibility and resilience of the community and environment to hazards. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

70 10 References Australian Building Codes Board website, Australian Capital Territory Planning & Land Authority (2006) Planning for Bushfire Mitigation for new development and re-development, ACT Government, Adopted onto the Register of Planning Document, 3 February Australian Government (2003) Rates and Taxes: A fair share for responsible local government. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Australian Government (2003) Rates and Taxes: A fair share for responsible local government. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Australian Local Government Association (2004) Australia s Ageing Population, Economic implications for local government, September Australian Local Government Association (2005), Ministerial Forum on Insurance Issues, April Australian Local Government Association (2006) Local Government National Stocktake Survey. Australian Local Government Association (2006) Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper - Project Brief. Australian Local Government Association website: Bureau of Transport Economics (2001) Economic Costs of Natural Disaster in Australia: Report 103, Commonwealth of Australia. Coates, L. (1996) 'An Overview of fatalities from some natural hazards in Australia', in R.L. Heathcoote, C. Cuttler, and J. Koetz, (eds), Natural Disaster Reduction (NDR96): conference proceedings, Institute of Engineers Australia, Canberra, pp Crichton, D. (1999) The risk triangle, in J. Ingleton (ed), Natural disaster management, Tudor Rose, London. Department of Local Government & Planning and Department of Emergency Services (2003) State Planning Policy 1/03 Mitigating the adverse impacts of flood, bushfire and landslides, Queensland Government. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

71 Department of Premier and Cabinet (2003) Report of the Inquiry into the Victorian Bushfires, State Government of Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment Regional Atlas (2006) Department of Sustainability and Environment website: Department of Transport and Regional Services (2004) National Disasters in Australia: Reforming mitigation, relief and recovery arrangements, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Department of Transport and Regional Services websites: Eggleston, G. and Koob, P. (2004) The role of local government in agricultural emergencies, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Volume 19, Number 3, August Ellis, S, Kanowski, P and Whelan, R. (2004) National Bushfire Inquiry Mitigation and Management, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Emergency Management Australia (2002) Planning Safer Communities: land use planning for natural hazards, Part 2 Approaches to Emergency Management, Volume 2 Mitigation Planning, Commonwealth of Australia, Manual 7. Emergency Management Australia (2000) Emergency Risk Management Applications Guide, Australian Emergency Manual Series, Part II Approaches to Emergency Management, Volume 1 Risk Management, Manual 5. Emergency Management Australia (1996) Disaster Recovery, Australian Emergency Manual Series, Part III Emergency Management Practice, Volume 1 Service Provision. Engineers Australia website: Gabriel, P. (2003) The development of municipal emergency management planning in Victoria, The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol 18 No. 2, May 2003 Granger, K. and Johnson, W. (1994) Hazard management: better information for the 21 st Century, Emergency Management Australia and Australasian Urban and Regional Information Systems Association. Granger, K. (1999) An information infrastructure for disaster management in Pacific Island countries, AGASP Record 1999/35, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

72 Granger, K., Jones, T., Leiba, M. and Scott, G. (1999) Community risk in Cairns: a multi-hazard risk assessment, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra. Granger, K. and Michael-Leiba, M. (editors) (2001) Community risk in Gladstone: a multi-hazard risk assessment, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra. Granger, K. and Hayne, M. (editors) (2001) Natural hazards and the risks they pose to South-East Queensland, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra. Granger, K. & Hayne, M. (eds) (2001) Natural Hazards and the Risks they pose to South East Queensland, Geoscience Australia, Chapter 3. Handmer J. (2006) American exceptionalism or universal lesson? The implications of Hurricane Katrina for Australia, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 21 (1), pp 29-42, Emergency Management Australia, Mount Macedon. Insurance Council of Australia (2006) ICA response to the report of the Council of Australian Governments on natural disasters in Australia, March Middelmann, M. and Granger, K. (editors) (2000) Community risk in Mackay: a multi-hazard risk assessment, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra. Montgomery, M. (2003) Address to the 2003 Australian Disaster Conference, Safer Sustainable Communities, from ALGA website 1 April Morgan G. (1997) A regulatory perspective on slope hazards and associated risks to life, in Cruden D. and Fell R. (eds) Landslide risk assessment, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. NSW State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) (2004) Emergency management arrangements, from Office of Emergency Services website 1 April NSW Government (2001) Floodplain Management Manual: The Management of Flood Liable Land, Sydney: New South Wales Government. New South Wales Government (2002) State Environmental Planning Policy Number 71, from legislation NSW website, Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner (2001) Emergency Management Manual Victoria, Part 3: Guidelines for Municipal Emergency Management Planning, Victorian Government Parliament of Australia website, Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

73 Planning Institute of Australia (2004) Findings and Recommendations of the National Inquiry into Planning Education and Employment, August Planning Institute of Australia website: Resource Assessment Commission 1993, Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Standards Australia/ Standards New Zealand (2004) Australia New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk management, Standards Australia, Homebush, and Standards New Zealand, Wellington. State Emergency Management Committee (2001) NSW State Emergency Management Committee implementation guide for emergency management committees, State Emergency Management Committee, Sydney. Tasmanian Government (1996) State Coastal Policy Western Australia Government (2006) State Planning Policy 3.4 Natural Hazards and Disasters- April Zamecka A. and Buchanan G. (1999) Disaster risk management, Department of Emergency Services, Brisbane. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

74 Appendix 1: High Level Group (HLG) Recommendations Source: DOTARS (2004) Natural Disasters in Australia: Reforming mitigation, relief and recovery arrangements, Commonwealth of Australia, Annex 1. Definition of a Natural Disaster Recommendation 1 The HLG recommends that 'a natural disaster' be defined as follows: A natural disaster is a serious disruption to a community or region caused by the impact of a naturally occurring rapid onset event that threatens or causes death, injury or damage to property or the environment and which requires significant and coordinated multi-agency and community response. Such serious disruption can be caused by any one, or a combination, of the following natural hazards: bushfire; earthquake; flood; storm; cyclone; storm surge; landslide; tsunami; meteorite strike; or tornado. Key Terms Recommendation 2 The HLG recommends that the key terms relating to natural disaster management set out in Annex 4 should be adopted for consistent national use. National Framework Objective Recommendation 3 The HLG recommends the adoption of the following National Framework Objective: To establish a unified national approach to natural disasters under which governments, households, businesses, volunteer organisations, insurers and others with a part to play operate in concert to: create safer, more sustainable communities and regions in social, economic and environmental terms reduce risks, damage and losses from natural disasters find the right balance among mitigation, preparedness, response, relief and recovery activities, and recognise the investment and savings opportunities provided by mitigation. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

75 Twelve Commitments by All Levels of Government to Reform Australia's Natural Disaster Management Recommendation 4 The HLG recommends that all Australian levels of government commit to, and announce, the following comprehensive five-year reform package. Heads of Government of the Commonwealth, States and Territories, and the President of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) agree to endorse and jointly implement the following commitments to reform the way Australia manages natural disasters and achieve safer, more sustainable communities and regions in economic, social and environmental terms: 1. develop and implement a five-year national programme of systematic and rigorous disaster risk assessments 2. establish a nationally consistent system of data collection, research and analysis to ensure a sound knowledge base on natural disasters and disaster mitigation 3. develop, for each level of government, a natural disaster mitigation strategy to be implemented by the Commonwealth and each State and Territory commencing in year 2, and by local governments commencing in year 3 4. take action to ensure more effective statutory State, Territory and local government land use planning, development and building control regimes that systematically identify natural hazards and include measures to reduce the risk of damage from these natural hazards 5. support cost-effective natural disaster mitigation measures through a Disaster Mitigation Australia Package, consisting of a new Disaster Mitigation Programme and continuation of the Regional Flood Mitigation Programme, to address the risks identified in no. 1 above 6. reduce the problem of public infrastructure repeatedly damaged by natural disasters through cost-effective mitigation measures, to make infrastructure more resilient where feasible by proactive measures under the Disaster Mitigation Australia Package, and post-disaster measures under the Commonwealth Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements 7. develop jointly improved national practices in community awareness, education, and warnings which can be tailored to suit State, Territory and local circumstances 8. enhance the Commonwealth Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements to better support community recovery from natural disasters and agree to nine complementary model State and Territory arrangements providing more equitable natural disaster relief and recovery assistance nationwide 9. endorse a set of national cost-sharing principles for natural disaster management that includes a focus on the responsibilities of individuals, businesses and insurers, as well as those of governments 10. support emergency management volunteers in tangible ways and remove obstacles to their involvement in community safety by addressing key priorities, namely legal protection, financial incentives, recognition and training needs 11. establish new national machinery consisting of a Ministerial Council or Ministerial Implementation Forum, and a National Emergency Management High Level Group, to ensure effective collaboration and coordination of Commonwealth, State, Territory and local government action to implement the reform commitments, and Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

76 12. endorse a statement of contemporary roles and responsibilities of each level of government in natural disaster management. Statement of Contemporary Roles and Responsibilities of All Levels of Government in Natural Disaster Management Recommendation 5 The HLG recommends that all levels of government endorse the following statements. 1. State and Territory Governments State and Territory Governments have primary responsibility within their own jurisdictions for natural disaster management in the interests of community safety and well-being. This involves responsibility for: developing, implementing and ensuring compliance with comprehensive disaster mitigation policies and strategies in all relevant areas of government activity, including land use planning, infrastructure provision, and building standards compliance strengthening partnerships with and encouraging and supporting local governments, and remote and Indigenous communities, to undertake disaster risk assessments and mitigation measures ensuring provision of appropriate disaster awareness and education programmes and warning systems ensuring that the community and emergency management agencies are prepared for and able to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies maintaining adequate levels of well equipped and trained career and volunteer disaster response personnel ensuring appropriate disaster relief and recovery measures are available, and ensuring that post-disaster assessment and analysis is undertaken. 2. Local Governments Where local government powers exist, local governments also have responsibilities, in partnership with States and Territories, to contribute to the safety and well being of their communities which means they have an important role participating in local natural disaster management. In most circumstances, the principal roles and responsibilities of local governments are: ensuring all requisite local disaster planning and preparedness measures are undertaken ensuring an adequate local disaster response capability is in place, including local volunteer resources undertaking cost-effective measures to mitigate the effects of natural disasters on local communities, including routinely conducting disaster risk assessments systematically taking proper account of risk assessments in land use planning to reduce hazard risk undertaking public education and awareness, and ensuring appropriate local disaster warnings are provided Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

77 ensuring appropriate local resources and arrangements are in place to provide disaster relief and recovery services to communities representing community interests in disaster management to other levels of government and contributing to decision-making processes, and participating in post-disaster assessment and analysis. 3. Commonwealth Government The role of the Commonwealth Government in natural disaster management is to provide national leadership in collaborative action across all levels of government in disaster research, information management and mitigation policy and practice:, to reduce the risks and costs of disasters to the nation; to mobilise resources when State and Territory disaster response resources are insufficient; and to provide national support for disaster relief and community recovery. In particular, the Commonwealth Government has a major role in: coordinating national strategic emergency management policy, in collaboration with the State and Territory Governments and local government undertaking natural disaster research of national significance identifying national priorities for natural disaster mitigation, in collaboration with other levels of government providing support for disaster risk assessment and mitigation measures, in conjunction with the States, Territories and local government providing operational support for disaster response to the States and Territories where their individual resources are insufficient providing a national disaster relief and recovery framework and resources on a cost-sharing basis with the other levels of government, and providing vital information services such as meteorological, hydrological, geophysical and other geo-data services that support warnings and disaster management. The Commonwealth also has a continuing role in: providing national leadership on mitigation strategies and assessment providing financial assistance to States, Territories and local government for costeffective, priority disaster risk management providing financial assistance to States, Territories and local government to assist them in meeting their disaster mitigation responsibilities leading to an overall reduction in damage and costs, thereby benefiting all Australians and all levels of government. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

78 Disaster Mitigation Australia Package Recommendation 6 The HLG recommends that all three levels of government agree to implement a five-year Disaster Mitigation Australia Package consisting of: a new national Disaster Mitigation Programme to invest up to $75 million per annum to put into effect the proposed commitments relating to data and research, disaster risk assessments, disaster mitigation strategies and measures, resilient infrastructure, and community awareness, education and warnings continuation of the Regional Flood Mitigation Programme at the current nationwide level of funding of $28.8 million per annum, adjusted to keep pace with inflation, and incorporation of the $9 million per annum currently invested nationally under the Natural Disaster Risk Management Studies Programme into the new Disaster Mitigation Programme. Recommendation 7 The HLG recommends that, guided by national strategic priorities identified from time to time by the Commonwealth, in collaboration with States, Territories and local governments, a wide range of disaster mitigation measures, including disaster resilient infrastructure investments, be eligible for funding under the Disaster Mitigation Programme. Recommendation 8 The HLG recommends that cost-sharing for each programme under the Disaster Mitigation Australia Package normally be on the basis of a maximum one third Commonwealth, at least matched by States and Territories, with the balance of project funds contributed by local governments or other local bodies. Recommendation 9 The HLG further recommends that the guidelines for the programmes allow for: the local contribution to be reduced or waived in agreed exceptional circumstances where remote Indigenous communities or low capacity local governments would otherwise be precluded from participating, and the cost of upgrading infrastructure to be shared on a 50:50 basis by the Commonwealth and State or Territory, or, where Local Government infrastructure is involved, on a one third basis for each level of government. Recommendation 10 The State, Territory and ALGA members of the HLG recommend that national natural disaster mitigation programmes be administered by a single Commonwealth department because of the advantages this provides for State, Territory and local governments, and the interrelated nature of the programmes. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

79 Other Measures to Advance Disaster Mitigation The HLG recommends: Cost effectiveness of investment in disaster mitigation Recommendation 11 that jurisdictions jointly and progressively develop processes and systems that capture costs for all areas of disaster management, so that the cost of natural disasters, government expenditures, and the costs and benefits of disaster mitigation are increasingly accurate and understood. Land use planning, development approvals and building standards Recommendation 12 that the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council consider the Planning for Safer Communities guidelines at the next feasible meeting of the Ministerial Council with a view to national implementation as soon as possible. Recommendation 13 that the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council require the introduction, within a time frame of one year, of arrangements to ensure natural hazards, including floodplain and bushfire management objectives, are fully considered in the land use planning legislative frameworks of all levels of government. Recommendation 14 that all State and Territory jurisdictions introduce statutory land use planning policies and requirements governing development in areas which are subject to a significant risk of flood, bushfire, cyclone, landslip and storm surge, within a two-year timeframe within a two-year timeframe. Recommendation 15 that all State and Territory jurisdictions ensure in their legislation that courts and tribunals dealing with planning and development matters must have regard to policies and requirements relating to natural disaster risk reduction and mitigation. Recommendation 16 that the Australian Building Codes Board assign priority and resources to ensure that the Building Code of Australia includes acceptable levels of building construction and performance for resistance to natural hazards (including high winds, storm, cyclone, flood, storm surge, landslip, bushfire and earthquake) and introduce appropriate Australian Standards and/or guidelines to support such standards of building construction performance. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

80 Recommendation 17 that the Australian Building Codes Board assign priority and resources to develop comprehensive guidelines, supported by education and training, for building in areas susceptible to natural hazards, including high winds, storm, cyclone, flood, storm surge, landslip, bushfire and earthquake. Recommendation 18 that State and Territory regulatory authorities and local governments have systems of building control that ensure compliance of new buildings with current disaster resistant building standards. Recommendation 19 that the Commonwealth reaffirms its policy of compliance with the Building Code of Australia, including annexes adopted by State, Territory and local governments to address particular natural disaster risks, and that Commonwealth agencies continue their practice of compliance with those requirements. Recommendation 20 that Emergency Management Australia (EMA) and relevant State and Territory agencies facilitate the development and implementation of education programmes on natural hazard considerations in planning and building for relevant professionals and the building industry. Recommendation 21 that Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for planning and building consider sponsoring professional and industry awards for best practice in natural hazard land use planning and building design and construction. Recommendation 22 that States and Territories review current planning legislation to ensure that there are no barriers or disincentives to local government, acting in the public interest, rezoning land with high natural hazard risks to avoid inappropriate development. Building disaster resilient infrastructure Recommendation 23 that all levels of government promote the planning and construction of costeffective disaster resilient infrastructure through the development of mainstreaming strategies. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

81 Recommendation 24 that EMA and relevant State and Territory agencies facilitate the development of tertiary training curricula promoting disaster resilient infrastructure concepts in all relevant academic disciplines and continuing professional education on these concepts for relevant professional groups. Recommendation 25 that the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for infrastructure development consider sponsoring a new category of award relating to disaster resilient infrastructure in the existing professional and industry awards. Warning systems Recommendation 26 that the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts introduce legislative obligations on all broadcasters - commercial, public and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation - to broadcast natural disaster warnings to the public via radio and television, as and when requested by authorised disaster management agencies and Bureau of Meteorology personnel. Recommendation 27 that the proposed National Emergency Management HLG facilitate the preparation of guidelines for best practice in the development of local area emergency warning systems to include management, community engagement and technical issues. Recommendation 28 that post-disaster assessments by relevant agencies routinely review the effectiveness of warning systems, including the degree to which the warnings resulted in intended changes in behaviour, the appropriateness of information provided, the effectiveness of warning delivery methods, and the cost benefit and cost efficiency of the warning system. Recommendation 29 that States and Territories consult with responsible agencies, including Commonwealth agencies and local government, to identify priority areas for the installation and upgrading of flood warning systems and develop a programme to ensure priority flood prone areas have appropriate warning systems in place within five years. Public awareness and readiness Recommendation 30 that a central element of the proposed approach to community awareness, education and warnings should be public awareness delivered at the local and community level. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

82 Recommendation 31 that the proposed National Emergency Management HLG work with EMA to determine a mechanism to achieve collaboration and improve practice in community awareness, education and warnings, including through joint funding from jurisdictions. Regional Flood Mitigation Programme Recommendation 32 that the Regional Flood Mitigation Programme be continued at least at the current level of Commonwealth funding of $9.6 million per annum in real terms, matched by States, Territories and local government for at least five years, in order to reduce the backlog of existing areas at significant risk of flooding. Recommendation 33 that the current cost-sharing formula under which the Commonwealth funds up to one third of eligible mitigation measures, matched by States, Territories and the local council or body, is appropriate in all but agreed exceptional circumstances. Recommendation 34 that, in agreed exceptional cases, where it can be established that the council or community would otherwise be excluded from participating in the programme, there should be scope to reduce or waive the local component. In such cases, the Commonwealth and the State or Territory would share the balance of project costs equally Recommendation 35 that, to be eligible for funding assistance under the programme, two preconditions should apply: 1. based on the principle of 'community right to know' (about risks affecting any given community), State, Territory and local governments must ensure that all available information on flood risk in their communities is accessible to the public, [31] and 2. State, Territory and local governments must be implementing and themselves complying with land use planning and building controls in a manner that ensures that they are not creating areas of future flood risk. The programme should continue to support a wide range of mitigation measures, not limited to structural measures, to allow the most cost-effective measure to be selected. Recommendation 36 that high priority for funding should be given to areas subject to frequent or high risk of flooding to allow the most cost-effective investments and so that the cost of flooding to the community and governments is significantly reduced. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

83 Recommendation 37 that the Regional Flood Mitigation Programme should be further developed into a national three-year rolling programme based on risk assessments and cost/benefit analyses, and indicative planning and budgeting by each level of government. This will provide greater certainty as to funds to be invested, while retaining flexibility to deal with special circumstances. The programme should be founded on the following principles: flood mitigation is an investment in more sustainable communities mitigation measures need to be cost-effective, leading to social, economic and environmental benefits incentives for sound practice should be encouraged the programme needs to be underpinned by more systematic research analysis, and the programme will benefit from a longer-term planning timeframe. Recommendation 38 that, regardless of whether structural mitigation measures are taken in flood prone areas, residual risk and risk of catastrophic flooding need to be addressed by flood plans, including community awareness and warning systems. Disaster risk assessment and post disaster assessment Recommendation 39 that the Australian New Zealand Risk Management Standard 4360, adapted for emergency/disaster management, be adopted for use in all government sponsored programmes. Recommendation 40 that post-disaster assessments be undertaken routinely after every event of significance and the findings incorporated into improved disaster management processes to deal with future events. Objective of Government Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements Recommendation 41 The HLG recommends that arrangements put in place by governments and other parties for recovery from natural disasters should ensure support for disaster-affected communities in reconstruction of physical infrastructure and restoration of social, economic, physical and emotional wellbeing through effective, coordinated processes. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

84 Modernisation and Enhancement of Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements Recommendation 42 The HLG recommends reform of Commonwealth Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements (NDRA) to introduce a set of Special Community Recovery Modules which Commonwealth and State or Territory Governments may agree to trigger, which would be funded on a 50:50 basis, to foster an holistic approach to community recovery and resilience. Recommendation 43 The HLG recommends that the set of four Special Community Recovery Modules that can be triggered individually, or in any combination, to address particular circumstances as follows, be further developed and incorporated into NDRA in a separate section called Special Community Recovery Modules. The four modules are as follows. Module A Community recovery fund Where a community is severely affected and needs to restore social networks, functioning and community facilities, a community recovery fund of an agreed amount (a sum to be determined by the circumstances) would be established. The local community, through the local government, would determine priorities for action within broad guidelines and criteria agreed between the Commonwealth and the relevant State or Territory Government. Expenditure from the community recovery fund would be aimed at community recovery, community development and community capacity building for the future and would be administered by the State or Territory Government in close collaboration with local government, or other community governance bodies. Module B Ex-gratia payments for individuals and families Where the severity of the disaster warrants a higher scale of financial assistance to individuals or families than the standard provisions under the personal hardship and distress payment under NDRA, Clause 2.2 (a), there would be provision for ex gratia payments as mutually agreed between the Commonwealth and the State or Territory. Module C Recovery grants for small business Where the business sector generally was severely affected and this could result in the community losing essential businesses, grants to small business to cover the cost of clean-up and reinstatement, but not compensation for losses, would be provided within guidelines and criteria agreed between the Commonwealth and the relevant State or Territory Government. Module D Recovery grants for primary producers Where the farming sector generally is severely affected and could have production and viability disrupted beyond the current season, grants to farmers, pastoralists, horticulturalists and the like would be provided to cover the cost of clean-up and Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

85 reinstatement, but not compensation for losses, within guidelines and criteria agreed between the Commonwealth and the relevant State or Territory Government. Recommendation 44 The HLG recommends that NDRA be amended to introduce flexibility for immediate postdisaster infrastructure upgrading to a more resilient standard where that is feasible and demonstrably cost-effective, and that, above the first threshold applying in each jurisdiction, the Commonwealth, State, Territory and local government agree to share any additional cost on a 50:50, or one third each, basis as the case may be. Recommendation 45 The HLG recommends that NDRA be amended to provide a more effective incentive for local governments to undertake disaster mitigation, by imposing a deduction of 10 per cent in available disaster relief assistance for any local governments not having disaster mitigation strategies in place and being implemented for their area by December This period would be extended in exceptional circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the local government concerned. Recommendation 46 The HLG recommends that where charitable organisations, other non-government organisations, and local governments arrange public appeals for communities affected by disasters they should be encouraged to: pool the funds raised for distribution under the Special Community Recovery Modules, or under any national or State appeal that might be launched by the Commonwealth, State or Territory, and/or deliver their assistance efforts and resources in ways that complement government programmes. These measures would achieve greater equity in the provision of assistance, limit double dipping and gaps in eligibility, and reduce the costs of administering appeal funds. Recommendation 47 The HLG recommends that the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) note that the Commonwealth/State/Territory relief and recovery arrangements, including Special Community Recovery Modules, could be more widely applied in managing the consequences of other severe disasters and emergencies should governments choose to do so. Enhancement of Commonwealth Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements The HLG further recommends that the Commonwealth modernise and enhance the NDRA, by recommending: Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

86 Other Amendments to the Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements Determination Recommendation 48 Title Relief and Recovery that NDRA be renamed 'Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements' to reflect the widened focus on community recovery. Clause 1 Extension of assistance to Commonwealth Territories that an additional sub-clause be added to make it clear that the NDRA measures extend to the residents of the Non Self-Governing Territories for which the Commonwealth has responsibility and to set out how assistance measures would be triggered for these Territories. Clause 2.1 Definition of a natural disaster that the definition of eligible disasters in the NDRA be amended to incorporate the definition of natural disaster recommended in Section 2 of this report. Clause 2.1 Arson not to preclude assistance that a disaster involving personal intervention, which is intended to include arson, be deleted as a reason for precluding claims for assistance under NDRA as this deprives innocent individuals and communities affected by the disaster from receiving assistance. Clause 2.2(b) Rebuilding standards that the restriction on asset restoration to its pre-disaster standard be qualified to allow the Commonwealth, the State or Territory, and the affected local government concerned to agree to restoration or replacement to a more disaster resilient standard where that is cost-effective and a priority. In all cases, restoration and replacement should be according to prevailing building and engineering standards. Clause 2.2(d)(i) Grant for non-profit bodies that a small grant option be introduced as an alternative to a concessional-interest loan, for voluntary non-profit bodies whose assets have been significantly damaged and which are not in a position to borrow or service a loan. Clause 2.2(d)(ii) Grant for needy persons that a small grant option be introduced as an alternative to a concessional-interest loan, for needy persons whose assets have been significantly damaged and who are not in a position to borrow or service a loan. Clause 2.2(f) Counselling and community capacity building Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

87 that the provision for psychological counselling be broadened to cover other forms of counselling, such as personal or financial counselling, or other community development or capacity building measures adopted to alleviate distress, as this will be more suitable for a wider range of groups and cultures. Clause 2.5 Restoring public undertakings that non-commercial, local government owned sewerage services and water supply systems should be deleted from the list of ineligible public undertakings not entitled to be restored with NDRA funding assistance. These are essential services, including from a public health viewpoint. Clause 3.2 Recognition of relief and recovery assistance that the requirement, which has rarely been observed by the States, that a prerequisite for NDRA assistance is recognition by the States and Territories of the Commonwealth contribution to relief and recovery assistance be enforced, and that the Commonwealth, States and Territories commit to jointly announce, where practicable, or acknowledge assistance available under NDRA at the time of disaster declaration or activation of NDRA. This recognises the benefits of close cooperation between governments and acknowledges their respective contributions. The NDRA guidelines preserve scope to discount reimbursement to State and Territory Governments where circumstances warrant. Clause 3.3(b) and 3.4 Incentive for local government mitigation that arrangements for Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to reimburse local governments for disaster damage and costs above threshold levels should be continued, and provisions should be introduced to: strengthen the existing prerequisite for natural disaster mitigation strategies by specifying that local governments are obliged to develop a strategy for their area and begin implementing cost-effective mitigation measures by year 3. provide that after year 3, a deduction of 10 per cent of available disaster financial assistance will apply to any local government not meeting the prerequisite, and allow for the period for achieving the mitigation prerequisite to be extended in exceptional circumstances that are beyond the reasonable control of the local government concerned. Clause 3.5 Repeal of disaster relief payment that the provision for disaster relief payment assistance under the Social Security Act 1991 (which has been used only once since its introduction in 1991 in the case of the 1997 NSW bushfires) be repealed so that all such payments are made under NDRA (the Disaster Relief Payment is approximately $750 for a couple with one or two children and only applies where the Commonwealth Minister declares an event and there is a major loss of life). Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

88 Clause 3.6 Restoration of infrastructure that the requirement regarding restoration of infrastructure above pre-disaster standard be amended to reflect the change proposed to Clause 2.2 (b) above. Clause 4.4 (i)small disaster threshold that the small disaster threshold be increased to $220,000, reflecting the Consumer Price Index adjustment since the last increase, with the States and Territories retaining or assuming responsibility for provision of personal hardship and distress payments below the small disaster threshold. Clause 5.2 Post-disaster reporting that new requirements for reporting the cost of natural disasters on a consistent national basis, and for a post-disaster assessment report for each natural disaster for which an NDRA claim is made, be introduced. These reports should be submitted to the Commonwealth in accordance with guidelines to be issued, with claims for payment, and will enable improved national understanding of the cost of disasters and the effectiveness of preparedness, response, relief, recovery and disaster mitigation measures. Clause 7.1 Post-disaster information that the post-disaster information requirements be amended to allow for guidelines for cost of disaster information, and post-disaster assessment reports. Nine Model Complementary Arrangements for State and Territory Relief and Recovery Recommendation 49 The HLG recommends that COAG agree to nine model arrangements for State and Territory natural disaster relief and recovery that represent sound principles and best State and Territory practice, as set out in the HLG report. This would: reform assistance towards a more harmonised and best practice approach across all States and Territories in natural disaster relief and recovery, and better complement the proposed new Commonwealth Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. Model Arrangement 1: Personal hardship and distress assistance measures States and Territories should ensure that access to the full range of personal hardship and distress assistance for individuals and households is available. The amount of personal hardship and distress assistance should be assessed on the basis of need, taking into account the capacity of applicants to meet their own needs. Additionally, assistance on the basis of need should apply to assistance provided for: temporary accommodation and living expenses repairs to or replacement of essential household items, and repairs to dwellings. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

89 That assistance should be available where there has been a significant disaster impact, the cost of which remains below the small disaster threshold. Model Arrangement 2: Local Government contribution States and Territories should ensure: that there is a broadly consistent and equitable regime under which local governments contribute a threshold amount of disaster relief and recovery expenditure before access to NDRA funds is available to them, and that expenditure thresholds are modified, as appropriate, to provide an incentive for the practice of mitigation. Model Arrangement 3: Assistance to small business and farmers States and Territories should ensure that concessional-interest loans and/or interest subsidies (grants) are available for disaster-affected small business owners and farmers who cannot obtain finance on reasonable terms from normal sources, for enterprises which have reasonable prospects of recovery. Model Arrangement 4: Assistance to voluntary non-profit organisations States and Territories should ensure that grants of up to $5,000 or interest subsidies on loans of up to $100, 000 are available to disaster-affected voluntary non-profit organisations to replace facilities and equipment to regain their operational capacity. Alternatively, concessional-interest loans of up to $100,000 should be available to organisations which are unable to obtain finance from other sources, and which have a reasonable prospect of repaying the loan. The conditions of a loan should not limit the organisation to restoring assets to the pre-disaster standard, but allow flexibility so that relocation or design features which reduce susceptibility to future disasters may be accommodated. Model Arrangement 5: Assistance for housing repair/replacement States and Territories should ensure that a concessional-interest loan of up to $100,000, subject to a means test and evidence of ability to repay the loan, is available to persons whose dwelling needs substantial repair/replacement as a result of a natural disaster, and whose income is insufficient to obtain funding from normal sources. Alternatively, a means-tested grant for basic dwelling replacement or repair should be available to needy persons who do not have the capacity to repay a concessional-interest loan for that purpose. In both cases, a portion of the funds provided may be used for relocation or redesign of the dwelling to reduce the risk of future hazards. Model Arrangement 6: Counselling and community capacity building States and Territories should ensure that (subject to changes in the Commonwealth NDRA Determination) measures are introduced to support personal and financial counselling services, and community development and community capacity building measures, to alleviate distress and promote recovery in disaster-affected communities. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

90 Model Arrangement 7: Emergency works and operations States and Territories should ensure that measures are available to reimburse authorised organisations for the costs of designated emergency works and operations undertaken in disaster response situations, within the limits of NDRA eligibility provisions. Model Arrangement 8: Community recovery Arrangements should ensure that, in appropriate circumstances: (a) States and Territories, jointly with the Commonwealth, can contribute to Special Community Recovery Modules, comprising a Community Recovery Fund ex gratia payments for individuals and families recovery grants for small business and recovery grants for primary producers, and (b) where charitable and other non-government organisations arrange public appeals for communities affected by disasters, they are encouraged to pool the funds raised for distribution under the Special Community Recovery Modules, or under any national or State/Territory appeal that might be launched by the Commonwealth, State or Territory, and/or deliver their assistance efforts and resources in ways that complement government programmes. Model Arrangement 9: Insurance cover States and Territories should ensure that: (a) in relation to Model Arrangements 3, 4 and 5, available assistance takes into account the level of insurance that affected individuals, organisations and businesses have, and assistance provided incorporates requirements for insurance cover wherever practicable. Disincentives to insure should be avoided, and (b) assistance available under Model Arrangements 1 and 8 should not serve to discourage use of insurance. National Cost-Sharing Principles for Natural Disaster Management Recommendation 50 The HLG recommends that Heads of Government of the Commonwealth, States and Territories, and the President of ALGA endorse and jointly implement in their intergovernmental relations the following cost-sharing principles: Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

91 1 Responsibilities of governments for natural disaster mitigation (a) Responsibilities for mitigation All levels of government have a responsibility to invest in natural disaster mitigation of public benefit provided there are demonstrable savings to each level of government and taxpayers in the longer term, and improvements in community safety. (b) Mitigation cost-sharing As a general rule, each level of government should contribute one third of the cost of disaster risk assessment and mitigation measures under Commonwealth programmes. In exceptional circumstances, the Commonwealth and State or Territory Governments may agree to reduce or waive the contribution from remote Indigenous communities, remote unincorporated communities and low capacity local governments so that they are not precluded from such programmes. In such cases, the Commonwealth and the State or Territory should share the balance of the cost of measures equally. (c) Mitigation measures to avoid repeated infrastructure damage It is in the interest of the Commonwealth, States and Territories, and local government to jointly invest additional resources to make public infrastructure repeatedly damaged by natural disasters more resilient where it can be demonstrated that each level of government will make savings in future rebuilding costs. (d) Incentive for mitigation Local governments should continue to be reimbursed for disaster damage and costs above threshold levels, except that where disaster mitigation strategies are not in place and being implemented by December 2005, there should be a deduction of 10 per cent in disaster relief assistance available to the local government. This period without penalty should be extended in exceptional circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the local government concerned. 2 Responsibilities of governments for planning, preparedness and response (a) Disaster planning, preparedness and response States and Territories and, where they have such responsibilities, local government should continue to bear the costs of their own disaster planning, preparedness and response operations including, in the case of States and Territories, the cost of facilities, training, career and volunteer emergency service personnel, and combat operations. The Commonwealth should continue to provide support to States and Territories in training, development of particular capabilities and other financial and in-kind ways. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

92 (b) Commonwealth assistance in responding to severe disasters When the capacity of the responsible State or Territory to respond to a severe disaster is exceeded appropriate assistance and resources will be provided by the Commonwealth, through EMA. (c) State, Territory and Local Government mutual assistance States and Territories will use their best endeavours to assist each other to respond to serious disasters when the resources of the affected jurisdiction are insufficient. local governments are also encouraged to assist each other wherever possible in such circumstances. 3 Responsibility of governments for relief and recovery (a) Safety net assistance for households and businesses Recognising that it is not always possible to protect communities from natural disasters, or for households and businesses to adequately insure their buildings and contents against natural hazards, governments should provide basic, safety net natural disaster relief assistance. However, that assistance does not compensate for significant losses that uninsured or underinsured households and businesses may suffer. It should be provided in ways that minimise disincentives to insure. (b) State and Territory responsibilities for relief and recovery States and Territories should continue to cover the cost of natural disaster relief and recovery measures up to the small disaster threshold and the base threshold of per cent of general sector revenue set for jurisdictions annually. (c) Commonwealth responsibilities for relief and recovery The Commonwealth should continue to provide financial support above the established thresholds for the range of relief and recovery measures that apply under NDRA when significant natural disasters occur so that States, Territories, and Local Governments are not left to bear large, unforeseen costs of relief and recovery, and to ensure that effective assistance is available to families and communities. (d) Equitable relief and recovery assistance Commonwealth, State and Territory relief and recovery arrangements should, as far as possible, provide for equity of assistance in comparable disaster circumstances, and across all jurisdictions. (e) Joint Commonwealth-State additional assistance In the case of severe disasters, where additional assistance in the form of Special Community Recovery Modules is warranted for small business, primary producers, regions or communities, the cost of such additional measures should be shared on a 50:50 basis by the Commonwealth and the State or Territory agreeing to trigger such measures. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

93 4 Responsibility of governments for natural disaster research The Commonwealth should continue to finance natural disaster research of national importance, together with the costs of national meteorological and geophysical warning systems, and international assistance provided in cases of severe natural disasters. State and Territory Governments should fund research with particular application to their jurisdictions. New National Emergency Management Decision-making Machinery Recommendation 51 The HLG recommends the establishment of a National Emergency Management Ministerial Council or, if COAG prefers not to establish an additional Ministerial Council (including ALGA), a Ministerial Implementation Forum with a sunset timeframe of five years, to oversee national emergency management arrangements and implementation of the Natural Disaster Reform Package. Recommendation 52 The HLG recommends the establishment of a new National Emergency Management High Level Group to provide support for the Ministerial Council/Forum and ensure a crossjurisdictional, whole-of-government effort to drive the implementation of the Natural Disaster Reform Package. The group should comprise senior officials of emergency management and key policy departments of Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments and ALGA, and be chaired by the Secretary of a Commonwealth department. Recommendation 53 The HLG further recommends that the Commonwealth's policy-making machinery be strengthened and enhanced by establishing a Commonwealth interdepartmental disaster management committee to: drive the recommended reform commitments across the Commonwealth, and develop Commonwealth positions in relation to the work of the new national emergency management machinery recommended in the HLG report. Intergovernmental Agreement on Mutual Assistance for Disaster Response Recommendation 54 The HLG recommends that an intergovernmental agreement or memorandum of understanding between Heads of Government of the Commonwealth, States and Territories be developed to govern the provision of mutual assistance for natural disaster response operations on the part of all jurisdictions. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

94 Recommendation 55 The HLG further recommends that the Commonwealth consider future opportunities for dialogue with Asia Pacific countries on concrete regional cooperation in the area of largescale disaster response and relief operations. Improving Australia's Capacity to Deal with Catastrophic Natural Disasters Recommendation 56 The HLG recommends that national intergovernmental work on the strategies, including planning, identified by the HLG be undertaken to improve Australia's capacity to deal with catastrophic natural disasters. Recommendation 57 The HLG recommends that the new national machinery for emergency management proposed in recommendations 51 and 52 above, involving a Ministerial Council/Forum and a HLG, should work with Emergency Management Australia (EMA) and the State and Territory emergency management agencies to undertake the intergovernmental work on catastrophic disasters. Tangible Support for Volunteers in the Emergency Management Sector Recommendation 58 The HLG recommends that each level of government examine and take action on the following recommendations from the Volunteers Summit: (a) that all jurisdictions agree to approach their respective occupational health and safety organisations in order to develop standards and codes of practice for volunteer organisations, and conduct an audit of legal risks faced by emergency sector volunteers, share the results, and develop responses (b) that the Commonwealth Government considers providing support for employers of emergency services volunteers recognises emergency management volunteers as trainees examines the administrative processes associated with the implementation of the National Training Reform Agenda with a view to simplifying them (c) that State and Territory Governments review and compare the legal protections provided in their legislation to determine whether it offers adequate cover for both volunteers and their organisations consider providing assistance with the provision of public liability insurance for emergency management volunteer organisations Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

95 recognise emergency management volunteers as trainees provide funding to emergency sector volunteer organisations to enable them to implement the National Training Reform Agenda explore the provision of concessions to emergency sector volunteers (d) that local governments examine the provision of concessions such as rate rebates to emergency services sector volunteers. Improving the Disaster Resilience of Remote Indigenous Communities The HLG recommends that the special needs of remote and vulnerable Indigenous communities be addressed by the following: Recommendation 59 that more flexible funding arrangements, and an outreach strategy, be adopted by all levels of government to ensure that remote Indigenous communities have improved access to funding for mitigation measures. Flexible funding will be achieved through the Recommendation 9 undertaking that the local contribution for mitigation measures be reduced or waived by agreement in certain circumstances so that barriers to participation are removed. Recommendation 60 that in appropriate disaster circumstances, recovery assistance through the Special Community Recovery Modules proposed in Recommendations 42 and 43 be used to support remote Indigenous communities. Recommendation 61 that personal hardship and distress assistance, administered in a flexible way, be available from State and Territory Governments for disasters below the small disaster threshold as proposed in Recommendation 49 (Model Arrangement 1). Recommendation 62 that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and ATSIC Regional Councils support the inclusion of Indigenous communities in mainstream State, Territory and local planning processes and activities. Recommendation 63 that ATSIC agree to become a full partner with States and Territories in achieving the Review's five-year natural disaster reform commitments that can improve the disaster resilience of remote Indigenous communities. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

96 Reforming Natural Disaster Insurance in Australia The HLG recommends: Recommendation 64 that COAG notes that the proposed Disaster Mitigation Australia Package and the further measures proposed to advance disaster mitigation meet the call from the insurance industry to improve disaster risk assessment and mitigation and will benefit the insurance industry. Recommendation 65 that COAG endorse the following statement of the desired role of the insurance industry Insurers have a responsibility to offer effective cover for natural disasters encompassing all hazards for households and businesses at fair and competitive premiums. Recommendation 66 that COAG endorse the following specific actions it expects of the insurance industry in order to achieve an improved national approach to flood and other natural disaster insurance. that the insurance industry should take active steps to: o ensure the availability and affordability of all natural hazard/natural disaster insurance as part of standard insurance policy cover o work with the new national emergency management machinery proposed in Recommendations 51 and 52 to develop a single national definition of natural hazards, including water damage, to be offered by all insurers o agree to a national system of disclosure of insurance company premiums, numbers of policy holders, exclusions and claims to the Commonwealth's insurance industry regulator so that an accurate picture of the costs of natural disasters and the role of insurance can be developed o in communities where mitigation action has taken place, provide access to all hazards insurance against natural disasters, including riverine flooding and cyclones, at fair premiums o avail themselves of the proposed new access to State, Territory and local government information on flood risk, and accept that insurers' special needs for data on risk are a matter for insurers to address individually or collectively o contribute financially to: a nationally consistent system of data collection, research and analysis on natural disasters and post-disaster assessments, and the planning and delivery of community safety and awareness programmes o work with floodplain management agencies to identify areas where the risk of flooding is greater than 1:20 and concerted mitigation action is needed o strenuously promote the importance of household insurance, and the link between safer dwellings and lower premiums, and Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

97 o work closely with disaster management agencies on research and investment for improved hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation action. Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper: December

98 APPENDIX 2A Organisations Contacted during the Consultation Phase ORGANISATION DIVISION DATE FORMAT NSW Department of Planning Coastal Branch 29/9/2006 Phone NSW Department of Planning Metropolitan Planning Coordination 29/9/2006 Phone NZ Ministry for Environment Working with Local Government NZ Ministry for Environment Working with Local Government ACT Planning & Land Authority (ACTPLA) ACT Planning & Land Authority (ACTPLA) ACT Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS) Planning SA (PIRSA Primary Industries and Resources South Australia) Planning SA (PIRSA Primary Industries and Resources South Australia) Resource Management Act Implementation 3/10/2006 Phone Flooding Hazards Review 3/10/2006 Phone Greenfield Planning 5/10/2006 Phone Infrastructure Planning 5/10/2006 Phone 5/10/2006 Phone Building Policy 11/10/2006 Phone Better Development Plans & Policy Section 11/10/2006 Phone Department of Justice Tasmania Planning 12/10/2006 Phone Department of Justice Tasmania State Planning 12/10/2006 Phone QLD Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport & Recreation- Strategic Policy and Legislation NT Department of Planning & Infrastructure- Lands and Planning Program Development 13/10/2006 Phone Planning and Development Assessment Services 13/10/2006 Phone Emergency Management Australia Education & Training 23/10/2006 Phone WA Department of Planning & Infrastructure NSW State Emergency Management Committee 30/10/2006 Phone Mitigation & Risk 1/11/2006 Phone NSW Department of Primary Industries Flood Policy, Flood Unit 1/11/2006 Phone NSW Department of Primary Industries Coastal Unit 1/11/2006 Phone PIA Planning Institute of Australia Policy Coordination 2/11/2006 Phone WA Local Government Planners Association SA Department of Environment & Heritage TAS SES -Department of Police and Emergency Management TAS Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment Fellow of PIA 2/11/2006 Phone Planning & Assessment 15/11/2006 Policy and Programs 3/11/2006 Phone Crown Land Masters in Climate change 3/11/2006 Phone

99 Urban Development Institute, QLD Chapter Urban Development Institute, QLD Chapter VIC Department of Sustainability & Environment VIC Department of Sustainability & Environment VIC Department of Justice Planning Policy 6/11/2006 Phone Strategic Policy 6/11/2006 Phone Statutory Systems 9/11/2006 In person Statutory Systems 9/11/2006 In person Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner 9/11/2006 In person NSW Rural Fire Service Risk Management Performance 10/11/2006 Phone NSW State Emergency Service (SES) Planning Coasts, Flood & Tsunami 10/11/2006 Phone TAS Resource Planning and Development Commission WA Fire & Emergency Services Association Planning Consultant 26/10/ /11/06 Phone

100 APPENDIX 2B Local Government Land Use Planning and Risk Mitigation: National Research Paper Overview: The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has engaged SMEC Australia and the Institute of International Development (IID) to prepare a national research paper to highlight the capability of local government to implement land use planning and risk mitigation in the context of an all of government approach to emergency management. This research paper has been developed from the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) review of Natural Disaster Relief and Mitigation Arrangements. The summary report to COAG highlighted recommendations to address the role of local government and land use planning to advance disaster mitigation mechanisms in Australia. The research paper is supported with funds provided to ALGA under the Australian Government s Working Together to Manage Emergencies initiative. The research paper seeks to demonstrate the potential local government contribution to emergency management through the application of land use planning practices and development controls for all hazards mitigation. The focus of the project will be on natural hazards including severe storm, coastal inundation, cyclone, tornado, bushfire, flood, heatwave, earthquake, landslide or tsunami. The research paper will also address the capacity of local government to implement land use planning controls, which is influenced by State, Territory and Australian Government planning frameworks and emergency management arrangements. The research paper will examine the framework within which local government operates to determine the impacts on their capacity to effectively contribute to natural hazard risk mitigation. The research paper will provide key recommendations to address the findings of project.

101 APPENDIX 2B Consultation SMEC and IID will be conducting targeted consultation with key stakeholders including Local, State/Territory and Australian government representatives, emergency management agencies, national committees for local government officials, national planning authorities and a small number of local councils to formulate case study examples. Consultation will commence during September The aim of the consultation is to gather information from stakeholders for inclusion into the national research paper. The main themes that will be addressed during the consultation include: the institutional barriers that local governments face when contributing within a national framework; how and if land use planning practice and development controls reduce the consequences of natural disasters; current leading practice in applying land use planning and development controls; how land use planning controls might contribute to awareness and education of the community, particularly the development industry; the constraints on local government in terms of resources, knowledge and exposure to be able to respond to a national emergency framework. Further Information If you would like further information on this project, please contact ALGA s Emergency Management Project Manager on (02)