Meeting of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Date: Monday 14 December 2015
Time: 1.00 pm
Hawke's Bay Regional Council
159 Dalton Street
Item Subject Page
2. Conflict of Interest Declarations
3. Confirmation of Minutes of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee held on 24 March 2015
4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee held on 24 March 2015
5. Call for General Business
6. Capability and Assessment 2015 Report 3
Information or Performance Monitoring
7. Welfare Update 33
8. Exercise Te Matau-a-Maui Preliminary debrief verbal
9. General Business 35
Monday 14 December 2015
Subject: Capability and Assessment 2015 Report
Reason for Report
1. In 2010 the Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management completed its first Monitoring and Evaluation process (M&E) on the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group. This report recommended a number of areas across the 4Rs where the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group needed to make improvements.
2. The recommendations of this report were collated and corrective action plans and priorities put in place.
3. In July 2015 MCDEM carried out the second M&E assessment and interviewed a number of people across the Group and partner agencies. Based on this M&E process, the Hawke’s Bay Capability and Assessment Report 2015 was received on 31 August and was accepted by the CEG at its meeting on 30 October. A copy of the report is attached to this item.
4. The report shows an improvement in performance and capability across all four of the assessed CDEM Goals and the one Enabler assessed in 2010. Enabler Two is a new area of assessment which was not assessed in 2010. The scores mean that the Group has now moved from a “Developing” to “Advancing” category.
5. This represents an overall increase in score from 51.4% to 60.8%. While this is less that the 64% target set by the Minister the overall comments show some significant improvements and progress have been made and that any remaining areas of weakness have already been identified for improvement and in some cases addressed since the assessment was completed in July.
6. Since the July assessment the Group has firmed up the key work streams in the Work Programme and has completed the recruitment process to put in place the resources needed to effectively implement a number of key projects. These key projects will address many of the issues raised in the Report and start in the New Year. These are commented on as follows:
7. Training and Exercising. One of the key projects in the Group Work Programme is building the capability of the staff working in Council emergency operations centres and community volunteers. This will be achieved by identifying the training needs and developing a training and exercise programme to achieve these needs.
8. In addition the Group wide Exercise Te Matua a Maui and associated build up training was completed in November. This exercise will be discussed in another item on this agenda.
9. Community Response Planning. This project aims to identify the key requirements and components of a programme of Community Response Plans for the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group. It will establish a process for prioritising the environmental hazards and risks of the different communities within the Hawke’s Bay region, and the areas where Community Response Plans need to be implemented.
10. This project will work in conjunction with planning already underway on the Cape Coast project. As part of this project a template is being developed – which could be applied to other areas if appropriate. A finalised template for guidance will be shared across the Group for consistency and to assist with implementation.
11. Community Response Plans require engagement with the local communities at various levels and with different community groups. This Project will establish generic levels and methods for engagement while ensuring they are adaptable to specific local community groups.
12. Once the method has been confirmed a program of Community Response Plans will be developed based on priorities guided by the risk profile for particular communities.
13. The project will complement the overarching goal of building a more resilient Hawke’s Bay community, preparing us for risks and enabling communities to help themselves in the case of an emergency.
14. Hazard Initial Response Plans. This project will develop and implement a programme for establishing inter-agency initial hazard response plans. Initially this will be focused on the top five hazards for Hawke’s Bay being earthquake, tsunami, volcanic ashfall, human pandemic and flood/storm.
15. This will be broken into two parts being the identification of a generic process of inter-agency planning and plan template; and the development of the plans themselves. Some generic action plans across all hazards will also be developed (e.g. reconnaissance and evacuation action plans).
16. The aim is to have a collection of plans where agencies can confidently undertake initial actions in situations where there is ambiguity and communications are interrupted. These plans will also guide the initial actions of EOC staff.
17. Other. Significant progress has also been made in the welfare area as the changes to the National Plan are implemented. There will be further discussion on welfare in Item 7 on this agenda.
18. The intent is that the recommendations of the Capability Assessment Report 2015 will inform the Group work programme over the next few years. However significant progress has already been made since July 2015. For this reason the CEG has asked that the Ministry look at conducting another monitoring and evaluation at the beginning of 2017 to measure how the current work being undertaken is imbedded in the Group.
19. Enabler 1. One of the Enablers assessed in the evaluation process is the Governance of the Group (Enabler 1). This enabler will be of significant interest to the Committee as the governance for the Group and the score for 2015 did not advance significantly from 2010.
20. The CAR focus on Joint Committee and CEG leadership needs to be tempered by the level that most of the members operate. The Hawke’s Bay is one of the few Groups in the country to have all its Mayors on the Joint Committee and all its CEOs on the CEG. This in itself defines a high level of commitment.
21. It is unrealistic to expect the Committee to have an intimate level of understanding about CDEM at an operational level. That is why over the last few years most Groups in New Zealand have been employing Group Managers to work at second tier management levels. These managers are expected and trusted to get on with the job.
22. This is a fundamental shift from when the senior CDEM person in a council worked for a second/third tier manger and the CEG was made up second tier managers all of whom were more operational in focus. Mayors and CEs work at a strategic level and cannot know everything about anything.
23. One reason why the Group may have collectively scored itself lowly in this area (virtually the same as the 2010 CAR) reflects the fact that majority of members do not recall were the Group was and how far it has come. In 2010 the Group Plan had expired, there was no welfare or recovery manager, no recovery plan, no CDEM target rate, no joint CDEM webpage/social media, no joint public Natural Hazards Web Portal and no major exercise have been run for a number of years.
24. There has also been a significant increase in funding approved for 2016/17 and 2017/18 to increase the resources at the Group office to implement a number of the areas identified in the Report for improvement. This was a significant investment recommended by the CEG and approved as part of the 2015 Long Term Plan for the HBRC.
25. It also needs to be noted that the Group office is now funded by a separate CDEM targeted rate which has increased the transparency for the community on the cost of CDEM.
26. All of the above are now reality and reflect well on the leadership and governance of the Group. Since the 2010 report the CEG has also had a corrective action plan which the Group has been implementing. It is accepted that the work programme post the Group Plan needs to be addressed and work on this has been ongoing over the last few months.
27. One area that would benefit from more attention is the training of elected officials on CDEM roles and responsibilities. One solution could be to develop a short half day course which would be delivered at each Council. This would be more focused than the current delivery of workshops to elected members that occurred earlier this year. It is recommended that such a course be developed for delivery at the start of the next triennium.
28. While the 2015 monitoring and evaluation process identified a number of issues, the majority are known to the Group and with the additional resources available from the beginning of 2016, the identified work programme can be progressed. In the interim a number of recent actions have taken the Group a step forward particularly in the training and exercising, welfare, Lifelines and recovery areas.
Decision Making Process
29. The Committee is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:
29.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
29.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
29.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of significance.
29.4. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
29.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, the Committee can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.
That the Joint Committee:
1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in the HBRC adopted policy on significance and that the Committee can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.
2. Receives the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Capability Assessment Report 2.0 2015.
3. Endorses the CEG decision that areas of concern identified in this Report be included in the Group Work Programme and, if necessary, included in a variation to the Group Plan.
4. Requests that MCDEM carries out another monitoring and evaluation in early 2017.
Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management
HB CDEM Capability Assessment Report June 2015
Monday 14 December 2015
Subject: Welfare Update
Reason for Report
1. To provide the Joint Committee with an overview of the new welfare arrangements in the Revised National CDEM Plan which came into effect 1 December 2015.
2. The National CDEM Plan was reviewed and is now in effect.
3. This plan has a number of new and amended responsibilities for CDEM Groups and Partner Welfare Agencies.
4. Over the last few months the Group and welfare partner agencies have been preparing to transition to these new arrangements with the objective that the new roles and responsibilities are understood and owned.
5. A short PowerPoint presentation will outline the key changes, responsibilities and outline welfare priorities to enable us to improve our ability to deliver an effective welfare response.
1. That the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee receives the Welfare Update report.
Group Welfare Manager, Hawke's Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management