HB Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group
Joint
committee
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.
Discussion
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.
Conclusions
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.
|
Recommendations
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.
|
|
Ian Macdonald
Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay
Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
Wayne Jack
CHAIRMAN,
COORDINATING EXECUTIVE GROUP
|
Attachment/s
|
1
|
HB CDEM
Capability Assessment Report June 2015
|
|
|
