Agenda of HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group

Meeting of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee

Date: Monday 27 May 2019

Time: 1.30pm

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group held on 3 December 2018

4. Action Items from Previous HB CDEM Group Joint Committee Meetings 3

5. Call for Minor Items Not on the Agenda 7

Decision Items

6. Group Plan Review 9

7. Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Centres Concept 13

Information or Performance Monitoring

8. Group Work Programme Progress Update 17

9. Volunteer Management Plan 23

10. Risk Reduction 45

11. Group Manager’s General Update 47

12. MCDEM update 57

13. Discussion of Minor Items not on the Agenda 67

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 27 May 2019

SUBJECT: Action Items from Previous HB CDEM Group Joint Committee Meetings

Reason for Report

1. Attachment 1 lists items raised at previous meetings that require action, and each item indicates who is responsible, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment. Once the items have been reported to the Committee they will be removed from the list.

Decision Making Process

2. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the HB CDEM Group Joint Committee receives the “Action Items from Previous HB CDEM Group Joint Committee Meetings” report.

Authored by:

Annelie Roets

Governance Administration Assistant

Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1

Action Items for 27 May 2019 meeting

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 27 May 2019

Subject: Group Plan Review

Reason for Report

1. The intention of this report is to seek feedback and approval from the Committee of an outline plan for completing the group plan review and provide an update on the work already undertaken.

Background

2. The current group plan was approved by the Joint Committee in June 2014. This was the second group plan approved under the Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2012. This “second generation” group plan was a complete re-write and as such a substantial review of the first group plan.

3. The 2013/14 group plan review signalled a significant change in strategic direction for the Group and identified strategic outcomes and objectives the Group was seeking to achieve in a governance setting, rather than being an operationally focused plan. The current group plan can be viewed at the following link HB CDEM Group Plan 2014-2019.

4. Achieving the Group’s roles and responsibilities are directed and monitored by the trio of the Group Plan, the Group work programme and the annual report. These three documents and related processes are mutually supporting albeit at differing levels of governance and implementation.

5. Setting the Group Plan objectives is supported by our Risk Profile and the MCDEM monitoring and evaluation programme.

6. Under the CDEM Act a group plan that is more than 5 years old must be reviewed. Although a review is required the current strategic approach is viewed as still being fit for purpose and is not creating any implementation issues. This will need to be validated during the review.

Discussion and Options

7. The Group has commenced the 2019 review by commissioning two pieces of work.

7.1. Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Risk Profile Review. This has been mentioned in other agenda items and currently in the initial stages. The Group office has been working with the Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management (MCDEM) who currently reviewing the risk assessment methodology provided in the CDEM Group Planning Director’s Guideline [DGL 09/18]. The timing means the Group will use the draft methodology as a pilot for MCDEM.

7.2. Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Capability Assessment Report. The current MCDEM capability assessment programme is suspended. The last review of the Group was undertaken in 2015. The Group office has instigated a self-initiated review using the same tools and methodologies as the 2010 and 2015 reports. This review is underway.

8. Once completed these two pieces of work will inform a gap analysis of the existing plan. The following table outlines an proposed process for completing this review with some indicative timeframes:

Serial	Work Task	Date
1.	Capability Assessment Report	Jul 19
2.	Risk Profile Review	Sep-Nov 19
3.	Initial GAP analysis – is the current plan structure fit for purpose?	Sep 19
4.	CEG Workshop	23 Sep 19
5.	Consultation with key council staff and partner agencies	Oct 19
6.	Workshop with new JC to confirm vision and strategic objectives	Nov 19
7.	Develop Content – focus groups and targeted workshops by topic	Feb 20
8.	Combined JC/CEG workshop to confirm consultation draft	March 20
9.	Commence public consultation process	April 20

9. The following are examples of areas that should be examined at as part of any review. This list is not exhaustive:

9.1. Changes to the Group structure (Group office restructure) and funding.

9.2. Changes to the Act and a need to further strengthen recovery provisions.

9.3. Changes to our response framework and the roles of councils and partners in the response.

9.4. A number of objectives set in 2014 have been achieved.

9.5. Changes to our risk profile driven by improvements to natural hazard research (e.g. liquefaction and tsunami inundation modelling).

9.6. Consideration of strengthening long term risk reduction provisions through matters such as land use and asset management planning.

10. There are also a number of external influences or constraints to completing this review. For example:

10.1. Emergency Management System Reform Programme. This work is as a result of the TAG review competed last year. This will be discussed in more detail by MCDEM and DPMC at the meeting, however one of the work streams involves looking at legislative changes and this may impact on the content of the group plan.

10.2. Review of the National Plan. It is understood this will commence this year. Changes to roles and responsibilities may impact on the content of the group plan.

10.3. Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS) Review. This is already underway and again may have some impacts depending on the outcome of the review.

11. Ultimately the Group will need to progress the review of the group plan, however some flexibility may be needed in terms of process and timeframes to ensure an efficient and effective review.

Strategic Fit

12. The need to review the Group Plan is constant with the CDEM Act 2002 and is a project within the Group Work Program 2018-20.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

13. While this paper in itself does not have any Tanagata Whenua considerations, it is worth noting that this is an area where improvements can be made. The Group office is working with MCDEM, other Groups and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Te Pou Whakarae (Māori Partnerships Group Manager) as to how we can better consider and incorporate kaupapa Māori into the group plan and therefore CDEM across the 4Rs.

Financial and Resource Implications

14. This project is budgeted for within the Group budgets over the next two years.

Decision Making Process

15. The Committee is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

15.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

15.2. The use of the special consultative procedure in making this decision is not prescribed by legislation.

15.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Administrating Authority’s policy on significance.

15.4. There are no persons specifically affected by this decision.

15.5. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

15.6. 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, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That :

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in the Administrating Authority’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that 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.

2. The Committee endorses the outline process identified in paragraph 8 of this report and that a further report outlining project details and progress be provided at its next meeting.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 27 May 2019

Subject: Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Centres Concept

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to brief the Joint Committee on the Civil Defence Centre (CDC) project and potential risks associated with the Civil Defence Centre project. In the past CDCs were known as Welfare Centres. It is recommended that the Committee endorse the decision of the Coordinating Executives Group (CEG) on an outline concept for progressing this work.

Background

2. This project is programmed in the current Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Work Programme.

3. Current arrangements around the use of CDCs are historical and there has been no Group strategy or formal plan for their use. We face a number of challenges with arrangements for the use of CDCs in an emergency.

4. The Group needs a more strategic approach to carefully consider why, when and how CDCs are used. There has been little research done around use of CDCs in New Zealand. The following themed assertions are based on experience and discussion with others in the sector and are a starting point for thinking on this issue. These anecdotal comments help to frame potential risk.

5. The approach recommended in this paper was discussed and endorsed at the CEG meeting on 25 March 2019.

Community Expectation / Pre-Identification of CDCs

6. Best practice is that people either shelter in place or evacuate to friends and family if they can. Communities should not plan to go to a CDC for emergency accommodation as a first option.

7. At the same time communities expect CDCs to be pre-identified and have expectations of level of service associated with this. Some people plan to evacuate to a CDC on this basis rather than making plans to shelter in place or evacuate to friends and family. Potentially pre-identifying CDCs sends mixed messages.

8. Anecdotally where Civil Defence Centres have been set up in New Zealand emergency situations many are not well utilised by the public unless there has been specific need. This suggests communities are largely meeting their own immediate needs. Community led initiatives are often well used.

9. Many pre identified facilities were traditionally located in evacuation zones which can be confusing for the public and put lives at risk.

10. CDCs can also take time to establish, are resource intensive and will only be opened where needed in strategic locations. For example out of a list of 10 potential CDCs in Napier we may only have the capability to open one.

11. Potential facilities for CDCs should be identified in readiness to enable us to quickly analyse options for opening a CDC in an emergency should one be needed. This information does not need to be publically available. Identification of potential facilities will require scrutiny under earthquake prone buildings policy.

When not to use a CDC?

12. Small scale events do not justify the resource to open a CDC for a handful of people requiring information. The potential for using council BAU facilities with some additional support e.g. libraries or service centres should be explored.

13. When communities are effectively managing their own community led responses and the facilities of a CDC may not be necessary, supporting the community response may be more effective. Community led responses do and will happen. This is being encouraged and driven through resilience building activities through CDEM and TLAs.

14. Whilst registering people who utilise a CDC is helpful the concept of opening CDC specifically for registration to ‘know where everyone is’ is flawed and outdated.

Capability Gaps

15. Large numbers of people may gather in safe locations without adequate Civil Defence Centres e.g. Napier Hill in a long or strong earthquake’ self-evacuation.

16. Further work is required to plan for mass evacuation and large scale facilities which can triage large numbers of people and provide basic health care. This work has started.

17. Consideration needs to be given to reception and support facilities for evacuees from other regions (e.g. Alpine Fault M8, Wellington Earthquake National Initial Response Plan (WENIRP) scenarios if Hawke’s Bay is unaffected).

18. Where possible people will evacuate with their pets. CDCs should be capable of receiving people with pets to ensure people can access support they need.

Schools

19. Schools are not well suited as CDCs as this can cause complications if school is in operation with children on site (health and safety). Designating a school as a CDC has the potential to disrupt education for longer than necessary. Continuity of education is critical to recovery. In some instances, such as rural communities, schools may be the only viable option for a CDC.

Language

20. Currently Civil Defence Centre is the official term for any officially run facility providing support to communities in an emergency. In practice a range of terms are use e.g. Evacuation Centre, Welfare Centre, Recovery Assistance Centre. This is potentially confusing for the public and responders alike.

Discussion

21. A potential outcome from this project could be to remove signage and pre-identification of potential CDCs from the website. A community may not be comfortable with this approach, therefor community engagement and public education will be critical to the success of this project. Consideration is also being given to aligning community engagement on this matter with any changes to the Group’s mass public alerting plan.

22. As a snapshot, Auckland, Northland and Canterbury regions do not advertise CDC locations on their websites except when opened in an emergency and all have removed permanent signage.

23. The identification of Civil Defence Centres has also been the topic of local government official information and research requests, having a clear position on this will be helpful to address these requests.

24. The final strategy and plan will come to CEG for review, however it would be helpful to understand any concerns the Joint Committee may have at the outset.

Recommendations

That :

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council 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.

2. The HB CDEM Group Joint Committee endorses the outline approach for this project as outlined in this paper and recommended by the CEG.

Authored by:

Alison Prins

Group Welfare Manager

Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 27 May 2019

Subject: Group Work Programme Progress Update

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the progress being made in implementing the Group Work Programme for 2018/19 and 2019/20 which was approved by the CEG late last year.

Discussion

2. The CEG approved the Group Work Programme for 2018/19 and 2019/20 at its meeting in November 2018. This was subsequently endorsed by this Committee in December 2018. A full copy of the Group Work Programme can be found HERE. Attached to this report is a summary of progress and status of the various programmes and projects within the work programme as provided to the CEG at its meeting on 25 March 2019.

3. Since the development of the work programme the Group office supported the February response to the Nelson fires. This did not have a significant impact on the work programme.

4. The Group office has also been carrying a two vacancies. One in the in the Community Engagement Team has only just been filled. The other vacancy was in the Operational Readiness Team. An appointment has been made for this position and the person starts in the next couple of weeks. These vacancies have had some impact on community resilience projects in particular.

5. Finance: The Group budgets as at the end of 2018 show an underspent across all projects of $124,713. Some of this underspend is due to vacancies not being filled immediately and budget sequencing.

6. Other likely future unbudgeted expenditure include costs associated with the occupation of the new Hastings Emergency Management Centre and the increased cost of the Controllers Development Programme (from $4000 to $9000 per person).

7. Areas of Focus: The following are areas where work is either not on track or there is significant risk moving forward.

7.1. The rebuilding of the Hastings Emergency Management Centre which will house the Group office and the GECC is about two months behind mainly due to the change in focus from a altering the old building to a complete rebuild. It is expected that the building will be complete in July 2019. Time will then need to be spent establishing and testing technologies and processes. This may take a couple of months.

7.2. Civil Defence Centres (CDCs): Some additional work has been added to this project to confirm the need for CDCs before commencing this review. This is covered in another item on this agenda.

7.3. Community Resilience and Education: This programme is ambitious and sensitive to staff vacancies in particular. Currently on track but will be impacted by a staff resignation late last year and the development of a new staff member.

7.4. Hazard Research (Landslide): This project has been delayed due to the inability of GNS to commit technical expertise to this project in the short term. It is now programmed for this project to commence at the end of this financial year and be completed in 2019/20.

7.5. Review of Group Hazard Profile: An opportunity has arisen for us to be used as a pilot by MCDEM for the new risk analysis methodology contained in a draft amendment to the Director’s Guidelines in this area. This will impact on the timing of this project which in turn may impact on the group plan review.

Conclusion

8. The Group work programme is generally on track. Some adjustments are needed in terms of timeframes to either take advantage of opportunities, or to complete additional work to ensure the project achieves its outcomes.

9. Resourcing for community resilience projects is tight and this has been further emphasised through holding a vacancy for a few months. However this team is now making some progress as new staff are inducted and imbedded.

Decision Making Process

10. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the HB CDEM Group Joint Committee receives the “Group Work Programme Progress Update” report.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1

Group Work Programme

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 27 May 2019

Subject: Volunteer Management Plan

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present the final Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Volunteer Plan adopted by the CEG for ratification by the Joint Committee.

Background

2. In 2018 a volunteer needs analysis was conducted and recommendations to develop a Volunteer Strategy were received and subsequently approved by the Joint Committee late last year.

3. The attached plan is the “how” the strategy will be achieved. It is a five-year plan and will remain flexible to ensure all the aspects of the strategy are fulfilled. Once the trained volunteers are ready to operate with less assistance from Group staff the plan allows for training of volunteers to manage others, e.g. spontaneous volunteers, in a response.

4. The plan explains in detail the first year of training whilst the structure will remain the same the content will then grow with the teams.

5. This plan was approved by the Joint Committee in March 2019.

Financial and Resource Implications

6. For the volunteer plan to be successful, the Group needs freedom to financially allocate funding within the plan as identified. There is potential for some expenditure to be directed to implementation of the Volunteer Technical Advisory Group (VTAG) to increase efficiency and capability of an integrated volunteer response in Hawke’s Bay. There is an existing budget for volunteers within the Group budget which is adequate for this purpose.

7. As a capability is developed in Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay District Councils the allocated funding, if approved will ensure an immediate capability in those areas.

Conclusion

8. The attached plan allows for the Group to develop its volunteer base in an effective and targeted way. The plan also allows for working with our CDEM partners and NGOs who also work in the volunteer space to ensure we have a collaborative approach to emergency management volunteering across the Hawke’s Bay.

Recommendations

That :

That the HB CDEM Group Joint Committee endorses the “HB CDEM Group Volunteer Plan” as attached to this report.

Authored by:

Marcus Hayes-Jones

Emergency Management Advisor (Volunteer Management)

Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1

HB CDEM Group Volunteer Plan

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 27 May 2019

Subject: Risk Reduction

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to explore with the Committee some strategies and options for advancing long term risk reduction for Hawke’s Bay.

Background

2. The Hawke’s Bay natural hazard risk profile has benefited from substantial research and analysis over the last 10 years. As a result, long term risk reduction strategies and plans need to be developed to reduce the risks associated with the impacts of these hazards to a level deemed acceptable.

3. Anecdotally past and current strategies and plans that have shaped the development of Hawke’s Bay have not fully taken into account the risks faced by the region. This is for a variety of reasons, but a lack of information and analysis from modern research technology and analysis tools was a key limitation.

4. Our knowledge and understanding of natural hazards and their impacts has increased exponentially over the last decade. This depth of knowledge and robust analysis is now at a point where communities can confidently make long term sustainable decisions on land use and development that helps reduce the risks associated with natural hazards.

5. A presentation will be given at the meeting that will outline the current situation and explore some approaches to addressing the issue of long term risk reduction of the impacts of natural hazards.

6. Officers can then draft and consult on possible strategies for further consideration by this Committee and councils.

Decision Making Process

7. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the HB CDEM Group Joint Committee receives the “Risk Reduction” report.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 27 May 2019

Subject: Group Manager’s General Update

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to inform or update the Committee on a number of matters not specifically addressed in other items on this agenda and to give the Committee an opportunity to ask questions and give feedback if desired.

Background

2. The matters covered in this report include:

2.1. Changes to CDEM Duty Management System

2.2. Mobile Emergency Alerts Test Feedback

2.3. Resilience Fund Application Outcomes

2.4. Regional Group Exercise: October 2019

2.5. Group Response Framework

2.6. Reporting to Councils on Group activities and distribution of Joint Committee Minutes

Discussion

Changes to CDEM Duty Management System

3. The Group office has recently established a Freephone number to make direct contact to the on-call CDEM advisor. This number is manned 24/7 and can provide advice on behalf of the HB CDEM Group Office to all councils and partner agencies.

4. The agency Freephone number is 0508 442333. This is not a public number and we do not want public calls to this number during an emergency. We have a separate 0800 number that can be activated and communicated to the public to use during an emergency.

5. If an agency requires CDEM support to help in managing an event in which they are the lead agency they now contact the on-call CDEM advisor on the Freephone number.

6. The establishment of this duty manager system helps to mitigate the risk of key CDEM Group office staff being unavailable for whatever reason and provides a 24/7 point of contact for councils and partner agencies. A number of business rules and operating procedures have been established to support this system.

Mobile Emergency Alerts Test Feedback

7. Attached is a summary of the results of the November 2018 EMA test and feedback from the survey that was conducted post this test.

8. The key point to note is the increase in people receiving the alert from 34% to 60%. This is a very pleasing result and now brings the New Zealand distribution rates close to other countries that have similar systems.

9. All Group members can access this system through the Group office on-call advisor and the Group Controller. Any request to broadcast an EMA will need to meet the criteria set down by MCDEM.

Resilience Fund Application Outcomes

10. The Group made three applications to the National Resilience Fund as follows:

10.1. Hikurangi Response Plan – year two. ($250,000)

10.2. Te ara o Tawhaki – A pathway to resilience indicators. ($100,000)

10.3. Know your zone – community resilience/education. ($70,000)

11. All three applications were approved and this funding will become available from July 2019.

12. These projects will require some thought as to how they are implemented within existing staff arrangements and the Group office leadership team has started to identify options.

Regional Group Exercise: October 2019

13. Planning is underway for a regional (tier 2), Exercise Ruaumoko in October 2019. This exercise will provide the Group with an opportunity to accurately evaluate the way the Group coordinates emergencies across all partner organisations and practice the use of the new Group Emergency Coordination Centre.

14. For councils, this will mean a full activation and operation of their emergency response plans and procedures on the back of New Zealand Shakeout on 17 October 2019 by activating to their coordination centres and establishing their facilities. Staff within councils will be encouraged to take NZ Shakeout one step further and practice their family plans.

15. Our partner organisations will be encouraged to practice their initial response activities like gaining situational awareness and establishing communications with the Group. Over the following weekend, Emergency Service partners and volunteering organisations will be adding an element of realism by physically carrying out the initial response activities that were planned on the Friday. This will be a publicly visible display of assets being coordinated and deployed, demonstrating the Group responding as one coordinated entity.

16. Lifeline organisations will provide input where their specific infrastructure may incur damage to shape the scenario that the region will be working off.

17. On the Monday, councils will re-activate to practice a coordinated response to activities that we could expect after the challenges of the initial response. This may include matters such as building inspections, welfare provision and cordon management.

18. There will be scope to practice the governance arrangements for a civil defence emergency including the declaration of a state of emergency, press conferences and the management and governance of the response organisations.

19. In the weeks leading up to the close of the calendar year, recovery table-tops will be conducted based off the same base scenario.

Reporting to Councils on Group activities and distribution of Joint Committee Minutes

20. With the evolution of the Group into a more shared service approach it is important that the members of the Group are informed of what activities the Group is carrying out.

21. With the approval of the Group Annual Report 2017/18 by the Joint Committee late last year, it is intended this be provided for information and questions to each individual council at a full council meeting. This report was included on the March agenda for the HBRC and the report will be forwarded to each council to include on their next meeting agenda.

21.1. Another related matter which is also being addressed is the Joint Committee meeting minutes being included for information at a meeting of each council.

Recommendation

That the HB CDEM Group Joint Committee receives and notes the “Group Manager’s General Update” staff report.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1

Civil Defence Survey Report