Agenda of HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 31 August 2020

Subject: 2019-20 Hawke's Bay CDEM Group Financial Report

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the final Group financial report for the 2019-20 year for the approval of the Committee.

Officers’ Recommendations

2. That the Committee adopts the 2019-20 Hawke's Bay CDEM Group Financial Report.

3. That the Committee agrees that the 2019-20 overspend from the COVID-19 response be held as a deficit in the Hawke's Bay CDEM Group targeted rate reserve account.

4. That this deficit be recovered through the management of expenditure in future financial years.

Executive Summary

5. The response to COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the Group finances and work programme. The provision of emergency welfare support and direct operational response costs resulted in $1,692,324 additional expenditure in 2019-20. Reimbursement of $530,053 has been approved for the first welfare cost claim from the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). A further three claims amounting to a total of $409,351 are currently being assessed.

6. This has resulted in a net overspend of $374,077 (after Lifelines expenditure has been removed). The Group currently has $371,515 held in reserves leaving a deficit of $2,562 in the reserve account.

7. It is recommended that this small deficit in the reserve be recovered by way of managing expenditure over the 2020-21 financial year. The risk with this approach is that further emergency expenditure maybe required as the result of a resurgence of COVID-19 or another emergency event.

8. In summary, while there has been significant unbudgeted expenditure in the CDEM Group budgets, the decision to hold under-expenditures in recent years as a reserve has meant this has been managed, with some residual risk from future events, without the need to increase the regional targeted rate.

Background/Discussion

9. Attachment 1 contains the final financial reports for 2019-20 summarising the costs attributed to the COVID-19 response and more detailed reports for the four Group project areas that are currently funded by the regional CDEM targeted rate (711, 712, 713 and 714).

10. Prior to the COVID-19 response, the Group budgets were on track for under expenditure for the 2019-20 financial year. This has also helped in reducing the financial impact of the COVID-19 response.

11. As part of the COVID-19 response the Group incurred two additional types of expenses. These include operational response and emergency welfare support expenditure. A summary of these costs are attached.

12. The operational response costs included matters such as:

12.1. Short term contracts for additional welfare staff

12.2. Development and operation of the welfare 0800 number and the team of needs assessors

12.3. Personnel costs for extra staff hours

12.4. Miscellaneous response costs such as food for shifts, extra IT equipment and software licences.

13. Emergency welfare costs included such items as:

13.1. Grocery items

13.2. Household goods such as clothing and blankets

13.3. Delivery costs

13.4. Emergency accommodation

13.5. Reimbursement of food bank costs

14. The extra expenditure due to COVID-19 has been significantly offset by reduced activity in other areas such as risk reduction, hazard research, coordination and community engagement.

15. Another factor to be considered as part of the Group finances is the addition operational expenditure of $60,000 in supporting the drought response.

16. In summary the additional COVID-19 and drought operational response costs have been absorbed through reduced activity in non-response areas and the utilisation of the existing reserve.

17. 2020-21 Financial Year Risks – As the CDEM reserve account is now depleted there is a risk that if another significant event was to occur a large deficit may arise.

18. By far the biggest risk now, is any response required as part of a resurgence of
COVID-19. Based on our previous experience and the fact that across all levels of government and the community we are better prepared. It is probable that any resurgence will not have as large impact and will be better managed. Given recent work and conversations across the all of government response there is confidence that the demand on CDEM welfare services in particular will not be as high as it was in the first response.

19. As the 2020-21 rates have now been struck there are no real short-term options available to provide for a reserve. Therefore any emergency expenditure over the next 12 months may require the reserve account to move further into deficit.

Options Assessment

20. As expected the COVID-19 response has had a significant impact on the finances of the Group. The gross result of this would have been an approximately $700,000 overspend. However, after taking out reduced expenditure across the CDEM activity and using the $371,000 held in reserve a minor deficit remains.

21. There are limited options available to address this, and the risk of further deficit into 2020-21.

Strategic Fit

22. Under the Group Plan the Group is required to efficiently and effectively respond to an emergency event. There is nothing in this paper or recommendations that adversely impact on this.

Financial and Resource Implications

23. Any financial or resource implications have been addressed as part of this paper.

Decision Making Process

24. 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:

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

24.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

24.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Administrating Authority’s (HBRC) policy on significance and engagement

24.4. No persons can be identified who may be affected by this decision.

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

24.6. 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, 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 Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Joint Committee:

1. Receives and considers the “2019-20 Hawke's Bay CDEM Group Financial Report” staff report.

2. 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 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. That the Committee adopts the 2019-20 Hawke's Bay CDEM Group Financial Report.

4. That the Committee agrees that the 2019-20 overspend from the COVID-19 response be held as a deficit in the Hawke's Bay CDEM Group targeted rate reserve account.

5. That this deficit be recovered through the management of expenditure in future financial years.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1	CDEM Income and Expenditure 2019-20 Financial Year
⇩2	Project Progress Report - Reduction - Hazard Identification and Mitigation
⇩3	Project Progress Report - Readiness and Response
⇩4	Project Progress Report - Recovery and Coordination
⇩5	Project Progress Report - Local Emergency Management
⇩6	Project Progress Report - Emergency Management Total
⇩7	CDEM Reserve Account

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 31 August 2020

Subject: CDEM Group COVID-19 Resurgence Planning and Future Work Programme

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to attain endorsement from the Committee on a decision by the Coordinating Executives Group (CEG) as to the direction of the Group work program over the next 6-12 months.

Executive Summary

2. There is an ongoing high risk of a future recurrence of COVID-19 in Hawke's Bay and some form of community transmission beyond what has already occurred.

3. The Group work program needs to be re-orientated to help manage the impacts of this risk.

4. The learnings from the COVID-19 response to 30 June 2020 has helped inform the priorities and direction of the Group’s work/projects for at least the next 6-12 months.

Background

5. Post the initial COVID-19 response it was deemed prudent to review the work being undertaken by Group office, with the support of Council and partner agency staff. This work had commenced and CEG provided guidance and decisions at its 20 July meeting.

6. Subsequently on 12 August community transmission was confirmed in Auckland and Hawke's Bay was placed back into Level 2 restrictions.

7. National advice is that there continues to be a high risk of a recurrence of COVID-19 and some form of community transmission into the future.

8. In mid-June some initial decisions were made by the Group Manager/Controller to set the high-level intent for the Group office for the rest of 2020. These are:

8.1. To ensure Group office staff can support a Group response to a COVID-19 recurrence.

8.2. To ensure any work/projects will add value to a Group response to a COVID-19 recurrence.

9. The aim is to have Group office staff rested and capable of supporting a sustained response, while also reviewing or developing supporting systems, processes and relationships to respond to a COVID-19 recurrence.

10. This work commenced with staff wellbeing initiatives and monitoring, and the commencement of the COVID-19 response to 30 June after-action review (AAR). Some initial COVID-19 recurrence response planning was also completed and this was further prioritised and advanced upon returning to Level 2 on 12 August.

Discussion

11. Decisions on the Group work priorities over the next 6-12 months also have implications for council staff and partner agencies. While the Group office staff will play a significant role, much of what needs to occur also requires commitment and input from key council staff and partner agencies. As such this work needs to be given a high priority within organisations.

12. Work has commenced on reviewing the current Group COVID-19 recurrence plan (dated 14 Aug) in light of the National Action Plan being released on 19 August. In priority order, the CEG confirmed the following key work areas for improvement:

12.1. The identification, selection, onboarding, and staff management policies (e.g. rostering, contracts, EAP) of staff in the GECC.

12.1.1. Significant work has been completed in this area.

12.1.2. The Group office has completed engagement with Councils, controllers and staff have been clearly identified to play roles within specific functions in the GECC and as needs assessment analysts. Short training sessions with these staff have commenced.

12.2. Review of health and safety for the GECC facility and staff within, safe working methods for those deployed. Including bubble management and use of PPE.

12.2.1. Work on this review has commenced. Health and safety staff from HBRC, HDC and NCC have commenced a review of existing documentation, induction and procedures including ongoing wellbeing.

12.3. System accessibility, stability, shared understanding of response systems and data management within response information systems.

12.3.1. The work in this area are a number of smaller process/hardware initiatives and training. As mentioned training is underway and ICT systems are part of this.

12.3.2. A security review of ICT systems which hold personal information through emergency welfare needs assessment has just been completed and any implications are being identified.

12.4. Supply chain and logistical processes, integration of Fast-Moving Consumer Goods systems into procurement and food package system.

12.4.1. The Hawke's Bay councils Director, Regional Strategic Procurement has commenced reconnecting with local supermarkets and gaining an understanding of their capability to support food distributing if needed.

12.4.2. Further work is required in this area however to an extent this is driven at a national level.

12.5. Welfare needs assessment and referrals process. Options analysis of the Āwhina needs assessment tool vs The Development Hub. Integration and implementation into Group response systems.

12.5.1. Good progress has been made in this area. Work has been ongoing with HBRC, HDC and NCC as to how we might internalise the call centre (the so called 0800 number) by better using existing staff who will be under utilised should Hawke's Bay move back into Level 3 restrictions or above.

12.5.2. At this stage it has been decided not to use the national needs assessment tool (Āwhina) primarily to maintain continuity for the on-going COVID-19 response. However, we will be reviewing this decision as Āwhina is developed further by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

12.5.3. As mentioned we intend to use council staff to carry out the detailed welfare needs assessment as people are referred from the 0800 number. Council staff and two facilities from HDC and NCC have already been identified. Training packages have been developed and training of the needs analysis staff will occur over the next few weeks.

12.6. Embedding community engagement in response into our wider response framework. Ensuring networks of networks approach in response is enduring, informs a re-escalation, and increases long term resilience of Hawke’s Bay.

12.6.1. The Group Welfare Manager has been working with the wider Welfare Coordination Group (WCG) to review the roles and responsibilities to help guide and lead the individual networks. Attachment 1 outlines how this is now structured.

12.6.2. Each of the networks have met at least once since July and this relationship management will be ongoing.

12.6.3. Feedback from staff has been that while the NGOs and volunteers involved in the networks are feeling drained, and are still dealing with the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 on their communities, there is self-confidence that they will be able to effectively support their communities should Hawke's Bay move into Level 3 or above again.

12.6.4. This work area has also been enhanced by the establishment of the Regional Leadership Group (RLG) which is part of the central government Caring for Communities initiative. The role of the RLG is to provide support, advice and governance to the overall regional response to COVID-19. The members of this Committee are also part of this Group.

13. The recommendations above are consistent with a number of learnings from the national COVID-19 response review which was undertaken in late July. Three Group office staff attended this review.

14. An outline timeframe for this work is as follows. Due to the August resurgence of COVID-19 much of this work has been accelerated and where necessary operational decisions made on actions and priorities in keeping with the intent from CEG:

14.1. 20 July CEG - project initiation, work program areas of focus for recurrence was approved.

14.2. August - Engaging with project teams and stakeholders, understanding the problem. Scoping the work for re-escalation. Due to the current COVID-19 resurgence this work has been accelerated.

14.3. September – where developed project plans socialised and consulted with stakeholders.

14.4. 19 October CEG – Present outstanding project plans and approval for implementation. Review existing or completed work.

14.5. Ongoing already - Embed formal COVID-19 to Jun 2020 response lessons, implement and monitor project plans.

15. At the July CEG meeting, the point was made that the above should not be viewed as a purely linear process and where appropriate and within the guidance of this paper, projects or work may be brought forward or occur concurrently. This is what has occurred.

16. The implications of changing the direction of the Group work program for the next 6-12 months are:

16.1. The review of the Group Plan will need to be delayed until 2021. Given the review of the National Plan has been further delayed, the current Plan is seen as generally fit for purpose and has been updated as appropriate, the residual risk of this decision is low.

16.2. In general current risk reduction and community engagement work will be delayed by about 6 months – although some work which was significantly advanced is being completed.

16.3. Significant exercises will be placed on hold until 2021 and some training will be delayed.

17. The Committee should also note that the Group Welfare Manager Alison Prins has resigned her position and will leave on 9 September. Due to the pivotal role of this position in readiness and response particularly in the COVID-19 response, the Group office has employed Joanne Lawrence on a short-term contract until the end of the year. This is to provide continuity in the current response while the position is reviewed and the market recruitment process completed.

18. Ms Lawrence was an alternate Group Welfare Manager during the first COVID-19 response and covered for a couple of weeks while the incumbent was rested. She also held a leadership position at MSD and was a member of the WCG for a number of years.

Next Steps

19. It is requested that the Committee endorse the CEG decisions outlined in this report. This will ensure that the Group is well positioned to continue to respond to the intermediate risks of an ongoing recurrence of COVID-19.

20. CEG and the Regional Leadership Group will be kept up to date on the Group COVID-19 Recurrence Work Plan as it is further developed and implemented.

21. This will also be reported on at the next Committee meeting.

Strategic Fit

22. Under the Group Plan the Group is required to respond to emergencies efficiently and effectively within Hawke's Bay. This paper helps to facilitate this for COVID-19.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

23. Tangata whenua are included as part of the Regional Leadership Group and at a more operational level the networks of networks.

24. There is further work started in developing a more deliberate approach to working with tangata whenua across the 4Rs in emergency management.

Financial and Resource Implications

25. There are no significant resourcing issues as existing budgets should cover any costs in the work mentioned in this paper.

26. The only risk with funding is in the response to moving to Level 3 or 4 as the Groups current reserves were exhausted in the initial response. This has been noted in a previous paper.

Decision Making Process

27. 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:

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

27.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

27.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Administrating Authority’s (HBRC) policy on significance and engagement

27.4. No persons can be identified who may be affected by this decision.

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

27.6. 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, 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 Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Joint Committee:

1. Receives and considers the “CDEM Group COVID-19 Resurgence Planning and Future Work Programme” staff report.

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Administrating Authority’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Committee can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. Endorses the CEG decisions on the direction of the Group work program, including COVID-19 Resurgence Planning, over the next 6-12 months.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1

Network of Networks

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 31 August 2020

Subject: Amendments to the Hawke's Bay CDEM Group Plan: Controller and Recovery Manager Appointments

Reason for Report

1. Under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (CDEM Act) the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee makes appointments to the positions of Group Controllers. These appointments and associated delegations are contained in the Group Plan and as such represent a minor change to this Plan.

2. This paper seeks confirmation of proposed changes to Group Controller appointments and as a result, proposes resulting minor changes to the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Plan.

Confirmation of the Appointment of Local Hawke’s Bay Group Controllers

3. The current Group Controllers are

3.1. Ian Macdonald

3.2. Liz Lambert

3.3. Iain Maxwell

3.4. Ken Foote

3.5. Jim Tetlow

4. Liz Lambert will be leaving the employment of the HBRC in the next few months. Ms Lambert has agreed to remain as a Group Controller, and we will be working through a contract to put this into effect.

5. Ken Foote has retired from the Hawke's Bay DHB. At this stage I would recommend keeping him on the list as an alternate controller. Given his experience as the lead incident controller for the DHB in the initial COVID-19 response this would be of advantage. Mr Foote has agreed to remain on the list as a volunteer and it is proposed that this be reviewed at the end of the year.

6. David (Jim) Tetlow was employed in the Group Office but resigned at the end of last year. He is currently working as a consultant in the emergency management field. Mr Tetlow has asked he now be removed for the controllers list as he is of the view that this creates a conflict with the work he is doing with NEMA and with other Groups around the country.

7. It is proposed that the Group appoint Pieri Munro MNZM as an alternate Group Controller. Mr Munro is the currently the Te Pou Whakarae at the Hawke's Bay Regional Council. Mr Munro has significant relevant experience as a senior police officer and this combined with his mana and relationships with the tanagata whenua of Te Matau-a-Māui, means that this appointment would add a diversity of skills and experience to the controller role. This appointment is recommended to the Committee. Attached is a short bio for Mr Munro.

8. The following changes are therefore recommended to Appendix 5: Key Appoint-ments to the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Plan 2014-19:

8.1. Add the following to the alternate Group Controllers list:

Pieri Munro (Alternate)

8.2. Remove the following from the alternate Group Controllers list:

David (Jim) Tetlow (Alternate)

Strategic Fit

9. The recommendations are consistent with the Group Plan in that they provide for an effective response and recovery to an emergency and COVID-19 in particular.

Financial and Resource Implications

10. There are no significant financial or resource implications that may result from this decision.

Decision Making Process

11. 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:

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

11.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

11.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Administrating Authority’s (HBRC) policy on significance and engagement

11.4. No persons can be identified who may be affected by this decision.

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

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

11.7. The proposed amendments to the Group Plan meet the requirements of section 57 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and can be considered as a minor change to the Group Plan that does not need public consultation.

Recommendations

That :

1. The Committee 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 Committee resolves to make a minor amendment to Appendix 5: Key Appointments of the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Plan pursuant to section 57 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and make appointments and changes to the roles of Group Controller as follows:

2.1. Add the following to the Group Controllers list:

Pieri Munro (Alternate)

2.2. Remove the following from the Group Controllers list:

David (Jim) Tetlow (Alternate)

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1

Pieri Munro Biography

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 31 August 2020

Subject: COVID-19 After Action Review: March to June 2020

Reason for Report

1. The HBCDEM Group is in the process of conducting an After-Action Review (AAR) of the HBCDEM response to COVID-19.

2. This paper intends to brief JC on the methodology adopted by the HBCDEM Group to conduct the AAR over the months of July-November 2020 and gives a broad initial snapshot of emerging themes.

Executive Summary

3. The HBCDEM Group activated its GECC in response to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and drought conditions in the Hawke’s Bay region on 16 March 2020.

4. With the recent de-escalation of the event, the HBCDEM Group is now in the process of reviewing the HBCDEM response through a comprehensive After-Action Review (AAR).

5. The AAR methodology adopted for the review is based on guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO) for After Action Reviews (AAR’s) and aligns with national best practice within the CDEM sector.

6. The AAR process is being led by an independent consultant, and conducted through a series of surveys, interviews and workshops.

7. Outcomes from the ARR will be:

7.1. Those who participated in the response have had the opportunity to provide feedback about the response

7.2. HBCDEM has followed a thorough and proportionate debrief process with its stakeholders, internal staff and TLA staff following the COVID-19 event

7.3. Lessons learnt are incorporated into the Group work program for action.

8. The output of this process will be an independent report reviewing the HBCDEM response, which captures lessons learnt and recommended corrective actions to improve the way HBCDEM response to future emergencies.

Strategic Fit

9. An appropriate and proportionate AAR will be conducted following response to ensure lessons learnt and recommendations for future improvement can be captured.

10. Lessons learnt and recommendations for future improvement will inform the review of the HBCDEM Group Plan and future practice.

11. Conducting the AAR aligns with the following objectives from the HB CDEM Group Plan (2014-2019): REA2, REA3.

12. Conducting an AAR aligns with Goal 2 (Effective response to and recovery from emergencies) of the National Disaster Resilience Strategy (2019).

Background

13. The HBCDEM Group activated in response to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and drought conditions in the Hawke’s Bay region on 16 March 2020.

14. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the declaration of a state of national emergency on the 25 March 2020 and required an All of Government response (AoG).

15. With the de-escalation of the COVID-19 event alert levels and corresponding reduction in demand on coordination and welfare services, the HBCDEM Group is now in the process of reviewing the response, to identify and learn valuable lessons, and use these lessons to better our practice.

16. The response to COVID-19 was an AoG response, therefore the HBCDEM ARR will align with national practice, and focus on the regional and local level response.

17. HBCDEM has chosen to use a ‘Mixed-Method’ AAR process (Based on World Health Organisation [WHO] guidance).

18. A ‘Mixed-Method’ approach was chosen for the review, due the extensive cross sectorial approach required to support the response. This method uses surveys, workshops and interviews of key people involved in the response.

19. Surveys were completed as a first line approach, which were used to inform the focus areas for the interviews and debrief workshops. Interviews were conducted with key leaders from organisations involved in the response. The review is still in progress with one stakeholder workshop remaining.

20. Following the recent resurgence of COVID-19, the last stakeholder workshop has been changed from a face-to-face meeting to a virtual meeting, to model best practise with current Alert Level restrictions.

21. The interviews, workshops and report will be led and compiled by an independent contractor, Louise Bennett. Louise is being supported by Natasha Blunden (HBCDEM Group).

22. HBCDEM will look to learn lessons in terms of the coordination of the HBCDEM-led response and welfare service delivery to communities.

23. The output of the AAR process will be an independent report reviewing the HBCDEM response, which captures lessons learnt and recommended corrective actions to improve the way HBCDEM response to future emergencies. This report will be shared amongst partner organizations, the CEG and Joint Committee.

Discussion

24. The intent of this paper is to brief JC on the HBCDEM Group AAR methodology and highlight interim results from the process noting the review is ongoing (Attachment 1).

Next Steps

25. The remaining stakeholder workshop will be held virtually to inform the final AAR report.

26. A final draft of the AAR report will be presented to CEG for approval on 19 October 2020 and presented to Joint Committee at its meeting on the 23 November 2020.

Recommendation

That the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Joint Committee receives and notes the “Covid-19 After Action Review 2020” staff report.

Authored by:

Natasha Blunden

Emergency Management Advisor Planning

Edaan Lennan

Team Leader Emergency Management Operational Readiness

Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1

Covid-19 After Action Review Interim Report

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 31 August 2020

Subject: Hikurangi Response Plan Project Completion

Reason for Report

1. The Hikurangi Response Planning (HRP) project, managed by East Coast Life at the Boundary LAB has concluded with the release of the Hikurangi Response Planning Toolbox on the 2July 2020. This report is for the information of the Committee.

Executive Summary

2. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council made a resilience fund application for this project collectively on behalf of Hawke’s Bay, Bay of Plenty, Tairāwhiti, Hawke’s Bay, Manawatū-Whanganui and Wellington CDEM Groups in 2017. This fund is administered by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). The project started in June 2018 and concluded 30 June 2020.

3. The Hikurangi subduction zone is where the Pacific Plate dives beneath (subducts) beneath the Australian Plate. Subduction zones are known for producing the largest earthquakes and tsunami in the world.

4. The project was managed by East Coast Life at the Boundary (administered by the HB CDEM Group). It was a collaborative project between the five CDEM Groups listed above, scientists, response agencies and lifeline organisations to increase preparedness.

5. The project produced a suite of public education resources and tools for public education, and the HRP Toolbox launched on 2 July. Moving forward these resources will be used by the HB CDEM Group to inform both conversations with stakeholders about the risk posed by the subduction zone and regional response planning.

Strategic Fit

6. The Hikurangi Response Planning (HRP) project is part of the HB CDEM Work Programme (Risk Reduction).

7. The HRP project addresses Objectives RED1, RED2, RED3, REA3, REA7 and REA8 of the HB CDEM Group Plan (2014-2019).

Process

8. The project focused on raising awareness about the risk posed by the Hikurangi subduction zone and advancing regional response planning for the hazard.

9. A workshop was held in the Hawke’s Bay in February 2019 with Hawke’s Bay response agencies and stakeholders.

10. At this workshop the credible magnitude 8.9 earthquake and tsunami scenario was used to identify the impacts and response priorities in the Hawke’s Bay following a large Hikurangi subduction zone earthquake and tsunami.

11. Similar workshops were held in the other four participating CDEM Groups (Bay of Plenty, Tairāwhiti, Manawatū-Whanganui and Wellington CDEM Groups) to inform the content of the HRP Toolbox.

12. The HRP Toolbox is a resource designed to aid regional and national response planning for this significant hazard. The project has used a credible magnitude 8.9 earthquake and tsunami scenario, developed by GNS Science, as a planning tool.

Discussion

13. The key deliverables are being presented to the Committee to raise awareness of resources produced by the HRP project. A short presentation will be given at the meeting.

Next Steps

14. The HRP Toolbox will be used moving forwards by HB CDEM Group to inform conversations with stakeholders about the risk posed by the subduction zone and advance regional response planning for large earthquakes and tsunami impacting the Hawke’s Bay region.

Recommendation

That the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Joint Committee receives and notes the “Hikurangi Response Plan Project Completion” staff report.

Authored by:

Natasha Blunden

Emergency Management Advisor Planning

Lisa Pearse

Team Leader Hazard Reduction

Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1