Aplicabilidade aos supostos de traballo fronteirizo

Figure 6.4 shows the risk governance process required to achieve the objectives of risk reduction. The Figure is consistent with the framework outlined by Renn (Chapter 2 Figure 2.2) and Figure 6.1 this chapter, in that it includes institutional mandate and commitment; fits within the context of the RMA and CDEM Act within councils; includes establishing risk management objectives (primarily through Regional Policy Statements and CDEM Group Plans, as outlined in Chapter 4); provides accountability via

monitoring, review, and participation with stakeholders at each step; is integrated into the existing RMA and CDEM process; utilises knowledge and resources from both the planning and CDEM professions; and involves internal and external communication and reporting mechanisms via monitoring and reviewing at every stage. The

implementation of the framework is via the risk treatment (i.e. risk reduction measures) step using the risk-based approach to land-use planning and associated risk

management plan, which implements and regulates the risk-based approach

presented. At every step there is a monitor and review phase, which should lead to a continual improvement of the framework and process as inconsistencies and so on become apparent.

New Zealand local government is primarily responsible for risk governance for natural hazards, which achieves risk reduction objectives through land-use planning

regulations and emergency management planning (refer Chapter 4). The proposed risk-based process is transferable from national through to regional and local levels,

and vice-versa. For example, there is the opportunity for national policies (such as the

NZCPS, National CDEM Strategy) to use this approach; as too can regional and district policies via RPSs, regional/district plans and CDEM group plans. In Figure 6.4, both planners and emergency management officers have responsibilities to implement risk governance processes, rather than being part of the wider (and often ‘siloed’)

governance structure within a council. As discussed in Chapter 4, this collaborative approach is necessary for risk governance in New Zealand, as emergency managers manage the ‘4 R’s’ – readiness, response, recovery, and to a lesser degree, risk reduction, which is also the domain of planners (Saunders, et al., 2007).

The planner’s role is twofold – first, to collaborate with emergency managers to lead and implement the risk governance process; and secondly, to use their participation

skills and methodologies (in particular interpretation, facilitation and reconciliation) to instigate communication and participation with civil society, the market, politicians, and scientists at every step. The emergency management officer’s role is to ensure that readiness, response and recovery planning needs are being met – from warning systems to evacuation requirements to rebuilding – and to participate with land use planners in ensuring consistent risk reduction objectives and policies.

Figure 6.4 Risk governance model for land-use planning (based on ISO 3100 (based on

Renn, 2008; Standards Australia/New Zealand, 2009; Stern & Fineberg, 1996).

Figure 6.4 is colour-coded to show which parts of this model are addressed in this research: the context, in blue (Chapter 4); risk management objectives and policies, in red (implementation of approach outlined in Section 5 of this chapter); risk evaluation, in orange (Section 6.2); risk treatment/risk reduction measures, in green (Section 6.2); and the risk management plan (i.e. land-use planning) in red (as links into risk

management objectives and policies, Section 4.2).

The model is based on three frameworks: (1) the risk management process as

outlined in ISO 31000 (Standards Australia/New Zealand, 2009); (2) the transparent (or inclusive) risk governance model by Renn (2008); and (3) the risk decision making process presented by Stern & Fineberg (1996). Instigating the risk governance process is the first stage, and requires mandate and commitment by central and local

government. This stage is included in the Risk Management Standard (Standards Australia/New Zealand, 2009), and was raised as a stage of critical importance in the workshops with council staff (refer Chapter 3). Once this step has been achieved, land use planners and emergency management officers must then work together towards a common goal of risk reduction (Saunders, et al., 2007). As required under legislation, the external contexts of the natural, social and economic environments (which are also consistent with community well beings as outlined in Chapter 4), are considered during the formulation of risk management objectives and policies, evaluation and treatment stages. Outcomes of the risk management objective and policy formulation should be consistent in both land use policies and plans and emergency management plans if effective risk reduction is to be achieved within the CDEMA and RMA policy

frameworks.

Risk assessment is undertaken by scientists or specialists in the field, which at each stage is interpreted by planners for formal and informal deliberative participation with stakeholders. The information flow is two ways – from the planners to the

stakeholders, and vice-versa, to ensure that outcomes from communication and participation are considered at each stage. The term ‘participation’ rather than ‘consultation’ (as in ISO 3100) is used, as consultation may be limited to informing stakeholders of information and obtaining feedback, whereas participation also includes involving, collaborating with, and empowering stakeholders (IAP2). Renn (2008) also refers to collaboration in his discussion of risk governance, which goes beyond consultation in the IAP2 spectrum of participation(IAP2).

Technical considerations include emergency management tools such as warning systems, and soft and hard engineering solutions. Planning-based technical

considerations could include the role of urban design and construction. The final step of the process is risk treatment, which leads to a plan for risk management. This process includes policy outcomes (Adger & Jordan, 2009; Stirling, 2009), and the implementation of regulations (i.e. resource consent requirements) for risk reduction.

It is imperative that at each stage of the model, a monitor and review component is included. Monitoring and review involves the continual checking, supervising, and observing to determine the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of actions to identify whether a change is required in order to achieve the stated objectives and policies (Standards Australia/New Zealand, 2009). This is an important step to ensure that any new policies and/or risk reduction methods are achieving the anticipated risk

management objectives, and to assess future progress of these objectives (Mileti, 1999). Monitoring is required under RMA and LGA as discussed in Chapter 4, however its implementation is limited.

When comparing Figure 6.4 with the risk governance definition from Renn (2008) in Chapter 2, the model for local government planners and emergency managers is consistent with the explanation of risk governance. It considers the legal, institutional, social and economic contexts which are evaluated through analysis at every stage; it involves key stakeholders; has a process for the collection, analysis and

communication of risk information; requires collaboration and coordination between a number of stakeholders; and incorporates both internal and external contextual arrangements. The risk governance model in Figure 6.4 is also consistent with ISO 31000 (Standards Australia/New Zealand, 2009), in that it fulfils all the principles in Figure 6.1. The model encompasses the rational-adaptive planning themes of participatory and rational planning i.e. risk assessment, evaluation, and has

controllable, measurable steps (Asimakou, 2009). Figure 6.4 also includes principles from Healey (2004), in that it allows for internal innovation within the governance framework (i.e. the state); which in turn allows for external innovation by the market and civil society; is based within a legal framework; incorporates economic and social influences; and is process-based.

Figure 6.4 is innovative within a risk governance, process, strategic and rhetorical context. It provides redirection for the existing structure of risk reduction within current governance structures; the integration of planning and emergency management into a risk governance framework by integrating the roles and responsibilities for natural hazard risk reduction of land use planners and emergency managers; places the responsibility for risk management with these two groups; outlines a process for planners and emergency management officers to follow to achieve their risk

management objectives and policies; allows for innovation to take place at each level, be that either incremental or through radical change; and provides a new integrated model for risk reduction governance based on existing frameworks and processes within planning and emergency management. In order for this model to be

incorporated under the general governance model within agencies of the state,

institutional process changes may be required in either an incremental or radical way. To implement the risk treatment step in Figure 6.4, a 3-step risk-based approach process is outlined in the following section.