This thesis has evaluated a multiagency integrated planning group for pre-declaration emergencies and examined the partnership of the various agencies involved in the OSEPG project. The thesis is not about any criticisms of emergency management practices within individual agencies; rather it suggests ways in which emergency management practices can be improved. The recommendations for future research are split between the CDEM Group planning system and the emergency service planners. A collaborative approach will be required in both instances.
6.2.1. Recommendations to CDEM Groups
Integrated rural community emergency/risk planning requires further development. Processes should be developed so there is a seamless system that escalates the level of response with escalating hazard. A collaborative project between the CDEM agencies and emergency services should occur to pursue a long-term objective of developing greater community resilience and sustainability in the community – emergency service – local government – government linkage.
Emergency Services need to be involved with CDEM to develop risk communication frameworks so that communities can be informed to manage their risks in an area or region. By mitigating the risks, over time the potential impacts of hazards on communities may be reduced. This area of integrated emergency service – local authority readiness planning requires further research. For escalating pre-declaration emergencies leading to CDEM declarations, the triggers need research and
Chapter 6 Conclusions
development as well as the post CDEM declaration of integrated agency responses and residual capability across response agencies. The Southland CDEM plan goes some way towards this with the objectives, targets and actions indicating that joint interagency planning will be promoted through the Emergency Service Coordinating Committees (ESCC’s). As mentioned at the beginning of this thesis, more proactive realisation of the tasks required must occur if the ESCC’s are to take on this role with defined objectives, targets and actions.
Lifelines projects that have identified risks need these managed in a similar way, so that the overarching risk management processes can interface to the emergency management system in any given area. Some research methodology needs to occur to determine these processes. Community plans and their management process may need to reflect how risks will be handled, along with endeavoring not just to replicate the local response capability, but to enhance it.
The work of the Otago Southland Emergency Planning Group could be seen as a cluster approach in the new CDEM environment. Although the cluster collective is drawn from the emergency services, local authorities, Ministry of CDEM and Ministry of Health, the tasking relates to pre CDEM declaration emergency planning and response. OSEPG is now proactively working on request by CDEM addressing delegated OTA’s. The key is to create a response continuum. It is communicating through the OSEPG forum to the CDEM staff providing the process by which Community First Response and Project RAPID interrelate, working with communities jointly in a CDEM – Emergency Services consultancy forum to create understanding how the response continuum works. The ESCC forum requires a planning committee arrangement similar to the OSEPG, but needs to alter its meeting format to provide a functional multiagency planning base. Planning needs to be regionally based for the legislative or contractual responsibilities of the primary emergency response organisations. The correct forum to develop a cluster approach for predeclaration integrated planning linkages is required.
CDEM is more than Civil Defence. It is about the partnership between the local authorities, regional councils, emergency services and other support agencies. The contribution from these agencies to the emergency management mix needs to be led to provide strength in management of emergencies within a CDEM area. More research in planning and testing a multiagency integrated operational incident management model is required. Some response agencies have incident management teams, but
they are intraagency. Interagency CIMS is taught and the response agencies need to use integrated interagency incident management teams as a routine rather than use single agency management systems. A best practice guide should be developed that promotes that CIMS is a tool that can be adapted to suit different operational circumstances whether strategic or tactical in the management plan.
6.7.2. Recommendations to Emergency Services
The recommendations in the sections below, although part of an emergency service domain, could be dealt with by part of an emergency management planning function within a collaborative emergency service/ CDEM planning structure. This planning structure will work as long as the interested drivers for planning change are part of this collaboration.
Various incident management systems are in use around the world. New Zealand is currently using CIMS. The British model of incident management uses the bronze, silver and gold level of operational management where the emphasis on management remains within the emergency service domain. The Police act as the Lead Agency for overall management, liaising with government departments depending on the nature of the emergency. The British model does not use an equivalent CDEM structure with management of emergencies predominately remaining with the Emergency Services. This means that experienced response agency practitioners manage emergencies no matter what the scale is i.e. at disaster level the Police lead the incident management. The principles of CIMS work but agencies adopt the principles at times to suit their agency response and also delay using the principles owing to lack of confidence in this management system area. For CDEM, operational experience in CIMS can be limited as declarations are not a frequent occurrence. Alternative incident management models should be researched. Incident management systems are evolving as response agencies seek best practice in applying incident management practices and this best practice can be brought forward into incident management training systems. Whether alternative incident management models such as the British model could be used in the New Zealand CIMS environment is not yet determined and needs to be explored further and would be subject to a significant analysis in this area.
A collaborative interagency project is required to determine the residual response capabilities for areas or districts. These resources, where it is feasible, should be integrated to create greater efficiencies for response. Extra resources can be
Chapter 6 Conclusions
determined as spare capacity and form the basis of agency resources to send elsewhere during other local or CDEM group emergencies.
The lesson that is being learnt by response agencies is that no agency can plan in isolation. Difficult areas for accessing emergency events need a combined and integrated approach in planning and response whether urban or rural. A template for tactical planning has been developed for the OSEPG. Integrated planning with other emergency services and allied support agencies could also research and identify areas or sites that need an integrated response approach for access and site management and the community interaction with emergency services in the involvement of emergency service – community emergency planning. This area needs further research to find the best way to obtain community buy in and involvement.
Research into the potential difficulties that may be associated with key utility failures need to be addressed because interdependencies that exist between the emergency services and the Lifeline Utilities can cripple the response effort. Risk management measures need to be built into any planning arrangements to ensure there is a supporting response capability if standard response measures are unavailable e.g. power and communication failures at the time of event impact or staff unavailability from a pandemic.