Risk and Response Management, Collaboration and Coordination

Risk and response management and collaboration and coordination requires multi-agency cooperation in order for it to be effective. Without the support and buy in of all agencies involved, gaps can occur in even the best of plans, which can ultimately affect the final outcome for any response. Identification of any weak links will ensure that the plan works as best as it is able. A plan is great on paper, but ultimately difficult to know exactly how sound it is until it is put into practice (something nobody really wants to see!)
What really struck me about the fires in Australia were the number of deaths which could have been significantly reduced had communication and collaboration been more effective both pre and during the event. People getting mixed messages about whether to leave or to stay ultimately caused significant loss of life. In this situation it was a matter of when not if a fire could occur, and while we never want to see a fire happen in this magnitude, lessons need to be learned so this kind of devastation never occurs again. By researching other similar events, whether within Australia or overseas, a better response, collaboration and coordination plan should be possible.

I hadn't anticipated the complexity of the issues involved in risk and response management, collaboration and coordination, and the number of possible agencies involved. I now understand why after the Australian Bush Fires they wrote the Victorian Emergency Management white paper, and instigated multiple changes, with the underlying philosophy that everyone from individuals to governments has a vital role and shared responsibility when a hazard arises - the all-hazards all agencies approach with standardised response coordination and training.

The point that impacted me the most was the deaths of the emergency service workers while doing their job. Obviously this is a risk for anyone that works in emergency services but it's not ideal under any circumstances. Hence, if improvements can be made in the future to ensure that emergency service staff are not placed in areas of extreme risk without contingency plans and appropriate safely mechanisms in place this would be a huge improvement.

I think my consideration is that the more people thinking about potential risks increases the number of risk mitigations that can be put in place. And that getting together whether virtually or face to face to discuss and identify risk before the risk eventuates is very important.

I think there's always going to be a tension between understanding and respecting the natural environment, and an expanding built environment. So, one of the issues in Victoria was building on land that was prone to fire, potentially without adequate consideration of the risks, which meant fewer mitigations were put in place.

Victoria's planners are not unique in this. Many times in England, councils have granted permission for (predominantly) housing to be built on flood plains, only for home owners to bear the economic and psychological costs of these decisions. So, I can understand why building up (multi storey properties) and not out is becoming a serious alternative option. Except, building upwards also has risks - think the Grenfall Fire in London.

So, it comes back to the preservation of life - and the risks that emergency services and first responders place themselves in. In the case of the bush fires the lack of collaboration and coordination is part of the reason firefighters died.

It comes back to clear and simple communication all the way through the chain. this is why the slogan 'if its long and strong, get gone' works for earthquakes/tsunamis, or 'get low, and get go' for fire evacuation. In these examples, the slogans and associated activities are simple enough for a pre-schooler to understand.

And that's what is needed for all potential disasters.

I also think this is why climate change is a challenge for some adults. Our youth get 'it' - they might not understand the science, but they understand the intrinsic risk. For those that are querying the science, there's the distrust and don't tell me what to do. My 13 year old son tells me this is a 'Karen response'.

We've seen the same with the push back against COVID vaccinations too. I keep being reminded of the M*A*S*H theme song 'Suicide is dangerous', when I hear the push back against vaccinations. And sometimes individuals or collectives don't seem to understand the consequence of their actions.

For example, the UK Government in the past two weeks had to drop its requirement that frontline staff working in the National Health Service had to be double vaccinated by April 2022. The reason for the backdown? 77,000 medically trained staff were refusing vaccinations - and Government had no way of replacing 77,000 staff and maintain the service!

In the UK context, what this shows is weak to non-existent collaboration that in itself increases the overall risk.

What do you know now about risk and response management, collaboration and coordination that you hadn't considered before?
For me its all the C's communication, collaboration, community, coordination, cooperation, critique. It is so important that there clear, concise communication with everyone involved, govt - national, regional, local, emergency services, communities, agencies, that everyone needs to work in collaboration for the best out come, that getting the community involved and on board is so important and this needs to happen prior to the emergency, coordination - it is vital a coordinated approach is taken by everyone it is great to have things like CIMS, it needs to be clear who is the lead agency, cooperation the sharing of resources, ideas, knowledge, skills as well as getting people to buy into plans, programs, policies etc such as not allowing building to be be constructed in fire prone areas. Critiquing - after a response and recovery there needs to be debriefing, learnings, critiquing of the plans and responses. Last year we had an emergency with floods and Civil Defence had plans in place to deal with it and also how they thought they would deal with AF8. Post floods they critiques what happened what worked and what could have gone better and realised they needed to rethink their plans.

Provide an example from the topic that made you really think deeper about risk and response management, collaboration or coordination. Why? I think it would have to be around planning. With recent weather events on the West Coast of NZ it was said this would become a much more common occurrence with climate change meaning more storms. Climate change will impact more wild fires etc and we all need to plan for this from individuals to communities , to TA and where they allow people to build for example in flood, storm, tsunami, earth quake, fire prone areas,. While we can't prevent storms, fires etc that occur as a result of things like climate change, we can lesson the impact by clearing possible fuel sources for instance, the type of vegetation planted all can contribute to reducing the risk. Planning also includes the types of material used in the construction and furnishing of homes, how and who will communicate messages about things like when to leave or stay etc all come down to planning