Emergency Risk Management Author(s): Alan Hodges Source: Risk Management, Vol. 2, No. 4 (2000), pp.

7-18 Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3867920 Accessed: 08/12/2010 02:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Risk Management.

http://www.jstor.org

RiskManagement: InternationalJournal An

Emergency

Risk

Management

byAlanHodges1
on -New Zealand Standard RiskManagement Thepublicationin 1995 of an Australian risk treatment processfor examining anddetermining provideda logical andsystematic options. After national consultation, the approachtaken by the standard has been adaptedto makeit appropriateto the needs of theAustralianemergencymanagement is The community. resultant policy of emergencyriskmanagement now underpinning trainingand is to be appliedat a practical management-level emergencymanagement level in communitysettings. Key Words: Risk; risk management; emergency management; disaster management

Introduction fromtheeffects of disastersis a responsibility Theprotectionof life, property the environment and has of State governmentsin Australia.The Federalgovernment no constitutionalrole, but it has In an obvious interestin such matters. addition,disastersareinevitablypoliticalandmediaevents, and are the focus of widespreadattention. Australia2 Twenty-fiveyears ago the FederalGovernmentestablishedEmergencyManagement to coordinatephysical assistanceto the Statesduringdisasters.While this coordinationis (EMA) an importantand continuingrole, EMA is also heavily involved in working with the States to raise emergency managementcapabilities across the nation.It does this throughdevelopment anddelivery of educationandtrainingat middle-to upper-management levels, and by providing throughcooperativeFederal-State leadershipin promotingpolicies, practicesand arrangements It committee arrangements. is in this environmentthatEMA, over the last five years, has been basisfordetermining how to minimize as emergencyriskmanagement the fundamental promoting threatsto life and propertyfrom both naturaland technologicaldisasters. is In this paperthe approachtakenin the Australian New ZealandRisk ManagementStandard of examined. Variouscatalysts of change for the integration risk managementinto emergency managementare then identified. Finally, the implicationsfor emergency risk managementare examined. For this paper,the following definitionsapply: * 'risk': the chance of somethinghappeningthat will have an impact upon objectives. It is measuredin terms of consequencesand likelihood;3 * 'risk management': the culture, processes and structuresthat are directed towards the and effective managementof potentialopportunities adverseeffects;4 * 'emergencyrisk management':a systematicprocessproducinga rangeof measureswhich contributeto the well-being of communitiesandthe environment.5

Press Ltd Copyright 2000 Perpetuity

Page 7

An Risk Management: InternationalJournal

The risk management standard on In 1992, Standards Australiaraisedby circularletterthe needfor a standard risk management. The following year,JeanCross, Professorof Safety Engineeringat the Universityof New South JointTechnicalCommitteewhichworkedduringthe next Wales,chaireda widely-representative on two yearsto develop an Australian- New Zealand Standard Risk Management(ANS/NZS ProfessorCrosswrotethat: 4360: 1995). Before publicationof the standard, will on Theimplications as yet uncertain since its impact depend the extentto which are ...6 to and decide takeupthestandard government major industry that,in view of the significant Althoughthe standard mightreceive littleattention,she considered interestat the public comment stage of its development,this was unlikely. Herconfidencewas well placed. The standard had a significantimpactin Australiaand New has Zealandand has attractedworldwide attention.It was revised and republishedin April 1999,7 and it is this later publication which will be used here in describing the approach to risk management. Figure 1 below providesan outline of the main steps in the process.In essence, risk management is the systematicapplicationof managementpolicies, proceduresand practices to the tasks of establishingthe context, and to those of identifying, analyzing,evaluating and treatingrisks. are and and Monitoring review,andcommunication consultation, alsokey elementsof the process.

Figure I. Risk management overview

A more detailedexplanationof the risk managementprocess is shown in Figure 2 below. The standard providesquite detailed guidancefor each aspect of thatprocess.

Page 8

Alan Hodges

RiskManagement: InternationalJournal An

Figure 2. Risk management process

i
* * * * *

T-

Establish the context The strategiccontext The organizational context The risk managementcontext Develop criteria Decide the structure

* *

Identify risks What can happen? How can it happen?

v

Analyze risks

Determine existing risks

cj-~

Determine likelihood

Determine consequences
a0

0 ct

E: E C u

l
Estimatelevel of risk

.0
tt

;.. .1 r: 0

* *

Evaluate risks Compareagainstcriteria Set risk priorities

t
* * * * * Treat risks options Identify treatment Evaluatetreatment options Select treatment options plans Preparetreatment Implementplans
I

Alan Hodges

Page 9

An Risk Management: InternationalJournal

The first step is to examine the strategic,organizationaland risk managementcontext within which the analysis will take place. In this step it is appropriate examinethe criteriaagainst to which risks will be evaluated and to determinethe structure, set of elements, for subsequent or that at analysis.It is important examinationof the context is undertaken the outset,to providethe for framework the following risk analysis.This requiresa thoroughexamination the operating of and environment a full understanding organizational of policies andgoals, so as to decidewhether a risk is acceptableor not. The second step involves identificationof all the risks which need to be managed,togetherwith possible causes and effects. If risks arenot recognizedin this step, it is unlikelythatthey will be controlled.In an organizationalsetting, it is also necessary to considerrisks which are outside the entity's control. Analysisof risk,the thirdstep, has two key elements:likelihoodandconsequences. combining By analyses of these elements, an estimate of the level of risk can be derived in the context of existing controlmeasures. During the analysis stage, minor, acceptablerisks can be identified and put to one side. Depending on the degree of risk and the availabilityof accuratedata and resources available, analysis may be qualitative, semi-quantitativeor quantitative.When a is qualitativeapproach used, the level of risk can be estimatedas extreme,high, moderateor low. A possibleallocationof these estimatesfor differentcombinations likelihoodandconsequences of is shown in Table 1 below.

Table I. Qualitative level of risk Consequences Likelihood Insignificant Almost certain Likely Moderate Unlikely Rare H M L L L Minor H H M L L Moderate E H H M M Major E E E H H Catastrophic E E E E H

Legend:E = extreme,H = high, M = moderate,L = low.

Aftertheanalysisprocess,the riskscan be evaluated. This involves a comparison betweenthe level of riskidentified the previously-established criteria. and risk Fromthiscanbe deriveda list of risks in priority order. Some of these mightbe at such a level thatthe riskcanbe acceptedandtreatment monitored periodically and reviewed Nevertheless, maynotbe required. theyshouldbe documented, to ensurethatthey remainacceptable.The otherrisks will requirefurther consideration. Forthoseriskswhich areunacceptable,fouroptions (which arenot necessarilyall appropriate or mutuallyexclusive in all circumstances)are available:

Page 10

Alan Hodges

Risk Management: InternationalJournal An

* Avoidingthe risk. Very careful considerationneeds to be given to such a course, as the level of otherrisks might potentiallybe increased. * Reducingthe likelihood.Modifying the hazardcan be undertaken a range of measures, by dependingon the circumstances.For instance, it might requirerevision of organizational of of arrangements, implementation preventativemeasures,application technicalcontrols, or initiationof researchand development. * Reducing the consequences. The impact can be reduced by such means as contingency and barriers, design features. planning,recovery plans, engineeringand structural * Transferringthe risk. By use of contracts, insurance arrangements and organizational structures(such as partnerships),the risk can be transferred shared. However, such or may not reduce the level of risk to society. Additionally,there is the added arrangements dangerthat the organizationwhich has the new responsibilitymay not manage that risk. Despite these actions, there may be residual risk which is retained.Planningwill thereforebe requiredto managethe consequencesof this. Following the identificationof options for risk treatment,therewill be a need for an assessment process. The process should take account of the extent of risk reductionand the likely benefits which can be achieved. Obviously, high reductionin risk for low cost should be implemented. As the costs rise and the benefits diminish, careful judgement will be required, and there may come a point where it is clearly uneconomic to increase expenditure to lower the risk further.Again, in such cases judgement is required so as to reduce the risk impact to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. Plans must then be prepared,for implementing the selected options, to enable management to control the risks. Such plans should identify responsibilities, the actions required, performancemeasures, and the expected outcomes of treatments,and should provide a basis for assessing effectiveness. While responsibility for risk treatmentis best placed with those able to control the risk, a management system is also requiredwhich ensures that the plan is effectively implemented.As shown in Figures 1 and 2 above, the need to monitor and review is part of a closed loop sequence. There is a constant need to be alert to changing circumstances,as risks will change over time, in respect of eitherthe likelihood of occurrences, or their consequences, or both. Identification of a regular review process would be a very sensible inclusion in the plan. is A majordifferencebetween the 1995 and 1999 standards inclusionin the latterof the need for and communication consultation.Experiencehas shown thatthese actions,for both internaland has are externalstakeholders, requiredfor every stage of the process.Communication to be twoeffective consultationto occur. way to enable to audit.The Eachstage also requiresdocumentation be completedso as to satisfyan independent inclusionof assumptions, methods,datasourcesandresultswill producean audittrailwhich will will also make subsequent the demonstrate process. Such documentation monitoringand review muchsimpler. has Whilethe standard not introduced significantlynew conceptsto theanalysisandmanagement of risk, its developmentand subsequentendorsementhas definitely been of immense benefit. The thoroughprocess of consultation,implementationand eventualrevision has resulted in a approachwhich has gained wide acceptancein Australiaand New Zealand. risk-management

Alan Hodges

Page 11

An Risk Management: InternationalJournal

There is an agreedmethodology which is well understoodand acceptedand, as a result, use of is the standard's approach now being increasinglydemandedin riskanalysis,by bothgovernment and privateenterprise. A majorbenefit of the standardis the strongemphasis it gives to identifyingrisk as an integral teamto undertake process, as well as to the need for a multi-disciplinary partof the management a risk analysis. On the other hand, undertaking thoroughrisk analysis should not be taken on lightly. The step-by-stepprocess in the standardcan demand a majorcommitmentof staff to and carryit out thoroughly, certainlyrequiresfull supportat managementlevel. There has been interestby other countriesin the approach,but none has so far gone to the next step of developing an agreed standard.This is surprising, given the internationalinterest in this topic and the benefits which would flow from the formal endorsementof a standardby national or multi-nationalstandardsorganizations.Such a developmenttask need not appear daunting;in fact, it is likely to result in wide interest and involvement. It requires,however, a small group of 'champions'who are preparedto take chargeof the projectand drive it through to fruition.

Catalysts of change in emergency management

Guidelinesfor managingrisk in the AustralianPublic Service The mere publicationof a standardwhich provides a generic guide on risk managementis, in itself, insufficientto ensure that it is adoptedby an industrysector.Althoughthe standardcan contributeto change, other 'drivers' are required;several of those relating to the emergency managementsectorare describedin the following paragraphs. In 1995 the Management Advisory Committee and Management Improvement Advisory Committeeof theAustralian PublicServiceissuedan 'exposuredraft'on GuidelinesforManaging Risk in the AustralianPublic Service. The final document8was publishedthe following year. was widely applicable Althoughit was directedprimarilyat goverment agencies, the approach in the community.In essence, the Guidelinesprovidedan easily-readable explanationof the use of the risk managementstandardin government,and also included a numberof case studies illustratingpersuasivesuccess stories. The Guidelinesnotethatthe alternative riskmanagement riskymanagement. is to They highlight thatmanagingriskrequiresrigorous,responsible,balancedandforwardthinking.They promote the standard's formalstep-by-stepprocess for significantdecisions, such as: * * * * * policy changes; projectmanagement; the management sensitive issues; of expenditure involving significant sums of money; and the introduction new proceduresand strategies. of

even if only in an informalmanner, Moreover,the Guidelinesalso encourageuse of the approach, in all decision-making,as risk is inherentin all we do.

Page 12

Alan Hodges

Risk Management: InternationalJournal An

in The Guidelines of were significant raisingawareness the standard's withingovernment approach andcertainly inpreparing ground change thefieldof emergency the for in assisted agencies, management.

risk managementworkshop National emergency The publicationof the standardin 1995 excited interest among a numberof staff members of As EMA and otheremergency managementpractitioners. a result of their influence, in March 1996 EMA conducteda nationalworkshopat its AustralianEmergencyManagementInstituteto considerthe application the risk managementconceptto emergencymanagementin Australia. of There was an awareness,however, that this workshophad potentialto create division, as there was strongnationalacceptanceof the existing approachto emergencymanagementin Australia. This approach involved concepts of: * 'all hazards' single set of management of all (a arrangements capable encompassing hazards); * 'all agencies' (the establishmentof arrangements involving all agencies); whichinvolvesall fourelementsof a 'PPRR'process, * 'a comprehensive (planning approach' ie prevention, response and recovery);and preparedness, * the 'prepared community' (recognizingthe communityas a primaryfocus of emergency management). Although the PPRRareas are not mutuallyexclusive, there had been a tendency for each to be seen to some extent as separatefunctions, thereby leading to differing levels of interest and support,regardlessof communitybenefits. local government, State government from emergencyservice organizations, Over 30 participants attendedthe workshop.Following agencies, the insuranceindustryand industrialorganizations that sessionsoverthreedays,theparticipants and discussions breakout agreed9 the risk presentations, because: standard wouldbe of valuetoAustralian arrangements emergency management management * * governmentsand corporationsare increasinglyusing risk management processes; the risk management process provides a common language and process across all organizations; it is a formalized,systematicprocess of analysis and decision-making; risk management;and emergencymanagementcan be promotedmore effectively through process. emergencymanagementshould dovetail into the broaderrisk management

* * *

also Workshop participants agreedthatspecific guidelineswere necessaryfor the implementation within the emergency managementindustry.It was also proposedthat the term of the standard 'emergencyriskmanagement'be adoptedto reflect the multi-agencyaspect of the industry. from the workshopwere that: Two key recommendations * * Australian principles;and emergencymanagementshould embody risk management to guidelines (based on the standard)should be developed appropriate the Australian emergencymanagementindustry.

Alan Hodges

Page 13

Risk Management: InternationalJournal An

In September1996 these recommendations were put to Australia'speakemergencymanagement policy body, the NationalEmergencyManagementCommittee,lwhich agreed: * 'to commendrisk managementprinciplesas a tool for use in the emergencymanagement community'; * 'thatemergencyrisk managementdocumentation based on the risk management standard shouldbe developedappropriate theAustralian to needs'; emergencymanagement industry's and * 'to incorporatethe risk managementapproachinto relevant educationand trainingand into principlesand practicepublications."' of Subsequent action was by no means immediate. There was a lack of understanding the implicationsin manyareasand a fear thatexisting concepts andprinciples,whichhave stood the Whatfollowed was an emergencymanagement communityin good stead, would be abandoned. extensive periodof communicationand consultation,an experience which was to be influential in includingthese approachesin the 1999 revision of the standard.

Supporting publications In mid-1996 PatrickHelm, of the Department the PrimeMinisterandCabinetin New Zealand, of a paper12 a Ministryof Civil Defencejoural. This was important raisingawareness in in published of the applicationof the risk managementprocess in the disastercontext. Thegeneralriskmanagement was whichsince 1987hadadopted approach not new to New Zealand, a policy of sharing management risk betweencentralgovernment local authorities. policy and The localauthorities identifyhazards theirareasof responsibility to introduce to in and required strategies to reducethe consequences disasters. of Thisrequired comprehensive a to approach loss prevention and risk management. somewhatsimilarscheme has more recentlybeen adoptedin Australia, A financialcontribution Statesto assistrecoveryfromrecurrent to wherebythe Federal government's is disasters contingent appropriate on measures mitigation beingtakenat Stateandlocalgovernment levels. The concepthas not been universallywelcomedby local governments, theyalreadyhave as for expenditures. Nor have the New Zealandprinciples been adopted many competingpressures local authoritiesin that country.'3Neverthelessthere is a clearmessage in both universallyby countriesthatdisaster is in to mitigation an important component a totalriskmanagement approach communities fromthe effects of disasters. protecting Helm also notedthatrisk management'... offers a structured, systematicandconsistentapproach thatforces the analystinto understanding total riskpicture'.Importantly, saw thatit forms the he an overlay on the emergency/disaster process, and herehe was challengingthe statusquo. While AustraliaandNew Zealandsubscribeto the comprehensiveapproach emergencymanagement to via the PPRRprocess, it would be fair to say thatthe majoremphasisin both countrieshas been on the capabilityto respondto disasters.Risk management,however,requiresa more thorough analysis of solutions.For instance,the marginalbenefitfrom the applicationof resourcesto both preventionandresponseshouldbe equal.Helm emphasizedthateach step in disaster management with its importance potentialfor improving outcome'.'4 or the requiredsupport'... commensurate In concluding,he statedthat: Riskmanagement of cannot better because of strategies themselves guarantee performance boththe role thatchanceand uncertainly withhuman play, andthe vagariesassociated

Page 14

Alan Hodges

An Risk Management: International Journal

used risk to But intervention. themethodologies forassessing cancontribute understanding to control lie. where mostserious the options, promising components Theycanpoint themore of and the assistpolicydevelopment, inform allocation resources.15 foresaw the possibility of the conceptof riskmanagement In mid-1996 an articleby Smithet a116 services.The authors for botha foundation a culturalshift anda stimulusfor integrating providing saw the move towardsthe risk managementapproachas leading to a shift towardsprevention and and and increasedservicediversity,to communityempowerment responsibility, to increased also considered that the major focus in Australiahas been on inter-agencycooperation.They event management,and so significant capabilitieshave been developed, using both permanent staff and trainedvolunteers, to combat hazardous events. This has inevitably led to further thanrecognizinga moreholisticapproach. in investmentof resources responsecapabilities,rather issues questioningthe prioritiesgiven to the variousPPRRelements, This articleraisedimportant and recognized the need both for close involvement of the community in risk management of of processesanddecisions,andfor a muchgreaterunderstanding the vulnerability communities or elements of communities.Hence, in the emergency managementcontext,risk management can be very much concernedwith people, with the impact of a hazardon them and with their response to a situation. were also important in promoting emergency risk Papers by Salter, Koob and Tarrant17 management.

Implications of emergency risk management the and Notwithstanding influenceof the NationalEmergencyManagementCommittee its views on the usefulness of the risk managementapproach,there was a need to have wide industry involvement in buildinga consensus for adoptingthe risk managementapproach in taking and the next step of producing guidelines for emergency risk management.A national steering committeewas formedto develop guidelines which blendedtraditional emergency management approacheswith emergencyrisk management. The EmergencyRiskManagementGuidelines which resultedfollow the varioussteps in Figure 2, but with some variations.Whereasthe standardis directedprimarilytowardsthe analysis of organizationalrisk, its application to emergency managementrequires a strongemphasis on community consultation and involvement. This is in distinct contrast to earlier emergency whose prime focus was on hazardanalysis. Such analysisis now part managementapproaches, of a much more comprehensiveapproach. raises the complex issue of involving residentsin identification the of Communityconsultation of The types of risks affectingthemandthe probabilities those risksoccurring. outcomecould, for instance,reveal unperceived flooding risks, with a consequentialdownwardeffect on real estate dam failure.Such matters values, or highlighta small, but neverthelessreal, risk of catastrophic media attentionand to escalatevery rapidlyto the politicallevel. have the potentialto attract The Guidelinesaretailoredto the emergencymanagementenvironmentin relationto: * natural,technological,civil/political (terrorism, sabotage)and biologicalhazards; * recognitionof various community groupings (geographically-based, shared-experience, and sector-based,functionally-based);

Alan Hodges

Page 15

An Risk Management: International Journal

* inclusion of concepts of resilience and susceptibility,to assist in determining community vulnerability. A key to the acceptanceof the emergencyrisk managementapproachhas been to incorporate PPRR as options in the treatment risks - importantly,this is the last step in the sequential of (see Figure 1). Prevention, responseandrecoveryeach needto be examined, preparation, process and the benefitsassessed as options,in the light of the judgementsmade in the riskmanagement analysisup to thatpoint.The analysismay well lead to the need for greaterresponsecapabilities, the butsucha decisionwill be madeaftercomparing benefitsof, for instance,enhanced preventative measures. and into a comprehensiveApplications Guide18 have The Guidelines have been incorporated of AS/NZS 4360: 1999. Australia as an appropriatederivation been endorsed by Standards with this development,the Public Safety IndustryTrainingAdvisory Body19has Concurrently of risk conceptsandprocessesin the identification commonandsectorincorporated management for specific trainingcompetencystandards nationaladoption. As an example, in the competencystandards'managementstream', which is common to all units have been developed, covering the five mainsteps in the emergencyservices, fourtraining Eachof the unitshasthenbeen brokendown intocontributing riskmanagement elements, process. criteria.For instance, the unit 'Establishcontext and develop risk with associated performance as roles andrequirements' one of its five elements. evaluationcriteria'has 'Clarifystakeholders' are for criteria this elementis: 'Stakeholders informedof aims,objectives One of the performance within which they must operate.' and the risk managementcontextand structure At the Australian Emergency Management Institute, three new courses ('Introduction to Emergency Risk Management', 'Understanding Emergency Risk Management' and 'ImplementingEmergencyRisk Management')are being conductedor are in development,as the foundationof the Institute'scurriculum.Publicationsto supportthe ApplicationsGuide are also being developed, in the form of 'ImplementationGuides' and an annotatedbibliography. of The courses are criticalcomponents the implementation strategyas, over time, therewill be a to common nationalapproach implementingemergencyrisk managementwhile the philosophy meansof Australia-wide.Moreover,they will be an important andthe languagearedisseminated who are skilledin implementingthe Guidelinesin conjunction well-trainedfacilitators providing with communitygroups. in The next stepis to applytheapproach a practical way. EMAstaffwill workwithStateemergency management staff to undertakecomprehensive risk assessments at community level. Initial in of communityareasselectedforthesestudiesarethe outerMelbournesuburb Cardinia Victoria, and the Jarrahdale-Serpentine the North-WestTasmaniaregion,a ruraltown in South Australia the Australia.Furthermore, National EmergencyManagement Shire, south of Perthin Western Committee recently approveda strategic plan which includes an intention to undertakecase studies in each of the eightAustralianStates and Territories. of on of If the enthusiasm participants the new coursesis any guide,the development anemergency risk management approach has been worthwhile. However, it is still at an early stage of and implementation it will be some time beforeenough people have been throughcoursesfor the to be applied in a business-as-usual way. A majorchallenge still aheadof us will be to concept ensurethat the approachis acceptedat the executive level.

Page 16

Alan Hodges

An Risk Management: International Journal

Conclusion in The publicationof the riskmanagementstandard 1995 has providedan extremelyuseful and the basis for examiningrisk. In its applicationto emergency management, standard systematic has resulted in widespreadcritical re-examinationof the traditionalAustralianapproachto extensiveconsultation, The and protectionof life, property the environment. development,through is now providinga completelynew basisforexamining of emergencyriskmanagement guidelines risks to communitiesand for determiningtreatmentoptions as partof the process. The options of stillrequireconsideration traditional responseandrecovery, preparation, conceptsof prevention, which the old and the new have been successfully blendedtogetherto createan approach and so and case studies. is now being introduced nationallythough publications,training

Notes 1 whichis of Director General Emergency AlanHodgeswasuntilrecently Australia, Management the for and the Federal agencyresponsible reducing impactof natural man-made government on disasters theAustralian community. Disasters known theNatural as Organisation. Formerly
StandardsAustralia,StandardsNew Zealand (1999) Risk Management,AS/NZS4360: 1999.

2
3

of Association Australia, 3. NSW: Standards Strathfield, p 4

5 6

Ibid,p 4.
Glossary.Canberra: Australia(1998) AustralianEmergencyManagement EmergencyMangement

EMA,p 41.
The Journalof Emergency Standard. Australian Cross,J. (1995)TheRiskManagement Management.

Vol. 10,No. 4, pp4-7. 7 8 Standards Zealand, cit. New Standards Australia, op Australian and Committee Management Committee, Advisory Improvement Advisory Management
PublicService. PublicService(1995)ReportNo 22: Guidelines ManagingRiskin theAustralian for

Service. Government Australian Canberra: Publishing

9 MountMacedon RiskManagement Australia(1996) Emergency Workshop. EmergencyManagement

10

Service. Australian Government No. Publishing Paper 5. Canberra: the of General Emergency Committee TheNational comprises Director Management Emergency of and officers eachStateandTerritory and as chair, thechairs executive Australia, Management officers nominated or committee other management peakemergency of Minutes theNational Australia, Committee, Emergency Management Emergency Management
September1996.

11 12 13 14 15 16

for and Disasters. Risk Helm,P. (1996)Integrated Management Natural Technological Tephra. Vol.15,No. 1,pp5-13. Ibid,p 5. Ibid,p 11. Ibid,p 13. in and Services. L. J. Smith, Nicholson, andCollett, (1996)RiskManagement theFire Emergency P., of conference. Institution Canberra: Disaster Reduction of InNDR96. Proceedings the National Australia, 377- 87. Engineers pp

Alan Hodges

Page 17

Risk Management: International An Journal

17

AustralianJournal of Emergency Salter,J. (1995a) Disasters as Manifestationsof Vulnerability. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp 9- 10; Salter,J. (1995b) Towardsa BetterDisaster Management Management. Methodology.AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement.Vol. 10, No. 4, pp 8 - 16; Salter,J. in (1997) Risk Management a DisasterManagementContext.Journalof Contingenciesand Crisis Management.Vol.5, No. 1, pp 60 - 5; Salter,J. (1999a) PublicSafetyRisk Management: Assessing the LatestNationalGuidelines.AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement.Vol. 13, No. 4, pp 50 - 3; Salter,J. (1999b) A Risk ManagementApproachto Disaster Management.In Ingleton,J. (ed.) Natural Disaster Management.Leicester: Tudor Rose, pp 111-13; Koob, B. (1996) The Contextof EmergencyManagement. AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement.Vol. 11,No. M. 2, pp 1-4; Tarrant, (1997) Risk Communicationin the Context of EmergencyManagement: Planning'With'RatherThan 'For' Communities.AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement. Vol. 12,No.4,pp20-8. Emergency ManagementAustralia (2000) Emergency Risk ManagementApplications Guide: AustralianEmergencyManual.PartII, Vol. 1. Melbourne:EMA. A company establishedunderFederalgovernmentarrangements the furtherance education for of andtraining thepublicsafetyindustry. boardcomprisesemployerandemployeerepresentatives in Its from the fire, police, emergencyservices, defence and emergencymanagementsectors.

18 19

Page 18

Alan Hodges