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: 19/01/2011 06:08
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: An InternationalJournal

Emergency

Risk

Management

byAlanHodges1
on RiskManagement -New Zealand Standard Thepublicationin 1995 of an Australian riskanddetermining treatment processfor examining provideda logical andsystematic options. After national consultation, the approachtaken by the standard has been adaptedto makeit appropriateto the needs of theAustralianemergencymanagement is now underpinning Theresultant community. policy of emergencyriskmanagement and to is be training 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 andthe environment has no constitutionalrole, but it has of State governmentsin Australia.The Federalgovernment In addition,disastersareinevitablypoliticalandmediaevents, an obvious interestin such matters. and are the focus of widespreadattention. Australia2 Twenty-fiveyears ago the FederalGovernmentestablishedEmergencyManagement to States disasters. While this to assistance the coordination is coordinate (EMA) during physical 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 is in this environmentthatEMA, over the last five years, has been committee arrangements. basisfordetermining how to minimize as the fundamental emergencyriskmanagement promoting threatsto life and propertyfrom both naturaland technologicaldisasters. - New ZealandRisk ManagementStandard is In this paperthe approachtakenin the Australian of risk managementinto emergency examined. Variouscatalysts of change for the integration 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 andadverseeffects;4 effective managementof potentialopportunities * 'emergencyrisk management':a systematicprocessproducinga rangeof measureswhich contributeto the well-being of communitiesandthe environment.5

Press Ltd Copyright 2000 Perpetuity

Page 7

An InternationalJournal Risk Management:

The risk management standard on risk management. In 1992, Standards Australiaraisedby circularletterthe needfor a standard The following year,JeanCross, Professorof Safety Engineeringat the Universityof New South JointTechnicalCommitteewhichworkedduringthe next Wales,chaireda widely-representative on Risk Management(ANS/NZS two yearsto develop an Australian- New Zealand Standard ProfessorCrosswrotethat: 4360: 1995). Before publicationof the standard, will depend on the extentto which Theimplications since its impact areas yet uncertain ...6 to takeupthestandard andmajor decide government 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 has had a significantimpactin Australiaand New 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. arealsokey elementsof the process. andconsultation, andreview,andcommunication Monitoring

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: An InternationalJournal

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 InternationalJournal Risk Management:

The first step is to examine the strategic,organizationaland risk managementcontext within which the analysis will take place. In this step it is appropriate to examinethe criteriaagainst which risks will be evaluated and to determinethe structure, or set of elements, for subsequent thatexaminationof the context is undertaken at the outset,to providethe analysis.It is important for the following risk analysis.This requiresa thoroughexamination framework of the operating anda full understanding environment of organizational 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. By combining 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 used, the level of risk can be estimatedas extreme,high, moderateor low. qualitativeapproach A possibleallocationof these estimatesfor differentcombinations of likelihoodandconsequences 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 andthe previously-established riskcriteria. Fromthiscanbe deriveda list of risks in priority order. Some of these mightbe at such a level thatthe riskcanbe acceptedandtreatment monitored andperiodically 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: An InternationalJournal

* 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 by a range of measures, dependingon the circumstances.For instance, it might requirerevision of organizational of preventativemeasures,application of technicalcontrols, arrangements, implementation or initiationof researchand development. * Reducing the consequences. The impact can be reduced by such means as contingency and design features. barriers, planning,recovery plans, engineeringand structural * Transferringthe risk. By use of contracts, insurance arrangements and organizational structures(such as partnerships),the risk can be transferred or shared. However, such 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 inclusionin the latterof the need for A majordifferencebetween the 1995 and 1999 standards and consultation.Experiencehas shown thatthese actions,for both internaland communication has to be twoarerequiredfor every stage of the process.Communication externalstakeholders, to occur. effective consultation way to enable to be completedso as to satisfyan independent audit.The Eachstage also requiresdocumentation inclusionof assumptions, methods,datasourcesandresultswill producean audittrailwhich will will also make subsequent the process. Such documentation demonstrate monitoringand review muchsimpler. has not introduced Whilethe standard 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 InternationalJournal Risk Management:

There is an agreedmethodology which is well understoodand acceptedand, as a result, use of is now being increasinglydemandedin riskanalysis,by bothgovernment the standard's approach 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 thoroughrisk analysis should not be taken on risk analysis. On the other hand, undertaking lightly. The step-by-stepprocess in the standardcan demand a majorcommitmentof staff to and certainlyrequiresfull supportat managementlevel. carryit out thoroughly, 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 is riskymanagement. to riskmanagement They highlight thatmanagingriskrequiresrigorous,responsible,balancedandforwardthinking.They promote the standard's formalstep-by-stepprocess for significantdecisions, such as: * * * * * policy changes; projectmanagement; the management of sensitive issues; expenditure involving significant sums of money; and the introduction of new proceduresand strategies.

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: An InternationalJournal

in raisingawareness The Guidelines of the standard's were significant withingovernment approach and in the for in the field assisted preparing ground change of emergency agencies, certainly management.

risk managementworkshop National emergency The publicationof the standardin 1995 excited interest among a numberof staff members of As a result of their influence, in March EMA and otheremergency managementpractitioners. 1996 EMA conducteda nationalworkshopat its AustralianEmergencyManagementInstituteto considerthe application of the risk managementconceptto emergencymanagementin Australia. 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' of encompassing all hazards); (a single set of management arrangements capable * '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 thatthe risk sessionsoverthreedays,theparticipants andbreakout discussions agreed9 presentations, because: Australian of value to be standard would 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 agreedthatspecific guidelineswere necessaryfor the implementation Workshop participants 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 the Australian guidelines (based on the standard)should be developed appropriate emergencymanagementindustry.

Alan Hodges

Page 13

Risk Management: An InternationalJournal

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 to theAustralian needs'; emergencymanagement industry's and * 'to incorporatethe risk managementapproachinto relevant educationand trainingand into principlesand practicepublications."' of the Subsequent action was by no means immediate. There was a lack of understanding 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 of the PrimeMinisterandCabinetin New Zealand, a a in Civil of Defence in raisingawareness published paper12 Ministry joural. This was important of the applicationof the risk managementprocess in the disastercontext. Thegeneralriskmanagement was not new to New Zealand, whichsince 1987hadadopted approach a policy of sharing riskmanagement betweencentralgovernment andlocal authorities. The policy localauthorities to identifyhazards in theirareasof responsibility andto introduce required strategies to reducethe consequences of disasters. Thisrequired a comprehensive to loss prevention approach and risk management. A somewhatsimilarscheme has more recentlybeen adoptedin Australia, financialcontribution to Statesto assistrecoveryfromrecurrent wherebythe Federal government's is contingent disasters on appropriate measures mitigation beingtakenat Stateandlocalgovernment levels. The concepthas not been universallywelcomedby local governments, as theyalreadyhave for Nor the have New Zealand been adopted many competingpressures expenditures. principles local in authorities that Nevertheless there is a clearmessage in both universallyby country.'3 countriesthatdisaster is an important in a totalriskmanagement to mitigation component approach fromthe effects of disasters. protectingcommunities Helm also notedthatrisk management'... offers a structured, systematicandconsistentapproach thatforces the analystinto understanding the total riskpicture'.Importantly, he saw thatit forms an overlay on the emergency/disaster process, and herehe was challengingthe statusquo. While AustraliaandNew Zealandsubscribeto the comprehensiveapproach to emergencymanagement 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 or potentialfor improving theoutcome'.'4 requiredsupport'... commensurate In concluding,he statedthat: Riskmanagement of themselves cannot better because of strategies guarantee performance boththe role thatchanceand uncertainly withhuman play, andthe vagariesassociated

Page 14

Alan Hodges

An International Risk Management: Journal

usedforassessing riskcancontribute to understanding Butthemethodologies intervention. tothemore control lie.Theycanpoint where themostserious options, promising components of resources.15 andinform theallocation assistpolicydevelopment, foresaw the possibility of the conceptof riskmanagement In mid-1996 an articleby Smithet a116 services.The authors shift anda stimulusfor integrating for a cultural a foundation both providing saw the move towardsthe risk managementapproachas leading to a shift towardsprevention andresponsibility, andto increased and increasedservicediversity,to communityempowerment that the focus in has been on considered Australia also major 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 responsecapabilities,rather investmentof resources issues questioningthe prioritiesgiven to the variousPPRRelements, This articleraisedimportant and recognized the need both for close involvement of the community in risk management of the vulnerability of communities processesanddecisions,andfor a muchgreaterunderstanding 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 influenceof the NationalEmergencyManagementCommittee andits views Notwithstanding on the usefulness of the risk managementapproach,there was a need to have wide industry involvement in buildinga consensus for adoptingthe risk managementapproach and in taking 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 of the Communityconsultation of those risksoccurring. Theoutcomecould, for types of risks affectingthemandthe probabilities 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 International Risk Management: 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 of risks - importantly,this is the last step in the sequential responseandrecoveryeach needto be examined, preparation, process (see Figure 1). Prevention, 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 benefitsof, for instance,enhanced butsucha decisionwill be madeaftercomparing preventative measures. and have into a comprehensiveApplications Guide18 The Guidelines have been incorporated of 4360: 1999. Australia as an appropriatederivation AS/NZS been endorsed by Standards with this development,the Public Safety IndustryTrainingAdvisory Body19has Concurrently of commonandsectorriskmanagement conceptsandprocessesin the identification incorporated for nationaladoption. specific trainingcompetencystandards As an example, in the competencystandards'managementstream', which is common to all units have been developed, covering the five mainsteps in the emergencyservices, fourtraining Each of the unitshasthenbeen brokendown intocontributing riskmanagement elements, process. criteria.For instance, the unit 'Establishcontext and develop risk with associated performance as one of its five elements. roles andrequirements' evaluationcriteria'has 'Clarifystakeholders' areinformedof aims,objectives for this elementis: 'Stakeholders criteria 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 implementation The courses are criticalcomponents strategyas, over time, therewill be a to implementingemergencyrisk managementwhile the philosophy common nationalapproach meansof Australia-wide.Moreover,they will be an important andthe languagearedisseminated in the Guidelines in skilled who are facilitators well-trained conjunction implementing providing with communitygroups. in a practical The next stepis to applytheapproach way. EMAstaffwill workwithStateemergency management staff to undertakecomprehensive risk assessments at community level. Initial in Victoria, of Cardinia communityareasselectedforthesestudiesarethe outerMelbournesuburb the and the North-WestTasmaniaregion,a ruraltown in South Australia Jarrahdale-Serpentine the National EmergencyManagement Australia.Furthermore, 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 anemergency on the new coursesis any guide,the development of participants If the enthusiasm risk management approach has been worthwhile. However, it is still at an early stage of andit will be some time beforeenough people have been throughcoursesfor the implementation to be way. A majorchallenge still aheadof us will be to concept applied in a business-as-usual ensurethat the approachis acceptedat the executive level.

Page 16

Alan Hodges

An International Risk Management: Journal

Conclusion in 1995 has providedan extremelyuseful and The publicationof the riskmanagementstandard the standard to emergency management, risk. In its basis for application examining systematic has resulted in widespreadcritical re-examinationof the traditionalAustralianapproachto extensiveconsultation, Thedevelopment,through andthe environment. protectionof life, property new basisforexamining a is now of emergencyriskmanagement providing completely guidelines risks to communitiesand for determiningtreatmentoptions as partof the process. The options of traditional stillrequireconsideration responseandrecovery, preparation, conceptsof prevention, which an approach to create blended have new been the old and the and so successfully together and case studies. is now being introduced nationallythough publications,training

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

2
3

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

5 6

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

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

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

Service. Government Australian Canberra: Publishing

9 MountMacedon RiskManagement Australia(1996) Emergency Workshop. EmergencyManagement

10

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

11 12 13 14 15 16

for Natural andTechnological Disasters. Risk Management Helm,P. (1996)Integrated Tephra. Vol.15,No. 1,pp5-13. Ibid,p 5. Ibid,p 11. Ibid,p 13. intheFire and Services. L. (1996)RiskManagement J.andCollett, Smith, P.,Nicholson, Emergency of conference. Institution Canberra: Disaster Reduction of the National InNDR96. Proceedings Australia, Engineers pp377- 87.

Alan Hodges

Page 17

Risk Management: An International Journal

17

AustralianJournal of Emergency Salter,J. (1995a) Disasters as Manifestationsof Vulnerability. Vol. No. 9J. Towards a BetterDisaster Management 10, 1, 10; Salter, (1995b) Management. pp Methodology.AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement.Vol. 10, No. 4, pp 8 - 16; Salter,J. in a DisasterManagementContext.Journalof Contingenciesand Crisis (1997) Risk Management 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. (1997) Risk Communicationin the Context of EmergencyManagement: 2, pp 1-4; Tarrant, 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 for the furtherance of education andtraining in thepublicsafetyindustry. Its boardcomprisesemployerandemployeerepresentatives from the fire, police, emergencyservices, defence and emergencymanagementsectors.

18 19

Page 18

Alan Hodges