1. Emergency Risk Management
Author(s): Alan Hodges
Reviewed work(s):
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: 30/01/2012 00:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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

2. RiskManagement: InternationalJournal
An
Emergency Risk Management
byAlanHodges1
Thepublicationin 1995 of an Australian -New Zealand on
Standard RiskManagement
provideda logical andsystematic processfor examining anddetermining
risk treatment
options. After national consultation, the approachtaken by the standard has been
adaptedto makeit appropriateto the needs of theAustralianemergencymanagement
community. resultant
The policy of emergencyriskmanagement now underpinning
is
management-level emergencymanagement trainingand is to be appliedat a practical
level in communitysettings.
Key Words: Risk; risk management; emergency management;
disaster management
Introduction
Theprotectionof life, property the environment
and fromtheeffects of disastersis a responsibility
of State governmentsin Australia.The Federalgovernment no constitutionalrole, but it has
has
an obvious interestin such matters. addition,disastersareinevitablypoliticalandmediaevents,
In
and are the focus of widespreadattention.
Twenty-fiveyears ago the FederalGovernmentestablishedEmergencyManagement Australia2
(EMA) to coordinatephysical assistanceto the Statesduringdisasters.While this coordinationis
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
leadershipin promotingpolicies, practicesand arrangements throughcooperativeFederal-State
committee arrangements. is in this environmentthatEMA, over the last five years, has been
It
promoting emergencyriskmanagement the fundamental
as basisfordetermining how to minimize
threatsto life and propertyfrom both naturaland technologicaldisasters.
-
In this paperthe approachtakenin the Australian New ZealandRisk ManagementStandard is
examined. Variouscatalysts of change for the integration risk managementinto emergency
of
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
effective managementof potentialopportunities adverseeffects;4
and
* 'emergencyrisk management':a systematicprocessproducinga rangeof measureswhich
contributeto the well-being of communitiesandthe environment.5
Copyright© 2000 PerpetuityPress Ltd Page 7

3. Risk Management: InternationalJournal
An
The risk management standard
In 1992, StandardsAustraliaraisedby circularletterthe needfor a standard risk management.
on
The following year,JeanCross, Professorof Safety Engineeringat the Universityof New South
Wales,chaireda widely-representative JointTechnicalCommitteewhichworkedduringthe next
two yearsto develop an Australian- New Zealand Standard Risk Management(ANS/NZS
on
4360: 1995). Before publicationof the standard,ProfessorCrosswrotethat:
since its impact depend the extentto which
Theimplications as yet uncertain
are will on
and
government major decide takeupthestandard
industry to ...6
Althoughthe standard mightreceive littleattention,she consideredthat,in view of the significant
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.
Monitoring review,andcommunication consultation, alsokey elementsof the process.
and and are
Figure I. Risk management overview
A more detailedexplanationof the risk managementprocess is shown in Figure 2 below. The
standardprovidesquite detailed guidancefor each aspect of thatprocess.
Page 8 Alan Hodges

4. RiskManagement: InternationalJournal
An
Figure 2. Risk management process
i T-
Establish the context
* The strategiccontext
* The organizationalcontext
* The risk managementcontext
* Develop criteria
* Decide the structure
v
Identify risks
4 * What can happen? 4 t
* How can it happen?
v
Analyze risks
Determine existing risks
cj-~
Determine Determine
likelihood consequences
0
ct
a0
E:
E l I .-
0
tt
C Estimatelevel of risk
0
;..
.1
r:
u 0
v
Evaluate risks
* Compareagainstcriteria
* Set risk priorities
t
Treat risks
* Identify treatment
options
* Evaluatetreatment options
* Select treatmentoptions
* Preparetreatment plans
* Implementplans
I
I
Alan Hodges Page 9

5. 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
analysis.It is important examinationof the context is undertaken the outset,to providethe
that at
framework the following risk analysis.This requiresa thoroughexamination the operating
for 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 Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Almost H H E E E
certain
Likely M H H E E
Moderate L M H E E
Unlikely L L M H E
Rare L L M H H
Legend:E = extreme,H = high, M = moderate,L = low.
Aftertheanalysisprocess,the riskscan be evaluated. This involves a comparisonbetweenthe level
of riskidentified the previously-established criteria.
and risk Fromthiscanbe deriveda list of risks
in priorityorder.Some of these mightbe at such a level thatthe riskcanbe acceptedandtreatment
maynotbe required. Nevertheless, theyshouldbe documented, monitored periodically
and reviewed
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

6. 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
arrangements, of of
implementation preventativemeasures,application technicalcontrols,
or initiationof researchand development.
* Reducing the consequences. The impact can be reduced by such means as contingency
planning,recovery plans, engineeringand structural and
barriers, design features.
* Transferringthe risk. By use of contracts, insurance arrangements and organizational
structures(such as partnerships),the risk can be transferred shared. However, such
or
arrangements may not reduce the level of risk to society. Additionally,there is the added
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.
A majordifferencebetween the 1995 and 1999 standards inclusionin the latterof the need for
is
communication consultation.Experiencehas shown thatthese actions,for both internaland
and
externalstakeholders, requiredfor every stage of the process.Communication to be two-
are has
way to enable effective consultationto occur.
Eachstage also requiresdocumentation be completedso as to satisfyan independent
to audit.The
inclusionof assumptions,methods,datasourcesandresultswill producean audittrailwhich will
demonstrate process. Such documentation
the will also make subsequent monitoringand review
muchsimpler.
Whilethe standard not introduced
has significantlynew conceptsto theanalysisandmanagement
of risk, its developmentand subsequentendorsementhas definitely been of immense benefit.
The thoroughprocess of consultation,implementationand eventualrevision has resulted in a
risk-management approachwhich has gained wide acceptancein Australiaand New Zealand.
Alan Hodges Page 11

7. Risk Management: InternationalJournal
An
There is an agreedmethodology which is well understoodand acceptedand, as a result, use of
the standard'sapproach now being increasinglydemandedin riskanalysis,by bothgovernment
is
and privateenterprise.
A majorbenefit of the standardis the strongemphasis it gives to identifyingrisk as an integral
partof the management teamto undertake
process, as well as to the need for a multi-disciplinary
risk analysis. On the other hand, undertaking thoroughrisk analysis should not be taken on
a
lightly. The step-by-stepprocess in the standardcan demand a majorcommitmentof staff to
carryit out thoroughly, certainlyrequiresfull supportat managementlevel.
and
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.
Althoughit was directedprimarilyat goverment agencies, the approach was widely applicable
in the community.In essence, the Guidelinesprovidedan easily-readableexplanationof the use
of the risk managementstandardin government,and also included a numberof case studies
illustratingpersuasivesuccess stories.
The Guidelinesnotethatthe alternative riskmanagement riskymanagement.
to is 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
* involving significant sums of money; and
expenditure
* 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

8. Risk Management: InternationalJournal
An
The Guidelines in
were significant raisingawareness the standard's
of withingovernment
approach
andcertainly
agencies, inpreparing ground change thefieldof emergency
assisted the for in management.
National emergency risk managementworkshop
The publicationof the standardin 1995 excited interest among a numberof staff members of
EMA and otheremergency managementpractitioners. a result of their influence, in March
As
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
(a of all
capable encompassing hazards);
arrangements
* 'all agencies' (the establishmentof arrangements
involving all agencies);
* 'a comprehensive (planning
approach' whichinvolvesall fourelementsof a 'PPRR'process,
ie prevention,
preparedness,response and recovery);and
community' (recognizingthe communityas a primaryfocus of emergency
* the 'prepared
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.
Over 30 participants from emergencyservice organizations,local government, State government
agencies, the insuranceindustryand industrialorganizations attendedthe workshop.Following
presentations,discussions breakout
and agreed9 the risk
sessionsoverthreedays,theparticipants that
management standardwouldbe of valuetoAustralianemergency management arrangements because:
* 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;
* emergencymanagementcan be promotedmore effectively throughrisk management;and
* emergencymanagementshould dovetail into the broaderrisk management
process.
Workshop participants agreedthatspecific guidelineswere necessaryfor the implementation
also
of the standardwithin the emergency managementindustry.It was also proposedthat the term
'emergencyriskmanagement'be adoptedto reflect the multi-agencyaspect of the industry.
Two key recommendations from the workshopwere that:
* Australianemergencymanagementshould embody risk management
principles;and
* guidelines (based on the standard)should be developed appropriate the Australian
to
emergencymanagementindustry.
Alan Hodges Page 13

9. Risk Management: InternationalJournal
An
In September1996 these recommendations
were put to Australia'speakemergencymanagement
policy body, the NationalEmergencyManagementCommittee,l°which agreed:
* 'to commendrisk managementprinciplesas a tool for use in the emergencymanagement
community';
* 'thatemergencyrisk managementdocumentation based on the risk management standard
shouldbe developedappropriate theAustralian
to emergencymanagement needs';
industry's
and
* 'to incorporatethe risk managementapproachinto relevant educationand trainingand
into principlesand practicepublications."'
Subsequent action was by no means immediate. There was a lack of understanding the of
implicationsin manyareasand a fear thatexisting concepts andprinciples,whichhave stood the
emergencymanagement communityin good stead, would be abandoned. Whatfollowed was an
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
publisheda paper12 a Ministryof Civil Defencejoural. This was important raisingawareness
in in
of the applicationof the risk managementprocess in the disastercontext.
Thegeneralriskmanagement approach not new to New Zealand,
was whichsince 1987hadadopted
a policy of sharing management
risk betweencentralgovernment local authorities. policy
and The
required localauthorities identifyhazards theirareasof responsibility to introduce
to in and strategies
to reducethe consequences disasters.
of Thisrequired comprehensive
a to
approach loss prevention
and risk management. somewhatsimilarscheme has more recentlybeen adoptedin Australia,
A
wherebythe Federal government's financialcontribution Statesto assistrecoveryfromrecurrent
to
is
disasters contingent appropriate
on mitigationmeasures beingtakenat Stateandlocalgovernment
levels. The concepthas not been universallywelcomedby local governments, theyalreadyhave
as
many competingpressures for expenditures. Nor have the New Zealandprinciples been adopted
universallyby local authoritiesin that country.'3Neverthelessthere is a clearmessage in both
countriesthatdisaster is
mitigation an important in
component a totalriskmanagement approach to
protecting communities fromthe effects of disasters.
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
requiredsupport'... commensurate with its importance potentialfor improving outcome'.'4
or the
In concluding,he statedthat:
Riskmanagement of
strategies themselves
cannot better
guarantee performance because
of
boththe role thatchanceand uncertainlyplay, andthe vagariesassociated
withhuman
Page 14 Alan Hodges

10. Risk Management: International
An Journal
intervention. themethodologies forassessing cancontribute understanding
But used risk to
where mostserious
the components Theycanpoint themore
lie. to control
promising options,
assistpolicydevelopment, inform allocation resources.15
and the of
In mid-1996 an articleby Smithet a116foresaw the possibility of the conceptof riskmanagement
providing botha foundation a culturalshift anda stimulusfor integrating
for services.The authors
saw the move towardsthe risk managementapproachas leading to a shift towardsprevention
and increasedservicediversity,to communityempowerment responsibility, to increased
and and
inter-agencycooperation.They also considered that the major focus in Australiahas been on
event management,and so significant capabilitieshave been developed, using both permanent
staff and trainedvolunteers, to combat hazardous events. This has inevitably led to further
investmentof resources responsecapabilities,rather
in thanrecognizinga moreholisticapproach.
issues questioningthe prioritiesgiven to the variousPPRRelements,
This articleraisedimportant
and recognized the need both for close involvement of the community in risk management
processesanddecisions,andfor a muchgreaterunderstanding the vulnerability communities
of of
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.
Papers by Salter, Koob and Tarrant17were also important in promoting emergency risk
management.
Implications of emergency risk management
Notwithstanding influenceof the NationalEmergencyManagementCommittee its views
the and
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 blendedtraditionalemergency 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
managementapproaches, whose prime focus was on hazardanalysis. Such analysisis now part
of a much more comprehensiveapproach.
Communityconsultation raises the complex issue of involving residentsin identification the
of
of
types of risks affectingthemandthe probabilities those risksoccurring. outcomecould, for
The
instance,reveal unperceived flooding risks, with a consequentialdownwardeffect on real estate
values, or highlighta small, but neverthelessreal, risk of catastrophic
dam failure.Such matters
have the potentialto attractmedia attentionand to escalatevery rapidlyto the politicallevel.
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

11. An
Risk Management: International
Journal
* inclusion of concepts of resilience and susceptibility,to assist in determiningcommunity
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
process (see Figure 1). Prevention,
preparation, responseandrecoveryeach needto be examined,
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,
butsucha decisionwill be madeaftercomparing benefitsof, for instance,enhanced
the preventative
measures.
The Guidelines have been incorporated into a comprehensiveApplications Guide18 have
and
been endorsed by Standards Australia as an appropriatederivation of AS/NZS 4360: 1999.
Concurrently with this development,the Public Safety IndustryTrainingAdvisory Body19has
risk
incorporated management conceptsandprocessesin the identification commonandsector-
of
specific trainingcompetencystandards nationaladoption.
for
As an example, in the competencystandards'managementstream', which is common to all
emergencyservices, fourtraining units have been developed, covering the five mainsteps in the
riskmanagement process.Eachof the unitshasthenbeen brokendown intocontributing elements,
with associated performance criteria.For instance, the unit 'Establishcontext and develop risk
evaluationcriteria'has 'Clarifystakeholders' roles andrequirements' one of its five elements.
as
One of the performance criteria this elementis: 'Stakeholders informedof aims,objectives
for are
and the risk managementcontextand structure within which they must operate.'
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.
The courses are criticalcomponents the implementation
of strategyas, over time, therewill be a
common nationalapproach implementingemergencyrisk managementwhile the philosophy
to
andthe languagearedisseminated Australia-wide.Moreover,they will be an importantmeansof
providing who are skilledin implementingthe Guidelinesin conjunction
well-trainedfacilitators
with communitygroups.
The next stepis to applytheapproach a practical
in way. EMAstaffwill workwithStateemergency
management staff to undertakecomprehensive risk assessments at community level. Initial
in
communityareasselectedforthesestudiesarethe outerMelbournesuburb Cardinia Victoria,
of
the North-WestTasmaniaregion,a ruraltown in South Australia and the Jarrahdale-Serpentine
Shire, south of Perthin Western Australia.Furthermore, National EmergencyManagement
the
Committee recently approveda strategic plan which includes an intention to undertakecase
studies in each of the eightAustralianStates and Territories.
If the enthusiasm participants the new coursesis any guide,the development anemergency
of on of
risk management approach has been worthwhile. However, it is still at an early stage of
implementation it will be some time beforeenough people have been throughcoursesfor the
and
concept way. A majorchallenge still aheadof us will be to
to be applied in a business-as-usual
ensurethat the approachis acceptedat the executive level.
Page 16 Alan Hodges

12. An
Risk Management: International
Journal
Conclusion
The publicationof the riskmanagementstandard 1995 has providedan extremelyuseful and
in
systematic basis for examiningrisk. In its applicationto emergency management, standard
the
has resulted in widespreadcritical re-examinationof the traditionalAustralianapproachto
The
protectionof life, property the environment. development,through
and extensiveconsultation,
of emergencyriskmanagement guidelines is now providinga completelynew basisforexamining
risks to communitiesand for determiningtreatmentoptions as partof the process. The options
stillrequireconsideration traditional
of conceptsof prevention, responseandrecovery,
preparation,
and so the old and the new have been successfully blendedtogetherto createan approach which
is now being introduced nationallythough publications,training and case studies.
Notes
1 Director
AlanHodgeswasuntilrecently of
General Emergency
Management whichis
Australia,
the Federal agencyresponsible reducing impactof natural man-made
government for the and
disasters theAustralian
on community.
2 known theNatural
Formerly as Disasters
Organisation.
3 StandardsAustralia,StandardsNew Zealand (1999) Risk Management,AS/NZS4360: 1999.
NSW:
Strathfield, Association Australia, 3.
Standards of p
4 Ibid,p 4.
5 EmergencyMangement Glossary.Canberra:
Australia(1998) AustralianEmergencyManagement
EMA,p 41.
6 Standard. Australian
Cross,J. (1995)TheRiskManagement The Journalof Emergency
Management.
Vol. 10,No. 4, pp4-7.
7 Standards Standards Zealand, cit.
Australia, New op
8 Advisory
Management and
Committee Management
Improvement Australian
Committee,
Advisory
PublicService(1995)ReportNo 22: Guidelines ManagingRiskin theAustralian
for PublicService.
Government
Australian
Canberra: Service.
Publishing
9 EmergencyManagement RiskManagement
Australia(1996) Emergency MountMacedon
Workshop.
Paper 5. Canberra:
No. Australian
Government Service.
Publishing
10 TheNational
Emergency ManagementCommittee comprises Director
the of
General Emergency
Management as chair, thechairs executive
Australia, and and officers eachStateandTerritory
of
management
peakemergency committee other
or nominatedofficers
11 Minutes theNational
of Emergency Committee,
Management Emergency Australia,
Management
September1996.
12 for and Disasters.
Helm,P. (1996)Integrated Management Natural Technological
Risk Tephra.
Vol.15,No. 1,pp5-13.
13 Ibid,p 5.
14 Ibid,p 11.
15 Ibid,p 13.
16 Smith, Nicholson, andCollett, (1996)RiskManagement theFire Emergency
P., J. L. in and Services.
InNDR96. Proceedings the National
of Disaster conference.
Reduction of
Institution
Canberra:
EngineersAustralia, 377- 87.
pp
Alan Hodges Page 17

13. Risk Management: International
An Journal
17 Salter,J. (1995a) Disasters as Manifestationsof Vulnerability. AustralianJournal of Emergency
Management. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp 9- 10; Salter,J. (1995b) Towardsa BetterDisaster Management
Methodology.AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement.Vol. 10, No. 4, pp 8 - 16; Salter,J.
(1997) Risk Management a DisasterManagementContext.Journalof Contingenciesand Crisis
in
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.
18 Emergency ManagementAustralia (2000) Emergency Risk ManagementApplications Guide:
AustralianEmergencyManual.PartII, Vol. 1. Melbourne:EMA.
19 A company establishedunderFederalgovernmentarrangements the furtherance education
for of
andtraining thepublicsafetyindustry. boardcomprisesemployerandemployeerepresentatives
in Its
from the fire, police, emergencyservices, defence and emergencymanagementsectors.
Page 18 Alan Hodges