Reforming Australia's approach to hazards and disaster risk: national leadership, systems thinking, and inclusive conversations about vulnerability

Abstract

PurposeThere are many pragmatic challenges and complex interactions in the reduction of systemic disaster risk. No single agency has the mandate, authority, legitimacy or resources to fully address the deeper socio-economic, cultural, regulatory or political forces that often drive the creation and transfer of risk. National leadership and co-ordination are key enablers. This paper shares Australia's progress in building an enabling environment for systemic disaster risk reduction, and specifically how a change in thinking and resolve to work differently is beginning to shape nation-wide reforms and national programs of work.Design/methodology/approachThe project and program of work adopted an inclusive, collaborative, co-design and co-production approach, working with diverse groups to create new knowledge, build trust, ongoing learning and collective ownership and action. Values- and systems-based approaches, and ethical leadership were core aspects of the approach.FindingsCo-creating a more comprehensive and shared understanding of systemic disaster risk, particularly the values at risk and tensions and trade-offs associated with the choices about how people prevent or respond, has contributed to a growing shift in the way disasters are conceptualised. New narratives about disasters as “unnatural” and the need for shared responsibilities are shaping dialogue spaces and policy frameworks. The authors’ experience and ongoing learning acknowledge pragmatic challenges while also providing evidence-based ideas and guidance for more systems and transformative styles and competencies of leadership that are needed for convening in contested and complex environments.Practical implicationsThis work built networks, competencies and generated ongoing momentum and learning. The lessons, evidence and reports from the work continue to be accessed and influential in research, emergency management and disaster mitigation practices (e.g. engagement, communications, training) and policy. Most significantly, the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework provides the basis, justification and guidance for the nation's policy reform agenda around disaster risk reduction and is catalysing national efforts in developing a national action plan and systemic measurement, evaluation and learning to ensure the realisation of disaster risk reduction priorities.Originality/valueA practical example is offered of a nation actively learning to navigate the governance challenges and implement strategies to address the reduction of complex, systemic risks.

July 2023

“…In early 2023, the Department of Defence released the strategic review, which, among other things, highlighted that 'Defence is not structured or appropriately equipped to act as a domestic disaster recovery agency concurrently with its core function, in any sustainable way'. 2 Over many decades, the Department of Defence has contributed to supporting the emergency and disaster response by states and territories as well as recovery activities. These have included the evacuation of Darwin's population following Cyclone Tracy in 1974 to the New South Wales fires and floods in 2019 and 2022.…”

“…Under these circumstances, we tend to maintain the trust and confidence of the communities that we serve. 2 However, for the intense disasters in the range of severe to catastrophic, the rules change. These disasters are rarer (although increasing in frequency largely driven by the effects of climate change in concert with other factors such as poor land use planning decisions and outcomes) and more intense.…”

“…Climate-induced resettlement will be one of the most significant challenges of the 21st Century. 2 As discussed in my book Urban Planning for Climate Change 3 , the global impact will be immense affecting millions of people by 2050, whether it be due to glacial melt in Alaska, the sinking of Jakarta, the inundation of neighbouring Pacific islands or towns and villages around Australia due to sea-level rise and extreme events. Experimentation and learning in bouncing forward can be a proactive response to working with communities facing serious climate effects soon.…”

“…Local governments particularly need the support of other levels of government to work with local communities to develop 'climate resilient plans'. 2,5 So yes, experimentation and innovation should be encouraged and facilitated in response to natural high-risk hazards and disasters. However, such an innovative approach could be mainstreamed in all land use planning through reform of legislation, policy and dedicated funding programs to provide the foundation for really 'bouncing forward'.…”

“…Disasters are not natural; they are the consequence of human decisions that put people and 'things of value' in areas exposed to natural hazards or make them vulnerable to disaster. 2 This is not a trivial point, as our language and narratives can reinforce or transform our thinking and practices. For example, post-disaster recovery efforts may be both a 'window of opportunity' and reveal or exacerbate the vulnerabilities and social structures that caused them, depending on how the causes of the disaster are framed and who 'captures' Davidson and Moglia raise an important question and provide valuable perspectives on disaster recovery that can, and needs to, improve and explores linkages between sustainability and disaster resilience agendas.…”