Innovatia

JK : Up to this point we have been speak- ing a good deal about theory and philosophy. I should say that whilst I am a believer in the UN mission and in it as an idea and an organi- sation, from considerable time spent in Africa, the criticism that it is often too theoretical and falls down in practical application appears jus- tified at least to some extent. BM : That may be true in some cases. I would need more particulars to make any kind of in- formed comment. In this instance, for perspec- tive consider the value of a multi-day confer- ence which offers a very considered framework which is deeply informative. I would not say it is the be all and end all of the work we need to do, but valuable in its place. It was also a mile-

stone in the evolution I have been describing. It was elevated sharing, another key word. JK : In truth, it is less a remark about the UN and the Sendai framework –which seems to be perfectly sound theory as far as I can judge from reading it -………and more a query about the actual performance of NEMA , in the eyes both of the public it has directly served , -and within bounds of fairness- government oversight and the inevitable reviews , some unfavourable . It’s about delving into the dichotomy between elegant theory and actual functionality when the rubber hits the road. BM : From my personal experience there are highs and lows. One of the lows in the early period was being responsible for $6 Billion in

recovery spending and having people tell me “We still do not feel safe.” And: “How are you making my life safer?” JK : Yes, difficult. Having read the Colvin and Glasser reviews of NEMA, I can see that where- as there are some criticisms to do with funding delays, red tape, over reliance on the ADF and even some corruption allegations, that overall the score card is generally positive. Would you care to comment on any specific criticisms in either of these reviews? I have my own consid- ered opinion which I will withhold for the mo- ment. BM : We have committed these past years in reducing red tape, ensuring support is mobi- lised quickly it is targeted to the most vulner- able, but also allows communities to invest more in resilience. JK : (possible response to above, and move onto another question/concluding point, which is:) Two things occur to me which are fundamental to this discussion. The first is, given the long his- tory of learning and very definite performance, there can be no rational alternative to a national Co-ordinator such as NEMA; there are too many positive case studies and attributes, capabilities to point to. The runs are on the board. The second point arises directly from the first: what are the areas you believe must evolve most quickly? The Colvin review* determined that Australia’s “disaster management frame- works have not kept pace with the accelerating nature of disasters.” To say this less diplomati- cally: “NEMA has not evolved quickly enough.” That was issued almost two years ago, and their data obviously preceded that date. So…….. *[The Colvin review was a Fed Govt investiga- tion to ensure government disaster expenditure

BM : Roughly I think the evolution time frame of as you say, philosophy, is that in the 90’s and early this century, the focus was on “managing an incident”. What followed this was a consid- eration over some years as to “consequences.” From about 2010 onwards the thinking evolved toward “risk reduction and resilience”. And I think one of the spurs for this was our involve- ment with the United Nations. JK : You are involved with the UN? BM : Yes and rather steadily. But the point I make here is that the Sendai agreement, adopted by many countries in 2015 uplifted, you might say solidified, a number of proto- cols, and no doubt it had impact on our think- ing. This was all organized by the UN, of course in consultation with agencies worldwide, and their governments. It’s a framework, a way of approaching the broader topic. JK : Can you give me a practical example aris- ing from the Sendai agreement that has actual- ly informed your work methods? BM : Using data and historical knowledge to better deal with known unknowns, you might say – which is what we do… this being a part of building resilience. And a framing of agreed upon objectives. We have focused much more effort on under- standing risk, mitigating the effects of natural hazards and ensuring we have the right sys- tems in place to manage all hazards. “The definition of resilience is the ability of a system to absorb , react , respond and recover from an extreme event”

INNOVATIA

| Features