IGEM Report 1: 2017-18 - THE CYCLONE DEBBIE REVIEW

Inspector-General Emergency Management

Decisions As with its implementation and management, decision-making for evacuations is a shared responsibility. The Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience Handbook 4 Evacuation Planning sums up the approach: “The authorised agency usually makes the decision in a collaborative environment in consultation with other agencies. The agency with the authority to order an evacuation may not necessarily carry out the physical evacuation.” 120 In Queensland “… the LDMG does not have the statutory power to authorise a directed evacuation.” 121 However, the LDMG will be responsible for the management of all facets of the evacuation process (s.30(c) of the Act) which are not the direct responsibility of the District Disaster Coordinator (DDC). LDMGs are responsible for making decisions to call for the voluntary evacuation of local people from affected areas and will coordinate such evacuations in their area. Voluntary evacuations are usually called early to reduce the numbers to move in a more critical directed evacuation. For this strategy to be effective, considerable community engagement is required on a regular basis beforehand. The authority for directing evacuation is clearly laid out in legislation, and in events like Debbie, requires the Declaration of a Disaster. 122 Directed evacuation is the process where “Exposed persons are directed by the DDC or Declared Disaster Officer under legislation to evacuate an exposed area.” 123 Explicitly, the authority to direct evacuations lies with the DDC. Our earlier work on evacuation management with experienced stakeholders from both local and district groups explored this issue. In practice it showed a high degree of collaboration over both voluntary and directed evacuations between those with the authority to direct and those with the planning responsibility. Warnings Many methods, from door-knocking to social and traditional media, can pass warnings to a community. Successful evacuation depends on recipients acting on them. Whether they do, depends, in turn, on education, awareness and engagement programs run well before any event. The language of warnings must be covered by such programs. Even the terms above, describing types of evacuation, can be misunderstood without some prior education. Confusion in the minds of those warned to evacuate can derail the most careful planning. Withdrawal Estimating the duration of a withdrawal is a critical early planning factor. The movement to a safer location involves transport options and route capacity. Their consideration, along with warning time, people’s preparation time, and the time for the estimated number of vehicles to pass a particular point, all help determine the time taken. Logistics are a further consideration. Signage, route maintenance, breakdown services, first aid, fuel, food, and rest places on a long journey will all contribute to a smooth withdrawal. If the mass movement of people from risky locations to a safer place is to succeed, all these must be assessed and planned for carefully. They are essential elements of an evacuation sub-plan. Shelter Guidance about the shelter stage of an evacuation can start with the seemingly contradictory advice about sheltering-in-place. Sheltering-in-place is a viable option for a safer location, depending on the geographical area and type of disaster. This is particularly true of cyclones, where those outside the storm tide impact zone may have adequate shelter in the strongest part of the house. Planners should consider the likely duration and needs of evacuees in their safer location. These may cover power, water, cooking, ablutions, access and pets, recognising that better options may be further away. As with the types of evacuation, there is scope for confusion in the terms describing where to go.

Themes

106

The Cyclone Debbie Review

Lessons for delivering value and confidence through trust and empowerment