Background Information

Cindy works in one of the Local Government Authorities (LGAs) badly affected by the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires. For over a year following she worked as a Bushfire Recovery – Community Development officer (CDO); and since that time had moved into a new position, namely that of Relief & Recovery Coordinator.  Prior to 2009 she had worked in a number of LGA youth-related positions.  After graduation, and before starting full-time work, she involved herself in a couple of volunteer programs in both New Zealand and the Northern Territory of Australia.    

Question 1

Could you briefly describe your role following the bushfires, first as a LGA Bushfire Recovery CD0, and then as a Relief & Recovery Coordinator. Could you summarise the areas where you think things worked out really well in practice; and at the same time highlight those areas of involvement which proved to be somewhat more problematic?  

My current role of Relief and Recovery Coordinator entails the development of plans and strategies that will assist the community to plan for and recover from emergency events. The role includes the coordination of a regional model for one of Melbourne’s Metropolitan Regions for the delivery of Emergency Relief Centres. The role supports the function of the Municipal Recovery Manager during an emergency, and will take a leadership role in the coordination of recovery activity following a large scale emergency event. The role also manages family and individual recovery from single incidents (these including floods, house fire and storm events) in the municipality, in partnership with government and local agencies.

As my role is new, there are number of new initiatives on the horizon, including the development of a Recovery Inception Plan.  This will enable municipal recovery activity to be activated promptly after an emergency that is considerate of the community’s needs, and has established partnerships, structures and networks. Both the Recovery Inception Plan and Emergency Relief Centre models will assist with addressing some of the gaps identified during and following the 2009 Victorian Bushfires.  These in turn will alleviate pressure on the community, and reduce associated protracted stress as a result of perceived inactivity at a municipal level.

Question 2

In working with trauma or disaster-affected community members, there is always a delicate and challenging balance between creating dependency (by over-loading people with kindness), and trying to encourage individual and community resilience.  Could you comment on this aspect (i.e. that of dependence/resilience) as you went about your work with affected bushfire community members?

The development of our Local Government authority (LGA) Recovery Inception Plan will assist with building community capability and resilience, so that, when or if an impending disaster strikes, the community and individual will be better equipped to recover. This Plan includes understanding what it might mean to lose your home and worldly possession, your pets, or possibly even your neighbour.  From our experience, the more support that is provided to the community in the form of grants, material goods and so forth, the more complacency and reliance is cultivated, which in turn can reduce resilience. One of the key learnings that we took from the 2009 Victorian Bushfires is that a fundamental part of personal recovery is to work through the process of re-establishment at one’s own pace, a bite at a time. To over-ride another person’s recovery process only protracts crucial issues relating to grief, fear, anger, resentment and powerlessness; which in turn can delay the individual and the family’s return to the normal level of functioning that existed before the traumatic event.

Question 3

In the early part of 2011 you were invited to assist LGAs in the North West of the (Victorian) state which were dealing with flood-affected communities within their administrative boundaries. Could you summarise the similarities between these two types of natural hazard (i.e. bushfire & floods), and their effects on the communities; and also indicate whether there were lessons learnt from the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission which you could see being carried out in the flood-affected areas?

The Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (VBRC) Recommendations are very much focussed on mitigation, accountability and response to an emergency, and it is therefore somewhat problematic to measure their findings against recovery planning and implementation.

The experience in the Northern Victorian Flood affected areas provided valuable insight into the recovery considerations required following a very different type of hazard, namely that of flood. There was enormous degree of similarity in their recovery requirements, as compared to ours (for bushfires), these all related to the four main pillars of recovery, namely Psychosocial, Economic, Natural, and Built Environment. The landscape in this particular (flood-affected) area boasts a vibrant tourist trade, primary industry base and regional townships. Together these create a delicate balance toward a resilient community. A major dent in any of these areas significantly affects the others, and, as in the case of the 2011 Victorian floods, all of these areas were heavily impacted, leaving a lasting effect. Regardless of the hazard, be it flood, landslip, heatwave, fire, earthquake or tropical storm, the pillars of recovery are the same.  Each of the areas of this symbiotic relationship relies on the others to attain success.