Research into past events, their impacts and the factors that influenced the nature of these impacts has allowed policy-makers, regulators, industry and communities to learn from past events and respond. The 2019–20 bushfires were unprecedented, but, as tragic as the impacts were, the number of lives lost was markedly lower than in previous events (Figure 20).
The recently adopted National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (DHA 2018) provides a foundation to build a systematic approach to reducing risk and enhancing resilience. But more can be done, and it is important that this occurs in a harmonised way with appropriate local customisation.
Tropical cyclones
A review of the impact of severe tropical cyclone Debbie (IGME-Qld 2019) set out a series of recommendations relating to planning and preparation for, and response to, cyclones and associated storm surges. Economic analysis of the wide, indirect impacts of severe tropical cyclone Debbie showed a significant spillover of effects into regions and industries not directly impacted by the cyclone. This suggests that the supply chains supporting industry and commerce should be considered in planning, to improve the resilience of regional and national economies (Lenzen et al. 2019). The announcement of the establishment of a National Freight Data Hub in May 2021 goes some way to addressing this; a partnership between government and industry is developing the standards needed to track goods, and share information about destinations and potential disruptions.
Bushfire
The most significant guide for enhancing management approaches to preparation for, and management of, bushfires is the report of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (Binskin et al. 2020). Its recommendations relate to improving national coordination arrangements, harmonising data governance and national standards to support decision-making, enhancing Australia’s aerial firefighting capability, undertaking community education, improving emergency planning, improving land-use planning, ensuring greater collaboration in managing environmental data to protect wildlife and heritage, and increasing engagement with Traditional Owners to improve understanding of Indigenous fire management and to leverage insights to better plan and execute public land management activities.
The Royal Commission drew on the extensive published scientific literature and reports from nongovernment organisations, community organisations and industry, as well as from government-supported initiatives such as the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, and the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub of the National Environmental Science Program.
Indigenous fire management
A key element of the caring for Country movement and Indigenous land and sea ranger programs has been cultural fire management or comparable fire practices by local Indigenous knowledge holders (see case study: Bushfires impacts on cultural values and the revival of cultural burning in Banbai Country). Grass-roots continuation or post-colonial revival of cultural burning is well established in northern and central Australia, and has grown in recent years in the southern regions (Smith et al. 2021). Early-season burning in northern Australian tropical savannas for carbon farming has generated a new economy (see case study: Savanna burning) (see the Land chapter). This new economy has created many benefits and reduced fire impacts dramatically. The success of the fire programs in the northern Australian tropical savannas provides insight into the emerging opportunities to improve Indigenous management and adaptation to bushfires across other parts of the country. Re-establishing Indigenous fire regimes and holistic traditional management practices can create many opportunities for Indigenous empowerment, contributing to significant cultural, environmental, social and economic benefits. Public awareness of Indigenous cultural fire management practices is helping to drive support, with more than 70 case studies of cultural burning in south-eastern Australia being documented in recent years (McKemey et al. 2020).
Numerous established partnerships recognise the need to support and resource cultural burning practices. These have led to, or emerged from, some key policy interventions – for example, the National Bushfire Management Policy Statement for Forests and Rangelands; the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Aboriginal Fire Management Plan, Aboriginal cultural guidelines for fuel and fire management operations in the ACT; the Victorian Traditional Owner Cultural Fire Strategy; the Gurra Gurra Framework 2020–2026; and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service Cultural Fire Management Policy (Freeman et al. 2021). Despite these policy interventions, there are still many gaps and significant improvements that are required in agency policies and legislation to meet Indigenous aspirations and the growing public pressure for Indigenous-led approaches (McKemey et al. 2021a, Smith et al. 2021). Cultural burning may still be considered an underused practice, with many barriers restricting Indigenous-led fire practices. It is currently applied over less than 1% of the land area of Australia’s south-eastern states and territory (McKemey et al. 2020). Considering the high return on investment from Indigenous natural resource management elsewhere (Pert et al. 2020) (see the Land chapter), expanding cultural burning to appropriate areas at the landscape scale should be considered a priority for investment across Australia. This will require significant improvements in current government agency and industry strategy, policy and practice frameworks to better resource and enable Indigenous-led caring for Country, and land and sea ranger programs.
The 2014 National bushfire management policy statement for forests and rangelands, developed by the Forest Fire Management Group, signalled a policy intention to better promote the use of cultural fire nationally (FFMG 2014). The third of the 14 national goals (‘Promote Indigenous Australians’ use of fire’) was ‘where relevant to Indigenous people, and appropriate, further integrate traditional burning practices and fire regimes with current practices and technologies to enhance bushfire mitigation and management in Australian landscapes’. The policy was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments; however, 7 years later, there are still significant funding gaps and policy barriers across many jurisdictions that restrict the implementation and expansion of Indigenous Australians’ use of fire.
Flood
Different types of floods require different types of management. In some instances, management is about prevention; in others about warnings, preparedness and resilience; and in others about recognising the inevitability of flooding and managing retreat or transition.
In reviewing the 2019 flooding of Townsville, a community survey revealed that people had poor understanding of flood descriptors such as ‘1-in-100-year event’ and took less heed of flood warnings than of cyclone warnings (IGME-Qld 2019). The Australian Government’s recovery strategy also highlighted the need for better collection, collation and presentation of data, and a need to build digital capability across communities to enable people to understand and respond to information (NDNQFRRA 2020). We also need to improve the flood record so that we can better model flood events and use that refined knowledge to build more informative scenarios for future planning purposes (Allen et al. 2020).
In an assessment of the risks and potential adaptive benefits of protecting communities against coastal inundation, Fletcher et al. (2016) created a typology of communities based on their exposure to inundation risk, the distribution of risk within the community and the community’s capacity to adapt. By considering the response options available, incorporating equity and affordability into management decision-making processes, they identified preferred approaches for a range of scenarios, from ‘do nothing’ to household adaptation to government or community funding of engineering solutions. Geoscience Australia also noted that the economic viability of some mitigation works changed when considered from a broader perspective, in a study that investigated the impact of Launceston’s flood levee mitigation works in terms of avoided costs from potential floods in June 2016 over the short and longer terms (CSIRO 2020). These case studies reinforce the need for holistic assessment of intangibles when considering investment or action.
In some cases, flooding or inundation appears inevitable, as in the Kakadu wetlands over the medium term in the face of progressively increasing sea level. In such environments, policy-makers and planners should respect the high management priority identified by Traditional Owners, and support research to understand the cultural and socio-economic aspects of change (Bayliss et al. 2018). Sea level change is likely to pose insurmountable challenges to management in other systems too – for example, in the Gippsland Lakes, where storm surges are likely to result in chronic salinisation that threatens system viability (Boon et al. 2016). In such instances, managers may be forced to consider how to support transitional change.
Built environment
Builders, regulators and insurers need to continue to consider how extreme events will interact with, and exceed, the design thresholds of built infrastructure, and how this is likely to accelerate with climate change (see the Urban chapter). Issues that need to be considered include building and infrastructure standards pertaining to wind loadings in cyclone regions, rainfall and run-off design standards for urban stormwater design, and zoning for land-use planning for floods and coastal hazards. These considerations need to extend into impacts on land values, insurance costs for consumers (ACCC 2020) and stability for the financial system, which rely on a high level of building resilience.
Good progress has already been made on increased adaptation and resilience measures for events such as tropical cyclones, as evidenced by decreases in the impacts of cyclones on life and property. Whereas cyclone Tracy caused 65 deaths and damaged 70% of Darwin’s homes in 1974, analysis after cyclones Vance (1999), Larry (2006) and Yasi (2011) showed that updated regulations and standards have resulted in much less building damage and consequent loss of life. During cyclone Yasi, for example, 12% of older homes, but only 3% of newer homes, suffered severe roof damage. In Innisfail, which was rebuilt after cyclone Larry, insurance claims were half the cost of those in nearby towns that did not experience the post–cyclone Larry rebuild (ACCC 2018).
In 2018, based on research by James Cook University, supported by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, the Queensland Government introduced its Household Resilience Program jointly with the Australian Government. This program provides grants for up to 75% of the cost of cyclone-proofing homes built between Bundaberg and Cooktown before 1984, when the current cyclone building code was introduced in the aftermath of cyclone Tracy. By June 2020, 1,749 Queensland households between Bundaberg and Cooktown had seen their insurance premiums reduced by an average of $310 in recognition of improvements made under the program. In May 2020, the program was renewed as part of the Queensland Government’s Unite and Recover for Queensland Jobs stimulus package, designed to address the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (CSIRO 2020).
The infrastructure industries are also addressing these issues. Electricity transmission and distribution, and telecommunications network service providers are working with researchers to assess wind loading and failure, bushfire risk, and mitigation. These and others are collaborating in an Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities, which commissions and publishes research papers and policy white papers, including into social effects of disasters and infrastructure resilience.