Infrastructure and Asset Management Project

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Acronym Meaning

CHARM

Comprehensive Hazard and Risk Management

CIM Coastal

Infrastructure

Management

GoS

Government of Samoa

CSU

Community Safety Unit

IAM

Infrastructure Asset Management

ISDR International

Strategy for Disaster Reduction

MNRE

Ministry Natural Resources and Environment

NDMO National

Disaster

Management Office

NGO

Non governmental Organisation

PUMA

Planning and Urban Management Agency

Regional Agency

South Pacific Regional Environment Program
(SPREP), South Pacific Community (SPC), Forum
Fisheries Authority (FFA) and SOPAC.

SOPAC

South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission

UN United

Nations

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

REGIONAL INITIATIVES

Regional Disaster Management Arrangements

The Pacific is a very diverse region in which countries range from being large
resource based entities through to smaller atoll countries that have very few natural
resources other than the resources of the sea. In most countries there is a strong
dependence on the subsistence sector, which makes them particularly vulnerable to
external influences such as those associated with environmental hazards, drought,
plant and animal disease, earthquakes and cyclones.

The 1990’s was declared by the United Nations (UN) as the International Decade for
Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). The aim of the IDNDR was to unite countries
from around the world in their quest for safer communities and sustainable
development. In 2000 the UN established the International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction (ISDR) to replace the IDNDR so that global momentum in risk reduction
could be maintained in the twenty first century. The ISDR global vision evolves
around two key statements:

•

“To enable all communities to become resilient to the effects of natural,
technological and environmental hazards, reducing the compound risks they
pose to social and economic vulnerabilities within modern societies”; and,

•

To proceed from protection against hazards to the management of risks
through integration of risk prevention into sustainable development”.

Regionally, the 1995 Madang Forum Meeting framed and released a vision that was
linked to vulnerability to natural hazards. This vision not only provides a common
goal for the region to strive for, but also places before the key political, policy and
development partners, a challenge that can only be effectively met through a
demonstrated commitment to the integration of effective risk reduction strategies.

Regional Vision

“Vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards, environmental damage and

other threats will be overcome”

A second initiative to come from the Medang Meeting was the mandate for SOPAC to
coordinate disaster management and risk management within the region.

It was widely acknowledged that a key factor that would influence the effectiveness
of the ISDR and associated regional initiatives will be the capacity of countries to
develop whole of country risk management programs that incorporate the expertise,
experiences and resources of government, NGOs and regional partners.

The CHARM guidelines were produced to assist countries of the Pacific Region in
achieving this goal. The processes outlined within the CHARM Guidelines have been
modelled on the international risk management standard (AS.NZS: 4360:1999)
however they have been specifically designed for use in the Pacific Region (see
Figure 1.1).

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

CHARM assists countries to move the focus away from departments and agencies
supporting a wide range of non-coordinated activities, towards a broader and more
integrated programming approach that will promote the achievement of sustainable
outcomes.

The regional CHARM strategy is managed by SOPAC through their Community Risk
Program. They achieve this objective through a network of partners including SPREP
and SPC. A number of Memorandum of Understandings have also been established
with regional and Australian based disaster management agencies. The key elements
of the community risk program target:

the strengthening of disaster management capabilities

the identification of scientific solutions that provide a knowledge base for the
mitigation of hazards and the reduction of vulnerability

the mainstreaming of risk management practices into national development
planning.

Each of these components has a range of corresponding activities that are designed to
strengthen national disaster management and risk management capabilities. The
rational for CHARM is to integrate recognised risk management practices within
development planning processes. This is conceptualised in figure 1.2.

Programs for other regional organisations such as SPREP (environmental strategies)
and SPC (agriculture, boat safety, animal husbandry and plant control) should be
investigated to see whether they can support or add value to Samoa’s risk and
vulnerability reduction efforts as they apply to national development priorities.

vii

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

CLARIFYING STATEMENT

Disaster Management, IAM-Risk Management and Emergency Response

Myth: Disaster management is about managing disasters.

Fact: Disaster management and risk management being undertaken under IAMP are
very similar. Both are designed to enhance national development, strengthen
community resilience and increase community safety through deliberate risk
reduction strategies that have been designed around formal hazard analysis. The
Comprehensive Hazard and Risk Management (CHARM) concept has been
designed and introduced to the region to assist national governments to achieve these
risk reduction objectives, and provides a means through which a comprehensive range
of treatment options can be identified that target:

•

The management of existing risk – as identified though hazard analysis
processes.

•

The minimisation of future risk – through regulatory and land use
management associated with the EIA

•

The management of residual risk – generally people safety and resource
protection focused.

CIM strategies focus primarily on the management of existing and future risk
related to infrastructure (including housing). Disaster management focuses more on
reducing the “residual risks” achieved principally through utilising the outputs of
hazard and risk analysis processes (i.e. hazard mapping).

For clarification purposes residual risk may be defined as:

“Risk that cannot be eliminated through mitigation or land use/regulatory strategies”

Residual risk also applies in circumstances where mitigation strategies have been
identified, however implementation of treatment strategies to protect infrastructure
has been delayed. In such cases the emphasis is generally placed on the protection of
people and resources as an interim strategy.

For example: If village houses/communities (or part thereof) are considered to be
within a high risk zone, then the risk analysis should include an assessment of the
knowledge and adequateness of warning systems, the availability of alternate shelters
or safe havens for people and resources. Where clinics and schools have been
identified in high-risk zones, treatment strategies should seek to ensure that the
resources contained within the structures are protected.

Emergency response is the direct action taken in response to an existing or emerging
threat. For a cyclone this would be the action taken before and immediately after
impact. This function is usually coordinated from a high political/government level
utilising the plans and procedures developed as part of the residual risk treatment
option processes.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

R1.

Consideration is given to the conduct of a number of workshops to overview

the CIM processes and new legislation/policies and particularly their implications for
departments, donors and regional agencies agencies.

R2.

Consideration be given to renaming the NDMO to Community Safety Unit or

if preferred, Community Safety and Emergency Response Unit. It is strongly
suggested that the title not contain the word disaster.

R3.

That the PUMA link with the SOPAC Community Safety Program to map out

a professional development strategy for the new NDMO/Community Safety
Officer/Community Safety and Emergency Response Officer (s).

R4.

That provision is made within the IAM-II budget to establish and

appropriately resource the Community Safety Unit within MNRE.

R5.

Consider maintaining the current focus just on cyclone induced hazards until

the CIM Planning process has covered a majority of districts.

R6.

Consideration is given to the conduct of a pilot “risk and potential

consequences” mapping exercise related to climate change influences during the
second half of the IAM-II phase.

R7.

That the risk assessment process be expanded to include a focus on protecting

people and critical resources that are associated with identified infrastructure situated
within high-risk zones.

R8.

That PUMA obtain information from SOPAC on the Community

Vulnerability Index Project and its potential for application to the CIMP risk
assessment processes.

R9.

Consideration is given to the expansion of CIMP risk assessment processes to

ensure that risks related to community safety and resource protection are identified
and are included as residual risk treatment options.

R10. That the PUMA/Community Safety Unit utilise hazard mapping outcomes and
residual risk treatment options as outlined in IAM-I District CIM Plans as the basis
for the identification and design of its annual work plans and other support activities.

R11. Consideration is given to the conduct of a flood risk assessment pilot for Apia
Town to identify treatment options to minimise the impact of flash flooding.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

INTRODUCTION

The Infrastructure Asset Management Project (IAMP) is an adaptable project funded
under and International Development Association (IDA) loan. The objective of the
IAMP is to ensure that “transport and coastal infrastructure assets are economically,
environmentally and socially sustainable and managed by an effective partnership of
all stakeholder’s. The project has two main phases:

IAM-1: Meeting Vital Priorities and Strengthening Management (1999 –
2002)

IAM-2: Investing for Sustainable Growth and Protection (2002 – 2006).

Significant achievement has been made during IAM – I. Many of the institutional,
policy and legislative outputs have created the enabling environment to undertake risk
treatment for Coastal Infrastructure and communities within a whole of government
framework that is linked to the priorities of government as outlined in the “Strategies
for Developing Samoa 2001 – 2004”.

The challenge for the Government, PUMA and the MNRE will be to demonstrate
[through achievement] to communities that the CIM Planning process is not just
another planning exercise. The coordination of the whole of government effort,
together with that of the donors and regional agencies is therefore central to the
achievement of CIMP objectives.

From a neutral third party perspective, it is considered the work being undertaken
through the IAMP/CIM process has positioned Samoa as a significant leader within
the region in the field of community safety and risk reduction.

Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference (ToR) for this mission are included within this report at
Attachment 1.

The key focus has been to review the outcomes of IAM-1, and through the lessons
learned, critique and improve the design of IAM-2 risk assessment and disaster
management. The critical elements considered during this process were to ensure that
the treatment options as outlined in District CIM Plans addressed:

•

Immediate risk reduction strategies

•

Residual risk management strategies - that will be required to cover immediate
risk issues until treatment options as identified within CIM Plans can be
actioned)

•

Future risk elimination through EIA.

Approach

The mission was undertaken during the period 14 – 29 May 2003 however only ten
days was assigned for in-country review and consultation. The approach adopted for
the in-country component of the mission involved four key strategies.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

Review of literature and consultation with key stakeholders (see attachment
for details).

Assessment of IAM-1 and proposed IAM-2 outputs utilising the process
outlined in the CHARM guidelines. This will assist in the validation of
outputs, the alignment of synergies between the programs and the
identification of gaps.

The alignment of IAM 1 and 2 outputs and activities with the nine priorities of
government. This will provide some direction to the development of priorities
for the rollout of IAM – 2 programs.

The identification of strategies to strengthen Disaster Response Planning and
Coordination capacities.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

General Assessment (IAM-1)

The IAMP and the CIMP strategies are without doubt, excellent initiatives. The work
outputs prepared by GoS officers and consultants during IAM-I are considered to be
among the best community risk reduction efforts being undertaken by a government
in the region. Key milestones have included:

•

Coastal hazard surveys for all islands

•

Endorsement of the CIM Strategy by Cabinet

•

Completion of CIM Plans for fifteen (15) districts

•

Implementation of Codes of Environmental Practice (CEOP) for use on
construction works

•

Implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment processes related to
government sector projects.

These outputs combined, will now form the foundations upon which to build more
effective and sustainable risk reduction efforts in Samoa.

Hazard Analysis

The CIMP process has quite deliberately targeted Cyclones as the predominant hazard
with a focus on flooding, landslip and coastal erosion. This is a sound first phase
strategy. It is acknowledged that GoS officials (and particularly PUMA) have
recognised the need to expand the risk assessment process across a broader range of
hazards. The key to this expansion will be community confidence that action will
follow planning, and also the number of strategic partners that can help deliver the
agreed treatment options.

For IAM-I, the CIM Planning process adopted a very methodical approach to
analysing the hazards in order to produce hazard maps. Information was obtained
through GIS, Aerial Photographs, Anecdotal Evidence, Reports and through Field
Trips, which included extensive consultation with community leaders.

Risk Analysis and Evaluation

The CIMP has targeted critical infrastructure as the focus of its risk analysis
emphasis. While this is a sound strategy, it must be understood that vulnerable
infrastructure often leads to even more vulnerable and less resilient communities.
National development strategies remain vulnerable when both infrastructure and
people are at risk and therefore risk reduction strategies should be all encompassing to
include community safety and protection of resource options.

Treatment Options

Treatment options have been identified through an extensive community engagement
process combined with the use of a detailed cost benefit analysis. District CIM Plans

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

outline the agreed treatment options in addition to defining clearly the responsible
partner for implementing action for each strategy.

It has to be accepted that for one reason or another there will be delays in
implementing some treatment options. Although there has been general agreement
with community leaders on the best [cost effective] options to reduce risk to
infrastructure, there will still be expectations that some immediate action will follow
the completion of District CIM Plans. CIM Plans developed under IAM-I make no
provision for residual risk treatment options to be employed as an immediate risk
reduction strategy. Such plans may not remove the direct risk to the infrastructure (i.e.
Clinic or School), however they can significantly reduce the loss of resources within
such infrastructure and thus enable a rapid return of services after a cyclone event.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

ENHANCING IAM-II STRATEGIES

Recommend improvements/modifications to or changes in emphasis in, IAM-II
project design.

The linkages and outputs between IAM-I and IAM-II have been scoped against the
processes of the CHARM concept (see Figure 1.1). The results of this assessment are
discussed in the following paragraphs, however they are also displayed in table form
at Attachment (2) for simplified reading.

Establish the Context

(1) Policy

and

Legislation

IAM-II proposes to add to the already impressive list of IAMP achievements with the
development of policy and/or legislation related to land registration, land management
and compensation. In all, the first phase of the IAMP-CIM program has or will
introduce a number of new initiatives that will have a significant bearing on the
programs undertaken or funded by all government departments, donors, regional
agencies and communities. Their understanding and compliance with the changes will
be critical to the success of the CIM Plan treatment options implementation.

R1.

Consideration is given to the conduct of a number of workshops to overview

the CIM processes and new legislation/policies and particularly their implications for
departments, donors and regional agencies.

(2)

Community Safety Unit/Disaster Management Unit

The National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) was previously positioned within
the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The responsibilities of the office were
very much aligned with developing disaster plans and the provision of training to
government officers and NGOs. Professional development and programming
assistance to this office was in the main provided through the SOPAC Regional
Disaster Management Project. NDMO’s typically operated outside of the mainstream
of government and rarely utilised technical information such as hazard and risk
analysis outputs (i.e. hazard mapping) to guide their activities.

The transfer of the disaster management responsibilities to MNRE, together with the
implementation of CIM Plans now provides an opportunity to realign the functions of
the office to reflect a greater Community Safety responsibility that focuses on the
implementation of residual risk treatment options as outlined in CIM Plans. Under
this strategy, the Community Safety Office would address immediate community
safety matters, in addition to dealing with the national planning requirements for
effective response, relief and recovery. Should this view be supported, there would be
a requirement to modify the MNRE Organogram that currently indicates that the
Disaster Management Unit has responsibility for risk management and hazard
management. Both are whole of government functions.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

The title “Community Safety Officer” removes the negative connotations associated
with the word disaster. The CHARM acronym was developed for the same reason
with considerable success. The SOPAC Regional Disaster Management Project has
now been retitled the “ Community Risk Program”. These two examples are part of a
growing trend aimed at changing community and government perceptions of the work
of disaster management officials.

In terms of professional development for the staff, MNRE should link closely with the
SOPAC Community Risk Program. They offer a range of support programs including
training. SOPAC have also established an MOU with the Queensland Department of
Emergency Services. Under this arrangement, national officers are offered
opportunities for work assignment in Queensland that is closely linked with an
ongoing mentoring program.

The unit will also have to be appropriately resourced in order for it to effectively
undertake its mandated roles and responsibilities. A suggested list of resources is
included within the budget details under ToR item two (page 11).

R2.

Consideration be given to renaming the NDMO to Community Safety Unit or

if preferred, Community Safety and Emergency Response Unit. It is strongly
suggested that the title not contain the word disaster.

R3.

That the PUMA link with the SOPAC Community Safety Program to map out

a professional development strategy for the new NDMO/Community Safety
Officer/Community Safety and Emergency Response Officer (s).

R4.

That provision is made within the IAM-II budget to establish and

appropriately resource the Community Safety Unit within MNRE.

B. Hazard

Analysis

IAM-II should continue to maintain the narrow focus it has on cyclone impacts and
the potential for flooding, landslip and coastal erosion – at least until the majority of
District CIM Plans have been developed. One reason for this is that it will be
extremely difficult to meet community expectations in respect to implementing action
associated with the treatment options for the existing range of hazards. Adding more
to this will run the risk of damaging the strong partnership arrangements with District
and Village leaders and placing CIM at risk to losing grassroots support.

Further, there is already a significant amount of information contained within GIS
databases on a range of hazards. During IAM-II, it is proposed to extend the GIS
database and this should provide the foundations for expanded hazard analysis. There
is ample opportunity for other hazards to be introduced during the Environmental
Impact Assessment process.

PUMA have indicated a strong desire to incorporate climate change factors in the
expansion of risk assessment across more hazards. Such an exercise should include an
assessment of hazards and their impact on specific islands and sectors in order to
identify potential or likely consequences and to determine immediate, residual and
future risk treatment options. SOPAC and the Queensland Department of Emergency

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

Services have jointly developed the CHARM Guidelines to aid national governments
in undertaking effective risk management. In Kiribati, officials have used these
guidelines to map the potential consequences of climate change influences across
islands and by sector (see Attachment 3). This provides an excellent management tool
for government as it enables them to protect development programs, by way of
initiating mitigation strategies long before the event becomes a disaster or major
social issue. This may be a useful approach in Samoa.

The Strategies for the Development of Samoa (2001-03) outline the nine priorities of
government and this should be used to identify priority hazards and sectors for which
a broader hazard assessment should target. It is suggested that it may be useful to run
a workshop during the second half of IAM-II to map out the risks; potential
consequences and treatment strategies related to climate change influences from a
national perspective. District and village level interventions could follow at a later
date.

R5.

Consider maintaining the current focus just on cyclone induced hazards until

the CIM Planning process has covered a majority of districts.

R6.

Consideration is given to the conduct of a pilot “risk and potential

consequences” mapping exercise related to climate change influences with a more
detailed assessment based on finding undertaken during the second half of the IAM-II
phase.

C.

Identify, Analyse and Evaluate Risk

The process adopted for IAM-I is considered sound, although it has been recognised
within the consultants report that some of the information available for this process
may not have been as accurate as required. The focus on infrastructure alone is
considered too narrow.

R7.

That the risk assessment process be expanded to include a focus on protecting

people and critical resources that are associated with identified infrastructure situated
within high-risk zones.

R8.

That PUMA obtain information from SOPAC on the Community

Vulnerability Index Project and its potential for application to the CIMP risk
assessment processes.

D. Treating

Risks

The focus of the CIM Planning process for IAM-II should be expanded to include a
range of residual risk treatment options related to the protection of people and
resources.

The NDMO/Community Safety Unit can address this issue from IAM-I activities by
utilising the results of hazard mapping exercises to identify other programs and
activities such as the development of evacuation plans, the design of education and
awareness programs, strengthening of community warning systems and the
development of relief distribution and damage assessment procedures.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

Given the flood consequences associated with the heavy rainfall that impacted Samoa
during the evenings of 18 and 19 May 2003, it is suggested that a special pilot project
be established to undertake a full risk assessment of the central business district of
Apia. The Samoan Observer dated 20 May 2003 (see Attachment 5) under the
heading “Floods hurt business, drainage exposed” suggested that damage caused will
top the $35m in damage caused by the 2001 flood.

In the same article, a local businessman is quoted as saying “ If government is really
serious about promoting the private sector as the engine room for economic growth,
then fixing the infrastructure in town should be first priority”.

R9.

Consideration is given to the expansion of CIMP risk assessment processes to

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

Identify key risks or barriers to achievement of objectives and stated outcomes,
or to the sustainability of the benefits and reforms expected after completion of
IAM-II.

(1)

Maintaining the Community Confidence

The success of IAM-II lies in the ability of PUMA and other implementing agencies
to maintain strong partnerships with District and Village Leaders.

There will be expectations from Districts and Villages that action and immediate
benefits will be flowing from the agreed CIM Plans – within a reasonable time frame.
PUMA must ensure that such expectations are kept to realistic levels through frequent
consultation, joint programming and monitoring exercises and information sharing.

This can be achieved through the introduction of project timelines that have been
developed in consultation with Districts and also through the undertaking of residual
risk strategies that are usually very low cost initiatives.

(2)

PUMA Capacity

PUMA will have a significant role to play in coordinating the implementation of the
CIM process and EIA related assessments for development projects. During IAM-I
and IAM-II approximately forty-three District CIM Plans will be produced. Contained
within each plan will be a range of treatment options covering an even broader range
of sectors. Their capacity to maintain sustainable support to the program will depend
very much on the supporting systems they establish. Examples include:

Program Support System

There will be a need/requirement to consolidate all district CIM Plan treatment
options within a national CIM Plan. These must then be prioritised firstly on a sector-
by-sector basis and then on an overall priority of sectors to establish the national CIM
work plan for a given year. This will achieve several outcomes:

•

It will ensure that the CIM Implementation is aligned with the priorities of
government.

•

It will provide PUMA with a useful management tool through which to more
effectively allocate resources and manage the implementation of CIM
treatment options.

•

It will provide departments with guidance to the development of their
corporate plan and annual operational plans as they apply to the CIM Planning
implementation process.

•

It will provide the GoS with a useful management tool through which to guide
post cyclone impact reconstruction.

•

It will provide a big picture of needs through which to identify synergies with
existing or proposed national or regional programs.

PUMA will need to take a lead and guide departments in the development of the
sectoral plans and then ultimately, the development of national priorities. This may
require the conduct of a series of workshops.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

Monitoring and Evaluation Support System

The development of departmental corporate plans and annual operational plans that
are closely aligned with the priorities of government and linked to the needs as
outlined within CIM Plans is an important management tool. It has not been clearly
established if all departments have developed such plans (despite a requirement to do
so) and whether the plans follow a uniform format. It will be extremely difficult for
PUMA to monitor and evaluate the whole of government CIM effort unless these
documents are produced in line with a uniform format and quality. PUMA should
seek to establish a number of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms at the district
level so that to a degree, there is a form of self-evaluation. This will ensure that
district and village leaders take further ownership of the process and that they can
assess the level of their own input in addition to that of the government.

(3)

Resourcing the Project

The GoS will be confronted with a number of challenges during the implementation
of the CIM Plan treatment options. One challenge relates to the ongoing funding of
the range of treatment options. Another challenge will be related to having the
national capacity to undertake the work on a sustainable basis.

PUMA must facilitate a process whereby potential synergies and partnerships can be
identified and established with existing or proposed programs being supported
through GoS Departments, bi-lateral donors, multi-lateral donors and regional
agencies. It was not possible to identify all of the projects during the short time frame
of this review, however it has been established that UNDP, ADB and the EU have
projects with potential synergies to some CIM suggested treatment options. It is
suggested that a meeting of representatives be held once a national CIM Plan has been
developed to identify these synergies, potential partnerships and to identify gaps and
priority issues.

PUMA will have a significant role in firstly gaining the support and commitment of
donors (bi-lateral and multilateral) and regional agencies to the CIM strategy and
secondly to maintaining that support through regular reporting and interaction. This
can be achieved through inviting representatives from these organisations to be
involved in the monitoring and ongoing assessment of the CIM implementation
programs.

(4) Departmental

Buy-In

Although legislation and policy have been developed to enhance the position of
PUMA, it is still not clear if there is a full buy-in to the CIM and EIA processes by
departments. Failure to achieve a full commitment to CIM will considerably
undermine the capability of PUMA to maintain resource support required to sustain
agreed support to districts.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

Review the reasonableness of budgets and suggest any improvements for IAM-II

Although provision has been made for the procurement of services to support the
achievement of component activities, the IAM-II budget for C.6 National Emergency
Management makes no provision for the purchase of goods in relation to establishing
the Disaster Management Unit/Community Safety Unit within MNRE. Resources
such as computers, colour photocopier/printer, scanner, office furniture, fixtures and
fittings, stationery and a dedicated vehicle are required to ensure the unit can fulfil its
mandated roles and responsibilities at the national and regional level.

It is acknowledged that the government has a fully equipped operations centre within
the Police complex. It needs to be stated that the resources listed above are to enable
the Community Safety officer to undertake day to day programming. This includes
training, planning, education and awareness and other residual risk reduction
functions. The Police complex is for operational use as and when the need arises – a
very different function.

On average the Community Safety Officer will spend approximately 99% of time on
non operational matters – hence the need for a well equipped office. Equipment to
support the operational need will be identified during the development of plans and
procedures related to community warning and damage assessment. This may include
satellite telephones or other forms of communication equipment.

A review of other component [C.6] budgets suggests the following:

Component Focus

Assessment

Establish and equip the CSU

$50k – new item

Upgrading the national disaster plan

$20k is considered insufficient based on
the significant change that has been
undertaken as a result of government
institutional reforms and the
implementation of the CIM project.
Suggested $35k

Training and Equipment for improved
readiness

$100k. Capacity to link with regional
programs that can find savings in this
area. Suggested $85k

Public and key organisational information
awareness

$20k. Budget is considered appropriate

Undertake simulation exercises

$30k. Budget is considered appropriate

Review of feasibility for national
emergency response fund or insurance
scheme

$40k. ForSec is currently considering the
issue of insurance schemes so there may
be the possibility of linking to this
process. Suggested budget $30k

Suggested budget estimate Component C6:

$250k

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

Identify and comment on any supporting activities that must be achieved by
implementation agency for IAM-II or any supporting agency.

There are probably two categories of issues that should be addressed prior to the
launch of IAM-II.

1. Credibility

Category

Those issues that will demonstrate to districts and village leaders that CIM is not a
paper exercise. Actions may include:

•

The roll-up of IAM-I CIM Plan treatment options into sector plans, followed
by the development of a national plan based on priorities. The national plan
should be used to guide departments in the design of operational plans.
Essential to start the implementation process as soon as possible to maintain
community confidence in the process.

•

The appointment of staff and the resourcing of the Community Safety
Office/Disaster Management Unit. To ensure the residual risk treatment
options from IAM-1 are identified, and through this process, to provide
guidance to the identification of IAM-2 CIM Plan treatment options.

2. Sustainability

Category

•

Workshop/Briefing for all departments, donors and Regional Agencies to
overview the CIM Planning program, the policy and legislative changes and
the implications that they may have on future programming and resource
allocations.

•

The establishment if CIM program monitoring and evaluation processes at
both District and National Levels. This will ensure that the communication
links remain established and also, that expectations can be managed through
agreement on acceptable time lines for the implementation of IAM-I CIM Plan
treatment strategies.

3. Observation

The PUMA office is located within a significant flood high risk zone. Safe guarding
data, information and other key resources will be essential for such a vital component
of the government national development strategies.

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

Consider and recommend any changes to the proposed
implementation/procurement arrangements for IAM-II.

National Disaster Management Arrangements

The National Disaster Management Plan for Samoa was developed in 1996 through
the assistance of the United Nations South Pacific Disaster Reduction Program
(SPDRP) and reviewed more recently in 2002 by GoS officials. Since this time,
considerable institutional reform has taken place within the government system
including the transfer of disaster management responsibilities to MNRE.

The NDMO is currently not staffed owing to the recent retirement of the incumbent.
Expectations are that the position will be filled in July 2003. Across the region,
NDMO’s are typically junior officers, relatively under skilled and poorly resourced.
National disaster management institutional systems are generally inactive outside of
the cyclone season. The implementation of strategies associated with the Component
will therefore have to consider a wider range of “prerequisite” issues that will create
the enabling environment that will lead to the achievement of stated outcomes. The
prerequisite issues include:

•

The establishment of the CSU within MNRE and recruitment of key staff.

•

The development of a professional skilling strategy for key staff, through
liaison with SOPAC. This should include a work experience assignment to fast
track the learning process and the appointment of a mentor/advisor to guide
the development of an implementation plan and strategies to address
component objectives.

•

The review and strengthening of existing national disaster management
institutional systems to establish the management framework necessary to
undertake the planning review tasks.

Program Implementation

There is a hierarchy within disaster management planning process. Training and the
conduct of simulation exercises are used to facilitate the review/development of plans
and/or the testing of completed plans. Tabletop exercises in particular, are very useful
plan development tools. It is important that the hazard mapping be used to guide the
development of special plans and procedures such as those for evacuation and damage
assessment. The implementation strategy should therefore be designed around the
following structure:

•

Review of the National Disaster Management Plan

•

Review of the Cyclone Support Plan

•

The development of disaster assessment and relief procedures

•

The development of organisational response plans (based on assigned roles
and responsibilities from the above plans and procedures)

AIMP – CIM: Risk and Disaster Management Review Study –

•

The development of other special plans as identified through the CIM
Planning process.

The identification of resources and other equipment will be a major outcome of the
plan development and/or review processes. This applies more specifically to the
requirements for community warning and alerting mechanisms and also to the
resources needed to undertake rapid damage assessment.

The feasibility study on a national emergency response fund or insurance scheme can
be implemented at any time. A number of countries around the Pacific have such
schemes including Fiji. Queensland has a State Disaster Relief Arrangement (SDRA).
With regard to insurance, the Forum Secretariat is currently investigating options
however this is with little success at this time.

Document Outline