By Natalie Egleton, Chief Executive Officer
According to early reports1, many people across south-east Queensland and northern NSW believe that the work their communities have done to prepare for future flooding since 2022, made a major, positive difference to how they approached the threat of Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. Having these systems and processes in place meant many were better equipped and more confident to minimise, mitigate and respond to the extreme weather event. While early recovery has just begun, previous investment in preparedness and resilience-building activities means these communities will also be better able to address the longer-term social, emotional, environmental and economic impacts of the disaster. But addressing these impacts requires more than just money.
Too often, traditional models of recovery fall short in addressing the complex and evolving needs of affected communities. Current disaster funding models are heavily skewed towards built and economic outcomes, with only 12% of Commonwealth disaster funding allocated to social and natural domains since 2018-192. This imbalance must be addressed to achieve sustainable recovery.
According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, rural areas often experience longer emergency response times3 and have higher proportions of vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and those with disabilities. Further, the economic impact of disasters on rural communities can be severe, with many of these regions relying on agriculture, tourism and small business. In terms of disaster, more than 80 percent of these regions have experienced bushfires alone.4 Given the number of industries and supply chains that are reliant on these communities, they are clearly the backbone of our nation. Ensuring these communities can thrive beyond recovery is not just a matter of compassion, it is a national imperative.
The current top-down approach to disaster recovery is rigid, making it difficult for local groups to access the necessary resources. FRRR’s recent Black Summer Bushfires, Five Years On report, confirms that a more flexible and community-driven approach yields better results. By allowing communities to define their own needs and priorities, we can ensure that recovery efforts are more effective and sustainable.
Community groups need to be at the centre of the design and development of place-based recovery processes – ones that support collaborative planning and decision-making. The Disaster Resilient: Future Ready program, the latest iteration of which is currently underway in the Burnett Inland in Queensland, is a prime example of how this can work in practice. This program supports local not-for-profits in building capacity and achieving significant social resilience outcomes through flexible, long-term funding, where all those involved come to the table before a disaster.
Recovery support, including funding, needs to be more robust, integrated and adaptive. This requires adopting a holistic perspective that integrates mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery5. Immediate relief is crucial, but as recovery takes time, communities need ongoing assistance to rebuild infrastructure, restore services and strengthen social ties. This is where flexible funding becomes essential. It allows for adaptive responses to changing circumstances and ensures that resources are available when communities are ready to use them.
Investing in social capital, enhancing community infrastructure and building local capacity to manage future crises – especially in remote, rural and regional communities – is critical. Research commissioned by the Australian Red Cross and supported by FRRR found that higher social capital in remote areas is equivalent to receiving $3,808 in windfall income annually per person. For a remote community of around 6,770 people, this equates to approximately $25 million.6
Pleasingly, the Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding, also known as the Colvin Review, recently made some practical recommendations to improve disaster funding strategies and the overall recovery framework.7
The establishment of a Disaster Management Advisory Council, as recommended by the Colvin Review, would enhance the involvement of the non-government sector in disaster management. This Council should have an action-oriented focus, bridging coordination between philanthropy, government and the corporate sector to leverage different forms of funding and resources. It’s critical however, that in implementing the Colvin Report recommendations, we need streamlined, adaptable and responsive funding processes that can respond to the distinctive needs of disaster-affected communities.
The evolving nature of disasters in Australia demands a corresponding evolution in our approach to recovery. By prioritising social capital, adopting flexible and accessible funding models, and fostering collaboration across sectors, we can build resilient communities that are better prepared for future challenges. Lessons from the Black Summer bushfires and the recommendations of the Colvin Review provide a clear roadmap for this transformation. It is time to act on these insights and ensure that Australia’s disaster response is as robust and resilient as the communities we strive to support.
No single sector of society can solve these complex challenges alone. Cooperation is required between funders, governments and community organisations. By working together, we can reduce funding inequities and streamline support processes. A collaborative approach maximises the impact of available resources and empowers communities to take charge of their own recovery.