Critical infrastructure underpins the delivery of essential services such as power, water, health, communications systems and banking, and as such it is vital to the way of life that we know and value. However, a range of risks can damage or destroy critical infrastructure as well as disrupt the essential services that are provided by these assets, networks and supply chains. One such risk is that posed by natural disasters such as bushfires, floods, cyclones and storm surges; a risk which is likely to increase with the impact of climate change.
In 2010, the Australian Government released its Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy, which stressed that “the best way to enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure is to partner with owners and operators to share information, raise the awareness of dependencies and vulnerabilities, and facilitate collaboration to address any impediments.” While that strategy, and similar initiatives such as the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, provides a useful framework to guide action, there remain a range of peculiarities, perverse incentives, and governance barriers which need to be identified and thought-through if Australia’s critical infrastructure is indeed to become more resilient to current and future risks. These impediments exist particularly in relation to (i) the allocation of risk associated with different types of infrastructure and the ownership and management arrangements thereof (ii) the impacts to critical infrastructure from different natural hazards and (iii) the role and responsibilities of State and Commonwealth governments, even where they neither own nor manage the affected critical infrastructure.
This paper identifies governance-related barriers to managing emerging climate risks in selected infrastructure sectors. Specifically, the authors will present key insights in relation to:
a. Where governance arrangements may need to be strengthened or altered in order to promote more effective collaboration in managing shared or cascading risks;
b. Where governance arrangements may need to be strengthened or altered in order to promote infrastructure adaptation, to reduce future risks from a changing climate;
c. Where the allocation of risk is unclear or provides perverse incentives; and
d. What the respective roles of the Commonwealth and state governments are under different scenarios and where further clarity may be needed.