Hawke's Bay bore the brunt of Cyclone Gabrielle in February Photo: Supplied / Matt Goodin
A review of Hawke's Bay Civil Defence's Cyclone Gabrielle response is expected to begin in August, and be completed by the end of the year.
Regional council chair Hinewai Ormbsy announced the independent review in April.
Hawke's Bay Civil Defence committee meeting agenda documents showed it would vote on Monday whether to approve the terms of reference for the review, kickstarting the process.
The document said the review would cover the time from the initial warning of the cyclone, through to the end of April when the emergency coordination centre was wound down.
It said there still was not a clear picture of what happened and when, due to isolation from the loss of road, power and communications infrastructure.
The review would look to clear that up, and address unrest and confusion in the community.
"The declaration of a National State of Emergency created misunderstandings around who was responsible for what," it said.
"Communities felt frustrated by the level of support from Civil Defence and that Emergency Management could, and should have, done more for communities across all of Hawke's Bay."
Esk Valley on 20 February following Cyclone Gabrielle. Photo: RNZ/ Nick Monro
The review would consider things like how prepared Civil Defence was, its warning announcements, how quickly teams and operations centres were stood up, communication with communities and within Civil Defence, timeliness of decisions, and the role of iwi, hapū and mana whenua.
It would also take a look at previous Civil Defence review recommendations, whether they were followed during the Cyclone Gabrielle response, and what difference they made.
The outcomes of the review would focus on ensuring Civil Defence has the capability and capacity to deal with emergencies.
The Civil Defence committee will request proposals from those keen to run the review later this month. It will appoint the independent reviewer in July, and expected the review to be underway in August.
"These review timeframes may seem long, however the likely extent of the review and to ensure the successful quality outcomes result, will require time and in particular the opportunity to draw the best information from participants," the document said.
The review was expected to cost up to $200,000.
