Lahar issue lifecycle

The results from the content analysis suggest that the ‘lahar issue’ went through a five stage lifecycle. This lifecycle was identified through the attention given to the issue and also insights from the various issue lifecycle models. Figure 31 shows the overall coverage given to the ‘lahar issue’ with the stages indicated below the graph.

7.2.1 1996 - 1999

The first stage (1996 - 1999) saw the announcement of the lahar in April 1996. During this period the Department of Conservation began consulting with stakeholders and developing options to deal with the lahar. This contradicts many of the issue lifecycle models, which suggest that issue-related policy is not developed until sufficient societal and media pressure is applied (e.g. Buchholz, 1988; Crable & Vibbert, 1985;

achieved Crable and Vibbert’s first status: ‘potential status’ – groups and individuals had identified the lahar as an issue, but it still required wider public support to achieve prominence.

Figure 31: Lahar issue lifecycle (1996-2007)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Year -->

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5

1996

-1999 2000– March 2001 August 2004– November 2006 April 2001– July 2004 December 2006– June 2007

7.2.2 2000 - May 2001

The second stage (2000 – March 2001) saw Conservation Minister, Sandra Lee, endorse the plan to not intervene at the Crater Lake. This could perhaps be seen as the third phase in Down’s (1972) model: ‘realising the cost of significant progress’ or the second phase of Buchholz (1988) model: ‘changing expectations’. It was during this period that opinion within the Ruapehu District Council and Horizons Regional Council shifted to opposition of the plan to deal with the lahar. As noted by Department of Conservation Scientist, Harry Keys, Horizons Regional Council approved of the development of lahar options when it seemed that intervention at the crater would be the option chosen. However, after Sandra Lee announced in May 2000 that an alarm system would be installed and emergency response plan developed, the councils became concerned. During this stage the ‘lahar issue’ had Crable and Vibbert’s second status: ‘imminent status’ – it received the endorsement of the Ruapehu District Council and Horizons Regional Council as a valid issue.

7.2.3 June 2001 – July 2004

The third stage (April 2001 – July 2004) saw a prolonged period of debate between the Ruapehu District Council, Horizons Regional Council and the Government over the decision not to intervene as well as sporadic attacks by Opposition National MP, Nick Smith. This aligns with the second stages of both Buchholz’s model – the ‘political stage’ and Hainworth’s model – ‘mediation and amplification’. According to Buchholz and Hainsworth, during this stage the issue gains media coverage and is picked up by interest groups. This also forces politicians to begin developing policy to deal with the issue. While plans to deal with the lahar had already been decided upon, the pressure put on Government did change how the lahar was being managed. The pressure saw the creation of a ministerial committee in November 2001 specifically to deal with the lahar and the formation of a scientific panel to advise to the Conservation Minister and the committee. As discussed in 6.4.5, it also prompted the involvement of Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management Director, John Norton. Norton’s involvement saw an assessment made of the risk relating to the lahar (the 2002 Taig Report) and the recommendation to raise the Tangiwai Road Bridge. Finally, this period ended in July 2004 with the announcement that Government would provide financial assistance to the Ruapehu District Council for the development of the Emergency Response Plan. During this period, the issue reached Crable and Vibbert’s third status: ‘current status’ – the issue was of current interest to the public. As predicted by Crable and Vibbert’s model, this period saw media create ‘sides’ (Nick Smith and Councils vs. Government) and individuals were chosen to play roles in the drama (as discussed later under sources).

7.2.4 August 2004 – November 2006

The fourth stage (August 2004 – November 2006) saw the end of disagreements between the lahar agencies and a united decision to ensure the lahar took place

successfully. Interest was renewed temporarily in October 2006 when a mini-eruption triggered the ERLAWS warning alarm. However, during this stage the issue became ‘dormant’ (Crable & Vibbert, 1985; Meng, 1992) as the debate around the lahar options had subsided. Also, the predictions for the lahar were pushed out further, meaning that there was little issue-related activity to report.

7.2.5 December 2006 – June 2007

The fifth stage (December 2006 – June 2007) saw renewed interest in the lahar

following the announcement in December that the tephra dam was eroding – a sign the lahar would take place in the near future. This period peaked with the lahar taking place on March 18, 2007. The following months match Downs’ description of the fifth stage in his model – the post-problem stage. In this stage, this issue is dormant, but may reappear on the news agenda. In the months following the lahar, five stories related to the ‘lahar issue’ were printed. It is also correct to describe the lahar as ‘dormant’. As Crable and Vibbert (1985, p. 5) say, while “issues may be resolved… but they are never solved in the sense of a final answer”. The lahar may be ‘solved’ in that there is no longer a tephra dam blocking the crater outlet. However, an eruption on Mt Ruapehu, which may occur at any time, could cause a further blockage. This, potentially, might see the start of another issue lifecycle, although it is unlikely another ‘lahar issue’ would follow the same phases discussed above. This is because it would have to follow the same combination and timing of events, which marked the development of the ‘lahar issue.

7.3 Salience

The results of the content analysis suggest that the lahar was a salient topic for media both in the level of attention and how it was presented (see 5.2). The results also showed that the number of ‘lahar issue’ stories varied over time. The results seem to confirm Peters and Hogwood’s (1985) observation for an issue to receive sustained coverage requires sustained issue-related activities. As Newig (2004) points out, issues can be quickly replaced by other issues. However, just because an issue is not receiving coverage does not mean it is unimportant. Instead, issue salience is indicated by the volume and repetition, the logic being that important issues will be reported continually, while unimportant issues will receive little or no coverage. Therefore, the lahar issue’s salience is confirmed by its continued coverage.

The changes in the level of ‘lahar issue’ coverage were noted mainly by those involved with working with the media. Department of Conservation Community Relations

Manager, Dave Wakelin, observed that media attention in the ‘lahar issue’ was sustained, but sometimes there were no events to write about:

Because it was over such a long period of time, there was some interest in the early days, but I think we then had a dying off just a bit. And that’s understandable. Because there was a period when the lake was refilling, the bund was in place, ERLAWS was in place, the light may or may not have been in place. It was kind of a relatively quiet period when a reporter would ring up and say, “What’s new on the lahar? – What’s happening?”. And the media interest did pick up again once the level started to get above the old lake outlet.

Ruapehu District Council Team Leader of Regulation, Johan Cullis, thought that media interest in the lahar was ‘sporadical’:

It took almost ten years from the initial eruption so in sporadical parts there was great interest in it. But – you know – as soon as something else happens somewhere, there wasn’t much attention on the lahar until it reached the next critical stages.

Department of Conservation’s Tongariro Conservator, Paul Green, also talked about the varying levels of media coverage:

During those twelve years it had ebbs and flows. It would often be someone in the media that all of a sudden would take an interest and would come out with something and it would set all the other people off. Because they all watch what each other’s doing. So one newspaper person or one television person or radio person – talkback radio – would get going. Next minute, other reporters would be calling up.