The ‘lahar issue’ management process

This section of the discussion chapter gives a brief overview of the issues management processes applied to manage the ‘lahar issue’ as described in the interview chapter (Chapter 6). These processes are examined using the process categories from the summary of the issue management process models discussed in the literature review in Chapter 3 (see 3.3.8). Chase (1982a, p. 106) said that he and Jones developed their model to “aid independent judgement, not as a substitute for it”. He continued, “the model, like results of attitudinal and demographic research, cannot be literally

superimposed on management of any type of organisational structure, nor was this ever its purpose” (p. 106). Therefore, the issues process discussed in this section is used as an indication of how an organisation might be expected to conduct issues management, not as a benchmark for best practise.

7.7.1 Identifying and/or monitoring issues

Jaques (2004a) stresses the importance of issue identification to the success of issue management programmes. Further, many issue process models suggest that

organisations scan or monitor their environment for emerging trends that may become issues (e.g. Ewing, 1997; Renfro, 1987). However, the organisations involved with the lahar did not scan their environment. Instead, the lahar presented itself as an issue to be managed. The lahar was identified as an issue for the ‘lead agencies’ according to the various pieces of legislation that guide their organisations. For DOC that legislation was the National Parks Management Act (1980) and Conservation Act (1987). For Ruapehu District Council, Horizons Regional Council and Environment Waikato it was the Civil Defence Act (1983). Other organisations became involved with managing the ‘lahar issue’ because of infrastructure for which they were responsible. For example, Ontrack were responsible for the Tangiwai Rail Bridge and the safety of it employees and

Genesis Energy were responsible for conserving an aqueduct that runs beneath the Whangaehu River. Further organisations were involved because of their involvement in a Civil Defence response (e.g. Police).

7.7.2 Evaluating/analysing the issue

All the issue management process models require that issues, once identified, are analysed (e.g. Chase, 1984; Ewing, 1997; Jaques, 2000; Renfro, 1987; Tucker & Broom, 1993; Tucker & Trumpfheller, 1993). DOC were the first organisation to begin analysis of the lahar. The evaluation began with the release of the Hancox et.al (1997) report confirming the potential for a dam-break lahar. This process continued with the stakeholder meetings held from April 1996 until October 1998. As Berkowitz and Turnmire (1994, p. 105) suggest, “an organisation must proactively build an

understanding of a community’s issue orientations”. This was particularly important because during this time a draft Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) – a document containing the options for the lahar – was being developed. The AEE was released in October 1998 and this was followed by more public consultation – both through submissions and stakeholder meetings – followed by the release of the final AEE (1999), which confirmed the risks related to the lahar as “low to high” (Keys, 1999, p. 1). Further analysis on the lahar was conducted throughout the management process. A key piece of this analysis was the Taig Report (2002) commissioned by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. The analysis conducted on the lahar was important for developing the Emergency Response Plans. Further, it provided a strong base for communicating about the lahar.

7.7.3 Developing a response

For many issues management process models the next stage in the issues management process is the development of an issue response mainly through the development of policy (Ewing, 1997; Renfro, 1987). Developing an issue response involves setting objectives (Jaques, 2000). The primary objective for all organisations involved was to prevent anyone being killed when the lahar took place. However, all the organisations had a second objective. It was these differences in the secondary objectives that brought

Council and the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management their second primary objective was to remove the risk to life. For the Department of Conservation, that secondary objective was preserving the integrity of the National Park.

Organisations began developing their own lahar responses at varying times. DOC was the first. It began developing its response with the consultation process with

stakeholders and the development and release of the AEE, which presented the options for dealing with the lahar. Ruapehu District Council began developing its lahar

Emergency Response in 2000. This was rejected by council as being too expensive to be feasible. After debating with Central Government over the response, in 2003, the

Southern Ruapehu Lahar Planning Group (SRLPG) was formed, which coordinated the emergency response. 2003 onwards saw the other organisations form their own lahar issue responses (e.g. Ontrack, Genesis Energy). The planning group was integral in coordinating the lahar emergency response. The Lahar Information Group (LIG) was set up as an offshoot of the Southern Planning Group to manage the release of lahar

information. This group is discussed later in 7.9.2.

7.7.4 Implementing the response

The next stage in the issue management process is implementing the response (Tucker & Broom, 1993). Implementing the response began with the endorsement of the AEE by Conservation Minister, Sandra Lee, in May 2000. However, the implementation of a physical response - the installation of the bund and ERLAWS lahar warning system – did not take place until December 2001. The Emergency Response was implemented with exercises of the response plan that involved all the agencies. This response plan was trialled approximately six times. The first trial took place in September 2004.

7.7.5 Evaluating

The final stage in managing an issue is evaluating the management’s results. The lahar’s management was declared a success by the Conservation Minister and Minister of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (Binning, 2007). It was evaluated in the media and also by the lahar managers themselves in a meeting in September 2007. GNS Social Scientist, Julia Becker’s study into the lahar response, along with this research is part of the ongoing evaluation of the lahar’s management. The evaluations of the lahar’s management have already resulted in changes to the structure of the lahar response. It has been decided that a combined group, made up of the Northern and Southern planning groups along with the group that controls the lahar response on the ski fields, will oversee any future lahar management.