In 1995 and 1996, a series of spectacular eruptions from Mt Ruapehu shook the central plateau, triggering lahars, avalanches and explosive jets of steam, hot water and rock.
Acidic ash spread across much of the central and eastern North Island, disrupting tourism, closing roads and airports, contaminating water supplies, shorting power pylons, damaging crops and killing about 2000 sheep.
The largest eruption, on 23 September 1995, sent a plume of ash and debris 12km into the sky and hurled rocks kilometres from the crater.
While no human lives were lost, there were several near misses involving skiers and others on the mountain, exposing the challenges of managing risk in a national park.
They also uncovered gaps in volcanic risk management, highlighting what was, by today’s standards, a fragmented emergency response.
Thirty years on, while science and technology advances have boosted the ability to detect and respond to volcanic unrest, there’s also been a cultural change.
Volcanic risk management is no longer viewed purely as a scientific problem.
Richard Smith, director of the Natural Hazards and Resilience research programme Te Pae Turoa, says front of mind today is the importance of building and maintaining relationships across emergency planners and communities of risk.
“We can’t be calling people up at 3am if we don’t know them. We need to have those relationships well ahead of time.”
The eruptions showed researchers and scientists that a broader range of information was needed to manage volcanic risk effectively, Smith says.
“The communities themselves have knowledge to share. A lot of that communication comes down to relationships.”
Geoff Kilgour, chief scientist of Volcanic Hazards at Earth Sciences NZ, says one of the greatest legacies of the eruptions is the trust built over the past three decades between scientists, emergency planning agencies and locals.
“We’re a much better-connected community. Our science is better at understanding things, then we pass that information on to the Department of Conservation (DOC), the Civil Defence sector and even into Police and FENZ.
“We’re much better prepared, we know who to contact, we know who to inform and who to talk to. It’s all looking really good.”
‘Totally inadequate’
Harry Keys, a DOC scientist during the eruptions, says emergency plans existed in 1995 but were not well rehearsed and communication between agencies was difficult, largely relying on fax machines.
“Plans, procedures and policies were totally inadequate,” Keys said.
One of the biggest needs was to be able “to talk to people – the police, the councils, the skifield", Keys says. Coordination needed improvement.
He says those involved in the emergency response soon identified a need for trusted professional relationships built before an emergency.
“Relationships work in real time. I’m talking about the first minutes, hour, two hours, five hours, when you have to have to make a series of decisions very quickly. There’s got to be quick communication.”
Deeper relationships with mana whenua were also integral to an effective response. Keys says collaboration with iwi leaders of the time, such as Ngāti Rangi’s Matiu Mareikura and Sir Tumu Te Heuheu, then paramount chief of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, brought a sense of calm and reassurance for many in the community, including himself.
Volcanologist Graham Leonard, general manager of the Geological Hazards Science Mission at Earth Sciences, says response planning is now coordinated among scientists, the monitoring agency, mana whenua, emergency managers, infrastructure providers and DOC through volcanic advisory groups.
“It’s something that was wanting in 1995/1996 – having a coordinated view of everyone’s plans, questions and needs.”
Leonard says volcanic management has continued to become more collaborative, today integrating mana whenua knowledge alongside scientific and emergency management to better understand and respond to volcanic hazard.
“Mana whenua are closest to the volcano and its activity, and have a whakapapa connection, so they have a very strong interest.
“They’re also really attuned to what’s going on in the environment and the volcano. They’ve got their own perspectives and a very, very long history of observation. It’s a very structured, careful, methodical observation across generations – and that’s science.”
Leonard says that “all-of-te-taiao” worldview considered alongside the “mathematical science” enhances risk management.
“They’re different knowledge systems but also really beneficial worldviews. Bringing those things beside each other enhances the mana of both, and we can learn from the two.”
‘Risk comes from humans’
Science has learned much from the Māori perspective on natural hazards, Leonard says.
“When we’re talking about a volcano, when we’re talking about Koro [Ruapehu], this is what he naturally does. This is a beautiful and natural phenomena and behaviour. It is what we choose to do as humans – where we choose to live, how we choose to engineer and where we choose to go – that creates hazard and risk.
“[Risk] really comes from humans, not the natural environment, and it puts the onus on them to think about their risk management.”
There were also lessons to learn about resilience, Leonard says
“Risk management really is an intergenerational thing. What are we doing now for future decades of future generations to be resilient?
“That is very similar to kaitiakitanga, and that Te Ao Māori worldview. The more we think about where and how we’re building, and where we’re choosing to go – living in harmony with te taiao, with nature and with volcanoes’ way – the more we’re becoming resilient to risk. Māori already have that as an inherent value and worldview.”
Ngāti Rangi environment and cultural development team leader Deanna Wilson says she feels at peace living at the foot of her ancestral maunga.
“I’m always in awe of our maunga. It doesn’t feel like there is activity, even though we know that there is – he’s a living being – and so I never, ever feel afraid.”
But she says there’s room for iwi to take a bigger role in helping communities prepare for and respond to natural hazards.
“I don’t think we have enough of a role at the moment. We’re working with the council through our relationships that we’ve developed since the [treaty] settlements. More and more, we’re having more of an input into the processes.”
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air
