1. law, govt and politics
2. legal issues
3. human rights

Policy instruments for
Indigenous Peoples and
Disaster Risk Reduction
A Case Study of Māori participation in
Disaster and Emergency Management,
Aotearoa New Zealand
Abstract
Indigenous Peoples possess ancient wisdom and valuable knowledge on environmental
hazards and disasters. Much of this knowledge is relevant to non-Indigenous Peoples. As
current concerns on disaster risk reduction emphasise a multi-level, multi-national approach,
Indigenous knowledge can help international, regional, national and local organisations to
address complex hazards including climate change and sea-level rise. However, despite the
important insights and unique risk profiles of Indigenous communities, they are often
marginalised in the relevant policy-making processes. This report provides an overview of the
international policy in this area and examines the experiences of Māori (the Indigenous
People of Aotearoa New Zealand) in the legislative and policy areas relevant to hazards and
disasters. Research on how Māori responded and continue to recover from the Canterbury
earthquakes of 2010-11 provides a useful window on how a diverse urban Indigenous
communities are impacted by, and seek influence in, disaster and emergency management
and disaster risk reduction.
Simon Lambert
[Type here]
1
Contents
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.
Policy and Institutions for Disasters and Emergencies..................................................................... 5
2.1
Overview................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2
Policy and Institutions for Disasters ......................................................................................... 6
2.2.1
2.3
International Context ............................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1
3.
Indigenous Peoples and the UN ....................................................................................... 8
2.4
International Organisations and Agreements .......................................................................... 9
2.5
International Indigenous Programmes................................................................................... 10
Government and Legislative Framework for DEM in Aotearoa New Zealand ............................... 11
3.1
Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management ........................................................ 11
3.1.1
Analysis & Planning Unit................................................................................................. 13
3.1.2
Development Unit .......................................................................................................... 13
3.1.3
Capability & Operations Unit.......................................................................................... 13
3.2
4
Scale.................................................................................................................................. 6
Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEM Act) 2002 ............................................... 13
3.2.1
Civil Defence Emergency Management Regulations 2003............................................. 14
3.2.2
National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy ............................................ 14
3.2.3
National CDEM Plan ....................................................................................................... 15
3.3
Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups ..................................................................... 15
3.4
Director's Guidelines on various aspects of CDEM ................................................................ 17
3.5
Other legislation relevant to CDEM ........................................................................................ 17
3.6
Summary................................................................................................................................. 19
Disaster and Emergency Management: recent experiences of Māori ........................................... 23
4.1
Māori participation in DEM through the Canterbury earthquakes ........................................ 23
4.1.1
Response ........................................................................................................................ 24
4.1.2
Recovery ......................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.3
Reduction and Readiness ............................................................................................... 25
4.2
International Indigenous Experiences .................................................................................... 26
4.3
Current and Future Research in Aotearoa New Zealand ....................................................... 26
4.4
Observations: Control F Māori ............................................................................................... 28
4.5
Summary................................................................................................................................. 29
5.
Conclusions..................................................................................................................................... 31
6.
References ...................................................................................................................................... 32
7.
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 37
7.1
Risk Management Definitions ................................................................................................ 37
2
7.2
Appendix 2: MCDEM Organisational Chart ............................................................................ 41
Figures
Figure 1: International framework for disaster risk reduction ..................................................................... 9
Figure 2: The Four 'R's framework for DEM ............................................................................................... 12
Figure 3: National Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups (CDEM Groups) ................................. 16
Figure 4: Key organisations and their relationships in disasters and emergencies ................................... 20
Figure 5: Relationships between key legislation for the land use management of natural hazards ......... 21
Figure 6: NSC 6 Resilience to Nature's Challenges structure ..................................................................... 27
Tables
Table 1: Hierarchy of activities in disasters and adaptation ........................................................................ 7
Table 2: Paradigm shift in disaster and emergency management ............................................................. 10
Table 3: Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................ 21
Table 4: Aotearoa NZ Policy activities and actors (after Handmer and Davis 2009).................................. 30
3
1. Introduction
This report examines how Indigenous Peoples can interpret, frame, and implement disaster risk
reduction (DRR) strategies. The approach is to first review the international policy arena, particularly the
various United Nations programmes then investigate how Māori participate in the legislative and policy
framework for disaster and emergency management (DEM) in Aotearoa New Zealand, identifying
leverage points for improving Māori resilience. The aim is to explore how Māori and other Indigenous
Peoples can contribute to, and benefit from, wider DRR programmes.
A key concern is the urbanisation of Indigenous communities resulting in their exposure to new and
evolving hazards and disasters including greater exposure to technological risks. Māori - 85% of whom
live in towns or cities - have perhaps a greater insight into urbanisations than many other Indigenous
Peoples, and Māori in Ōtautahi/Christchurch have the unfortunate experience of a series of destructive
earthquakes that tested DEM in their city. African researcher Victor Okorie considers ‘every disaster a
storyteller’ (Okorie, pers. comm.). This report will draw on research by Māori researchers on the 20102011 Canterbury earthquakes which devastated the Christchurch CBD and large areas of the Eastern
suburbs, home to many Māori communities. This research tells a story of how Indigenous Peoples living
in urban communities are affected by, and can in turn effect changes to, disaster and emergency
management policy.
Disasters are not ‘natural’ (although they may be a function of natural hazards) but social events and as
such are within the purview of state administration and political agendas. As Maria Bargh (2013) points
out, the research literature on Māori political participation in Aotearoa New Zealand is sparse. Too often
Māori politics is dichotomised as a Māori versus Pākehā landscape of simplified cultural identities and
practices that hides the complexity of Māori political engagement. Tahu Kukutai (2004, p. 86) argues for
a more nuanced interpretation of who and what we are, noting a flaw in ‘race- and ethnic-based policies
[in] that they belie the cultural and socio-economic diversity that exits within historically marginalised
groups’. However, Indigenous Peoples are not peripheral to state legislation. As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
(2014) and others point out, the violent oppression and discrimination of colonial states against their
Indigenous Peoples places those Indigenous societies at the very centre of state philosophising and
operations.
Similar challenges exist in disaster risk reduction discourse where Indigenous communities are labelled
as either terminally vulnerable – being poor, dispossessed, racially and culturally abused - or endlessly
resilient, able to counter whatever comes their way be it economic decline, social stigmatisation or
massive disaster. Certainly, Indigenous communities may exhibit inspiring resilience to natural hazards
(Campbell, 1997) but equally it is difficult and sometimes impossible to absorb the effects of a megaearthquake, cyclone, tsunami, flood, military invasion and so on.
An important nexus of resilience discourse and state policy for Māori is manifested in Te Tiriti o
Waitangi which sees an ongoing dialogue between Māori and the Crown as described in a volume by
Veronica Tawhai, Katarina Grey-Sharp and other Māori researchers (Tawhai & Gray-Sharp, 2013). In that
volume, Haami Piripi (2011) offers a timely reminder that while the intent of public policy and services
has varied considerably over the post-contact period (170 years for Maori), the ‘methodology, focus and
delivery [of public services] … serve[s] the purposes of the government in office.’ It is the intent of this
working paper to contribute to this dialogue by highlighting the importance of disaster and emergency
management for Māori and draw attention to key legislation, policy instruments and organisations
involved in DEM for ongoing debates concerning Māori development, including the need for
comprehensive long term DRR.
4
2. Policy and Institutions for Disasters and Emergencies
Are disasters like the Bible’s portrayal of the poor (Mathew 26:11; Mark 14:7) and to be ‘always with
us’? In a world of increasing complexity and interconnectedness, with seemingly endless, allencompassing risks (Beck, 2006), are we bound to experience ever greater losses to earthquakes,
tsunami’s, volcanic activity, cyclones, floods, landslides, extreme weather, drought or fire? The most
destructive of a series of earthquakes that struck the city of Christchurch between 2010 and 2011 killed
185 people; 115 died in a single poorly constructed building (Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission,
2012a), another 41 were killed by unreinforced masonry (Shaw, 2013). In other words, most of the
deaths would have been prevented if better legislation and policies were enacted and enforced.
Around the world we see disaster fatalities from unsafe building design and practices, poor or corrupt
zoning decisions, naïve development programmes, systemic failure of officials to perform their
designated roles, and political leadership and whole societies that ignore the risks of regular and
potentially destructive natural hazards and growing concerns over technological activities. As Mark 14: 7
goes on to say of the poor, ‘whenever you want, you can do good for them.’ This report continues to
build the case for explicit, empowered roles for Indigenous Peoples in the fundamental civic duty of
disaster and emergency management, with an ultimate aim of reducing risks – doing good – for all
peoples.
2.1
Overview
Thomas Birkland (1997, 2006) drew our attention to the dynamics of policy change in the aftermath
‘focusing events’ such as disasters.1 While it may be ‘intuitively sensible’ that societies do not debate
earthquakes or terrorist attacks until they actually occur, Birkland found an connection between the
event, the nature of the event (for example if it stems from a natural hazard, a technological system, or
an identifiable group or community), and the configuration of actors who seek to address the
subsequent policy issues. One of the fundamental reason focusing events are given the attention of
politicians, policy makers and the public is that they provide evidence of policy failure. To reiterate,
while natural hazards are a reality of human existence, disasters themselves are not natural but, in the
words of joint publication by the World Bank and United Nations, ‘result from human acts of omission
and commission’ (World Bank/United Nations, 2010, p. 1). The conclusions of that work provide a
justification and impetus to this report, with four main findings (pp. 1-2):
1. A disaster exposes the cumulative implications of many earlier decisions, some taken
individually, others collectively, and a few by default;
2. Prevention is often possible and cost-effective;
3. Many measures, private and public, must work well together for effective prevention;
4. The exposure to hazards will rise in cities but greater exposure need not increase vulnerability.
A constant refrain in many national and multinational reports is the rising cost of damage caused by
disasters (World Bank/United Nations, 2010, Fig 1.15). While loss of life is always tragic, it seems the
sheer cost of recovering from a major disaster is uppermost in official strategy. Expensive disruption to
business and communities and the pointed, often emotional and visceral, challenges to policy bring in
wider questions about the nature and ability of modern democracies to deal with large-scale disasters
including slow onset environmental issues such as droughts and climate change. Rutherford Platt (1999)
examined the interplay between US federal assistance and the increasing impotence of central in the
face of state and local governments and individuals challenging any form of government control or
interference. The US, as with many other countries, has seen a massive increase in the number and
1
Birkland cites John Klingdon’s 1984 text ‘Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies’ as introducing the term.
5
complexity of state agencies established to mitigate disasters and yet this system is regularly
overwhelmed and found inadequate, at least in the eyes of the public and taxpayers. Sheila Jasanoff
(2010) distinguishes between management of disasters and emergencies and the identification and
attempted control of risks (often associated with single causes) and governance which is embedded
within the socio-political environment from which risks originate. The wider administrative landscape is
now dominated by a technocratic approach in which relies on ‘sound science’ which is kept separate
from the murky politics and subjectivity by impartial peer review.
Despite increasingly sophisticated science, growing databases, more specialised education and training
and refined risk modelling there seems to be an ineradicable gap between experts and the lay public.
Research in cognitive psychology and behavioural economics has highlighted how people perceive risk
and apportion investment and mitigation efforts. Individuals often display ‘loss aversion’ biases in being
more concerned with the cost of a particular action than the benefits (Rabin, 1998). Kahneman and
Tversky (1979) showed people systematically misperceive probabilities and risks, overestimating low
probability events and under estimate high probability events. People also underestimate risks of events
they have not experienced and overestimate the risks of those they have. Coupled with a status quo
bias – people prefer things to stay the same even if losses are more than fully compensated (Riccardi,
2007) – the implications for disaster risk reduction are that political leaders and policy makers will
struggle to implement desired or necessary change when tax payer and voter support is lacking.
Birkland went on to describe three outcomes for policy change post-disaster. Firstly, changes in policy
can prevent or mitigate future disasters. Secondly, they could fail to improve the situation, or make it
worse. Indeed Birkland argues this is the current context for US disaster policy as the Federal
government increasingly shifts risks from individuals to society as a whole. Finally, policy change could
have no impact ‘because it is hampered by the usual dynamics of multiple levels of government…or the
resistance of local officials or target populations (p. 181).
2.2
Policy and Institutions for Disasters
Handmer and Dovers (2007) provide an excellent text for practitioners in disaster and emergency
management and policy that begins by noting disasters can challenge the very legitimacy of government
through the sudden appearance of ‘apparent chaos and disruption and highlighting the weaknesses and
limits of government’ (ibid., p. 2). They also note the opportunities for political benefits as politicians can
display ‘leadership and empathy with the affected’. Handmer and Dovers point out the paradox of the
less visible processes of policy development and implementation for DRR ‘may carry little political
reward’, indeed may require considerable investment for long term security. Table 1 lists a hierarchy of
activities in the policy space that provides a useful schematic of the general outline for policy
introduction.
2.2.1 Scale
Scale is an important criteria for identifying and responding to hazards and disasters. Jane Rovens (2011)
emphases regional collaboration, defining this as a cross-border framework necessary to address risks
and naming the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (directly impacting 13 countries on two continents),
Hurricane Katrina (directly affecting four states) and the 2010 floods in China (impacting 28 provinces
and over 140 million people) as events that illustrate this.
Nation-states are clearly a fundamental unit of analysis due to their sovereign responsibilities and
political contingencies. Thus most of this report examines Aotearoa New Zealand’s legislation and policy
for the purposes of enabling Maori to better understand the strategic and tactical political and
administrative contexts for disaster and emergency management and subsequent DRR opportunities.
However, Aotearoa New Zealand has a significant regional role (along with Australia) as evidenced by
6
the response to Cyclone Pam which had devastated the Pacific nation of Vanuatu while also causing
considerable disruption to the north-east coast of Aotearoa.2
Level
1 Social goals
2 Institutional systems
and policy processes






3 Policy objectives


4a Policy
implementation in the
public sector



4b Policy
implementation in the
private sector

5 Emergency
management






What (is done)? Who (does it)? How (do they do it)?
Negotiation of what is valued.
Political system, executive, electorate, policy and communities, media.
Highly variable within political and institutional traditions, rules and styles.
‘rules of the game’.
Political system, governments, inter-governmental organisations, policy and
epistemic communities.
Highly variable over time, jurisdictions and issues but still within political and
institutional traditions, rules and styles.
More precise goals and targets expressed in formal policy statements.
Largely the role of governments in various kinds of partnerships with nongovernmental interests.
Design and implementation of policy programmes and instruments;
monitoring and evaluation.
Government organisations/agencies and industry and community partners
including international organisations and commerce.
Through various strategies involving resources, statuary authority,
information dissemination etc.
Provide infrastructure, services, insurance etc. within regulatory and market
settings relevant to response/recovery/reduction/readiness.
Private firms, consultants, sole operators.
Independently, in industry associations or contracted by government.
Via all of the above as well as individuals, households and formal or informal
collectives.
Preparedness for and response to events.
Emergency management sector, key partners and related sectors (e.g., health,
security).
Professionalised, highly responsive and rapidly changing in the face of events,
policy shifts, community preferences, media etc.
Table 1: Hierarchy of activities in disasters and adaptation
Source: Dovers and Handmer (2007; Table 1.1, p. 14).
Large-scale disasters not only cross international and internal borders, they may also overwhelm state
capacity for disaster relief. The state itself may be the cause of disaster. Rao (2014: p. 113) describes the
impacts of government demolition of slum dwellings in Delhi, enabled through neo-liberal ideology that
sees urban planning in India produce ‘the conditions for its own failure and [aggravate] the situation of
those who are rendered perpetually at risk’
Clearly there is an interplay between regions and states. But the fundamental scale for responding to an
actual disaster, and the location at which DRR strategies must have effect, is the local. For it is local
communities – family, neighbours, schools, shopkeepers – that are the first responders. Configuring
policies so that local communities including Indigenous communities are empowered to act in their best
interests over time is perhaps the greatest challenge of DRR. While the following sections deal directly
2
Unfortunately, none of Aotearoa New Zealand’s new defence helicopters could be taken to Vanuatu due to
logistical difficulties and because they are not cleared for "island-hopping" (Editorial, 2015).
7
with the international organisations and agreements aimed at DRR, this is to foreshadow how such
approaches and interpretations can better act for the interests of local scale life.
2.3
International Context
In many parts of our increasingly globalised world, processes such as badly planned
and managed urban development, environmental degradation, poverty and inequality
and weak governance, are driving levels of disaster risk to new heights. Given that our
current approach to both public and private investment tends to discount disaster risk,
the potential for future loss is enormous. This poses a critical threat to economic
development, social welfare and environmental health.
Margareta Wahlström (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2014, p. v)
Disaster and emergency management has an international context as well as the obviously local and
regional. Multilateral arrangements have evolved to mitigate the humanitarian needs of large disasters,
many of which overwhelm poorer countries. Many disasters and some emergencies do not obey state
boundaries, and comprehensive response and recovery activities will often require international aid. An
explicit link has been made between DRR and sustainable development as disasters are seen to
challenge communities and governments across environmental, economic, social and cultural contexts
Discourse on international disaster response law (IDRL) is evolving out of international humanitarian
laws. Concerns over climate change and sea-level adaption are forcing greater cooperation between
states although the current impasse over effective policies shows there is some way to go before
solutions are in place.
2.3.1 Indigenous Peoples and the UN
The United Nations has enabled Indigenous Peoples to promote their domestic agendas on the
international stage and to support a collective approach to common issues to counter the historical
strength of states and multinational corporations. There are several different fora within the UN
organisation, notably the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues which is an advisory body to the UN
Economic and Social Council. The UN Commission on Human Rights continues to be an important
organisation (and has also been framing international law in dealing with disasters). However, the
predominant neoliberal agenda continues to impede Indigenous agendas, and considerable practical
and institutional issues remain (Charters, 2007).
The participation of Indigenous Peoples in the UN and other multilateral organisations has led to
important acknowledgements of Indigenous rights for societies and communities identifying themselves
as Indigenous around the world. An important attempt at defining indigenous came in the International
Labour Organization Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169)
which highlighted the importance of self-identification:
1. … (a) Tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions
distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly
or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;
(b) Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent
from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country
belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present State boundaries
and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural
and political institutions.
8
2. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for
determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.
The concept of self-identification is echoed by The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Peoples which, in addition to the ILO position, noted:



2.4
A strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources;
Distinct social, economic or political systems; and
Distinct language, culture and beliefs.
International Organisations and Agreements
As with national legislation, there are many interconnected and overlapping international regimes. The
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) was established in 1999 is tasked with the
implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), agreed to by the 168 member states of the
United Nations in 2005. The HFA is one of several multilateral approaches to DRR and climate change
adaption (CCA) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: International framework for disaster risk reduction
DRR and CCA encompass a raft of strategies to reduce vulnerabilities to environmental hazards. The
most important – and controversial - organisation is the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change
(IPCC) that has articulated scientific concerns over rapid climate change. The UN Framework Convention
for Climate Change was adopted in 1992 and led to the Kyoto Protocol (1997) which legally binds
developed governments to emission reduction targets.
The UN Conferences and meetings around the HFA provide a useful conceptual sounding board for state
and local strategies. Table 2 shows the paradigm shifts in how risks are framed, the main policy tools to
deal with these risks, and the required knowledge, main actors and multilateral goals related to
addressing these risks.
9
Risk perception
Problem
recognition
Examples of
main policy
tools
Required
knowledge
Actors
Link
Old paradigm
Exogenous
Need for effective
response and
recovery
Contingency plan,
emergency training
HFA
Exogenous
Need for disaster risk reduction
New paradigm
Endogenous
Risk is embedded in
development processes
Early warning system, engineering
solutions
Land use planning, risk proof
investment, eco-system
management
Risk, loss and socio-economic
impact assessments
Wider and deeper stakeholder
involvement, especially private
sector and local level actors
Risk and loss assessment
Disaster
management
agency
Disaster risk management
throughout layers of government;
various stakeholders (public,
private, NGO)
Millennium Development Goal
Sustainable Development Goal,
Climate Change Policy
Table 2: Paradigm shift in disaster and emergency management
2.5
International Indigenous Programmes
The multilateral approaches briefly summarised in the preceding section have various openings for
Indigenous societies but as noted above, it is difficult for Indigenous Peoples in general, and smaller,
isolated, marginalised Indigenous communities in particular, to wield much influence in the
outcomes.The ability of Indigenous Peoples to influence the particular disaster management policies
relevant to their local situations is contingent upon the historical and socio-economic contexts in which
they live. However, Indigenous Knowledge is increasingly incorporated into DEM and DRR. A UNISDR
Conference in Geneva in 2013 heard some of this knowledge with an Indigenous Panel making
recommendations (see Lambert, 2014a) including:




Recognition and better use of indigenous perspectives and knowledge by incorporating these
in HFA2.
Support for the creation of regional indigenous networking to give voice to indigenous advocates for
disaster risk reduction.
Advocacy, through respective National Platforms, for ‘a seat at the table’ and for the inclusion of
indigenous knowledge in national disaster risk reduction planning.
Opportunities for Indigenous participation in regional and international forums.
Ongoing projects to describe and analyse Indigenous communities and their disaster risk reduction
needs, aspirations and contributions are taking place (Lambert, Athayde, Yin, Baudoin, & Okorie, 2014).
While the remainder of this report details the participation of Māori in relevant DEM policies and
legislation in Aotearoa New Zealand, international Indigenous examples will be drawn on in selected
sections to reinforce the global significance of IK in DRR and the ‘obligations of opportunities of
efficiencies’ (Lambert, 2014a) through better integration of Indigenous groups and philosophies into
DEM at local, national and international levels.
10
3. Government and Legislative Framework for DEM in Aotearoa New Zealand
The brutal colonial history of Aotearoa New Zealand has been dealt with in many other publications. For
those wishing to understand the basics, several excellent general history texts are available (Belich,
1986, 1996; King, 2003) including a growing literature on the Treaty of Waitangi (Hayward & Wheen,
2004; Orange, 1987; Tawhai & Gray-Sharp, 2013). More detailed tribal histories are now being published
by Māori historians (see, e.g., Mitchell & Mitchell, 2004). Current Māori frustrations often centre on the
complexities of legislation dealing with Māori land ownership and management and the difficulties in
dealing with multiple Crown agencies controlled by successive governments who rarely need bother
with a distinct Māori electorate. Haami Piripi (2011) offers a chronology for Maori and Crown
engagement:



1835-1945, the Iron Century
1945-1984, the Maori Development Era
1984 onwards, Reforms and Market Forces
Again, readers interested in the details of this history are directed to Piripi’s and other’s expert
literature. This report is situated in the current phase which has seen Māori voices are crystallising
through post-Treaty Settlement organisations such as the Iwi Leaders Group and the Iwi Chairs Forum
(although these groups of fiercely contested by many Maori. See, e.g., Rata, 2011) and various industry
groups in the primary sector (particularly agribusiness, fisheries and forestry). Representation for iwi
and hapū groups is enabled through legislation such as the Resource Management Act (1991) and the
Local Government Act (2005). The Maori Council has also been active in promoting policy for Maori (and
has had some significant victories; see ). However, it remains difficult for Māori to collectively
organise to effect policy changes, particularly in a space in which, as the brief literature above tells, long
term benefits are not necessarily enacted in view of short term costs. What follows is an overview the
state control and operation of DEM activities and strategies in the country. Whatever policies Māori
seek to enact in disaster risk reduction will involve interaction with these policy instruments.
3.1
Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
‘Resilient New Zealand: Communities understanding and managing their hazards.’
Ministry Vision
The Ministry provides policy advice to government, supports DEM planning and operations, coordinates
at local, regional and national levels, and manages the government response for large scale civil defence
emergencies (Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, 2015). In April 2014 the Ministry of
Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) transferred from the Department of Internal
Affairs to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC); roles and responsibilities were
unchanged. The DPMC coordinates the National Security and Resilience Plan and crisis management at
the national level. The transfer ‘is expected to strengthen the alignment between MCDEM’s functions
and strategic direction and those of the national security, risk and intelligence community’ (Ministry of
Civil Defence & Emergency Management, 2014, p. 1). The Ministry continues to lead coordination of civil
defence emergencies.
The overarching MCDEM strategy is through a risk management approach to the four R’s: reduction,
readiness, response, recovery (Figure 2).
11
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Reduction generally refers to efforts taken prior an event that help to reduce or avoid the potential
effect of an event e.g. planning regulations in earthquake prone areas or risk reducing
considerations in the EIA prior land development etc.
Readiness refers to horizontal and vertical organisational and institutional integration that is in
place for dealing with varying scales of events. For example involving communities in the planning
processes, community programs, professional developments, education etc.
Response refers to the 5 stage process starting at a single agency incident (locally contained/onsite
coordination) and ending at the national emergency or nationally significant emergency level.
‘Response’ as a policy instrument can have a number of different effects which are determined by
the scale of the event.
Recovery refers to the stage that starts after the initial response and ideally takes into account the
social, emotional, economic and physical wellbeing of individuals and communities, integrates all
stakeholder in the stages ahead, aids the transition from post disaster to ‘business as usual’, and
reduces future risks and exposure to hazards.
The CDEM Act (2002) defines recovery activities means activities carried out under the
Act or any civil defence emergency management plan after an emergency occurs,
including, without limitation:
(a) the assessment of the needs of a community affected by the emergency;
(b) the co-ordination of resources made available to the community;
(c) actions relating to community rehabilitation and restoration;
(d) new measures to reduce hazards and risks.
Figure 2: The Four 'R's framework for DEM
The Ministry ‘aims to put the right tools, knowledge and skills in the hands of those responsible for
designing and implementing solutions at the local level. It does this by working closely with local
government, utilities and the emergency services involved in civil defence emergency management’.
Three business units implement this strategy (Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management,
2015).
12
3.1.1 Analysis & Planning Unit
Responsible for research and development of DEM concepts including the coordination of scientific
advice and the ‘application of research, national planning, the development of guidance and doctrine
and international engagement’. The Unit also manages relationships with other Departments and
agencies at the national level.
3.1.2 Development Unit
Responsible for engagement and liaison with CDEM Groups and local authorities on their statutory
responsibility for delivering all aspects of DEM to their communities. Also responsible for assisting CDEM
Groups to implement national guidance and plans in the region, monitor and report Group performance
and development including implementing the evaluation process, assisting CDEM Groups to enhance
capability development and managing the resilience fund process.
3.1.3 Capability & Operations Unit
This unit has two main functions: CDEM capability development and National CDEM operational
readiness and systems. CDEM Capability responsibilities include the analysis, development and
implementation of measures to support the availability of the requisite range of high quality educational
opportunities for CDEM stakeholders. National CDEM operational readiness responsibilities include the
management of the National Crisis Management Centre (NCMC) and its systems, processes and staffing,
hosting of the CDEM Emergency Management Information System (EMIS), management of the National
Warning System and the National Exercise Programme. The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act
(2002)
3.2
Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEM Act) 2002
The key legislation for disaster and emergency management in Aotearoa New Zealand is the Civil
Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEM Act) 2002 (New Zealand Government, 2002) which came
into effect on December 1st, 2002. (Minor amendments were made in 2012). The purpose of the Act is
to:






improve and promote the sustainable management of hazards in a way that contributes to the
social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being and safety of the public and the
protection of property
encourage and enable communities to achieve acceptable levels of risk by identifying risks and
applying risk reduction management practices
provide for planning and preparation for emergencies and for response and recovery in the
event of an emergency
require local authorities to coordinate Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) through
regional groups across the “4Rs” (reduction, readiness, response and recovery) and encourage
cooperation and joint action between those groups
integrate local and national CDEM planning and activity through the alignment of local planning
with a national plan and strategy
encourage the coordination of emergency management across the range of agencies and
organisations with responsibilities for preventing or managing emergencies.
13
Three key terms in the legislation are hazard, emergency and risk. A hazard means
something that may cause, or contribute substantially to the cause of, an
emergency. An emergency means a situation that:
(a) is the result of any happening, whether natural or otherwise, including, without
limitation, any explosion, earthquake, eruption, tsunami, land movement, flood,
storm, tornado, cyclone, serious fire, leakage or spillage of any dangerous gas or
substance, technological failure, infestation, plague, epidemic, failure of or
disruption to an emergency service or a lifeline utility, or actual or imminent attack
or warlike act; and
(b) causes or may cause loss of life or injury or illness or distress or in any way
endangers the safety of the public or property in New Zealand or any part of New
Zealand; and
(c) cannot be dealt with by emergency services, or otherwise requires a significant
and co-ordinated response under this Act.
Risk means the likelihood and consequences of a hazard.
The CDEM Act makes no mention of Māori, marae, hapū or iwi. While the Act is the overarching element
in the CDEM Framework, other elements are:






CDEM Regulations made under the Act;
National CDEM Strategy;
National CDEM Plan 2006, and its Guide;
CDEM Group Plans;
Director's Guidelines on various aspects of CDEM;
Other legislation relevant to CDEM.
Each will be discussed briefly below, with details drawn mainly from the Ministry webpages. Links to
selected webpages, plans and other legislation are embedded in the text.
3.2.1 Civil Defence Emergency Management Regulations 2003
The Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Regulations (2003) came into force on 1 June 2003.
They cover the form and use of the civil defence logo; the form for search warrants; the forms for
declaring, extending, and terminating a state of national or local emergency. Māori, marae, hapū or iwi
are not mentioned in the Act.
3.2.2 National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy
The overall direction of disaster and emergency management is set out in the National Civil Defence
Emergency Management Strategy (2008c) which notes (p.7):
…the role of Māori as an important community stakeholder. The Māori worldview
incorporates a special relationship with the environment, expressed intergenerationally through kaitiakitanga. The environment forms the base from which
cultural, spiritual, emotional, and physical sustenance flows. Because of this
perspective, Māori have a particular interest in the management of hazards and
associated risks, including risks that may be posed to wāhi tapu sites and other sites of
significance. It is important that whānau, hapū, iwi and the wider Māori community
are involved in CDEM planning. In addition, Māori communities often have important
14
resources for response and recovery, such as marae for use as emergency shelters, and
Māori welfare and support services.
This is, however, the only direct mention of Māori in the Strategy.
3.2.3 National CDEM Plan
The National CDEM Plan (New Zealand Government, 2005) sets out the hazards and risks to be managed
at the national level, and the civil defence emergency management necessary to manage those hazards
and risks. It also sets out the roles and responsibilities of central government, Civil Defence Emergency
Management Groups and other agencies such as lifeline utilities, emergency services and nongovernment organisations. The plan was developed by the Ministry and key stakeholders including
representatives from CDEM Groups, local authorities, emergency services, government agencies, and
lifeline utilities, and was made under sections 39(1) and 45(b) of the Civil Defence Emergency
Management Act 2002.
The purpose of the Plan is to state and provide for the hazards and risks to be managed at the national
level and the CDEM arrangements necessary to meet those hazards and risks. The Plan also provides
support to the management of local emergencies. The Plan gives effect to the principle of supporting
the management of and recovery from emergencies in the community and provides the framework for
that support from the national level, to the regional level and again to the local level. Māori are
mentioned in S 49 (3d) in relation to psychosocial support with ‘iwi and Māori providers’ as support
agencies.
3.3
Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups
Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups (CDEM Groups) are a core component of the CDEM Act.
A CDEM Group is a ‘consortium’ of local authorities in a particular region that work in partnership with
emergency services in undertaking CDEM functions within their region (see Figure 3). Their functions
include to:







identify and understand local hazards and risks and implement cost effective risk reduction
measures;
provide, or arrange to provide, suitably trained people and an appropriate organisational
structure, to conduct effective CDEM;
provide, or arrange to provide, other resources necessary for effective CDEM;
undertake response and recovery activities;
if possible, assist other groups implement CDEM when assistance is requested;
promote awareness of the Act and related legislation, and monitor and report on compliance;
prepare and implement a CDEM Group plan.
15
Figure 3: National Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups (CDEM Groups)
Source: MCDEM (2015)
CDEM Groups are established as joint standing committees (of local authority mayors and chairpersons
or their delegates) under the Local Government Act 2002. The CDEM Act 2002 gives direction on voting
rights and funding liabilities but remains flexible in other administrative aspects to reflect varying CDEM
Group circumstances. It is important to note that under this approach:




member local authorities have equal status;
individual local authority autonomy remains with mayors retaining the right to declare an
emergency within their territorial boundary; each Mayor and Regional Chairperson agreeing to
plans under which the CDEM Group operates; and each local authority is responsible for
planning and provision of CDEM within its district;
if a local authority is split by the boundary between two regional councils, the local authority
can choose which CDEM Group it wishes to belong to;
formal linkages are required to be made with emergency service providers.
16
CDEM Group Plans use the four R’s as policy instruments to define different phases of disaster
management, which could help categorising various types of activities for each phase. This may also lead
to other policy areas such as planning and corresponding instruments such as EIA.
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu have been legislated as a key stakeholder in the Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Act (2011).
3.4
Director's Guidelines on various aspects of CDEM
The Director has the authority under the CDEM Act to issue technical standards and guidelines the
purpose of which is to assist organisations with responsibilities under the Act to properly exercise those
responsibilities. Guidelines and standards have been issued by the Director on a range of CDEM–related
issues. They are grouped in different series as follows:





Director’s Guidelines (DGLs)
Best Practice Guides (BPGs)
Technical Standards (TS)
Information Series (IS)
Supporting Plans (SPs)
Again there is little explicit mention of Māori in these guidelines although there are several instances
such as in Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management DGL 1/02 (2002, p. 13) which notes,
“[t]he CEG may choose to co-opt other persons from time to time. Representatives from rural fire
authorities, lifeline utilities, private health providers, disability groups, volunteer groups, Māori and
Pacific peoples’ communities or other ethnic and cultural groups may provide specialist advice or assist
in integrating the activities of many contributors to CDEM outcomes. Such diverse representation may
be managed through co-opted status on the CEG (e.g., rural fire) or through temporary working groups
or subcommittees.”
Another instance where Māori are explicitly mentioned is in DGL 07/08 (Mass Evacuation Planning)
which notes Māori as being one of several ‘vulnerable groups’ to consider (Ministry for Civil Defence and
Environmental Management, 2008a, p. 25). This document also remarks upon Māori cultural practices
for engagement:
Māori prefer a kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) approach and when engaged in
this manner are most likely to collaborate with Local Authorities and CDEM Groups
in developing culturally appropriate plans that will support the overall evacuation
plan. Māori communities are also an excellent source of volunteers to work within
their communities during emergency situations. (ibid, p.25)
This practice is, of course, just the beginning and is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
successful collaboration with Māori.
3.5
Other legislation relevant to CDEM
Legislation relating to CDEM is not just limited to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002
but includes various Acts that, for example, regulate activities of particular CDEM participants, assist in
land use planning, hazard identification and management, and emergency responses. They include (but
are not limited to) the:
 Biosecurity Act 1993
17
 Building Act 2004. The key sections of this Act are:
Section 35
Section 37
Section 71
Section 72
Section 73
Content of project information memoranda
Additional certificates that must be attached to project information memoranda
Building on land subject to hazards. Includes a definition of natural hazard
Building consents for building on land subject to natural hazards must be granted in
certain cases
Conditions on building consents granted under section 72
 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011
In this legislation, S17(2) states that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu must have the opportunity to provide
an input into the development of the Recovery Plan for the CBD, along with the Canterbury
Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and Environment Canterbury.









Defence Act 1990
Earthquake Commission Act 1993
Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006
Fire Service Act 1975
Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996
Health Act 1956
Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
Local Government Act 2002. Key sections of the Act are:
Section 4
Section 10
In order to recognise and respect the Crown's responsibility to take appropriate account of the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Māori to
contribute to local government decision-making processes, Parts 2 and 6 provide principles and
requirements for local authorities that are intended to facilitate participation by Māori in local
authority decision-making processes.
(1) The purpose of local government is—
(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities;
and
(b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local
infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is
most cost-effective for households and businesses.
In performing its role, a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that the
following core services make to its communities:
(a) network infrastructure:
Section 11A
(b) public transport services:
(c) solid waste collection and disposal:
(d) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:
(e) libraries, museums, reserves, recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure.
Gives local authorities the power to make bylaws, including for the purpose of
Section 145
protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety.
Section 163
Specifies powers in relation to the removal of works in breach of bylaws.
Provide for Long Term Plans that describe the activities of local authorities. This can include
Sections 93-97
descriptions of local authority activities as well as the management of natural hazards.
18
Explicit engagement with Maori are noted in Section 81 of the Local Government Act:
Section 81
Contributions to decision-making processes by Māori
(1) A local authority must:
(a) establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to
contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and
(b) consider ways in which it may foster the development of Māori capacity to
contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and
(c) provide relevant information to Māori for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b).
 Maritime Transport Act 1994
 Public Works Act 1981
 Resource Management Act 1991

The RMA (1991) contains explicit acknowledgment of Maori as a matter of national importance.
Considerable literature now exists on the theory and applications of this legislation (Love, 2003; Ministry
for the Environment, 2003; Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 1998; Selby, 2010;
Thompson-Fawcett & Sims, 2002; Tutua-Nathan, 2003).
Section 6(e)
3.6
…the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,
water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga.
Summary
Explicit DEM legislation and regulations rarely note Māori as distinct component of wider New Zealand
society or a distinct community with specific needs or aspirations. However, the extensive related Acts,
notably the Local Government Act (2002) and the Resource Management Act (1991) do have explicit
roles for Māori (notably as ‘iwi’ via such instruments as Iwi Management Plans). Monitoring and
evaluation are critical policy instruments to review performance as well as initiate any necessary
adjustments and reforms. It is hoped that the small but important academic literature on Māori
responses to the Canterbury earthquakes will provide some impetus to better incorporating Māori as
important participants, indeed as a Treaty partner, in subsequent policy and legislation review (See
Families Commission, 2012; Kenney & Phibbs, 2014a; Kenney & Phibbs, 2014c; Lambert, 2014c, 2014e;
Paton, Johnston, Mamula-Seadon, & Kenney, 2014; Potangaroa, Wilkinson, Zare, & Steinfort, 2011).
19
Figure 4: Key organisations and their relationships in disasters and emergencies
The wider legislative catchment (see
Figure 5) sees opportunities for Māori – perhaps primarily as iwi authorities but also in sectoral blocs
such as in agribusiness, tourism, fishing and forestry, to influence policy dealing with environmental
hazards, responding to climate change and sea-level rise, social housing, urbanisation and rural decline,
regional development and so on.
20
Figure 5: Relationships between key legislation for the land use management of natural hazards
(Source: Quality Planning, 2014)
Table 3: Roles and Responsibilities
Source: Quality Planning Website
Ministry of Civil Defence and
Emergency Management
(MCDEM)
To support the functions of the Director of CDEM in overseeing that
arrangements are in place nationally to manage hazards across the 4Rs in
the event of a civil defence emergency. This involves promoting for,
advising on and monitoring the integration and coordination of policies,
planning, procedures and resources across agencies at both the national
and local levels (CDEM Act 2002).
Regional councils
Control the use of land for the purpose of the avoidance or mitigation of
natural hazards (s30 RMA 1991). Section 62(1)(i) of the RMA requires a
21
regional policy statement to specify objectives, policies and methods
relating to the avoidance and mitigation of natural hazards. In
accordance with s62(2) of the RMA, if a regional council does not set out
responsibilities for functions relating to natural hazards, then the regional
council retains the primary responsibility.
Territorial authorities
Control the effects of the use of land for the avoidance or mitigation of
natural hazards (s31 RMA 1991). Territorial authorities are also given
the authority to control subdivision under s31(2) and have discretion under
106 to refuse a subdivision consent where the land is subject to hazards, or
the subsequent use of the land will exacerbate the hazard.
Emergency management
officers
Carry out specific initiatives and ensure that procedures are in place at the
local level for hazard and emergency management (CDEM Act 2002).
Civil Defence and Emergency
Management Groups
Based on regional boundaries, they comprise representatives from local
councils, emergency services, health boards and other organisations that
are involved with emergency management (see figure below) (s12-24
CDEM Act 2002).
A voluntary group of organisations with representatives from territorial
authorities and major utility and transportation sector organisations. These
voluntary organisations support their members in meeting their obligations
with respect to networks providing the basic necessities of life and services
essential to limiting the extent of an emergency. Engineering lifeline groups
are co-ordinated at the national level by the National Lifeline Engineering
Committee.
Engineering Lifelines Groups
Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Authority
The agency leading and coordinating the ongoing recovery effort following
the devastating earthquakes of September 2010 and February 2011.
The nature of disasters and emergencies means they are not bound by tidy administrative boundaries
and will require extensive collaboration between government agencies, non-governmental agencies, the
private sector, and communities. If the event is sufficiently large it may also require an international
presence (such as Urban Search and Rescue, a network with United Nations oversight). Table 1 lists the
main organisations and their roles in DEM in Aotearoa New Zealand.
In the array of organisations shown in the preceding Tables and Figures, Māori have multiple access
points as individuals and collectives. The following section examines the key legislation and its
associated administrative and operational supports for DEM and actual and potential sites for Māori
participation and influence.
22
4
Disaster and Emergency Management: recent experiences of Māori
To reiterate, hazards are a natural part of any environment with planetary scale issues increasingly
featuring in DRR strategies. Disasters arise out of particular social circumstances such as the location,
design or maintenance of housing and infrastructure, poverty, and so on (Cutter, 2010; Wisner, Blaikie,
Cannon, & Davis, 2004). Maori knowledge (mātauranga Maori) and institutions have been noted in
previous studies of disasters environmental hazards (King, Skipper, & Tawhai, 2008; King, Goff, &
Skipper, 2007).
Urban spaces have been identified as posing particular challenges in DEM not least because of their
sprawling growth, often coastal or riverine environmental hazards, and growing population which often
underserved communities with particular DEM needs and aspirations (Albala-Bertrand, 2003; Guillaume,
Li, Hutchinson, Proust, & Dovers, 2010; Kreimer, Arnold, & Carlin, 2003; Pelling & Wisner, 2009; Wisner,
2003). Māori are now primarily city dwellers with 85% living in urban areas (including many of those
that have emigrated to Australia and now live in one of that countries coastal cities). This makes the
recent experiences of residents in Otautahi/Christchurch who were impacted by a series of earthquakes
in 2010-11 as providing unique insights in how, among other things, local and national DEM dealt with
the disaster.
4.1
Māori participation in DEM through the Canterbury earthquakes
Christchurch is unique in that it is the scene of Aotearoa’s largest disaster since the 1931 Napier
earthquake. The seismic details of the events are well-known (Tasiopoulou, Smyrou, Bal, Gazetas, &
Vintzileou, 2011). The first event occurred at 4:35am on 4th September 2010, leading to the Christchurch
City Council (CCC), Waimakariri District Council and Selwyn District Council each declaring a local state of
emergency for their respective areas. Each established their own Emergency Operations Centre (EOC)
that was run by a Local Controller. The Canterbury Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group set
up an EOC in the Environment Canterbury premises in Christchurch. The Local Controllers were in
charge of their district’s response to the earthquake, including building evaluations. All three local states
of emergency ended at midday on 16 September 2010.
The most destructive event occurred at 12:51 pm on February 22nd, 2011. The CCC declared a local state
of emergency at 2.45pm. The designated primary emergency operations centre in the main council
building was inaccessible and so CCC staff established an Emergency Operations Centre in the
Christchurch Art Gallery. At 10.30am on the following day, the Minister for Civil Defence declared a
national state of emergency at which point the local state of emergency ceased to have effect and the
National Controller became responsible for the overall response. This state of national emergency was
extended 10 times before ending on 30 April 2011.
In its report to the Royal Commission (Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, 2012c) the CCC refers
to uncertainty about whether to declare a local state of emergency after the Boxing Day, 2010,
aftershock. In the end, it established an Emergency Operations Centre, but did not declare a local state
of emergency. The Council considered the damage observed in the city did not meet the requirements
for declaring a state of emergency set out in the CDEM Act. The Royal Commission commented on this
decision in its report and considered that ‘a building safety evaluation operation should only be
triggered by a state of emergency. This is because the wide-ranging powers Controllers have under the
Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002 significantly reduce the rights of property owners.’
(ibid., p. 18). In other words, ‘removing the rights of property owners outside of a state of emergency is
not appropriate.’ For these reasons, the Royal Commission did not believe that there is a problem with
the existing CDEM framework or its empowering legislation that needs to be specifically addressed: it is
the local authority’s decision whether or not to declare a state of emergency.
23
Anger and frustration marked many public submissions on post-disaster recovery in the city (Gilbert &
Elley, 2013; Miles, 2012; Young, 2012). Confusion between the roles and responsibilities of a number of
CCC units concerned with building recovery activities after the September earthquake was highlight in
one report that identified various units needed to work together in an integrated way (Griffiths &
McNulty, 2011). Other findings (ibid, p. were that the Building Recovery Office and the Building
Transition Evaluation Team ‘did not work together in a coordinated way, resulting in some information
sharing problems, owners being told incorrect information about their buildings, and a number of
inaccurate or contradictory messages being released to the media and wider public.’
The government established the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) in April 2011 ‘to
lead and coordinate the recovery.’ Key factors in the decision were that ‘existing legislative framework
and institutional arrangements would not be adequate to meet the needs of the recovery’ because of
the scale of rebuilding required; the need for a multi-pronged recovery effort and clear governance,
leadership, and coordination across central and local government, iwi, NGOs, businesses and the
community; the need for timely and effective decision-making, and potentially for direction across
multiple agencies and providers; the need for coordinated engagement and more effective information
management in order to build and maintain confidence in the recovery process (Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Authority, 2012).
A major complicating factor was the ongoing and regularly significant aftershocks after the February
2011 event which delayed rebuilding and wider recovery efforts and, in the words of the CERA Report,
‘further highlighted the need for strong leadership and coordination of recovery efforts.’
Previous research has described the disaster experience of Māori and other Indigenous Peoples as a
series of overlapping disasters in which our communities are simultaneously responding and recovering
to one or more disasters and are theoretically to engage in reduction and readiness strategies (Lambert
2015). Explicit approaches for Māori to engage with CDEM depend the contingencies affecting the
particular collective. While larger iwi authorities may have considerable resources, small trusts
administering isolated landblocks may be unable to participate on an equal footing with the
government, councils, private companies or other Māori trusts and incorporations.
4.1.1 Response
The response from Māori organisations, including those with a strong traditional basis, was immediate,
spontaneous, and directed towards all those impacted by the disaster (Anderson, 2012; Lambert, 2014c;
Paton et al., 2014; Thornly, Ball, Signal, Lawson-Te Aho, & Rawson, 2013). Key concerns voiced by Māori
were an initial lack of communication with DEM organisations; a lack of coordination between
emergency services, volunteers and NGOs; lack of coordination between iwi organisations; and delays in
the provision of services such as portable toilets in neighbourhoods with significant numbers of Māori
residents (Potangaroa et al., 2011).
Māori tertiary education institutions developed strategies to deliver courses to students who were
relocated out of their classrooms into a mainstream social ‘club’ (2012). The subsequent engagement of
Māori language students and non-Māori club members was enriching for all and an example of the
spontaneous neighbourliness and a reassuring expression of community spirit in troubled times.
Overall, research interprets the response period as reasonably positive, aided by such identifiably ‘Kiwi’
contingencies as communal barbeques and ‘long-drops’ (backyard toilets), a strong Māori presence in
the NZ Defence Forces was reassuring to many Māori, and a general ‘can do’ attitude to emergency
repairs and temporary accommodation.
4.1.2 Recovery
The most significant development for Māori in the recovery phase has been the formal inclusion of local
tribe, Ngāi Tahu as a stakeholder in the rebuild (along with the city and regional councils) (New Zealand
Government, 2011). This legislation was enacted only a few weeks after the February 2011 event.
24
Research by Rae (2013) compared post-disaster planning for Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan and
Ōtautahi/Christchurch. While a more participatory approach has evolved through the Taiwanese
recovery to a major earthquake in 1999 this is not as extensive or as formal as Ngāi Tahu’s formal
rebuild stakeholder role. But while Ngāi Tahu have acquired considerable experience around the
resourcing and skills needed in disaster response as well as benefitting from their extensive property
portfolio, a formal role for Ngā Maata Waka, i.e., those Māori who do not trace their lineage through
Ngāi Tahu (and who comprise a majority of Māori in the city) does not feature in planning thus far, other
than through ad hoc community and committee representation open to all.
A Ngāi Tahu initiative, “He Toki Ki Te Rika/Inspiring Māori leadership in trades” that was launched in
2011 as a partnership between Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology, Ngāi Tahu, Te Tapuae
o Rehua, and The Built Environment Training Alliance (2012). This initiative, drawing on the history of
the 1960’s Māori trade training programme that began in Christchurch, aims to develop Māori
tradespeople who are not only skilled in the required trades but also aware of the significance of ‘being
Māori ’.
Engagement in the recovery stage may hold the greatest effect for Māori communities, as they would
play a key role in the shaping of a place. Māori can inform this (and other) phases through Cultural
Impact Assessments (CIA) documenting cultural values, interests and associations within an area or
concerning a resource. CIAs ‘should be regarded as technical advice, much like any other technical
report such as ecological or hydrological assessments.’ Terms such as ‘Tangata Whenua Impact
Assessment’ or ‘Tangata Whenua Effects Assessment’ have also been used to describe this tool.
Although there is no statutory requirement for applicants or the council to prepare a CIA, an assessment
of impacts on cultural values and interests can assist both applicants and the council to meet statutory
obligations in a number of ways, including:




preparation of an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) in accordance with s88(2)(b) and
Schedule 4 of the RMA;
requests for further information under s92 of the RMA in order to assess the application
providing information to assist the council in determining notification status under ss95 to 95F;
providing information to enable appropriate consideration of the relevant Part 2 matters when
making a decision on an application for resource consent under s104 of the RMA;
consideration of appropriate conditions of resource consent under s108 of the RMA.
CIAs may also be relevant to proposals of national significance that are lodged with the Environmental
Protection Authority (EPA). Major infrastructure or public works projects of national significance are
highly likely to require assessments of cultural effects.
Cultural values reports (CVR) are variations of CIAs. These can be used in assessing or providing
background information when preparing plans. CVRs can identify and describe values pertaining to an
area or resource and differ from CIAs in that they may not include a description of effects as they do not
relate to a specific activity. However, they may address broad level impacts of development occurring or
anticipated in that area. Cultural values reports can provide direction as to the relevant issues and how
these should best be addressed.
4.1.3 Reduction and Readiness
While the ‘first’ two phases of DEM have received the most media attention and public comment, it is in
the areas of reduction and readiness where communities and society can best effect risk reduction to
future disasters. Several of these have been noted under ‘recovery’, namely community consultation,
policy and legislative overview, reviews and appeals processes. The consenting process, for example,
requires an EIA which can be simplistic and limited in detail but nevertheless offers the opportunity for
Māori to document issues and build the case for policy change. While government, council and industry
25
EIA’s are often detailed, the integration of local knowledge including seeking mātauranga Māori/Māori
knowledge.
Research in partnership with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu by Kenney, Johnstone, Paton, Reid, and Phibbs
(2012) is ‘identifying, and documenting the ways cultural factors facilitate recovery and sustain
resilience in Māori communities impacted by earthquakes’. Initial analysis suggests that cultural,
relational and moral technologies interact to create a framework that supports recovery and sustains
resilience in Māori communities. The research is intended to facilitate ‘a review of tribal social/
emergency services and practices, and supporting programme development aimed at building Māori
capacity in disaster preparedness, as well as promoting community recovery and resilience’ and,
presumably, reduction and readiness.
In the readiness phase, Māori collectives would benefit from any efforts to strengthen social capital and
networking at the community level. The formal and informal inclusion of marae in Civil Defence
exercises and could help to not just educate and plan for a disaster but also uphold and further develop
Māori traditions and identity. Obviously, it would be useful to have CDEM staff trained at a Marae level,
because such staff would be most effective when they are familiar with the local people and existing
capacities.
4.2
International Indigenous Experiences
Similar contributions by Indigenous groups have been observed in other countries. Wadsworth, SerraoNeumann and Low-Choy (2013) describe the role of Indigenous Rangers in the response to Cyclone Yasi
which struck North Queensland on February 3rd. 2011). The effectiveness of this network was reliant on
strong relationships within and between Indigenous communities in North Queensland and the Ranger
Programs that trained staff in delivering critical skills and resources as a part of the response for local
communities facing natural hazards and disaster.
The importance of cultural factors in post-disaster recovery has been examined internationally. The
relocation of Taiwanese Indigenous communities after Typhoon Marakot (August 2009) from
mountainous Wutai to lower elevations was overseen by the Morakot Post-Disaster Reconstruction
Council. Initial post-disaster operations were framed in terms of physical needs; issues such as housing
were attended to at the expense of intangible factors such as the cultural impact of relocation. When
Indigenous populations are displaced they face changes to their community structures as well as the
intensification of challenges to their cultural resilience. Yi-Wen Chen Yung-sen Chen (Dept. of
Geography, National Kaohsiung Normal University) presented on the attitudes of the Indigenous
residents of Kucapungane to the same disaster, noting that recognition and alertness to the hazards
differed with age and that recognition of hazards declines over time. Affected residents chose to move
and adapt to a new life in Rinari and these decisions were not merely influenced by the typhoon
disaster.
The role of Indigenous Knowledge (IK) in DRR is gaining traction in many areas. The potential of
Indigenous fire knowledge in Australian and US wildfire management has been noted (Eriksen and
Hankins (2013). Shaw, Sharma and Takeuchi (2009) presents a range of case studies across the AsiaPacific region (Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, China,
Vietnam and Japan) on how IK contributes to better scientific understanding of hazards and disasters.
4.3
Current and Future Research in Aotearoa New Zealand
Various research institutions and government departments conduct research on DEM, and in each are
opportunities for Māori to participate although capacity remains a major constraint. The Natural
Hazards Research Platform was established in 2009 to provide a stable research investment
26
environment in this area. The platform is led by Geological and Nuclear Science (GNS) and includes the
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) as a co-anchor organisation supported by
the Universities of Canterbury, Massey, and Auckland and Opus Research. Subcontracts enable wider
collaboration. The annual budget is approximately $17 million with around 150 participating scientists
working on five themes:





Geological hazard models;
Predicting weather, flood, and coastal hazards;
Developing regional and national risk evaluation models;
Societal resilience: social, cultural, economic and planning factors
Resilient buildings and infrastructure.
RiskScape is a software programme, begun with government funding in 2004, that comprises ‘a modular
framework to estimate impacts and losses for assets exposed to natural hazards’ (RiskScape, 2015). The
programme is the result of a collaboration between GNS and NIWA and other Hazard Platform partners
and such as GeoScience Australia, and regional and district councils. Development and enhancement is
still ongoing and it is aimed at risk analysis of natural hazards in NZ.
A significant new strategy in Aotearoa New Zealand’s science funding has seen eleven National Science
Challenges (NSC) organised around key themes, one of which (NSC6) is ‘Resilience to Nature’s
Challenges/ Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa’ that has requested $21.85m (GNS 2015). The
outcome of this NSC is intended to be that ‘New Zealand is a nation of people who have transformed
their lives, enterprises and communities to anticipate, adapt and thrive in the face of escalating nature’s
challenges.’
Figure 6: NSC 6 Resilience to Nature's Challenges structure
Source: (Geological and Nuclear Sciences, 2015)
27
As Figure 6 shows, ‘Māori’ are to be a key feature of the Challenge. One of the mooted projects is the
‘Vision Mātauranga Co-Creation Laboratory’ which ‘will expand to include contemporary Māori roles in
resilience in New Zealand, addressing not only rural Māori communities, but culture, self-organisation
and resilience of urban Māori communities and non-iwi affiliated Māori. Further expansion is expected
to fit with the increasing land, investment and business portfolio run by iwi organisations’ (Geological
and Nuclear Sciences, 2015, p. 47).
The Natural Hazards Research Platform research is to be integrated into the Resilience to Nature’s
Challenges work programme, becoming part of the National Science Challenge: ‘This may involve
developing and extending some of the research programme elements within the Challenge and/or
creating new programmes’ (Geological and Nuclear Sciences, 2015, p. 13).
Research is a ‘given’ in any culture, being part of any collective strategy that is still reliant on tactical
abilities as held by individuals and communities. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Indigenous People sit
both within and alongside Western philosophy, utilising Western tools and techniques (meaning an
appreciation of Pākehā history and philosophy is vital), while maintaining their own unique approaches
and philosophies. The contests around Vision Mātauranga funding show that by accepting and using
mātauranga and Kaupapa Māori, Pākehā exhibit an essential modern skill: the ability and pragmatism
to assimilate ‘all forms or aspects of social activity without exception’, to understand and apply, not only
of one particular methodology but any methodology or variation (Feyerbend, 1975, p. 10). Likewise
Māori and other Indigenous Peoples must be able to pass from one approach to another ‘in the quickest
and most unexpected manner’ (ibid.).
Good research is supported from above and below, is networked both here and overseas, and will be
disseminated to all those who need to know. At all levels this requires understanding, vision,
commitment, courage, cooperation, and perseverance. Research in Aotearoa will draw on iwi capital
(economic, environmental, social, and cultural) through education, training and mentoring programmes,
and be reliant on the sophistication of their public and private, local and global relationships. In this
sense, it might be said some research (environmental science, sustainability, biodiversity, etc.) is taking
an Indigenous turn.
4.4
Observations: Control F Māori
One of the methods used for this report has been to search for ‘Māori’ as a keyword in the legislation,
reports, associated documents and statements including those that have proliferated in the aftermath
of the Canterbury earthquakes. What is remarkable is the rarity of a Māori presence, even as a named
interest group or stakeholder. And where Māori are named it is where they absolutely as that of ‘iwi and
Māori providers’ as psychosocial support options in S 49 (3d) of the National CDEM Plan. There is the
occasional cliché presence as in DGL 07/08 on Mass Evacuation Planning and its mention of the Māori
cultural logic of face-to-face contact being more likely to lead to collaboration, hardly a radical concept
regardless of the ethnic group being considered.
According to the MCDEM, processes around revising the CDEM Plan involved ‘engagement with over 60
agencies, including Te Puni Kokiri (TPK). Throughout this process, we rely on our partner agencies in turn
to engage with their stakeholders, sector and interest groups via their existing networks. As such, while
we did not specifically request [Te Puni Kokiri/Ministry of Māori Development] to distribute the
consultation document, we have confidence that they may have done so on their own accord
throughout the public consultation period’ (MCDEM communication, March 9th 2015).
With regards to research, as noted in the section above, various research programmes either existing or
are being established in which Maori can participate. However, research remains difficult for Maori due
to a lack of capacity, institutionalised racism, naivety and ignorance on the part of mainstream
researchers and organisations. Concerns over the minimal involvement of Māori in research led to the
28
introduction of a ‘Māori responsiveness’ strategy to guide state funding several years ago (Lambert,
2008). However, as the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST3) readily acknowledged
(Simpson & Meha, 2004), there is no single definition of ‘Māori research’. The terms ‘Māori
development’, ‘Māori advancement’, ‘Māori specific investment’ and ‘Māori responsiveness’ capture
attempts at Māori participation in research strategies. These strategies crystallised into a Vision
Mātauranga (VM) component inserted into all government calls for proposals:
Te Pūnaha Hihiko: Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund aims to strengthen
connections between Māori and the science and innovation system. Through the
fund, MBIE is looking to foster a greater understanding of how research, science and
technology related activities can contribute to the aspirations of Māori organisations
and deliver benefit for New Zealand.
(Ministry of Business, 2014, p. 1)
Despite the establishment of VM, engagement with Maori remains fraught, for Maori and non-Maori.
National Science Challenges processes have brought these tension out. For example few Maori
researchers were formally participating in the initial discussions for the third NSC6 bid; this followed a
similar practice on an earlier, rejected, bid that held just one formal hui involving five Maori researchers
(two of whom were managers of participating research institutes; see GNS 2013, p. 50). At one of the
few hui for the third bid it was announced that ‘iwi weren’t interested’ and only those iwi or iwi/hapū
organisations already engaging with participating researchers were included in the initial funded work.
Other NSCs are equally difficult for Maori to participate in, echoing confused funding strategies in the
Maori research space, particularly around Centre of Research Excellence (CoRE) bidding; see Pihama
(2014) and Smith (2014). Thus while the strategic inclusion of Maori researchers and communities is
now pervasive through ‘VM’ requirements, the culturally safe tactical engagement of Maori is rare.
4.5
Summary
Maori have multiple access points in influencing legislation and policy on DEM. Key legislative
instruments such as the Resource Management Act (1991) and the Local Government Act (2002) have
explicit wording around the engagement of Maori interests and the possibilities of formal participation
in processes under the Acts. While the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (2002) lacks the
explicit inclusion of Maori, its various policy instruments embed local organisations with which Maori
organisations such as iwi authorities can seek formal or informal relationships.
3
Renamed the Ministry of Science and Innovation and again restructured into a ‘Super Ministry’ Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment, MBIE.
29
Table 4: Aotearoa NZ Policy activities and actors (after Handmer and Davis 2009)
Level
1 Social goals
What?
Who?
How?
 Negotiation of what is valued.
 Political system, executive, electorate,
policy and communities, media.
Maori participation
 Treaty of Waitangi; korero/debate on cultural
identity and practices.
 Multiparty democracy with Maori political
movements, representatives elected by mixed
member proportional voting system; option of
Maori electorate (with Maori allowed to vote
and stand in general electorates).
 Iwi/hapū authorities; Incorporations and Trusts;
Maori media.
 Western/British parliamentary system; Tikanga;
bicultural approaches.
 Advocacy, lobbying, networking.
 Kaupapa Maori research.
2 Institutional
systems and
policy processes
 ‘rules of the game’.
3 Policy
objectives
 More precise goals and targets
expressed in formal policy statements.
 Largely the role of governments in
various kinds of partnerships with
non-governmental interests.
 Maori assert explicit policy statements on their
DEM needs and concerns.
 Design and implementation of policy
programmes and instruments;
monitoring and evaluation.
 Government organisations/agencies
and industry and community partners
including international organisations
and commerce.
 Through various strategies involving
resources, statuary authority,
information dissemination etc.
 Evaluation and monitoring of Maori-centric KPIs.
4a Policy
implementation
in the public
sector
 Political system, governments, intergovernmental organisations, policy
and epistemic communities.
4b Policy
implementation
in the private
sector
 Provide infrastructure, services,
insurance etc. within regulatory and
market settings relevant to
response/recovery/reduction/readine
ss.
 Private firms, consultants, sole
operators.
 Individuals, households and formal or
informal collectives.
5 Emergency
management
 Preparedness for and response to
events.
 Emergency management sector, key
partners and related sectors (e.g.,
health, security).
 Professionalised, highly responsive
and rapidly changing face of events,
policy shifts, community preferences,
media etc.
 Ongoing political pressure and presence.
 Continued presence in multilateral organisations
and regional programmes.
 Cultural diplomacy.
 Ongoing political pressure at all levels; assertion
of statuary rights to participate (e.g. Iwi
Management Plans); advisory committees.
 Formal stakeholder roles for tribal organisations
post-disaster.
 Maori businesses employ risk management
plans.
 Maori consumers more informed of risk
implications.
 Individuals and whanau/families increase their
aware of disaster and emergency practices.
 Maori institutions informed and prepared for
disasters and emergencies.
 Maori liaison positions in emergency services;
training and education programmes for kura
(schools), marae, Maori providers etc.
 Research examining Maori risk reduction needs
and aspirations.
 Media campaigns to highlight risks and risk
reduction strategies; promotion of Maori roles
and support.
30
5.
Conclusions
Considerable political efforts have constructed an array of organisations geared towards managing
disasters and reducing the risks from future disasters at national, regional and international scales.
Through the high-level political and scientific debates around disasters and hazards, paradigm shifts
have occurred in how disasters are framed with risks perceived as endogenous (emanating from social
contexts) with risk embedded in development processes and requiring contextualised land-use planning,
risk proof investments and eco-system management. Socio-economic impact assessments are now seen
as fundamental to better disaster management and there is an acknowledgement that wider and
deeper stakeholder involvement, especially private sector and local-level actors.
Indigenous Peoples are increasingly asserting their rights as local-level actors. Through their demands
for self-determination, they assert their insights, practices and philosophies into, among other things,
disaster risk reduction strategies. We know that Indigenous communities are knowledge holders for
important insights into environmental hazards; they also have unique interpretations and approaches
for the social contexts of resilience and disaster recovery. Assimilating these perspectives is difficult and
fraught for Indigenous advocates. While considerable progress has been made, the sheer political
complexity coupled with implicit and explicit opposition means policies and legislation cognisant of, and
supportive towards, Indigenous cultures remains incomplete. For Indigenous Peoples, the collective
ownership and decision-making models that exist will be a fundamental approach that, while challenged
by the multilateral structures, can still provide benefits to, and from, the hierarchy of countries and
organisations.
In a disaster or an emergency, Indigenous communities, like other impacted communities, act as first
responders and make rapid and critical assessments. Some of these responses are generic, others will be
dependent on local knowledge some of which may be specifically sourced and used as Indigenous
knowledge, framed by their unique Indigenous cultural logics. In the Canterbury earthquakes the
intimate community linkages and culturally-nuanced networks of trust enabled Māori to support their
own members and automatically and spontaneously extend this to Pākehā and Tauiwi. Collaboration
with Indigenous groups in disaster and post-disaster management is increasingly acknowledged and
supported, albeit with difficulties and miscommunications.
The recovery phase of the Canterbury earthquakes has proven longer, more tiring and more contentious
than many predicted, with many individual Maori and their families worse affected than other groups.
However, the local tribe, represented by Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tahu, is a formal stakeholder in the
Canterbury rebuild – as is their right as their Treaty right - and is currently profiting through residential
and infrastructure developments. Explicit legislative and regulatory approaches exist for Maori to
influence law and policy and while all Maori can theoretically participate, those tribes in a post-Treaty
settlement phase of development are better resourced to influence these processes. The role for Ngā
Maata Waka (i.e., non-local Maori) remains diffuse and given the demographic realities of this sector of
Maoridom being large, considerable risks remain for Maori communities in urban settings. Isolated rural
communities also remain at risk through increasingly complex hazards exacerbated through climate
change, sea-level rise, and the lack of modern infrastructure to support communities in a pre- or postdisaster situation.
Few Indigenous Peoples are in the position of Ngāi Tahu, post-disaster, in furthering their own
development (albeit with ongoing and not insignificant constraints). As Indigenous groups and their
businesses become larger, more confident, and a part of the politico-economic landscape of their wider
societies, further recovery roles can be expected to flourish in the unfortunate (but recurring) disaster
events. Long term disaster risk reduction strategies that benefit Indigenous communities will require
great collaboration, extensive research with Indigenous partners, and focused political programmes.
31
6.
References
Albala-Bertrand, J. M. (2003). Urban disasters and globalization. In A. Kreimer, M. Arnold & A. Carlin
(Eds.), Building safer cities: the future of disaster risk (pp. 75-82). Washington: World Bank.
Anderson, K. (2012). Researching the Otautahi Earthquake. Auckland: Nga Pae o te Maramatanga.
Bargh, M. (2013). Multiple sites of Māori political participation. Australian Journal of Political Science,
48(4), 445-455. doi:10.1080/10361146.2013.841123
Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society, 35(3), 329-345.
Belich, J. (1986). The New Zealand Wars. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Belich, J. (1996). Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders: from Polynesian Settlement to the
end of the Nineteenth Century (Vol. 1). Auckland: Penguin Press.
Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington:
Georgetown University Press.
Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of Disaster: Policy change after catastropic events. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Campbell, J. R. (1997, July 13th). Examining Pacific Island vulnerability to natural hazardsUniversity of the
South Pacific. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the 8th Pacific Science Inter-Congress
Conference Proceedings, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. (2012). Regulatory Impact Statement: Recovery strategy for
Greater Christchurch. Christchurch: CERA. Retrieved from
http://cera.govt.nz/sites/default/files/common/recovery-strategy-regulatory-impactstatement.pdf
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. (2012a). Final Report: Canterbury Television Building (CTV);
Volume 6. Christchurch: Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. Retrieved from
http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/Final-Report-Volume-Six-Contents
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. (2012c). Final Report: Roles and responsibilities.
Christchurch: Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission,. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/lambers2/Downloads/Vol_7.pdf
Charters, C. (2007). Maori and the United Nations. In M. Bargh (Ed.), Resistance: An Indigenous Response
to Neoliberalism (pp. 147-165). Wellington: Huia Publishers.
Cutter, S. (2010). Social science persepctives on hazards and vulnerablity science. In T. Beer (Ed.),
Geophysical Hazards (pp. 17-30). Dorecht: Springer.
Dunbar-Ortiz, R. (2014). An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States. Boston: Beacon Press.
Editorial. (2015, April 1st ). 'Challenging' NH90 helicopters sorry look for Govt. NZ Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11426072
Eriksen, C., & Hankins, D. (2013, Aug 4-9, 2013). The impact of agency fire fighting on the retention and
revival of Indigenous fire knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the International
Geographical Union Region Conference, Kyoto.
Families Commission, &. (2012). Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu earthquake response Wellington: Families
Commission.
Feyerbend, P. (1975). Against Method. London and New York: Verso.
Geological and Nuclear Sciences. (2015). Resilience to Nature's Challenges. Research Proposal. GNS.
Lower Hutt.
Gilbert, J., & Elley, B. (2013). Living on the Fringes: A report on the issues and perceptions of residents
near the Red Zones. Christchurch: Te Runanga o Nga Mata Waka. Retrieved from
http://maatawaka.org.nz/s/Report-Living-on-the-Fringes-Final-Version-250613-490a.pdf
Griffiths, E., & McNulty, D. (2011). Draft report prepared for the Christchurch City Council Inspection and
Enforcement Unit. . Christchurch: Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission.
Guillaume, J., Li, G. M., Hutchinson, M. F., Proust, K., & Dovers, S. (2010). Integrated Assessment of
Climate Change Impacts on Urban Settlements (IACCIUS) Project: A differential vulnerability
assessment of climate change
32
impacts on Darwin. Canberra: Fenner School of Environment and Society/Australian National University.
Handmer, J., & Dovers, S. (2007). Handbook of Disaster Policies and Institutions. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hayward, J., & Wheen, N. R. (2004). The Waitangi Tribunal/Te Roopu Whakaman i te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Wellington: Bridget Williams.
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2014). Progress and Challenges in Disaster Risk Reduction:
A contribution towards the development of policy indicators
for the Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction (UNISDR). Retrieved from
http://www.unisdr.org/files/40967_40967progressandchallengesindisaste.pdf
Jasanoff, S. (2010). Beyond calculation: a democratic response to risk. In A. Lakoff (Ed.), Disaster and the
politics of intervention (pp. 14-40). New York: Colombia Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica,
47(2), 263-291.
Kenney, C., Johnston, D., Paton, D., Reid, J., & Phibbs, S. R. (2012). Addressing risk and resilience: an
analysis of Māori communities and cultural technologies in response to the Christchurch
earthquakes In IDRC (Chair), IDRC. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Internationl
Disaster and Risk Conference: Integrated Risk Management in a Changing World – Pathways to a
Resilient Society Davos.
Kenney, C., & Phibbs, S. (2014a). Shakes, Rattles and Roll Outs: The Untold Story of Māori Engagement
with Community Recovery, Social Resilience and Urban Sustainability in Christchurch, New
Zealand. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18(0), 754-762. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S22125671(14)00999-X
Kenney, C., & Phibbs, S. R. (2014c). Down but not out: vulnerability and resilience among elderly and/or
disabled Maori living in Christchurch during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. In D.
Johnston & D. Blake (Chair), GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 74. Symposium conducted at the
meeting of the Building a resilient nation: Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Natural Hazards
Management Conference, Wellington.
King, D., Skipper, A., & Tawhai, W. (2008). Māori environmental knowledge of local weather and climate
change in Aotearoa – New Zealand. Climatic Change, 90(4), 385-409. doi:10.1007/s10584-0079372-y
King, D. N. T., Goff, J., & Skipper, A. (2007). Māori environmental knowledge and natural hazards in
Aotearoa‐New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 37(2), 59-73.
doi:10.1080/03014220709510536
King, M. (2003). Penguin History of New Zealand. Auckland: Penguin Books.
Kreimer, A., Arnold, M., & Carlin, A. (Eds.). (2003). Building safer cities: the future of disaster risk.
Washington: World Bank Publications.
Kukutai, T. (2004). The problem of defining an ethnic group for public policy: who is Maori and why does
it matter? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 23, 86-.
Lambert, S. (2008). The Expansion of Sustainability through New Economic Space: Maori Potatoes and
Cultural Resilience (Doctoral thesis). Lincoln, Christchurch.
Lambert, S., &. (2014a). Indigenous Peoples and Disasters: opportunities and obligations of efficiency.
Wellington: School of Economics and Finance, Victoria University.
Lambert, S. (2014c). Indigenous Peoples and urban disaster: Māori responses to the 2010-12
Christchurch earthquakes. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 18(1), 39-48.
doi:http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2014-1/AJDTS_18-1_Lambert.pdf
Lambert, S. (2014e). Maori and the Christchurch earthquakes: the interplay between Indigenous
endurance and resilience through a natural disaster. MAI Journal, 3(2), 165-180.
Lambert, S., Athayde, S., Yin, L., Baudoin, M.-A., & Okorie, V. O. (2014, 7 – 9 June). Integrating
Indigenous Knowledge into Decision and Policy-making for Disaster Risk Reduction In IRDR
(Chair), IRDR. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the 2nd IRDR Conference: Integrated
Disaster Risk Science: A Tool for Sustainability, Beijing. Retrieved from
33
http://www.irdrinternational.org/conference-2014/programme/indigenous-and-vulnerablepopulations/#Simon
Love, M. T. W. (2003). Resource management, local government, and the Treaty of Waitangi. In J.
Hayward (Ed.), Local Government and the Treaty of Waitangi (pp. 21-42). South Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Miles, S. (2012). The Christchurch Fiasco: the insurance aftershock and its implications for New Zealand
and beyond. Auckland: Dunmore.
Mass Evacuation Planning: Director’s Guideline for Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups [DGL
07/08], C.F.R. (2008a).
Ministry for Civil Defence and Environmental Management. (2008c). National Civil Defence Emergency
Management Strategy 2007. Wellington: Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management.
Retrieved from
http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/memwebsite.NSF/Files/National_CDEM_Strategy/$file/Nation
al-CDEM-strategy-2008.pdf
Ministry for the Environment. (2003). Whakamau ki Nga Kaupapa : making the best of iwi management
plans under the Resource Management Act 1991 Wellington: MfE. Retrieved from
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/whakamau-ki-nga-kaupapa-jun01/index.html
Ministry of Business, I. a. E. (2014). Te Pūnaha Hihiko: The Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund.
Wellington: MBIE. Retrieved from http://www.msi.govt.nz/assets/MSI/Get-fundeddocuments/Te-Punaha-Hihiko-fact-sheet.pdf
Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. (2014). Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency
Management Business Plan 1 July 2014–30 June 2015. Wellington: Ministry of Civil Defence and
Emergency Management. Retrieved from
http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/publications/mcdem-business-plan-2014.pdf
Working Together: The Formation of CDEM Groups: Director's Guidelines for Local Authorities and
Emergency Services [DGL 1/O2] (2002).
Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. (2015). Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency
Management/ Te Rakau Whakamarumaru. Retrieved March 4, 2015,from
http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/
Mitchell, J., & Mitchell, H. (Eds.). (2004). Te tau ihu o te waka: a history of Maori of Nelson and
Marlborough. Wellington: Huia/Wakatu Incorporation.
Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002).
Civil Defence Emergency Management Regulations 2003 (2003).
National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan Order 2005 (2005).
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act (2011).
Orange, C. (1987). The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (1998). Kaitiakitanga and Local Government: Tangata
Whenua Participation in Environmental Management. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner
for the Environment.
Paton, D., Johnston, D., Mamula-Seadon, L., & Kenney, C. (2014). Recovery and Development:
Perspectives from New Zealand and Australia. In N. Kapucu & T. L. Kuotsai (Eds.), Disaster ands
Development (pp. 255-): Springer International Publishing.
Pelling, M., & Wisner, B. (Eds.). (2009). Disaster risk reduction: cases from urban Africa. London:
Earthscan. Retrieved from
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=FdvNNIDEKlIC&lpg=PR5&ots=9WGWT_TgrM&dq=urban%2
0living%20risks&lr&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q=urban%20living%20risks&f=true
Pihama, L. (2014). Nga Pae o Te Maramatanga: Issues with the Centre of Research Excellence Fund
Round and Process 2013-14. Retrieved March 17, 2015,from
https://tewhareporahou.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/nga-pae-o-te-maramatanga-issues-withthe-centre-of-research-excellence-fund-round-and-process-2013-14/
34
Piripi, H. (2011). Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the New Zealand Public Sector. In V. Tawhai & K. Gray-Sharp
(Eds.), 'Always speaking': The Treaty of Waitangi and Public Policy (pp. 229-244). Wellington:
Huia.
Platt, R. H. (1999). Disasters and Democracy: The politics of extreme natural events. Washington: Island
Press.
Potangaroa, R., Wilkinson, S., Zare, M., & Steinfort, P. (2011). The management of portable toilets in the
Eastern suburbs of Christchurch after the February 22, 2011 earthquake. Australasian Journal of
Disaster and Trauma Studies, 2011 - 2, 35-48.
Quality Planning. (2014). Introduction to natural hazards and the legislative framework for hazard
management. Retrieved March 1, 2014,from http://qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/planningtools/natural-hazards/introduction-to-natural-hazards-and-the-legislative-framework-forhazard-management
Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of Economics Literature, 36(1), 11-46.
Rae, H. T. (2013). Kia tahuri i te riu, kia tika: Indigenous Participation in Earthquake Recovery Planning:
Insights from Taiwan and Canterbury (Masters). Otago, Dunedin.
doi:http://hdl.handle.net/10523/4147
Rata, E. (2011). Discursive strategies of the Maori tribal elite. Critique of Anthropology, 31(4), 359-380.
doi:10.1177/0308275x11420116
Riccardi, V. A. (2007, May 15-15). Literature review of risk perception studies in behavioural finance: the
emerging issues. Paper presented at the meeting of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for
the Advancement of Behavioural Economics (SABE) COnference, New York. Retrieved from
http://ssrn.com/abstarct=988342
RiskScape. (2015). RiskScape. Retrieved March 17, 2015,from https://riskscape.niwa.co.nz/
Rovens, J. (2011). Foreword: Insights on the role of regional collaboration. In D. S. Miller & J. D. Rivera
(Eds.), Comparative Emergency Management: Examining global and regional responses to
disasters (pp. ix-xiii). New York: CRC Press.
Selby, R. (Ed.). (2010). Maori and the environment: kaitiaki. Wellington: Huia.
Shaw, K. (2013). Realities of earthquake strengthening. Build, 135, 82-83. Retrieved from
http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=83ec4e555360a0f966a2582561be2c99c
5dd5d07
Simpson, T., & Meha, R. (2004). An Overview of the Maori research Scene. Wellington: MoRST/Kowhai
Consulting Ltd.
Smith, L. T. (2014). An Open Statement on the true impact of the non-funding of Ngā Pae o te
Māramatanga. Retrieved March 17, 2015,from
https://tewhareporahou.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/an-open-statement-on-the-true-impactof-the-non-funding-of-nga-pae-o-te-maramatanga/
Tarena, E. (2012). He Toki Ki Te Rika – Revitalising Maori Trade Training. Paper presented at the meeting
of the International Indigenous Development Research Conference 2012, Auckland.
Tasiopoulou, P., Smyrou, E., Bal, I. E., Gazetas, G., & Vintzileou, E. (2011). Geotechnical and Structural
Field Observations from Christchurch, February 2011 Earthquake, in New Zealand. Athens:
National Technical University of Athens. Retrieved from
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21382969/Tasiopoulou%20et%20al.%20%20Geotechnical%20and%20Structural%20Field%20Observations%20from%20Christchurch%2C
%20February%202011%20Earthquake.pdf
Tawhai, V., & Gray-Sharp, K. (2013). Always Speaking: The Treaty of Waitangi and Public Policy.
Wellington: Huia Publishers.
Thompson-Fawcett, M., & Sims, M. (2002). Planning for the cultural landscape. In M. Kawharu (Ed.),
Whenua: Managing our resources (pp. 252-271). Auckland: Reed.
Thornly, L., Ball, J., Signal, L., Lawson-Te Aho, K., & Rawson, E. (2013). Final Report to Health Research
Council and Canterbury Medical Research Foundation: Health Research Council/ Canterbury
35
Medical Research Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/conversation/maoriresilience/files/2013/04/Building_Community_Resilience_report-March_2013.pdf
Tukua-Pouwhare, C. (2012, 28-30 November). Ko te haruru o Ruaumoko: the impact of the earthquake
on teaching and learning. In M. A. o. S. Scientists (Chair), Maori Association of Social Scientists.
Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Maori Association of Social Scientists Conference:
search, connect build, University of Canterbury.
Tutua-Nathan, T. (2003). Kaitiakitanga: a commentary on the Reosurce Management Act. In J. Hayward
(Ed.), Local government and the Treaty of Waitangi (pp. 39-42). South Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
Wisner, B. (2003). Disaster risk reduction in megacities: making the most of human and social capital. In
A. Kreimer (Ed.), Building safer cities: the future of disaster risk (pp. 181-). Washington: World
Bank Publications.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and
disasters (2nd ed.). Routledge: London and New York.
World Bank/United Nations. (2010). Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: the economics of effective
prevention. Washington: The World Bank/ The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
Young, R. (2012, May 15th, 2012). Bureaucratic battles more stressful than aftershocks. The Press.
Retrieved from http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake2011/6921943/Bureaucratic-battles-more-stressful-than-aftershocks
36
7.
Appendices
7.1
Risk Management Definitions
(Source: Quality Planning 2015)
AEP (Annual
A term used to describe the frequency or probability of floods occurring. Large floods
Exceedance Probability) occur rarely, whereas small floods occur more frequently. For example, a 1% AEP flood
occurs (or is exceeded) on average once every 100 years. A so-called 100-year flood
does not mean that there is only one flood of this size every 100 years. It means that
there is a 1 in 100 chance in any given year that a flood of this size or bigger will
happen; it is therefore more correctly called a 1% AEP flood. In any given year, there is
about a 65 percent chance that there will be at least one 1% AEP flood in populated
catchments of New Zealand (NIWA 2007).
Block slide:
A translational slide in which the moving mass consists of a single unit or a few closely
related units that move downslope as a single unit (Wold, 1989).
Debris avalanche
Debris flow
Earth flow
Hazardscape
Lateral spreads
Liquefaction
Mitigation measures
EDITORIAL NOTE: Translational in this context means the movement of a mass in such
a way that every point moves in the same direction from one place to another more or
less over the same distance.
A very rapid to extremely rapid landslide on a steep slope which is unconfined to a
channel. Debris avalanches often initiate debris flows.
A form of rapid mass movement in which soils, rocks, and organic matter combine
with entrained air and water to form a slurry that then flows down a slope in a
confined channel. Debris flows are associated with steep confined gullies (Wold,
1989).
A bowl or depression forming at a head where unstable material collects and flows
out. The central area is narrow and usually becomes wider as it reaches the valley
floor. Flows generally occur in fine-grained materials or clay-bearing rocks on
moderate slopes and with saturated dry conditions. Dry flows of granular material are
also possible. Earth flows have a characteristic 'hour glass' shape (Wold, 1989).
The landscape of all hazards in a particular place or the net result of natural and manmade hazards and the risks they pose cumulatively across a given area.
The result of the nearly horizontal movement of geologic materials, distinctive
because they usually occur on very gentle slopes. The movement is caused by
liquefaction triggered by rapid ground motion, such as that experienced during an
earthquake (Wold, 1989).
A process that causes some soils to lose their strength and behave more like a liquid
than a solid during an earthquake.
Mitigation involves taking steps to reduce the likelihood of a natural hazard occurring
or the consequence of its impact.
Mitigation aims to reduce the likelihood of a natural hazard occurring and/or reduce
the consequences of a natural hazard event.
Natural Hazard
Mitigation measures will differ depending on the activity, location and nature of the
particular hazard but may include:

structural measures, for example, constructing a stopbank and raising floor
levels within areas subject to flood hazard

non-structural measures, for example, re-vegetating a hillside to reduce
landslide hazard.
RMA 1991 definition of natural hazard
’Natural hazard means any atmospheric or earth or water related occurrence
(including earthquake, tsunami, erosion, volcanic and geothermal activity, landslip,
subsidence, sedimentation, wind, drought, fire, or flooding) the action of which
adversely affects or may adversely affect human life, property, or other aspects of the
environment.'
37
Net present value
CDEM Act 2002 definition of hazard
’Hazard means something that may cause, or contribute substantially to the cause of,
an emergency.'
Building Act 2004 definition of natural hazard
’Natural hazard means any of the following: erosion (including coastal erosion, bank
erosion, and sheet erosion) subsidence inundation (including flooding, overland flow,
storm surge, tidal effects, and ponding) slippage.'
The net present value (NPV) method of evaluating a major project allows the changing
value of money over time to be considered. Essentially, it helps find the present value
in ‘today's dollars' of the future net cash flow (or the value) of a project. It is then
possible to compare that amount with the amount of money needed to implement
the project.
If the NPV is greater than the cost, the project will be beneficial. If there is more than
one project being evaluated, it is possible to compute the NPV of each, and choose the
one with the greatest difference between NPV and cost.
Overland flow path
The route taken by stormwater which becomes concentrated as it flows overland,
making its way downhill following the path of least resistance towards the
stormwater network, streams or the coast. Overland flow paths vary in width
depending on the shape of the ground over which they flow, but once the contributing
catchment area exceeds 30,000 m2, they are referred to as major overland flow paths.
Overland flow paths include secondary flow paths which result when the piped
stormwater system gets blocked or when the capacity is exceeded. Secondary
overland flow paths are the backup stormwater system.
Precautionary Principle Defined as "the lack of full scientific evidence shall not be used as reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation"(1992 Rio
Declaration).
Qualitative analysis
In the context of natural hazard management qualitative analysis means using words
to describe the magnitude and likelihood of potential consequences arising out of a
natural hazard event.
Quantitative analysis
In the context of natural hazard management means using numerical values for both
the magnitude and likelihood of natural hazard consequences that may occur.
Readiness
Developing operational systems and capabilities before an emergency happens. These
include self-help and response programmes for the general public, as well as specific
programmes for emergency services, utilities, and other agencies.
Recovery
Activities beginning after initial impact has been stabilised and extending until the
community's capacity for self-help has been restored.
Reduction
Identifying and analysing long-term risks to human life and property from natural
or man-made hazards, taking steps to eliminate these risks where practicable and,
where not, reducing the likelihood and the magnitude of their impact.
Response
Actions taken immediately before, during or directly after an emergency, to save lives
and property, as well as to help communities recover.
Rockfall
One or more pieces of rock falling from a steep rocky slope whether one at a time or
all at once.
Rotational landslide
A landslide in which the surface of the rupture is curved concavely upward (spoon
shaped) and the slide movement is more or less rotational about an axis parallel to the
contour of the slope (Wold, 1989).
The SMUG system
Acronym for Seriousness, Manageability, Urgency, Growth where:
Seriousness is the relative impact in terms of people and/or dollars
Manageability is the relative ability to reduce the risk (through managing the hazard
or the community or both)
Urgency is the measure of how imperative or critical it is to address the risk
(associated with the probability/likelihood of the risk from the hazard, including return
period considerations)
Growth is the rate at which the risk will increase (through an increase in the
38
probability of the extreme event occurring, an increase in the exposure of the
community, or a combination of the two).
The SMUG system, advocated by the Ministry in 2002, has been subsequently
modified by many CDEM groups. Many groups removed the 'urgency' component (as
it may be adequately covered under 'seriousness') and expanded the 'manageability'
table to include the subcomponents of 'difficulty' (how difficult the hazard is to
manage) and 'effort' (how much effort is currently being put into managing the
hazard). Manageability ratings were then given to each subcomponent for each of the
4 ‘Rs' (reduction, readiness, response and recovery), thereby a manageability rating
derived from eight manageability values.
The 4 'Rs' of community
Reduction, Readiness, Response, Recovery
resilience
Topple
A block of rock that tilts or rotates forward, eventually to fall, bounce, or roll down the
slope as a rockfall (Spiker & Gori, 2003). Often also used for the whole event, including
the rockfall deposit.
Transitional slide
A landslide in which the mass of soil and rock moves out or down and outward with
little rotational movement or backward tilting (Spiker & Gori, 2003).
Risk management definitions: as per AS/NZS standard 4360
Consequence
Means the outcome or impact of an event.
NOTE 1: There can be more than one consequence from one event.
NOTE 2: Consequences can range from positive to negative.
NOTE 3: Consequences can be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively.
NOTE 4: Consequences are considered in relation to the achievement of objectives.
Event
occurrence
Means: of a particular set of circumstances.
NOTE 1: The event can be certain or uncertain.
NOTE 2: The event can be a single occurrence or a series of occurrences.
Frequency:
A measure of the number of occurrences per unit of time.
Hazard:
A source of potential harm.
Likelihood:
Used as a general description of probability or frequency.
NOTE: Can be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively.
Monitor:
To check, supervise, observe critically or measure the progress of an activity, action or system
on a regular basis in order to identify change from the performance level required or expected.
Probability:
A measure of the chance of occurrence expressed as a number between 0 and 1.
NOTE 1: ISO/IEC Guide 73 defines probability as the 'extent to which an event is likely to
occur'.
NOTE 2: ISO 3534-1:1993, definition 1.1, gives the mathematical definition of probability as 'a
real number in the scale 0 to 1 attached to a random event'. It goes on to note that probability
'can be related to a long-run relative frequency of occurrence or to a degree of belief that an
event will occur. For a high degree of belief, the probability is near 1'
NOTE 3: 'Frequency' or 'likelihood' rather than 'probability' may be used in describing risk.
Residual risk:
The risk remaining after implementation of risk treatment
Risk:
The chance of something happening that will have an impact on objectives
NOTE 1: A risk is often specified in terms of an event or circumstance and the consequences
that may flow from it.
39
NOTE 2: Risk is measured in terms of a combination of the consequences of an event and their
likelihood.
NOTE 3: Risk may have a positive or negative impact.
NOTE 4: See ISO/IEC Guide 51, for issues related to safety.
Risk analysis:
A systematic process to understand the nature of and to deduce the level of risk.
NOTE 1: Provides the basis for risk evaluation and decisions about risk treatment.
NOTE 2: See ISO/IEC Guide 51 for risk analysis in the context of safety.
Risk assessment: The overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation.
Risk avoidance
A decision not to become involved in, or to withdraw from, a risk situation.
Risk evaluation: A process of comparing the level of risk against risk criteria.
NOTE 1: Risk evaluation assists in decisions about risk treatment.
NOTE 2: See ISO/IEC Guide 51 for risk evaluation in the context of safety.
Risk
The process of determining what, where, when, why and how something could happen.
identification:
Risk
management:
Risk
The culture, processes and structures that are directed towards realising potential
opportunities whilst managing adverse effects.
The systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to the tasks of
management
communicating, establishing the context, identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating,
process:
monitoring and reviewing risk.
Risk
A set of elements of an organisation's management system concerned with managing risk.
management
NOTE 1: Management system elements can include strategic planning, decision-making, and
framework:
other strategies, processes and practices for dealing with risk.
NOTE 2: The culture of an organisation is reflected in its risk management system.
Risk reduction:
Actions taken to lessen the likelihood, negative consequences, or both, associated with a risk.
Risk treatment:
Process of selection and implementation of measures to modify risk
NOTE 1: The term 'risk treatment' is sometimes used for the measures themselves.
NOTE 2: Risk treatment measures can include avoiding, modifying, sharing or retaining risk.
40
7.2
Appendix 2: MCDEM Organisational Chart
[Type here]