Rethinking Hazard Management in New Zealand A tumultuous decade: A study of the past decade of major earthquakes in New Zealand to explore the implementation of best practice hazard and emergency management. Rory Vernon A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of Master of Planning at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 30th October 2020 ‘I think there is the recognition now, possibly in relation to climate change, that natural hazards aren’t being managed that well and effectively.’ - Key Informant 7 ii Abstract New Zealand is characterised by a high susceptibility to natural hazards. The last decade has been characterised by the Christchurch 2010 earthquake and devastating aftershock sequence that included the infamous ‘2011 Christchurch earthquake’ alongside the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake have catalysed discussions around the state of the civil defence emergency management framework. In New Zealand, civil defence emergency management are managed under a framework that is fed by a range of different statutory legislation, including the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEMA) 2002 and the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991. Combined with other non-statutory documents such as the newly developed National Disaster Resilience Strategy 2019 and international commitments to hazard and risk reduction such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Resilience 2015 – 2030. The combination of the legislative devices named above, and others have combined to create the hazard and emergency management framework based on the ‘4R’s’ within the CDEMA; reduction, readiness, response and recovery. Considering the fundamental role that land-use planning has for hazard management, this research has analysed the lessons learnt from the Christchurch and Kaikōura earthquakes and assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of the current hazard and emergency framework. The research found significant issues within this framework that extend from tension and disconnection in the guiding legislation (RMA and CDEMA) leading to non-optimal development and management decisions, deeply ingrained resourcing issues that affect both central and local government with debilitating effects for the development and implementation of best practice and national and regional differences that call for increased centralisation to ensure greater levels of consistency of planning processes and outcomes. In order to overcome these issues in the framework, this research has suggested a number of pathways to help achieve best practice in the future. Aligning with the eventual reforms or possible repeal of the RMA, there must be more connection and communication between the RMA and CDEMA, prior to and after disasters. The significant resourcing issues that characterise the sector must be addressed for practices such as targeted hazard and risk assessment and proactive planning to take place. This research has also suggested that more centralisation must be achieved in the form of an NPS for natural hazards, a national recovery office or both, however, it is imperative that this does not result in the loss of autonomy for local governments, especially in small regions. iii Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank all those who made themselves available to interviews for this research, without your knowledgeable contributions and your willingness to advise me on the current state of hazard management, this research would not have been made possible. To my supervisor Sean, thank you for your guidance and support throughout this year, I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to create my own path with this research but always being there to provide feedback and support and letting me know when I was rambling. My classmates, it’s been a crazy couple of years, but I couldn’t be more grateful for the bonds I have made with you all since we started in the planning studio. This experience wouldn’t have been the same without you, thanks for putting up with me. I especially want to thank Alex and Kelsey, I know you let me win all those card games, you can’t have been that bad. I would have finished my thesis with weeks to spare without your distractions, but it would have been a lot less enjoyable. Bianca, you’ve done more for me than you know. I owe a lot of what I’ve been able to do this year to you, thank you for everything. My parents and family, I can’t begin to express my gratitude for everything you have done for me, I wouldn’t be where I am today without you. iv List of Tables Table 1.1 – Research Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Table 2.1 – The Richter Scale………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 Table 2.2 – The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (simplified) ……………………………………………..16 Table 3.1 – Key informant codes and occupation………………………………………………………………...47 Table 5.1 – The varying definitions of ‘hazard’ as per the key informants…………………………….91 Table 5.2 – A range of responses from key informants advocating for proactive planning and the need for increased access to reliable hazard data sets…………………………………………………104 v List of Figures Figure 2.1 – Global expected annual population risk for multiple natural hazards (2020 – 2030)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Figure 2.2 – Types and frequencies of natural disasters across global regions from 1970 – 2010……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 Figure 2.3 – The ‘Risk Triangle’……………………………………………………………………………………………….9 Figure 2.4 – Global Plate Boundaries…………………………………………………………………………………….13 Figure 2.5 – Pre-event Recovery Planning for Land-use – A Methodology……………………………22 Figure 2.6 – Arnstein’s Ladder; ‘Eight Rungs on a Ladder of Citizen Participation’………………..25 Figure 2.7 – An informative decision-making tool to assess the importance of mauri…………..33 Figure 2.8 – The scope and potential of MEK in resource management frameworks……………36 Figure 3.1 – Strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research methodology………………………42 Figure 4.1 – ‘Linkages between key RMA documents’………………………………………………………….54 Figure 4.2 – ‘Relationships between key legislation for the land use management of natural hazards………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...54 Figure 4.3 – Cooperative hazards governance: Barriers, burning issues and priority actions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….58 Figure 4.4 – Hazard reduction linkages between the RMA and CDEMA……………………………….65 Figure 4.5 – National Disaster Resilience Strategy Priorities and Objectives for CDEM in New Zealand for the next 10 years………………………………………………………………………………………………68 Figure 4.6 – The effect of ‘Collective Impact’ on creating a cohesive vision and uniting common goals……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..71 Figure 4.7 – Canterbury Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Area………………………77 Figure 4.8 - The influence of Iwi Management Plans under the RMA based planning hierarchy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..84 Figure 4.9 – Conceptualisation of Traditional Māori approach to Disaster Risk Resilience…..85 vi Figure 5.1 - The wide-reaching implications of the resourcing issues in the hazard management sector……………………………………………………………………………………………………………101 Figure 5.2 – The varying responses made in reference to CDEM Groups displaying both the positives and negatives of the current system……………………………………………………………………108 Figure 5.3 – Selection of responses characterising the responses of key informants regarding opinions of permissive vs. restrictive RPS’s for natural hazards………………………………………….111 Figure 5.4 – Key informants’ views regarding the impact of land-use legacy decision making and the impact on hazard and emergency management…………………………………………………...115 Figure 5.5 – Key informants’ thoughts on the role and effectiveness of insurance in hazard and emergency management……………………………………………………………………………………………..117 Figure 5.6 – A selection of the responses offered from the key informants regarding the role of proactive planning in the future of hazard and emergency management planning………..124 Figure 5.7 – Concerns of the key informants regarding the ability to implement proactive planning practices under resourcing and capacity issues……………………………………………………127 Figure 5.8 – Conflicting views of key informants regarding the role and capacity if public participation against obstructions to meaningful engagement…………………………………………..133 Figure 5.9 – Key informants describing the difficulties in keeping hazards and the effects of these present within communities and issues with raising awareness……………………………….140 Figure 5.10 – Key informants express their views on the current role of MEK in the hazard and emergency framework and highlight the lack of acknowledgement and collaboration……...142 Figure 5.11 – Selection of comments from the key informants regarding the establishment of a national office for hazard and emergency management………………………………………………....166 vii Abbreviations AF8 Alpine Fault magnitude 8 CanCERN Canterbury Communities Earthquake Recovery Network CCC Christchurch City Council CDEM Civil Defence Emergency Management CDEMA Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 CERA Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority CGO Coffee Growers Association CRPS Canterbury Regional Policy Statement EQC Earthquake Commission IMP Iwi Management Plan MEK Māori Environmental Knowledge MCDEM Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management MMIS Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale NDRS National Disaster Resilience Strategy NPS National Policy Statement RMA Resource Management Act 1991 RPS Regional Policy Statement