Heritage an important consideration in crisis response

WORDS: Andrew Coleman

Like many others, we stepped up following the recent cyclone activity of summer.

Reported as the worst storms to hit Aotearoa New Zealand in living history, communities experienced significant rainfall and wind, and waves recorded as high as 11m impacted along coastlines. The impact on the land and the people – their homes and livelihoods – was destructive and widely reported, but less cover was given to the devastating impact on heritage, taonga and collections.

The stories in this Heritage Quarterly that focus on places and people highlight the importance of heritage protection, conservation and recognition, in so-called normal times but also importantly in crisis.

There are four phases to crisis management. Planning and preparedness, the crisis itself, the response, and lastly, recovery. The central agency responsible for crisis management is the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). In preparing and responding to a crisis NEMA needs to be aware, some might argue more aware, of heritage, history, museums and collections – those things that make us, us. Our job at Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga is to advocate for this.

Much needs to happen in the planning and preparedness phase. We were able to respond very quickly with advisories to impacted communities including caring for marae, taonga and urupā after floods. This quick response came about because of the thinking and preparation that had been undertaken prior to any crisis event and applying our learnings from past events. Looking ahead, we need to work closely with NEMA to ensure they have our broad heritage interests and functions, particularly the regulatory archaeological authority process, within their knowledge and plans.

In the moment of crisis, unless there is life at peril, no one should travel to the places under threat. This poses significant risk for those directly impacted by the crisis, but also to those who might travel there, adding to the first responders’ burdens. This can lead to questions of inactivity and lack of immediate caring, but this time is much better used preparing to implement the response plan. In the Gabrielle emergency response, we were able to make contact, in a difficult communication environment, with many impacted maraes and to register their situations. This allowed us to plan our boots-on-the-ground response, alongside partner agencies including National Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

We are now planning for the mediumterm response to the crisis and transiting to the recovery phase. Through the preparedness phase and drawing on our experience of past responses, we are aware of what is required to maintain our crisis outreach and advisory services but, importantly, also to maintain our core services and functions. We anticipate an increased workload in archaeological authorities and site works, Māori built heritage with dozens of marae buildings and urupā badly damaged and in need of respectful conservation and repair, and the impact on properties and places that are heritage-listed.

When you peruse this edition of Heritage Quarterly, admiring the places and people of heritage, spare a thought for the conservation and protection required if they are impacted by a crisis. They all warrant and deserve preparedness and planning, something Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga will be focusing on with NEMA. n

Andrew Coleman Chief Executive