Ki Waho 4 by Outdoors New Zealand

KI WAHO

INTO

OFFERING SPECIAL INDUSTRY DIRECT PRICING FOR ALL TRAINING/LEADERSHIP EDUCATION ORGANISATIONS & PROFESSIONAL USERS

ISSN 1178-9085

THE OUTDOORS

T HE MAG A Z I NE FO R NE W Z E A L A ND ’S O U T D O O R CO M M U NI T Y • I S S U E 4 • MAY 2011

FACTORY SHOWROOM AND STORE: 90 FITZGERALD AVE, CHRISTCHURCH WWW.CACTUSEQUIPMENT.CO.NZ PH: 03 374 9268 / E: CACTUS@CACTUSCLIMBING.CO.NZ

William Pike Challenge Award 1 October 2011: What does this date mean for you? When nature changes your landscape Do you want your mountains with or without handrails?

CACTUSEQUIPMENT.CO.NZ GEAR THAT WEARS IN NOT OUT / MADE IN NZ

Competency vs Qualifications Outdoor Excellence Awards

Lake Unkown, Otago, New Zealand. Danilo Hegg

EDITOR Keri Bloomfield keri@outdoorsnz.org.nz EDITORIAL TEAM Allen Hill, Garth Gulley, Alex Brunt DESIGN & LAYOUT Anne Johnston annedesign@clear.net.nz ADVERTISING For advertising submission guidelines and enquiries info@outdoorsnz.org.nz DISTRIBUTION Outdoors New Zealand info@outdoorsnz.org.nz PUBLISHER Ki Waho is published by Outdoors New Zealand

KI WAHO INTO

THE OUTDOORS

THE MAGAZINE FOR NEW ZEALAND’S OUTDOOR COMMUNITY

‘Ki Waho – Into The Outdoors’ magazine brings New Zealand’s outdoor community together to share knowledge and ideas, foster innovation and best practices, encourage environmental responsibility and cultural understanding, and promote safe and enjoyable experiences in the great outdoors.

Published on behalf of New Zealand’s outdoor community by

Level 3, 19 Tory Street, Wellington PO Box 6027 Wellington 6141 Phone 64 4 385 7287 Fax 64 4 385 7366 info@outdoorsnz.org.nz www.outdoorsnz.org.nz PRINTING Ki Waho is printed by Lithoprint

Supported by

PO Box 6404 Marion Square Wellington 6141 Phone 64 4 384 7349 service@lithoprint.co.nz www.lithoprint.co.nz Lithoprint is Enviro-Mark® NZ (Gold standard) certified. Printed on Sumo matt paper supplied by BJ Ball papers. Sumo is produced using ECF (Elemental Chlorine Free) FSC certified mixed source pulp from well managed and legally harvested forests. It is manufactured by Hansol Paper Co, South Korea under the strict ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. ISSN 1178-9085 SUBSCRIPTION The next issue of Ki Waho will be October 2011. For subscription enquiries: info@outdoorsnz.org.nz CONTRIBUTIONS The publisher invites the outdoor community to contribute to Ki Waho. All submissions which meet the magazine’s criteria will be considered. For submission guidelines, please contact Outdoors New Zealand: info@outdoorsnz.org.nz DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the publisher, Outdoors New Zealand. All efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of information presented in Ki Waho, but the publisher accepts no liability or responsibility in this regard. In addition, any advertising of products or services in this magazine does not imply endorsement by Outdoors New Zealand. COPYRIGHT No part of Ki Waho may be reproduced in part or whole without the written permission of the publisher, Outdoors New Zealand Incorporated. COVER PHOTOGRAPH

Dougal Allan, Epic Open Men’s winner (right), crossing the river, being closely watched by Richard Anderson (left). See article on page 40.

OUTDOORS NEW ZEALAND

Lake Te Anau

From the Editor Welcome to the fourth edition of ‘Ki Waho – Into the Outdoors.’ Changing of the season into autumn is a great time to fit in some final outdoor adventures while the weather is still fairly co-operative and before the depths of winter hit. I made the most of this opportunity at Easter by spending two days in the Whanganui National Park biking to the Bridge to Nowhere along the Mangapurua Track. This is an area full of amazing scenery and history that the Department of Conservation has been working hard to make more accessible to a wide range of users. I hope to share more about this track with you in our next issue. Once back from Whanganui, I then headed to Queenstown, Te Anau and Invercargill with Geoff Ensor from Tourism Industry Association. This was the first week of the Adventure Tourism and Outdoor Commercial Sector roadshows and was a great opportunity to meet some of the operators to share with them ‘where we are at’ in the process and gain their input. One of the great things about the outdoors is that there is always a new adventure awaiting you. As a first time visitor to Te Anau I was reminded of the enjoyment of seeing sights and scenery for the first time. I also came across the story of Quinton MacKinnon, an outdoor explorer, who had no doubt had a similar experience to me as he viewed Te Anau for the first time – albeit many many years earlier in the 1870’s. Although unfortunately his days of exploring ended in a mystery which still stands today. I’ve shared his story with you in ‘Looking Back’ on page 15.

Much like my experience in the Whanganui, in Te Anau I enjoyed learning about the history behind the outdoors of New Zealand. It also reminded me that appreciating New Zealand’s outdoors isn’t a new story, nor is the feeling of discovering something for the first time. However it is a feeling that we should always be encouraging as we introduce others and ourselves to the wide range of experiences the outdoors offers us. The vision of Outdoors New Zealand is to see people in New Zealand enjoying the opportunity for positive outdoor recreation and education experiences. In this issue we’ve tried to include a balance of the industry specific information, latest thinking and research as well as a few more general reads about other’s outdoor adventures – to remind us all of what is out there waiting for us. I encourage you to embrace winter and all of the new outdoor experiences it will bring to us over these months – and when the seasons begin to change again (into Spring) you can expect your next issue of this magazine (October 2011). Before then, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this issue – you can email me at the below address. Yours in the outdoors, Keri Bloomfield Editor keri@outdoorsnz.org.nz

CONTENTS William Pike Challenge Award

What is Leave No Trace and why is OPC involved? Chris North

1 October 2011: What does this date mean to you?

Looking Back: The MacKinnon Mystery

When nature changes your landscape Keri Bloomfield

Do you want your mountains with or without handrails? Mike Davies

Ki Waho Newsbytes

Human Error Accidents in Adventure Activities Marcus Bailie

Outdoor Excellence Awards

Employment Law changes: are you up to date? Angela Atkins

OPC – Learning from the Mangatepopo Tragedy Belinda Manning & Simon Graney

Contact Epic: a look behind the scenes

Access to the New Zealand Outdoors – An Update Kay Booth

Competency vs Qualifications Geoff Gabites

Beyond Transfer: Outdoor Education’s Challenge Mike Brown

River Valley Ventures Ltd – High Court Appeal clarifies health and safety obligations Katy Baxter & Maree Baker

Making Better Decisions in the Outdoors Stu Allan

Concessions Review: what it all means and what you can do about it Maree Baker

How research can change the way we think about outdoor education Robyn Zink

What’s New? A selection of this season’s latest products

Join us at Outdoors New Zealand Outdoors New Zealand (ONZ) is a membership organisation representing the New Zealand outdoor recreation and outdoor education sector. Our growing community covers all aspects of the outdoor industry including outdoor recreation, education, adventure tourism, clubs, not-for-profit organisations, commercial organisations, as well as professional, affiliated, and standards-setting associations at national, regional and local levels. Membership benefits include: •

Representation at local, regional and national levels

•

Access to OutdoorsMark (Safety Audit Programme run by Outdoors New Zealand)

•

Free member profile on Outdoors New Zealand website

•

Free Job Listings on Outdoors New Zealand website

•

Networking opportunities throughout the country and online

•

Access to a wide range of professional information and resources

•

Monthly e-newsletter

•

Twice yearly industry magazine ‘Ki Waho – Into the Outdoors’

•

The New Zealand Journal of Outdoor Education

•

Special preferential member rates for national events (conferences etc)

•

Outdoor Excellence Awards

•

Outdoor Forum (annual conference for the outdoor recreation and education sector)

2011

Upcoming Outdoors New Zealand events

Outdoor Forum

Waiho i te toipoto, kaua i te toiroa

28 – 29 October, 2011, Wellington, New Zealand Registrations open 1 July: www.outdoorsnz.org.nz

2011 Outdoor Forum A two day conference held annually in Wellington. It is designed for the whole outdoor community and offers a range of workshops, seminars and networking opportunities. Registrations open 1 July 2011. 28-29 October 2011, Comfort & Quality Hotel, Cuba Street, Wellington 4.

Outdoor Excellence Awards

2011 Outdoor Excellence Awards The Outdoor Excellence Awards recognise the highest achievements of individuals and organisations involved in outdoor recreation, education and adventure tourism experiences in New Zealand. 28 October 2011, Comfort & Quality Hotel, Cuba Street, Wellington Confluence 2012 ‘Confluence’ is an international outdoor recreation and education conference, hosted by Outdoors New Zealand. The inaugural conference was held in 2008. The next Confluence is planned for October 2012 Adventure Tourism Review Roadshows TIANZ and ONZ will be running a series of Adventure Tourism Review Roadshows throughout the country in April, May and June 2011 to talk through the review outcomes and proposed actions. April – June 2011, various locations More details regarding any of these events can be found on the Outdoors New Zealand website www.outdoorsnz.org.nz

How to become a member of Outdoors New Zealand You can join online at: www.outdoorsnz.org.nz Or contact: Keri Bloomfield, Communications & Projects, Outdoors New Zealand keri@outdoorsnz.org.nz tel: 04 385 7287

From the Chief Executive, ONZ

Getting out from behind the desk While my world as CEO of Outdoors New Zealand is meetings around a Board table rather than debriefing round a camp fire these days, its good to remind myself of the joy that I get from being in the outdoors. This summer I took a group of friends on a seven day raft trip down the Clarence river which included a side trip up Tapuae-o-uenuke, as well as getting back into some hard white water paddling on the South Island’s west coast for the first time in over 10 years. Taking advantage of the last of the summer days I also squeezed in a trip up Mitre Peak and a more relaxing wander up the Copland Valley to soak in the hot pools.

Paul Chaplow Chief Executive, Outdoors New Zealand

Many of the meetings that I’ve been involved with over the last year were either directly or indirectly involved with the adventure tourism and outdoor commercial safety review. The cabinet recommendations were announced last year and the feedback from those we have met and communicated with, has been one of general approval and agreement with the outcomes. The next stage is as crucial as the initial review, which is the implementation of the recommendations. We are working with the Tourism Industry Association (TIA) to deliver five review recommendations that will support the safety management framework for our industry. As a part of this process we’ll be running a series of regional workshops around the country over the next few months and we hope that we get to see you at one of them (see page 13 for more details). These meetings will be an opportunity for you to understand the safety review recommendations and provide you with a chance to have input. The workshops may seem to be more of those ‘meetings’ that I referred to earlier, but these meetings are with you folk at the coalface and its great to meet face-to-face with those who are providing opportunities for others to experience the outdoors. The Christchurch earthquake is still at the front of our minds. We are aware that many outdoor businesses in Christchurch, the surrounding region and even the wider South Island are feeling the downstream impacts of the quake. Our thoughts are with you and if there is anything we can do to help please get in touch. Mitre Peak

In the meantime I’ll keep connecting with those of you working directly in the outdoors and ensure that I keep getting out there myself! Paul Chaplow Chief Executive, Outdoors New Zealand paul@outdoorsnz.org.nz

William Pike

Challenge Award an outdoor-focused activity based programme

For those unfamiliar with his name, you will most likely remember his story. In 2007 William was mountaineering on Mt. Ruapehu when it erupted and he and a climbing companion became caught in the lahar as the force of it raced through the Dome Shelter they were unexpectedly overnighting in. The lahar forced it’s way into the Hut, carrying a stream of boulders, rocks, mud and snow which crushed his legs. Unable to move, and with no means of communicating with emergency services, William’s friend, James Christie began to search for help in the dark. Time was crucial in William’s rescue as he became critically hypothermic; and doctors later commented on his survival as being ‘a miracle ‘. His body temperature was 25.7 degrees Celsius when rescuers reached him. It took five hours before help reached William, and another 2 hours until he reached Taumarunui Hospital, the nearest hospital to the site of the incident. He was then transferred by air-ambulance to Waikato Hospital where he stayed for 9 weeks. William suffered numerous life threatening injuries, and as a result of injuries sustained, his right leg was amputated below the knee. After a period of rehabilitation, William began to adapt to his new leg and once again embrace what he loves most, the outdoors. He continues to be active in a wide range of activities including kayaking, bush walking, mountaineering, hunting, and exploring New Zealand’s beautiful backcountry. William is currently a practicing Primary School teacher, teaching at Murrays Bay School in Auckland and has a strong desire to continue to share his story with others to encourage more people into the outdoors, and make the most of the opportunities the natural landscape provides. One of the most significant ways in which William is currently encouraging others is through the recently established ‘William Pike Challenge Award’. The William Pike Challenge Award was created in 2009 as a result of an idea by Paul Dawson, a Taupo Pilot and father of a child at Hilltop School in Taupo.

William Pike encapsulates the classic picture of a kiwi outdoor adventurer. He has a passion for the outdoors, adventure, education, fun, and without a doubt also lives life to the full. More recently William has extended this passion into also being an inspirational and motivational speaker and writing his first book ‘Every Day is A Good Day’. 6.

The idea came to him while helping on a class trip to Waiouru Army Museum on which he realised that a high number of the children (who lived so close to the mountains) had not ever touched snow before. Paul was also aware of a current lack of good male role models and what he perceived to be a lack of ‘real’ outdoor education opportunities for young students. Opportunities that would ideally introduce and encourage them into the outdoors and develop them individually. After 12 months of talking with William about this gap and the need for strong male role models, the William Pike Challenge Award (WPCA) was born.

Face–to–Face

What is the William Pike Challenge Award (WPCA)? The WPCA is an outdoor-focused activity based programme, which has been successfully piloted with Year 7 and 8 students at Hilltop School in Taupo. While the award has begun with school groups William and Paul are keen to further extend it to a wider range of groups beyond school age and will be working on extending the reach of the programme during 2011. The WPCA includes a pre-determined set of outdoor challenge activities that are ideally completed within one school year (or calendar year for other groups). These activities will be based in the groups local environment, making the most of the natural landscape, and are designed to be of a ‘challenging’ nature. The tasks will be created and designed by local outdoor educators and William. As you would expect, William is a strong role model for all of the values that this Award represents and in particular about appreciating what is in our own region. William says “One of the major aims of the WPCA is to introduce more young people to the outdoors and particularly encourage them to take advantage of the wonderful environments they have in their ‘backyards’. It doesn’t matter where you are in New Zealand, we all have a fantastic outdoor environment within a short walk or drive.” Unlike The Duke of Edinburgh Award, The William Pike Challenge Award is more localised and is focused at using the outdoor playground in the group’s own environment. The WPCA is designed to showcase that the outdoors is a powerful tool for building confidence, building life skills and for the

development of personality and character within an individual. It also encourages the goals of keeping fit, making friends, developing a hobby and having fun. Life lessons that William and Paul would like to see spread throughout the country to all school children during their education. The WPCA program is ideally available at no cost to students and/or participants. The underlining reason for the award being at no cost to participants is the belief that cost should not be a barrier for inclusion in this programme. It instead relies upon a clear funding format to be designed at the beginning by the school/group and is then achieved with lottery grants, sponsorship and prioritising school funds (for school groups). William and Paul are aware that some schools and organisations may see the funding aspect of the WPCA as a barrier, and as such encourage these groups to tackle the financing with the right attitude, clear guidance and support from William, Paul and Hilltop School. In some cases, schools and organisations will be able to incorporate the WPCA into existing outdoor education programs.

Main picture: William Pike, Mt Ruapehu. Above: Bush walking, Rotorua.

Over riding everything involved with the WPCA, is the rule that safety and common sense are a number one priority for all. This is why William and Paul work with each group to help choose challenges that are within their group’s ability and experience to safely lead participants on. There might be a few challenges where you need specialty instruction from qualified outdoor instructors who can add value to the challenges set with their vast knowledge and experience. WPCA is intended to be a flexible and unique challenge that can be tailored to suit each school or organisation. No two WPCA will be the same. 7.

William Pike Challenge Award success story – Hilltop School, Taupo The WPCA was launched in March 2010, at Hilltop School in Taupo; and since then it has become a popular and anticipated part of school life for both students and teachers.

William Pike Challenge Award hand-made trophy.

The 30 students (pictured above) have now completed a series of challenges that some adults would never dream of or have the opportunity to do. Their challenges (which were based around the Taupo/Ruapehu region) included: •

Climb Mt. Tongariro, Mt. Ngauruhoe, and Mt. Ruapehu

•

Raft the Tongariro River

•

Complete 20 hours of community service

•

Develop a new sport/hobby

•

2 night tramp

•

Kayak Lake Taupo

•

Complete a confidence course at Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuit Centre in Turangi

•

A mid-winter Lake Taupo swim

Karl Bishop, Deputy Principal at Hilltop School, Taupo says that “the challenges are merely a catalyst to breaking down barriers within one self and seeing that in adversity or tough times anyone can work through a challenge to come out the other side a success. This is a vital step for a young person who is entering their teenage years which can be frought with self doubt and social challenges”. At Hilltop School, with the work of a very motivated team of staff and parents, they have 8.

managed to fund much of the equipment required to provide students with an expansive range of outdoor equipment, which will be continued to used for future groups. This includes their own custom made gear trailer, a mountain bike trailer and bikes, a kayak trailer and range of one and twoman kayaks, as well as two purpose built garages with a wide range outdoor education equipment inside them. Funding has been achieved through grants and prioritising school funds. More recently, the Iwitahi Trust also donated $7000. In December 2010, students who completed every challenge of the WPCA were presented with a hand-made trophy (pictured) at the Hilltop School Graduation evening. This evening was very emotional for the students, parents, teachers and sponsors symbolising everything that these students have achieved over the course of the year throughout their WPCA experience. William and Paul believe that the students have learnt more about themselves in the outdoors than they ever could in a classroom and the students were extremely fortunate to experience the outdoors as they have – not wrapped in cotton wool. The students now have new skills, boosted confidence, real-life experience and an awareness for the outdoors and the possibilities and challenges that the outdoors holds. Now in 2011, there is a new group of 31 students currently undertaking the WPCA. Their progress can be tracked through William’s website. William and Paul hope to introduce the WPCA into as many schools as possible and also begin working with non-school based groups to further develop the programme.

Benefits of the WPCA in a school or organisation:

What the students say… “The most important thing that I have learnt, from doing this award is self-belief. Before I started the challenge, I was afraid of quite a few things; I was afraid of taking on new activities, afraid of the dangers in the outdoors and most of all, I was afraid of believing in what was possible…

•

sport & hobbies – sport keeps you out of court. Aims to reduce delinquency and promote life-long hobbies/ sport

•

healthy lifestyle – reducing chronic diseases related to inactivity such as childhood obesity

•

awareness for the environment and sustainability – sustain the environment and keep NZ green

The William Pike Challenge Award has had a very positive impact on my life.” Rose Kirkham

•

future careers in the outdoors – reduce unemployment and provide future employment opportunities/ideas

•

safety sense and understanding for the outdoors – prevent potential life threatening situations

“I have overcome so many fears, like the fear of heights, the fear of possums…and the fear of sitting in the dark in the bush for 20 minutes by yourself left only with your thoughts of crazy wild boars rustling round near you!

More details regarding the WPCA can be found at www.williampike.co.nz

Photo: Gabe Rogel

Face-to-Face: William Pike with Keri Bloomfield from Outdoors New Zealand.

I’ve learnt how to be confident in myself, and trustworthy in others (e.g High ropes course!). I’ve learnt all about safety in the bush, up the mountains and on the water. Where would I be without WPCA? I’d probably be an unfit unenthusiastic mess.” Louisa Williams

Marmot Snowsports Featuring the NEW Shadow Jacket - High-caliber 650 fill goose down to seal in the heat, waterproof 2 Layer MemBrain® fabric to keep out the elements and breathe naturally. Reinforced shoulders and sleeves for boomproof protection when you’re taking it to the limit! For long days at altitude you’ll appreciate every detail of this high-tech, insulated jacket. Available in Women’s Sling Shot. Check out the Marmot Snowsports range at marmotnz.co.nz

garongaro he tang n u t a Wh

When the Kiwi and tourist travelling season peaks, we hear or read of environmental impacts on a weekly basis. Impacts include fires that destroy forests and wetlands, newly introduced invasive species and diseases, toilet waste, rubbish and harm to native animals. While increased media coverage may result from us becoming more sensitised to environmental issues, the underlying issue remains; as a nation, we are generally not knowledgeable and skilful in how we minimise impacts in the outdoors.

Chris North University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Pictured with the Environment Leadership Award. “It fell off my shelf in the February 22 earthquake but only received a very small chip. Phew.”

There are many possible reasons for this. Increased urbanisation means we tend not to spend much time outdoors away from toilets and rubbish bins. Footpaths and houses mean we are always on durable surfaces so we don’t have to watch where we place our feet. Water comes from taps and toilet waste gets flushed away. Our connections to the environment are disguised through all this infrastructure and technology. So when we hit the hills or the beaches, we don’t know how to behave and what is appropriate. Research shows that people generally do value natural places and hold them precious, from our local parks and beaches to remote wilderness areas (Dietz, Fitzgerald, & Shwom, 2005; Manfredo, 2008). But there is a chasm between our values, and our skills and knowledge. This is the reason that Leave No Trace New Zealand was founded. The current Environmental Care Code is not adequate as a means to educate and guide our behaviour. I struggled as an outdoor educator to bring the Environmental Care Code into my programme as an interesting and dynamic component. It seemed dry and rule-bound. However, by not focusing on environmental care, I was contributing to the problem. People who take groups outdoors have a responsibility to care for the places they visit because damage is incremental: “a little here and there, which over time adds up to the destruction of the values of beauty and solitude, naturalness and mystery ...” (Miles, 1999 p. 323).

10.

Leave No Trace offers training to support a set of principles and its effectiveness is supported by research (Daniels & Marion, 2005; Marion & Reid, 2007; Settina, 2006; Vagias, 2009). Minimum impact education then becomes an opportunity to explore the places we go and introduce ecology, cultural values and environmental ethics. Leave No Trace offers resources and training that support the development of principles that guide our behaviour in the outdoors. It is not about a set of rules, but rather understanding the consequences of our behaviour and choosing the most appropriate action given the ecological and cultural context and the outcomes of the trip. Leave No Trace has an educational approach and an outdoor recreation focus. Leave No Trace believes the only solution is to teach people – New Zealanders and visitors to our shores – ‘minimum impact skills’ to practice in every outdoor situation … how far you should camp from water sources, where to pitch your tent, how to build a minimum impact fire or if you should build one in the first place. The training courses teach people to become Leave No Trace trainers themselves, and are relevant to organisations as diverse as schools and Scouts to tramping and hunting groups. Leave No Trace is working with partner organisations to help embed the seven Leave No Trace principles anywhere people come in contact with the great outdoors. The seven principles are: •

Plan Ahead and Prepare

•

Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces

•

Dispose of Waste Properly

•

Leave What You Find

•

Minimise Campfire Impacts

•

Respect Wildlife and Farm Animals

•

Be Considerate of Others

The moment the Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre (OPC) decided to support Leave No Trace was important for both organisations. OPC is a 33 year old organisation that has trained over

Sustainability & Environment

ata, toitu te

whenu a â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Peo ple com e and go but the land endures.

130,000 New Zealanders and was looking for a practical way to promote environmental education in an outdoor context; Leave No Trace is an organisation introduced to New Zealand in 2009 by a group of volunteers with a vision of a more environmentally literate nation. Leave No Trace is looking for partnerships to help achieve this goal and now, with the support of OPC, Leave No Trace has the capacity to reach more people and to the way we approach and behave in the outdoors. It is the hope of Leave No Trace that these principles become second nature, and we believe that it is essential that they do. The outdoor community has a responsibility to nurture our relationship with the outdoors and at the same time add value to the experience of the people who come on our trips and programmes. OPC believes in these principles and is committed to support Leave No Trace to increase the training opportunities for New Zealanders and contribute to a better environmental ethic nationally. The vision of Leave No Trace, supported by OPC, is to have many partners in the process of creating a more environmentally literate society. If you share this vision or want to find out more, visit www.leavenotrace.org.nz References Daniels, M. L., & Marion, J. L. (2005). Communicating Leave No Trace ethics and practices: Efficacy of two-day trainer courses. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 23(4), 1-19. Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 335. Manfredo, M. J. (2008). Who cares about wildlife, social science concepts for exploring human-wildlife relationships and conservation issues. New York: Springer. Marion, J. L., & Reid, S. (2007). Minimising Visitor Impacts to Protected Areas: The Efficacy of Low Impact Education Programmes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(1), 5-27. Miles, J. C. (1999). Adventure programming. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (pp. 321-323). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Settina, N. (2006). Effectiveness of Leave No Trace education at reducing camping impacts in Green Ridge State Forest, Maryland. Unpublished Master of Science Thesis, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, Maryland. Vagias, W. M. (2009). An examination of the Leave No Trace visitor education program in two US National Park Service units. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.

Chris North has been working in science and outdoor education for 15 years in New Zealand, Switzerland and North America. He has worked in secondary and tertiary education, and as a tourist guide. He has a passion for extended journeys and feels strongly that minimum impact education is crucial in order to develop environmentally responsible behaviour. He is a lecturer in Outdoor and Environmental Education at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

11.

1 October 2011 Photo by Kelsi Doscher

What does this date mean for you?

The proposed start date for the registration scheme is 1 October 2011. The major component of the registration process is passing an outdoor safety audit. Other review recommendations included the need for industry groups to work together to strengthen safety practices and guidance material. The focus for most people, however, will be on the registration scheme.

The Registration Scheme

In December 2010 the Government endorsed a number of recommendations that arose from the Review of Risk Management and Safety in the Adventure and Outdoor Commercial Sectors (the Adventure Tourism Review).

It is important to note that although the registration scheme begins on 1 October 2011, there will be a three-year transition period. By the end of September 2014, it is expected all operators who come within the scope of the new regulations will be registered and operating under a current safety audit certificate.

Throughout this process ONZ and TIANZ have promoted the following principles:

Who needs to be registered?

•

Every operator wants to avoid accidents and incidents

•

The primary responsibility for safety and quality lies with the operator

Exactly who will need to be registered is still being decided by the Department of Labour. This should be clarified by mid-2011.

•

Operators with well embedded safety systems shouldn’t face significant additional requirements and costs

•

A national support structure should be comprehensive and weighted towards providing support, guidance and tools

•

Innovation should still be enabled

•

The review represented an opportunity to be better than before

Arguably, the one recommendation that has been the most talked about, the one that has generated the most questions, and perhaps some anxiety, is the registration scheme. In our view, the registration scheme could make the strongest difference to standards of outdoor safety management in New Zealand. 12.

The registration scheme will be run by an organisation appointed by the Department of Labour. The process to select such an organisation is currently taking place. Safety auditing bodies must be accredited by this organisation in order to conduct the safety audits of operators.

However, indications to date are that operators will need to be registered if they are providing activities on a fee-for-service basis and that those activities carry heightened inherent risks that must be managed. It is thought that approximately 1500 operators will need to be registered and audited before October 2014. The three-year transition period allows time for this to be completed and for existing safety audits to run their term before a new audit is required. From October 2014, it will be an offence to provide activities that involve significant hazards and some level of instruction or leadership without a current outdoor safety audit certificate. Operators that come under the umbrella of Maritime NZ or the Civil Aviation Authority, specifically commercial jet boating, rafting and

Industry Update adventure aviation activities, won’t be required to undergo a separate safety audit or be registered under this scheme. The regulations won’t apply to organisations that don’t charge fees such as schools or voluntary clubs.

How much will it cost? The cost of registration will be built into the audit fee. Each safety auditing body will have their own fee structure. It is anticipated that typical upfront audits will cost between $1300 and $2500, depending on the complexity of the operation. The period between audits has yet to be established. Operators will be able to choose their audit provider from a Department of Labour list of accredited safety auditing bodies. The exact cost of registration will become known when these providers are confirmed.

Why do we need these new regulations? The sector has a positive approach to safety. The review highlighted this aspect. However the review also discovered there were gaps in the safety management framework and these gaps could allow operators to work at different levels of safety. While these gaps remain, there is insufficient assurance that preventable accidents will not occur. And that would result in harm to individuals and their families and damage to New Zealand’s reputation as an international visitor destination.

The role of Outdoors New Zealand & the Tourism Industry Association Outdoors New Zealand (ONZ) and the Tourism Industry Association (TIANZ) have been involved in the Adventure Tourism Review process since September 2009. Five recommendations that arose from the review are now being implemented. ONZ and TIANZ will work with other sector and government bodies as appropriate. These recommendations need to be implemented before October 2014.

The five recommendations are: •

Establish an industry-led entity to strengthen the safety management framework for the adventure and outdoor commercial sectors

•

Develop a generic practice guide for the adventure and outdoor commercial sectors (other than for adventure aviation activities, commercial jet boating and rafting)

•

Develop additional guidance to better inform operators about their current responsibilities, particularly activity specific guidance

•

Ensure that better and more consistent information on the adventure and outdoor commercial sectors is collected, and that its collation is improved

•

Investigate whether instructors and guides should be required to hold qualifications and work only within the scope of their qualifications for some activities

Work on implementing these recommendations has now begun. At a meeting in early March 2011 TIANZ and ONZ introduced a draft work plan. Organisations at the meeting included the Mountain Safety Council, SPARC, Qualmark, NZ Mountain Guides Assn, Civil Aviation Authority, Skills Active, NZ Outdoors Instructors Association and some operators. TIANZ and ONZ have also been holding a series of planning meetings to help establish clear lines of communication to operators and other key organisations. Regular updates will be added to both the ONZ and TIANZ websites throughout this process and you are encouraged to check these sites on a regular basis.

Adventure Tourism Review Roadshows To help communicate this process TIANZ and ONZ have been running a series of Adventure Tourism Review roadshows throughout the country in April, May and June 2011 to talk through the review outcomes and proposed actions. You are encouraged to register and attend these events in your local area. More detail at:

www.outdoorsnz.org.nz or www.tianz.org.nz

Article compiled by Outdoors New Zealand and the Tourism Industry Association. See the next page for the Timeline.

13.

Timeline September 2009 Prime Minister and Tourism Minister, John Key, asks the Department of Labour to lead an acrossdepartmental group to investigate and report back on the adventure and outdoor commercial sectors and ways of improving risk management and safety.

October 2009 Terms of reference for a nation-wide review of the adventure and outdoor commercial sectors are released, covering all commercial adventure tourism and outdoor education activities. TIANZ and ONZ are part of the steering group and the project working group representing operators. An external reference group of key sector stakeholders is also created.

November 2009 Operators are encouraged to fill in a questionnaire asking for their views about safety and risk management practices as part of the consultation phase.

January – April 2010 The working group continues to consult with operators. This feedback and information is fed into various reports prepared for the review, including current safety provisions within the sector and responses to the questionnaire. Three reports are published on the DOL website. Gap analysis work undertaken.

develop a generic practice guide for the adventure and outdoor commercial sectors (other than for adventure aviation activities, commercial jet boating and rafting)

•

develop additional guidance to better inform operators about their current responsibilities, particularly activity specific guidance

•

ensure that better and more consistent information on the adventure tourism sector is collected, and that its collation is improved

•

investigate whether instructors and guides should be required to hold qualifications and work only within the scope of their qualifications for some activities

January 2011 – March 2011 TIANZ and ONZ conduct a series of planning meetings. Meetings are also held with stakeholder groups. TIANZ and ONZ announce a series of meetings will be held throughout the country mid-2011 to inform operators of progress on the recommendation implementation of the review recommendations and to get their feedback.

May – June 2011 Regional Adventure Tourism Review Roadshows held throughout NZ

July 2011

August 2010

Department of Labour to appoint the organisation to run the registration scheme and clarify who will require an audit.

The government releases the final report into the review of risk management and safety in the sector.

August 2011

September 2010 – present

Public consultation on draft Generic Practice Guide

TIANZ and ONZ hosts and attends events throughout the country, talking with operators about the review recommendations and the implications. Events include workshops co-hosted with Regional Tourism Organisations, and presenting at various association meetings.

December 2010 TIANZ and ONZ are given a lead role by Government in implementing five recommendations: •

14.

•

establish an industry-led entity to strengthen the safety management framework for the adventure and outdoor commercial sectors

October 2011 Transition period for registration begins

October 2014 Transition period for registration ends. All operators (as defined within the scope of the regulation) must now be registered and operating under a current safety audit certificate.

Looking back

Quinton MacKinnon (standing) and Captain F.M Duncan (left). Note Kakapo on ridgepole. Photo supplied by: Muir & Moodie studio / Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Registration number: C.001879

The MacKinnon Mystery Quinton MacKinnon was an outdoor explorer. Born 1851 in Scotland he arrived on the shores of Lake Te Anau in the early 1870’s to explore the rugged grandeur of Fiordland. In 1888, the most famous of his discoveries took place when he crossed the pass over the mountain from Lake Te Anau to Milford Sound. This is now known as the MacKinnon Pass. Over the next four years he guided parties over this route to Milford Sound. In 1892, MacKinnon was commissioned by the New Zealand Government for three months to clear scrub from the Milford Track. After loading the boat (The Juliet), with supplies, Mackinnon was never seen again. Month’s later an observant shepherd found his cap in a bay of Lake Te Anau and a search party was formed. The ‘Juliet” was soon found in an upright position with all contents still aboard. There was however no sign of Quinton MacKinnon, and to this day his body has never been recovered. Today the route that MacKinnon pioneered over the Milford Track is used by thousands of people who walk the four-day trek to Milford Sounds described as the “Finest Walk in the World”. ‘The MacKinnon Mystery’ was supplied by Distinction Hotel Te Anau

Quinton MacKinnon statue, Lake Te Anau. Photo supplied by: Destination Fiordland.

15.

Castle Rock, Christchurch. Photo supplied by Neil Sloan.

When nature changes your landscape

arise, and that they are constantly trained to best respond in any situation they are faced with is of crucial importance for all organisations. The Canterbury earthquake has affected numerous people from within the outdoor community as well as also affecting the physical landscape, which has in turn affected outdoor recreation in the region. While one can never compare the loss of a life with the loss of a climbing spot, it does still bring with it unique challenges for the outdoor recreation and education sector in this area. The earthquake has affected suppliers, manufacturers, tourism operators and outdoor recreation centres. The effects are ongoing and everyone has a story to tell with day-to-day life now concentrating on the long re-building phase in which adaptability, resourcefulness and strength will be crucial.

Keri Bloomfield Communications & Projects, Outdoors New Zealand

When your office is the outdoors the weather and natural elements will always play a big part in dictating how your day goes. However the effect of the Canterbury earthquake was perhaps one of the harshest of all natural forces to affect the outdoor landscape as well as it’s associated infrastructure. The effects of which will continue to have a significant impact on life and how we previously knew it regardless of your industry. Such an event is always a reminder to be prepared for unplanned forces and to continually look at your contingency planning, safety management systems and procedures. Ensuring your staff are well equipped to deal with situations as they 16.

The earthquake has also torn at the very corners of what is for many, their outside ‘office’ with the physical landscape used for various outdoor recreation experiences being in some places now severely altered. Whilst homes and buildings can eventually be re-built, the outdoors landscape is not always as mouldable, nor predictable. There are of course always new ways to adapt as the resilience of those in Canterbury are already showing. We focus in this article on two stories of the Canterbury earthquake and what happens to the outdoor recreation and education sector, when nature changes your landscape.

Zero–in

Located 15kms south of the Lewis Pass, although the Boyle River Outdoor Education Centre was not physically damaged by the Earthquake, it has still been affected with the many flow on effects. Centre Manager Wendy Davis recalls that at the time of the earthquake, they were running an adventure based learning programme for a school who came from just outside of Christchurch.

As with any natural disaster, the day of the earthquake and the immediate days following require an obvious immediate response. After the initial response comes the long term planning, coping and rebuilding which may take months and years.

When the earthquake hit those inside the Lodge felt a gentle rocking while those outside in their lunch break didn’t notice anything. The Outdoor Education Centre staff however quickly ascertained that there had been a major event in Christchurch. Staff immediately tried to contact the school by phone for a status update. However due to the intermittent phone lines resulting from the quake, they were unsuccessful. The decision was then made in conjunction with the school staff to carry on as normal until more information was available. Eventually the school managed to get through on the phone and a decision was made in consultation with the school management to send the students back to their school and homes by bus. This would enable those with homes and families in Christchurch to begin dealing with the immediate aftermath and ensure their personal wellbeing and safety of their families. Once the decision was made the centre’s emergency procedures (an emergency call sign on their radio system advising instructors to all standby away from their groups to await further instructions) was deployed. After all instructors were informed of the situation, the groups were then recalled from the field. Students and staff were briefed about what had happened and preparations were made for the imminent departure of the group. The students responded maturely to the situation, and while disappointed in their outdoor adventure ending so harshly, understood what was required. Their experience of the earlier September earthquake in Christchurch no doubt aided their response, as it has also done to many other organisations in Canterbury. The Boyle River Outdoor Education Centre is also a designated Civil Defence Welfare Centre requiring it to be mindful of this responsibility as well as it’s responsibility to their client in residence. After contacting the Hurunui Civil Defence centre is was confirmed that all was well in their area, allowing their priority to remain looking after their clients.

The group that evacuated the Boyle River Outdoor Education sector had completed only 2 days of a 15-day booking. During the days immediately after the earthquake, other schools (clients) began cancelling their upcoming bookings as priorities changed and the necessities of life swung in quite a different direction. The booking sheet at Boyle took on a bleak look with all but one Christchurch school cancelling their trip to the Centre, between February and May 2011. The cancellations have resulted in a big income deficit for the centre resulting in the natural concerns by staff wondering what effect this would have on their employment. The Trust, which runs Boyle, was able to secure government funding to support their wages until the end of the current school term (Term 1) at which time it is hoped that bookings will begin to return to normal levels. Other operators have not been as fortunate with some staff in other outdoor recreation and tourism industries being made redundant as the immediate impact of a fall in visitor numbers hits. The staff and Trust at the Boyle River Outdoor Education Centre have been looking at ways to encourage more groups up to the Boyle in the future and will continue to find ways to both support the sector as well as ensure business viability for their own staff. This has included the Boyle responding to a request to make the facility available to the Christchurch Junior Doctors and their families free of charge to enable them to take some respite from the additional workload they have been carrying. The Boyle Trust are working with Rotary to offer a special camp for 30 students who have been most affected by the earthquake. The camp is scheduled for 25-29 July. If you are interested in more details please contact Wendy at the Boyle River Outdoor Education Centre +64 3 315 7082.

17.

Much closer to the epicentre, life in Lyttleton has been turned upside down for many. The landscape that was, is now not. Numerous homes have been red carded with GeoTech reports indicating it could be another 3-6 months before they can return, if at all they can. As well as the large number of homes and people’s lives that have been changed by the earthquake, Lyttleton is also the home of the Port Hills. A set of volcanic outcrops which have in the past been a place where both experienced rock-climbers and beginners could find their own style of adventure, as well as offering many walks, and biking opportunities. For self sufficient outdoor recreationalists and group activities, the Port Hills is a significant focal point for the sector in this area. However since the September and February earthquakes many of these areas have become ‘no go’ areas and are now littered by massive rocks, debris and bounce scars with a number of classic climbing routes destroyed by the 22nd of February earthquake.

Sourced from Topo50 map BX24 - Christchurch. Crown Copyright Reserved.

Rock Climbing in this area has been hit hard and suffered some significant changes to it’s landscape. Castle Rock and the Battlements have both had serious damage. With the main cliff of Castle Rock which before the earthquake, used to be consistently busy with rock climbers, now a no go zone. Other areas such as The Tors and Rapaki Rock have also incurred a bit of damage with loose rock at the top requiring further inspection as we go to print. Not all climbs have however been affected. Lyttelton rock doesn’t appear to have any scars, while Middle Sister and Ugly Sister have areas of collapse. Neil Sloan, Outdoor Recreation Teacher from Cashmere High School who has done a lot of his own investigation in this area says that “overall the message to users of this area is to treat all areas with suspicion and to check thoroughly before going into any of them”. Several mountain bike tracks across the city have also been affected with most tracks that included any cliffs of rock outcrops, now being closed until they can be fully inspected. As of April the major city access to the Crater Rim trails, Rapaki Track were still closed. With all the closures to the surrounding land, Neil still remains optimistic, “It is simply a matter of knowing what is open and then being able to access it. A good website on the track status for mountain bikes can be found on the Christchurch City Council website”. Not only has the earthquake affected the rock areas, but other recreational users such as sea kayakers have also had to adapt.

18.

Sea kayaking or kayak surfing has had to stop in the coastal beaches of Sumner and Brighton after raw sewerage has been swept out via the Avon and Heathcote Rivers. Lyttleton Harbour had initially been okay for kayakers until the dumping of fill into a reclamation area (using debris from the city) resulted in a wide range of pollutants in this area. However, the hardier outdoor enthusiasts keen to still get out there, have been seen paddling anyway, as they embrace the one slightly unchanged aspect of life in which they can escape to. As an Outdoor Recreation educator at Cashmere High School, Neil has faced several hurdles in trying to operate an outdoor education course for the Senior Students. “On the day of the February earthquake we were just about to leave school to head to Sumner Beach for a surf Kayak session, we were fortunate in our timing. An hour later and it could have been quite a different scenario”. Since then Neil has been limited in being able to arrange many of the normal outdoor recreation activities for his senior outdoor education students. They have had one amended trip up the Hurunui River (an area inland untouched by the February Earthquake), which has helped to bring a sense of normality to the group. Largely though, most of the natural landscape in their area is currently unusable as a result of the risk of ongoing aftershocks being felt and further damaging the rocks. Walking tracks, sea kayaking, road biking, mountain biking are all facing challenges as the wider outdoor community find ways to work around the issues and finding out what is now possible. Many walking tracks within the region are currently closed with most danger zones being obvious with the many rocks and boulders lining the paths. However it is a reality that because of the many other higher priorities facing the wider community to get the city operating again, these tracks will most likely be on the low priority list and could take some time before they are cleared. With the constant physical reminder of the landscape having been forever changed, Neil Sloan, however remains optimistic and says “I think it is important to get back into doing recreation fun things rather than dwelling on the world which has changed.” Compiled by Keri Bloomfield, Communications & Projects, Outdoors New Zealand with contributions from Boyle River Outdoor Education Centre, Neil Sloan and John Entwisle.

John Entwisle visited the Port Hill crags a few days after the February 22nd earthquake and has supplied a series of photos and commentary showing some of the changes to the landscape in this area: 1.

1. BEFORE: Fan Buttress at Castle Rock prior to the earthquake on 22nd February 2011.

2. AFTER: Fan Buttress at Castle Rock has fanned out over the track and has destroyed the ‘dunny’.

3. The Roofs area of Britten Crag, except that now there aren’t any roofs. There used to be a crack climb on the right of this part of the crag called “Rough Justice” which is exactly what it has received. Crossing the rockslide takes a bit of care, but it is relatively stable, however there is some debris still clinging on above the scar so not a place to linger in an aftershock. Once past here most of the crag is unaffected. Although some rockfall from Mt Pleasant crags has come over the top.

4. The classic climb of “Main Royale” at Rapaki which has survived while its neighbour “Yardarm” has been disarmed. Blocks from the top of “Flying Jib” have flown down the climb but most of the rest of the crag is fine. All of the beginner routes on the left seem untouched, but don’t expect your favourite belay block at the top to be in its usual 5. place.

5. The jumble of blocks on top of Rapaki. Climbers will have to rethink their pet abseiling and climbing anchors. Once the aftershocks have finished it should be possible to work out which ones are still solid enough to use. 6. Companions to “Flying Buttress” went from “Eclipse” to “Judgement” so it seems that all have meet the fate implied in their names. As shown in this photo there are a few suspicious blocks left loitering above and a huge pile to negotiate underneath, making this not a place to be in another earthquake and it is recommended that climbers and recreation users continue to keep away from this area for the time being until safety can be assured. 7. The Tors, showing a steep buttress of rock which has fallen out. The lost climbs were well named “Future Legend” which now has none and “Crap Breech” being a fairly apt description of what remains on the right as you look at the crag. Further left a similar block has come out while the rightside of the crag seems unchanged as shown on picture number 8.

John’s recommendation would be to leave the crags alone until after the winter rains and frosts and then let the locals work out what is safe enough to climb on, before exploring for yourself. We recommend all users of this area also keep informed on updates through the Christchurch City Council website and through their local Alpline or Rock Climbing clubs. For avoidance of doubt, safety comes first and the Port Hills area at time of going to print, remains an area full of unknown risk.

Have you been affected by the Christchurch Earthquake? We encourage you to share your story on our Linkedin page, so others within the industry can learn from your experience and also offer their assistance.

19.

New Zealanders have long been active in outdoor recreation; it is part of our identity, and a key reason many overseas visitors come here.

Mike Davies

For the Department of Conservation, how to effectively manage risk to visitors is an important issue. It is impossible to predict all hazards that may occur in natural areas and to have outdoor recreation experiences free of risk. Elements of risk will always be present in nature and the potential for, or perception of risk is an essential part of the outdoor recreation experience. It is important for visitor management to balance the negative aspects of risk such as serious injury with the positive experience of risk such as a sense of challenge and accomplishment. As the manager of your mountains (and other areas), addressing this issue lies at the heart of ensuring that challenge is still available in recreating in the outdoors. Risk, and the perception of risk, is an inherent and integral component of outdoor recreation. Getting the balance right is a responsibility for both DOC managers and visitors. To achieve this DOC has developed a Visitor Risk Policy and is developing a system for managing risk to visitors.

The Risk Management Context So what are the factors that are driving this Policy and, importantly, why do we need to get it right?

Risk Averse Society New Zealand society today is largely influenced by a culture of risk averseness. Road safety, occupational health and safety, food safety etc are all about identifying hazards and associated risk and mitigating it to a point where the consequences and likelihood of that risk affecting people and /or property is as far as possible reduced or eliminated. However, the outdoors is one place people can still experience risk and the positive benefits this can have through challenging people and testing their personal boundaries and abilitiesâ&#x20AC;Ś whether they are climbing mountains or simply stepping off the roadside. 20.

Actual vs Perceived Risk One of the key issues for us is the fact that many visitors perceive the risk in the outdoors as low, when we know the actual risk can be high. In comparison, the actual risk with an activity such as bungy jumping is low (because the extensive safety precautions and back up systems) but the perceived risk is high. We need to ensure the visitors level of awareness and consequent decision-making is based on a firm understanding of the actual risks involved, how they can expect us to be managing those risks and what we expect visitors to take responsibility for. However we cannot eliminate risk completely and it is not our legislative mandate or desire to do so.

Clear Expectations It is important to present visitors with clear expectations regarding what we will provide in terms of risk management, consistently across the sites we manage, and, more importantly to clearly articulate what we expect of visitors (in terms of their own responsibility for equipment, skill, competence, and their decision-making about the risks they take on). From a visitor point of view, sending clear messages about what they can expect of us and what we expect of them is vital to their overall enjoyment and satisfaction of the experience.

Risk Mangagement

Preserving the Experience

•

As far as possible, provide the range of outdoor recreation experiences sought by visitors

One of the key reasons we are focussed on effective visitor risk management is because we believe it is important that decisions are made about the management of risk in the outdoors that, as far as we are able, do not compromise the values and attributes that most visitors to the outdoors are seeking.

•

Ensure all its legal obligations are met for the facilities it manages and all practicable steps are taken to ensure they are safely situated

•

Where relevant inform visitors of hazards and the risks they present, and the level of skill and competence required to cope with these risks

Effective visitor risk management will ensure appropriate challenge and adventure is present in the environment, relative to the activities visitors participate in and their skills and experience.

•

Make their own decisions regarding the risks they will take.

•

Take responsibility for any others under their care.

•

Gain the skills and competence, and use equipment as required to manage the hazards present

What is DOC doing about Managing Risk for Visitors? The Department has a Visitor Risk Management Policy. This is significant as it is the first time that these duty of care obligations to visitors have been made clear. This Policy sets out the principles of how we will assess risk in the area of visitor management and is the basis for creating an overall Visitor Risk Management System for DOC. The Policy and its principles provide the context for managing visitor risk, which is in essence: •

•

DOC has legal obligations for ensuring its facilities are safely situated in accordance with the predominant type of visitor (DOC has a process to do this) and will take responsibility for informing visitors of hazards and the risks they present, and the level of skill and competence required to cope with those risks. Visitors are responsible for their own decisions regarding the risks they take, for others in their care, and for how prepared they are for the experience they are going to have.

The objective of the Policy is to create effective and consistent risk management: •

that allows us to ensure that the appropriate actions are undertaken in the appropriate places. This enables resources to be targeted to where they are most needed in an efficient and effective manner for the benefit of the end user, the visitor.

•

is a key tool to ensure that we continue to provide a range of recreation opportunities (which include a range of risks/challenges) on public conservation land for the benefit of New Zealanders and overseas visitors.

•

ensures that DOC staff have access to the information that they need to make informed decisions for visitors to public conservation land.

The Policy is about the responsibility for managing risk being shared: The Department of Conservation will: •

Define the physical setting, the degree of risk present and the skill level required by the visitor.

•

Manage places and the facilities within them using service standards based on a range of visitor requirements.

Visitors will:

Concessionaires will: •

Take responsibility for the safety of their clients

This Policy will become the basis of a conversation between the Department, visitors and stakeholders on how to manage risk. In addition to the Policy we are developing a system to manage risk, this can be summarised into four areas of work: 1.

Asset Management – this has been the major focus of our work to ensure the facilities we manage meet the required but appropriate safety standards and we provide consistent service standards that meet visitors expectations.

Visitor Information – ensuring that visitors receive the appropriate safety information to allow them to make choices about activities that match their skills and experience

Hazard Identification and management – identification of critical hazards and the appropriate actions to manage the risk.

Working with others on risk management – collaborative arrangements with other organisations to manage risk e.g. Mountain Safety Council, Metservice, NZ Police etc.

This work reflects the needs and preferences of different types of visitors based on there being a continuum of likely risk and associated risk management based on the predominant type of visitor; frontcountry accessible sites have less risk, as the risks that may be present are actively managed. The risks present increase as one moves into the backcountry. The more remote the area the less active risk management will occur and visitors are expected to be highly capable of looking after themselves. Facility and service management is based on service standards which encompass all legislative requirements that govern operation of these facilities and services. The level of facility and service provision at locations will reflect the type of visitor most likely to visit the location.

Mike Davies is currently a Senior Technical Support Officer with the Research and Development Group at the Department of Conservation, Head Office where he is managing a project on Visitor Risk Management. Previously he worked for five years in emergency management for the National Rural Fire Authority and has 20 years experience largely working in visitor management for the Department of Conservation, New Zealand Forest Service and Department of Lands and Survey in a range of roles and locations.

So whether you want your mountains with or without handrails we need to work together to ensure that risk is addressed in an appropriate way to maintain our culture of outdoor recreation. 21.

River Safety Professional Development Opportunity Water Safety New Zealand will host a series of Professional Development sessions for teachers linked to the introduction of ‘Be RiverSafe’. This educational resource has a specific focus on river safety that has primarily been developed for students aged 12 – 17. Sessions are planned for June in Wanganui, Palmerston North, Waikato, Northland & Canterbury. Be RiverSafe provides for: • Increasing knowledge; • enhancing skill development; • assisting in developing river safe attitudes and behaviours Be RiverSafe includes a DVD and supporting ‘tool box’ developed for both students, teachers and instructors. Register your interest by emailing: cory@watersafety.org.nz

SPARC Hillary Expedition The SPARC Hillary Expedition initiative aims to inspire and encourage New Zealanders to take on exciting, world-class physical challenges in the great outdoors. Keep an eye on their website for the latest video blogs. http://www.sparc.org.nz/en-nz/ recreation/Hillary-Expedition/ Latest-Web-updates/

2011 New Zealand Recreation Association Conference The 2011 New Zealand Recreation Association Annual Conference will be held at the new Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin between 16 – 18 November. Join hundreds of others from the recreation industry and beyond for what promises to be a diverse and stimulating selection of presentations and workshops. www.nzraevents.org.nz

22.

New entry level qualifications NZOIA, Skills Active and Mountainbike NZ are launching a new series of entry level qualifications that can be achieved in many workplaces, on tertiary programmes and through workshop assessment events. One of which is the National Certificate in Outdoor Recreation (Leadership) / NZOIA Leader. This qualification could be the first step towards a career in outdoor recreation and outdoor education. The National Certificate is a qualification with six strands. It consists of two modules: • The core compulsory module • One strand of the trainee’s choice – either Abseiling, Bush walking, Kayaking, Mountain biking, Rock climbing or Sea kayaking. Who is it for? For people who want to take groups into the outdoors and provide safe positive experiences at an introductory level. Certificate holders could include club leaders, outdoor centre staff, teachers, scout and guide leaders, tourism operators. For more information contact:

NZOIA

www.nzoia.org.nz

Excellence in Outdoor Leadership

or www.skillsactive.org.nz

Process Black

Pantone 421

NZOIA TM

Excellence in Outdoor Leadership

EOTC Guidelines Workshops White

Pantone 425

Education Outside The Classroom (EOTC) is curriculum-based learning that extends the four walls of the classroom. This series of workshops brings the new MoE EOTC Guidelines (2009) alive, highlighting key components of the Guidelines. Free to attend – a series of workshops will be held throughout May. Designed for Senior leaders, EOTC coordinators, those with responsibility of EOTC, sports coordinators, teachers using or wishing to use EOTC. For more details email: eonz.eo@clear.net.nz

Bushcraft is Back!

Whakatūpato: A New Firearms Safety Training Programme

The Mountain Safety Council have released a new edition of the Bushcraft manual. Every chapter has been reviewed and a fresh new design applied throughout the 270 page wire bound manual.

Whakatūpato (meaning ‘take care’) is a joint venture between Mountain Safety Council, NZ Police and Iwi to provide comprehensive firearms training for Maori and other rural persons who are firearms users but who for a number of reasons may not be able to access current firearms and hunter safety training.

Chief Executive Darryl Carpenter said: “Bushcraft is as essential to every Kiwi home as the Edmonds Cookbook! It contains info that everyone who wants to enjoy our great outdoors needs to know. Whether you’re a bush beginner or know the backcountry like the back of your hand, there’s something in there for everyone.”

The programme is currently underway in the Te Urewara region and it is hoped that the initiative will be extended to other parts of the country in the future. Contact Project Co-ordinator Tracy Wakeford from the Mountain Safety Council on 09 405 9242 or email: tracy.wakeford@mountainsafety.org.nz for more information.

Order online at: www. mountainsafety.org.nz

AdventureSmart website to become ‘one stop shop’ for NZ outdoor safety information The Outdoor Safety Code which launched last year has now been joined by the Boating Code and the Water Safety Code. This joint initiative by Mountain Safety Council and NZSAR is part of the wider Visitor Risk Management project which also includes the development of the AdventureSmart web portal.

The New Zealand Alpine Club in conjunction with World Expeditions is proud to host the 2011 International Banff Mountain Film festival in New Zealand during May and June This Festival travels around the world and includes some of the world’s best mountain films. Your chance to experience the adventure of climbing, mountain expeditions, remote cultures, and the world’s last great wild places on the big screen.

The website www.adventuresmart.org.nz aims to become New Zealand’s one stop shop for safety messages and provide visitors with the necessary information they need to stay safe in the outdoors. The website is currently live however phase two of the project will extend the depth and breadth of information and content, increase the number and quality of links and engage more organisations with a vested interest in outdoor safety.

Wellington Taranaki Nelson Auckland Dunedin Christchurch Hamilton Taupo

10th and 12th May 20th May 21st May 24th May and 1st June 3rd May and 4th May 11th June 9th July 8th July

More information at: http://alpineclub.org.nz/banff

For more information please visit: www.adventuresmart.org.nz or email Project Manager, Andrea Hubbard at the Mountain Safety Council: andrea.hubbard@mountainsafety.org.nz

Stay in touch Outdoors New Zealand is now on Twitter and LinkedIn. www.twitter.com/outdoorsnz_nz

group: Outdoors New Zealand

23.

Whilst accidents, and especially serious accidents, in the adventure activity sector are thankfully very rare, they represent a disproportionate threat to it. Moreover, when we scrutinise those accidents that do occur we find a number of common threads. Mechanical failure is seldom a significant cause of accidents. Lack of knowledge or inappropriate operating procedures do not feature highly either.

Marcus Bailie

Very occasionally, risk-benefit expectations go wrong, the likelihood and consequence considerations do not pan out as expected, or all the lemons finally line up. Given the high rate of participation there are very few of any of these types of accidents in the adventure activity sector. The majority of accidents, some of them serious, are those that simply should not happen, but do. The silly, easily preventable ones. The ones that were just plain dumb! And this leads us to the study of errors.

Surprisingly, accident investigations do not always focus on the cause of the accident. In some cases, the investigation focuses on whether there was a breach in some regulation, or failure to follow an agreed procedure, even if this was not the principle or underlying cause of the accident. The way our brains work does not help us to get at the truth of what actually happened. There is lots of research about hindsight distortion: the tendency to inaccurately remember unpleasant past events. Events at an accident don’t usually unfold in a narrative form. Things happen simultaneously. Different witnesses are aware of different details. The shock of the event will distort our memory of the sequence of it, and even significant details are recalled incorrectly. This all obscures the truth and so the reason that we don’t learn the right lessons from past accidents is that we often failed to find the real cause. Worse, we think we have solved the problem, and stick to that belief right up until exactly the same accident happens again. 24.

Most troubling is the tendency for an investigation to end with the conclusion that the cause was human error and there they leave it. I argue that this should be the start of the investigation, not the end. Human errors have causes too, as I hope to explore.

Not all professions experience similar accident rates or even similar accident patterns. Because of the level of risk involved it is not surprising that farming, forestry, fisheries and construction have higher rates than office work and many service industries. What is more surprising is where there is a significant difference in rates and patterns with no obvious explanation. Comparing the medical sector (in particular surgeons) and the aviation sector (in particular pilots) in North America produced some very revealing results. Whilst human error is the major cause of accidents in both sectors, pilots had a much better record than surgeons. Indeed the safety culture within aviation paid more attention to detail than within medicine. Disentangling the reasons helped to make surgery safer in North America. There are also very real lessons for our sector, adventure activities. The process revealed some of the characteristics of what they refer to as ‘high reliability organisations’, although it is acknowledged that we are only just beginning to understand the complexities of this crucial field. Incidentally, for reasons that I will come to shortly, I believe the adventure activity sector is more towards the surgeon’s end of the spectrum than the pilot’s. You disagree? Well, that would be a characteristic of surgeons as well. On the whole, they tend to overestimate their own abilities, and also their own safety record!

As well as trying to explore some of the basic concepts of this comparatively new study, sometimes referred to as ‘error-nomics’, it is possible to also look at solutions for the narrow

Risk Mangagement sector of outdoor and adventurous activities. There are no universal solutions to the problem of human error accidents, but one effective approach is to think small, and act in a sector-specific context. So, let’s leap from the observation that overconfidence kills, to an example of an adventure activity-specific solution. The literature claims that when it comes to memory, ‘context is king’. This is why inspired managers and inspired regulators are critical of an approach that requires their staff to read the latest risk assessments and sign them as an indication that they have done so and undertake to abide by them. I remember what I did when, as a keen but impatient young instructor, dossiers of this sort were pinned on the staff notice board. Like most of my fellow instructors I signed the front cover and went climbing! Now let’s assume that today’s instructors are much more professional and conscientious than I was. And let’s assume they sit down there and then, or take it home, and read it cover to cover. How much will they learn? I argue, and the research supports me, that they probably won’t learn much. Have you ever tried to work through the manual for a new computer programme without sitting in front of your computer and working through the various stages? You soon find out how much you have learned, or not, the first time you try to run the programme.

being delivered in their name. This serves several functions. One of these is to ensure that staff are actually doing what they should be doing, but this is only a small part of it. Monitoring activities, or ‘walking the floor’ as it is called in industry, is more about educating management than educating staff. It is not unusual for a manager, after a very infrequent session looking at what actually happens on the crag, to return to their office white and slightly shaking, muttering something about “I didn’t know we did that.” Not knowing what is being delivered in your name, and how, leads to serious management errors, and consequently, accidents.

Monitoring also tells staff that their work is valued and this is crucial for the safe delivery of activities. It is not a big leap from staff feeling that their boss doesn’t care about the quality of their work to them not caring either. And when we don’t care, we make mistakes and when we make mistakes, we have accidents. Staff need to be nurtured. Newly qualified instructors (NQIs) in particular need to know that what they are doing in practice is both satisfactory and important. Looked at in the other direction, more experienced instructors need the opportunity to feed back to their boss (in context) the success or otherwise of both new and well established approaches. “X would work better if we did Y and Z.” This keeps both parties focused.

Worse, not only have these conscientious instructors not learned much they think they have! And worse still, their bosses think they have as well.

Random monitoring also keeps all staff focused and this is the single most important aspect in human error accident prevention.

The only way to go through written procedures is in context. Managers need to provide instructors with work time to go through the procedures and to go through it with them in context. That means if you are looking at high ropes procedures, you do it out there at the ropes course, or those for the gorge, you go to the gorge.

Have you ever inadvertently driven past a motorway junction at which you had planned to exit? Yes?

Because many issues transfer from one activity to another, not only will you have ‘covered’ high ropes or the gorge but you will have improved safety awareness, all those important little details, across the board. Trying to review all of your procedures in one go is therefore less likely to be as productive as spreading them out, in some cases over several months, and in other cases, perhaps over several years.

It is now widely recognised that it is important for managers in adventure activities to get out of their offices and go and see what is actually

How did you manage to miss those two enormous blue signs, the massive road markings, and the approach of a huge concrete fly-over? Explanations commonly cover a wide range of irrelevant, implausible, self-protecting, and bizarre excuses. The truth, of course, is usually “My mind was somewhere else!” Best practice in swimming pools is that the lifeguard does not sit on the big high chair watching the swimmers for more than 20 minutes or so. Otherwise their concentration tends to go, and their minds wander. Rosters are designed so as to prevent this. If the same climbing instructor runs nothing but single pitch climbing sessions at the same crag 25.

with similar clients, all day, every day, it is asking the impossible to expect them to stay 100% focused on each and every climber. The mind wanders and accidents happen! Telling instructors that they must stay focused is unlikely to be enough to ensure that they do.

Sooner or later we all make mistakes. The secret of survival is to ensure that no single error causes a catastrophe (the Health and Safety Executive call this a single point failure). It is one of the reasons why pilots made fewer mistakes than surgeons in North America. At least two sets of eyes and minds are focused on any safety critical action. Check? Check!

Whether a procedure is likely to be followed or not is as important as considering the technical merits of the procedure.

Let’s consider an example. Is it safer for a climber’s harness to be attached to the rope by tying the rope directly to it or by attaching it via a karabiner? The ‘tie on’ or ‘clip on’ dilemma. Tying on means fewer links in the chain and less chance of the climber being hit in the face with a big lump of metal. Conversely, tying on is much slower, even if the instructor does all the tying. Worse, evidence from climbing wall accident investigations in the UK tells us that sooner or later an instructor will do it wrong. Attaching to a nonstructural part of the harness is the most common mistake. Clipping on with a karabiner not only has the advantage of speed but crucially, the climber can do it and the instructor can check it is done correctly. Two sets of eyes and two minds. Check? Check! Overall, I believe that clipping on will result in fewer catastrophic errors, provided that the duality principle is applied. Take this one stage further. An instructor attaches the belay rope to the back attachment on a full body harness before the student leaps from a high platform to a trapeze bar, some metres out from the platform, and some tens of metres in the air. Now you would think that a very experienced and highly qualified instructor would never fail to make that all-important attachment but you would be wrong. The impossible happened and the adult who fell is likely to spend the rest of their life in a wheelchair. In this case we may never know why the instructor failed to make the crucial connection, but we come across too many accidents where the instructor’s mind was simply somewhere else.

26.

For this reason I personally prefer the karabiner to be attached to the front of a conventional sit harness, which has been properly sized and properly fitted. I know of no single case of anyone, young or old, fat or thin, shapely or waist-less, who has ever completely fallen out of a properly sized and properly fitted sit harness (I would be grateful to hear from anyone with evidence to the contrary). The jumper is shown where and how to attach the karabiner, does so (probably before climbing to the platform), and the instructor checks it again before the jumper jumps. Interestingly, this is exactly what scuba divers are not only trained to do as novices, but do throughout their diving careers. They call it the ‘buddy system’. I check your gear before we dive and you check mine. If only climbers did that there would be a lot fewer accidents, without detracting one iota from the ethics of the sport.

Evidence now tells us that most of what we call multi-tasking is a myth. Even early computers, where the phase originated, didn’t multi-task. They switched from one task to another, and back again, in nano-seconds. The human brain simply is not designed to do this. Try having a conversation with someone who is working out the bill in a restaurant. Either the conversation or the mathematics (or indeed both) will suffer. One or both tasks always suffer. We could apply this to our example of clipping on versus tying on. The instructor cannot tie on the climber and continue to supervise the rest of the group without one (or both) tasks suffering. Loading more and more responsibility onto the instructor not only leads to task over-load, but a misplaced faith in multi-tasking by both the instructor and managers means that the instructor is likely to try. And not surprisingly, accidents happen.

If you have a number of comparatively inexperienced instructors, and each is given their own session to run all day, every day, the odds are stacked that at least one of them will have an accident or a near miss at some stage during the season. You will recall that the swimming pool manager’s solution to this problem of loss of concentration was to rotate the staff onto different tasks, even if each of the tasks is equally repetitive in nature. We can transfer that solution into an introductory level multi-activity centre, for example, with good effect. Many of the instructional demands on an

individual instructor in this setting are not high. Often much narrower, for example, than the skills and experienced required for the relevant National Governing Body (NGB) award. By ‘up-skilling’ the instructor through further training, it is perfectly possible to develop the climbing instructors to the point where they can lead the high ropes sessions, the zip wire, the big swing, and probably more. Similarly there are a lot of benefits to developing paddle-sport instructors who can manage the siton-top kayak sessions, the open canoe sessions, the dragon boating, and the improvised rafting. Then rotate the staff. We can develop this idea further, and move away from single-activity instructors altogether.

A single-activity instructor, as discussed above, stays with the same activity as different groups rotate around the different activities. The advantage of this is that the individual has to have experience and training, and been assessed as competent, in only one activity. Multi-disciplined instructors are harder to come by, and harder and more expensive to train. Ironically, licensing in the UK may have inadvertently made this situation worse because many employers assume that their instructors must all hold NGB qualifications in all the activities they instruct. They don’t. The licensing regulations merely state that they must be competent in the tasks they are asked to do. The disadvantage, as discussed above, is that single-activity instructors risk losing concentration and enthusiasm. There have been several accidents in recent years in the UK which occurred because the instructor was adding additional ‘thrills’ designed, at least in part, to keep themselves entertained as well as the participants. By contrast, a group instructor keeps the same group of participants and takes them through the range of activities. Group instructors, therefore, are always doing something different, and therefore more likely to remain focused.

qualifications to carry out in-house training and assessment in most, if not all, of the activities offered (external courses are very expensive and disruptive to programming). It is crucial that these trainers are as aware of the techniques of error avoidance, as of the technical skills they are imparting. It also requires careful management. At least some introductory-level multi-activity centres in the UK with high annual turnover of staff find enormous benefit in having a dedicated member of the management team coordinating staff development. They have an activity manager who ensures that each session is staffed by suitably experienced and competent instructors, and a training manager who ensures each member of staff is teased, coaxed, supported, and given opportunities to develop basic instructional skills in a range of new and varied activities. This may sound excessive but junior staff are a lot less expensive than an accident. In some cases, and in particular in traditional outdoor education centres, this model not only encourages staff to have basic instructional skills in a wide range of activities, but by undertaking Continuous Professional Development to gain NGB qualifications as well. In centres where staff may remain for many years it is important to keep them focused and enthusiastic.

Marcus Bailie: I have now been involved professionally with adventure activities for 30 years, as an instructor (including being in charge of the mountain leadership department at Plas y Brenin, the national mountaineering centre), as a manager (including Director of Tiglin, the National Adventure Centre of Ireland), and as a regulator. The views expressed here, therefore, are a summation of what I have learned over that time, and from others, and are not necessarily the views of Tourism Quality Services Ltd (my current employer) or the Health and Safety Executive (to whom we are currently contracted).

From senior management through to the newest NQI, and from introductory level outdoor recreation to in-depth outdoor education, systems should focus on people not just mechanical procedures. A short reading list Hallinan J.H. 2009 Error nomics. This book, or at least the first half of it, will completely change the way you look at accident avoidance. Pratt J.M. 2003, Human Factor Flight Safety. This is written for pilots, but in language that is very accessible and informative to anyone involved in risk management. Very funny and with great photographs, this makes the message even more easy to remember. He also has a host of great one-liners such as “Flying isn’t dangerous. Crashing is!” Bailie M.H. (2008) Horizons 42 Bet your life Bailie M.H. (2008) Horizons 43 Language of Change

Secondly, group instructors get to know their group in increasing detail as the course develops. Who is trustworthy, who is rash, who needs encouragement, who needs watching, etc. By taking an interest in each individual’s progress the group instructor is more likely to remain focused on the session, and in particular on those components that are most likely to make errors. People! This regime benefits from having in-house staff with sufficient experience and

Taleb N.N. 2007 Black Not so much about errors as about why we do things the way we do. Association of Mountaineering Instructors Newsletter. Various. Fiona Brindley HSE. Human Factors in accident investigation. A Power point presentation. The Energy Institute, May 2008 Guidance on investigating and analysing human and organisational factor aspects of incidents and accidents.

27.

Outdoor Excellence Awards

The Outdoor Excellence Awards are hosted annually by Outdoors New Zealand, and are an Awards programme designed to recognise the highest levels of achievements for individuals and organisations involved in the outdoor recreation and education in New Zealand. Each award is judged by the nominated judging panel from each of the relevant outdoor industry organisations, ensuring that nominees are being judged by the very best in their industry. The Awards were last held in September 2010, and will once again be happening in 2011, with the overall winners announced at the Outdoor Excellence Awards Dinner to be held alongside the 2011 Outdoors Forum in Wellington (28-29 October). The Awards can be entered by anyone currently operating within the outdoor recreation and education sector, and/or who has made a significant impact within this industry. With the 2011 nomination period about to open on 1 July, we thought it an opportunity to profile the 2010 winners: Education Outdoors NZ Programme Award is awarded to an Outdoor Programme that has demonstrated quality and innovation, and has enabled a greater cognisance of outdoor recreation as a significant dimension of the New Zealand way of life. In 2010 this award was awarded to two organisations:

28.

Oxford Area School is a rural school in Canterbury catering for students from Year 1 – Year 13. The school has been recognised for their extensive efforts in developing and delivering high quality outdoor education programmes. Their outdoor programmes are offered from Year 7 to Year 13 and are carefully sequenced. Programmes begin with bush and aquatics and build to mountain, leadership and outdoor management. Underlying themes for all programmes include environmental projects, community service and journey’s. The judges were impressed with the Hikoi’s through the Marlborough Sounds following Captain Cooks journey and their 5 day journey from Christchurch to Akaroa exploring the Maori history and the early settlers journey. Oxford Area School has a strong relationship with other schools in the region and willingly share their equipment and programmes. YMCA Wainui Park is owned and operated by the Christchurch YMCA. The YMCA is a not for profit charitable trust committed to building strong young people, families and communities. Their programme philosophy focuses on personal development, respect, responsibility, leadership, friendship, fun and care for the environment. The programme is developed by the young people for the young people – with leaders earning their leadership status. Participants progress from Fantails for 9 and 10 year olds through to the leadership programme for 16 – 17 year olds. The judges were impressed with the examples of students, some of whom had begun as troubled youth, but as a result of this programme and had then gone on to be inspiring leaders. Truly a worthy programme.

Celebration NZOIA Emerging Instructor Award recognises someone who has demonstrated enthusiasm, passion for the outdoors and excellence in instructional skills and techniques. The Emerging Instructor seeks to achieve relevant industry qualifications and continues to personally challenge themselves in their own adventures. John Hannam, was also acknowledged as the NZOIA (New Zealand Outdoors Instructor Association) emerging instructor. As an emerging instructor within this industry John exceeded in all of the criteria set by NZOIA. John was nominated by Josie Ogden Schroeder, Chief Executive Officer, YMCA Christchurch, who noted that while John was an experienced instructor he was ‘emerging’ as a leader and an inspiration to up and coming instructors. John has been working at YMCA Christchurch since 1998. NZOIA Tall Totara Award is presented to an NZOIA member who best fulfils the aims and objectives of the New Zealand Outdoor Instructors Association. Ray Hollingsworth was awarded this in 2010 in acknowledgment of his ongoing support, loyalty, contributions and commitment to the organisation. MSC Volunteer Award recognises the significant contribution that volunteers make to outdoor recreation and education in New Zealand through freely giving their time, energy and commitment to making a positive difference in the community. In 2010 this Award was presented to Noel Bigwood for his numerous voluntary contributions to the outdoors sector, including the Mountain Safety Council and Search & Rescue work. Based at Otaki Police Station, Noel’s passion for the outdoors has seen him take an active interest in the numerous organisations who help ensure the outdoors is a safe place – such as LandSAR and MSC at a senior level. He is well respected within the outdoor safety community and has more recently played a significant role in the River Safety DVD being produced by MSC and Water Safety New Zealand. The Mountain Safety Council believes this award is crucial to acknowledging the rocks of the community, which are the ‘volunteers’. Each year they look over numerous entries from all aspects of the outdoors, which come from all

areas of volunteering – from administrative and governance level contributions through to very practical and innovative hands on work with youth, and others in the community. ONZ Facility Award awarded to an outdoor recreation or education facility that is performing at the highest levels and is a valued and effective member of the community. YMCA Shakespear Lodge was acknowledged on the evening in the category of ‘Outdoors NZ Best Facility Award’. YMCA Shakespear Lodge is a very successful, superbly equipped outdoor education centre at the tip of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. The staff takes a great deal of pride in delivering high quality programmes to a huge variety of clients including schools, corporates, clubs and Defence/Police. The centre has excellent relationships with local schools and businesses and runs many camps for special needs groups each year. Winning this award is a powerful validation of over 25 years of service to their community and to the YMCA core values of caring, respect, honesty and responsibility. Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre Environmental Leadership Award acknowledges individuals or programmes who have influenced the ecological worldview of participants and/ or demonstrated a significant commitment to conservation or protection of adventure places. Chris North was recognised for his ongoing work in the area of Environmental Leadership, and was awarded the Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre Environmental Leadership Award. Chris is the founder of Leave No Trace in New Zealand, an effort no doubt born by his personal passion to translate knowledge and respect for the environment into action for sustainability. Chris has a wide range of qualifiations in mountaineering, whitewater kayaking and rock climbing and has worked in outdoor education and leadership for nearly 20 years. Leave No Trace New Zealand is an environmental movement focused on reaching out to our wider community and visitors to promote and inspire responsible travel and recreation. It seeks to educate and challenge the New Zealand public and visitors on how and why to minimise their environmental impacts while enjoying natural and cultural heritage areas. Chris’s work in founding this organisation in New Zealand was recognised through this award. 29.

SPARC Supreme Award recognises dedication, commitment and significant contribution to outdoor recreation and education in New Zealand.

teaching and learning and was once told he was the guru of outdoor education in New Zealand. Bert has had a profound impact on shaping and enriching the future lives of people with his strong ability to communicate his passion for education and the environment, a trait obvious to all. Bert has a real exuberance and passion for teaching. His unique character fashioned by his Irish upbringing breathes life into all his teaching. He is able to ignite groups with his wonderful stories and his adventurous spirit. Jeff Pepper, Academic Dean Christchurch College of Education, describes his teaching as a magical mystery tour. Bert was an ‘icon’ in the social studies/geography field long before he made his mark in outdoor education.

The SPARC Supreme Award in 2010 was awarded to Bert McConnell, one of New Zealand’s most influential figures in teaching and learning of education outside the classroom. In December 2002 after 27 years of teaching, Bert retired from his position of Principal Lecturer and HOD Outdoor Education & Environmental Education at Christchurch College of Education. However since retiring he has continued to support outdoor education in schools throughout the Christchurch area. During his time of educating, he has been thought of as being ahead of his time in his approach to

2011 Outdoor Excellence Awards Nominations Open: Nominations Close:

1 July 2011 1 September 2011

Bert has had a profound impact on shaping and enriching the futures lives of people. He was a great teacher who had the ability to communicate his passion for education and the environment. Bert’s own personal passions include tramping, biking, sea kayaking and climbing. Bert is truly an influential figure in New Zealand in the field of Outdoor Education and a worthy recipient of this prestigious award.

Regardless of your specific area of expertise we encourage you to look out for the nomination forms available from July and to also encourage those around you who may be accomplishing great things to enter.

Individuals and organisations can nominate themselves or others for any of these awards. Full entry instructions and nomination forms will be available through the Outdoors New Zealand website from July 2011: www.outdoorsnz.org.nz

If you have any questions regarding the process please contact Keri Bloomfield, Outdoors New Zealand: keri@outdoorsnz.org.nz or tel: +64 4 385 7287

As with any Awards programme, one of the benefits of being nominated and/or winning an Award, is that it shows a commitment to your industry and is an opportunity for us all to celebrate the successes and accomplishments from within our sector.

SPARC Supreme Award Bert McConnell

The entry process can also be a clarifying process for yourself and your staff, as you take the time to step back and consider your achievements over the past year. This process can also assist you in critically looking at your achievements and looking for continual improvements and ways to measure your success so further comparisons and enhancements can be made on an ongoing basis. Lastly, it gives you the chance to celebrate your success as a team with your staff. Previous winner Chris North said “Receiving the award came as a huge surprise. I had been beavering away and at times struggled with challenges establishing Leave No Trace, while trying to balance work and family. Getting the award gave me a great boost, although I keep thinking, I didn’t do it on my own and I don’t know that we have earned it yet!”

30.

Because of his reputation, students made choices to be in his class with some even changing their chosen college of education to be in his class at Christchurch College of Education.

2010 Outdoor Excellence Awards Winners:

Outdoors NZ Best Facility Award YMCA Shakespear Lodge Education Outdoors NZ Programme Award Oxford Area School and YMCA Wainui Mountain Safety Council Volunteer Award Noel Bigwood Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre Environmental Leadership Award Chris North NZOIA Emerging instructor Award John Hannam NZOIA Tall Totara Award Ray Hollingsworth

www.outdoorsnz.org.nz

2011

Outdoor Forum

Waiho i te toipoto, kaua i te toiroa

28 – 29 October, 2011, Wellington, New Zealand Registrations open 1 July: www.outdoorsnz.org.nz KI WAHO INTO

ISSN 1178-9085

THE OUTDOORS

T HE MAG A ZINE FOR NE W Z EAL A ND ’S OUTDOOR COMMUNIT Y • IS S UE 4 • MAY 2011

Advertising in Ki Waho The next issue of ‘Ki Waho – Into the Outdoors’ will be published in October 2011. Advertising opportunities are now available and must be booked prior to 19 September.

William Pike Challenge Award 1 October 2011: What does this date mean for you?

Advertising Guidelines can be viewed on our website: www.outdoorsnz.org.nz

When nature changes your landscape Do you want your mountains with or without handrails? Competency v’s Qualifications Outdoor Excellence Awards 1.

for more information email: info@outdoorsnz.org.nz

NEW ZEALAND MOUNTAIN SAFETY COUNCIL

THE

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE

avalanche

conference christchurch, new zealand 10-12 june 2011

Current Practice, Future Thinking >> New Zealand and international speakers will present the latest avalanche knowledge and developments from around the world. Take the opportunity to learn and share with the best minds in the industry, trial the latest gadgets and new technology plus catch-up with friends and colleagues. The conference consists of a full day of optional workshops followed by a two day schedule of informative presentations relevant for the Avalanche sector. Suitable for Ski area personnel, back country operators, Police, DOC, Road Contractors, LandSAR, MSC Alpine & Avalanche Instructors plus anyone involved in the Avalanche community.

WWW.MOUNTAINSAFETY.ORG.NZ/CONFERENCE Conference supported by:

More information at: http://alpineclub.org.nz/banff

31.

Within the outdoor recreation and education sector we recognise that many operators as well as providing recreation experiences, are also running their own businesses requiring a wide range of additional skills. From business planning, finance, marketing, communications, customer service and managing your staff, these are just some of the additional hats required of those in our industry. Through our magazine ‘Ki Waho – Into the Outdoors’ we will bring you a regular feature covering some of these topics. In this issue Human Resources expert Angela Atkins, and author of ‘Employment Bites’ & ‘Management Bites’, updates you on the key things you need to know about the recent Employment Law Changes, and the impact they may have.

Angela Atkins

April Fools Day is an interesting day to choose for employment legislation changes to come into effect – but they did and without any joking around! Being a small employer it can be hard to keep up to date with all the changes and what they really mean for your business, especially when you’re busy running your company. Below are some key points regarding the Employment Law Changes which came into effect on 1 April 2011.

The first change is that employers and employees can agree (in writing) to transfer the observance of public holidays to another working day. There may be some complications with this if your business closes down (e.g. can you have one employee working by themselves?) and if so can you turn down requests or have a policy that certain areas of the business cannot transfer their holidays. Make sure you keep a record of when public holidays are transferred and what day they transfer to!

When an employee works a public holiday and it IS a normal working day, they accrue an alternate holiday. The law has now changed that if you and your employee cannot agree on when that alternative holiday is to be taken, then you as the employer can determine the timing. Make sure you update your employment agreements or policies to reflect this.

32.

If an employer and employee agree, employees will be able to trade one of their four weeks’ annual leave for cash. Although as the employer, you can choose to have a policy that you will not cash up annual leave. However if you decide you will, employees have to request this in writing and they can only ask for the week after their first annual leave entitlement rolls over. You must also keep a record of any leave paid out.

Employers will now be able to ask for a medical certificate after one day of sick leave however you must cover the employee’s costs in obtaining a medical certificate or report. If the employee has used up their sick leave and refuses to get a medical certificate, sick leave can be unpaid.

When employees now take sick, bereavement or statutory leave, it should be paid at their relevant daily rate. Where this is unclear (e.g. if people work on a roster) then Holidays Act will have a new “Average Daily Pay” formula to be used to calculate leave entitlements, rather than the different calculations that used to exist. Make sure you are familiar with this formula so you pay people correctly when they take leave!

All employers (regardless of size) will now be able to use a 90 day trial period. You must put this in writing in your employment agreement or letter of offer. The Department of Labour have a suggested clause that you can use on their website: www.dol.govt.nz If you do offer a trial period and an employee accepts, they will not be able to raise a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal if you dismiss them within these 90 days.

Management & Leadership

But beware! This doesn’t mean you can fire new people at will! You still need to treat them as if they are going to be successful in the role. Give them training. Have catch ups to talk about how they are going. And if they are not showing the skills, experience or team fit you need, then let them know this. You also need to give them notice if they haven’t worked out.

to your workplace will require your consent. The union need to request this in writing. An employer will not be able to unreasonably withhold access and have a limited time to respond to a union request for access to a workplace.

A trial period can only be used for a new employee. In October 2010 there was a case at Stokes Valley Pharmacy where the employee signed their employment agreement a day after they started. She was then dismissed but the Employment Relations Authority said because she had worked for one day before signing her agreement, she was not new! So make sure new employees sign their agreement BEFORE they start.

An employer will be able to communicate directly with employees during collective bargaining, provided communications are consistent with the duty of good faith.

You might also want to review and update your disciplinary policies or clauses in your employment agreements to tie in with the new trial period.

The test of justification for dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Relations Act has been amended by replacing the word “would” with “could”. This will mean that the test will be whether the employer’s actions were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred. You still have to follow a fair and reasonable process, meeting with the employee throughout the process, setting out the allegations, giving them time to have a support person and explain their side of the story and not making a decision until you have considered their explanation.

Reinstatement will no longer be the “primary” remedy (although as employees had to request this when they took a grievance, it wasn’t often used where the employment relationship had broken down).

The last one comes into effect on 1 July 2011, and on that date an employer will be required to provide employees with a copy of a signed employment agreement, or an unsigned one if the employee hasn’t signed. But if there are clauses both parties haven’t agreed to, this will not comprise their final conditions. So try and talk through the clauses they have concerns with and try and reach agreement.

Angela Atkins has written two practical books designed for New Zealand companies:

Angela Atkins is an experienced human resources and training professional who has advised and trained hundreds of managers. Angela is the General Manager of Elephant Training and HR. She facilitates training as well as works as an HR manager to small companies who don’t need a full-time HR resource.

Management Bites: Being a better NZ Manager This book covers every area of business management, bite by bite. It’s full of practical ways to manage yourself and your team with real-life examples of what went right and how to fix what’s gone wrong. Employment Bites: NZ Guide to Better Human Resources Employment Bites covers every area of managing the people part of your business, bite by bite. It’s full of practical suggestions for implementing great human resources (HR) solutions, with examples from New Zealand companies and ways to develop HR skills.

The rules on union access to workplaces have also changed, so that any access that a union wants

33.

OPC – LEARNING FROM THE MANGATEPOPO TRAGEDY

Belinda Manning & Simon Graney In collaboration with OPC staff and Trust Board members 9/8/10, updated 3/5/11.

1. INTRODUCTION

On 15 April 2008, six students and a teacher drowned while trying to escape from the flooded Mangatepopo gorge. The trip was part of an Adventure Challenge course at the Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre (OPC). In the three years since this day, the causes of this tragedy have been extensively investigated and analysed and presented in two main reports: •

The OPC Trust Board instigated an independent investigation into what had happened using three external experts: the Independent Review Team (IRT). This was a thorough ‘systems based’ investigation.

•

The second major report was produced by the Coroner. The Coroner endorsed the recommendations made by the IRT as well as making additional recommendations.

In addition, the Department of Labour (DoL) carried out an investigation and pressed charges against OPC. The Department of Labour did not produce a report detailing recommendations to OPC, however suggestions were proposed during meetings between the two organisations. In addition the DOL staff commented on OPC’s own proposals, in relation to meeting their requirements. There are several commonly used models of accident causation. In general, these present the idea that most accidents have multiple causal factors. The Mangatepopo tragedy was a prime example of this. The reports indicate that there was no single error or occurrence which caused the tragedy. On that day, many factors aligned in the worst possible way. The IRT’s analysis approach ‘seeks to comprehensively identify every weakness or failure in safety systems revealed by an incident’1. The IRT caution in their Report that this type of analysis ‘is inherently negative and exhaustive’ and ‘quite unlike a safety audit’2. This paper aims to summarise this exhaustive analysis as openly as possible.

1 2

34.

IRT Report para 14.3 IRT Report para 14.4

Risk Mangagement This paper: •

Provides a summary of the recommendations in the IRT and Coroner’s reports.

•

Shares some of what OPC has learnt and developed since the tragedy.

•

Highlights things which might be of interest to others working with young people in the outdoors.

•

Encourages discussion and collaboration between OPC and others in the outdoor industry to ensure continued safety improvements.

OPC have set up a section of our website www.opc.org.nz/safety/Mangatepopo within which to share more information. This includes charts detailing the individual recommendations by the IRT and Coroner and OPC’s responses to these. We have also developed our own list detailing the learning we have taken from the DoL process. The full report by our IRT is available to the public and can be requested by contacting safety@opc.org.nz. We also encourage people to use this email address to ask questions, or contribute ideas to help OPC’s continual safety developments.

2. MAJOR LEARNING AREAS AND DEVELOPMENTS One of the first recommendations made by the IRT and DoL is that OPC considers their recommendations in the context of all activities. This has been wholeheartedly embraced. Our focus has been on reviewing and redeveloping all of the major safety systems and practices for the whole organisation.

a) New Safety Management System The OPC Safety Management System (SMS) was developed over many years and used RAMS (Risk Analysis and Management System) forms as a core feature. There have been many recommendations around what should be added to policies and RAMS forms, but the following point has also been noted: ‘RAMS forms can overwhelm new instructors with detail. In particular, they can bury the imperative to prevent death and serious injury in a mass of less serious material’ 3. A new SMS needed to address both the requirement for additional information, and the need to be easy to comprehend and assimilate. The new SMS: •

Divides the analysis of hazards into three tiers to decrease repetition and increase focus on sitespecific hazards.

•

Includes a laminated Tier 3 form which can be taken into the field which highlights specific risks and management strategies for that site and

IRT report para 400.1

includes things like evacuation and catchment area maps where relevant. •

Includes a tool called FLASH (Factors Likely to Accentuate Serious Harm) which facilitates critical analysis and decision making around the appropriateness of an activity in relation to the instructor, students and conditions.

•

Includes a severity ranking of hazards and explicit mention of whether the hazard is eliminated, isolated, or minimised, as required by the DoL.

•

Clearly defines the competency level and prerequisites required by an instructor to operate at a specific site.

•

Is directly linked to other relevant systems including staff training, staff assessment and crisis response. The goal is to align and streamline all safety related systems to reduce the risks of conflicting messages or holes appearing.

•

Includes learning from past incidents and near misses.

The new system has been introduced stage by stage to staff at both Centres allowing extensive feedback and improvements along the way. Peer review of the system also occurred through our external safety advisory committee (see section e), presentation at last year’s Outdoors New Zealand Forum and sharing discussions with others in the industry. OPC would like to continue to encourage others to use elements of the system which may help their own organisation and to provide critical review and comment. The system can be viewed on the safety section of our website, www.opc.org.nz/safety. OPC is currently in the final stages of our second full review of our overarching safety policies since 2008. The IRT listed policy violation4, failure to sign off against important documentation5, unclear policy6 and requirements not being understood7 as possible contributory factors, or underlying causes. Review of policy has required a new approach to communication, and policy documentation is now a lot more concise and accessible to the people who need it. New documentation clearly defines processes and responsibilities for closure of certain activities or sites. OPC has also recognised the vital importance of organisational culture towards safety and towards policy. Developing this culture will continue to be a strong focus for management and our safety committees. The Department of Labour suggested the need for better systems for checking instructor compliance. Again safety culture plays a key role here and OPC has been looking for ways to encourage an evaluative approach to checking compliance where

4 5 6 7

IRT report para 355-361 IRT report para 320-324 IRT report para 392 IRT report para 391

35.

instructors are actively involved in the processes of safety improvement. We are currently carrying out a DoL safety culture snapshot analysis which we hope will give us some quantitive evidence of how we are going in this area. Wording of generic policy is continuing to challenge us and we are keen to collaborate with others on aligning this with industry standards as well as our own standards. The IRT have suggested that Mangatepopo gorge river level policies should not be open to subjective interpretation8. It is very hard to remove interpretation entirely, and any outdoors organisation will rely on judgements that are made in the field.

b) Staff Competence The level of experience of the instructor who was with the Elim group has been cited as a possible contributory factor9. The instructor had the experience and training required by OPC at that time for the upstream gorge trip. This highlighted the need to review this set of competencies, and to review all OPC’s activity competencies. The DoL also suggested to OPC that reviewing these competencies would be a positive step to take. As part of the new SMS, OPC has redesigned staff induction, training and assessment processes and the resulting ‘scope’ within which an instructor with certain experience is allowed to operate. Experience and judgement in a range of situations is assessed. This internal review is closely aligning with industry wide developments in this area primarily by Skills Active and NZOIA. Staff induction periods are now longer and levels of supervisions beyond the formal induction period have been increased. A key focus is on training staff to recognise and respond to ‘not normal’ circumstances. The DoL suggested the need to use realistic training scenarios to test judgment, and OPC has incorporated realistic emergency scenarios into a number of staff training events. The reports also suggest that the instructor may have been working too close to the limits of her experience and competency to be able to respond adequately to the situation which arose. In addressing this OPC has focused heavily on setting expectations for instructors to be working with a substantial margin of safety and on developing a safety culture based around conservative decision making, shared responsibility for safety and open peer review of decisions. Interviews with instructors last year indicated that they feel very little pressure to be able to offer certain activities and that staff almost all feel comfortable and able to offer their feedback to other instructors and management.

8 9

36.

IRT report para 392 IRT Report para 382

The IRT have recommended to OPC that we establish a plan to reduce staff turnover and increase numbers of senior staff10. They have also highlighted that internal safety audits going back to 1996 identify this issue11. OPC addressed this concern immediately after the Mangatepopo accident through an international senior instructor recruitment drive having struggled to recruit enough senior instructors within New Zealand. Since that time, OPC has maintained a good instructor pool spread across the necessary levels of skills and experience required to run our programmes and support new staff. Our feeling is that instructor turnover has reduced. This has been partly due to a more flexible approach to employment, allowing instructors to take time off and then return. The number of returning staff has certainly increased hugely over the last few years. Unfortunately this flexible approach makes it harder to work out how to ‘measure’ staff retention.

c) Weather Forecasting and Response Much attention has been focused on the weather forecast information upon which the decision to go into the gorge was based. The MetService severe weather warning alerts are now well known and used in the industry and became a part of OPC’s weather policies and practices very soon after the tragedy. The external reviews all recommended signing up to the MetService severe weather warning service and accessing more frequent weather updates during the day. Weather forecasts are sourced from several sites and so is supporting information when appropriate, such as river flows, swell reports and avalanche advisories. If our satellite internet connection is lost we are able to access back-up forecasts from the weather fax or marine radio channels. One simple tool we are using involves categorising the weather as green, yellow, or red. At ‘red’ staff all know that certain activities are closed. At ‘yellow’ staff know to be more vigilant and that they or the Duty Manager may decide to cancel certain activities at any time. If the resulting weather differs significantly from the forecast, the Duty Manager can very simply communicate this to all staff with a colour change. Policies for activity closures during severe weather warnings and documentation of these decisions have also been improved in line with suggestions from the Department of Labour. The flood which resulted in this tragedy was a flash flood. The volume of water measured by Genesis energy increased almost 200 times in two hours12 during the time the group were in the gorge. Data however has also shown that this stream floods to this level on average once every two years: it was not a one in a million flood event. If accidents like this are to be prevented in the future we must get better at predicting when an occurrence like this might

10 11 12

IRT report para 526 + 67-70 IRT report para 451-458 IRT report para 96. The flow increased from 0.089 cumecs at 1400 to 17.2 cumecs at 1610. 17.2/0.089 = 193.3

happen. As part of OPC’s new Safety Management System we are mapping catchment areas for rivers and finding ways to source more detailed local rainfall information to consider with the forecast.

addition, site specific learning from past incidents is captured in Tier 3 forms within the new SMS. This ensures relevant learning is fresh in an instructor’s mind.

The other big change which has happened is in the staff and management culture: we still get out there and do things in the rain (anyone who has spent much time in the Central North Island will understand that rain is a big feature in our daily lives), but more conservative decisions are made around the choice of activities and the concept of closing an activity site is well accepted and regularly used.

Internal safety committees have played an important role in analysing incidents for many years. Recently OPC has set up a Safety Advisory Committee (SAC) to supplement our internal committees. This committee discusses safety issues from both Centres and OPC policies and procedures. Industry experts have been employed to give an external view point and peer review at these meetings and to physically review activities at the Centres to help avoid complacency. We believe this external view point is vital considering that, despite analysis of the gorge trip through OPC’s safety systems and many discussions within the internal safety committee, the IRT found that there was a ‘general failure to adequately comprehend the hazardous nature of the upstream gorge trip’15. The trip involved walking upstream into a gorge approximately 200 meters then turning around and coming out the same way. This was seen as much lower risk by staff than a fully committing downstream gorge or canyon trip would be seen. The assumption being that you could turn around at any time and leave the way you had come.

d) Management Restructure Some of the possible contributory factors identified by the IRT included a poor handover and distractions to the Field Manager who had just returned from holiday13. A clearer handover process was also suggested by the DoL. Lack of role clarity was also identified. Since the tragedy OPC has spent quite a bit of time considering alternative management structures and roles and the Tongariro Centre has been restructured. The most relevant change is the implementation of a Duty Manager system. This role rotates between management and specifically trained senior instructors. The Duty Manager’s primary focus during this period is on managing and supporting the safety of groups and instructors in action during that time. A clearly defined handover process has also been devised, documented and is in action. Keeping a clear log of intentions, events and decisions is an important part of this role and responds to some of the Department of Labour’s suggestions. The new structure also divides the responsibility for management of instructors at Tongariro between three managers, decreasing the load on any one individual. New instructors are now all managed by the Training Manager who is able to invest a much greater degree of time and attention to them. Similar systems have been implemented at our Great Barrier Island Centre where the Duty Manager role is held by the Centre Manager, Assistant Manager and specifically trained senior instructors.

e) Learning from the Past and from Others OPC has one of the most comprehensive incident histories of any outdoors organisation in New Zealand and yet failure to learn from previous incidents is cited as a possible contributory factor in both reviews, and feedback from the DoL. ‘OPC had changed policies and procedures following ... incidents, but the circumstances of the incidents were not being used as a learning tool for instructors.’14 The new SMS includes a booklet of historic accidents and incidents which aims to better capture this information for current and future OPC instructors. In

13 14

IRT report para 272-274 Coroner’s report section 3.5

f) Financial Constraints From staff interviews the IRT concluded that financial pressures may have been a root cause of the tragedy16 and recommended that ‘where a substantial margin of safety in a programme cannot be funded direct that the programme be not offered’17. The OPC Trust and Chief Executive are emphatic that finance has never been a factor when it came to the need for safety and of course that is the case today. Finances do continue to be a hot topic at OPC though as they are across the globe during this time of recession. As part of our programmes review we have been looking closely at how to provide the best quality, safest opportunities for young people to take part in outdoor education at affordable prices.

g) Crisis Response Both reports comment on the crisis response to the Mangatepopo tragedy and make recommendations. The IRT comment that they do ‘not consider that any different approach to the emergency response would have resulted in the saving of any lives’18. The Coroner however felt that vital time was lost in confirming that there was indeed a crisis occurring due to poor communication19. This has been partly addressed through refinement of policy and procedures around instructor intentions and requirements for updates and communication during the day. Further communication challenges are discussed in section 11.

15 16 17 18 19

IRT report para 319 IRT report para 459-464 IRT report para 511 IRT report para 506 Coroner’s report section 3.9

37.

OPC’s Crisis Management System (CMS) is currently being redeveloped. We are adding response plans for high complexity sites like the Mangatepopo gorge to the existing plans for specific events. Simple systems for both internal and external communication are also being set up. This has involved building stronger relationships with other local bodies, such as the police, search and rescue and local ski patrol during winter at Tongariro. This will enable OPC to seek support and advice from a wider group of experts as soon as it becomes apparent that there may be a crisis occurring and will reduce time lost in any handover of responsibility. The goal is that everyone who may be involved in the response to a crisis will be trained in a response plan specific to them. Last year, OPC expanded seasonal group training blocks for all instructors and crisis management training and scenarios have been a focus of this. Considering what could go wrong and practicing and reviewing the decisions people make under pressure is important. The gorge incident highlighted an example of an instructor instigating a whitewater towing system that did not follow any established practice – clearly a decision made under pressure. Practicing scenarios stimulates discussion around the limitations of rescue procedures such as throwbagging, avoiding people ‘over relying’ on their ability to rescue rather than avoiding the situation in the first place20.

h) Review of OPC’s Programmes The IRT have recommended to OPC that we review the Adventure Challenge course to ensure it is ‘driven by educational aims’ and to ‘incorporate a substantial margin of safety’21. Before the release of the IRT report OPC was already working on aligning our school programmes to the objectives of the 2010 New Zealand Curriculum. We also made changes to the way the programme is structured and described, for example removing the concept of a ‘water day’ which may have resulted in instructors feeling pressurised to do a water-based activity despite adverse conditions. We have also visited schools and talked to teachers about the value they perceive in outdoor education and OPC. In 2010, OPC added to our internal programme review processes by employing two external outdoor education experts to review the Adventure Challenge course. This report was received in December and coincided with a Strategic Review process where we made a strong commitment to focus on our educational programmes for young people. In June of this year, we will be running a two day curriculum workshop involving internal experts (our staff ) and a range of external experts from a variety of areas, including our two reviewers. This workshop will aim

20 21

38.

IRT report para 363-372 and Coroner’s report section 3.10 IRT report para 509

to redevelop OPC’s core educational philosophies and reconsider all of our programmes for youth. Following the workshop we have resources budgeted to develop new programmes and to set up a Research Advisory Group to assist us in our ability to ‘measure’ against our outcomes. The review team note that ‘all of the educational aims espoused by OPC can be achieved in relatively safe environments.’22 The role of risk in learning is an area we will be looking at closely.

i) Solo instructing Both reports discuss the increase in risk posed by a solo instructor working with a group23. Although there was a teacher and an instructor with the group in the Mangatepopo gorge, the teacher was for all intents and purposes a participant in the activity as he was not trained to manage the safety of a group in that environment. The FLASH system defines certain sites and activities, in certain situations, as not being suitable for a solo instructor. In these situations, a second trained instructor is necessary, or in some situations two groups may work together. The decision is based on: •

The overall level of risk

•

Level of risk in key areas including water, height (IRT recommend two instructors when these risk factors are present24) and speed

•

Group factors

•

Environmental conditions

•

Instructor experience

•

The impact of either the instructor becoming incapacitated or the risk to the rest of the group while an incident is managed with one student.

Activities such as the Mangatepopo upstream gorge trip are permanently classed as two instructor activities as recommended by both the IRT and Coroner25 while others are only classed as needing two instructors when additional risk factors come into play. Many of the decision making processes which were developed as part of the FLASH tool have now been incorporated into wider OPC practices and the use of this tool at OPC is now a lot more flexible than described in the original paper by Grant Davidson. It should also be noted that there are other types of risk, such as risk shift (assuming the other person’s responsibility and control of the situation), which could be associated with having more than one instructor with a group. OPC is also considering how to best manage these risks when two instructors do work together.

22 23 24 25

IRT report para 435 IRT report para 314-318, 437 IRT report para 519 Coroner’s report section 4, bullet point 11

j) Informed consent and information sought from parents The IRT comment that ‘in light of the tragedy, some parents might believe that information provided to them about OPC was inadequate’26 and recommend revising information to ‘ensure that parents are able to make an informed judgement about their child’s participation’27. OPC have revised this information, in particular our medical and consent form, and have had positive peer review from our SAC. We do however recognise that it is not possible to educate all parents and participants to a level where they can make a fully informed decision. Risk disclosure has always played a key role in OPC’s safety systems, but it is hard for any person to truly understand the degree of risk without considerable experience in an environment. The goal here has to be to provide as much information as is practical for a prudent parent to digest and understand. Information is available on our website and on a CD provided to all schools to enable participants and care-givers to be better informed. An area we have identified where we can continue to improve information given to parents and students is in the way we use and explain ‘challenge by choice’ and voluntary participation. The use of challenge by choice on the day of the tragedy is questioned by the IRT28. One of the most powerful outcomes for students of taking part in an OPC programme is overcoming perceived barriers and so realising that they can achieve more than they originally thought possible29. Encouragement plays a big role in this. The challenge by choice philosophy ideally leaves the final decision to participate and the degree of participation to the student. Our Student Information Booklet now clearly states that ‘it is up to you whether you take part in an activity, however OPC staff and your team mates will support and encourage you to participate to a level which challenges you.’ The IRT and the Coroner also question information sought from parents about swimming confidence30 which failed to identify one student’s ‘fear of water’ and another’s ‘slight physical impairment’31. The IRT comments that OPC ‘tended to regard swimming ability as relatively unimportant for the gorge activity ...they need to be able to float (with) a wetsuit and PFD’32. With our SAC we have spent quite some time exploring the idea of practical swimming tests and have developed one for the Great Barrier Island Centre. Next steps will be working out how to define when a practical swimming test is necessary before an activity and what options to offer to students who may not be able to take part in a water-based activity.

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

IRT report para 263, 376 and 377 IRT report para 513 IRT report para 325-326 As observed by teachers interviewed during a recent survey of schools IRT report para 265, 275-277, 379 and 387 Coroner’s Report section 3.6 IRT report para 387

k) Wilderness Communication The Coroner carefully considered the communication challenges posed by the gorge environment33 and made nine related recommendations34. These include that ‘there be adequate radio communication between OPC instructors in the Mangatepopo gorge and OPC Tongariro base (and if necessary a repeater be installed)’ and that ‘OPC further investigate a fall back method of communication of distress’. The DoL has also suggested that OPC better document policies for managing radio dead zones. Wilderness communication is an ever developing industry, but does not yet provide the technology to allow instant communication from all wilderness sites. The challenge comes when we try to extrapolate this recommendation to other settings, for example caves. OPC uses a wide range of wilderness communication depending on the locations in questions: VHF radio (local area communications through our own repeaters and DoC channels), mountain radio, satellite phone, cell phone and personal locator beacons. We also try out new technology as it comes onto the market and last year bought booster aerials for our VHF radios. We have also been working hard to build better pictures of how and where wilderness communication can be used and to train staff in how to get the best from communication. This includes mapping of areas where different forms of communication are effective.

3. FUTURE USE OF THE MANGATEPOPO GORGE BY OPC OPC is working hard on responding to the various safety recommendations resulting from the tragedy, and achieving best practice safety systems. When we can confidently say that we have systems in place which address these recommendations and which will prevent any future groups from becoming trapped in the gorge during a flash flood, then reopening will be considered. Any such decision to take groups into this magical learning environment will be externally reviewed, and discussed with key parties.

Belinda Manning has worked for OPC for four years as an instructor and as part of the Head Office Management team. Belinda is the Business Development Manager at OPC’s office in Auckland. Simon Graney is the Centre Manager at the Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre on Great Barrier Island. He sits on the Executive Committee of NZOIA and is a ROSA auditor.

4. SHARING THE LEARNING AND MOVING FORWARDS The IRT comment that ‘it hopes the (OPC) Trust will see fit to share the conclusions herein fully’35. We hope that this paper and the safety section of our website go some way to meet this recommendation. Moving forwards, we will continue to focus on addressing the recommendations as part of an ongoing process of continual review and improvement.

33 34 35

Coroner’s Report section 3.8 Coroner’s Report section 4 bullet points 9, 10, 12-18 IRT report para 507.2

39.

Contact Epic:

Dougal Allan, Epic Open Men’s winner (right), crossing the river, being closely watched by Richard Anderson (left).

Are you involved with an outdoors event which brings it own unique set of challenges? We’re looking for new events to profile in upcoming magazines. Email:

info@outdoorsnz.org.nz

The Contact Epic is not for the faint-hearted. Competitors start the race at Contact Energy’s Lake Hawea Dam and then take on a 125km race course of rocky, uneven, and highly challenging terrain through the Hunter Valley and Dingle Burn high country farming stations which border Lake Hawea. This includes having to tackle over 2,400 metres of vertical ascent, river crossings, 4x4 tracks, and bluffs. Those who cross the finish line first will do so in just under five hours.

through special permission from the land owners, says Danielle.

“It’s the mountain biking test piece for endurance athletes and those with a sense of adventure,” says event organiser, Danielle Nicholson from LMS Events.

One of the greatest issues with safety preparation for this event is ensuring suitable communication systems are in place, in case, for example, someone needs help over the race. A great deal of effort and technology is employed to ensure that course marshals are able to make contact with each other – and with home base – the entire time.

The event is most popular with older males between the ages of 40 – 60. There has been increasing interest in the event from Australia, but most participants come from around New Zealand for the once-a-year opportunity to race in this beautiful location, which is only made possible 40.

Every year, Danielle and her team deal with the challenges that come with holding an event in such a unique location. The remote terrain attracts strong participant numbers but it also presents some safety issues which have to be addressed before the event takes place. “We prepare well for the event to ensure safety measures are in place, however, a key approach is always to increase personal safety by increasing personal responsibility,” says Danielle. There are no compulsory bike checks and only two aid stations are available throughout the course where participants can fill up their water bottles, get some food, and receive mechanical assistance and first aid, if needed. “Competitors need to make sure their bikes are in top working condition before the event, they are asked to carry a personal first aid kit and to bring enough food and a change of clothing for the day.”

A number of local groups are hired as volunteers during the event, 10 marshal stations are also set up over the course and a local helicopter company

Event

A 125km mountain bike adventure circumnavigating Lake Hawea

a look behind the scenes

“The approach that Danielle and her team take to safety is well aligned with Contact’s. We aim to provide safe work places and systems of work by empowering our people to work in a manner that does not present risks to themselves or others. We encourage individuals to be aware of potential risks and, with our support, take measures to avoid accidents from happening,” says Craig Griffiths, Contact’s Sponsorship Manager. Craig says the numbers competing in the event speak for themselves; with most competitors coming back year after year. “The Contact Epic provides a rare opportunity to ride through the impressive landscape and provides the people of Hawea a fantastic opportunity to showcase their town.

Kath Kelly, Epic Open Female’s winner, on the bluffs.

is engaged for emergencies that are either out of vehicle range or require an immediate response. “Volunteers are essential with the remote nature of this event. Some even have to stay overnight in huts to ensure they are in place on time,” says Danielle. In support of the ethos of self responsibility, Contact Energy has been the principal sponsor of the race since its inaugural event in 2008.

“The community spirit that comes to the fore is great. Each year the owners of the Dingle Burn farming station set up a café beside their woolshed. Competitors can make a donation to a worthy cause in exchange for tea and scones. This year it went to help the people of Christchurch. Contact is pleased to be part of that spirit,” he said. The event was held this year on Saturday 16 April and attracted around 500 competitors and a few hundred supporters and spectators. The Epic Female Open event was won by Kath Kelly (Roxburgh) in 5 hours 52 minutes 35 seconds. The Epic Male Open event was won by Dougal Allan (Wanaka) in 4 hours 53 minutes 19 seconds. Photos courtesy of Contact Epic website: www.contactepic.co.nz

41.

Cable Bay Walkway.

Commission. The Act’s purpose is to provide the New Zealand public with free, certain, enduring, and practical walking access to the outdoors. It is a refreshing piece of legislation – its prescriptive nature provides a clear picture of what the Government intends will happen. Key amongst these statutory intentions is the development of an outdoors access code, a national strategy on access, and an online mapping system.

Kay Booth Board member of the New Zealand Walking Access Commission, updates recent progress on recreational access in New Zealand.

A brief recap. Central to the access debate was the Queen’s Chain – a complex network of legal mechanisms that allows New Zealanders access to beaches, lakes and rivers. Although many New Zealanders believe otherwise, the Queen’s Chain is not universal in its coverage. Several political parties have included in their manifestos promises to achieve that ideal 100 percent coverage – to guarantee access to the beach as a Kiwi birthright. Back in 2002, the previous Government decided to action their political ideals and sparked off considerable controversy. It took seven years of debate and two rounds of public consultation, but in 2008 a consensus was reached. The Walking Access Act 2008 was passed unanimously in Parliament, which saw the establishment of the New Zealand Walking Access

42.

What has the Commission been doing to achieve these goals? First, the new Crown Entity had to be established. Chief Executive, Mark Neeson, was appointed in July 2009 and the Wellington office now houses six fulltime staff. By the end of 2010, a network of part-time regional field staff existed around the country. In summary: a small agency with a specific, but by no means small, job. The Act gives the Commission a facilitative role. It has neither coercive nor determinative powers. It can’t order landholders to provide public access on privately-owned land nor force recreational users to do anything either. Instead, the Commission can offer a ‘level head’ in what are often very heated issues, since they revolve around public and private property rights. With the strongly-held positions that can result, there is a real role for an independent organisation that can inform the debate with facts and mediate between the parties

Guidelines & Practices involved. Property rights are essential to the work of the Commission. An underlying principle is the protection and respect of both public and private property rights.

None of the information on the mapping system is new; it is all publicly available now. What is new is the accessibility and combination of this information.

The Commission’s focus is to work collegially with others, whether that’s with other Crown agencies, with landholders, or with fishermen, hunters and so on. An early thrust of the Commission’s work has been to engage with access stakeholders – to hear what issues are important to them. The Commission has been holding regional forums for stakeholders around the country alongside board meetings, and has held two national forums in Wellington during the past year. These are not just ‘information out’ meetings. The Commission has been listening. Stakeholders have provided real direction to the priorities taken by the Commission in its start up year and in the preparation of key documents.

The cadastral information held by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) is the best available. It defines not just roads, but boundaries of properties as well. Some criticism has arisen about the accuracy of the cadastral database. LINZ is beginning a project to improve the information on the cadastral database and this will be sped up by the information collected through the enquiries feature of the Commission’s mapping system. Without making the information easily available, any mistakes or discrepancies cannot be corrected. The access mapping system will help that process, and the Commission is working with LINZ to develop a process to manage corrections originating from the public.

The most influential of these, in many ways, is the National Strategy for Walking Access. Public consultation on a draft version occurred at the end of 2009. The Strategy provides a high level overview of where the Commission intends to go. Published in August 2010, it gives a 25-year view, and its companion document, the Commission’s Statement of Intent, gives a five-year view. You may think of the Statement of Intent as a map of the present, and the national strategy as a well-defined access marker on a distant hilltop.

The Commission has published an Outdoor Access Code to highlight responsibilities for those using outdoor land, and this will be linked to the online mapping system. Local authorities deal with roading issues as core business. The Commission is working with Local Government New Zealand and the Local Authorities Property Association to publish a guidance document focussing on the management of unformed legal roads, so that best practice can be shared across the country. The Commission works closely with other government agencies to ensure access opportunities are taken up, particularly through the Overseas Investment Act application process and the tenure review process. We have developed a signage project with Federated Farmers New Zealand, whereby willing landowners can show accessways across privately-owned land.

Rai River.

A clear area of agreement that arose during the access discussions was that information about the location of public and private land, and access to it, was not readily available – but should be. As a result, the Walking Access Act 2008 requires the Commission to “compile, hold, and publish maps and information about land over which members of the public have walking access”. The most practical and cost-effective way to do this is through an online mapping system, which will be available to anyone with computer access, free of charge. Using aerial photography, topographic maps and cadastral information (the official record of landownership in New Zealand) as its base, the access mapping system will provide a user-friendly way to obtain access information.

Public angler access, Rotorua.

The Commission will also have a role (where invited) to mediate in disputes over access. Commission board members and staff are committed to access and to ensuring that both private and public property rights are respected. We’re also committed to ensuring that access to recreational opportunities in New Zealand’s outdoors is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of all. That’s our job in a nutshell.

Dr Kay Booth is a researcher and planner, specialising in recreation and tourism in natural places. She has held various executive positions on New Zealand recreation and conservation NGOs, including Deputy Chair of the New Zealand Outdoors Assembly (a prior name for Outdoors New Zealand).

Want to know more? Take a look at the Commission’s National Strategy for Walking Access and Statement of Intent, which both provide insight into the Commission’s interpretation of its role. They’re available from the Commission’s website, together with a wide range of other publications. See: www.walkingaccess.govt.nz 43.

Competency vs Qualifications: Are Outdoor Instructors’ qualifications designed for the benefits of assessors or the clients?

Erica Ridge trek. Photo from Adventure South.

Geoff Gabites Adventure South

Investigate whether instructors and guides should be required to hold qualifications and work only within the scope of their qualifications for some activities Recommendation from the Review of Risk Management and Safety in the Adventure and Outdoor Commercial Sectors.

This recommendation is one of five to emerge from the working group formed to review the state of Adventure Tourism and Outdoor Education. This review is managed by the Department of Labour and has combined the work of New Zealand Tourism Industry Association and Outdoors NZ, both of whom have been charged with developing and implementing improvements in the delivery of product in the outdoors. In my view, this particular proposal is dangerous and misguided in its focus. I am not opposed to qualifications themselves, but I am opposed to a straight single focus on mandatory qualifications regime because I believe it won’t produce the desired end goal and it may expose the outdoor sector to the imposition of other qualification regimes it had not previously considered. In consideration of this matter, four questions arose that I would like to explore further: 44.

Q 1. Have Qualifications had a positive effect on NZ outdoor safety? With the benefit of some 40 years personal mountaineering, 18 years as an Adventure Tourism operator, and 30 plus years involvement with the NZ Alpine Club in various capacities, I have reached the view that the last decades’ drive to develop and implement qualification regimes has played no discernable role in a safer outdoors. What has developed is a training industry that seems as concerned with its own growth than with safety outcomes from its qualifications structures. The training industry seeks validation for its practices by referring to overseas case studies rather than to safety outcomes in New Zealand outdoor activities. Instead of a movement toward greater safety in actual practice in the outdoors, I see a bureaucratic infrastructure where some are so focused on the process of providing more and more training that the outcomes are often of secondary consideration. Qualifications have become the outdoor industry’s version of what CPR is to accidents. When an accident occurs, CPR gives us something to do and feel good about while having a positive effect in fewer than 5% of the cases. It’s the tick box of the coroner’s enquiry that superficially eliminates operator error. But CPR doesn’t usually ‘fix’ an injured patient – what’s needed is full hospital service. Likewise, I believe qualifications don’t ‘fix’ an outdoor industry’s safety problem. What is needed is something much more comprehensive: a wide-ranging assessment of the competence

Viewpoint: Qualifications of each instructor or guide within their particular outdoor work contexts, and within the greater but inclusive focus on Risk Management and agreed Standard Operating Procedures. Qualifications are not an easy, good or quick fix to the safety problem. Even the most qualified outdoor practitioners have accidents. Regrettably, over my numerous years, I’ve stood shoulder to shoulder as we bury another friend. Increasingly I have to observe, these friends have been the leading edge of their sport and occupation. The most qualified heli-skier, the leading mountaineering guide, the benchmarking outdoor education provider, and the industry leading tourism company. In most these cases, qualifications have played no role in preventing the cruel outcome, and yet with every accident, the screws turn a little tighter as we seek the utopia of a ‘safe’ outdoors. The qualifications industry draws its mandate from the public demand for risk management in the outdoors. When asked what level of risk the public will accept in their pursuit of the outdoors, the answer comes up as unattainable: zero.

Q 2. Is there a case for not implementing ‘safety qualifications’ just because of the negative impact they would have on the providers? To argue that qualifications shouldn’t be mandatory at the time of accident reviews seems counter intuitive – similar to arguing that the world isn’t flat. Of course we all believe that qualifications should be mandatory – except that the Government’s past & present don’t, and neither does the bulk of the ‘non-commercial’ outdoor education sector. The fact that some of the outdoors sectors are somewhat arbitrarily exempt what seems to be logical safety qualifications, indicates that neither the Government nor the outdoors sector are prepared to engage in the full range of safety options – because to implement them would potentially disseminate the delivery ability. That’s demonstrated by the clear exemption of school groups (and ‘non-commercial’ groups) from the requirement that drivers of vehicles carrying these people don’t require a Passenger Endorsed Licence. Rightfully so perhaps, because this licence is very time consuming, costly – around $1200 from scratch – and also requires a police check. It would severely curtail any ‘non commercial’ activity to a point of jeopardising the ability to deliver these services. Outdoor Education & Adventure Tourism course providers such as Polytechnics and Outdoor Education centres clearly agree that these qualifications shouldn’t be mandatory because none offer driving as a course option and neither

do many require a P licence of their drivers. It seems like the only outdoors sector that is required to pay heed to them is the ‘commercial’ providers. It is worth noting here that the term ‘commercial’ has been stretched to some surprising lengths within the outdoor recreation sector. It seems to me that many organisations live dangerously behind the cloak of ‘non commercial’ while clearly operating as a significant business. Our driving fatality record clearly demonstrates that driving is many, many times more dangerous than the actual outdoor engagement. So, what happens when qualifications are implemented – and clearly in our case, it’s proposed that instructors and/or guides would be required to be qualified. At a club level imposing a qualification regime on the club based basic instruction programmes would most likely lead to wholesale abandonment of the provision of courses because instructors can’t commit to the much higher level required in order to achieve one of the existing qualifications. Reliance on paid instructors leads to increased costs that in turn leads to a drop in demand and an opportunity lost. As a commercial operator organisation, the Sea Kayakers Association previously passed a remit that their organisation wouldn’t employ guides that weren’t ‘paper qualified.’ At the deadline, they were forced to renege on that agreement because there weren’t enough paper qualified guides.

Q 3. What role should Qualifications play in the development of a ‘safe’ outdoors? Some years ago I scoped a qualifications regime for the sea kayaking sector. That included a meeting with Hugh Canard, then the owner of one of the major sea kayak companies in the Abel Tasman. When I asked him what was he looking for when a potential new guide turned up, he said; •

Life Experience – which meant that the guide was likely to be 25 or more

•

A sense of humour

•

An ability to tell a story

•

A genuine liking of people

•

A passion for the activity.

When I asked him about things like deep water rescue, landing in a swell, and group management, he sagely said to me,” If you have the first five attributes, I can teach you the other stuff. But if you don’t have those five traits, then I won’t even bother with the technical stuff.” The problem as I see it is that Competency and Qualifications are not seen as compatible under this qualifications regime. Competency usually comes with experience over time and doesn’t 45.

necessarily require a course, exams and an infrastructure of reporting and recording and revalidating. Qualifications do not automatically mean competency as we have had demonstrated on numerous occasions. Where previously we were able to make a judgement call on another’s experience, the qualifications bulldozer has removed that option in favour of unit standards and a paper trail. And yet surprisingly accidents still occur. At the end of the day, an accident is inevitably caused by a series of decisions made based upon personal judgement that ultimately runs its course. In most scenarios I have looked at, it is the risk management component that has failed, not the qualification.

Geoff Gabites has been involved in the outdoors since the early 70’s. He joined NZAC in 1970 and has undertaken most of the voluntary roles across both section and national involvement – including President. Geoff currently holds the position of Convenor of Executive Committee which oversees the daily activiities of the club. He set up Wilderness Products and Wilderness Shop with his wife Shelley which went on to to merge and create Macpac Wilderness Equipment in 1981. Geoff left to join and take over Alps Sports in the late 1990’s. He established Adventure South in 1992 and worked as Executive Officer of the Adventure Tourism Council until late 1990’s.

Hence, as an adventure tourism operator, we place much more attention to the risk management element of our business than we do on the guide qualifications aspect. Stressing that every individual needs to have a risk management scenario running through their head at all times, keeps a focus that doesn’t come with the security of knowing you are qualified. Qualifications and competency we treat with equal weighting and yes some of that competency is subjective. The end result however is that we have the focus where we believe the core risk occurs. The tourism industry has formally been working hard since the mid 1990’s across some activity specific sectors to create a holistic package around Standard Operating Procedures, Competency and Qualifications and Reporting. This has entailed the entire sector having an input and thus achieving a sector buy-in and ownership in contrast to an imposed regime of qualifications driven by the Training and Qualifications industry.

Q 4. What is the risk of a mandatory Qualifications regime? My concern is that to make qualifications mandatory without consideration of the bigger picture is putting the energy and focus on the wrong component. Qualifications won’t necessarily stop accidents and adding this requirement to both the commercial and ‘non-commercial’ outdoor education sector will create undue pressure and constraint on activities.

To make qualifications mandatory and then force that form of regime on our industry, to inflict the regime of paper based reporting, all under the misleading belief that this will make the outdoors safer, is an illusion and a dangerous misrepresentation. It risks dumbing down our industry, driving all levels of instruction into a commercial regime, and risks having a far wider range of requirements imposed on us than we ever imagined. For clubs it would mean the probable end of any levels of club based instruction and for operators it would severely reduce guide/ instructor pool.

Aspiring from Buchanan Ridge. Photo from Adventure South.

And when we do install such a qualifications regime and the next accident happens, what are we going to use as our excuse then? This review process has bought together both the tourism implementation of our recreation pursuits along with the instruction / qualification sector. The potential to make significant progress and unify the entire sector is one where the benefits would be so great as to warrant ensuring all parties look beyond their patch protection. Unless we can provide an umbrella under which we can all accept an acceptable degree of compromise, this opportunity will be lost. Within the commercial provider sector there is huge concerns at having a qualifications regime foisted on us with little regard to the realities of business, whilst we place a much higher weighting on competency and risk management in order to provide a ‘safe’ environment. Achieving unity and a common purpose here is something that requires cool heads and a strong commitment to consultation.

Add your thoughts on this topic to our LinkedIn Group at: www.linkedin.com Groups: Outdoors New Zealand

46.

Teaching & Learning

A persistent challenge for outdoor education (OE) is the extent to which the learning experiences transfer beyond the outdoor environment.

supporting transfer, proponents “adamantly cling to their belief that challenge interventions produce long-term change in individuals” (p. 39). My question is; does the current emphasis on transfer aid or hinder student learning in outdoor education?

Transfer has been identified as “one of the most critical features of adventure programming.” (Priest & Gass, 1997, p. 22).

As a construct in psychology, transfer “refers to the appearance of a person carrying the product of learning from one task, problem, situation, or institution to another” (Beach, 1999, p. 101)p. 101 Put simply, it is the quest to see if some knowledge or skill learned in one context will be repeated or utilised in another context.

In efforts to justify the value of OE, some researchers and practitioners have advocated various approaches to facilitation that are claimed to enhance transfer. (Priest, Gass, & Gillis, 2000; Sugarman, Doherty, Garvey, & Gass, 2000). Whilst supporting outdoor educators’ desire to facilitate learning I am not convinced that the transfer metaphor is particularly helpful. Not only is the research literature on the effectiveness of transfer ambiguous, the assumptions inherent in beliefs surrounding transfer fail to take into account the situated nature of knowing and acting.

It appears that transfer gained prominence in OE through a paper originally published by Michael Gass (1985). This paper has been reprinted in a number of subsequent books (Warren, Mitten, & Loeffler, 2008; Warren, Sakofs, & Hunt, 1995). Transfer subsequently appears as a ‘given’ in a number of outdoor texts. For example, Dickson and Gray (2006) have stated that “Facilitating experiences that are indelible, transferable and meaningful is the cornerstone of experiential and outdoor learning” (p. 51). The need to ensure transfer occurs has given rise to increasingly complex approaches to facilitation (eight generations at last count), various guides, and handbooks. Outdoor educators’ belief in transfer came into focus in Wolfe and Samdahl’s (2005) paper examining the assumptions underpinning challenge ropes course practices. In it they noted that despite the lack of evidence

Mike Brown University of Waikato

There have been numerous attempts to categorise various types of transfer. What follows is a brief description of some common definitions. Near transfer refers to situations in which the task to be performed is nearly identical. For example, using a harness on a ropes course is applicable to using it rock climbing. Far transfer refers to situations where there is overt difference between the original and the new task. For example, learning how to memorise so that this might help a person to learn a poem faster. Specific transfer refers to learning information that is relevant to performance of a later task (e.g., a list learning task that taught countries and their capitals which might be directly related to a course in geography). Nonspecific (or general) transfer refers to learning generic skills, strategies or principles. This was the justification used for teaching Latin in schools. The structure of Latin grammar supposedly provided the learner with disciplined thinking that could be applied across disciplines. The importance of transfer lies in the realm of nonspecific/general transfer rather than near transfer (Detterman, 1993). Fostering general transfer is the greatest interest for educators who 47.

endeavour to educate beyond the constraints of the immediate environment. It is nonspecific/ general transfer that outdoor educators aim to achieve.

Whilst it is clear that we carry some skills and knowledge with us from one context to another, ‘proving’ or measuring transfer has proven to be a highly contested topic of research (Packer, 2001). Detterman (1993) has argued that there have been hundreds of experiments reaffirming that transfer is very difficult to empirically demonstrate. He contends that when transfer is obtained, it is most likely to occur between highly similar situations. Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) study of transfer of workplace training illustrates the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of even near transfer; that is training for specific and intentional outcomes. They reported that of the estimated US$100 billion spent on training and development only about 10% actually resulted in transfer to the job. Thus, even when training for a specific job, there is little evidence that transfer occurs with a high degree of certainty. The ambiguity in the research findings is evident in the number of studies that have shown failures to achieve transfer between tasks (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1980) along with studies which claim to demonstrate that transfer occurs, (e.g., Brown, 1994). Singley and Anderson’s (1989) review of research on transfer provides evidence of near transfer but little empirical support for general transfer other than a few highly questionable studies.

48.

While nonspecific or general transfer is difficult to demonstrate, near transfer or ‘assisted transfer’, utilising the intervention of a third party, can be demonstrated in ideal conditions. The key to success appears to be the provision of support when approaching the new task. Perkins and Salomon (1989) suggest that this support includes; cueing or implicit guidance, extended practice, generating abstract rules, developing explanations and principles, and developing analogous situations. There is evidence that instruction or intervention can be important in facilitating transfer. Greeno et al., (1993) reported that when no hint was given as to the applicability of a previous task, as few as 5% of participants produced evidence of transfer, but when given a hint that figure rose to almost 60%. This issue raises questions as to the extent instruction, (e.g. frontloading) plays in transfer in initiative and problem solving activities in OE. Detterman’s (1993) retort that guiding or telling subjects to use a principle or directing them to think about a previous exercise is not truly transfer, it is merely following instructions, is pertinent for outdoor educators. Given that none of us work in an ideal world, how much transfer might reasonably occur? It is here that the issue of ‘real life’ transfer, as opposed to laboratory conditions, gets increasingly murky. In regards to transfer and education, Detterman (1993) argues that there is almost no evidence to support the position that teaching generic skills or the general principles of learning and problem solving is effective. “There is on the other hand, substantial evidence… that favors the idea that what people learn are specific examples. Experts are experts because they have learned many more examples than novices” (Detterman, 1993, p. 17). Detterman (1993) contends that it is possible to make as strong a case for the failure of transfer as it is to build a case as to the success of transfer. He argues that both success and failure to transfer have been important in major accomplishments. There is evidence to suggest that attempts to transfer skills/knowledge from previous situations hinders rather than aids performance. Perkins and Salomon (1989) have reported that when presented with novel situations people routinely tried to apply familiar skills and strategies from other situations. This has led Detterman (1993) to suggest that perhaps we should not be seeking to encourage transfer at all. Rather we should foster “freedom from transfer” (p. 2). Developing creative solutions may depend on “freeing the problem solver from interference from old solutions. So the question is, if we want to build creative problem solvers, should we teach people to transfer or teach them to avoid transfer?” (p. 2).

It is not unreasonable to conclude that spontaneous transfer is difficult to foster, where it exists it tends to be more task specific than general in nature, and it relies heavily on prompts from a third party. Perkins and Salomon (1989) suggest that the case for the existence of skills and strategies that be transferred across contexts has “proven to be more a matter of wishful thinking than hard empirical evidence” (p. 19). If there is a general conclusion to be drawn from the research “it is that the lack of general transfer is pervasive and surprisingly consistent” (Detterman, 1993, p. 18). So whilst it might be reasonable for people to exhibit near transfer (e.g., applying the skills of belaying from the rock face to the ropes course) it is far more difficult to make claims about transfer of behaviour from the outdoor setting to everyday life.

The discussion to date has been premised on the belief that knowledge is a ‘package’ that can be moved between various contexts. An alternative perspective is offered by the situated view, which focuses on participation and social interaction rather than the acquisition of ‘transportable’ knowledge. If we consider that an individual’s ability to act is not simply a matter of applying knowledge that is stored in memory and either deployed, or not, but rather as a dynamic process, then we might ask different questions about transfer. If learning is the ability to successfully interact in society, then examining the conditions that enable participation in various activities becomes the focus of analysis. When thinking and acting are seen as being “intricately interwoven with the problem to be solved” (Rogoff, 1984, p. 2) then the generation and application of context-free knowledge becomes meaningless. From a situated perspective, “The

question of transfer, then, is to understand how learning to participate in an activity in one situation can influence (positively or negatively) one’s ability to participate in another activity in a different situation” (Greeno et al., 1993, p. 100). OE is effective at creating small communities that focus on the achievement of both individual and group tasks. The particular social arrangements and tasks allow for, and actively encourage, students to try new ways of interacting (e.g. taking on leadership, giving and receiving feedback, and trying new challenges). It is clear that the social environment and the importance of diverse social interactions contribute to learning in OE (Sibthorp, 2003). Rather than facilitating for knowledge that can be transferred to another setting, greater attention could be placed on the social relations and physical resources that enable and/or constrain changes in participation. How can we, as educators, assist learners to recognise the relevant features in a situation, what is valued knowing, and what to do next? (Lave & Chaiklin, 1993). If we are concerned with equipping them for the future then surely this is a worthwhile aim. From a situated perspective the focus is not on assisting students to generate an abstract principle in the hope that they will be able to apply it at home, school, or the workplace. Our task as educators is to help students to recognise how participation in a community/group changes depending on the participants, setting, goals, and resources. For example, a student’s changing participation in a rock climbing session, from novice to competent, or from bystander to active participant, may be the result of direct instruction, peer teaching, experimentation, encouragement and/or practice. Facilitation of this activity could be based on a “what happened, how did it feel, what did you learn that you could use elsewhere?” model. In this ‘traditional’ approach the generation of knowledge, based on direct experience, 49.

is assumed to be transferable. Alternatively facilitation could be based on understanding how the lesson/session was structured, how roles were allocated or assumed, how skills were acquired, and how the differential learning (or performance) of climbing and belaying skills changed the dynamics within a group. This is, at face value a small, but arguably important shift. Climbing is not about trusting your belayer and then thinking about how you could use (context free) trust elsewhere, nor is it about creating metaphors that the participant will recall, unprompted, in the future. It is a study in changing participation, an experiential example of how competence/ motivation/engagement changes participation, how changing participation values some people and sidelines others. The focus for learning is on experiencing, understanding, and raising students’ awareness of the changing nature of groups and how they will constantly have to negotiate their way through various communities/groups – some they will only be observers of, whilst in others they will become more actively engaged. It is about equipping students with the consciousness and skills to recognise how to negotiate their way to fuller participation should they wish. OE courses are often very good at empowering students to perform during the programme by sequencing tasks that build on previous activities. One way of viewing this learning is that students have, on the basis of direct experience and reflection, learnt new skills and knowledge that is transferable between tasks. Outdoor educators have ‘proof’ of transfer because students can perform a new task using skills/knowledge acquired on previous activities. Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that they will carry these new skills/knowledge with them post course. However, an alternative view as offered in this paper is equally plausible. Students have learnt to participate as an effective group and they are able 50.

to negotiate their role(s), the resources available to them, and adopt and adapt to practices to suit the situation. By reframing the question, from what skill/concept was or was not transferred, to how did the participants deal with the specifics of the situation, we may view learning and success in a different light. During the course of an OE programme students learn how to be ‘good/effective OE students’. This is not unexpected – they have learned to participate in the community of practice that is the outdoor education group. What this does not tell us is how they understand the way in which other communities of practice operate. On leaving the OE group they will enter and participate in many other groups. If OE is to aid students perhaps it can better assist by highlighting how to negotiate and become an effective participant. The practices of a family or classroom or workplace may be markedly different to that of an OE setting – which might help to explain why both students and workers struggle to demonstrate meaningful transfer across contexts. It may not be because we are using the wrong activity or method of facilitation – perhaps it is because we are asking the wrong question and supplying the wrong answer.

Notwithstanding the concerns raised above, I do not deny that behaviours can be repeated in different settings in certain circumstances. However, it is worth exploring alternatives that might be more helpful to students than viewing them as carriers of knowledge who are able to transfer skills/behaviours across a variety of contexts. Facilitating for transfer and assuming that this learning will continue beyond the course is based more on wishful thinking than a strong evidence base. Change that is sustainable and ongoing is difficult and tiring work requiring involvement and support beyond the ‘gate’ of the

OE provider. This is acknowledged by, and is often the focus of, religious groups, counsellors, social activists and other agencies involved in supporting people to adopt new behaviours or attitudes. For over twenty years OE has promoted transfer as a central concept and has developed practices built on assumptions for which there is little empirical evidence. It may be timely for OE to now “move beyond transfer as an account of how prior knowledge and experience contribute to learning” (Carraher & Schliemann, 2002, p. 21). Perhaps it is time to be more proactive and engage with students beyond the immediate outdoor experience so that change is supported in communities that provide a supportive and connected network. OE encourages pro-social behaviours that are valued by society. Connecting students with like-minded groups beyond the OE experience may help them continue to learn and develop on a long-term basis. This may be achieved by active alumni networks, involvement in community recreation and service groups, and possibly the use of professional support services. Alternatively, it may mean reshaping OE practices to embed them in the local community, to connect with local people, places and services. This shift has a number of positive social, cultural and economic benefits including, but not limited to, being environmentally less harmful, developing intergenerational and cross-cultural relationships, and connecting teachers, students, families, recreational providers and service clubs. Outdoor educators’ attempts to justify the value of OE through recourse to transfer and the development of increasingly sophisticated facilitation techniques remains problematic and will continue to be so because of some underlying misconceptions about the nature of learning, transfer and behavioural predictability. The challenge before us is to better understand the relationship between what is taught during OE programmes and students “everyday life” experiences. Ongoing involvement in outdoor recreation and connection to students’ communities may well be more fruitful than short experiences that rely on existing notions of transfer.

References Baldwin, T., & Ford, K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105. Beach, K. (1999). Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education. Review of Educational Research, 24, 101-139. Brown, A. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12. Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. (2002). The transfer dilemma. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 11(1), 1-24. Detterman, D. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. Detterman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1-24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dickson, T. J., & Gray, T. (2006). Facilitating experiences: A snap shot of what is happening out there. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(2), 41-52. Gass, M. A. (1985). Programming the transfer of learning in adventure education. Journal of Experiential Education, 8(3), 18-24. Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355. Greeno, J., Moore, J., & Smith, D. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. Detterman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99-167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lave, J., & Chaiklin, S. (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lehman, D., Lempert, R., & Nisbett, R. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American Psychologist, 43(6), 431-442.

Mike Brown, PhD, is a senior lecturer in The Faculty of Education at The University of Waikato. He completed his doctoral studies at The University of Queensland and held a position at Monash University before returning to NZ in 2004. He has worked in instructing/leading positions in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. His research has examined power and knowledge dynamics in facilitation sessions, theoretical aspects of experiential learning, and place-based approaches to outdoor education. He has published a number of journal articles and he most recent publication is a co-authored book with Dr Brian Wattchow (2011) entitled; A pedagogy of place: Outdoor education for a changing world.

Packer, M. (2001). The problem of transfer, and the sociocultural critique of schooling. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 10(4), 493-514. Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25. Priest, S., & Gass, M. A. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Priest, S., Gass, M. A., & Gillis, L. (2000). The essential elements of facilitation. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Rogoff, B. (1984). Introduction. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sibthorp, J. (2003). Learning transferable skills through adventure education: The role of authentic process. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 3(2), 145-157. Singley, M., & Anderson, J. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sugarman, D. A., Doherty, K. L., Garvey, D. E., & Gass, M. A. (2000). Reflective learning: Theory and practice. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Warren, K., Mitten, D., & Loeffler, T. (Eds.). (2008). Theory and practice of experiential education (4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential Education.

Acknowledgement This is an abbreviated version of a paper presented in The Australian Journal of Outdoor Education (2010)

Warren, K., Sakofs, M., & Hunt, J. S. (Eds.). (1995). The theory of experiential education (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Wolfe, B., & Samdahl, D. (2005). Challenging assumptions: Examining fundamental beliefs that shape challenge course programming and research. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 25-43.

51.

[3] On the day in question River Valley’s customers were spread

across two rafts, with two guides in each raft. When proceeding through a set of dangerous rapids one of the rafts missed its intended course and became temporarily stalled near a rock. The second raft was following close behind. It too was propelled in the same direction with the result that it ran into the first raft. [4] The occupants were thrown into the water. All the customers were pulled back into the raft. However, the junior of the two guides in the second raft had apparently moved higher on the raft in an attempt to stop it tipping. This meant he was thrown into the water from a greater height, and consequently went deeper into the water. He must have become trapped under water, and he drowned. The deceased was an experienced rafter who was on the trip in order to progress certification as a guide for these more dangerous rapids.

MNZ alleged that River Valley had failed to take all practical steps by not following a mandatory obligation in its Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM) (which it was legally required to have) to use a safety kayak when navigating the rapid. In other words, the sole basis for the charge under section 6 was River Valley’s alleged failure to follow its own operating procedures. River Valley’s defence was that the use of a safety kayaker was discretionary under its SOPM, not mandatory, and its decision on the day of the accident to use an alternative method was an acceptable decision to have made in the circumstances.

Katy Baxter (top) & Maree Baker Anderson Lloyd Lawyers

River Valley Ventures Limited (River Valley) runs a rafting operation on the Rangitikei River. It was prosecuted under the Act by Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) for: 1.

One offence against section 6 – failing to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of its employees at work; and

Two offences against section 16 – failing, as a person in control of a place of work, to take all practical steps to ensure that no hazard arose which harmed people (being both its customers and employees).

The charges related to an accident where a River Valley guide drowned after two River Valley rafts, travelling in the close “truck and trailer” formation, collided whilst navigating through the Fulcrum Rapid on the Rangitikei River (the rapid). The Court summarised the accident as follows: 52.

The two convictions against section 16 were challenged on the basis that River Valley was not in control of the rapid as a place of work at the time of the accident.

The primary issue on appeal against the first conviction was whether MNZ had proved to the required standard (beyond reasonable doubt) that River Valley had failed to follow its own procedures and therefore failed to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of its employees. The Judge acknowledged that because the wording of the SOPM was at times inconsistent and “certainly not precise” there was some room for confusion over whether the use of a safety kayaker was mandatory or discretionary. The High Court Judge put weight on River Valley’s evidence that the SOPM had always been interpreted as allowing the head guide to decide which safety method should be used each day. This approach

Risk Mangagement was supported by independent expert evidence called by River Valley. The Judge found that there was at least a reasonable doubt as to whether the SOPM created a mandatory obligation to use a safety kayaker. In reaching this conclusion, the Judge placed considerable weight on the fact that River Valley’s SOPM had been favourably audited by MNZ on an annual basis and MNZ was aware of River Valley’s interpretation that the use of a safety kayaker was discretionary. The outcome of the case could well have been different if MNZ had earlier identified to River Valley that its interpretation and application of this particular procedure was inadequate or contrary to industry practice. The outcome may also have been different if MNZ had presented evidence that proved, irrespective of whether the procedures in its SOPM were followed, the use of the truck and trailer formation and absence of a safety kayaker did not satisfy its obligations to take all practicable steps to ensure employees’ safety. However, MNZ accepted that in this particular scenario it would have been impossible to prove that there was only one “best practice” procedure that should have been applied by River Valley, (which is why the sole basis of the prosecution had been the failure to follow its own procedures). Accordingly, the quashing of this conviction should certainly not be seen as reducing the onerous health and safety obligations operators have. It does however reiterate yet again the weight that the Department of Labour and/or MNZ will place on an operator’s written health and safety procedures and how those procedures are followed in practice when investigating whether the operator has taken all practicable steps to minimise or reduce hazards in the outdoors.

This was the first case under the Act where the prosecution had sought to prove that a river was capable of being a place of work under someone’s control for the purposes of section 16. Section 16 places a duty on a person who controls a place of work to take all practicable steps to ensure that no hazard in the place harms people in the vicinity of the place or employees or contractors. The Act defines a person who controls a place of work as including an owner, lessee, sub lessee, occupier or person in possession of the place. The Court of Appeal has previously rejected an argument that the seabed is capable of being controlled as a place of work in the Diveco case.2 In River Valley, the District Court did not follow the Diveco ruling on the basis that River Valley had been operating exclusively and regularly on the

river since 1982, the rapid was a defined area, River Valley had detailed knowledge of the river and exercised stewardship over it (River Valley cleared debris from the river from time to time). In disagreeing with the District Court, the High Court Judge noted that the key concept is “control” and the fact that control is defined to include occupier does not mean that occupation per se is enough. Whilst he accepted that River Valley did “occupy” the rapid during its operations, the actual time it occupied the rapid on each occasion was very brief. The Judge ultimately rejected the argument that River Valley “controlled” the rapid noting: It does not and cannot control flow or conditions nor can it control who uses or goes through the rapid. Certainly River Valley uses the river, and does things consistent with control such as removing debris. But overall I am far from satisfied it can be said it controls the rapid. It cannot give directions in relation to it, nor exercise any authority over it. Nature is the sole determinant of the rapid’s conditions and the public is entitled to use it with or without River Valley’s say so.

Whilst the Judge’s decision does provide some guidance for the adventure tourism and outdoor education industries, this finding is only relevant in determining the extent of an employer’s obligations under one particular section of the Act. Operators obviously still have obligations to employees and other persons. For example, if MNZ had been able to prove that one of the guides made an unsafe decision on the day due to insufficient training by River Valley, it would likely have been successful in prosecuting River Valley under section 15 of the Act. Section 15 imposes a duty on employers to take all practicable steps to ensure that no action or inaction by their employees harms any other person.

The High Court has sent a clear message to MNZ and the Department of Labour that an employer’s obligations only go so far – if the environment they operate in is incapable of being brought under their “control” then they do not have duties or obligations under section 16. However, if River Valley had not taken all practicable steps to ensure its customers and employee’s safety that day, it would have still been liable under other sections of the Act. Operators should also take heed of the importance of regularly auditing their operating procedures, to ensure that they not only meet industry standards but that they are actually being implemented in practice.

River Valley Ventures Limited v MNZ New Zealand 17 December 2010, Palmerston North High Court, CRI 2010-454-15, France J

Department of Labour v Diveco Limited (2004) 2 NZELR 72 (CA).

53.

Photo by Dave Vass, ‘Decision making in the Leaping Burn, Matukituki’.

Penny Goddard bared her soul in a recent NZAC Climber article. This quote from the article sums up a decade of soul searching by avalanche trainers, led by researchers such as Ian McCammon1 in the USA and taken up throughout the avalanche training world. Why? Because avalanche trainers recognise that a focus on technical training was failing their students and they’re working on doing something about that.

Stu Allan

Penny Goddard

54.

In 2009, 57% of all respondents and 78% of Level 2 qualification holders in an NZOIA survey felt that instructors were skilled in decision making. In 2010, 76% of respondents in an Outdoors NZ training survey felt that it was important for staff to have nationally recognised qualifications to provide evidence of competency in decision making.

Perspective

It’s touching that people have made this leap of faith. Do our training courses specifically teach decision making? And, when you were assessed on a course, did you really demonstrate your skill in decision making?

When Ian McCammon noticed that trained snow travellers were dying in avalanches, he analysed 598 avalanche events. The findings were sobering: people with two or three days of training were only marginally safer than the untrained. McCammon went on to find that programmes aimed at reducing teen pregnancy, drug usage, and driving accidents had the same problem. He also found that the issues were well-understood by psychologists. And so a shift occurred from focusing on technical training to a broader consideration of all the factors we bring to a decision, including human factors. It hasn’t proved to be a silver bullet. In fact, simply discussing human factors hasn’t proved to be sufficient, and efforts are ongoing to help snow travellers consider all the hazards and make good decisions. Penny Goddard notes: We can ask ourselves what influential factors are playing a part in our decisions. Influential factors can be any number of things; wanting to fit in, not wanting to speak up or back out of a plan, wanting fresh tracks it’s so bad it’s like a drug, desiring a summit because it’s beautiful, assuming someone else knows best, or wanting to meet the perceived expectations of someone else. This is a neat summary of what psychologists tell us in bigger words, and it explains why a decision has often been made in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Avalanche trainers now provide students with decision-making tools in an attempt to minimise these human factors that threaten to trap us into making poor decisions. McCammon’s findings on trained snow travellers’ decisions are actually a little more subtle than noted above, and this is important. He found that trained travellers took more precautions but they also took more risks than untrained travellers. We tend to understand this in the outdoors community under the label ‘homeostasis theory’, and we do tend to talk about it on risk management courses. The idea is that the more skills and the better the equipment we have, the more risks we take, and so we keep a constant

margin of safety. However, given the avalanche world’s concern that simply raising the topic of human factors with trainees is insufficient to change behaviour, discussing homeostasis theory is just a start.

So what can we do? This is the hard part and I’ll float a less than fully-formed idea that’s been sloshing around in my head. Arguably, we’ve travelled some way down the avalanche training path by providing risk management tools that constrain individual/leader decisions, and I don’t plan to discuss that here. And we understand something about decision making in the outdoors. New Zealand research by Mike Boyes and Marty Beare2 on naturalistic decision making being especially relevant. Their research, like that of psychologists studying decision making in complex situations, suggests that much of what we recognise as decision making involves little analysis, and may hardly be a decision at all. But I suggest that we might also bring some attention to the role individual personality traits play in decision making: traits relating to issues such as risk taking, spatial ability, and leadership style. I’m particularly thinking about how my personality affected me as an outdoor leader. Many of my generation of outdoor leaders came from a background in high-risk adventures. We thrived on small safety margins in our personal play, and I took much of that attitude into my workplace. I remember, for example, descending Mt Sefton with a client one hot afternoon and sprinting across about 30 wet-snow avalanche paths to get back to our snow cave and a brew. We were excited and soon happily hydrated. My more experienced and careful colleague waited on Welcome Pass until the sun dropped and the wet slides went to bed for the night. At the time, I did think he was a little over cautious. On another occasion, I planned to traverse Tongariro with teenagers, and spent some time cutting steps on the descent in a whiteout. Eventually I agreed with the accompanying teacher to return the way we’d come. I was goal orientated and over confident to the point that I was slow processing the evidence around me. On the other hand, the teacher’s personality would have led her to make the retreat decision earlier: she would have been a safer leader that day. The Skills Active website promotes the profession with this marketing slogan: ‘Outdoor Recreation is the ultimate career for adrenalin junkies and adventure nuts.’

55.

Maybe it is but, if that’s the case, I know from my experiences that these adrenalin junkies may need help to contain their adrenalin.

Stu Allan is an outdoors consultant, writer, and rock climber. In a previous life, he was an outdoor instructor and mountain guide, working in the UK, Antarctica, Southern Alps, and at SEHOPC.

But of course uncontained adrenaline is just one pitfall. One day in a university lab, befuddled by a geological puzzle, I realised my spatial ability would rate quite high if I was a seven-year old. A light went on as I reflected on my navigation challenges. I realised that I had limited resources for the job of keeping ‘unlost’ in the outdoors, and I needed to be mindful of that. But we learnt navigation simply as a technical exercise to do with maps and compasses – the navigator’s innate abilities (or disabilities in my case) weren’t explored. Maybe today, with some focus on location awareness, we’re part way to factoring personal ability levels into the mix? Also relevant to this discussion is an individual’s leadership style, or how they like to make decisions – individually or with others. It’s certainly a focus in avalanche training as studies indicate that input from all group members, no matter how experienced, is likely to lead to better decisions. I’d like to think that my personality type gives me some chance of involving the group in the decision-making process, but others may see that differently. Certainly, the teacher with me on the Tongariro traverse didn’t get much of a hearing. I think we’re doing a little on this topic by teaching leadership styles but, again, don’t we typically teach it as some abstract and objective concept distinct from the trainee leader? Maybe we can take it further and focus on each individual’s personality and the idea that we tend to individually approach these issues from quite different places.

In another Climber article, Andrew Hobman argues that experienced avalanche forecasters ‘Base decisions on evidence, not emotion….’ What I’ve been pondering in this article is how we might help outdoor leaders get to that stage when we know from the avalanche world that this will involve much more than technical training. We need to introduce trainee leaders to the concepts Penny Goddard alludes to: the familiarity trap (our behaviour is OK because we’ve done it before), the consistency trap (our behaviour is OK because of a prior commitment to it), the acceptance trap (we do things to be accepted), the expert halo trap (unskilled leaders increase danger), the social facilitation trap (our behaviour’s OK because others do it), and the scarcity trap (we overvalue limited opportunities).

56.

Photo by Jo Straker. Trainee leader decision making.

Also, I suggest we should consider how individual leaders may be trapped by their particular personalities when they make decisions. I admit that I’ve pointed at a problem and brought little in the way of solutions to the table. Ultimately, we want experienced leaders who recognise patterns and make effective decisions, but we need to help them become experienced without them falling over badly along the way. I suggest we’ve largely filed this challenge in the ‘too-hard basket’ and it’s time to address it more broadly than through technical training and broadbrush, risk management training alone. Possibly, we might use methods such as real-world scenario training and role plays, and also review other sectors’ efforts such as airline pilot training. There are many skilled trainers in New Zealand’s outdoor community who could do this. And as workplace assessment becomes established, there’ll be more opportunity to get to know trainee leaders well and help them prepare for judgement day.

McCammon has written various papers on the topic, but a good one to start with is: Evidence of heuristic traps in recreational avalanche accidents, presented at the International Snow Science Workshop, Penticton, British Columbia, Sept 30–Oct 4, 2002. 1

Two articles, one by Marty Beare and Pip Lynch, and the other by Mike Boyes, give the flavour of this work. You can find the articles in: Dickson, T., Gray, T., & Hayllar, B. (Eds). (2005). Outdoor Experiential Learning, Views from the Top, Otago University Print, Dunedin. 2

Report

CONCESSIONS

REVIEW What it all means and what you can do about it

Specific matters that are likely to be addressed in the law changes in 2011 include: •

Specification that “core educational activities” do not require a concession, and a definition of “core educational activities”

•

Shortening the period for public to make submissions on applications from 40 to 20 working days

•

Imposition of mandatory timeframes for concession processing

•

Giving existing concessionaires a temporary right to continue to operate on the expiry of their concession, if they reapply six months prior to expiry

•

Amendments to general processes including the manner in which concessions are notified for submissions and situations when applications can be rejected or considered complete

•

Having a one step tender process, rather than a two step process when opportunities for an activity are limited

•

Enabling the Minister to decline applications when he/she considers the opportunity should be put out to tender instead

•

Allowing for “permitted” activities that do not require a concession

•

Tightening up of the reconsideration process (like an internal appeal or review of a decision)

•

Changes will also be implemented through the new SOP and other internal DoC mechanisms. These changes include:

•

Other procedural changes to improve timelines, efficiency, transparency and certainty in DoC’s processing of concessions

•

Procedural improvements in respect of notification of concession applications, hearings and reconsideration hearings

•

Improvements to the renewal process

•

Improvements for nationwide concessions

•

Extension of the recently introduced “conforming schedule”, effectively creating permitted activities.

A summary and comment on the implications of the Concessions Processing Review Final Report April 2010

Maree Baker Anderson Lloyd Lawyers

The Department of Conservation (DoC) completed a substantive review of the concessions process in 2010. Most activities on land administered by DoC (other than general public access and recreation) require a concession or some other authorisation. The recommendations arising from the review will be implemented partly by the changes to internal procedures (such as Standard Operating Procedures or SOPs) and partly by changes to the Conservation Act 1987. A new SOP on concession processing was released in July 2010. The Bill with the draft changes to the Act is likely to be notified for public submissions and a Select Committee hearing in 2011. The proposed changes to the Conservation Act will affect education and tourism activities that take place on land administered by DoC. These have the potential to be the most significant changes the industry has seen in this area of operations. It is therefore imperative that the industry continues to be involved at national and individual organisational levels in any ongoing consultation with DoC. And equally importantly, it is vital to put in submissions and present your concerns to the Select Committee, as at the end of the day, the decisions will be made at that level.

57.

General Changes to Concession Application and Hearing Process In order to shorten timeframes and improve certainty and transparency a number of changes are proposed. Many of these have been given effect by the release of the new SOP on Concession Application Assessment and Decision Making. However each conservancy’s compliance with SOPs varies, therefore it may not be implemented uniformly throughout the country. The new SOP implements a process more akin to resource management resource consent processing, particularly in terms of restricting DoC’s ability to “stop the clock” and let matters remain on hold for an unreasonable length of time. The SOP also introduces a discount policy if DoC breaches its self-imposed timeframes. If implemented correctly this will mean applicants will not have to pay for an inefficient service, and it may give DoC the incentive to improve its systems and efficiency. The SOP tightens consultation timeframes which should also speed up processing. In respect of concessionaries who have performed well, the SOP now requires DoC to proactively encourage those concessionaries to apply for a “re-issue” of their permit, which is a streamlined process, rather than simply waiting to see if existing concessionaries apply for a re-issue on their own initiative. As noted in the introduction, the period for the public to make submissions on concession applications will be shortened in the Conservation Act from 40 working days to 20 working days. The notification process in the Act will also be amended. Currently, a concession application is only notified if the DoC officer issues a draft report (the “first determination report”) recommending the concession be granted. The actual implications of this proposed change will not be able to be assessed until the Bill is notified. The changes to the Act will also detail situations when applications can be rejected or considered complete and processed, such as potentially giving DoC the power to reject a concession application if an applicant is inactive in response to requests for information for longer than three months. These changes are all proposed with the objective that concession processing be more efficient, streamlined and timely, which is welcome news. For one-off consents, or reissues of consents, timeframes are likely to be similar to the status quo. However, for standard “run of the mill” concessions, timeframes are likely to be shortened, and for notified concessions DoC aims to reduce processing times by at least three months.

58.

In respect of the renewal of concessions, similar provisions to the RMA will be introduced to provide for the renewal of concessions if the renewal application is made six months prior to expiry. Under the RMA, when a consent is due to expire the consent holder can continue to operate while the replacement consent application is being processed, as long as they reapply a set period prior to the expiry of the original consent.

Education and training In very basic terms, non-commercial public access and recreation do not require a concession. This reflects the fact that conservation land is administered by DoC on behalf of the NZ public. Where an organised group is undertaking a recreational activity for “specific gain or reward… whether pecuniary or otherwise” (s 17O (4)), a concession is required. It is this wording that has led to the current confusion and inconsistency surrounding whether or not education, vocational training or adventure therapy recreation activities require concessions. Some conservancies do not require a concession as long as participants are aged below 18 years. Some conservancies apply a different test relating to the conservation value of the education activity. Should these activities require a concession at all? The purpose of concessions can be boiled down to the following objectives; firstly, concessions enable DoC to manage conservation land and the effects of organised activities on conservation values, and secondly, concessions enable DoC to secure revenue from those obtaining a private gain from a public resource. So if one of the main objectives is to ensure organised activities are managed in order to protect conservation values, there is an argument that any organised activity should be controlled – unless the impacts of an organised group of school, polytechnic, adventure therapy or other students can be distinguished from the impacts of guided tourists? However, going back to the origins of the current concessions regime in the Parliamentary debates of June 1993 it seems that the prime motivation for concessions was to capture businesses operating in a truly commercial sense, not just organised activities generally. The review, however, does not acknowledge this focus on truly commercial activities, and instead opts for a halfway house, suggesting that “core educational activities” be exempt from requiring concessions. These could be defined as, for example, preschools, primary schools, secondary schools and NZQA approved courses. This definition is not likely to be wide enough to capture the various education, training and adventure therapy providers in NZ, and has

potential to draw an arbitrary line where there is no justification in terms of effects on conservation values, or even ability to extract revenue. The provisions in the Bill in 2011 will be absolutely vital to the future of how this sector is managed and, as such, the industry needs to have a strong voice in the submission and Select Committee process.

Nationwide Concessions Changes are also proposed for organisations that undertake activities on land administered by DoC throughout New Zealand, or in more than one conservancy. An improved nationwide concession process is recommended using either a lead concession setting out standard conditions, which is then repeated each time an organisation undertakes the same activity at a different site, or, where a formal group of operators is undertaking the same activity, a standard concession may be negotiated between DoC and that group of operators.

Reconsideration Process If an applicant does not agree with a concession decision, the first option to challenge that decision is called a “reconsideration”. There is no appeal right to any Court, with the exception of getting a decision judicially reviewed in the High Court – a costly and uncertain process. The review does not propose changes to the appeal rights that currently exist, i.e., there is no change recommending appeal rights to the Environment Court be introduced, nor does the review recommend that rights to initiate reconsiderations be extended from just applicants to include submitters. However, the review does recommend improving the formal reconsideration process. Reconsiderations are currently undertaken in house, by a staff member not involved in the initial processing and decision making. However, the process is seen by many as ineffective, not transparent and as DoC “sitting in judgement on itself”, i.e., biased. The review recommends the process be improved by applying timeframes, allowing new information to be considered at the reconsideration hearing and requiring that a “reconsideration authority” be appointed to consider reconsiderations. The authority would be required to have at least three independent members with conservation management and local community experience.

Tenders As pressures on resources increase and competition intensifies, it is likely DoC will have to take a more proactive role in managing concessions where there is limited space to cater for all applicants and activities. The law changes may give DoC a new power to reject an application if it is decided it would be more appropriate to put an opportunity out for tender. In other words, if you are first to have a great idea for a new adventure activity at a site, your application could be rejected on the basis that that activity might be best undertaken by another operator! The review also looks at generally improving the tendering process by, for example, making it a one stage rather than a two stage process. Other options being considered will deal with competition for spaces and resources and include a system for expressions of interest, auctions, ballots and banking opportunities. This area is still a work in progress.

Conforming Schedules Essentially, conforming schedules are intended to create a list of permitted activities which will always be granted provided that the applicant applies for exactly what is listed, shows they can carry out the activity, gains independent audit approval for their safety plan, obtains the required insurance and pays the application fee. If all of this is complied with the concession will be granted within five working days. The application process is online.

Maree Baker is a partner at Anderson Lloyd Lawyers specialising in the Resource Management Act and the Conservation Act, particularly in respect of commercial recreation, tourism and rivers. In a previous life she was a white water kayak instructor and sea kayak guide. Now she spends more time advocating on behalf of Whitewater NZ for the protection of rivers than she does kayaking!

At present, this process only applies to guided walking on identified tracks. This became operational in March 2010. Over the next year the review notes that conforming schedules will be investigated and developed for the following activities: mountain biking, 4WD driving, photography, guided hunting or fishing, and bee keeping.

Conclusion The devil will be in the detail of the changes to the Conservation Act in 2011, and the changes could have significant implications for the education and tourism industries that use land administered by DoC. Once in place as law the changes will be long term and far reaching so it is important that anyone who is potentially affected gets involved and has influence in the process to make sure the changes are a long needed improvement on the status quo.

59.

How research can change the way we think about outdoor education

Robyn Zink

Recently I have begun to ask a few more questions about the impact research has on outdoor education practice. Some of the ideas that have been the target of a lot of investigation and critique in outdoor education research, such as ideas around character building (Brookes, 2003) and the idea that what one learns in the outdoors transfers back into the classroom or the work place (Brown, 2010), have been found wanting, yet these ideas still seem to carry a lot of weight in our practice. Having taught outdoor education in various tertiary institutions, I know many of the students are motivated to become outdoor education teachers because these ideas seem to have worked for them. They feel good doing challenging things, and they argue that what they do in the outdoors does impact positively on how they live their everyday lives. Certainly these students have not always been that receptive when I have started to question some of the assumptions behind these ideas. I have been working and researching in and around outdoor education for a while now. Two things occur to me as I think about what seems to be somewhat of a disconnect between research and practice. One is that, I for one, have not been very good at translating my research into something ‘useful’, or something that busy practitioners can ‘do’ something with that does not require extensive further reading or space and time to mull over. The demands of universities are very different from the demands of the outdoor education sector and there is not always the time needed to re-write something for audiences beyond the university. The other thing that I think has happened is that we are generally quite good at critiquing what we do, but we are not always so good at offering up alternative ideas about what to do. I know this is the pattern in my own research. I have spent a lot of time unpicking what we do, but now I am beginning to ask where the generative and constructive spaces in outdoor education research are? This is not to suggest that I don’t think it is important to ask critical questions about outdoor education. In fact it is the critical questions that got me interested in research in the first place and also continue to keep me interested in asking questions. I worked for a number of years as an

60.

outdoor educator with various organisations in New Zealand. After a while I got more and more troubled by the gaps between the rhetoric and theory of outdoor education, and my experiences. Doing challenging things in the outdoors didn’t always lead to people feeling more confident or better about themselves. Often challenging activities seemed to have the opposite effect. Nor did working together in a group to solve ‘real’ problems necessarily build cohesion and trust. It could as easily lead to scapegoating certain group members. In the late 1990s I decided to go back to university and do a Masters in Recreation and Leisure Studies to unpick this rhetoric / practice gap a little. This, of course, only led to lots more questions about outdoor education rather than finding any answers, which motivated me to undertake doctoral studies. My Ph.D research looked at the question of ‘what work outdoor education does?’ rather than ‘does outdoor education work?’ (Zink, 2010). That is, what is it possible to learn and how have contemporary practices come to be seen as coherent and ‘normal’ things to do in outdoor education. As part of this I followed the outdoor education programme of one secondary school for a year. This school offered camps at all year levels. These were compulsory for years 8-10, and part of the Health and Physical Education curriculum for years 11-13. Even though I had thought I was a reasonably observant and reflective educator I was surprised at the sorts of things I noticed as a researcher that had not particularly registered when I worked with groups. The opportunity to do research in outdoor education turned my understanding of outdoor education on its head in many ways. I had thought that the activities were where lots of the important ‘stuff’ happened and the bits in-between the activities, like free time, getting ready and sitting around the camp fire, were the dots that joined together the activities. This is not to say that I didn’t see them as important, but I thought the activities were the main catalyst for most of the learning that occurred. One of the things that became obvious very quickly when I was doing the fieldwork for my doctoral studies was that the times between the activities were not just a series of dots connecting the activities. When the students talked about what was important to them in the interviews

Research after the camps, it was clear that for many of the students the activities were actually the dots that connected those spaces between the activities. The activities did feature in their talk about the camps, but when I asked them what they thought would remain with them it was largely those inbetween moments that they described. The games they played down at the beach after dinner, the discussions they had in the tents or bunk rooms, and the practical jokes they played on each other and on the staff. When I asked them why these moments were important one student captured the general sentiment of many of the comments when she replied that “this is when you make friends and they will be your friends for life”. One of the questions I have been wondering about with regard to learning in outdoor education is whether in our (justifiable and understandable) enthusiasm to ‘prove’ that what we do as educators causes learning, we have over emphasised the role of activities in our practice, theorising and research and missed those moments which foster connections between students. While students often can’t articulate what these moments ‘mean’ beyond that they are what make the camps fun, I have become more curious about how these inbetween moments work. They may not directly create the sorts of learning outcomes we have primarily focused on in our research, or that need to be assessed as part of the curriculum, such as self-efficiency, communication, leadership, problem solving skills and environmental awareness. But possibly one of the things that fosters learning in outdoor education is that the in-between spaces hold the potential to forge connections between students, between students and staff, and with the environments in which outdoor education occurs. Students in my research often characterise the outdoors as being very different from their everyday lives and this allows different sorts of interactions to occur and different sorts of connections to be made than they might experience at school, for example. This is not to say that all that happens in those inbetween spaces promotes positive connections. I’m sure many of us who have worked with groups in the outdoors have had those times where it felt like we walked into a scene from Lord of the Flies1, where relationships between students reaffirm divisions rather than foster connections. Or being in the outdoors evokes ‘survivor’ type responses from students where the environment is seen as dangerous and something to be conquered. The possibility that connections can be either affirming or negative suggests that this in-between space does deserve some attention. By this I am not implying these in-between moments become a structured part of a programme, or that they

become a target for de-briefing and reflection. But as outdoor educators I think we need to take more heed of what students think are the important aspects of outdoor education to begin to understand the relationships at work and how those relationships might, or might not, work to foster our capacities to connect with others and with the environments we are moving and living in. I may not have noticed these in-between moments if I had not had the opportunity to step into the role of researcher and experience outdoor education in a very different way. It was only recently when I began to read some social theories about affect, which is the capacity to connect with others, both human and non-human, that I was able to start to make some sense of how these inbetween moments might facilitate relationships and learning in outdoor education (Albrecht-Crane & Slack, 2003). One of the things that theory gives us is the potential to ask different questions about what we do and how we do it and to notice things that may previously have seemed unimportant or invisible. There is no doubt that the outdoors is a complex learning space and we still have only vague understandings of how learning occurs here. Can it be a space where we learn more than specific skills such as how to paddle a canoe, how to work together in a team, or environmental interpretation? While all of these aspects of outdoor education are important and have a valid place in the lexicon of what we do, I am beginning to wonder if one of the contributions we can make as an educational field is as a space that can foster positive connections between people and between the outdoor environments in which we work and learn. This article has previously been published in ‘Out and About’ in 2010, Issue 24, pp 33-35.

Robyn Zink works as a free lance researcher and consultant in outdoor education and outdoor recreation. She is currently working on a SPARC funded project looking at the role family orientated, non-competitive outdoor events play in outdoor recreation participation. Her research interests include teaching and learning processes in outdoor environments and exploring what enables people to go outside. In her spare time she can be found in her garden, in the hills or along the coast line somewhere. zinkresearch@hotmail.co.nz

References Albrecht-Crane, C. & Slack, J.D. (2003). Toward a pedagogy of affect. In Jennifer Daryl Slack (Ed.), Animations (of Deleuze and Guattari), (pp 191-216). New York: Peter Lang. Brookes, A. (2003). A critique of Neo-Hahnian outdoor education theory. Part one: Challenges to the concept of ‘character building’. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 3(1), 49-62. Brown, M. (2010). Transfer: Outdoor adventure education’s Achilles heel? Changing participation as a viable option. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 14(1), 13-22. Zink, R. (2010). The work outdoor education does: A Foucauldian Analysis. Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.

1 Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954) tells the fictitious story of a group of British schoolboys stuck on a deserted island. Their efforts to organise and govern themselves quickly disintegrate into oppositional factions. The tension between the two factions leads to the murder of two of the boys. The timely arrival of a British warship averts any more murders.

61.

A selection of some of the latest products you can expect to see on the market this season

A Pedagogy of Place by Brian Wattchow and Mike Brown Special offer for Outdoors New Zealand members – see below! A Pedagogy of Place: Outdoor Education for a Changing World, written by Brian Wattchow and Mike Brown, articulates a pedagogical approach that is in keeping with the educational needs of young people as they grapple with considerable social and ecological changes in today’s world.

NEW GU BREW Tablets

RRP $14.95 (12 servings per tube)

The book draws on a wide body of literature that critiques contemporary values and practices in outdoor education and examines the case for place. In addition, the authors present a series of compelling research case studies that explore and reveal what will be required of educators as they move towards more place-responsive practices. The publisher, Monash University Publishing, is offering all Outdoors New Zealand members a 20% discount on this book (offer expires 31 August 2011). Normal retail price is AUD$34.95 To order: go to the Monash University ecart: http://ecommerce.lib.monash.edu.au/ categories.asp?cID=46 Important: To receive your discount you must put the code S-PP_20% when proceeding through the checkout. ONZ members will be verified.

Realfleece: the real deal from Icebreaker

RRP $259.95

If you are looking out for a good mid layer option to keep warm this winter, check out Icebreakers new mid layer version of their Realfleece range. It is available in Men’s and Women’s options and is of course made from premium merino wool grown in New Zealand. Which offers a natural alternative to a synthetic fleece. We’ve been trialing out this one in the Outdoors New Zealand office (as the winter afternoon 62.

sun is no longer doing it’s job heating up the office). The instant warmth is rating well so far. Pictured is the women’s Realfleece 260 Cascade Half Zip (RRP $259.95) – good for wearing over base layers or under a technical shell. www.icebreaker.com

Drop, Fizz, Drink! Using natural ingredients, GU Tabs are easy to use and carry, taste great and are low in calories. Use GU Brew Electrolyte Tablets during activity and you’ll see a boost in preparation, sustenance, as well as recovery. Available in three flavours. www.allsports.co.nz WIN GU Tabs Want to try new GU Tabs? Send an email to marketing@allsports.co.nz with your name and contact details, Subject: GU Tabs Comp. Tell us what three flavours tabs are available in and be into win one of 12 GU canisters. Terms & Conditions apply. Competition closes 30 June 2011.

Marmot Shadow Jacket: New for 2011

RRP $499.99

This one is a goodie for long days at altitude. A high-tech, insulated jacket. High-caliber 650 fill goose down will seal in the heat, while MemBrain® 2L waterproof/breathable fabric seals out the elements and breathes naturally to cut chills. Reinforced shoulders and sleeves make it very durable, and the good range of handy pockets handle everything from your pass to your protein gels. Extra features zip-off storm hood with bonded brim, PitZips™ and zip-off powder skirt. www.marmotnz.co.nz

The Cactus Institution Pack If you work in the outdoor sector, you’ll know that the packs used at Outdoor training institutions would get the same amount of use in a few years that most packs get in a lifetime. The team at Cactus equipment have recognised this and have been working on a new Pack to meet these demands.

Useful technology: Mobile metservice.com Launched in 2010, the mobile version of metservice.com has had rave reviews and won the Best Mobile Site at the recent Onya Awards. Check it out at: http://m.metservice.com/ It has marine and mountain forecasts as well as up to date weather warning information.

The Institution Pack is a large, simple canvas tramping pack designed to be simple to use and indestructible in the hands of even the most inexperienced users. Features include a single compartment design, distinctive colour PVC panel to reflect pack size, strategic reinforcing of high wear points, minimal attachments, fixed lid, extra long compression straps and our proven harness system.

Cactus offers industry direct deals for all professional users and training/leadership education organisations – contact them directly at: www.cactusequipment.co.nz

KI WAHO INTO

ISSN 1178-9085

THE OUTDOORS

T H E MAGA Z INE F O R NE W Z EA L A N D ’S O U T D O O R CO MMU N I T Y • I S S U E 4 • MAY 2011

William Pike Challenge Award 1 October 2011: What does this date mean for you? When nature changes your landscape Do you want your mountains with or without handrails?

If you have a new product you’d like to suggest we profile on this page please email: info@outdoorsnz.org.nz

Advertising in Ki Waho The next issue of ‘Ki Waho – Into the Outdoors’ will be published in October 2011. Advertising opportunities are now available and must be booked prior to 19 September. Advertising Guidelines can be viewed on our website: www.outdoorsnz.org.nz

Competency v’s Qualifications Outdoor Excellence Awards 1.

for more information email: info@outdoorsnz.org.nz 63.

Earnslaw Canyon, Rees Valley, Glenorchy. Photo by Mike Enright, Canyoning.co.nz OutdoorsMark certified: April 2011