Thomas (Tom) Wilson, University of Canterbury;
Gill Jolly, GNS Science;
Shane Cronin, Massey University;
Richard Smith, EQC (formerly MCDEM);
Heather Craig University of Canterbury
Carol Stewart, University of Canterbury/Massey University;
+ Natural Hazards Research Platform
Presenter:
Overview of the talk
Context
1.


New Zealand’s Volcanoes
What hazards they produce
Why are primary industries vulnerable to volcanic
hazards
2.


what science advice is useful to mitigate volcanic impacts
Current NZ research programme
Volcanic Hazards Advisory Group
3.


NZ Volcanic Science Advisory Panel
How might this link with primary industries sector
New Zealand Volcanoes
 Volcanic Fields
 Small localised
eruptions
 Stratovolcanoes
 Frequent explosive and
effusive eruptions
 Ashfall, small
pyroclastic density
currents and lava flows
 Calderas
 Very large, infrequent
eruptions
 Proximal hazards buffered
by National Parks
Pyroclastic Density Currents
Lahars
 Volcanic ash is the most likely
volcanic hazard to affect the
most people during an explosive
eruption
 Ash is technically defined as <2 mm
 Windblown particles erupted from a
volcano of any size are commonly
referred to all as ash.
Ash fall may be
highly directional
Ash fall thickness &
grainsize usually
decrease with
distance from the
vent
Ash fall may be highly directional
Ash fall thickness & grainsize usually decrease with distance from the vent
Ash Impacts to Agriculture
(brief summary)
 Livestock: starvation, irritation, poisoning
 Pastures and crops: coverage, toxicity (rare),
UV reduction, acid damage, lodging, soil cycles
disrupted, soil fertility impacts, etc.
 Water Supplies: turbidity, toxicity (rare)
 Critical Services: disruption to electricity,
roads, etc.
 Variety of mitigation options
Current science priorities
• Standardized ash analysis protocol:
• clear, concise, authoritative, repeatable
• Human health = complete
• Agriculture = in development (Heather Craig)
• Develop NZ capability and connect with international experts
• International Volcanic Health Hazard Network
• Ash Impacts Working Group (NZ/US/UK lead)
Recon Trips: by volcano & year visited
Redoubt 1996; 2010
Eldfell (Heimaey) 2008
Shinmoedake
2011
Etna
2003
Sakurajima
2001
Pacaya
2010
Pinatubo
2007
Merapi
2006
Tungurahua
2005; 2010
Lapevi
2003-05
Ruapehu
1995-96
Puyehue Cordon-Caulle
2012
Hudson
2008
Chaiten
2009
Focus on preparedness, impacts, recovery, mitigation
What pops up time after time...
 Volcanic ash falls are often regarded as exotic events
(mysterious) which are rarely planned for
Lessons for an effective responses
 Pre-prepared information for stakeholders
 Significant demand for timely, specialised
information (based on over 100 interviews
around the world)
 Where and when will ash fall? When will it stop?
 What will the impacts be?
 What chemical impacts will the ash have (human,
animal, vege, soil)?
 How can the impacts be mitigated
 Science knowledge and capacity often poorly
integrated into emergency response
Key Science Actions following an
explosive volcanic eruption (science
products)
 Forecast future eruptive activity
 Major focus of the science effort
 Map ash fall out zones – thickness and other key
properties
 Aids in impact assessment
 Identify areas which may remobilise -- lahars
 Ash fall collection and chemical analysis programme
 Identify if ash likely to pose contamination issues
 If clearly communicated to all stakeholders, it reduces
anxiety of possible chemical impacts


What has been analysed
When results will be available
 Provide advice on possible mitigation strategies
Relies on Dissemination through networks farmer’s trust
NZ National Volcanic Science Advisory Panel
 To facilitate provision of authoritative, trans-disciplinary volcanic
science advice (for planning and response purposes) that is integrated
across agencies, and to lead collaborative planning for multi-agency
science research response during volcanic events.
 MCDEM facilitated and operates under the auspicious of the Natural
Hazards Research Platform
 funded with the expectation that science is made available for the public
and there is strong engagement and collaboration with stakeholders
DRAFT - NVSAP Comms Version 1a
Incorporating agency science advisory arrangements with health and agriculture subgroups of NVSAP
Public and Media
Rural
Sector
DHBs
Event
Local CDEM
MCDEM
MoH
National
Lifelines
MPI
GeoNet
National Volcanic
Science
Advisory Panel
Volcanic Health
Subgroup (incl ESR)
Agriculture and
Lifelines impacts
Subgroup
(Incl MPI science providers)
Science information
and advice
Agency coordination
Public information
Courtesy of Richard Smith – EQC (formerly MCDEM)
Volcanic Advisory Group for Agriculture
 Possible goals (from Science perspective):
 Scientists (NZVSAP) can quickly communicate science
information to primary industry stakeholders
 Conduit to eruption information

What happened and what is likely to happen in future
 Characterisation of volcanic hazards (e.g. Ash)
 Authoritative source of information for stakeholders
 Two way relationship
 Provides a focal point for requests for science investigation.
 Established line of communication to authoritative natural
hazard/risk information
 Conduit for impact information to scientists – for follow up
investigation
Tongariro 2012 worked ok, but if the eruption was bigger and went on for
longer it would be difficult to sustain that level of support.
Discussion points – as identified by Trish (MPI)
 It is informative/relevant to NZ situation and stays up to





date with science
Can be easily pulled together when required e.g. a video
conference, emailing
Has a specific aim and targeted scope. Is earthquake,
liquefaction in or is it ash and ballistics?
Doesn’t require large amounts of resource
Uses existing networks and doesn’t duplicate any other
work
Can be systemised, by which I mean it doesn’t matter who
is in the job they would know what their role is during a
volcanic eruption, who to contact, which lab to use, where
the resources are etc.