A new framework lays out the role of central government, local government and individuals in responding to the warming climate. We break down what it says, and why it matters.
On Thursday last week, the government released a National Adaptation Framework, a broad plan for how to deal with the ongoing, worsening effects of climate change.
“New Zealand faces growing risks from floods, storms and other natural hazards. We need our country and economy to be resilient and well-prepared,” said climate change minister Simon Watts on releasing the plan. The framework will “give us an enduring system that prepares New Zealand for the impacts of climate change, supports economic growth and keeps the overall costs to our society as low as possible”.
So who is responsible for doing what, and who pays for it? Here’s what we know.
New Zealand now has a National Adaptation Plan – is it a big boring document? What does it say?
Unlike many plans and government documents, it’s pretty short and straightforward – just four pages (two are the title and a message from climate change minister Simon Watts), which you can read here.
There are four sections: risks and response information sharing, roles and responsibilities, investment in risk reduction and cost-sharing pre-and post-event. For “risks”, the basic rundown is that the government will provide more information (through a new national flood map and an existing natural hazards portal) so that climate change risk is fully incorporated in consenting with the new RMA process.
For “responsibilities”, the government will amend the Climate Change Response Act to tell local government when to make adaptation plans for the most at-risk areas and clarify a national direction for councils through the new RMA, as well as “focus local government on core services including managing natural hazard risk through improvements to the local government system”. If you think that final point sounds like quite a broad, catch-all – well, you’re not far off.
For “risk reduction”, the Crown will manage climate risks to assets like schools and highways, create a $1.2bn infrastructure fund for climate adaptation in regional NZ, use a funding framework to make decisions on future investments with climate change in mind and regulate councils to “weigh up the costs and benefits” of adaptation.
The “cost sharing” section is the shortest. A new “developer levy” will let councils charge developers a portion of the costs it will take to maintain new housing over time – this is something Christchurch City Council already has in place and Queenstown-Lakes District Council is looking into. A more vague “deliver new tools to support government recovery decisions following significant severe weather events” doesn’t give much indication of what these tools are and when they will be used.
Climate change minister Simon Watts at Cop28 (Photo: Getty Images)
Why do we need it?
Climate change is happening, now. People think about it in terms of natural disasters, which climate changes makes more frequent and extreme, but slower processes like changing patterns of heat, rainfall, drought and sea level rise are already impacting how housing is designed, where food can be grown and health risks. Adaptation is how we prepare for that impact, whether it’s investing in infrastructure which can withstand higher rainfall, changing where we live to avoid floods or fires and using natural systems like plants and wetlands to limit the damage from flooding and sea level rise. The national adaptation framework is the high-level government direction about how central and local government, businesses and insurers can prepare.
Progress on the plan has been delayed; it was initially supposed to come out in the first quarter of the year. Councils have reiterated that they want certainty about what their responsibilities are to address coastal erosion and prepare for flooding and drought. In the interim, several councils have released their own risk assessment plans, which have impacted insurance in some areas. Much of the plan focuses on the relationship between central and local government; with their responsibilities for transport, spatial planning and consenting processes, many councils are at the coal face of adapting to climate change. From sea level rise exposing landfills to managing water reservoirs in case of drought, councils have a lot of responsibilities – and often not enough money to fulfil all these responsibilities.
A silt-overed field in the Hawkes Bay following Cyclone Gabrielle. (Photo: Kristina Salmon)
As climate change continues to reshape communities, the vital question of who pays after a climate-exacerbated disaster or slow, creeping sea level rise becomes more pressing. The government’s independent reference group that informed the policy had proposed a transition period of 20 years, after which homeowners should not expect buyouts. Understandably – with the fresh memory of council and government-funded buyouts after Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary floods – this suggestion was controversial, and there was no mention of it in the adaptation plan.
At some point, it will no longer be sustainable for the government or councils to keep protecting private property in areas affected by climate change, like coastal communities. Developers won’t rebuild in areas which are prone to flooding or at risk from sea level rise and higher storm surges, as these properties will not be given insurance plans, and will therefore be impossible to sell.
So local government wants adaptation advice – is there public appetite for this?
Polling conducted by Talbot Mills for insurance provider Suncorp (whose CEO Jimmy Higgins was on the advisory panel for the adaptation plan) shows that most New Zealanders support adaptation. Of 1,000 people surveyed, 82% wanted more information on climate hazards and 86% and 87% wanted local councils and central government respectively to lead that planning. A similarly high proportion of people, 84%, agreed that those contributing to climate change should pay most to address risks in areas vulnerable to hazards, while 58% of people agreed that a national climate fund should be created to pay for adaptation and recovery from disasters.
Temwaiku, Bonriki motu, South Tarawa Atoll, Kiribati (Photo: Getty Images)
A national climate fund! Is that in the plan?
No, mechanisms on how to pay for climate change are generally missing from this picture. “The greater clarity is welcome, but communities alone cannot afford the huge cost that comes with addressing our climate risks. I’ve witnessed firsthand the massive impact that floods, storms and other natural hazards can have on a community, and the need for people and the economy to be resilient and well-prepared,” says Rehette Stoltz, mayor of Gisborne and vice-president of LGNZ, in a press release.
“Our concern is that further regulation of councils will add to their costs without meeting the current funding challenges. At a time when people are grappling with the high cost of living, it can’t be ratepayers alone that pay for this.” Stoltz is supportive of tools like value capture (to make money from land that becomes more valuable following council investment, like public transport services or a sea wall) and a civil defence levy, so climate adaptation doesn’t have to be funded from rates alone.
Gisborne mayor Rehette Stoltz (Photo: Tom Kitchin/RNZ)
Other ideas about how to pay for adaptation, like specific climate action taxes or liability for major contributors like fossil fuel companies, aren’t part of the adaptation framework’s “costs” section, even though the polling mentioned above shows these options are popular in New Zealand, as they are around the world. In the press release, climate change minister Simon Watts acknowledged that sorting out how to pay is still not straightforward. “We will keep building on these foundations over time, including taking further decisions on issues such as cost-sharing. It is important we take time to work through all these issues to ensure this framework can endure.”
Apart from money, what else is holding back adaptation?
The plan includes a new flood map, unifying national-level and council data about flooding, so the public can see where is most likely to flood, and flooding can be taken into account when making decisions about housing. This kind of information is vital for good planning, says David Hall, senior lecturer in climate action at AUT. “In the context of withdrawal of funding for research organisations, there’s a paradox there that needs to be addressed. Does that mean there is going to be new funding available for adaptation and hazard related outcomes, or are we within a constrained space for research?”
From the community level to a national or international level, part of adaptation is that people will have to change where they live – whether that is a shift between suburbs or countries. This will force many difficult questions about equality, community and belonging.
Nick Cradock-Henry, a principal scientist at Earth Sciences New Zealand, was one of many researchers attending the Adaptation Futures conference in Christchurch this week, a global gathering to discuss climate adaptation – from dealing with heat in schools to making plans for disabled people during natural disasters. “The message was clear: there was an urgent need to accelerate effective adaptation now,” he said. But the difficult part is still to come. “We must also continue to confront the difficult trade-offs that lie ahead. We need to ask: Where is adaptation still feasible? When do we need to shift from incremental to transformational changes? And how do we ensure that these transitions are fair and just?”
While adaptation is important, the other side of the coin is the emissions that continue to create the climate crisis. Decreasing emissions and absorbing those in the atmosphere already will mean adaptation is easier, cheaper and in some cases, not necessary at all. “Adaptation must go hand-in-hand with aggressive and sustained emissions reductions. Every additional degree of warming locks the world into an increasingly unsustainable future, marked by higher temperatures, more frequent and severe storms, and deepening social and economic disruption,” said Cradock-Henry.