From Cyclone Response To Policy Change: How Indigenous Research Transforms Systems
The Policy Shift
Climate adaptation experts have told government to stop buying out flood-damaged properties. Communities are now expected to assess their own risks and make their own decisions. Government will focus on protecting infrastructure rather than individual homes.
Across the media, ministers are saying they cannot keep rescuing people from climate disasters while maintaining their own luxury lifestyles. Political leaders return from golden getaways and turn their backs on flood-affected communities. While the privileged retreat to higher ground, the rest are left navigating rising waters without support.
This is exactly what happened to Hauraki Māori during Cyclone Gabrielle. Their communities were cut off for 15 days. Helicopters flew over them carrying generators and supplies to wealthier places. The abandonment they experienced then is now becoming government policy. Responsibility is being shifted to communities while wealth and comfort are protected from above.
At the same time, councils are being handed more responsibility for climate adaptation without funding to deliver it. Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn wrote in E-Tangata that this is not real decentralisation. It is a transfer of risk. The pattern is familiar. Those with power pass the burden onto others while guarding their own interests.
What Our Research Found
When emergency services could not reach them for over two weeks, Hauraki Māori communities mobilised their own systems of care. They moved through manaakitanga. They looked after each other because that is what Hauraki whānau do.
One participant said it clearly:
"It began because they did nothing. I mean, seriously, absolutely nothing. We did our own emergency management planning."
Whānau set up evacuation centres at a kura. They turned marae into coordination hubs. They kept each other warm, fed and safe. No one was turned away. Everyone was looked after.
Meanwhile, Thames Coromandel District Council said it experienced communication gaps and resource allocation challenges. A different participant told us:
"We've been reading these weather patterns for generations, but no one listens."
The truth is that communities already have ecological wisdom and effective response systems. They just do not exist inside official frameworks. Government systems did not even know they existed.
This is the reality behind the policy shift. Communities are already managing climate risks on their own. The danger is that these same communities are being left with fewer options as property values drop and flood risks grow. Lower-income families are being concentrated in the most vulnerable areas. In Hauraki, half of the housing stock is owned by wealthy Aucklanders who visit two to four weeks a year. The Māori median income is twenty-three thousand dollars. For non-Māori, it is twenty-six thousand. With the few available rentals around five hundred dollars a week, many whānau can only afford housing in high-risk zones.
Research That Changes Systems
When we presented our 'Hauraki Māori Weathering Cyclone Gabrielle' research to all three Hauraki district councils, they did not push back. They did not defend their systems or question our methods. They said they would act on our recommendations. They said they wanted to work alongside us. This is unprecedented.
This matters because it shows the strength of Indigenous-led, community-based research. This research does not clock out. It stays in the community and works with whānau to build solutions while foregrounding their voices and documenting what is already happening.
When councils said they could use our recommendations straight away, they were recognising that communities had already created effective approaches. They saw that this research captured real-life responses that could be integrated into official planning.
That change is crucial. Government policy now expects communities to carry the responsibility for climate response. Our research shows they already do. Communities know how to move through crisis using their own systems of care and connection. The real question is not whether they can. It is how we support and resource this work when it happens.
Scaling What Works
Our next research project will take what worked in Hauraki and turn it into practical tools. These tools will show other communities and services how to prepare when formal systems fail.
We will create resources that explain how to activate marae as emergency health hubs. We will document communication methods that worked when the power was out and mobile service was patchy. We will provide templates for coordination based on existing whanaungatanga. We will offer guidelines to help official agencies support community responses rather than take them over.
This work is needed. Because in Hauraki, we are still mobilising. Whether it is a natural crisis or colonially constructed, we keep caring for our people. That is who we are.
The new study will record how this care is sustained over time. It will offer frameworks that other communities can adapt. Because we know this. When the storms come and systems collapse, our people are the first responders.
Government can choose to support this. It can invest in what already works. Or it can keep funding systems that fail at the worst possible moment while blaming the gap on communication issues.
The councils' response shows that system change is possible. When research is led by whānau and grounded in lived experience, it creates real solutions. When agencies listen, they can build systems that hold during crisis.
Our research proves that integration is possible. Not just possible, but essential. Communities move through manaakitanga and relationship networks when formal responses fail. They need systems that move with them. Not around them.
The knowledge already exists. The relationships already exist. The only question is whether this Indigenous-led approach will reach communities in time to meet the risks now being passed down to them.
Author Bio
Paora Moyle (KSO) is Director of Research at Te Whāriki Manawāhine o Hauraki. They lead kaupapa Māori research that centres Indigenous wisdom, data sovereignty and system change. Their latest report is 'Hauraki Māori Weathering Cyclone Gabrielle,' co-authored with Lesley Kelly and Denise Messiter (ONZM).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
4 days ago
- The Spinoff
Where do I send conservatives the bill for climate change?
In the 40 years since the world was first alerted to climate change, right-wingers have consistently been the ones most opposed to doing anything about it. And if there's one thing that conservatives like, it's personal responsibility. It seems almost impossible to believe, but until two years ago New Zealand's most expensive weather-related event, from an insurance point of view, was a big hailstorm in Timaru that cost $170 million. Now, of course, things happen at 10x magnification. The Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle each led to insured losses of around $2 billion. And – here's a cheerful thought – such events will only become more frequent and more expensive, as the planet heats and the atmosphere comes to hold more moisture. Which leads, inexorably, to my current preoccupation: where do I send conservatives the bill for climate change? In just one news bulletin this morning, two instances of soaring climate-change-related costs: the bill for repairing roads after the terrible Tasman floods is around $1 million every two days, and the damage those floods did to agriculture will drive up vegetable prices around the country. Yesterday a homeowner was on RNZ's Morning Report lamenting a landslip that had caused massive damage to their house: another cost. After each major flood, public bodies have to repair bridges, community halls, communication infrastructure, and so on: yet more costs. Heatwaves, too, cause droughts and losses to farmers: cost upon cost. Where, then, do I send conservatives the bill? Some will try to argue that weather is just weather: floods, cyclones and droughts have always happened. But the scientific consensus is clear: climate change makes all these events much worse. It renders them more likely to happen and, when they do happen, more devastating. A couple of years ago scientists, using a methodology called extreme event attribution, calculated that climate change was costing the globe $16 million an hour, and was set to cost up to $3.1 trillion – that's right, trillion – a year by 2050, as hurricanes, floods and heatwaves all worsen. Here at home, scientists in 2018 estimated that climate change had already caused at least $840 million worth of damage in a decade, and in truth probably much more than that. The Treasury, meanwhile, has calculated that climate change's worsening of extreme weather events could cost the state 3.8% of GDP by 2061, while GDP itself could be around 1% lower. Governments, families and firms will all have to spend billions of dollars repairing totally avoidable damage. Clearly, then, there is a bill to be paid. So where are the conservatives stepping up to accept it? I ask this because, for the 40 years since the world was first alerted to climate change, right-wingers have consistently been the ones most opposed to doing anything about it. As the documentary Hot Air reveals, in the early 1990s Simon Upton, the minister for the environment, wanted to introduce a carbon tax, but was thwarted by the likes of the New Zealand Initiative – in its former guise as the Business Roundtable – bringing in climate deniers to disrupt the debate. As Upton explains in the documentary, one of the Roundtable's 'experts' claimed that addressing climate change was a form of social engineering akin to – wait for it – eugenics. 'My eyebrows raised at that point,' says Upton, who tried to push on regardless. But this lobbying, allied to the usual right-wing campaigns by business and farming interests, derailed his well-laid plans. It could be argued that left-wing governments haven't always had a great record on climate change: emissions rose under Helen Clark, for instance. But her government did introduce the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and if she didn't go further, it was substantially because of opposition from – you guessed it – the right. Remember National MP Shane Ardern driving a tractor up parliament steps to protest against the ETS? That's the story of this issue, over and over: left-wing governments trying to do more in the teeth of right-wing opposition, and right-wing governments doing very little despite being urged to do more by left-wing ones. I return, then, to my theme: where do I send conservatives the bill? New Zealand right-wingers might argue that their actions, however unhelpful, have been essentially irrelevant, given that virtually all globe-heating emissions are created offshore. And that's fair enough. They can forward on a big piece of the bill to World Conservative Headquarters, which I imagine as a large and imposing edifice, albeit crumbling around the edges and with some increasingly lunatic fringing. I'm happy, in short, for Kiwi conservatives to pass on part of the bill – just as long as I know where to send it in the first place. Domestic right-wingers might feel this argument is a bit too sweeping. Hashtag Not All Conservatives, etc. And that's true, up to a point. Just look at Upton: he was a conservative, and doing his best. Ditto, at different times, Guy Salmon, Todd Muller and the like. It's such a shame, then, that – to reprise the old joke about lawyers – 95% of conservatives are giving the remaining 5% a bad name. There's a great irony here, in that conservatives are supposed to be strong in a couple of areas, including – you know – conserving things (the planet, for instance). Saving money, too. But although the costs of mitigating climate change have always been vastly lower than the costs of not doing so, this point has somehow eluded the ostensible fiscal conservatives among us. If there's one thing that I know conservatives like, though, it's personal responsibility. They're always talking about the costs that 'feckless' poor people impose on the rest of us, constantly attacking left-wing governments for treating taxpayers 'like an ATM'. And so, as the Tasman region reels from the devastation, as hundreds of homes are flooded each year, and as we face the prospect of this fiscal picture deteriorating with each passing decade, I'm sure that everyone on the right who has ever opposed or downplayed the need for climate action will step forward to take responsibility. And then, at last, I might know where to send the bill.
Scoop
6 days ago
- Scoop
From Cyclone Response To Policy Change: How Indigenous Research Transforms Systems
Government has ended climate buyouts and expects communities to manage their own risks. Our research into 'Hauraki Māori Weathering Cyclone Gabrielle' shows what happens when they already have to. The Policy Shift Climate adaptation experts have told government to stop buying out flood-damaged properties. Communities are now expected to assess their own risks and make their own decisions. Government will focus on protecting infrastructure rather than individual homes. Across the media, ministers are saying they cannot keep rescuing people from climate disasters while maintaining their own luxury lifestyles. Political leaders return from golden getaways and turn their backs on flood-affected communities. While the privileged retreat to higher ground, the rest are left navigating rising waters without support. This is exactly what happened to Hauraki Māori during Cyclone Gabrielle. Their communities were cut off for 15 days. Helicopters flew over them carrying generators and supplies to wealthier places. The abandonment they experienced then is now becoming government policy. Responsibility is being shifted to communities while wealth and comfort are protected from above. At the same time, councils are being handed more responsibility for climate adaptation without funding to deliver it. Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn wrote in E-Tangata that this is not real decentralisation. It is a transfer of risk. The pattern is familiar. Those with power pass the burden onto others while guarding their own interests. What Our Research Found When emergency services could not reach them for over two weeks, Hauraki Māori communities mobilised their own systems of care. They moved through manaakitanga. They looked after each other because that is what Hauraki whānau do. One participant said it clearly: "It began because they did nothing. I mean, seriously, absolutely nothing. We did our own emergency management planning." Whānau set up evacuation centres at a kura. They turned marae into coordination hubs. They kept each other warm, fed and safe. No one was turned away. Everyone was looked after. Meanwhile, Thames Coromandel District Council said it experienced communication gaps and resource allocation challenges. A different participant told us: "We've been reading these weather patterns for generations, but no one listens." The truth is that communities already have ecological wisdom and effective response systems. They just do not exist inside official frameworks. Government systems did not even know they existed. This is the reality behind the policy shift. Communities are already managing climate risks on their own. The danger is that these same communities are being left with fewer options as property values drop and flood risks grow. Lower-income families are being concentrated in the most vulnerable areas. In Hauraki, half of the housing stock is owned by wealthy Aucklanders who visit two to four weeks a year. The Māori median income is twenty-three thousand dollars. For non-Māori, it is twenty-six thousand. With the few available rentals around five hundred dollars a week, many whānau can only afford housing in high-risk zones. Research That Changes Systems When we presented our 'Hauraki Māori Weathering Cyclone Gabrielle' research to all three Hauraki district councils, they did not push back. They did not defend their systems or question our methods. They said they would act on our recommendations. They said they wanted to work alongside us. This is unprecedented. This matters because it shows the strength of Indigenous-led, community-based research. This research does not clock out. It stays in the community and works with whānau to build solutions while foregrounding their voices and documenting what is already happening. When councils said they could use our recommendations straight away, they were recognising that communities had already created effective approaches. They saw that this research captured real-life responses that could be integrated into official planning. That change is crucial. Government policy now expects communities to carry the responsibility for climate response. Our research shows they already do. Communities know how to move through crisis using their own systems of care and connection. The real question is not whether they can. It is how we support and resource this work when it happens. Scaling What Works Our next research project will take what worked in Hauraki and turn it into practical tools. These tools will show other communities and services how to prepare when formal systems fail. We will create resources that explain how to activate marae as emergency health hubs. We will document communication methods that worked when the power was out and mobile service was patchy. We will provide templates for coordination based on existing whanaungatanga. We will offer guidelines to help official agencies support community responses rather than take them over. This work is needed. Because in Hauraki, we are still mobilising. Whether it is a natural crisis or colonially constructed, we keep caring for our people. That is who we are. The new study will record how this care is sustained over time. It will offer frameworks that other communities can adapt. Because we know this. When the storms come and systems collapse, our people are the first responders. Government can choose to support this. It can invest in what already works. Or it can keep funding systems that fail at the worst possible moment while blaming the gap on communication issues. The councils' response shows that system change is possible. When research is led by whānau and grounded in lived experience, it creates real solutions. When agencies listen, they can build systems that hold during crisis. Our research proves that integration is possible. Not just possible, but essential. Communities move through manaakitanga and relationship networks when formal responses fail. They need systems that move with them. Not around them. The knowledge already exists. The relationships already exist. The only question is whether this Indigenous-led approach will reach communities in time to meet the risks now being passed down to them. Author Bio Paora Moyle (KSO) is Director of Research at Te Whāriki Manawāhine o Hauraki. They lead kaupapa Māori research that centres Indigenous wisdom, data sovereignty and system change. Their latest report is 'Hauraki Māori Weathering Cyclone Gabrielle,' co-authored with Lesley Kelly and Denise Messiter (ONZM).
Scoop
10-07-2025
- Scoop
Councils Need More Clarity Around Climate Adaptation
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) says a lack of clarity around who pays for climate adaptation puts ratepayers at risk of footing the bill — which many could not afford. This follows the release of a final report from the Independent Reference Group on Climate Adaptation, set up by the Ministry for the Environment to provide recommendations for a new adaptation approach for New Zealand. LGNZ Vice President Campbell Barry says while the report has good intentions, it fails to address some concerns previously raised by local government. 'It's good to see the report's sense of urgency; our submission on climate adaptation in June last year stressed that action is needed now,' says Campbell Barry. 'We need to have better policies and frameworks in place to cater for increasingly severe and frequent weather events. Local government can't afford to have another Cyclone Gabrielle; the aftermath of a significant weather event like that comes with massive financial, infrastructure and human costs for communities. 'This report continues the lack of clarity around who pays for climate adaptation. We're concerned its huge costs will fall on local government, yet councils don't have access to funding and finance tools to cover these costs. 'An objective of the climate change framework should be to ensure that where costs or responsibilities are passed on to councils, councils should be provided with a means to fund them. 'We need the Government to be clear around who pays and how. Councils are being set up to fail if their funding and finance framework doesn't change. 'If we don't fundamentally change how local government is funded, and how we pay for important things like climate adaptation, then the cost will ultimately fall on ratepayers.' LGNZ champions, connects and supports local government. We represent the national interest of councils across New Zealand to deliver more of what matters in their communities. LGNZ is involved in policy, reforms, programmes, and advocacy as well as providing advice, consultancy and training to councils and their staff.
