Councils Need More Clarity Around Climate Adaptation
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Government can't be the de facto insurer of property after weather events
For example, the communities of Port Waikato and Bluecliffs have seen properties irreparably impacted by coastal erosion and sea level rise but have been treated differently to the properties impacted by single destructive events such as Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary flooding in 2023. Not having a clear policy on the Government's response after an event has created this unfairness in outcomes. Buyouts of properties most affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary flooding cost central and local government billions of dollars. The future liability of the reactive approach from these weather events is large and growing, as development continues to happen in places that will be affected by the physical impacts of climate change. It is not sustainable for the Government and local government to be the de facto subsidised insurer of property values after significant weather events. This approach is effectively a subsidy encouraging people to stay in harm's way. We all need to be thinking about the impacts of climate change as we make decisions about how and where we live. We need clear and consistent information regarding the hazards and risk scenarios our properties face. We also need to know what plans are being made to address the hazards and risks. This is where clarity of roles and responsibilities comes in: local and regional authorities must be able to prepare adaptation plans, and many already are. To do this, they will use the Para framework – examining options under the different headings protect, accommodate, retreat and avoid. The relevant authorities will need to prioritise the proposed adaptation activities and determine how they will be funded. The question of how to fund preventive risk reduction is particularly challenging. This will require a mix of central and local government and property and infrastructure owners. We are proposing that contributions to funding investments in risk reduction broadly reflect those who get the most benefit from it. This must be subject always to consideration of ability to pay, so that those who can't contribute aren't simply left to their own devices. The Government's historical approach to property owners affected by a significant event should change. After a long transition period (20 years), hardship should be alleviated with reference to need rather than to property values. That is, there would be no buyouts following an extreme weather event that has damaged property. The Government would retain its role in alleviating hardship. The point is that this can be achieved in different ways than underwriting pre-event property values. One option, for example, would see a beachfront mansion owner and an owner of a small house in a flood-prone area be assisted according to need. If that need is established then they would receive the same capped amount rather than a payment based on the respective value of their properties. This has no impact on the role of central and local government during and immediately after an event, in terms of the emergency response. This proposal also doesn't represent an abrupt shift in policy today – it goes hand-in-hand with a long transition. This period enables the creation and ongoing update of hazard and risk information, and a timeframe over which people can make decisions in the knowledge of the future state that will apply. Banks and insurers are already starting to take these hazards and risks into account. Banks have the bigger challenge – typical mortgages are 20-25 years, while insurance contracts are annual. Insurers can decide each year the level of risk they are willing to take on and the price at which they will provide the insurance, whereas banks make a lending decision for a much longer period. Changes in lending and insurance practices will likely be the first way that people will experience the impact of climate change on property markets. A bank may require a much larger deposit or decline to lend at all on a particular property; or your insurance premium skyrockets; or the most significant hazard facing your property, flood risk, is excluded from your policy following a significant event. The numbers involved are large. A recent assessment of climate change and flooding problems in South Dunedin illustrates the scale of the potential problem. Seven potential adaptation futures were reviewed in detail, ranging from continuing as is to large-scale retreat. The different plans affect some 5800 properties and estimated costs of the different scenarios ranged from $2 billion to $7.1b – that's $345,000 to $1.2 million per house. For context, the current Dunedin City Council capital delivery budget is $200m annually for the entire city. Climate change adaptation involves hard questions for which there are no easy answers. That we are now having this conversation is a great start. The water lapping at the door doesn't care what we believe, and transparency of information regarding hazards and risks does not change those hazards and risks – events will occur and losses will be felt whether we understand that information or not. The fact that some who receive that information will have difficulty responding to it is not a good reason for not providing it. The approach we take needs to be enduring beyond election cycles. We have limited resources as a nation; we need to make sure we are using those resources effectively and not wasting them on short-term measures when we are dealing with a long-term problem. It is inevitable that people will have different views of the level of risk, and some may choose to buy, or stay, at a place despite the knowledge of the hazards and estimates of the risk. That's entirely up to them, but that shouldn't require the country to underwrite that decision. The reflexive response from those unhappy with this approach essentially says: a person buying, or choosing to stay in, a property today with the knowledge that it is at a higher risk of the physical impacts of climate change should expect to be made whole by the Government (ie the whole community) in 20 years' time, if those risks come to pass. To which it's worth asking: why?
Otago Daily Times
4 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Voting on the pressing issues
As Dunedin prepares for the local body elections, voters have the opportunity to choose local politicians who align with their expectations of the future for Dunedin. While many issues are currently in the spotlight, such as the cost of living, flooding, and housing, these are often closely connected to climate change and sustainability — even if that link isn't always made explicit. There have been a number of reports that find an explicit relationship between the cost of living and climate change impacts. Earlier this year The Australia Institute released a report that found a direct connection between the rising cost of living and the climate crisis, now and into the future. The report identified that the particular sectors to be hit hardest will be insurance premiums, food prices and energy costs. And indeed the more the temperature rises, the worse conditions will get, that means that more weather events will increase insurance premiums and disrupt food production, pushing up costs further. However, much of today's public discourse relies on divisive sound bites that pit immediate concerns against longer-term global challenges such as climate change. This framing creates a false dichotomy. In reality, we can no longer afford to treat climate change as separate from the pressing issues we face — it is deeply interconnected with how we live, work, and make decisions on this planet. This is where I would listen carefully during the local body electioneering. For example, the adaptation report released this week from the Independent Reference Group on Climate Adaptation noted that we need a proactive approach to climate adaptation. The report concluded with three main points: There needs to be increased access to risk information and early planning because New Zealanders need clear, accessible information about natural hazard risks and planned responses to make informed decisions. Early understanding enables individuals, communities and businesses to reduce future costs through proactive planning and risk mitigation. There should be fair and targeted funding for risk reduction. A broad ''beneficiary pays'' principle should guide funding, where those who benefit most contribute more. It is suggested that central government should invest where national or Crown interests are at stake, and help support vulnerable communities with limited capacity to pay. People (and businesses) are going to need to take individual responsibility. People should understand and take responsibility for the risks they face, with property values and insurance costs reflecting changing climate risks. Long-term public buyouts should not be expected, though government should support those in hardship. Māori must be resourced and empowered to make their own local adaptation decisions. Consequently, considering the above recommendations and when thinking about local government actions in this space, consider: 1. How local government candidates prioritise making climate and natural hazard risk data accessible and understandable to the public. This includes supporting initiatives for open data, improved hazard mapping and clear communication strategies. How candidates commit to transparency and proactive public engagement on risk information — not just during emergencies, but in planning and development decisions. 2. How candidates explain how they intend to fund adaptation measures. The ''beneficiary pays'' principle suggests ratepayers, developers and beneficiaries of infrastructure should contribute, but it would be good to understand candidates' positions on the role of council advocacy for central government support, especially where community capacity is limited. Ask how candidates plan to balance fairness, fiscal responsibility and investment in resilience, especially for vulnerable areas. 3. How local leaders treat climate risk when discussing land-use decisions, property valuations and infrastructure planning. Ask for candidates to give their position on development in high-risk areas, managed retreat and the role of insurance and housing affordability in adaptation. Understand what might be the support shown for iwi/hapū leadership and resourcing for Māori-led adaptation. Voters should assess whether candidates recognise that long-term public buyouts are unsustainable and that adaptation will require behavioural, policy and market change. The coming local elections are a chance to assess whether candidates are ready to govern in an era where climate change is not a distant threat, but a defining consideration in local decision-making. Only by actively understanding the connections between climate change and the other key pressing issues can elected representatives on council begin to build a sustainable and resilient future for all people and businesses in our city. Sara Walton is a professor at the Otago Business School, University of Otago. Each week in this column writers addresses issues of sustainability.
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- NZ Herald
Ray Chung vile email scandal: Two more Independent Together candidates quit
At 9:05pm last night, Northern Takapu ward candidate Andrea Compton said in a statement she too was ending her association with the group. Within the hour Pukehīnau Lambton ward candidate Dan Milward also quit the group. 'Like many others, I was surprised by the recent allegations and the subsequent media coverage storm' he said. 'When my wife was threatened by the agitators at our final roadshow event in Wellington CBD on Tuesday night, I knew it was time to take a different approach.' Wellington City Councillor Ray Chung at a rally. Photo / Mark Mitchell Videos posted to social media have seen public meetings held by the group descend into chaos with hecklers and event organisers clashing. When contacted for comment, Chung said he 'didn't know' about the departures. He was at the Local Government New Zealand conference on Thursday and said he hadn't communicated with anyone all day. In a statement, an Independent Together spokesman blamed the media scrutiny over the email scandal - rather than the lewd email itself - for the departures. 'The political machinations at play have an enormous psychological impact for all of the candidates', the statement said. 'The accompanying media coverage and the scrutiny on the team has been intense.' They are not the first to leave the group. Engineering firm director Phil McConchie, Cuba Barbers owner Mike Petrie, and Melissa Moore had all disappeared from the group's website before Chung's official campaign launch in June. Wellington mayoral candidate Ray Chung at his campaign launch. Photo / Ethan Manera. Chung said at the time that they each left after the group was launched in April, as they struggled to manage the commitments needed to run for council with their own professional demands. Chung said he was 'not fussed' by the departures and didn't think it was a bad look for Independent Together. He said he was glad they left before they had officially declared their candidacy with the council. Tory Whanau said Chung emailed her an apology on Monday, the same day Prime Minister Christopher Luxon slammed Chung's comments. 'That was unacceptable content in that email, really pretty vile and unacceptable stuff', Luxon said when asked about it at his post-Cabinet press conference. The email's existence has also cost Chung an important backer, with rich-list philanthropist Sir Mark Dunajtschik officially withdrawing his support for the mayoral candidate. Chung has called the situation a 'blatant political attack' and a 'smear campaign'. Six candidates, including Chung, remain on the Independent Together ticket for the upcoming Wellington City Council election. Ethan Manera is a New Zealand Herald journalist based in Wellington. He joined NZME in 2023 as a broadcast journalist with Newstalk ZB and is interested in local issues, politics, and property in the capital. Ethan can be emailed at
