Climate change response timeframe at odds with visions
An independent reference group established by the Ministry for the Environment advised the government this week to take decisions with urgency so climate adaptation approaches could be "fully in place" by 2045.
That timeline appears at odds with the multibillion-dollar visions for 2100 unveiled by the joint Dunedin City Council-Otago Regional Council South Dunedin Future programme earlier this year.
The reference group's report — "A proposed approach for New Zealand's adaptation framework" — was silent on "proactive buyouts", but said any expectation of the government stepping in to buy out properties should end in 20 years' time.
South Dunedin Future programme manager Jonathan Rowe said it was not clear how the reference group's proposed 20-year transition period would work.
"It's not clear how the proposed transition period and 'no buyouts beyond 2045' would work in practice," Mr Rowe said.
"This approach would appear to constrain options for adapting to climate change over the long term.
"That said, the report acknowledges that there is no 'right' answer to how long a transition should take.
"A transition period of more than 20 years would likely be required to enable the types of changes envisaged for South Dunedin."
Along with proactive buyouts the report did not address "urban regeneration", an approach that aimed to provide a vision of a "safer and better" future for areas in the firing line of the consequences of climate change, Mr Rowe said.
Urban regeneration included creating new housing and urban developments that offered commercial returns and attracted private investment, he said.
Still, Mr Rowe welcomed the reference group's report and said the work represented a step towards long-awaited legislation and regulations on climate adaptation.
Many of the actions noted in the report, particularly around gathering and communicating information about climate change-related risks, and council planning, were already under way for South Dunedin, and across Dunedin, Mr Rowe said.
Further, he welcomed the "broad interpretation" of the reference group's proposed "beneficiary pays" approach to climate adaptation work, saying effective adaptation would typically benefit the government, councils, property owners and others.
"At the same time, it's important to recognise that many stakeholders will be impacted by climate change through little or no fault of their own, and some will also lack the ability to pay," he said.
"The government's adaptation framework will need to balance these trade-offs, providing clear and consistent national guidance while retaining flexibility for local decision-making and implementation."
The reference group said due to the "place-based" nature of climate change risks, planning for climate adaptation should be done by local councils.
But it noted local government faced funding challenges and said there was evidence of "underinvestment" in New Zealand.
"People and markets should adjust to a changing climate over time," the report said.
"This means that people should be responsible for knowing their risks and making their own decisions on whether to stay in a high-risk area or move away."
The group said there was at present an expectation central and local government would step in to cover costs for individual homeowners, despite there being no legal or policy framework to require or guide these decisions.
"In the past, local and central government have offered buyouts of up to the full value of properties affected by natural hazards.
"These decisions reduce incentives for people to understand and manage their own risk, can distort property prices and have given rise to an expectation that buyouts will continue, creating a moral hazard."
hamish.maclean@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Scoop
New Finance Rules Risk Cutting Off Rural Lending
Federated Farmers is calling for new proposed 'green' finance rules to be scrapped, warning they're ideologically driven, unworkable, and risk doing real harm to rural communities. In a letter sent to Ministers and key officials on July 11, the organisation outlined a series of serious concerns with the Sustainable Finance Taxonomy. "This framework is fundamentally flawed," Federated Farmers banking spokesperson Mark Hooper says. "It has been created without meaningful input from working farmers, it imposes unrealistic standards, and it risks cutting off financial services to legitimate, productive rural businesses." The Sustainable Finance Taxonomy is being developed by the Centre for Sustainable Finance and the Ministry for the Environment to provide a consistent framework for defining what is 'green' or 'sustainable' in financial markets. Federated Farmers says it would create major risks for New Zealand's agricultural sector and is urging the Government to halt the process entirely. "One of our core concerns is the lack of practical farming expertise involved in developing the taxonomy," Hooper says. "There are no hands-on farmers involved with the Technical Advisory Group. Instead, it's full of shiny-shoed bankers, sustainability advisors, and forestry lobbyists. "If you're designing a finance framework for agriculture, farmers must be at the table. This is a total governance failure." Without real-world knowledge of farming systems, the framework fails to reflect the operational realities and sustainability efforts already embedded in New Zealand's primary sector. For example, the proposed taxonomy defines 'green' farming as producing less than one tonne of CO equivalent per hectare per year. "This threshold is so low that no working New Zealand farm could realistically qualify, even though we're home to the most emissions-efficient food producers in the world," Hooper says. "It sends a message that no farm is green, regardless of how well it's managed or how efficient it is." Another concern is that productive farmland would be disqualified from being considered 'green' if it was ever a natural ecosystem since 2008. "This ignores decades of sustainable stewardship and penalises farms that have long been operating responsibly," Hooper says. The proposal also includes requirements that Federated Farmers says are simply unworkable. One rule would require 80% of fertiliser use to come from low-emission products within three years - a target Hooper says isn't feasible. "Those alternatives are not yet economically viable or widely available in New Zealand. Farmers can't use what doesn't exist." He says another major burden is the requirement for Farm Environment Plans to include extensive biophysical documentation. "While many farmers already have FEPs, the new standard would dramatically increase complexity and cost, particularly for small and medium-sized farms. "This is a compliance nightmare with no clear benefit." Despite the potential impact on rural capital flows and lending, there has been no economic analysis of how the taxonomy might affect farm businesses, landowners or rural lenders. "For a framework that could fundamentally alter access to finance, this is an unacceptable oversight," Hooper says. Federated Farmers also warns the taxonomy duplicates many requirements already covered by national regulation or industry programmes. "This adds unnecessary red tape without delivering meaningful environmental or financial benefits," Hooper says At the same time, by defining sustainability through a fixed list of approved practices and technologies - such as specific fertilisers or methane inhibitors - the taxonomy risks excluding innovative new solutions still in development. "This will lock us into today's technology and penalise tomorrow's breakthroughs," Hooper warns. While the taxonomy is currently non-binding, the design intent is to become mandatory. That shift would make it harder for legitimate farm businesses to access lending, insurance, or investment - not because they're unviable, but because they don't meet an arbitrary 'green' standard, Hooper says. "This would create a two-tier financial system, where productive and lawful farms are denied services because they don't fit a narrow ideological framework." Federated Farmers supports the intent of two Members' Bills currently before Parliament, introduced by Andy Foster MP and Mark Cameron MP, which aim to prevent financial institutions from making lending decisions based on ideology or reputational risk. "The taxonomy, in its current form, directly undermines that intent," Hooper says. Federated Farmers is urging the Government to disband the taxonomy process entirely, warning it will do more harm than good. "This is not a path to sustainable finance. "It is ideologically driven, practically unworkable, and risks serious harm to rural New Zealand," Hooper says.
1News
a day ago
- 1News
Panel recommends end to weather damage buyouts in 20 years
Phasing out government assistance for climate adaptation and property buy-outs would be "morally bankrupt", a climate policy expert says. An independent reference group set up by the Ministry for the Environment on Wednesday released a suite of recommendations to help the government shape climate adaptation legislation. Following a 20-year transition period, homeowners whose houses are flooded or damaged by weather events should not expect buy-outs, the group recommended. The group also recommended that funding for adaptation measures such as flood schemes, sea walls and blue-green infrastructure, should follow a 'beneficiary pays' approach in most cases. "This would mean those who benefit most from these investments contribute more." ADVERTISEMENT Central government should only invest in adaptation if it would protect Crown assets, "or where broader national benefits can be realised". "Central government investment or other financing strategies may be appropriate to help overcome challenges in particularly vulnerable areas, where there is less ability to pay." Victoria University emeritus professor Jonathan Boston, who was part of a previous expert working group on climate adaptation, said the message from the latest report to New Zealanders was clear: "You are on your own." The report rightly recognised the need for urgent action on climate adaptation, and to make consistent, reliable information about climate hazards available, Boston said. However, the recommendations to withdraw financial assistance for both property buy-outs and adaptation measures, and to leave decision-making up to individuals, were "fundamentally flawed". "One of the core responsibilities of any government is to protect its citizens and to deal with natural disasters and so on. That is above almost anything else." To put an end-date on that was "morally bankrupt and highly undesirable", he said. ADVERTISEMENT The report wrongly assumed that people would act rationally if they were properly informed of the risks, he said. "We know from vast amounts of literature that people suffer from all kinds of cognitive biases... and that these have a profound influence on whether people make sensible decisions or not. "And quite apart from cognitive bias, lots of people lack choices. They lack the [financial] resources to make good decisions." Boston also criticised the recommendation of a transitional period, saying the risks from climate change would continue to evolve well past 2045 or another hard end-date. He and others had previously warned against the 'moral hazard' of creating expectations of generous property buy-outs every time there was a severe weather event. "We certainly need to be ensuring that we don't create incentives for people to stay in risky areas or indeed to build in areas that are going to become risky because of climate change," he said. "But the idea that you can just sort of leave it to individuals to decide what's going to happen and have no oversight or involvement in helping people to make good decisions and helping people to move where they have to move, I just think it's bizarre." ADVERTISEMENT Managed or unmanaged retreat? Environmental Defence Society policy director Raewyn Peart said the report seemed to be moving away from the concept of "managed retreat", where communities moved out of harm's way in a coordinated fashion. "The approach seems to be unmanaged retreat, where we'll give people information and a transition period - they're on notice - and at that point, people can make their own decisions about whether to move or not." That would be unworkable, Peart said. "Some people will move, some won't, councils [will have] to provide services to a community that's gradually emptying out, people there who can't afford to move will be trapped into a risky situation - they may be facing regular floods of their properties. "I just don't think it's in the best interests of the country to essentially leave it to the market and people's individual decisions." The report recommended handing over responsibility for adaptation planning to local councils, but it was unclear whether central government would provide any financial or administrative support, she said. ADVERTISEMENT "Some councils are really on to it and are already doing it — they have the resources. It's the small councils who may only have one planner, who have no expertise in adaptation planning." The latest report echoes previous warnings that insurers could increase premiums to unaffordable levels, and even withdraw from some areas, as the risk from climate change hazards continued to increase. Insurance Council chief executive Kris Faafoi — whose organisation has long called for greater national direction from central government on climate adaptation — said it was good to see the report authors recommending urgent action. "There's still some very difficult issues to work through — but these extreme weather events are going to happen, and being able to protect communities and to keep insurance affordable and available is really important in the long-term." There was little appetite anywhere on the political spectrum for expensive buy-outs of properties to continue, he said. The question of who would actually pay for adaptation measures still needed to be answered, Faafoi said. "In the report itself, there was an expectation that councils will do a lot of the heavy lifting and where some communities might find it a challenge to be able to pay for some of the protections … then investment from the Crown might be necessary." ADVERTISEMENT But following a "beneficiary pays" approach could see the costs of adaptation fall heavily on some communities. "I think reading between the lines, there could be the likes of targeted rates in some areas. "Again, that has to be floated with communities and as to whether or not people who benefit from that might be able to pay for that." The report noted the financial difficulties many councils faced. "Funding will be a challenging proposition if councils' ability to increase rates is constrained," the authors wrote. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts told RNZ the Government welcomes the independent recommendations for how New Zealand can adapt to the impacts of climate change. "We will now take the time to review recommendations and announce decisions in due course," Watts said. "The report is not government policy, however the Government is considering the group's recommendations, alongside the findings of last year's cross-party climate adaptation inquiry and other advice, as it works to put in place the building blocks for a national adaptation framework."
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Majority of southern ratepayers hit hard
More than two-thirds of Otago and Southland's councils hiked rates above the national average for 2025, new data shows. Only the Invercargill City Council (7.11%), the Otago Regional Council (5.50%) and the Southland District Council (7.23%) were below the national average rates increase of 8.39% for 2025. Of the 78 councils across New Zealand, less than half (34) were below the national average rates increase, and now the Taxpayers' Union is calling for ratepayers to sign a petition calling for a cap to be put on rates hikes. Taxpayers' Union local government campaigns manager Sam Warren said the union had created a Rates Dashboard so ratepayers could track and compare their council's annual rates increases with councils across New Zealand. It also showed the average cumulative rates increase over the present three-year council term, which was an ''astonishing'' 34.4% — more than two and a-half times inflation over the same period. ''The dashboard shows that the average Kiwi household now faces a rates bill more than a-third higher than just three years ago. ''These numbers represent real pain being felt by ratepayers, including reports of ratepayers being forced out of their homes. ''They show why United Kingdom or Australian-style rates capping is so urgently needed. ''Councils should be forced to keep rates under the level of inflation unless approved by local referenda.'' He said more than 28,000 New Zealanders had signed the Cap Rates Now petition. However, Dunedin Mayor Jules Radich said Dunedin's 10.70% rates increase this year was necessary, because the city had underinvested in infrastructure over the past two decades. ''Our rates are a bit higher than the national average because we've got more ground to make up with water in particular. ''We are embarking on a programme to bring our water services and infrastructure up to standard. ''We're an older city and we're suffering from a lack of expenditure on pipes and plumbing and the water infrastructure over the last 20 years in particular. ''So we're having to make up that ground, but also we're looking to try to balance the increasing levels of debt of council with rates, and we're looking to maintain the water infrastructure within council ownership.'' He said feedback from residents in the nine-year plan consultation, showed there was ''a definite preference'' for the Dunedin City Council to retain control of its own water infrastructure. ''So what that means is, it will cost us a little bit more in the short term to fund that infrastructure, but in the longer term, we'll save a considerable amount of money over the course of the nine-year plan. ''I think it's $158million that we save by funding the water infrastructure upgrades and renewals ourselves, as opposed to forming a council-controlled organisation.'' He said many councils further north were banding together and forming council-controlled organisations, and as a result, they were loading all of the infrastructure upgrades on to debt. ''And in some cases, that debt is heading towards a maximum of about 500% of revenue. We are well under that. ''Even though some people complain about the level of council debt, we are at a realistic level,'' he said. 2025 rates rises % rise 3-year cumulative rise* Central Otago District Council 12.47% 47.95% Clutha District Council 16.59% 39.85% Dunedin City Council 10.70% 38.53% Environment Southland 8.80% 37.13% Gore District Council 8.82% 46.60% Invercargill City Council 7.11% 24.28% Otago Regional Council 5.50% 45.76% Queenstown Lakes District Council 13.50% 50.23% Southland District Council 7.23% 31.15% Waitaki District Council 9.79% 34.79% *(as of July 10, 2025) Top 10 rates rises in 2025 Clutha District Council - 16.59% Upper Hutt City Council - 15.78% Hamilton City Council - 15.50% Waipa District Council - 15.50% Hastings District Council - 15.00% Selwyn District Council - 14.20% Grey District Council - 13.73% Queenstown Lakes District Council - 13.50% Westland District Council - 13.20% Taranaki Regional Council - 12.90%
