Latest news with #onClimateAdaptation
Scoop
6 days ago
- Climate
- Scoop
As The Sea Level Rises, Who Will Pay? Councils Seek Answers
North Canterbury's councils want to know who pays for preparing for climate change as major storms and flooding threatens local communities. Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has warned a lack of clarity over who pays for measures to protect communities from sea level rise, flooding and weather events could leave ratepayers with a hefty bill. The concern follows the release of a report from the Ministry for the Environment's Independent Reference Group on Climate Adaptation, which raises the question of who should pay. Waimakariri District Council chief executive Jeff Millward said his council is beginning work on a climate adaptation strategy as it looks to prepare for the threat of sea level rise and the growing number of severe weather events. For earthquakes and flooding events, the council has insurance through the local authority protection plan, which covers 40 percent and the balance coming from Government or loan funding. But preparing for sea level rise and flood mitigation measures costs money, Mr Millward said. As the risks become more severe, there may be changes to what insurance is available, or even ''no insurance at all''. ''Does it fall back on the ratepayer or the taxpayer? It is a bit more complicated and a lot more discussion has to happen.'' Councils already have clauses in District Plans identifying natural hazards and impose regulations such as minimum distances from the waterline and raising floor levels to 1.5 metres off the ground. ''People like living near the beaches or rivers, but it puts those properties at risk, so there is going to be a lot of modelling work done to identify the risks and develop and array of tools,'' Millward said. Kaikōura District Council chief executive Will Doughty said the region's councils are working on adaptation plans, following the launch of the Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum in December. ''One thing is for sure - there is going to be a bill. I think we do need clarity and it is a conversation we need to have. ''I think the steps Canterbury has taken as a region to put that action plan in place has put us in a good position. ''It's a much bigger issue than any one particular district and the more joint action we can be doing the better.'' The recent report warned it may not be sustainable for government buy-outs to continue for properties in at risk areas, with weather events such as those facing the Nelson region expected to become yearly events in some areas. It recommends phasing out those buy-outs over a 20 year period. Adaptation measures, such as flood schemes, sea walls and infrastructure, should be funded by those who benefit, the report advised. On Monday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ the government will not be able to keep bailing out homeowners after major floods. The Hurunui District Council has completed climate adaptation plans in partnership with its beach communities. It has led to the council buying a $3.8m block of land south of Amberley to prepare for future events. Residents from at-risk communities will be able to secure sections by paying a targeted rate over the next 30 years. The plot of land would be attached to their existing property, so the two properties cannot be sold separately. When the time comes, residents could transport their house to the new section, or build onsite. Council chief executive Hamish Dobbie the issue is complex and councils need some guidance from government. ''Some guidance suggests we should be involved at all. We should only be involved in roads and pipes. ''There needs to be a good sensible conversation about this.'' LGNZ vice president Campbell Barry said the ministry's report has failed 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. ''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.'' Barry said the lack of clarity meant the burden of paying for adaptation was likely to fall on ratepayers. Luxon said Climate Change Minister Simon Watts had been working to get a bipartisan view on how to deal long term with major weather events.
Newsroom
14-07-2025
- Business
- Newsroom
Going it alone – how not to prepare for climate change
Comment: The Report of the Independent Reference Group on Climate Adaptation was published on Wednesday. Mercifully, the report is short. But it is certainly not sweet. Indeed, it constitutes one of the most philosophically misguided, morally questionable, administratively inept, and politically naïve documents I have read in many years. This is a great pity, because the relevant policy issues are vitally important and require robust, serious, principled analysis. Confronted with the growing impacts and unprecedented long-term risks of climate change, not least accelerating sea level rise and more severe flooding, the group has a simple policy remedy: beyond 2045, the central government, and presumably also local authorities, should stop all property buyouts for climate-related disasters. This approach would apply not only to those negatively affected by such disasters but also to those at high risk of future damaging events. In effect, the report recommends that the government should inform all those with properties at risk from climate-related disasters: From 2045, you are on your own. There will be no financial assistance for you to relocate your home or business to a safer location, let alone to relocate your community, town or suburb, regardless of the seriousness of the risk you face and irrespective of your financial circumstances. If you cannot afford to move, well, sorry, bad luck. You will need to face the consequences on your own. But you can apply to MSD for a hardship grant. In the meantime, over the next 20 years, the report recommends government provide property owners with reliable and consistent risk information, improve land-use planning to minimise future risks, and gradually reduce financial assistance for property buy-outs. The manner and rate at which such assistance should be reduced is not discussed. Equally, the report ignores the issue of whether the same approach should apply to all natural disaster risks, including seismic events. But politically, it would be hard for a government to justify buying out properties negatively impacted by a major earthquake, as in Christchurch during 2011-12, but then refuse to purchase the same properties impacted by coastal inundation. If so, then after 2045, there would be no repeat anywhere in the country of red-zone buyouts. The group's advice raises numerous issues – moral, administrative, legal, political, economic, and much else. Here, only a few can be considered. Three reasons appear to underpin the group's proposal to end all disaster-related property buyouts: first, faced with rising climate-related risks, they will become unaffordable; second, buyouts are unfair; and third, the prospect of a buyout can encourage risky decisions and bad investments. But each of these arguments is problematic. To start with, the Report provides no evidence that New Zealand will reach a point in the future beyond which moving people and their properties out of harm's way will be unaffordable, regardless of who pays. Hence, the core policy issue is not whether relocations are affordable, but who pays. Essentially, that is a moral or political issue, not an economic or technical one. Regarding the possible fiscal cost of buyouts: fundamentally, this will depend on the compensatory framework – that is, who is eligible and for how much. The Expert Working Group on Managed Retreat, of which I was a member, recommended to the government in 2023 that any compensation for homeowners should be capped and restricted to principal places of residence. Holiday cottages and other second or third homes should not be eligible. Such arrangements would significantly reduce the fiscal costs of planned relocation. But there is another critical point: in an interdependent world, not providing buyouts will impose fiscal costs. Those lacking the resources to move their homes and businesses out of harm's way will face ever more disrupted lives, with adverse health-related and employment-related impacts. Also, more people will need to be rescued more often – assuming the country continues to value and protect human life. Moreover, if all relocations forced by climate change or seismic events are unplanned and haphazard, then any kind of sensible land-use planning or infrastructure investment will be much harder. All these things will impose fiscal costs – and costs on ratepayers. Regarding fairness or equity: this week's Independent Reference Group report prioritises the so-called 'beneficiary-pays principle': those who benefit most from something should pay the most. Unfortunately, the report largely ignores other morally relevant principles of fairness, such as meeting basic human needs, protecting individual rights or applying the polluter pays principle and the ability-to-pay principle. Similarly, the report overlooks the critical role of risk pooling or risk solidarity in the face of unprecedented and often uninsurable risks. Proper consideration of the full range of ethical principles would point to different conclusions from those advocated by the Independent Reference Group. Aside from this, the beneficiary-pays principle is often irrelevant or hard to apply. When a town like Westport needs to be relocated because it cannot feasibly or cost-effectively be protected from sea level rise, who are the beneficiaries? Most of those forced to relocate will doubtless regard themselves as victims, not beneficiaries. And politicians who suggest otherwise are unlikely to receive much support. To be sure, the prospect of buyouts in the context of natural disasters might encourage unwise investments. That is why any compensatory framework to assist with climate change adaptation must be part of an integrated policy framework, one that is well designed to reduce future risks and minimise moral hazard. Finally, this week's report ignores time inconsistency and policy credibility. Suppose a government at some point endorses the idea that beyond 2045 there will be no buyouts in response to natural disasters. Would that be a credible policy in a parliamentary democracy – or even in a dictatorship? Would citizens believe it? And what happens at the 2044 general election when tens of thousands of property owners, if not more, are faced, in the context of ever-increasing climate-related impacts, with the prospect of potentially uninsurable and worthless homes in 2045 or sometime later? And which political parties will campaign on the slogan: 'Next year you will be on your own'? Viewed from 2044, the Independent Reference Group's recommendations in 2025 will look breathtakingly naïve. That means they also lack political wisdom today. We need a long-term policy framework for climate change adaptation that is credible, cost-effective and tolerably fair to all citizens. Above all, it must recognise the state's fundamental moral duty to protect the public interest and enable effective risk solidarity in the face of unpredictable, unwanted and unprecedented disasters.
