Report on New Zealand’s Proposed Climate Adaptation Framework and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Climate Adaptation and Sustainable Development

A proposed climate adaptation framework for New Zealand presents significant challenges to the nation’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. An analysis based on a projected future scenario, “New Zealand 2050,” indicates that a narrow policy focus on financial liability at the expense of social equity could severely undermine key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report evaluates the framework’s potential impacts, highlighting its direct contradictions with goals related to poverty, inequality, community resilience, and climate justice.

2.0 Analysis of the Proposed Adaptation Framework

The draft framework, as critiqued by the Ministry for the Environment’s Independent Reference Group, centers on individual responsibility for climate-related risks. Its core tenets present a significant departure from collective, state-supported recovery mechanisms.

2.1 Key Policy Proposals

• Cessation of Government Buyouts: The framework proposes that after a 20-year transition period ending in 2045, government-funded buyouts for properties in high-risk zones will be discontinued.
• “Beneficiary Pays” Model: The financial burden for adaptation and recovery is shifted to property owners and local ratepayers.
• Limited Government Investment: Future government investment in infrastructure will be restricted to Crown-owned assets or projects deemed of “national benefit,” potentially leaving local communities to fund the restoration of essential services like roads and power.

3.0 Conflict with Core Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed framework’s implementation would create cascading negative impacts, directly impeding progress on multiple SDGs. The projected scenario of “Te Taone” in 2050, a town devastated by a cyclone without adequate institutional support, illustrates these conflicts.

3.1 Undermining Social and Economic Equity

1. SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The policy risks entrenching poverty and exacerbating inequality. By removing financial safety nets, it leaves low-income households, who cannot afford to relocate from high-risk areas, vulnerable to losing their primary asset and falling into destitution. This creates a system of “climate redlining,” where the ability to escape climate risk is determined by wealth.
2. SDG 5 (Gender Equality): Vulnerable groups, such as solo mothers like the fictional Mere Rākete, are disproportionately affected. The loss of a home and community support systems places an immense burden on single-parent households, deepening gender-based inequalities.
3. SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The failure to support community-wide recovery leads to the collapse of local economies. As illustrated in the scenario, job losses, business closures, and fragmented labour markets are direct consequences of inadequate disaster response, hindering sustainable economic growth.

3.2 Impact on Community and Institutional Integrity

• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The framework directly threatens the goal of creating resilient and sustainable communities. The policy’s consequences include:
  • Displacement of residents and community fragmentation.
  • Inadequate and failing local infrastructure (power, roads, schools).
  • Increased prevalence of unsafe and damaged housing.
  • Erosion of social cohesion and support networks.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) & SDG 4 (Quality Education): The stress of displacement, financial ruin, and uncertainty leads to a decline in mental health. Furthermore, the disruption to communities results in interrupted schooling and the relocation of educational facilities, compromising access to quality education.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The policy represents a failure of institutional duty of care. By allowing development in known hazard zones and subsequently withdrawing support, government and local councils risk a loss of public trust. The emergence of class-action lawsuits, as projected in the scenario, signifies a breakdown in the social contract and a challenge to the justice and effectiveness of public institutions.

4.0 Disproportionate Impact on Indigenous Communities

The framework poses a unique threat to Māori communities, further conflicting with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Many Māori communities reside on ancestral lands located in floodplains and coastal areas. The prospect of forced abandonment of this land, often only recently returned through Treaty settlements, without coordinated support, echoes historical injustices and institutional neglect.

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations for an SDG-Aligned Approach

Treating climate adaptation as a purely individual financial responsibility is a flawed strategy that will shift and amplify long-term social and fiscal liabilities. It is inconsistent with New Zealand’s commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals.

5.1 Recommendations

1. Adopt a Systemic, People-Centric View: Climate adaptation policy must move beyond property boundaries to consider the interconnected systems of health, education, employment, and community well-being, in line with the holistic nature of the SDGs.
2. Invest in Equitable Solutions: Government must lead investment in affordable housing options outside of hazard zones and establish a national compensation framework with clear, equitable eligibility criteria. This directly supports SDG 1, SDG 10, and SDG 11.
3. Uphold Institutional Responsibility: A robust framework must be built on the principle of a duty of care, ensuring that no one is left behind. This requires strong partnerships between national and local government to plan for managed retreat and community resilience, reinforcing SDG 16 and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Failure to integrate the principles of sustainable development into climate policy will not reduce risk but merely redistribute it to the most vulnerable, resulting in fractured communities, rising inequity, and preventable harm.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article highlights the vulnerability of low-income individuals and families. The character Mere Rākete, a “solo mother of three,” represents those who cannot afford to relocate from high-risk areas due to significant price differences in housing. The policy’s failure to provide support post-disaster pushes these vulnerable populations further into poverty.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article directly addresses growing inequality through the concept of “climate redlining,” where “those with the means can move to escape risk, while others are left behind to bear it.” It points out that the policy disproportionately affects lower-income families and Māori communities, whose ancestral lands are at risk, thus exacerbating existing social and economic inequalities.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The core of the article revolves around the safety and resilience of communities. It discusses the destruction of homes and infrastructure (roads, power), the displacement of families, the closure of local shops, and the fragmentation of community networks in the fictional town of Te Taone. It also emphasizes the critical need for “investment in affordable housing beyond hazard-prone areas” to create safe and resilient settlements.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  The entire article is framed around the consequences of climate change, specifically a cyclone and flooding, and the inadequacy of New Zealand’s draft “climate adaptation framework.” It critiques a policy approach that fails to build resilience and adaptive capacity for all citizens, focusing instead on limiting government financial liability.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article questions the effectiveness and accountability of government institutions. It describes a failure in the “duty of care” by allowing development in known risk zones and then withdrawing support. The potential for class-action lawsuits and the call for a “national compensation framework with clear eligibility rules” point to the need for more just, accountable, and inclusive institutions to manage climate adaptation.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 1.5: By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.

   The article illustrates a failure to meet this target. The proposed policy would increase the vulnerability of low-income residents like Mere Rākete by denying them buyouts and recovery support after a climate-related disaster, directly contradicting the goal of building their resilience.

2. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

   The policy described promotes exclusion. The term “climate redlining” implies a system that economically segregates people based on their ability to move away from climate risks, disproportionately affecting Māori communities and those with lower incomes.

3. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.

   The article explicitly identifies the lack of affordable and safe housing as a key problem. The quote, “when houses here were $400,000 and anything safer was $700,000, what choice is that?” directly points to the failure to provide viable, safe housing options for all citizens.

4. Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.

   The scenario in Te Taone, where homes are destroyed, families are displaced, and people “lost everything,” is a direct consequence of a water-related disaster. The policy of not providing buyouts fails to protect vulnerable people from the economic and social impacts of such events.

5. Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

   The article is a critique of a national climate adaptation framework that, it argues, does not strengthen resilience for the entire population. Instead of building adaptive capacity, it “redistributed [risk] from those who could leave to those who couldn’t.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 1.5/11.5: The article implies several indicators for measuring the impact of disasters on vulnerable populations. These include:
   • The number of people displaced or with uninhabitable homes post-disaster.
   • The proportion of affected people who receive government or insurance support for recovery.
   • The economic loss experienced by individuals, as exemplified by Mere Rākete who “lost everything.”
2. Indicator for Target 11.1: An indicator for access to affordable, safe housing is directly implied by the price differential mentioned:
   • The ratio of housing costs in low-risk versus high-risk climate zones. The article cites a gap between $400,000 and $700,000, which serves as a direct measure of unaffordability for safe housing.
3. Indicator for Target 10.2: Progress on reducing inequality in the context of climate risk can be measured by:
   • The demographic and income-level breakdown of populations remaining in high-risk zones. The article suggests this would show a disproportionate number of low-income and Māori communities, indicating a rise in “climate redlining.”
4. Indicator for Target 13.1: The primary indicator is the existence and nature of a national adaptation strategy.
   • The article critiques the draft “climate adaptation framework.” A positive indicator would be the adoption of a revised framework that includes provisions for equitable support, managed retreat, and investment in resilient infrastructure for all communities, not just Crown assets.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: theconversation.com