Key Takeaways
- Gisborne mayor Rehette Stoltz warns that repeated severe weather events since 2017 have made climate adaptation a pressing, unavoidable challenge for local councils.
- Councils are being asked to shoulder national climate‑resilience costs on their own balance sheets, a model she says is unsustainable.
- The government has postponed decisions on cost‑sharing for climate adaptation until after the election, despite urgent calls for durable co‑funding and clearer national direction.
- In Westport and other regions, adaptation plans exist but funding stops after the research and planning phases, leaving implementation “on your own.”
- The Insurance Council proposes redirecting the fire levy collected for Fire and Emergency New Zealand into a “community protection levy” to finance resilience projects, but the idea has received only muted political support.
- Finance Minister Nicola Willis points to recent budget commitments (e.g., $400 million for highway upgrades and a national flood map) as evidence of increased investment, while Labour leader Chris Hipkins argues that long‑term infrastructure debt is legitimate and urges the Crown to be a financial contributor.
- Across the political spectrum, there is agreement that urgent action is needed, but consensus on a concrete funding mechanism remains elusive.
Funding Gaps and Local Burden
Gisborne mayor Rehette Stoltz told the Insurance Council conference that the financial and decision‑making load of climate adaptation is too heavy for councils to carry alone. She emphasized that the Tairāwhiti region has endured a “rolling maul” of severe weather events since 2017, describing the pattern as “New Zealand’s future arriving early.” Stoltz said she has lost count of the civil‑defence emergencies she has declared, noting that the region never gets a chance to reset between disasters. Her remarks echo the frustrations of Westport residents highlighted in a recent Climate Change Commission report, which found that while funding exists to develop adaptation plans, implementation stalls once the planning stage ends.
The Need for Durable Co‑funding
Stoltz argued that councils are being forced to manage a national problem on local balance sheets, a situation she deemed unsustainable. She called for three concrete actions: durable co‑funding between central and local government, comprehensive adaptation planning, and stronger national direction that clearly delineates responsibilities and funding streams. Without such measures, she warned, local authorities will continue to scramble for resources after each event, undermining long‑term resilience efforts.
Government Delays and Election‑Timing Politics
The government has repeatedly said it will not make any decisions about climate‑resilience cost‑sharing until after the upcoming election. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts told RNZ that the issue is complex and requires time to get right. Stoltz expressed frustration with this delay, insisting that investment decisions cannot be postponed because the problem is not going away. She pointed out that the National Adaptation Framework announced the previous year left crucial questions unanswered, especially regarding who is responsible for what and who will fund each component.
Case Study: Westport’s Adaptation Plan
A Climate Change Commission case study on Westport illustrated the funding gap starkly. The Buller District Council received financial support for the initial stages of the town’s adaptation master plan—which proposes gradually relocating the community over several generations to reduce flood risk—but received no follow‑on funding for implementation. Regulatory general manager Simon Bastion summed up the situation: “After that you’re on your own.” This pattern mirrors the experience in Gisborne, where planners and landowners have spent 18 months drafting a plan to transition 100,000 hectares of erosion‑prone land out of farming and forestry, yet lack the capital to execute it.
Insurance Council’s Levy Proposal
Insurance Council chief executive Kris Faafoi characterized the adaptation debate as “overdiagnosed” and urged a shift from policy thinking to action. He noted that while extensive policy work has been done, actual funding commitments remain lacking. To address this, the council suggested that the government fund Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) directly and re‑direct the fire levy that insurers currently collect on FENZ’s behalf into a new “community protection levy.” The levy would generate a dedicated revenue stream for climate‑resilience projects, such as flood defences, hillside stabilisation, and community‑based adaptation initiatives.
Political Reactions to the Levy Idea
Finance Minister Nicola Willis responded that the government is already increasing investment in climate resilience, citing the recent budget’s $400 million allocation for upgrading weather‑vulnerable highways and funding for a national flood map slated for its first iteration in 2027. She did not endorse the levy proposal but emphasized ongoing efforts. Labour leader Chris Hipkins acknowledged the proposal’s potential challenges, particularly regarding how the Crown would then fund FENZ, which he said already faces sustainability pressures. He argued that taking on additional debt for long‑term infrastructure is a legitimate governmental role and urged the Crown to act as a financial contributor, though he stopped short of committing to any specific policy until closer to the election, noting that Labour is still evaluating the recent budget’s affordability.
Call for Urgency and Consensus
Faafoi closed the discussion by inviting politicians to “rubbish” the levy suggestion if they wished, but stressed that an alternative must be presented. “This is our submission, take it or leave it,” he said, “but somehow we have to have a conversation about supporting the councils for those resilience works.” He underscored the need for urgency, warning that further delay will only increase the cost and human toll of future climate‑related disasters. The overarching sentiment from local leaders, the Insurance Council, and commentators is clear: while there is agreement on the necessity of action, a definitive, funded pathway forward remains elusive, and the window for effective adaptation is narrowing.