How our planning has failed to address climate change resilience
Teall Crossen is an environmental barrister with extensive experience in resource management and environmental law, and climate change advocacy. OPINION: In the wake of severe flooding in Tamaki Makaurau Auckland, followed by the devastation of Cyclone Gabrielle , everyone agrees we need to better prepare for climate change. Speeding up the Climate Change Adaptation Act is an important part of the solution, by addressing existing infrastructure at risk from climate impacts. But we also need to stop building in floodplains in the first place. Thats the urgent legal gap we need to fill. READ MORE: * 200 Hawke's Bay rescues and counting after Cyclone Gabrielle slams region * Devastation to Auckland's west coast 'off the charts', suburbs still cut-off * Cyclone Gabrielle's biblical damage to the power networks worst since Bola Claims by the Government that the Natural and Built Environment Bill (NBEB) is the answer to better plan for climate disasters is wishful thinking at best, and disingenuous at worst. Sure, its technically correct that the NBEB will direct local plans to reduce risks from the effects of climate change. Sounds good in theory. But there are similar provisions in the current Resource Management Act (RMA) the law the NBEB is set to replace. Under the RMA, managing significant risks from natural hazards is a matter of national importance, and climate change is a key consideration in plan approvals. Despite this legal imperative, houses were still built across Aotearoa New Zealand on known floodplains, harming thousands of people. Under both the existing and proposed resource management legal framework, there is no enforceable obligation to properly plan for the effects of climate change. To suggest otherwise, is to misunderstand how our planning system works. Councils around the country are basically free to make case by case decisions about where developers can build, including in natural hazard areas. Nothing in the NBEB requires anything fundamentally different than the status quo in terms of climate resilient planning. Of course, the recent storms are unprecedented. But it has long been known that increased storm events will be the new reality in a warmer world. I have sat through resource management hearings under the current system where concerns about climate change impacts, and likely increased flooding events, are met with scepticism by both decision-makers and developers alike. Worse, the legal system protects developers. When councils face the risk of litigation from frustrated developers, the uncertain risks of climate change arent heard or heeded. Many of the communities hardest hit by flooding are already vulnerable, including lower income families and whanau. Planning rules that enable more affordable homes must be a priority for councils but those homes need to be safe for people and away from natural hazards. Its not just about avoiding building houses on flood plains. Wetlands and streams that reduce flooding risk have been systematically destroyed in urban areas under existing laws. Again, nothing in the NBEB guarantees that this kind of environmental destruction wont continue. The NBEB also fails on the mitigation front. The bill doesnt require local authority decisions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with our Paris Climate commitments. No amount of planning for climate disasters will keep our communities safe if we dont limit global average temperature rise to well below 1.5 degrees Celsius. There is no legally enforceable requirement in the NBEB to implement the Emissions Reduction Plan or meet the 2050 target for emissions reduction in the Climate Change Response Act. Fortunately, the NBEB is still going through the select committee process, so the Government can choose to make things right. To start with, building houses in flood plains should be a prohibited activity in the NBEB. It really is that simple. Secondly, we need to safeguard remaining wetlands and streams in our urban areas, as well as protect and restore trees and green spaces, to help with flood mitigation. Thirdly, the NBEB should require that all local planning decisions must reduce climate emissions in line with the 2050 emissions reduction target. Finally, the NBEB will take years to implement. In the meantime, we cant allow planning decisions under the existing RMA to not respond to the devastation being experienced by communities at the front line of the current storms. National direction under the RMA should be urgently issued to start addressing these challenges now.