Institutionalising risk governance and resilience planning in New Zealand: Policy and professional practice imperatives

Abstract

Communities in New Zealand face escalating natural hazard risk due to legacy development decisions and demographic and development patterns in the face of global change and climate change in particular. Solutions are elusive and problems are characterised by complexity, deep uncertainty, turbulence, surprise and contestation. Institutional barriers impede risk reduction and resilience building, both of which are fundamental to sustainable development. What role do local barriers and enablers play in risk reduction and local community adaptation? We examine this question using two different local situations in New Zealand –coastal communities on the Coromandel Peninsula and the Hawke’s Bay. We discuss the local differences, similarities and their implications based on long-term place-based ethnographic fieldwork. We find that the two regions, their communities and their risk reduction and adaptation prospects are fundamentally shaped by the barriers and opportunities that arise with local level preparedness at a point in time. We further find that resilience governance is time dependent and that opportunities can become barriers and vice versa, depending on the opinions, leadership, needs and interests at the time. What we also find is that a high magnitude storm impact has the potential to open up a ‘window of opportunity’ for adaptive action, and even transformation, but only if enabling conditions and processes are in place. If not, it is likely that the devastation caused by such an event changes little; and could even result in a re-doubling of efforts to maintain the status quo. We also focus on the potential of such a ‘window of opportunity’ opening up after a major coastal storm event, and explore ways to create opportunities for charting adaptation pathways that reduce coastal hazard risk and build resilience. Government narratives at both a local and central government level appear to be rooted in a culture of stepwise, siloed and reactive decision-making that frames coastal hazard risk as a static ‘technical’ problem. Many coastal property owners are demanding government intervention and ‘protection’ against the damaging impacts of coastal storms; privileging short-term private interests over long-term public interests, rights, resilience and sustainability. Although static ‘protective’ responses to dynamic coastal risks continue for the time being, there is change in the air. There is a call for enabling regulatory provisions to put an end to ‘defend at all costs’-type responses serving narrow, short-term interests. Particular attention is focused on the roles and responsibilities that can be played by key governance actors, especially those in local government. We finish with conclusions about how coordinating mechanisms and national leadership could bring greater consistency of risk reduction and adaptation action.