The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) governs all of our land use and natural resource planning efforts. Aspirations of the community for development, growth, and preservation of natural values are expressed through policies and rules in regional and district planning documents. So, what if the community’s aspiration is to retreat from an area facing increasing risk of inundation from the sea or exacerbated coastal erosion, and purposefully avoid growth and development in this area? Is the RMA up to giving effect to this aspiration?
Research is currently underway to investigate the ability of the RMA to enable managed retreat. Specifically, this research is focused on how the ‘rights’ of existing and established uses can be managed under the RMA to reduce risk. The research team is made up of Emily Grace, a natural hazards planning researcher at GNS Science, Ben France-Hudson, a law lecturer from the University of Otago, and Margaret Kilvington, and independent social researcher based in Lyttleton. The strength of the research is in this combination of disciplines: planning, legal, and social.
Findings to date suggest that, in certain circumstances, the RMA is able to proactively manage existing uses to reduce risk, especially when the community is supportive of the approach taken. However, investigations are currently focusing on an aspect of the RMA and property law that may limit Council options to remove an existing use right and facilitate managed retreat where this does not accord with the community’s wishes.
Investigations into the responsibilities the RMA places on regional and district levels of government are also underway. Generally, the role of regional councils is to manage the natural environment (e.g. water quality and allocation, biodiversity, air quality etc.), while district and city councils are primarily responsible for land use planning (growth and development). However, as an anomaly, the RMA gives regional councils the ability to use rules to manage existing and established land uses in hazard areas, rather than city and district councils. Interviews with city/district and regional council staff are highlighting the barrier this anomaly, and the uncertainty surrounding it, poses. Interviews with unitary authorities suggest that the combined function of these councils (who have both regional and city/district functions) is not enough to overcome the barrier.
Implementation under the RMA is also being considered. Options for rules that proactively manage existing and established uses to reduce risk are being investigated, from requiring raised floor levels when houses are rebuilt following significant flooding events, through to prohibiting residential activities altogether. How consent terms and conditions of consent can be used are also being looked at, as well as what is necessary in the RMA policy hierarchy to achieve an outcome of reduced risk.
The research project is due to conclude in June 2019, with practical guidance for councils on how existing and established uses can currently be managed under the RMA, and suggestions for ways to improve the ability of the system to provide for this function.
Operationalising resilience: A heuristic framework for analysis
By Professor Iain White, Professor Bruce Glavovic, Dr Judy Lawrence and Dr Gail Adams-Hutcheson
The question of how to build the resilience of places and organisations is attracting great interest. However, the term resilience is defined in diverse and contested ways. This raises important questions around how resilience is understood, what it is designed to achieve, and how this may translate into practice. The Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Operationalising Resilience project is examining what kinds of resilience are being delivered in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The concept of resilience encompasses three paths of action – to cope, adapt, or transform. Each of these may be necessary depending on the severity of stresses and shocks and the need for stability or change. Significantly, research shows that each of these objectives puts differing demands on our governance systems, from relatively simple policy changes to more complex and contested public processes that incorporate divergent values and a wide range of possible futures. Because of this, some types of resilience are not just easier to deliver than others, but governance processes and practices may also exert hidden pressures that favour stability outcomes over more challenging transformative measures.
The Operationalising Resilience project aims to use a heuristic framework to address the critical issues of resilience delivery and gauge the effect of governance processes on enabling or inhibiting differing resilience outcomes. Resilience governance is the range of governance interactions that enable society to navigate stresses and shocks in the face of complexity and contestation. It is an ongoing process of public decision-making and action to chart resilience development. The heuristic will help facilitate a distinctive ‘fit-for-purpose’ approach to resilience outcomes, helping us match and understand governance interactions to the types of problem faced, given the interplay of facts and values and how they shape with resilience outcomes.
The Resilience Governance heuristic shows that fit-for-purpose resilience governance varies according to the type of problem faced. It can be described as:
Absorption: Competitive interactions can resolve simple and uncontested problems; and build absorptive capacity when stresses and shocks are mild and maintaining stability is the focus, e.g., private car insurance.
State-led adaptation: Authoritarian interactions can address uncontested but technically complex problems; and build state-led absorptive capacity when stresses and shocks are moderate to severe, and maintaining stability or incremental change is required. An example is state-led relocation of people facing imminent danger due to a significant natural hazard.
Network-based adaptation: Collaborative interactions can resolve relatively simple but politically contested problems; and build network-based adaptive capacity when stresses and shocks are mild to moderate, and flexibility and change are necessary. Collaborative planning processes to improve water resource management is a salient example.
Transformation: Emancipatory interactions can address deeply complex and contested problems; and build transformative capacity when stresses and shocks are severe and systems require or undergo systemic change. Conventional modes of governance, and associated problem-solving approaches, are ill-equipped to deal with wicked problems. Governance innovations are therefore necessary, e.g., to transition from unsustainable fossil fuel dependency to climate resilient development pathways.
The heuristic can be used to examine what kind of governance interaction and associated decision-making responses might be best suited to address the resilience problem faced. In so doing, the links between resilience strategy, project goals and issues of concern can be critically reflected upon and addressed in a ‘fit for purpose’ manner.
The first phase of the Operationalising Resilience project looked at capturing a range of resilience policies, plans and projects that have been initiated across Aotearoa by focusing on strategies relating to Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities in Wellington and Christchurch. This phase soon uncovered some pressing problems. First, many projects lacked a clear definition of what resilience is or might look like, consistent with the findings of the C2C Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing Network. Second, as existing institutions (Councils, government agencies, housing developers, community organisations) are designing the projects, there was a noticeable focus on creating data/indicators for monitoring risk. This, however, had the effect of steering projects down existing institutional structures/pathways and so we can see a focus on resilience as absorption over other forms of resilience. Third, the balance of the portfolio of responses tended towards economic objectives, such as with regard to business continuity or self-sufficiency to ‘cope’.
Some of the things we learned by tabling Wellington and Christchurch projects were:
This work helps us look across the portfolio of resilience projects and understand who is privileged in policy more than others.
Christchurch and Wellington resilience projects are a mix of initiatives that evolve over time, including projects centred on risk acceptance and management, adaptation, resilience building and recovery.
The second phase of the Operationalising Resilience project responds to and builds upon the outcomes of the scoping phase. Interviews will be conducted with governance actors from government, tangata whenua, civil society, the private sector, science, local and indigenous knowledge holders and media – including project proponents, stakeholders and other relevant governance actors and key informants. This will help us better understand how problems are framed, by whom, and the influences of governance networks on the types of resilience we are delivering, and what aspects of resilience governance need more attention. By analysing the impact of the ways we make decisions and the dimension of resilience we are focusing on, we can better match the most appropriate response to the type of problem being addressed.
Corridor Forums: Working together for a more resilient transport network
By Dr Vivienne Ivory
How can we make decisions affecting the long-term resilience of our transport network when key players are siloed into regions, modes, and organisations and the future is uncertain? Multi-modal, multi-regional ‘Corridor Forums’ are being piloted as a governance tool to increase New Zealand’s capacity to adapt and potentially transform our transport infrastructure to be more resilient to the many shocks and stresses ahead of us.
Moving people and goods around New Zealand requires infrastructure that crosses regional boundaries, uses multiple modes (sea and air transport, as well as land), and includes public and private organisations. The decisions we make in this area will affect our communities long into the future. Despite this, our systems analysis of the transport infrastructure networks following November 2016 Kaikōura earthquakes identified silos of information and decision-making that may ultimately hinder resilience efforts. Adding to this, transport decisions tend to favour the repair and protection of existing infrastructure rather than adapting for future shocks and stresses.
Given the network nature of transport infrastructure, it is not surprising that making long-term decisions about change is challenging. Natural hazard events amplify this challenge, so it is important that we develop the capacity to make decisions before a crisis, rather than be forced to make them during one. Knowing there is uncertainty about future technology and social and economic changes, transport stakeholders have identified the value in developing the networks and ‘practising’ making difficult decisions. And doing so before shocks occur. The Manawatu – Whanganui – Taranaki Corridor Forum is a pilot to trial a multi-modal, multi-regional forum as a governance tool. It will bring together players from across a transport system that includes public and private organisations, and local and national interests. The pilot is a collaboration between the Governance, Infrastructure and Economics Toolboxes of the Resilience Challenge.
Corridor Forums are being used in the European Union to bring together interests and expertise from diverse stakeholders across countries seeking to develop and improve the performance of the corridor (transport network in a given area) over the long-term. Benefits include removing information silos, establishing effective relationships that ‘bridge’ organisations before crises, and capacity building to think strategically about future challenges.
The Manawatu – Whanganui – Taranaki Corridor Forum pilot is a series of four facilitated structured workshops based in Whanganui. It is being attended by decision-makers from across regional and national-level bodies, bringing transport operators alongside users (e.g., freight, tourism, community, civil defence) and investors (e.g., policy makers, regional authorities). The corridor is of national significance, has road, rail, air and shipping ports, and is exposed to multiple natural hazards. Challenges being addressed include the significant changes transport is undergoing with both social and technological disruptions changing how people and goods move around, and what that might mean for how we plan for natural hazards (known and emerging).
Two aspects of this pilot study are particularly novel. The first is in bringing together people and organizations from across the transport system, an initiative often acknowledged, but less frequently practiced in resilience governance. Not only do the workshops bring together transport investors and operators, they also include the users such as tourism and freight. These users are not always involved in decision-making conversations, yet can provide invaluable insights into an area’s strengths and vulnerabilities and values. Including such a range of local participants will result in a wealth of local and national knowledge and technical expertise present at each workshop, as well as varied perspectives on future management prioritisation.
The second novel aspect if this research is in its use of foresight techniques. The Forum uses hypothetical crisis examples (rather than existing known threats) developed using foresight techniques and state of the art hazard scenario processes so participants can experience working with uncertainty and different values and priorities. We are also using foresight thinking techniques to ‘stretch’ people’s imagination about what our transport and wider society could be like in the future (such as with demographic and technological change), and how that interacts with the known sources of shocks (such as floods) as well as the less certain stresses from forces such as climate change.
The combination of these two innovative approaches will provide participants with the opportunity to share local and technical knowledge and perspectives about the corridor vulnerabilities and strengths, as well as what counts as a ‘severe’ shock, how ‘good’ decisions get made, and ultimately what matters the most. The Forum is very much about developing capacity to have challenging conversations about the uncertainties we face and our collective understanding of risk and resilience.
Following the pilot completion in early 2019, lessons will be gathered for the value of corridor forums for New Zealand’s transport infrastructure, including the opportunities and governance arrangements for ongoing forums.
The Manawatu – Whanganui – Taranaki Corridor Forum pilot provides transport stakeholders with the opportunity to
establish system-wide relationships prior to a major shock or stress event
encourage more adaptive and transformative thinking about the future
practice making decisions where there is uncertainty, where there is conflict
work towards future focused solutions to challenging problems and the implementation pathways to achieve them
Multi-modal, multi-regional Corridor Forums can complement existing collaborative initiatives within regions and/or modes, and hazard-based scenario exercises, by developing a broader capacity and appetite to work together across the transport system. In New Zealand, we think they can allow us to collectively consider natural hazards in our future thinking, and thus make informed decisions about how we plan for and manage our transport networks going forward.
By Dr Judy Lawrence, Dr Paul Schneider and Prof Bruce Glavovic
A series of severe coastal storms along the Coromandel Peninsula has brought coastal hazard risk to the fore, especially in the face of rising sea levels. A coastal management strategy aimed at increasing coastal resilience was recently approved by the Thames Coromandel District Council. However, questions remain about how to coordinate resilience building efforts between different governing authorities on the peninsula, and how to mobilise coastal communities so that proactive and sustained risk reduction measures can be put in place. Such questions face coastal communities around the country.
To answer these questions, the Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Resilience Governance and Living at the Edge research programmes are being conducted in tandem. The former is advancing our understanding about resilience governance as a concept and how to operationalise it. The latter focuses on how to reduce risk, adapt and build resilience in the dynamic coastal environment, based on the development of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy in Hawke’s Bay. Both programmes are complemented by postdoctoral research, funded by the Earthquake Commission (EQC), which examines ways to reduce risk and build resilience on the Coromandel Peninsula. Understanding the role that governance plays in enabling resilience outcomes over timeframes of ‘at least 100 years’ is the key link between these research programmes.
The severity of the impact from the January 5 storm on the Thames Coast
The Living at the Edge programme has applied decision tools for the Hawke’s Bay coast that enables robust decisions to be made. Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways planning (DAPP) has been used to identify short-term actions and long-term options. Plus, Real Options Analysis has been used to conduct sensitivity testing and determine costing of the pathways. The strategy formulation process has had a unique collaborative governance arrangement in which a Joint Councils’ Committee comprising Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City and Hastings District Council is working closely with community assessment panels. This governance arrangement has enabled a strategy to be developed that has wide support, and which is now at the implementation stage.
Comparative analysis is underway to examine key findings emerging from these three research programmes to better understand coastal resilience building approaches underway on the Coromandel Peninsula and Hawke’s Bay. This research will shed light on what is happening ‘on the ground’, and how barriers and enablers to risk reduction and resilience building unfold. Key factors identified include the local political leadership on climate-related perils, community norms and values, the ‘appetite’ for addressing coastal concerns, and institutional barriers and enablers for formulating and implement long-term risk reduction strategies. Comparative local experience provides practical insights about how to tailor decision-making on the coast in ways that can overcome barriers and leverage opportunities to build resilience.
I’m from the Waikato, where I undertook a Bachelor of Environmental Planning and worked as a planning consultant before pursuing my PhD in this field.
Outside of studying, you can find me teaching emerging planners at Waikato University, researching sustainability and zero-waste living, and exploring New Zealand’s great outdoors.
My research is focused on natural hazard risk reduction via managed retreat; the strategic relocation of people, assets and activities away from harm. I have explored how managed retreat is applied internationally, and in the New Zealand context (see summary report here). The principal focus of my research is to examine and develop managed retreat governance. Primary data collection has involved in-depth research of key case studies attempting managed retreat, including textual analysis, site visits, and semi-structured interviews of key public and private stakeholders. I have also conducted a survey to understand public perceptions towards managed retreat, and I am currently exploring new opportunities for its application.
Case study research has highlighted a range of procedural constraints in applying managed retreat under the planning system, summarised in this report. Fundamentally, there is an undeniable need for capacity building to better support local government in this space. In terms of the impact on people and communities, my research reinforces that detachment from place is a significant undertaking, requiring immense care, sensitivity, robust engagement, empowerment, and time. But I also recognise the perils of loss of life, loss of amenity and natural character, and increasing maintenance and emergency management costs over the long-term. Managed retreat challenges the presentism bias and requires people and communities to think beyond their time, remedying the legacy decisions of the past and forging a more resilient future.
The complex and contentious nature of managed retreat has proven to be an exciting and challenging research project. I am thankful to participants who have given up their time to share their knowledge and experiences. Spending time with practitioners and members of the public has been essential to understanding the intricacies and implications of managed retreat, reinforcing the need to better understand it.
I am currently writing up my thesis, which is due for completion in mid-2019.