Cyclone Gabrielle floodwaters left metres-deep silt in Esk Valley. Photo / Warren Buckland, File
Cyclone Gabrielle floodwaters left metres-deep silt in Esk Valley. Photo / Warren Buckland, File
Opinion by Jo Horrocks
OPINION
The importance of planning and managing natural hazard risk in our natural and built environments has never been more front of mind after several communities in New Zealand have been impacted by storms, floods, and landslides.
Toka Tū Ake EQC is known for providing natural disaster insurance for residential property, but we also invest in research and education on natural hazards, and how to reduce their impact.
An important part of our role is taking what we know from research and from the impacts we see in claims to inform decisions by others on better natural hazard risk management in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Essentially, we want to help Aotearoa minimise events such as we’ve seen in the past weeks, rather than purely react, respond, and support recovery from them.
It is fortunate that we are generally well-insured as a country, but no amount of financial support and insurance takes away the impact on people and communities when these events happen.
The events of the past couple of months have shown that yet again. And it’s foreseeable.
Illustration / Rod Emmerson
At Toka Tū Ake EQC we see troubling trends in how quickly some properties go from build to insurance claim.
Many properties have been recently built in – or are still being built in – foreseeably hazardous locations; on flood plains, close to cliff edges, at sea level, or on highly liquefiable land. At the same time, we are also seeing concerning designation of medium and highdensity residential zones in high hazard risk locations.
Some of the risks can be engineered away – usually at high cost – but some can’t.
The point is, we need to be smarter than this. We know we have an urgent need for housing but growth needs to be smart growth, resilient growth; not putting people in harm’s way, and not setting ourselves up for greater costs and social impacts in the future.
A change is needed. We need to avoid or limit building on some of our highest-risk, or multi-risk land. And we need to build smartly, to appropriate standards, where we do build.
At Toka Tū Ake EQC our mantra is “stronger homes on better land”. As a nation, we have too much information to be short-sighted about this. We have good data, we have far-reaching science, we have experience, we have knowledge. We need to put that knowledge to good use and leverage those strengths, not avoid what is confronting or “too hard”.
Jo Horrocks. Photo / Supplied
Importantly, we need to look to the future, over longer time horizons; not just the here and now, but at what the consequences on people and property are, regardless of whether we currently think it’s a 1-in-20 or a 1-in-100-year event because that is changing rapidly.
Finally, we need to be smart and make good choices. We need to determine where is less risky and concentrate development there.
We very much support the nation’s aspirations for growth and development, and we want that growth to be smart and for development to be resilient to future challenges. With this in mind, we promote changes in three key areas.
In all decisions about land, we want to see a higher priority placed on natural hazard risk management and future resilience to natural hazards and climate change. Natural hazards threaten lives, destroy property and impact well-being.
Other considerations matter, like liveable urban form, heritage, connection to jobs, schools and transport, however, these do not have the immense and repeated costs and far-reaching socio-economic consequences that natural hazards do.
We believe that when councils need to balance competing demands, natural hazard risk management should be prioritised over other wellbeing-focused outcomes whenever there is a conflict to be resolved.
To influence this shift in decision-making, Toka Tū Ake EQC regularly makes submissions on new policy or legislation, and also reviews local council plans to provide feedback on local natural hazards that need to be considered.
We also need to stop thinking in probabilities, in return periods, in short timeframes.
We need to take a precautionary approach and think in consequences; what causes the coping capacity of our communities, our infrastructure, our institutions, and our environment to be exceeded? And what does that mean for avoiding that hazard, or restricting development on or near that hazard?
The “precautionary approach” is about being prepared for something whose consequences are high, but where there is some uncertainty about when it might occur, which should not delay action. When it comes to natural hazard and climate impacts, we should not delay action.
And we need stronger and more consistent use of terminology within legislation and to start using “avoid”.
Stronger messages about avoiding development on the highest risk land and restricting development on or uses of moderate risk land.
Consistent use of risk and risk tolerance descriptions will ensure there is no confusion about the context for planning, decision-making, and action.
In short, we need change – undertaken collaboratively, across the system – that respects conflicting priorities, but never loses sight of the risk to life, property and well-being.
As we’ve seen in recent weeks, the cost for any other course of action is just too high.
- Dr Jo Horrocks is chief resilience and research officer with Toka Tū Ake EQC.
