9. Building agricultural resilience to floods in New Zealand
New Zealand’s agricultural sector faces the challenge of building long-term resilience to floods, which are projected to increase due to climate change. This chapter explores the governance arrangements, policy measures and on-farm strategies that currently build the resilience of New Zealand’s agricultural sector at each stage of the disaster risk management cycle, and identifies further opportunities that would better position the sector to prepare for, mitigate and manage the risks of floods and other natural hazards.
New Zealand’s agricultural sector faces the challenge of building its resilience to storms and floods, which are expected to increase in frequency and intensity due to climate change. Against the background of an agricultural sector that receives only minimal public support, a key question relates to what is an appropriate role for government in strengthening agricultural resilience to floods and other natural hazards.
The New Zealand policy environment consistently encourages communities and individuals – including farmers – to take responsibility for disaster risk reduction and preparedness, while identifying a more direct role for government in responding to crises and supporting recovery. Key good practices include: an ex ante framework to discipline ex post assistance to agriculture; incentives for industry groups to develop preparedness resources for farmers; and an emphasis on mental wellbeing following a crisis.
As the country’s policy approach increasingly focuses on resilience and preparedness, there are opportunities to further strengthen the enabling environment for stakeholders to build their resilience capacity to natural hazards, in particular, by: improving data collection, including on impacts from previous events, to support targeted investments in risk prevention and mitigation; and collaborating to develop effective solutions for mitigating the impacts of natural hazards, and to ensure their diffusion in the sector, including through the renewed engagement on extension services.
New Zealand’s geography and climate expose the country to many natural hazard risks. In particular, floods, the focus of this case study1, is an increasing challenge for New Zealand’s agricultural sector, which is a key contributor to the country’s economy. Floods and other weather-related events have become frequent and severe in New Zealand in recent years (Figure 9.1) and climate change is expected to accelerate these trends. According to projected climate change scenarios, government liabilities stemming from storms and floods could increase ten-fold per year from now until 2050 (NZIER, 2020[1]).
The New Zealand Government’s policy approach does not foresee specific policy measures for the primary sector compared to other sectors of the economy and policy support for the New Zealand agricultural sector has been the lowest among OECD countries for almost three decades (OECD, 2020[2]). For this reason, producers have significant experience in ensuring the financial viability of their businesses, and in managing natural hazard risk.
Building the agricultural sector’s resilience to floods will require effective short-term hazard management strategies, including improved management of increasingly unpredictable weather events, but also investments that will improve the sector’s capacity to manage or adapt to these types of events in the long-term. In particular, against the backdrop of an agricultural sector that receives only minimal public support, a key question relates to what is an appropriate role for government in strengthening agricultural resilience to floods and other natural hazards.
Source: CRED (2021[3]).
Over the last decade, the New Zealand government and key agricultural stakeholders have implemented several changes to how they approach natural hazard risk management, improving the capacity of the sector to plan for, cope with, and recover from flood and other adverse events. This flexibility will continue to be important to ensure the resilience of New Zealand’s agricultural sector to a shifting risk environment.
In New Zealand, natural hazard risks in agriculture are managed though the combined efforts of public and private actors (Table 9.1). Agriculture receives limited sectoral support from the government, and key disaster risk management frameworks are whole-of-government and all-hazard. As a result of the country’s devolved governance model, the primary responsibility for managing natural hazard risk lies with producers, and local and regional authorities. National frameworks focus on ensuring individuals have the tools and ability to understand the risks they face, and the necessary capacities to prevent, mitigate and prepare for natural hazard-induced disasters (NHID). A more direct, but limited, role for government is foreseen in responding to crises and supporting recovery (New Zealand Legislation, 2002[4]; 1991[5]; 1993[6]).
In New Zealand, the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) legislative framework sets out the broad frameworks for governing risk across four areas of activity known as the “4 Rs” – reduction, readiness, response and recovery (New Zealand Legislation, 2002[7]; 2015[8]; Director of CDEM, 2015[9]). In particular, a system of “lead” and “supporting” agencies exists for managing different types of hazard. Geological and meteorological hazards, including storm surges and floods, and infrastructure failure, are under the leadership of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), and its regional CDEM Groups, and regional and local authorities. In case of floods, MPI is a supporting agency but rural advisory groups have formed in several regions to provide a platform for communication and co-ordination among public and private stakeholders, including agricultural actors, at the response stage for any type of hazard that affects rural areas.
In parallel, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) administers some agriculture-specific funds and frameworks that support on-farm capacity building (MPI, 2020[10]), including through dedicated programmes for Māori communities (Box 9.1), and a framework to provide recovery support to primary producers after an adverse event affects the rural sector. This sectoral assistance is limited and proportional to the magnitude of the event, and often takes the form of psychosocial support for farmers to overcome challenges and speed up recovery (MPI, 2019[11]).
Māori resilience is an important component of the resilience of the New Zealand primary sector. Māori land is particularly susceptible to natural hazards, as it tends to be prone to erosion, exposed to flooding, and have limited access to sources of water. At the same time, certain Māori cultural specificities (for example, that land management is based on traditional knowledge and co-ownership, and Māori may not wish to sell land or relocate) suggest that a tailored approach may be needed to build resilience. In this context, the Māori Agribusiness: Pathway to Increased Productivity and the Māori Agribusiness Extension Programme are targeted government programmes to support Māori landowners achieve their economic, environmental, social and cultural aspirations.
At the same time, Māori knowledge can also contribute to sustainability through regenerative agriculture and ‘te teaiao’ - a deep relationship of respect and reciprocity with the natural world across generations. In this sense, MPI is developing a framework to leverage traditional Māori knowledge to increase the overall sustainability and resilience of the country’s whole agricultural sector.
Against this background, industry groups such as Beef + Lamb NZ and Dairy NZ also play a key role in disaster risk management for New Zealand’s agricultural sector, supporting farmers with information and programmes that improve their capacities to plan, prepare for, respond to, and recover from, a range of risks.
Resilience to NHID is an outcome of measures put in place before, during and after an extreme event, such as a flood. Different measures are typically instituted by different actors, with some measures more effective at managing the impacts of specific risks, while other measures contribute to building resilience to a variety of known and unknown risks more broadly (OECD, 2020[12]). In New Zealand, the resilience of the agricultural sector is shaped by the efforts of a range of public and private actors to manage natural hazard risk across society, and specifically for the sector. Accordingly, activities under the four frameworks at each stage of the DRM cycle (risk identification, assessment and awareness; prevention and mitigation; preparedness; response and crisis management; and recovery and reconstruction) are considered to identify good practices that contribute to building resilience, as well as the opportunities to position the sector to better prevent and mitigate, and prepare for natural hazards, and flood risks in particular (Figure 9.2).
Risk identification, assessment, and awareness
Managing natural hazard risk begins with an understanding of the risk environment, to encourage targeted and cost-effective investments in risk prevention and mitigation, and to ensure that policies are in place for hazard management once an adverse event occurs (OECD, 2020[12]). In New Zealand, risk assessments are part of the regular activities of government agencies, regional and local authorities, and research institutions, although none focuses on agriculture specifically. In particular, key risk assessment activities at the include efforts by:
The National Security System incorporating the Risk Hazard Board, which oversees New Zealand’s risks, and assigns risk coordinating agencies (NEMA for floods) to work across systems to identify, assess and manage risks.
The inter-agency Community Resilience Group, which aims to enhance the use of data in risk assessments at the regional and local authorities’ level. Guidelines on risk assessments, soon to be released, detail a comprehensive framework in capacity building for developing datasets to support risk assessments, including elements that are relevant for risk identification in agriculture – for example, collecting data on risks to soil and water quality, livestock and infrastructure (DIA, 2019[13]; LGNZ, 2019[14]).
The Ministry for the Environment, which has commissioned the first National Climate Change Risk Assessment. This was released in 2020 and will also inform the development of the National Adaptation Plan (Ministry for the Environment, 2020[15]).
The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, which is funding ten-year academic research projects on emerging risks via the National Science Challenges.
Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), including the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) and the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS), which carry out mapping, modelling, and forecasting activities on a variety of natural hazard risks (Riskscape, 2020[16]; MBIE, 2020[17]).
The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), which regularly produces reports and analysis of key economic challenges for the New Zealand economy, including those caused by disasters (NZIER, 2020[1]).
Regional governments, local authorities and regional CDEM groups, which are responsible for floods, and accordingly undertake flood risk assessments, develop risk management plans for their territory, and make that information public online. However, there are significant differences in the financial capacity and organisational capability of local governments to conduct these assessments.
In general, New Zealand farmers are aware of the risks they face from natural hazards, because of the limited availability of public support and their exposure to natural hazards. At the same time, because risk assessment and communication strategies are mostly tailored to the wider public, agricultural industry groups and the rural advisory groups play a critical role in improving farmers’ awareness and understanding of the local risk environment. For example, Beef + Lamb NZ’s Land and Environment Plans help farmers to improve their operations, including by considering the impact of extreme weather events at the farm level, and developing a plan for managing them (Box 9.2).
Nevertheless, anecdotal feedback highlights a desire among farmers for more science-based information that is consistent across government agencies and industry groups, particularly in the context of the longer-term challenges facing the sector, including those due to climate change (MPI, 2019[18]).
Beef + Lamb NZ’s Land and Environment Plans help farmers to manage regulatory requirements around water quality and other environmental concerns, while leveraging the opportunities that these offer to improve farm profitability. Workbooks and workshops are available to guide farmers in developing these plans, which often also lead to improved resilience at the farm level.
Within these plans, farmers assess their farm’s natural capital assets to understand their vulnerabilities and the opportunities. Through a process of risk assessment, farmers are encouraged to think about improvement strategies. Some regional councils now require an LEP plan as a way to facilitate regulatory compliance.
Source: Beef + Lamb NZ (2020[19]).
Risk prevention and mitigation
Ex ante investments in measures that prevent or mitigate the risks and adverse impacts of NHID can be a cost-effective strategy in reducing future losses and damages in agriculture (OECD, 2020[12]). In New Zealand, primary responsibility for flood risk prevention and mitigation lies with local governments for water infrastructure and with individual farmers for private farmland. In this regard, public sector activities to prevent and mitigate flood risks include measures to improve water infrastructure performance, and non-structural measures to avoid unnecessary exposure to risk. But capacity building measures provided by MPI and industry groups are also in place to support farmers in adapting and transforming to a changing risk landscape.
Key initiatives to strengthen prevention and mitigation of natural hazard risk for agriculture, and flood risk in particular, include:
The Three Waters Review on how to improve the regulation of and supply arrangements for drinking water, wastewater and storm water (DIA, 2019[20]; 2019[13]; 2020[21]). Based on this work, the Government is working with local governments to develop a revised funding model for flood protection, while ensuring that they utilise natural infrastructure such as vegetation, ecosystems, permeable surfaces and water storage (DIA, 2020[22]; Beehive, 2020[23]).
MPI efforts to build capacity for mitigating risks to agriculture at the local and farm business level, through grants to restore ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme hazards, in particular to reduce erosion (MPI, 2021[24]). MPI’s Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change (SLMACC) research programme also supports researchers and farmers to experiment with on-farm adaptation strategies (MPI, 2021[25]).
The 2019 Productive and Sustainable Land Use package promotes land-use practices to deliver more value and improved environmental outcomes, including through renewed public extension and farm advisory services and training.
Dairy NZ’s 2013 Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord establishes good management practices to improve environmental performance on dairy farms, including practices that contribute to preventing and mitigating the impacts of floods, such as riparian planting and fencing dairy cattle off from waterways (Ministry for the Environment, 2020[26]).
Financial instruments such as the income equalisation tax benefit scheme allow producers to spread fluctuating gross income between years (Inland Revenue, 2021[27]), while agricultural insurance for crop and livestock in New Zealand does not receive any form of government support and uptake is considered to be relatively low.
Risk preparedness
Preparedness to manage natural hazards is crucial for effective crisis management. In New Zealand, the focus is on monitoring, identification and analysis of geological and meteorological hazards and threats, and dissemination of risk information from public and industry sources in relation to specific hazards. In particular, regional councils and some territorial authorities are responsible for monitoring rainfall, lake and river levels, and volumetric flows that are used for predicting and managing floods. However, poor digital connectivity in rural areas can hinder the effective delivery of early warning systems for farmers.
Public-sector preparedness for emergencies in New Zealand is organised across whole-of-government field exercises and training (National Emergency Management Agency, n.d.[28]; DPMC, 2013[29]). The MPI’s regional adverse events teams also work throughout the year to build their capacity to respond to adverse events that affect rural areas, strengthening the understanding of risk, and building relationships with potential partners.
Alongside these efforts, industry groups play an important role in strengthening preparedness on-farm. Groups such as Beef + Lamb NZ, Dairy NZ and Federated Farmers have developed information and guidance for on-farm preparedness and emergency planning for floods. They recommend that farmers integrate preventative measures and recovery costs into regular farm budgets, and encourage farmers to develop recovery plans in advance. Information is also available to guide farmers through on-farm crisis management (Dairy NZ, 2020[30]; 2019[31]; Beef + Lamb NZ, 2017[32]). Nevertheless, despite the availability of information to support individual farmers in preparing for adverse events, this is not always supported by the necessary extension activity and may not lead to the necessary change of behaviour and uptake of preparedness practices (Rangitāiki River Scheme Review Panel, 2017[33]; Whakatāne District Local Recovery Manager, 2017[34]). At the same time, industry and MPI also encourage local sharing of information among farmers through community events, workshops, and one-on-one farmer support and referral (MPI, 2021[35]).
Disaster response and crisis management
Effective crisis management and disaster response hinge on all actors knowing their responsibilities in the event of an emergency and communicating effectively, with the public sector taking a leadership role when the private sector is unable to cope (OECD, 2020[12]). During crisis situations in New Zealand, public sector actors play an active role – from providing information about imminent hazards through to co-ordinating the disaster response. In the case of agriculture, industry groups also play key role, including by ensuring that the specific needs of primary producers are addressed and business continuity is prioritised.
In case of floods, the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) is the central authority supporting and co-ordinating the response work of regional and local authorities, communities, central government departments and agencies, emergency services, welfare agencies, lifeline utilities, researchers, international agencies, and NGOs. Statutory response objectives include the protection of human life, the protection of assets, and natural and physical resources, the provision of animal welfare, and the continuation or restoration of economic activity (New Zealand Legislation, 2002[7]; New Zealand Legislation, 2015[8]).
Overall, research and stakeholders’ feedback suggest that emergency response can still be less effective in rural areas than in urban areas. But in more recent years, rural advisory groups have emerged in several regions, providing a platform for improved coordination between all public and private actors involved in emergency management in rural areas.
Recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction
Following a NHID, recovery and reconstruction efforts offer an opportunity for public and private stakeholders to “build back better”2 by addressing underlying gaps in resilience, and building the capacities needed to manage natural hazards in the future (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2019[36]). This requires all stakeholders – including farmers – to learn from natural disasters in order to adjust DRM frameworks, policy measures and on-farm strategies with a view towards long-term resilience.
In New Zealand, disaster recovery in the agricultural sector is based on the understanding that farming is a business like others, and farmers are able to access funding that is available to support society-wide recovery. More specifically, damages are primarily reimbursed by insurance policies, although central government provides financial support though relief payments for individuals affected by an emergency. The Government may also fund 60% of eligible costs, with local authorities paying the remainder, to rebuild or repair essential infrastructure, river management systems and community assets that are vital for the recovery of the agricultural sector (New Zealand Legislation, 2002[4]).
Nevertheless, MPI may also provide some sector-specific funding in case of adverse events affecting agriculture. The MPI Primary Sector Recovery Policy is a framework to guide assistance decisions after adverse events and discipline ex post support to ensure alignment of incentives (Box 9.3; Figure 9.3). Notably, much of the support under MPI Primary Sector Recovery Policy is often directed towards funding the Rural Support Trusts to provide psychosocial support, and co-ordinate information services in affected communities (MPI, 2019[11]).
While the relatively low levels of support provided to farmers after a crisis provides an incentive to farmers to adapt and transform after a disaster has occurred, the government has also been experimenting with recovery funds earmarked towards advisory and other capacity building services for farmers to learn how to better prevent, mitigate and manage natural hazard risk going forward (MPI, 2020[37]; MPI, 2017[38]).
Finally, post-event evaluation and assessment is also a key element in preparation for future crises and to ensure that gaps and vulnerabilities are understood and addressed. In New Zealand, all agencies with responsibilities must monitor and measure progress against their aims. For the post-disaster evaluations that have been undertaken, the country’s institutions have a good record of taking corrective actions. While there is no established practice to undertake agriculture-specific reviews of the response performance, mitigation and prevention measures for the sector in terms of land-use planning and building codes, but also crisis management, have progressed thanks to lessons learnt as part of these review processes (MCDEM, 2018[39]).
The Primary Sector Recovery Policy establishes an ex ante framework to guide government decisions on recovery assistance following adverse climatic events and biosecurity incursions impacting farms.
The policy was developed with a view to: avoid the government from making recovery decisions that are precedent-setting; constrain government spending; incentivise risk-reducing actions by relevant stakeholders; and provide stakeholders with confidence that their risk management investments will not be undermined by ad hoc government decisions taken under political pressure after a shock. The focus is on the community to avoid assessments of individual cases, and helps the government to decide what recovery help is made available for each event from among a menu of pre-defined options.
Source: MPI (2020[40]).
Note: Axis on the left expresses the count of adverse events affecting the rural sector as classified by MPI. Data is not available for the period before 2006, which is when the Primary Sector Recovery Policy was established. Axis on the right expresses ex post disaster aid (USD million) for the primary sector. Data for 2020 not available yet.
Source: Author’s elaboration, based on data received from MPI, and OECD (2020[2]), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agriculture statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/466c3b98-en;
In line with the four principles for strengthening resilience to NHID in agriculture, New Zealand’s systems for natural hazard risk management – and flood management in particular – demonstrate a number of good practices, as well as some challenges that provide opportunities for future improvement.
An inclusive, holistic and multi-hazards approach to natural hazard risk governance for resilience
Disaster risk management frameworks provide consistent incentives to invest in agricultural resilience, but the devolved governance model can be a barrier to implementation. The New Zealand approach to disaster risk management emphasises devolved responsibility to local communities, businesses and individuals, including farmers, while agricultural policy focuses on providing incentives for farmers to develop their capacity for managing risk, with only limited ex post government support in the case of catastrophic events. However, some local communities lack the information, capabilities and financial resources to effectively identify, assess, mitigate and prepare for risk. Nevertheless, the establishment of the Community Resilience Group at national level represents a positive development by providing a forum for assessing resilience gaps and capabilities at the local level, and to start developing solutions to address them.
Fragmented disaster risk management frameworks can reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of investments in resilience. Lead responsibility for managing the risks of different types of hazards falls under different agencies. It will be important to assess if this hazard-specific approach results in either duplication of efforts or gaps across agencies. More broadly, ensuring that the perspective of a wide set of stakeholders is included in the short-term and long-term planning for all types of hazards will be important to ensure that no gaps exist across the disaster risk management cycle.
A shared understanding of risk based on the identification, assessment and communication of hazards, vulnerability and resilience capacities
Stakeholders are aware of the risks they face from natural hazards, but there is a need for consistent and tailored information on both immediate and long-term risks. Government agencies, regional and local authorities, and research institutions undertake risk assessments as part of their regular activities. However, this set up can lead to fragmentation of information and gaps in the relevance and suitability of this information for the agricultural sector. In turn, this may create challenges for farmers and other relevant stakeholders to understand the nature of the risk that agriculture faces, potentially hindering investment in disaster risk prevention and mitigation.
Industry groups have taken on a primary role in raising risk awareness among farmers. Beef + Lamb NZ supports farmers by helping them to make more informed farm management decisions, including in relation to the need to adapt to climate and natural hazard risk.
At all levels, better data are needed to improve the possibility of stakeholders to understand the agricultural sector’s exposure to natural hazard risk. Given that a lack of data constrains hazard analyses, stakeholders should further invest in developing high quality datasets on the physical, land use, and other characteristics of the agricultural sector, as well as data on loss and damage from previous NHID, which are a necessary input to improving disaster risk assessment.
An ex ante approach to natural hazard-induced disaster risk management:
The New Zealand government is increasing efforts to intervene in the anticipatory phases of risk management, in particular by building farmers’ capacities for risk mitigation and adaptation. With increasing awareness of natural hazard risks and limited public assistance available ex post, stakeholders at all levels are adjusting their policy approach and practices towards prevention and mitigation. The government is taking on a larger role where capacities at a local level hinder adequate resilience-enhancing efforts and investments, including through funding.
At the farm-level, farmers are adapting their operations to mitigate climate and natural hazard risks. Farmers are supported both by industry groups and MPI, which promote strategies to prevent and mitigate the impacts of floods on production through co-funding and grant schemes for nature-based solutions such as tree planting and soil erosion control.
Renewed public engagement in extension services represents a positive development to ease capacity constraints for faster uptake of resilience-enhancing strategies on-farm. By re-entering the extension services space, the government has increased its engagement to build capacities to prevent and mitigate the risks and impacts of NHID on farms without undermining its overarching policy approach, but focusing on enhancing the capacity of farmers to adjust to the long-term challenges that they face. This is a positive development, especially as it emphasis on co-production of information and solutions, to maximise their relevance to local contexts and usability.
An approach emphasising preparedness and planning for effective crisis management, disaster response, and to “build back better” to increase resilience to future natural hazard-induced disasters
New Zealand emphasises individuals and private actors taking responsibility for managing the risks posed by NHID, but preparedness to flood risk in the agricultural sector is uneven. Producers have access to information on disaster preparedness, and industry groups have made significant investments in developing information and resources to help farmers to prepare more effectively, including in relation to specific hazards. However, stakeholders consider that producers would benefit from better integrating recovery considerations into their risk management plans.
In New Zealand some key good practices arise during recovery, in terms of clearly defined criteria for ex post disaster aid, psychosocial support after a shock, and incentives to ‘build back better’. The MPI Primary Sector Recovery Policy provides an ex ante framework to guide decision-making on ex post disaster aid for primary producers, ensuring aligned incentives. New Zealand also recognises that mental wellbeing is an important driver of resilience following a disaster. There is also an increased recognition of the need to “build back better” after a natural disaster with the design of agricultural disaster assistance packages that include advisory services on disaster risk management. This is a key good practice to encourage the sector to transform through the capacity building of farmers, rather than by undermining the incentives for farmers to invest in those improvements themselves.
Further opportunities exist to strengthen mechanisms for public and private actors that are involved in disaster response to build their capacities, and to build relationships and devise collaboration strategies before emergencies occur. Multi-stakeholder scenario planning exercises can be extremely valuable for consolidating linkages while identifying gaps and vulnerabilities in the system.
New Zealand encourages communities and individuals to take responsibility for managing natural hazard risk, but there is a need to foster an environment that supports their capacity to do so. In particular here is an opportunity for public and private stakeholders to:
Improve data collection, including on impacts from previous events, and risk scanning across the country: this would help decision-makers – including farmers and local authorities – to identify vulnerabilities and make targeted and cost-effective investments in risk prevention and mitigation.
Collaborate to develop effective solutions for mitigating the risks and impacts of natural hazards on farm: such a strategy would ensure their diffusion in agriculture, including by drawing on the renewed engagement on extension services.
Improve disaster response and recovery in rural areas by strengthening mechanisms and networks for rural stakeholders cooperation: collaboration among the MPI, Regional CDEM Groups, and agro-industry groups, would help to build preparedness capacities and relationships before crises occur.
References
[19] Beef + Lamb NZ (2020), Environment Plans, https://beeflambnz.com/compliance/environment/environment-plans.
[32] Beef + Lamb NZ (2017), Preparing for a Flood, https://beeflambnz.com/knowledge-hub/PDF/flood-preparation-fact-sheet.
[23] Beehive (2020), PGF reset helps regional economies, https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/pgf-reset-helps-regional-economies.
[41] Casalini, F., M. Bagherzadeh and E. Gray (2021), “Building the resilience of New Zealand’s agricultural sector to floods”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 160, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/dd62d270-en.
[3] CRED (2021), Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT),, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), UC Louvain, http://ttps://public.emdat.be/.
[30] Dairy NZ (2020), Crisis Priority Checklist, https://www.dairynz.co.nz/business/adverse-events/crisis-priority-checklist/.
[31] Dairy NZ (2019), Decision tree for flood damaged farms, https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/5787035/flood-damaged-farm-decision-tree.pdf.
[22] DIA (2020), “Improving Resilience to Flood Risk and Supporting the COVID-19”, Cabinet Economic Development Committee Minute of Decision, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Central-Local-Government-Partnerships/$file/Resilience-Cab-material-August-2020.pdf.
[21] DIA (2020), “Three Waters Service Delivery and Funding Arrangements: Approach to”, Cabinet Business Committee, Minute of Decision, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Proactive-releases/$file/three-waters-service-delivery-and-funding-arrangements-approach-to-reform.pdf.
[20] DIA (2019), “A Plan for Three Waters Reform”, Cabinet, Minute of Decision, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Three-waters-documents/$file/Cabinet-paper-and-minute-Plan-for-Three-Waters-Reform.pdf.
[13] DIA (2019), “Cross-Government Community Resilience Work Programme: Update on”, Cabinet, Minute of Decision, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Proactive-releases/$file/Cross-Government-Community-Resilience-Work-Programme-Update-on-Progress.pdf.
[9] Director of CDEM (2015), Guide to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan 2015, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabine, https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/assets/guide-to-the-national-cdem-plan/Guide-to-the-National-CDEM-Plan-2015.pdf.
[29] DPMC (2013), National Exercise Programme, https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/national-security-and-intelligence/national-exercise-programme.
[36] FAO, IFAD and WFP (2019), Strengthening resilience for food security and nutrition: A Conceptual Framework for Collaboration and Partnership among the Rome-based Agencies, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP), https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000062320/download/.
[27] Inland Revenue (2021), Income equalisation schemes, https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-businesses-and-organisations/income-equalisation-scheme#:~:text=Income%20equalisation%20schemes%2C%20including%20the,income%20from%20year%20to%20year.&text=For%20farmers%20whose%20current%20or,significantl.
[14] LGNZ (2019), “DRAFT-Risk assessment: guidance for CDEM Goup planning”, Director’s Guideline for Civil Defence Emergency Management, https://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/905150ada1/DRAFT-for-Consultation-Risk-Assesment-Guidence-for-CDEM-Group-Planning-V2.0-compressed.pdf.
[17] MBIE (2020), 2020 Endeavour Fund successful proposals, https://www.mbie.govt.nz/science-and-technology/science-and-innovation/funding-information-and-opportunities/investment-funds/endeavour-fund/success-stories/.
[39] MCDEM (2018), Ministerial Review - Better Responses to Natural Disaster and Other Emergencies, https://dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-01/ministerial-review-better-responses-natural-disaster-other-emergencies.pdf.
[26] Ministry for the Environment (2020), Freshwater guidance and guidelines, https://www.mfe.govt.nz/fresh-water/freshwater-guidance-and-guidelines.
[15] Ministry for the Environment (2020), National climate change risk assessment for New Zealand - Snapshot, https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/national-climate-change-risk-assessment-new-zealand-snapshot.
[24] MPI (2021), Hill Country Erosion Programme for councils, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/forestry/funding-tree-planting-research/hill-country-erosion-programme/.
[35] MPI (2021), Resources for adverse events, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-rural-support/adverse-events/resources-for-adverse-events/.
[25] MPI (2021), Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change (SLMACC), https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-rural-support/farming-funds-and-programmes/slmacc/.
[37] MPI (2020), 2020 Drought Recovery Advice Fund, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-rural-support/adverse-events/dealing-with-drought-conditions/2020-drought-recovery-advice-fund/#:~:text=The%202020%20Drought%20Recovery%20Advice%20Fund%20is%20to%20help%20farmers,%243.5%20million%20(excluding%20GST).
[40] MPI (2020), Adverse events, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-rural-support/adverse-events/.
[10] MPI (2020), Funding and programmes, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/.
[18] MPI (2019), Climate Issues Facing Farmers, https://www.agriculture.govt.nz/dmsdocument/33747-climate-issues-facing-farmers-sustainable-land-management-and-climate-change-research-programme.
[11] MPI (2019), Summary of The Primary Sector Recovery Policy, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/14623/direct.
[38] MPI (2017), 2017 Primary Industries Earthquake Recovery Fund, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/19262/direct.
[28] National Emergency Management Agency (n.d.), National Exercise Programme (interagency), https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/exercises/national-exercise-programme-interagency/.
[8] New Zealand Legislation (2015), National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan Order 2015, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2015/0140/latest/DLM6486453.html?src=qs%20.
[7] New Zealand Legislation (2002), Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0033/51.0/DLM149789.html.
[4] New Zealand Legislation (2002), Local Government Act 2002, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/versions.aspx.
[6] New Zealand Legislation (1993), Biosecurity Act 1993, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0095/latest/DLM314623.html.
[5] New Zealand Legislation (1991), Resource Management Act 1991, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html.
[1] NZIER (2020), Investment in natural hazards mitigation, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Central-Local-Government-Partnerships/$file/NZIER-Natural-hazards-mitigation-report-2020.pdf.
[2] OECD (2020), Producer and Consumer Support Estimates, OECD Agriculture Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/466c3b98-en.
[12] OECD (2020), Strengthening Agricultural Resilience in the Face of Multiple Risks, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/2250453e-en.
[33] Rangitāiki River Scheme Review Panel (2017), Rangitāiki River Scheme Review – April 2017 Flood Event, https://cdn.boprc.govt.nz/media/681909/2017-10-03-rrsr-final-report-public.pdf.
[16] Riskscape (2020), Riskscape, https://www.riskscape.org.nz/.
[42] UNISDR and CRED (2015), The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters 1995-2015, NISDR, Geneva, and CRED, Louvain,, https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/46796.
[34] Whakatāne District Local Recovery Manager (2017), Whakatāne District Recovery Debrief and Toolbox - ex-cyclones Debbie and Cook, https://www.whakatane.govt.nz/sites/www.whakatane.govt.nz/files/documents/residents/recovery/Whakatane%20District%20Recovery%20Debrief%20April%202017%20-%20Part%20A%20and%20Part%20B.pdf.
Notes
← 1. Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray (2021[41]).
← 2. Building Back Better is defined as using the recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phases after a disaster to increase the resilience of nations and communities through integrating disaster risk reduction measures into the restoration of physical infrastructure and societal systems, and into the revitalisation of livelihoods, economies and the environment (UNISDR and CRED, 2015[42]).