Abstract
This research describes how, without a new legal framework to deal with sea-level rise, based on a broad social consensus, the risk will be transferred from the least to the most vulnerable. The research addresses a key question that emerged from a Deep South Dialogue between insurance companies and researchers: On a principled level, how should the risks of sea level rise be distributed between individuals, insurance, local and central government? Should we choose to view responsibility as individual or collective? And either way, which approach delivers the best and fairest outcomes? The research considers two main situations: existing communities that need protection against new or escalating risks, and new, obviously risky developments. Within our current framework, for existing communities such as low-lying Petone or South Dunedin, “individual members of our most vulnerable communities will bear the burden of risks they could not have foreseen." But for new developments, the government - that is, effectively, everyone - will be expected to cover losses for development that is already predictably risky. The research concludes that the most important immediate step New Zealand can take toward an ethically robust sea-level rise policy is to bring certainty and consistency into the legislative framework. Central government should resource adaptation to sea-level rise nationwide, so that community resilience does not vary with the ratepayers' ability to pay. And at a local level, the public should be engaged “as early and deeply as possible” in these important decisions about their lives.