The Climate Change Commission has scoped 37 ways climate change could screw things up in New Zealand, and compiled a top 10 to-do list for the government.

New Zealand’s “normal” is changing. Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent – rainfall, floods, landslides, drought and heatwaves are all ramping up as humans pump out more planet-heating greenhouse gases.

The National Climate Change Risk Assessment, released last week by the Climate Change Commission, paints a stark picture of what this could mean for daily life. It’s also a map, ready to guide us out of an expensive cycle of response and recovery.

What is this assessment?

Every six years, the commission is required by law to gather up everything we know about the risks climate change poses to life in New Zealand – from housing to health to how governments make decisions. 

It’s a bit like a Spinoff ranking for all the ways climate change could wreak havoc on life in New Zealand, crossed with a climate “warrant of fitness” for how prepared we are. This is the second risk assessment; the first one was released in 2020. 

What is the Climate Change Commission and what’s their deal?

He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission is an independent Crown organisation tasked with sussing out the evidence on climate change. It monitors New Zealand’s progress on reducing emissions (not good) and on adapting to climate (also, not good). 

It also provides advice to shape our national climate response – like this risk assessment, which evaluates 37 different elements across seven domains. The commission has selected 10 of these as “priority areas” that we should probably get on to addressing, like, right now.

So what are the top 10 priorities?

They’re risks that are already seriously affecting people, or will soon. 

Here’s the top 10, in no particular order:

1. Water infrastructure – our already “degraded” drinking water, stormwater and sewage systems. Think more boil water notices, usage restrictions during drought, or more poo-laden beaches.
2. Buildings – more than half a million buildings around the country are in flood-prone areas. 
3. Road and rail networks – like buildings, our transport links are exposed to flooding, and fixing them repeatedly is expensive and disruptive.
4. Social and community wellbeing – the hurt, grief and fear caused by extreme weather is growing, and the mental health toll of forced relocation looms large.
5. Emergency management – already under acute pressure. In the past five years, 80% of the declared states of emergency were for severe weather or flooding.
6. Ngā mea hirahira o te ao Māori – things of importance in the Māori world. Not just physical and economic impacts, but identity and culture impacts too. This is a new focus area for 2026, with a companion report by independent kaupapa Māori researchers assessing seven risks to iwi/Māori. 
7. Ecosystems and biodiversity – some species and systems may be pushed past the point of no return, with changes to water, soil and air affecting sectors that depend on the environment.
8. Forestry – damage to forests from extreme weather not only limits their capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, but also cascades impacts downstream when slash tsunamis clobber communities.
9. Central and local government funding – with already constrained budgets, local councils will struggle to pay for the costs of intensifying climate impacts.
10. Decision-making and delivery – climate change makes choices more complex and puts pressure on our ability to take action together.

What about the other risks outside the top 10?

It’s not a pretty picture. Of the 37 risks, at least 29 are rated as already at least moderate for severity. And for 32 risks, the country’s overall readiness is scored as either “insufficient” or having “significant gaps”. Agriculture and horticulture are highlighted as “ones to watch”, facing minor risk right now but major risk predicted for 2050.

How did they come up with this top 10 list?

The commission uses scientific evidence and expert input to rate the severity of each risk as it stands today: minor, moderate, major or extreme. They also project future severity in 2050, and in two different possible scenarios for 2090. Then, they evaluate how well prepared we are to tackle those risks. 

They also consider the connectedness of risks – for example, climate impacts on buildings cascade to people’s wellbeing and the economy. The idea is to figure out where we can get the best bang for our buck by targeting areas with lots of connections.

So, how does compiling all this scary, risky info help us?

The analysis will inform the government’s next official plan for adapting to climate impacts, which the minister of climate change must release within the next two years. With risks laid out clearly, decision-makers can choose to chart a safe passage through the coming climate upheavals. 

Surely we’ve already started climate change adaptation work?

At the community level – yes. Case studies from around the country highlight local action. In Te Tai Tokerau, marae are installing water tanks and solar panels, and growers are hand-pollinating kiwifruit since bees can’t fly well in heavy rain.

At the national level – sort of. The government published a high-level framework last year, and the commission is due to share its latest progress report on climate adaptation in August. But this just-released risk assessment already points out gaps: the 2025 framework doesn’t address displacement of people, nor essential details about how costs might be shared between government, councils and private property owners. These are big, gnarly questions we need to answer sooner rather than later.

What does this new risk assessment say we should do?

The assessment doesn’t make specific recommendations, but does discuss a range of different work underway (like water reform) and ways to respond (like building homes that can withstand weather extremes). 

The assessment also spells out the need to break the pattern of reacting to crisis after crisis, and pursue a proactive approach, which would “substantially reduce future costs and losses”. Since 2010, 97% of government expenditure on natural hazards has gone towards response and recovery in the aftermath of disasters. Only 3% has been for risk reduction and resilience. 

“Damages and costs from extreme events are piling up, and so far there is little sign of a coordinated national response,” says climate scientist James Renwick. “We have a fleet of ambulances lined up at the bottom of the cliff, while at the top there is no fence, maybe just a flimsy string.”

The risk assessment is also clear that adaptation should be accompanied by continued efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn will shape the climate impacts we experience. Limiting warming “preserves the choices available to protect people, places, and livelihoods,” writes Jo Hendy, the Climate Change Commission’s chief executive. “Supporting and contributing to global efforts to limit warming, therefore, matters for New Zealand.”