An Interview with Emma Elbaum.
1. How do you see future climate change risks intersecting with contaminated land and groundwater management? What key climate drivers should professionals be factoring into long‑term risk assessments?
Climate change isn’t just in the atmosphere or weather systems; it’s acting directly on subsurface systems, and long‑term planning and risk assessments should explicitly incorporate climate considerations.
Many of the climatological assumptions we’ve relied on for decades are (literally) shifting beneath our feet. Climate projections show a future defined by an increase in the magnitude and variability of weather-based events. For Aotearoa this includes more intense rainfall and more frequent and prolonged droughts. In coastal areas, sea-level rise may contribute to a rising water table, compounded by land subsidence.
These changes alter the way contaminants move and behave: heavy rainfall events can mobilise legacy contamination and overwhelm containment systems; drought and heat shift conditions and impair the performance of remediation efforts; and rising coastal groundwater can push contamination toward the surface or introduce saline intrusion.
2. With so much uncertainty around climate impacts, what should contaminated land and groundwater professionals be advising clients to do now?
Uncertainty doesn’t need to delay action – in fact, there are several low‑regret steps organisations and managers can take that strengthen resilience regardless of how climate projections evolve.
A strong starting point is to refresh the conceptual site model with climate considerations in mind, acknowledging that environmental conditions will shift over the lifetime of most sites.
We often approach this through a vulnerability screening, which examines the site’s particular configuration within the broader context of climate hazards such as flooding, groundwater rise, drought, or storm damage. This process blends an understanding of the asset itself with the specific characteristics of its setting.
Several open-source datasets – particularly those from MfE and Earth Sciences New Zealand (formerly NIWA) – are helpful for early, high-level hazard identification. However, when a project involves detailed design, consenting, or long-term planning, the underlying climate data needs to match that level of resolution. In those cases, it’s worth engaging a specialist provider who can supply spatially-granular projections and, importantly, demonstrate transparency in their methods. (Full disclosure, SLR has this capability through our NZ-based climate science and analytics team, ClimSystems, known for their world-class data). Climate science is evolving quickly, so having clarity on assumptions and modelling approaches makes it much easier to update assessments over time.
Finally, as the National Adaptation Framework continues to bring greater structure to natural hazard and climate planning in New Zealand, acting early gives organisations a clear advantage. It means they’re better positioned to meet emerging regulatory expectations and avoid the rush that comes with adapting only when requirements are already in force.
3. From a risk‑management perspective, how should environmental practitioners evolve their approach to account for future climate variability? What does “climate‑ready” contaminated land and groundwater management look like?
A climate‑ready approach starts with acknowledging that the future climate will not resemble the past. That means moving away from static design assumptions and embracing non‑stationary planning that uses scenario ranges. Climate projections downscaled from global and national models give us the tools to understand and quantify hazards such as potential flood levels and storms with far greater precision.
Equally important is using adaptive pathways, a planning method championed in the MfE’s coastal hazards guidance. Instead of committing to one long‑term strategy, this type of planning creates a roadmap with clear monitoring indicators and decision points, whether that’s raising a cap, modifying infrastructure, or shifting treatment approach as conditions evolve.
Climate‑ready management also means designing remedial systems that fail safely – systems that tolerate flooding, heat, power disruptions, and variable groundwater levels.
Lastly, our monitoring needs to evolve. Climate‑aware monitoring pairs routine sampling with event‑based data collection (e.g., after storms, heatwaves, or king tides) so we can observe how extreme events are influencing plume behaviour. This is particularly crucial as temperature and hydrologic shifts can change contaminant mobility and biodegradation pathways.
In short, climate‑ready management is adaptive, data‑rich, and explicitly designed for a more variable world.
4. The political landscape in New Zealand keeps shifting. How can organisations prepare strategically despite possible changes in government direction?
It’s true that New Zealand’s national resource management and climate policy frameworks are undergoing significant reform, reshaping how environmental impacts and effects are regulated here. But within that change, several long-term constants are emerging.
First, risk information will only become more transparent and influential, with a national flood map planned for 2027 and continually improving coastal hazard and climate datasets.
Organisations won’t be able to claim they were unaware of climate exposures – these datasets will become baseline inputs into consenting and investment decisions.
Additionally, organisations can safely assume that expectations for proactive climate risk management will increase over time, even if funding and regulatory tools evolve unevenly.
Contaminated sites’ obligations will continue to require robust assessments, and councils will progressively expect climate‑ready evaluations for subdivisions, remediation projects, and land-use changes.
As ever, the most durable approach is to invest in good data, clear yet flexible pathways, and strong engagement with councils. These steps will remain valuable across any political development and help avoid stranded assets or rushed compliance later.
5. Later this year, you’ll be presenting a webinar with Nick Wood. What can ALGA members expect to learn, and how will it help them in their day‑to‑day work?
ALGA members can look forward to a practical discussion on how climate change considerations are increasingly intersecting with contaminated land and groundwater work.
While we’re still developing the agenda, we will focus on themes and challenges practitioners are raising, for example, how climate variability influences risk assessments, what emerging tools and datasets may be useful, and how professionals can help clients navigate a less predictable operating environment.
Ultimately, the aim is for attendees to walk away with a clearer sense of the evolving landscape and feel better equipped to think about climate‑related uncertainty in their day‑to‑day decision‑making. So if ALGA members have any specific requests or questions, please get in touch!
Biography
Emma Elbaum
Managing Consultant, Climate and Nature Advisory – Asia Pacific
Emma is a Managing Consultant in the Climate & Nature Advisory team, based in our Auckland office. She specialises in Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) & sustainability strategies, focusing on net-zero targets and managing climate and nature-risks.
She supports clients with scenario analysis, including financial quantification; complex environmental accounting and data management, including organisational and project-based assessments and investor/regulatory-oriented ESG disclosure and reporting.
Emma is experienced in integrating climate and nature considerations into strategic planning, combining technical expertise with practical solutions. She holds a Master of Climate Science and Policy, an MBA in Sustainability, and is a member of Carbon and Energy Professionals New Zealand.