From the ‘Deep South' to adaptation for all Aotearoa: reflecting on ten years of the Deep South National Science Challenge

ABSTRACT

This paper reflects back over the ten years of the Deep South National Science Challenge (DSC), with the intention to identify a series of insights that shaped its legacy, so that future similar endeavours are able to learn from the successes and deliver better investment value. At the time of its establishment, climate change adaptation was poorly understood in Aotearoa New Zealand and the DSC created a space for knowledge development in this area. The DSC had a complicated beginning, with an enforced shift in science direction from the funder. Together with an undue emphasis on an ambitious climate model, this created areas of enduring tension over the ten years. Nonetheless, its eventual agility and investment in targeted investment in knowledge brokering, Vision Mātauranga capability, and a shift towards decision-making despite climate model uncertainty, enabled the DSC to create a legacy for the climate change adaptation landscape in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Introduction

In June 2024, after ten years of funding, the Deep South National Science Challenge (DSC) came to an end. Established in 2014, together with ten other National Science Challenges (NSCs), the DSC’s mission statement was to ‘enable New Zealanders to anticipate,¹ adapt, manage risk and thrive in a changing climate’. The NSCs were intended to address key questions of interest to Aotearoa New Zealand (A-NZ)²: ‘a set of mission-led science investments that will help to address some of the most fundamental issues New Zealand faces for its future development’.³ At that time, climate change adaptation was very poorly understood in A-NZ and the DSC was critical in creating a space for adaptation research and awareness. We believe at the end of the ten years that the DSC has enabled progress towards this mission, and there is much to celebrate, learn from and build on in the climate change impacts and adaptation space in A-NZ.

However, the formation of the DSC was complicated and influenced by a variety of interests, resulting in a misaligned focus that endured for much of the Challenge. Although some aspects of the inception may not be unique to the DSC, we argue that some created a specific foundation for future tension. We contend in this Viewpoint that for mission-led research to have impact and ultimately achieve its mission, it must include the users of the research as well as scientists and policy-makers.

The purpose of this Viewpoint article is to identify a series of insights gained over the course of this NSC, so that future similar endeavours are able to learn from the successes and deliver better investment value. We do this through a reflection of the main features of the establishment of the DSC, its governance, and key decision-points during the ten years. The process of developing this article involved an initial ‘brainstorming’ session with the authors (all part of the DSC Challenge Leadership Team (CLT) for varying lengths of time), after which the first author drafted an initial version, which was opened for several rounds of comments by all authors. A second ‘working session’ refined and honed the messages in a second draft. That draft was then circulated around a wider group (see acknowledgements) for input, before a final refinement.

Establishment of the DSC

The DSC was initially presented as an Antarctic / Southern Ocean NSC, and included activities such as a trans-Antarctic expedition. However, this focus was lacking a direct connection to the intentions of the NSCs, so under direction from the funding body (the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)), the focus was changed to adaptation to climate change in A-NZ. A hybrid rationale, therefore, was developed to study climate change through the lens of Antarctic and Southern Ocean science,⁴ with a view to using this science in adaptation. This led to the mission statement (above), which focuses on climate adaptation, conflicting with the objective of the Challenge: ‘To understand the role of the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean in determining our climate and our future environment’. The disconnect between these two strategic statements is central to the struggles with misalignment that the DSC faced during its lifetime. Indeed, MBIE itself referred both to ‘mission-led’ as well as ‘science-led’ research in founding documents,⁵ immediately establishing tension and a lack of clarity in direction.

In an effort to meet MBIE’s requirements of world-leading, transformational science, the New Zealand Earth System Model (NZESM) was established as a core pillar of DSC research, with the goal of enabling climate change adaptation through improved downscaled climate data. The DSC was originally structured into five programmes: Processes and Observations; Earth System Modeling and Prediction; Impacts and Implications (I&I); Vision Mātauranga; and Engagement,⁶ each with a science lead (collectively referred to as the Science Leadership Team, later changed to the Challenge Leadership Team (CLT)). Scientific efforts to build, refine and utilise the NZESM at the host institution, and supporting work, received the majority of funding.

A Governance Group was established, composed predominantly of individuals with corporate and managerial expertise, rather than science and research (Salmon and Goven 2022). An Independent Science Panel (ISP) was also created, designed to bring in international experts in climate modelling and physical science particularly. A Kāhui Māori group was established to guide the Vision Mātauranga programme and to explore interdisciplinary research projects with other programmes. A Representative User Group (RUG) was created to include input and representation from potential research users, and the role of Partnerships Director was established.

Enduring implications and legacy of the establishment process

We argue that this disjointed establishment process set up a foundation that resulted in misdirected science and unrealistic expectations among stakeholders.

The narrative around the NZESM was that it would replace the six-model ensemble of General Circulation Models (GCMs) used for climate data in A-NZ at the time, an improvement for A-NZ by incorporating better representations of Southern Hemisphere climate processes. This was problematic in several ways:

• - Using a single climate model would not have been scientifically robust.⁷ Furthermore, the NZESM turned out to be a relatively ‘hot’ model (i.e. global temperature responds sensitively to greenhouse gas increases), making it even less suitable for use on its own. Realistically, the NZESM should have always been a seventh model for downscaled use in A-NZ, so this narrative overpromised what the NZESM could deliver.

• - Climate modelling is an expensive exercise. There was a relatively small amount of available funding to address the well-entrenched, long-standing problems in climate modelling limiting scientific understanding in the Southern Hemisphere. In reality, Challenge funding focussed on very few – though critical – aspects of the model while relying on international partners for the ‘heavy lifting’ – often the case in A-NZ science. Moreover, international partners were relied on to tune the model, i.e. ensure it performs well over a historical reference period. This requires specialised expertise unavailable in A-NZ. The DSC-funded model development projects need to be seen as aspects of a much wider international ecosystem of climate model development leading to broad but slow progress in global climate modelling.

• - A fundamental mismatch existed between the goal, model scale, outputs and development timescale associated with the NZESM, and the goal, timescale, model scale and inputs needed for the I&I, VM and Engagement aspects of the DSC. Downscaling of the six international climate models (made available from 2019) and the NZESM to the local scale (required to turn these simulations into actionable information) was eventually – in 2022 – funded from outside the DSC. This meant that none of the impact-oriented DSC projects had timely access to downscaled climate projection data. Whilst this was not a complete show-stopper (older information was available), it did mean that the physical-science and society-facing wings of the DSC were never able to fully engage with each other.

We argue that the overly competitive funding system in A-NZ (Gluckman 2022) requires funding applications to propose unrealistic and overly ambitious research outputs, when there are gaps in foundational but less prestigious knowledge and understanding, or on the margins of international research. This was the case with the NZESM, which could never realistically have been achieved within the available budget. It was also an illusion that this new model would somehow lead to more effective adaptation when robust, albeit relatively low-resolution, downscaled data already existed and was not being used to its full extent. The dominance of the NZESM was promulgated to increase the justification for funding the Challenge, the ‘moonshot’ that appeared necessary to secure funding.

Despite this fundamental inflation of what the NZESM was able to deliver, it was widely promoted, and I&I projects were encouraged to use climate data, shaping the nature of research investment, emphasising ‘science-first’ (the linear process beginning with the climate projections, then downscaling them to impact models and then assuming that this is what would be required for adaptation) rather than ‘context’ or ‘policy-first’ research (Reeder and Ranger 2010). Furthermore, the Engagement team was encouraged to only use data primarily from the DSC, with negative consequences for stakeholders and the progression of adaptation decisions in A-NZ – discussed in more detail in Salmon and Goven (2022).

A further consequence of the initial focus and objective was that in the physical-science programmes (modelling and observations) only projects that targeted processes to the south of A-NZ were funded. In consequence, any climate phenomena occurring in A-NZ, such as mountain-induced precipitation in the South Island, or originating in the north, such as tropical cyclones, were out of scope in Phase 1. We would like to emphasise nonetheless, that many of the studies commissioned were necessary and useful, generating important insights, for example on hydrology and drought, based on existing data.

At the time the NSCs were established, the Vision Mātauranga policy had been developed for the science system, but was minimally implemented. All NSCs were required to be responsive to the aspirations of Māori and their communities by giving effect to Māori-led science opportunities which were embedded in Mātauranga Māori, built Māori capacity and benefitted Māori communities as well as the rest of A-NZ. Early on in the Challenge, few Māori communities had a singular focus based on climate change (notwithstanding their lead in environmental health over generations) because of the dominance of mitigation in the discourse at the time. This meant that the Kāhui had some challenging decisions to ponder regarding landing on key research priorities while increasing awareness of climate change adaptation strategies with Māori communities and setting up appropriate processes amidst a complex funding environment. The Kāhui were unwavering in their commitment to the fact that Māori were and are scientists as well.

In 2024, with DSC funding ending, and with baseline Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF) unable to sustain the considerable cost of the NZESM, the host institution discontinued funding the NZESM. Almost all core NZESM modellers were made redundant or left. The NZESM continues to be used at three universities but its longer-term viability depends on funding injections that are not on the horizon. This decision, after years of narrative from the host institution on the necessity of the NZESM and investment at the expense of more research into adaptation and achieving the mission, has been galling to researchers across disciplines.

Key developments in the DSC lifetime and celebrating success

Despite the challenges identified, some key developments and changes implemented over the course of the DSC helped ensure it was a critical enabler of climate change adaptation progress in A-NZ. Central to these was a shift in focus from the scientific and institutional interests to the end-user and overall interest of A-NZ, which we outline here.

Introduction of a knowledge broker

A ‘knowledge broker’ role was established in 2020 on the recommendation of the ISP, following an increasingly apparent disconnect between the NZESM programme and the I&I and VM programme. Knowledge brokering is well established (Pielke 2007; Meyer 2010; Cvitanovic et al. 2015) most often between science and policy (Michaels 2009). The original conception of the role had two major foci: dissemination and engagement of NZESM data to other researchers and potentially real-world decision-makers, and supporting connections between the different research programmes of DSC, particularly ESMP and I&I. This role proved to be invaluable, and brought some of the disconnect and misaligned expectations into the light, through the time associated with a dedicated role, and the expertise to span the technical climate modelling alongside an understanding of what types of outputs were being requested both by other researchers as well as users of climate data such as local government. With the barriers noted above, this role evolved over the last years, expanding into providing translation of, access to and engagement with Challenge, and wider A-NZ climate change data and research, including supporting the Vision Mātauranga teams to engage with relevant academic climate change research and researchers.

Change in Vison Mātauranga approach

In the first phase of the DSC, the Vision Mātauranga programme funded the largest ever suite of Māori-led research into the implications of changing climate conditions for Māori society.⁸ However, it was very clear that Māori communities themselves were and are ready for, and are already doing, research within and for their own communities but could not access academic research funding. The DSC funding process, in common with most government research funding initiatives, was not designed for community-based funding opportunities unless communities worked with larger research institutions. In response to the identified demand for hapū/marae community-lead research funding in the second phase, the Deep South completely reworked its VM funding process (Kukutai et al. 2021).⁹

The research teams investigated a wide range of interrelated topics, including coastal resources, food sovereignty, indigenous capability, and tikanga Māori decision-making, while aiming to foster intergenerational knowledge sharing and community-driven solutions (see https://deepsouthchallenge.co.nz/our-research/). This can be attributed to the significant investment in building relationships with each of the Vision Mātauranga research teams, responding to their aspirations as the DSC navigated and adapted their role as research funders.

The influence of this research has been profound with these research teams creating direct impact both within their communities and externally with government and sector stakeholders, which has been documented in Deep South (2022). The Vision Mātauranga programme has also worked with these teams to develop an Indigenous Methodologies research paper (Simmonds et al., this issue).

The programme resourced Māori communities to lead research on climate change adaptation and fostered intergenerational connections that will shape A-NZ’s response to environmental challenges for generations to come. The work to overhaul the funding and support model is mission-led science in action, focussing on what research is needed for hapū and marae communities to adapt to climate change, that is, by enabling and supporting those communities to lead their own research. It has also prompted a rethink on how Māori communities are best served in the science sector when large research funds are made available in a competitive bidding process.

Shifting in the I&I focus

Although the early focus in the I&I programme was to align as closely as possible with the NZESM programme, processes and pieces of research outside this did have considerable impact early on. In 2017, the I&I programme ran a series of Dialogues, a major shift in the approach that aimed to bring together diverse groups to develop research questions around key themes. These were widely acknowledged for their constructive approach to co-designing research topics and questions for funding, and led to some of the first work in A-NZ in areas such as insurance in a changing climate (e.g. Pastor-Paz et al. 2020; Storey et al. 2024) and the implications for local government (e.g. James et al. 2019) for example.

A key point in the transition of the Challenge was in 2021 with an I&I funding round focussed on ‘Living with Uncertainty’. There was a recognition across the DSC leadership of the increasingly urgent need to plan and implement adaptation rather than continuing to focus on impacts research using climate projections or the illusion of better decisions needing better data (Dessai and Hulme 2004; Dessai and Hulme 2007; Adger et al. 2009), and that there was a need to make decisions despite uncertainty (Hallegatte 2009; Watkiss et al. 2015; Dittrich et al. 2016), rather than attempting to reduce the uncertainty. Clear gaps in understanding and evidence were recognised in A-NZ, and an identified risk in the National Climate Change Risk Assessment of ‘delayed adaptation and maladaptation due to knowledge gaps resulting from under-investment in climate adaptation research and capacity building’ (Ministry for the Environment 2020, G5). While this had been discussed among the CLT for some time, a clear turning point occurred following a presentation to the Governance Group in 2020 by the I&I lead that set out the changing context. This shift resulted in the ‘Living with Uncertainty’ funding round that supported a series of projects that applied approaches to decision-making under uncertainty and adaptation research more closely linked to implementation.

Changing narrative

The DSC has contributed to establishing what climate change adaptation looks like in A-NZ that may not have been possible without the research, and the commitment from the DSC Communications and Engagement teams. The DSC has funded both research outputs and developed capability in the focussed area of climate change impacts and adaptation that may otherwise not have occurred. It fostered collaborations across Universities, CRIs, hapū and Māori communities, public and private organisations and communities in vulnerable situations around critical questions. It also generated evidence that was used extensively in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, WMO Ozone Assessments, World Climate Research Programme reports, and domestically in the National Climate Change Risk Assessment, the National Adaptation Plan, the Coastal Hazards Guidance and numerous local government and sectoral initiatives, through extensive publications in the peer-reviewed literature as well as more stakeholder-friendly reports and briefings, which were a big part of making the science accessible.

The DSC provided a platform for sustained research into critical areas of climate science, which was leveraged to support other projects that may have otherwise not been possible, and contributed significantly to our understanding of Southern Hemisphere climate processes.

Reflections and recommendations

At the end of the DSC, we look back and celebrate a strong body of research that has generated a wealth of knowledge and supported and enabled communities and sectors to begin the journey of adapting to climate change in A-NZ. While much adaptation in A-NZ is driven by local government and mana whenua, the DSC has played a major role in revealing opportunities and challenges and mobilising real-world adaptation. This has been possible despite the tangled beginnings of the DSC, through a concerted shift in focus to the end-user or the problem. By evolving to allow flexibility into the scope; a decoupling from the NZESM; and a radical change in VM research processes; the DSC was able to more fully focus on its mission and support A-NZ in preparing for a changing climate. By engaging not only with the social, cultural and economic contexts and realities of adaptation research but also with the political and institutional realities of the adaptation research-action nexus, the DSC was able to progress towards a transformation of relationships across multiple knowledges.

The process to reach this point was contested and at times painful for both the CLT as well as researchers. In the end, all of the I&I research requiring climate data used existing data and not the NZESM’s. At the time of publication, NZESM data has been passed to MfE to incorporate into their public climate projections database and viewer alongside downscaled CMIP6 projections. Three academic groups continue to use the NZESM using non-DSC funding.

The decision to limit scope to the NZESM and its outputs was made early in the challenge so as not to spread the limited funding available too thinly. However, relying on a single global climate model was a risky scientific approach; difficult because it took time for the NZESM to be developed; and limited the ability of the DSC to deliver on its mission. Many stakeholders perceived the DSC’s focus on the NZESM as a conflict of interest by the DSC’s host institution, particularly now as users are required to pay for downscaled data.

The DSC initially attempted to force the different programmes to integrate, when in reality some research can and should be funded in different ways and programmes can exist separately (see for example the three different working groups within the IPCC, which come together on cross-cutting special reports or topics but are also able to stand alone). We do recognise that hindsight is a powerful tool and often decisions are made without an appreciation of their consequences. Our hope is that future research funding platforms learn from this process.

At the culmination of this ten years, we make three propositions for effective mission-led research:

1. The problem context and users of the research should sit at the core of the research – the appropriate research can be identified and co-developed around that context. While it may not be possible to remove institutional interests from the research agenda, we recommend developing mechanisms at the funding level to identify and address self-serving institutional drivers.

2. Transformative science requires targeted investment outside of traditional research roles. Some of the most effective developments in the DSC were enabled by investment in the knowledge broker; dedicated support for VM engagement through kaitakawaenga and several additional supporting roles; and in a passionate and committed Communications and Engagement team.

3. Research programmes need to be agile and nimble to respond to changing evidence and priorities. The fact that the DSC was able to shift considerably over the ten years led to some of the most meaningful research for adaptation in A-NZ.

Reform of the science sector in A-NZ may create greater opportunities for research to be truly mission-led. Our goal is that the lessons from the NSCs will be useful in shaping future research programmes in A-NZ.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).