POT FY2026 Climate-related Disclosures

Climate-related Disclosures Report
FY2026

This report is prepared in accordance with the Aotearoa
New Zealand Climate Standards (NZ CS1, CS2 and CS3).
These mandatory climate standards are designed to
encourage companies to proactively manage climate-related
risks and opportunities, demonstrate how they are doing so,
and support capital allocation to activities consistent with
the transition to a low-emissions, climate-resilient future.
This is the third Climate-related Disclosures report produced
by Port of Tauranga Limited (the Port). Previous reports are
available on the Port’s website.
The Port is taking advantage of the adoption provisions in
the standards to ensure that the information presented in the
report is not only thorough, but also meaningful and robust.
This year, the Port has developed an approach and completed
initial analysis of its current and anticipated financial impacts
from climate change.
Introduction
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
1
Port of Tauranga Limited

Port of Tauranga Limited is a Climate Reporting Entity under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013.
This report constitutes our Climate Statements in accordance with the Act and covers the reporting
period 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026. The statements are compliant with the Aotearoa New Zealand
Climate Standards (NZ CS1, CS2 and CS3) issued by the External Reporting Board (XRB).
Of the adoption provisions provided within NZ CS2 (as amended), the
Board of Directors has chosen to apply the following exemptions:
• Adoption provision 2: Anticipated financial impacts. The Port
remains in the process of quantifying the anticipated financial impacts
of climate-related risks and opportunities. Substantial progress in
FY2026 has enabled it to voluntarily disclose qualitative descriptions
of anticipated financial impacts for its direct risks and selected
indirect risks. The Port has a work programme to extend this analysis
in FY2027 to the remaining indirect risks and direct and indirect
opportunities. This will support compliance with NZ CS1 paragraphs
15(b) and (d), through quantitative disclosure where feasible. Where it
is not, the Port will provide its best-supported qualitative assessment
and explain why quantification is not possible.
• Adoption provision 4: Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. While
Port of Tauranga has been measuring some Scope 3 emissions since
2017 (e.g. the emissions relating to chartered freight trains), the Port
will not be reporting Scope 3 emissions in this report. The Port is
continuing to undertake further work (in collaboration with other sector
participants) to define appropriate and sensible Scope 3 boundaries.
• Adoption provision 5: Comparatives for Scope 3 greenhouse gas
emissions. The Port has not disclosed comparative information for
Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions.
• Adoption provision 7: Analysis of trends for Scope 3 greenhouse
gas emissions. The Port has not disclosed an analysis of trends for
Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions.
• Adoption provision 8: Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions assurance.
The Port is applying the exemption from assurance over Scope 3
greenhouse gas emissions disclosures.
• Comparative information: Adoption provision 6 is no longer
applicable in FY2026. Except for Scope 3 emissions, the Port
provides comparative information for the two preceding reporting
periods (FY2024 and FY2025) for established metrics, with one
comparative year for metrics first disclosed in FY2025 and no
comparatives required for metrics first disclosed in FY2026. The
scope for quantitative comparison of realised climate-related risk
and opportunity impacts remains limited, as most have not yet
manifested in a sufficiently discernible or measurable way. Changes
in those impacts are therefore addressed, to the extent observable,
through the qualitative current impacts commentary.
Approved on behalf of the Board of Directors on 29 October 2026.
Julia Hoare
Chair
Sir Robert McLeod KNZM
Chair, Audit Committee
Statement of compliance
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
2
Port of Tauranga Limited

This report sets out Port of Tauranga Limited’s mandatory Climate-
related Disclosures (CRD) for the financial year ending 30 June 2026,
in accordance with the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards (also
referred to as NZ CS1, CS2 and CS3).
Pursuant to the requirements of NZ CS1-3, this report includes a range
of forward-looking statements (including but not limited to climate-
related scenarios, assumptions, and projections, forecasts, estimates
and judgements regarding climate-related risks, opportunities,
impacts and related matters, as well as statements of the Port’s
future intentions, and metrics and targets). These statements are
often based on early and evolving assessments of current and future
data, which may be incomplete and estimated, particularly in areas
such as climate change projections and socio-economic anticipated
outcomes/forecasts. These are inherently uncertain as they are driven
by numerous dynamic factors, many of which are interconnected,
complex, non-linear and unpredictable especially over the medium
to long-term. Accordingly, all forward-looking statements set out
in this CRD report (whether they relate to climate-related risks and
opportunities or otherwise):
– Are not facts, nor are they intended to constitute capital growth,
earnings guidance, and/or any other type of advice or guidance
(legal, financial, tax or otherwise)
– Pertain to outcomes that may arise under stipulated climate change
scenarios set out within, which, as noted in NZ CS1, “...are not
intended to be probabilistic or predictive, or to identify the ‘most
likely’ outcome(s) of climate change. They are intended to provide
an opportunity for entities to develop their internal capacity to
better understand and prepare for the uncertain future impacts
of climate change”
– Are inherently uncertain and subject to limitations, particularly as
to inputs, available data and information (including that which the
Port has derived from relevant sector climate change scenarios),
all of which are likely to change and evolve
– May not eventuate (in full or in part), and where they do eventuate,
may be materially more or less significant than is anticipated or
otherwise indicated in this report
– May have omitted to identify and include (in full or in part) material
climate-related risks, opportunities and impacts that do eventuate.
Owing to the above, all climate-related forward-looking statements
in this CRD report may be less reliable than statements contained
in the Port’s non-climate-related annual reporting.
Notwithstanding the above, this CRD report represents the Port’s
best estimate and current understanding of future climate-related
eventualities at the date of publication. Subject to the various practical
challenges and limitations, the Port has used all reasonable endeavours
to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this report (subject to
specified omissions in reliance of the adoption provision in NZ CS2,
including the amendments to the Adoption of Aotearoa New Zealand
Climate Standards issued in 2024 and 2025), but strongly cautions
against undue reliance being placed on representations within.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Port and its directors,
officers, employees and contractors shall not be liable for any loss or
damage arising in any way from or in connection with any information
provided or omitted as part of this report.
Statement of compliance (continued)
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
3
Port of Tauranga Limited

Climate-related
Disclosures Report
Executive summary5
Governance
Board oversight and management of climate-related issues
7
Risk management
How climate-related risks and opportunities are identified, assessed and managed,
and how those processes are integrated into existing risk management processes
10
Strategy
The impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities on Port of Tauranga’s
business model, strategy and financial planning, including a summary of the
Port’s climate change Transition Plan
15
Targets and metrics
How Port of Tauranga measures and manages its climate-related risks
and opportunities (includes the Port’s greenhouse gas inventory)
47
Glossary and endnotes57
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
4
Port of Tauranga Limited

This year’s report updates Port of Tauranga’s climate context and climate-related risks and opportunities.
We continue to refine our assessments and methods, and this year have integrated insights from our
assessment of current and anticipated financial impacts. A progress update is also provided on our
Transition Plan objectives and near-term actions, outlining the Port’s response to its evolving strategic
landscape under a changing climate.
Current position
The Port’s climate-related risks and opportunities
(CRR/Os) remain largely unchanged following this year’s
review. The Port’s Transition Plan response continues to
build on its inherent resilience to both physical climate risks
and the transition to a low-emissions economy. The Port
is well positioned by its national network, infrastructure and
commercial strategy, which is anchored in diversification
of cargo, geography, operations, and revenue streams.
As New Zealand’s largest port and the only one currently capable
of accommodating the largest vessels on the Oceania network,
Port of Tauranga holds a strategic position in decarbonising the
country’s international supply chain.
The Port continues to increase its capacity to cater for larger shipping
vessels, which have lower emissions per container than smaller,
older vessels. On 7 September 2026, the Port received regulatory
approval of the proposed Stella Passage development, subject to
appeals and conditions. If it proceeds, it will enable the next stage
of growth, improve flexibility and resilience, and unlock further
decarbonisation opportunities.
Ports have an important role to play in the decarbonisation
of New Zealand’s international supply chain, as sea freight is the
most carbon-efficient mode of transport for large quantities of cargo.
Port of Tauranga remains committed to supporting New Zealand
exporters with the lowest-emissions supply chain possible by reducing
our operational emissions, prioritising rail over road transport,
and advocating for coastal shipping.
By building the capacity for larger vessels, Port of Tauranga is also
ensuring importers and exporters avoid unnecessary delays and costs
from shipping through Australian ports.
Executive summary
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
5
Port of Tauranga Limited

Key changes
Financial quantification
This year the Port of Tauranga has taken on board the XRB’s clear
direction that developing decision-useful anticipated financial impact
(AFI) disclosures takes time and care. The Port is using the extended
adoption period to build the necessary capability before disclosure
becomes mandatory.
As New Zealand’s primary international shipping hub, the Port has
many possible pathways through which climate-related risks and
opportunities could affect it financially. Developing a robust approach
therefore takes time. The methodology is summarised in the Financial
quantification section of this report.
FY2026 updates
Qualitative impact pathways have been developed for the majority
of CRR/Os and are reflected in the FY2026 report. Refer also to
Port of Tauranga Climate-related Disclosure FY2025 for additional
technical information on each CRR/O.
Remaining areas for refinement and potentially quantifiable CRR/Os have
been identified for FY2027. The analysis has also supported updates
to the underlying Exposure, Vulnerability and Impact (EVI) assessment,
climate scenarios and climate driver-outcome framework. Updates
include an improved evidence base and technical understanding
and documentation of CRR/Os characteristics.
FY2026 emissions inventory
Total Scope 1 and 2 emissions for FY2026 were 19.2 kilotonnes CO₂e,
down 12% from FY2025 and up 1% from the FY2023 base year.
The Scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity for FY2026 is 0.00076 tonnes
CO₂e per cargo tonne. This is a 9% decrease compared with FY2025
and a 2% increase compared with the FY2023 base year.
Climate-related risks and opportunities
The Port’s climate scenarios have been updated with the latest
transition driver developments relevant to the Port, such as
emission-based trading rules, changes in the political landscape,
and key sector updates.
The Port’s CRR/Os are largely unchanged, although anticipated
impacts for two direct physical risks (DR3 and DR5) were downgraded
following financial impact assessment.
TypeSummary of change
Direct physical
risks
DR3 downgraded to non-material in the short to
medium-term; monitored.
DR5 downgraded to a non-material watch and
brief in short to medium-term.
Indirect physical
risks
No change.
Direct transition
opportunities
No change.
Note targeted updates for policy, technology and
market shifts with stronger evidential support and
usability, core architecture unchanged.
Indirect
transition
risks and
opportunities
No change.
Note targeted updates for policy, technology and
market shifts with stronger evidential support and
usability, core architecture unchanged.
Staged approach to reporting
Port of Tauranga has taken a staged approach to mandatory reporting.
In FY2024, our focus was on building robust foundational Climate-
related Disclosure systems, capability and knowledge. We identified
existing and potential climate-related risks and opportunities and
assessed our exposure and vulnerability to each.
We also developed three Port climate scenarios, identifying key drivers
and outcomes.
In FY2025, our focus shifted to building on the foundational
identification and assessment work, extending it to the Port’s
national network. We prepared a detailed Transition Plan, outlining
a comprehensive response to the Port’s priority short and medium-
term risks and opportunities.
In FY2026, we established a robust means of assessing the current
and anticipated financial impact of the Port’s climate-related risks
and opportunities. We also reviewed the Transition Plan and made
updates and refinements based on progress to date.
Having completed the initial three-year roadmap, our focus now
moves to extending financial quantification and integrating it more
deeply with our enterprise risk management framework.
The Port also continues to work with other sector participants
to define appropriate and sensible Scope 3 boundaries for
future reporting.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
6
Port of Tauranga Limited

Port of Tauranga Limited is listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) and adheres to the
NZX Main Board Listing Rules and guidance, including the NZX Corporate Governance Code.
Governance
Committees of the
Board that report
to full Board
Support the Board
by providing input
and detail on specific
matters, including
sourcing specialist
advice.
Nomination
General Manager
Communications
Terminal
Development
Manager
Marine
Operations
Manager
General
Manager
Corporate
Services
People and
Remuneration
General Manager
Property and
Infrastructure
Environmental
Manager
Engineering
Manager
General Manager
Commercial
Board Health
and Safety
General
Manager
Health and
Safety
Audit
Chief
Executive
Financial
Controller
Risk
Specialist
Chief
Financial Officer/
Company
Secretary
Board
Ensures the Port has
a fit-for-purpose
climate-related risk and
opportunity framework
and resourcing (i.e.
processes and methods,
as well as the expertise
and resources required
to implement them).
Senior
Management
Team
Reports to
the Board at
least monthly
on strategy
implementation
and risk
management.
Extended
Leadership Team
Each member
of the extended
leadership team
reports directly to
a senior manager,
including these
key roles in relation
to climate change
response.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
7
Port of Tauranga Limited

Board oversight of climate-related
risks and opportunities
Port of Tauranga’s Board of Directors ensures the company adheres
to NZX governance requirements and maintains high ethical standards
in serving the interests of Port of Tauranga stakeholders, including
shareholders, employees, customers and the wider community.
The Board approves the company’s strategic direction and oversees
management of long-term value drivers such as customer satisfaction,
asset investment, employee engagement, iwi and community
engagement, enhanced environmental performance and reputation
protection. Key Port strategies are formally reviewed at least once
per year.
All risks, including climate-related risks, are also reviewed annually
by the Board, with “deep dives” into specific risks on a quarterly basis.
The Board has overall responsibility for the Port’s climate change
response.
The Audit Committee is specifically responsible for ensuring the
Port complies with climate-related reporting requirements. Other
committees of the Board have specific responsibilities related to risk
management, outlined below. All committees report to the full Board.
Board skills and competence
The Board requires Directors to have competencies across a range
of disciplines, including sustainability and risk management, to operate
effectively and meet its responsibilities. Directors’ skills are self-assessed
annually, moderated by the Board as a whole, and provided to
shareholders in a matrix published annually in the Corporate
Governance Statement. The statement and other governance-related
documents, including the charters of the Board and its committees,
are available on the Port’s website.
Monitoring progress
The Board approves and monitors progress against the metrics
and targets used to measure the Port’s climate-related risks and
opportunities. For example, management reports to the Board
annually on greenhouse gas emissions and progress in relation to
achieving the Board’s long-term target of net zero emissions by 2050,
and its short-term goal of an annual reduction in carbon intensity (t
CO₂e per cargo tonne). Additional metrics and targets, including for
the senior management team, have been developed in alignment
with the Port’s climate Transition Plan, which is annually reviewed
and progress monitored by the Board. Specific decarbonisation
projects requiring capital expenditure are also reported to the Board
for approval as required by delegation of authority policies.
The Board considers the identification, understanding, control
and monitoring of core risks (including climate-related risks and
opportunities) to be a whole-of-Board function.
Audit Committee
People and Remuneration
Committee
Assists the Board with the
financial reporting process,
internal controls and
management of financial risks,
and the audit process (including
assurance on regulatory
requirements such as Climate-
related Disclosures).
The committee holds at least
three meetings annually and
reviews all climate change risk
and opportunity-related work,
including recommending the
Board approve publication of
the company’s Climate-related
Disclosures.
Oversees remuneration policies
and practices, including
executive packages that
include performance targets for
sustainability-related measures
such as greenhouse gas
emissions, health and safety,
and employee and community
engagement.
The committee has incorporated
specific climate-related metrics
into executive remuneration.
Board Health and Safety
CommitteeNomination Committee
Assesses health and safety
risks and controls relating to the
impacts of climate change.
Reviews the Board’s composition,
performance and succession
planning to ensure it has skills in
sustainability, as well as regulatory
compliance, risk management,
stakeholder liaison and other
competencies.
The committee, of which all
Directors are members, meets
at least twice per year.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
8
Port of Tauranga Limited

Management’s role in assessing and managing climate-related risks and opportunities
All members of the senior management team have
responsibilities related to the company’s strategy
and risk management. They ensure that risks to the
business, including climate-related risks, are identified
and evaluated, and that effective and practicable
responses and control activities are developed.
The senior management team reports monthly to
the Board and attends all Board meetings. The Chief
Executive and Chief Financial Officer attend the
Audit Committee meetings. The Chief Executive and
General Manager Corporate Services attend the
People and Remuneration Committee meetings,
and the Chief Executive and General Manager
Health and Safety attend the Board Health and
Safety Committee meetings.
Risks to Port of Tauranga’s ability to create value
are regularly discussed in depth by the senior
management team, which meets weekly. The
team identifies risks and their materiality, evaluates
mitigation options and ensures they are feasible.
Climate-related risks are part of this process.
They are integrated into the Port’s enterprise risk
management framework and regularly reviewed
and monitored.
Sustainability measures are incorporated into
the remuneration of members of the senior
management team as well as their relevant
direct reports.
The individual responsibilities laid out in this table
have been agreed over time through consultation,
job descriptions, strategic planning processes and
directives of the Board. Performance is monitored
by the Chief Executive and incentivised through
remuneration policies, including a short-term
incentive component measured through mutually
agreed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and
approved by the Board’s People and Remuneration
Committee. The Board is responsible for the
performance of the Chief Executive.
All of the senior management team have a specific
climate-related KPI, requiring progression of the
climate Transition Plan and associated metrics and
targets. In FY2026, 5% of the managers’ short-term
incentive was allocated to this KPI.
Day-to-day risk management is undertaken by an
empowered and coordinated extended leadership
team, with centralised oversight by the senior
management team and Risk Specialist. The senior
management team is required to establish formal
and/or informal processes with their teams to
demonstrate a positive risk culture by actively
monitoring and discussing risk.
All teams have some responsibility to identify, assess
and monitor critical risks, including those related
to climate change, relevant to their business areas.
Members of the extended leadership team report
directly to a senior management team member.
Those with specific climate-related responsibilities
include:
• Environmental Manager
• Financial Controller
• Terminal Development Manager
• Engineering Manager
• Risk Specialist
• Marine Operations Manager.
Chief ExecutiveChief Financial Officer/Company Secretary
Manages and delivers the company’s strategy
and performance.
Responsible for promoting proactive risk
management, including risks and opportunities
associated with climate change, and reporting
it to the Board.
Incorporates climate-related risks and opportunities
into the company’s strategic planning process.
Maintains relationships with local and central
government and regulators.
Ensures timely release of information to the market
and adherence to the relevant rules and regulations,
including NZX, accounting and Climate-related
Disclosure standards.
Assesses the financial impacts of climate-related
risks and opportunities in financial planning, capital
allocation, insurance and financial reporting.
Responsible for an effective risk management
framework that identifies, assesses, monitors and
manages risk.
General Manager Property and InfrastructureGeneral Manager Commercial
Overall responsibility for the development
and implementation of Port of Tauranga’s
decarbonisation strategy and greenhouse gas
emissions inventory report.
Ensures port infrastructure is resilient to climate
change, including the provision of new infrastructure
to meet increased demand (e.g. power equipment
for electrification).
Prioritises the purchase of more fuel-efficient
vehicles and equipment whenever possible
(e.g. hybrid straddles).
Jointly responsible (with the General Manager
Corporate Services) for business continuity and
crisis management planning.
Ensures the business plan has inherent flexibility
and resilience.
Oversees significant operational initiatives, such
as container handling automation and marine fleet
purchases, with a material impact on greenhouse
gas emissions.
General Manager CommunicationsGeneral Manager Corporate Services
Publishes Port of Tauranga’s announcements via
website, broadcast emails and media releases.
Publishes comprehensive financial and non-financial
disclosures in the company’s Integrated Annual
Report, including material exposure to environmental,
economic and social sustainability risks.
Overall responsibility for employee engagement and
implementation of the Port’s people-related strategies
and policies.
Develops and recommends climate-related KPIs for
the senior management team to the People and
Remuneration Committee.
General Manager Health and Safety
Assesses the health and safety impacts of
climate change.
Promotes proactive employee and contractor
engagement in the Port Users’ Health, Safety
and Environment Forum.
Membership of the Port Industry Association
Leadership Group.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
9
Port of Tauranga Limited

Port of Tauranga operates in a complex environment with a wide range of strategic,
operational, commercial and safety risks that must be effectively managed to protect
the company’s employees, the environment, company assets and reputation.
Risk management
Risk management approach
Robust risk management is essential to the protection of
long-term value, safe and reliable operations, and confident
investment. As Port of Tauranga is nationally significant
infrastructure, resilience is a strong focus.
Our risk management and policy framework structures and
guides our approach to identifying and managing all business
risk, including climate change, and our framework is aligned
to the Australian/New Zealand Risk Management Standard
AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018 Risk management – Guidelines.
Progress in FY2026
The Risk Specialist has worked with teams across the business to
enhance the Port’s risk management systems and ensure the correct
controls, mitigations and reporting are in place. Further details on the
consequences, mitigation strategies and key controls for all significant
risks can be found in the Port’s Corporate Governance Statement in
the Integrated Annual Report.
The Transition Plan actions and climate-related risks and opportunities
(CRR/Os) are included in this process, ensuring they are well-integrated
into the Port’s risk management framework, practice, and regular
review and strategic planning cycles. Specifically, the Port’s CRR/Os:
• Have assigned risk owners, with all team members expected to be
responsible for proactive monitoring and management.
• Are included in regular review cycles as part of the Port’s strategic
and enterprise risk landscape and are regularly discussed by the
senior management team and the Board of Directors.
• Are embedded in long-term asset planning, capital investment,
emergency preparedness, business continuity planning and major
project governance.
Looking ahead
The Port has established a firm foundation for active climate risk
management and ongoing progress against the Transition Plan.
Like managing other forms of risk, integrating climate-related risks
and opportunities is an iterative practice. Some aspects are unique
and distinct, requiring development of methods and processes to
support effective active management over time.
The Port’s CRR/Os vary in their characteristics and will continue to
evolve. Among other things they can differ in their type (e.g. acute or
chronic physical hazards, transition, systemic), complexity, temporality,
how their impacts may unfold, and potential cumulative effects.
While aspects can be captured as operational risk and be monitored
in shorter-term cycles, thresholds and escalation to materiality and/
or strategic risk implications require further refinement, along with
support for risk owners, managers and leadership teams.
The focus in FY2027 will be developing staged initiatives and technical
improvements to further refine processes, responsiveness and maturity
with a continuous improvement approach. It will build on, and be
integrated with, the Port’s work on financial quantification, which
has improved understanding of risk pathways, escalation points,
and financial triggers.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
10
Port of Tauranga Limited

Identification and assessment of climate-related risks and opportunities
Port of Tauranga adopted a five stage approach to identify, assess
and manage its climate-related risks and opportunities, summarised
in Figure 1. This is based on international risk management practices
and standards, and the steps and methods employed at each of the
five stages are based on the Port’s existing risk management systems.
Several specific adjustments take into account both the unique nature
of climate-related risks and the need for compliance, including:
• Compliance with NZ CS1 and NZ CS3
• Understanding and managing climate-related risks and opportunities
in a judicious and responsible manner
• Compliance with applicable Directors’ duties as a result of the Port’s
exposure to climate-related risks and opportunities.
We have based these adjustments on a number of existing international
and New Zealand climate change-related standards and guidelines.
The Port’s climate-related risks and opportunities and their underlying
analysis are reviewed and updated each year. This is comprehensive
across the Context, Identification, Assessment and Management
stages of the five stage approach.
XRB guidance
We also ensured the XRB’s “Staff Guidance, Entity Level Scenario
Development” guidance was integrated into the Port’s five stage process.
In identifying current and anticipated climate-related risks and
opportunities, the Port:
• Used traditional assessment methods to identify past, current
and anticipated climate-related risks and opportunities in a
comprehensive and detailed way
• Identified sector scenarios relevant to the Port’s business model
(e.g. Aotearoa Circle transport, agriculture and energy scenarios)
• Defined parameters including global references, emission
trajectories, temperature outcomes and other assumptions.
A long list of drivers is assessed annually and ranked by influence
and uncertainty. Various methods are used to unpack, rationalise
and map how each driver might play out under each scenario,
including understanding interactions and dependencies between
one or several drivers. The scenarios are then used to identify
anticipated climate-related risks and opportunities not already
identified, followed by a qualitative assessment of the Port’s exposure
and vulnerability to each.
Identification
A comprehensive assessment of potential indirect climate risks and
opportunities was carried out across key value chains – dairy, logs
and other forestry, kiwifruit, liquid fuel and stock feed.
A detailed assessment of current and anticipated knock-on impacts of
each potential risk and opportunity was carried out to establish materiality.
Containerised goods, lower volume commodities and breakbulk
imports and exports were also addressed. However, because of
the practical limitations, this entailed a much higher level assessment
of upstream (supply chain) and downstream (market access and
demand) risks and opportunities.
Key operations and material assets such as buildings, infrastructure,
plant and equipment were assessed for exposure to physical and
transition risks. This was carried out at the individual asset level for
all building and infrastructure assets, as well as for key operations.
Financial quantification
This is the financial component of the assessment stage of the
Port’s five stage approach, providing the Port with a more credible
basis for judging where its business model and strategy remain resilient,
where resilience may come under pressure, and what assumptions
or responses that conclusion depends on.
Establish the Port’s
climate context,
identification and
assessment approach,
and methods
15
2
4
3
Identify the
climate-related risks
and opportunities that
the Port is exposed to
(now and over time)
Assess and prioritise
each climate-related risk
and opportunity that the
Port is exposed to
Develop and
implement the Port’s
Transition Plan and
related measures
across the business
Monitor, review,
and update 1-4 above,
and prepare annual
Climate-related
Disclosures
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
I
d
e
n
t
i
fi

c
a
t
i
o
n
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Port of Tauranga’s
five stage approach
100% completed
FY2024
100% completed
FY2024
Financial impact
assessment majority
completed 2026
Completed in FY2025,
progress update
FY2026
Disclosure
completed for
FY2024, FY2025,
FY2026
Figure 1:
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
11
Port of Tauranga Limited

Financial quantification
In FY2026, Port of Tauranga developed and applied a methodology
for assessing the anticipated financial impacts (AFIs) of its climate-
related risks and opportunities (CRR/Os).
NZ CS1 states that for anticipated impacts and financial impacts
(paragraph 15):
An entity must include the following information when describing
the anticipated impacts of the climate-related risks and opportunities
it has identified (see paragraph 11(d)):
a. the anticipated impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities
reasonably expected by the entity;
b. the anticipated financial impacts of climate-related risks and
opportunities reasonably expected by an entity;
c. a description of the time horizons over which the anticipated
financial impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities
could reasonably be expected to occur; and
d. if an entity is unable to disclose quantitative information for
paragraph 15(b), an explanation of why that is the case.
End-to-end scenario analysis is used to understand how identified
CRR/Os may play out under different plausible climate futures and
what impacts would arise. AFIs then translate those impacts into
financial consequences. This strengthens the Port’s understanding
of its financial exposure, the magnitude and severity of potential
impacts, the circumstances under which impacts could become
material, and its strategic resilience.
Methodology
The methodology works the anticipated impacts through the Port’s assets,
operations, customers, value chains and financial model to establish
when, where and to what extent financial performance, financial
position and cash flows could be affected. This requires identifying
the conditions and thresholds through which impacts may arise,
relevant variables, timing, dependencies and financial consequences.
The process has three broad stages:
• Establishing the assessment: Confirm the scope, scenarios, CRR/O
assessments, baselines and available evidence; provisionally assess
quantification feasibility; develop detailed impact pathways linking
climate drivers to Port-level financial effects; and select appropriate
modelling methods, boundaries, financial-impact categories and
data requirements.
• Developing financial estimates: Quantify or defensibly bound
relevant scenario driver outcomes across the Port’s time horizons;
identify suitable indicators, assumptions and financial relationships;
and, where supportable, estimate gross financial impacts, explicitly
accounting for uncertainty and sensitivity.
• Assessing net and combined impacts: Evaluate realistic management
and adaptation responses, including costs, timing, dependencies
and effectiveness, to establish net impacts. Results are then assessed
across the CRR/O portfolio to identify interactions, overlapping
effects, amplification and offsets, and avoid double counting.
General rules and principles
The methodology is governed by three complementary layers:
general principles and constraints, conventions for financial
quantification outputs, and technical rules governing its application
in practice. Together, these operationalise, where applicable, the
underlying requirements and principles of NZ CS3 and relevant
FMA guidance within the execution of the methodology. These
are shown in the following table.
General principles / constraints
Overarching standards and
boundaries against which the
methodology as a whole is
designed and applied.
Relevance
Defensibility and feasibility
Traceability
Comprehensiveness
Quality assurance
Reasonable effort
Iterative improvement (over
reporting cycles)
Approach to financial
quantification outputs
Govern the form, framing and
presentation of the outputs
produced by the methodology.
Financial impact categories
Time representation
Uncertainty representation
Discounting
Disclosure vs management use
Technical rules /
considerations
Operational rules and
principles governing how
the methodology is applied
through the assessment
process in practice.
Driver outcomes first
System response and adaptation
behaviour
Treatment of uncertainty and
avoiding false precision
Gross then net
Interaction controls
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
12
Port of Tauranga Limited

Practical considerations
The Port’s position as a major international freight gateway creates
particular challenges. Many potentially consequential financial
impacts arise indirectly through wider changes in freight volumes
and composition, often influenced by economic, sector and market
responses outside the Port’s direct control. Fully modelling these
systems may require disproportionate effort without necessarily
producing reliable financial estimates.
The methodology therefore adopts a proportionate, risk-based
approach, consistent with the assessment logic of ISO 31000
and ISO 14091. It uses detailed impact pathways, supported
where appropriate by indicators, proxies, analogues and bounded
assumptions, rather than attempting to predict entire physical,
economic or market systems.
Materiality is considered both individually and across the Port’s
combined CRR/O profile, recognising that shared drivers, financial
effects and interacting risks may produce material cumulative
outcomes even where individual impacts are not material.
Quantitative and qualitative treatment
The Port quantifies financial impacts where bounded, traceable
and decision-useful estimates can be supported, as a single estimate,
a range or a sensitivity. Quantification may not be supported where:
• Estimates risk false precision or undermine fair presentation
• Reliable calculation baselines or thresholds are unavailable
• Financial impacts depend on multiple uncertain conditions
or future third-party decisions
• Materially different outcomes remain plausible within a scenario
• Key assumptions lack sufficient evidence and verifiability
• Quantification may also be disproportionate where substantial
additional modelling would still produce highly assumption-sensitive
estimates.
In these cases, a more detailed qualitative financial assessment is
developed using the same analysis. This explains how financial impacts
could arise, the conditions required, relevant uncertainties and the
reasons quantitative disclosure cannot presently be supported.
Financial quantification is an iterative process. The Port’s approach
allows further assessment and refinement over successive reporting
cycles as data, methods and capability mature, while maintaining
a focus on decision-useful information and demonstrable progress.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
13
Port of Tauranga Limited

Dairy
Logs and forestry products
Containerised
Inputs and productionProcessingFreight and shipping
B2B customersDistributionEnd user/consumer
Freight and shippingProcessingInputs and production
End user/consumerDistributionB2B customers
Port of Tauranga assets and operations
Liquid fuel
Stock feed
Containerised
Time horizons
Time horizons have been based on Port of Tauranga’s business planning
cycles, infrastructure asset life planning, and long-term strategies.
Time horizons
Short-termRisk over the next 0-5 years, in line with Port of
Tauranga’s budget and business planning cycle.
Medium-termRisk within the time horizon 5-25 years, in line
with Port of Tauranga’s long-term strategy,
including our net zero emissions target.
Long-termRisk within the time horizon 25-50 years, in line
with long-term infrastructure asset life planning
and strategic outlook for Port of Tauranga.
Port of Tauranga value chain
Context
As New Zealand’s largest sea port, Port of Tauranga (together with
its inland ports and wider Group sea port operations) manages import
and export commodities and goods that belong to an indeterminate
number of value chains.
For this reason, it is not feasible to carry out a full analysis of every
value chain, especially in the case of containerised freight, as accurately
identifying the specific value chain of every container’s contents is not
practically possible.
Accordingly, guided by the fair presentation, value chain and materiality
requirements of NZ CS3, the Port focused on identifying and mapping
the value chain for its:
• Four largest export commodities, i.e. dairy, logs, other forestry
products and kiwifruit, which comprise approximately 77% of
total exports by volume
• Two largest import commodities, i.e. liquid fuels and stock feed,
which account for 32% of total imports by volume.
Kiwifruit
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
14
Port of Tauranga Limited

Port of Tauranga has examined how the company
might perform under a range of potential futures.
The Port’s operating environment will be influenced
by social, technological, economic, environmental
and political drivers.

We have made some assumptions and logical
conclusions to help identify potential impacts
and their severity on our operations, strategy and
finances. Because of Port of Tauranga’s unique
position within the supply chain, we have drawn
from the scenarios developed by the agricultural,
transport and energy sectors.
This section summarises the climate-related risks and opportunities
identified as impacting, or likely to impact, Port of Tauranga’s business
as well as the Port’s response.
This year, Port of Tauranga developed its approach to quantifying anticipated
financial impacts (AFIs), strengthening both its understanding of its climate-related
risks and opportunities and its risk management practice.
In FY2025 the Port developed a Transition Plan and a summary of progress is
included in this report. The strategic intent of the Transition Plan is to ensure the
Port can continue to deliver on its core objectives by providing and championing
robust, low-emission and resilient infrastructure for the benefit of New Zealand.
By embedding climate resilience and emissions reduction in operational and
investment decisions, the Port can maintain reliable and sustainable services
to customers, and safeguard the resilience and long-term value of assets and
infrastructure, operations and stakeholder relationships in a changing climate.
Strategy
15
Port of Tauranga Limited Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026

Port of Tauranga’s business model and strategy
Port of Tauranga is New Zealand’s largest and most efficient port. It has grown to become the key
international freight gateway for the country’s imports and exports, and the only port currently able
to accommodate the largest container vessels that visit New Zealand.
According to Ministry of Transport and Statistics New Zealand data, Port of Tauranga handles 31% of all
New Zealand cargo by volume, 39% of all shipping containers and 36% of all New Zealand exports by volume
1
.
Purpose and vision
The Port’s purpose of “connecting New Zealand and the world” is
underpinned by seven key aspirations for 2030 that go beyond profit:
• Drive national prosperity
• Improve community wellbeing
• Protect our natural environment
• Respect mana whenua
• Nurture our people
• Provide superior customer service
• Deliver long-term value.
The Port approaches the challenges and opportunities of climate
change through this lens, and its purpose and vision also inform how
it assesses and prioritises climate-related risks and opportunities.
Business model
Port of Tauranga works with key import and export partners to develop
and deliver efficient, integrated logistics solutions. Over the past
two decades, the Port has developed a national freight and logistics
strategic network supported by subsidiaries and joint ventures.
Port of Tauranga is connected to three multi-modal (connected by
road and rail) inland ports: Ruakura (central Hamilton), MetroPort
Auckland (South Auckland, operated by KiwiRail) and MetroPort
Christchurch (Rolleston).
It has also partnered with local owners in two regional feeder
ports – Northport (a deep water commercial port near Whangārei
in Northland) and PrimePort Timaru (a multi-cargo port serving the
primary producing regions of Mid and South Canterbury). At PrimePort
Timaru, Port of Tauranga owns the Timaru Container Terminal, which
is operated by the Port’s wholly owned subsidiary, QM Logistics
(formerly known as Quality Marshalling).
QM Logistics also operates the container rail exchange at
Port of Tauranga and the Ruakura Inland Port.
Port of Tauranga also has joint ownership in Coda Group, a freight
logistics group, and PortConnect, an online cargo management system.
The network described here is central to the Port’s value proposition –
its ability to provide customers with highly efficient, integrated supply
chains. Maintaining this network is integral to not only the Port’s
commercial competitiveness, but also its long-term climate resilience.
Key import and export commodities
Port of Tauranga’s business model has been shaped in large part by
its focus on servicing a range of key commodities responsible for
the majority of annual cargo volumes and revenue. Export cargoes,
responsible for around 65% of all Port volumes, include:
• Logs and other forestry products (approximately 51% of total
export volumes)
• Kiwifruit (approximately 14% of total export volumes)
• Dairy exports, including milk powder (approximately 13%
of total export volumes)
• Other, mostly containerised, cargo (approximately 23%
of total export volumes).
Imports fluctuate from year to year, but typically make up around
a third of Port cargo volumes. Key import commodities include:
• Liquid fuel imports (approximately 17% of total import volumes)
• Stock feed imports (around 15% of total import volumes)
• Other, mostly containerised, cargo (nearly 68% of total
import volumes).
Port of Tauranga’s climate change strategy
Port of Tauranga is preparing for the physical impacts of climate
change while supporting the decarbonisation of its operations and
wider supply chain.
Its diverse portfolio of cargoes, operations, assets and revenue sources
supports resilience to a changing climate. It continues to monitor
changing cargo trends and invest in infrastructure and capability to
accommodate larger, more efficient vessels.
As New Zealand’s international hub port, Port of Tauranga is currently
the only New Zealand port able to accommodate the largest container
vessels visiting the country. The second stage of its shipping channel
deepening project is under way and expected to be completed by
mid-2027, enabling vessels in excess of 12,000 TEU.*
The Port’s national network of inland freight hubs and regional
ports, connected by road, rail and coastal shipping, provides
importers and exporters with lower-emissions pathways to and
from international markets.
The Port is also progressing the decarbonisation of its own operations
through electrification, automation and lower-emission marine vessels,
including New Zealand’s first fully electric straddle carrier, to be trialled
in FY2027, and a new hybrid tug currently under construction.
In accordance with the Climate-related Disclosures framework,
Port of Tauranga has prepared a detailed Transition Plan describing
how climate change is expected to affect the Port’s business model
and strategy, and how it will respond. Progress against the Plan,
together with management responses to specific climate-related
risks and opportunities, is outlined later in this report.
*TEU = twenty foot equivalent units, a standard measure of shipping containers.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
16
Port of Tauranga Limited

Port of Tauranga-specific climate scenarios
Port of Tauranga has developed three climate scenarios to identify and assess its
climate-related risks and opportunities across short, medium and long-term time horizons.
Climate-related risks and opportunities have been categorised as being
driven by either physical impacts (acute and chronic) or impacts from
the transition to a lower-carbon future.
As outlined in the Time horizons section, Port of Tauranga’s time
horizons reflect its business model and planning cycles:
• Short-term: 0-5 years
• Medium-term: 5-25 years
• Long-term: 25-50 years.
Port of Tauranga’s three chosen scenarios are not predictive or
probabilistic forecasts but aim to provide plausible futures to enable
the Port to identify climate-related risks and opportunities and test
the resilience of its business model and strategy.
Scenario development
The Port’s three climate scenarios were developed with assistance
from external experts and input from external stakeholders to
challenge and test the assumptions and findings of each scenario.
The Port has sourced data and information from the New Zealand
Climate Change Commission (CCC), Earth Sciences New Zealand
(formerly NIWA), Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)
scenarios, the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Shared Socioeconomic
Pathways (SSP) and other sources.
The three scenarios are:
• Orderly: global warming is kept to 1.4 degrees Celsius by 2100
• Disorderly: global warming is kept to 2.6 degrees Celsius by 2100
• Hothouse: global warming reaches 3.9 degrees Celsius by 2100.
They draw on the Aotearoa Circle sector scenarios most relevant to
the Port, namely:
• Transport sector, applicable to the Port’s broader freight and logistics
operations as well as liquid fuel imports
• Agricultural sector, applicable to all of the Port’s key export
commodities (logs and other forestry, dairy, kiwifruit) as well as stock
feed imports
• Energy sector, applicable to the future of freight and shipping energy
(e.g. alternative fuels), shore power, and liquid fuel imports.
A comparative analysis enabled the downscaling of the relevant
elements, such as emissions trajectories, to the Port level in a coherent
and internally consistent way. Various methods were used to unpack
and rationalise how each scenario might play out.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
17
Port of Tauranga Limited

Port of Tauranga climate scenarios: defining features and characteristics
ScenarioOrderly – 1.4°C at 2100Disorderly – 2.6°C at 2100Hothouse – 3.9°C at 2100
Macro context
Globally
Ambitious and coordinated international action leads to the
world promptly and decisively shifting to a more sustainable,
low-emission, and inclusive path, which prioritises ensuring global
and domestic economies respect planetary boundaries.
Action is delayed until 2032, when a spate of severe weather events
and missed Paris Agreement targets push many countries to rapidly
implement stringent policies aligned with reducing emissions to net
zero as soon as possible. Not all countries take equal action.
Conflict and economic disruption in the 2020s and 2030s lead to
geopolitical division that stalls effective climate action and drives
prioritisation of energy and food security. Global mitigation action
falters and fossil fuel use continues as a result. Some abatement
occurs as a by-product of energy security and resilience concerns.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s transition is coordinated and immediate. Emission
reduction occurs across all sectors, driven by clearly signalled policy
changes and proactive sector-led initiatives aligned with achieving net
zero emissions by 2050. Initial transition momentum is catalysed by
ambitious policies that are implemented immediately and become
gradually more stringent in the lead up to 2050.
New Zealand follows suit to keep up with and retain access to export
markets. Stringent and blunt mitigation policies are introduced over a
shorter timeframe, often in poorly coordinated fashion. Prioritisation
of emissions reduction is required to achieve revised targets. The
resulting transition comes at a higher level of cost, disruption, and
inequity across society, and between sectors and regions.
New Zealand joins the rest of the world in prioritising food and energy
security. As a result, no additional mitigation policies are implemented
from the late 2020s onwards. Faced with high costs and disrupted
global markets, the focus shifts to adaptation and ensuring food
production remains high despite increasingly severe physical climate
impacts.
Reference
scenarios and
data sources
NGFS: Net Zero 2050 CCC Tailwinds
SSP1-1.9
Tū-ā-pae (Orderly) Agriculture Sector Scenario and the Fully
Charged Transport Sector Scenario are both aligned with the above.
The Port also elected to base its Orderly scenario on the above,
using SSP1-2.6 for physical climate projections.
2
NGFS: Delayed Transition CCC Headwinds
SSP2-4.5
Tū-ā-hopo (Disorderly) Agriculture Sector Scenario aligns with
the above in full. The selected SSP deviates from the Short Detour
Transport Sector Scenario (which uses SSP2-2.6 projections).
2
NGFS: Current Policies CCC Current policy reference
SSP3-7.0
The Bypass to Breakdown Transport Sector Scenario aligns with the
above in full. The selected SSP reference scenario deviates from the
Tū-ā-tapape (Hothouse) Agriculture Sector Scenario (which is based
on SSP5-8.5).
2
Policy ambition
and response
Ambition: 1.5°C aligned (highly ambitious)
Response: Immediate, becoming gradually more stringent; smooth;
coordinated and well signalled (internationally and domestically).
Ambition: 2°C aligned (low ambition to 2032, then highly ambitious)
Response: Delayed until 2032; then swift and stringent but disorderly;
variable/differentiated between nations.
Ambition: ≥ 3.0°C (low ambition)
Response: No further mitigation policy; adaptation focused policy
response becomes stringent over time.
Temperature
outcomes
Global mean annual change: NZ mean annual change:
1.6°C at 2050 2031–2050: 0.7°C
1.4°C at 2100 2081–2100: 0.7°C–1°C
Global mean annual change: NZ mean annual change:
2.0°C at 2050 2031–2050: 0.7–0.9°C
2.6°C at 2100 2081–2100: 1.3–1.4°C
Global mean annual change: NZ mean annual change:
2.5°C at 2050 2031–2050: 0.9–1.1°C
3.9°C at 2100 2081–2100: 2.8–3.1°C
Market response
and behaviour
changes
GDP: moderate to high impacts
short-term then eases. Lower
household consumption offset
by significant and sustained
transition capital investments.
High pressure to decarbonise:
rapidly mainstreams across
customer, investor, lender, and
insurer preferences (particularly
in developed economies).
GDP: High impact medium-
term. Consumer consumption
reduction is greater. Transition
capital investment softer due to
capital and resource constraints.
Orderly analogous but delayed
and more stringent/abrupt: due
to the shorter timeframe sectors,
investors, lenders and insurers
have to decarbonise.
GDP: relatively unaffected
short-term. Medium to long-
term impacts high to extreme
due to the physical effects and
adaptation related transition.
Slow and delayed: mitigation
over the long-term. Access to
capital and insurance becomes
increasingly difficult over time due
to physical impacts.
Impact severity
Short-term: Medium-term: Long-term:Short-term: Medium-term: Long-term:Short-term: Medium-term: Long-term:
Physical impacts
Low Low/Moderate ModerateLow Moderate HighLow Moderate/High High/Extreme
Transition impacts
Moderate/High Moderate LowLow/Moderate High/Extreme Low/ModerateLow Moderate High
(adaptation only) (adaptation only)
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
18
Port of Tauranga Limited

Climate-related risks and opportunities for Port of Tauranga
In accordance with the reporting requirements in NZ CS1 and NZ CS3, the Port has (subject to practical limitations)
identified and assessed a detailed list of climate-related risks and opportunities across the value chains it forms part of.
The depth and specificity with which climate-related risks and
opportunities have been identified and assessed, including at each Port
of Tauranga site and across the value chains of key export and import
commodities, were guided by the following considerations:
• The assessed level of materiality on capital or revenue value-at-risk
basis (as applicable), and/or strategic importance
• The availability of information and data (i.e. as a lack of data can
inhibit a more detailed assessment)
• Other practical limitations (e.g. it is not possible to assess every
import and export on a value chain basis).
The Port applies the Exposure–Vulnerability–Impact method when
assessing each climate-related risk and opportunity set out in this
disclosure (under the assessment stage of its five stage approach) and
in line with best practice (e.g. ISO 14091 and XRB guidance). Refer
to the Port’s Climate-related Disclosure FY2025 for full detail on this
method and its approach to rating exposure, vulnerability and impact.
How to read the impact ratings: The ratings format on each page
is carried forward from FY2025. It shows the level of exposure and
potential impact under each scenario and time horizon, before the
Port’s management response. This year’s Anticipated impacts column
goes a step further. It considers how the Port, its customers and the
wider system are likely to respond, and concludes whether a material
financial impact on the Port is expected. A higher rating can therefore
sit alongside a conclusion that the financial impact on the Port is not
expected to be material.
Direct climate-related risks and opportunities
The Port elected to identify and assess current and anticipated climate-
related risks and opportunities that its assets and operations are directly
exposed to:
• At the individual asset level for those with a capital value of $5 million
or more, and/or critical to operations
• At the asset category level (e.g. for plant and equipment, lower-value
assets, and underground infrastructure)
• On a site and category basis for key Port operations.
Indirect climate-related risks and opportunities
Climate-related risks and opportunities arising across a given value
chain can generate knock-on impacts that materially affect the Port.
These indirect climate-related risks and opportunities were identified
and assessed at a relatively granular level by:
• Identifying and mapping the key segments of each value chain
• Identifying the climate hazards and transition drivers that key
segments of each value chain are, or may become, exposed to over
the relevant time horizons
• Deriving a long list of potential climate-related risks and opportunities
to be considered as part of the Port’s scenario analysis.
Containerised goods, lower volume commodities and bulk imports
and exports were also addressed. However, because of the practical
limitations, this entailed a much higher level assessment of upstream
(supply chain) and downstream (market access and demand) climate-
related risks and opportunities.
Joint ventures
In FY2025, Port of Tauranga carried out a climate-related risk and
opportunity assessment for its joint ventures at the same level of
granularity applied to wholly owned Port assets in FY2024. This
provided a detailed understanding of how broadly comparable risk
and opportunity profiles vary across joint venture sites, capturing
site-specific physical and transition nuances for PrimePort Timaru and
Northport Group.
The analysis also expanded the scope of identified risks and
opportunities, although joint ventures collectively represent about 9.6%
of total Group asset value. The largest individual investment in a joint
venture company, Northport Group, comprises 5.4% of the Group’s
total asset base.
Transition planning
Envisioning success under each of the Port’s climate-related scenarios
was a critical step in transition planning (as outlined in the XRB’s
guidance for strategy formulation under deep uncertainty).
Building on the Port’s FY2024 and FY2025 climate risk assessment and
scenario analysis, transition planning used the Port’s climate scenarios
to stress-test how its strategy may perform under a range of plausible
future conditions. The assessment considered potential risks and
opportunities across three high-impact areas — Port infrastructure,
national and international freight networks, and import and export
commodity trends — and explored the resilience of existing strategies,
potential areas for strategic or risk-management adjustment, and
opportunities to strengthen adaptive capacity. These insights informed
the Port’s transition objectives and its response to climate-related risks
and opportunities.
The FY2025 current response and transition measures reported against
each climate-related risk and opportunity were reviewed, with only
minor updates where initiatives were completed. Detailed progress on
near-term priorities is provided in the Transition Plan Summary section
of this report.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
19
Port of Tauranga Limited

Risk/opportunity summaryTime horizonOrderlyDisorderlyHothouse
Direct Risks (“DR”) – Physical
DR1: Increased wear and tear and risk of acute
damage to Port sites and assets.
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term impact
ratings depicted only)
DR2: Increasing instances of disruption to Port
operations (non-flood related).
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term impact
ratings depicted only)
DR3: Heightened risk of flood related damage
and disruption.
Long-term
DR4: Increasing risk of disruption to road and
rail access.
Long-term
DR5: Risk to harbour access, wharves and
loading/unloading capability.
Long-term
Indirect Risks (“IDR”) – Physical
IDR1.A: Increasing seasonal variability and
gradual decline in dairy export commodity
supply.
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term impact
ratings depicted only)
IDR1.B: Increasing seasonal variability and
gradual decline in forestry and related forestry
product export commodity supply.
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term impact
ratings depicted only)
IDR1.C: Increasing seasonal variability and
gradual decline in kiwifruit export commodity
supply.
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term impact
ratings depicted only)
IDR2: Reduced availability and/or increased
cost of imported stock feed.
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term impact
ratings depicted only)
Risk/opportunity summaryTime horizonOrderlyDisorderlyHothouse
Direct Opportunities (“DO”) – Transition
DO1: Structural changes to New Zealand’s
national freight system (road to multi-modal).
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term impact
ratings depicted only)
DO2: Introduction of larger low carbon
shipping vessels.
Short – Medium-term
(Medium-term impact
ratings depicted only)
Indirect Risks and Opportunities (“IDR/IDO”) – Transition
IDR3: Reduced demand for dairy export
commodities.
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term risk
ratings depicted only)
IDR4: CBAM and climate regulation impacts on
commodity exports.
Short – Medium-term
(Medium-term risk
ratings depicted only)
IDR5: Decarbonisation of New Zealand’s
transport system and broader energy systems.
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term risk ratings
depicted only)
IDO1: Increased demand for logs and other
forestry export commodities.
Medium – Long-term
(Long-term impact
ratings depicted only)
IDO2: Impacts of climate migration and
transition on demand for imported goods.
Short – Long-term
(Medium-term impact
ratings depicted only)
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related opportunities
Material
HighVery high
Snapshot of key climate-related risks and opportunities
for Port of Tauranga
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
20
Port of Tauranga Limited

How direct physical risks vary across Port Group sites
This page outlines how site-specific exposure, vulnerability, and anticipated impacts are assessed to vary across the Port’s national
network of wholly owned and joint venture-owned sites. No additional material physical risks have been identified beyond DR1–DR5.
However, differences in location, assets and operations influence how these risks may affect individual sites. Understanding these
differences helps assess the significance of risks at each site and prioritise appropriate management responses.
Hamilton
Auckland
Christchurch
Timaru
Whangārei
Port of Tauranga
New Zealand’s largest port and international
freight hub.
Container terminal, bulk/breakbulk cargo wharves
and bunkering/bulk liquids facilities. Extensive
cargo storage and handling facilities.
Rail connections to Hamilton, Auckland and the
central North Island.
Extensive road networks (State Highways 2 and
29) and coastal shipping connections.
Tauranga
MetroPort Auckland
Operated by KiwiRail, MetroPort Auckland is an
inland port in the heart of Auckland’s commercial
and industrial area.
MetroPort Auckland is connected by rail to
Tauranga and Hamilton, providing a critical link
for containerised import and export volumes
moving to and from New Zealand’s largest city
and economic centre.
Ruakura Inland Port
Inland port connected by rail to Tauranga
and Auckland.
Part of the Ruakura Superhub logistics and industrial
precinct, creating an integrated supply chain solution
for both importers and exporters.
Ruakura Inland Port is a joint venture between
Port of Tauranga and Tainui Group Holdings and
is managed by Port of Tauranga’s subsidiary
QM Logistics.
Timaru Container Terminal
Timaru Container Terminal is a containerised
regional terminal.
Timaru Container Terminal, within PrimePort Timaru,
has direct shipping links to the international hub port
at Tauranga and is operated by Port of Tauranga’s
subsidiary QM Logistics.
Northport Group
Northport Group consists of Northport, Marsden
Cove Marina and an adjacent business park.
Northport is a deep water commercial port near
Whangārei. The business park has significant future
development potential. Northport Group is 50%
owned by Port of Tauranga with Northland Regional
Council owning 43% and Tupu Tonu (Ngāpuhi
Investment Fund) owning 7%.
MetroPort Christchurch
MetroPort Christchurch is an intermodal freight
hub at Rolleston.
Operated by Timaru Container T
erminal, it has rail
connections to the terminal and the rest of the
South Island, as well as links to State Highways.
It is also home to a large warehouse.
PrimePort Timaru
Port of Tauranga has a 50% shareholding
in PrimePort Timaru.
PrimePort handles bulk cargoes and is home to
a major cement facility and oil terminal. PrimePort
benefits from key rail and state highway links along
the east coast of the South Island.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
21
Port of Tauranga Limited

Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Non-flood acute hazards: heavy/extreme rainfall, wind and storm events, with projected
changes in severity, frequency, duration and/or spatial extent, as applicable.
Aggravating chronic hazards: rising average temperatures and the average number of hot
days per year (>25°C), increasing solar radiation, and warmer, wetter winters
The following assets and infrastructure are exposed to acute weather hazards and aggravating chronic factors
across Port Group, joint venture and part-owned sites: (a) buildings (e.g. wharf sheds, offices, cold stores and
prefabricated structures); (b) wharves and structures; (c) pavements, hardstand areas and other ground improvements;
(d) utilities and services; and (e) plant and equipment (e.g. cranes, straddle carriers and marine fleet).
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Projected increases in the severity,
frequency, duration and spatial extent of
heavy and extreme wind, rain and storm
events are expected to increase physical
stress on Port assets and infrastructure,
via three main impact pathways:
• Accelerated wear and tear:
Repeated or compound storm
loading, including wind loading
and rain-driven moisture ingress,
may accelerate deterioration and
corrosion of exposed components,
increasing maintenance and minor
repair requirements.
• Reduced expected useful life:
Repeated and cumulative physical
stress may shorten the expected
service life of affected assets and
infrastructure, bringing forward
renewal or replacement.
• Higher likelihood of acute asset
damage: More severe non-flood
events may cause major damage
to exposed assets that needs
significant repair or replacement,
beyond routine maintenance.
Secondary chronic stresses,
particularly increasing temperatures
and solar radiation, and warmer/
wetter winters, are also expected
to produce additional physical
stressors that contribute directly
to wear and useful-life reduction
through thermal-, moisture- and
corrosion-related deterioration. This
deterioration can amplify the affected
asset’s sensitivity to acute loading,
while acute stress can further
accelerate existing deterioration.
How DR1 affects the Port in practice is expected to depend principally
on the following asset-base, sensitivity and resilience characteristics:
• Asset mix: Buildings and fixed civil and ground-improvement
assets (pavements, hardstand and wharves) account for more
than 80% of the total value of assets exposed to DR1 and
have the strongest identified impact pathways linking primary
acute-hazard exposure (as amplified by higher temperatures and
wetter winters) to significant asset deterioration or damage.
• Changing exposure and sensitivity over time: By the time
meaningful above-baseline DR1 effects are expected to emerge
(see Anticipated impacts), remaining useful-life estimates of
current exposed assets, together with the Port’s ongoing trend
towards fewer buildings at the main Port site, indicate that
a meaningful share of today’s assets are likely to have been
renewed or replaced before the relevant timeframe. Where
appropriate, replaced or redeveloped assets will also be built to
higher performance standards that improve resilience to DR1
impacts. For example, when renewing or replacing pavements,
hardstand and other ground improvements, the Port can adjust
their materials and design to suit warmer, wetter conditions,
improving resilience over their next service life.
• Sensitivity and inherent resilience: Port assets have
demonstrated a high level of inherent resilience to historical
acute events, although more severe future conditions may
exceed that resilience. Buildings, particularly large-span wind-
sensitive structures, are generally more susceptible to both
cumulative deterioration and acute damage. Fixed civil and
ground-improvement assets are generally more resilient but
account for the largest share of DR1-exposed asset value; more
gradual, dispersed deterioration across extensive, operationally
important pavements and hardstand can still generate
meaningful aggregate maintenance and renewal pressures.
• Acute damage and insurance: For acute damage to generate a
material financial impact, several conditions would need to align:
worsening events would need to cause sufficiently significant
capital damage, insurance protection would need to reduce
enough for a meaningful share of losses to remain with the Port,
and those uninsured losses would then need to become too
large or recurrent for the Port to contain or pass on.
Of DR1’s three impact pathways, accelerated wear and tear and reduced useful life are
expected to be the more likely sources of material financial impact, reflected in above-
baseline maintenance and repair Opex and, where renewal or replacement of all or part of
an asset remains necessary, brought-forward renewal Capex. Acute asset damage remains
contingent: a material impact would arise as major repair, remediation, reinstatement or
replacement costs, but only to the extent losses are neither insured nor able to be passed on.
Timing: Based on the rate at which acute climate hazards, the primary driver of DR1, and
secondary chronic stresses are projected to increase under NIWA’s downscaled CMIP6
modelling, material DR1 impacts are not anticipated before 2040 across all Port scenarios
3
,
as uplift in the relevant hazards before then is projected to be generally limited and gradual,
although the intensity of selected upper-tail acute events is projected to increase within that
period. Even if hazard uplift becomes material, resulting deterioration would likely take time
to accumulate before maintenance and minor-repair requirements increase above baseline,
to levels that could have a demonstrable impact on cost. The same deterioration may also
progressively shorten remaining useful life, potentially alongside increased maintenance, but
its financial effect is expected to emerge later still – i.e. once it becomes clear that renewal or
replacement will need to be brought forward due to physical stress arising under DR1.
Evolving asset base: Allowing for the time expected before hazard uplift becomes material,
and the further time expected before the resulting deterioration increases maintenance
and minor-repair requirements above baseline, recorded remaining useful lives indicate
that approximately 60–70% of assessed buildings and 50–80% of fixed civil and ground-
improvement assets, by value, are expected still to be in service. Turnover before then
would therefore leave less of today’s more sensitive assets exposed to DR1 impacts,
although useful lives are indicative and longer service lives could leave more exposed.
Scenarios: Against that evolving asset base, Hothouse (SSP3-7.0) presents the clearest
potential for material maintenance and renewal impacts from the late medium-term into
the long term, as heavier rainfall and stronger warming increase cumulative physical stress.
That potential is lower and more uncertain under Disorderly (SSP2-4.5). Material net costs
from acute capital damage are also a long-term possibility, particularly under Hothouse and
potentially under Disorderly, if insurance retreat leaves losses the Port cannot contain or
pass on. Orderly (SSP1-2.6) remains below materiality on the current assessment.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Current response: Over the past six years
the Port has been assessing and building
the evidence base for its asset and site
resilience (with regard to sea-level rise,
stormwater and servicing infrastructure
and/or flooding).
Development decisions pre-1990s
established a good baseline of inherent
resilience in current assets, and the Port
continues to assess, plan and invest
accordingly for future resilience.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient
infrastructure fit for a changing climate.
Near-term priorities:
• All future infrastructure developments
are designed to take into account
the impacts from expected climate
change and ensure long-term
resilience.
• Continue to build the Port’s evidence
base and monitoring, including
identifying and addressing any further
gaps in impact and risk monitoring
and research. Supported by
integration of CRR/Os and transition
activities in the Port’s risk and strategic
management frameworks and
practice.
• Outline consistent expectations for
subsidiaries to align with objectives for
resilient, future-ready infrastructure.
Short to medium-term goals:
• The Port’s infrastructure vision,
investment and planning ensure
climate resilience.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
DR1: Increased wear and tear and risk of acute damage to Port sites and assets
Increasing severity, frequency, duration and spatial extent of rainfall, wind and storm events is likely to place growing physical stress on Port Group
sites and assets. Wind loading, moisture ingress, corrosion and humidity may accelerate wear and tear and reduce useful life on vulnerable assets.
In more severe events, this could separately cause significant damage to critical assets.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
22
Port of Tauranga Limited

Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
DR2: Increasing instances of disruption to Port operations (non-flood related)
Increasing severity, frequency, duration and spatial extent of rainfall, wind and storm events is expected to interrupt critical Port Group operations more often and
for longer, including vessel servicing and freight handling between ships, storage and landside transport. If sufficiently sustained or recurrent, these disruptions may
increase affected operating costs and degrade service levels enough to affect freight volumes through shipping-line port-call or customer freight-routing decisions.
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Non-flood acute hazards: heavy/extreme rainfall, wind/gust and storm events, with projected
changes in severity, frequency, duration and/or spatial extent varying by hazard and season.
The following operations are critical functions sensitive to acute weather hazards across Port Group, joint ventures and
part-owned sites: (a) ship entry/exit, pilot and tug operations, landing/berthing, lines (“Marine Services”); (b) loading and unloading
vessels, including crane operations; (c) straddle carrier and reach stacker operations (containerised freight only); (d) container
storage; and (e) receiving, dispatching and marshalling (all freight). (a) and (b) coastal sites only: Port of Tauranga (Sulphur Point
and Mount Maunganui), Timaru Container Terminal, Northport (Marsden Point), PrimePort Timaru.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Projected increases in the severity,
frequency, duration and spatial extent
of non-flood acute climate hazards are
expected to cause more frequent and
longer pauses or slowdowns, particularly
across the Port’s most weather-sensitive
operations, namely Marine Services,
crane use and container handling.
Further FY26 analysis has identified two
main impact pathways through which
DR2 may affect the Port financially:
• Increasing cost to serve: Even where
delays are recovered, maintaining
or restoring service may increase
operating costs through standby,
overtime and catch-up work,
escalating further where the Port
cannot recover before the next
disruption or peak demand window.
• Changes in freight volumes (positive
or negative): As outlined in FY2025,
this pathway is considered plausible
where DR2 disruption events become
frequent, severe and/or prolonged
enough that the Port faces increasing
instances of being unable to absorb
and recover before shipping lines
and/or customers are demonstrably
affected. Freight flows may then alter
through two distinct channels:
• Shipping-line port-call decisions:
Shipping lines may change or
consolidate calling patterns (e.g.
reactively skip or redirect individual
calls from ports experiencing
comparatively greater DR2
disruption or, where DR2-type
disruption across New Zealand
ports on a vessel’s rotation
materially raises cumulative
waiting time and cost, make
How impacts arise in practice is expected to depend on a number
of the Port’s strategic, infrastructure and operational characteristics,
including:
• Its resilience to DR2 disruption relative to many ports competing
for the affected freight, based on its comparative abilities to:
• limit disruption, by having crane infrastructure with higher
wind operating tolerances than at many competing ports;
• absorb disruption, by operating a multi-cargo model that
allows unaffected activities to continue in parallel or be
brought forward while disrupted operations are constrained or
prevented; and
• recover from disruption, by deploying additional existing
cranes on delayed vessels to accelerate loading and unloading
and clear backlogs promptly.
• Its strategic positioning as New Zealand’s international hub
port, with an integrated network connecting sea and inland
ports via rail, road and coastal shipping, creating conditions
expected to favour the Port receiving additional freight if DR2
disruption prompts shipping lines to redirect or consolidate calls.
Its comparative strengths in crane capacity and larger-vessel
capability (DO2) reinforce that position. The same network also
provides a point-to-point efficiency advantage that can outweigh
additional DR2 delays, limiting the potential for DR2 to cause a
material loss of freight volumes via customer-led rerouting, while
equally supporting the potential for a material gain where one or
more competing ports are comparatively less resilient to DR2.
• Its financial and operational capacity to expand handling and
recovery where commercially justified, helping it manage
increasing disruption and accommodate redirected or
concentrated freight.
Beyond these characteristics, differences in harbour characteristics
and vessel-access constraints (e.g. shelter from wind and swell, and
vessel-specific tidal windows) are also expected to affect Tauranga’s
ability, relative to competing ports, to maintain or resume vessel
movements where a DR2 disruption event has occurred, and in
that sense represent a further variable in relative resilience to DR2
disruption, although their implications for the Port are yet to be
established.
Of DR2’s two impact pathways, freight-volume changes likely have the greater potential
to generate material financial impacts: freight throughput drives the Port’s principal
revenue base, whereas any increase in cost-to-serve Opex is a narrower, above-baseline
effect expected to be moderated by cost pass-through, together with additional storage
revenue where DR2-related delays leave freight on Port sites for longer.
For the freight-volume pathway, the strategic, infrastructure and operational advantages
unique to the Port are expected, on balance, to make it more likely to retain or gain
freight than to lose it through either channel:
• Shipping-line port-call decisions: Expected to be the more likely and earlier of
the two channels, given shipping lines’ more direct exposure to cumulative delay
and cost across rotations. Reactive redirection is expected first, with the Port’s
identified comparative resilience advantages supporting capture of calls redirected
from more affected ports. Should calls later consolidate, its hub role, larger-vessel
capability and capacity to expand handling would support a greater share of the
concentrated freight.
• Customer freight-routing: Expected to favour retention, given the point-to-point
efficiency advantage of the Port’s integrated national network, with scope for gain
where a competing port proves comparatively less resilient. Leakage would require
that advantage to erode and a competing port to prove materially more resilient to
DR2 — a comparison that cannot presently be assessed with confidence.
Scenarios: Consistent with DR1, uplift in the relevant acute hazards is expected to
remain limited and gradual before 2040. Hothouse (SSP3-7.0) presents the clearest
potential for reactive redirection and longer-term hub-and-spoke consolidation to
emerge from the late medium-term into the long term, although both the timing and
scale of the resulting freight-related revenue effect remain uncertain. That potential is
lower and more uncertain under Disorderly (SSP2-4.5). Customer-led freight volume loss
is most plausible under Hothouse and, to a lesser extent, Disorderly. Orderly (SSP1-2.6) is
expected to generate limited DR2-driven pressure: occasional reactive redirection may
still occur, but any resulting hub-and-spoke consolidation is more likely to reflect DO1/
DO2 dynamics than DR2. A residual cost-to-serve effect may also arise under Orderly,
but is not expected to be material.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Current response: Existing operational
capacity and hazard controls, particularly
at the Tauranga sites, are demonstrated
during peak demand occurrences and
overlap. Backlogs are cleared often and
efficiently. Business continuity and crisis
management planning is undertaken,
including regular simulations and testing of
the Port’s response.
Combined with the Port’s entrenched
strategic role as New Zealand’s primary
international freight hub, with strong
nationwide intermodal connectivity, it
has good capacity to deploy a range of
adaptation measures and additional hazard
controls identified under all Port scenarios.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient
infrastructure fit for a changing climate,
and:
• Support our workforce, stakeholders
and communities
• Remain adaptive and responsive as the
transition unfolds.
Near-term priorities:
• Ensure business continuity planning
incorporates relevant climate-related
risks when developing and stress-testing
response. This also supports well-
integrated risk management.
• Ensure existing emergency response
across direct and outsourced labour is
fit-for-purpose under different climate
futures and/or stressors.
• Ensure current and future workforce
planning is integrated with transition
planning, to make sure the Port’s people
are looked after through future of work,
technology, and operational health and
safety changes.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
23
Port of Tauranga Limited

Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
DR2: Increasing instances of disruption to Port operations (non-flood related) (continued)
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
a longer-term strategic shift
towards a hub-and-spoke
model by concentrating cargo
through fewer ports and using
transhipment).
• Customer freight-routing:
Customers may reroute freight
to or from the Port (e.g. away,
where sustained disruption makes
an alternative end-to-end logistics
option materially more attractive,
or towards the Port, where its
comparatively lower disruption
makes it the more attractive option).
Short to medium-term goals:
• Deliver long-term value for investors
through leading environmental and
ethical performance, business resilience
and sound financial management.
• Understand and deliver on our
customers’ needs and create innovative
supply chain solutions. Deliver on our
promises, provide superior service and
grow together.
• Completing the Stella Passage
development will increase berth
capacity at both the Tauranga Container
Terminal and Mount Maunganui multi-
cargo operations which will improve
the Port’s ability to recover from periods
of disruption.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
24
Port of Tauranga Limited

Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
DR3: Heightened risk of flood-related damage and disruption
Rising sea levels and intensifying rainfall, wind and storm events may increase the depth, extent, frequency and duration of pluvial and coastal flooding at Port sites.
Flooding may temporarily restrict freight storage and handling areas, potentially increasing operating costs and, if sustained, affecting throughput and service levels.
Where vulnerable assets remain exposed, flooding may also damage pavements, buildings, utilities and other infrastructure, creating repair or reinstatement costs.
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Acute: heavy/extreme rainfall, wind and storm events, with projected changes in severity,
frequency, duration and/or spatial extent, as applicable.
Chronic: sea-level rise.
Resulting hazards: pluvial and coastal flooding.
All exposed Port Group, joint venture and part-owned sites
4
: (a) buildings; (b) pavements, hardstand and other
ground improvements; (c) utilities and services; (d) plant and equipment; and (e) operations depending on access
to and use of materially affected assets or operational areas. These sites are Port of Tauranga (Sulphur Point and
Mount Maunganui Wharf), Timaru Container Terminal, Northport (Marsden Point) and PrimePort Timaru.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Projected sea-level rise, combined with
projected increases in the severity, frequency,
duration and spatial extent of heavy and extreme
rain, wind and storm events, is expected to
increase the depth, footprint, frequency and
duration of pluvial and coastal flooding at
exposed Port sites. Pluvial flooding occurs
when rainfall exceeds site and network drainage
capacity and/or high storm-tide levels restrict
stormwater outfall; coastal flooding occurs
when elevated sea levels from sea-level rise,
storm surge and wind-driven waves push water
onto land. Further FY2026 analysis has identified
two financial impact pathways for DR3:
• Flood damage to assets and infrastructure:
Flooding that reaches Port assets
may cause damage requiring repair,
remediation, reinstatement or replacement.
Representative examples include:
• Buildings: water damage to susceptible
internal linings, floor finishes, insulation,
low-level fittings and fixed plant, and
damage or contamination of water-
sensitive contents.
• Pavements and hardstand: localised
deterioration or deformation under
loading where water ingress weakens or
erodes susceptible pavement layers or
underlying support.
• Utilities and services: water damage to
susceptible electrical, mechanical and
control components, with additional
contamination and corrosion where
seawater enters.
• Temporary restriction or loss of
operational areas: Flooding may render
affected operational areas unsafe, restricted
or temporarily unusable until clean-up,
inspection and any repairs are completed,
disrupting operations that depend on them.
How DR3 affects the Port in practice is expected to depend principally
on the following exposure, asset and resilience characteristics:
• Extent and nature of exposure: Flood exposure at Tauranga
is limited to discrete low-lying areas at southern Sulphur Point
and the fringes of the Mount log-marshalling area. At the
Mount, the exposed hardstand is relatively flood-resilient and
used for log marshalling, a comparatively low-sensitivity use
with limited potential for material damage, leaving southern
Sulphur Point as the principal focus for potential asset damage.
• Changing exposure and sensitivity over time: In line with
the Port’s ongoing trend towards fewer buildings, most of
today’s buildings within the exposed southern Sulphur Point
area are expected to have been removed, and are unlikely
to be replaced, before material flood damage becomes
plausible (see Anticipated impacts). Fixed civil and ground-
improvement assets (pavements and hardstand) and utilities
and services will nevertheless remain exposed. Where assets
are instead replaced or redeveloped, they will be built to higher
performance standards that improve resilience to DR3 impacts.
Any new building works are also subject to applicable elevation
requirements, which reduce future flood exposure.
• Sensitivity and inherent resilience: Assets that remain exposed
during the relevant flood-exposure timeframe, in particular,
fixed civil and ground-improvement assets and utilities and
services, are relatively flood-resilient compared to most other
asset classes. Should any buildings also remain, they are generally
basic sheds and workshops whose build and materials make them
less sensitive to inundation than more water-sensitive building
types. Under conditions to date, the Port’s current stormwater
system materially limits whether rainfall develops into persistent
or widespread pluvial flooding. Although flood-related disruption
history is limited, the Port can generally absorb and recover
relatively quickly from comparable short-lived disruptions.
Acute damage and insurance: For acute damage to generate a
material financial impact, several conditions would need to align:
severe flooding would first need to cause sufficiently significant
capital damage to the assets that remain, insurance response would
need to leave a meaningful share of losses with the Port, and those
residual losses would then need to become too large or recurrent
for the Port to contain or pass on.
Of DR3’s two impact pathways, temporary restriction or loss of
operational areas remains a valid risk pathway (as it may give rise to
adaptation considerations) but is not expected to generate a material
financial impact. The financial focus is therefore acute flood damage
to assets and infrastructure which, as with acute asset damage under
DR1, remains contingent: a material impact would arise as major repair,
remediation, reinstatement or replacement costs, but only to the extent
losses are neither insured nor able to be passed on.
Timing: Based on the projected rate of increase in the acute hazards and
sea-level rise driving DR3, material DR3 impacts are not anticipated before
mid-century across all Port scenarios. Uplift in the relevant rainfall hazards
is projected before then, but rainfall alone is expected to cause localised
ponding rather than material flood damage to assets and infrastructure,
although rising sea levels may increasingly restrict stormwater outfall. Material
flood damage is more likely to arise from coastal inundation, alone or
combined with heavy rainfall. Projections indicate that coastal inundation is
only plausible from the mid-to-late century under Hothouse and later under
Disorderly at or beyond the end of the Port’s long-term horizon.
Scenarios: Against the timing outlined above, Hothouse presents the
clearest potential for material net costs from acute capital damage over the
long term, as its hazard trajectory brings both the earliest onset of coastal
inundation and the greatest potential for insurance retreat leaving uninsured
costs for the Port to bear (e.g. through broader exclusions for flood-related
damage and loss). Disorderly presents a lower potential for such costs, as
its hazard trajectory brings a later onset of coastal inundation and, although
insurance retreat is also likely, it is expected to be less extensive and may
start later, thereby limiting the chance of uninsured costs for the Port to
bear. However, under both scenarios, the evolving asset base is expected to
dampen that potential, with the vast majority of assets remaining at risk over
the long-term expected to be fixed civil and ground-improvement assets,
which are relatively flood-resilient. Orderly (SSP1-2.6) is unlikely to have a
material impact because coastal inundation, the more likely route to material
acute capital damage, is not considered plausible under this scenario.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Current response: The Port has demonstrated good
capacity to manage potential operational disruptions,
and has mitigation strategies and controls in place.
This enables it to deploy a range of adaptation
measures and additional hazard controls identified
under all Port scenarios.
Transition objectives: Ensure robust and resilient
infrastructure fit for a changing climate, and:
• Support our workforce, stakeholders and communities.
• Remain adaptive and responsive as the transition
unfolds.
Near-term priorities:
• Priorities include future infrastructure
developments, evidence base and monitoring,
and climate-related risk and transition activity
integration across business continuity, emergency
response and workforce planning.
Regarding servicing infrastructure:
• A detailed examination of the impact sea-level rise
may have on the Tauranga and Auckland sites’
stormwater systems.
• Continuing to monitor stormwater system
performance, as and when heavy and extreme
rainfall events arise.
• Review and monitor the effect of sea-level rise on
the harbour and work with key stakeholders when
planning and executing future harbour access
maintenance.
Subsidiaries and joint ventures:
• Engage the wider Group on ambition and
objectives, and expectations that they align their
own organisations with the Port.
Short to medium-term goals:
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and
planning ensure climate resilience.
• Group-wide commitment to managing and
responding to climate-related risks and opportunities.
• Deliver long-term value and provide superior
customer service.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
25
Port of Tauranga Limited

Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
DR4: Increasing risk of disruption to road and rail access
Rising sea levels, together with increasingly severe, frequent, prolonged and widespread rainfall, wind and storm events may increase disruption from flooding,
landslide, and slope instability along key road and rail corridors connecting the Port’s coastal and inland freight network. If sufficiently sustained or recurrent,
these disruptions may increase affected operating costs and, in extreme cases, degrade service reliability enough to reduce Port freight volumes.
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Acute: increasing severity, frequency, duration and spatial extent of heavy/extreme rainfall,
wind and storm events.
Chronic: sea-level rise.
Resulting corridor hazards: pluvial, fluvial and coastal flooding, erosion and landslides/
slope instability.
Key landside access corridors serving exposed Port Group, joint venture and part-owned sites, together with Port operations
dependent on their timely availability: (a) strategic rail corridors; (b) main arterial road corridors; and (c) receiving, dispatching,
marshalling, vessel loading/unloading and intermodal transfers. These sites include Port of Tauranga (Sulphur Point and
Mount Maunganui Wharf), Timaru Container Terminal, Northport (Marsden Point) and PrimePort Timaru. Key external network
dependencies include Ruakura Inland Port and MetroPort Auckland. While relevant exposure exists across the wider strategic
network, the financial impact analysis focuses on the Port of Tauranga sites, which account for more than 90% of Port revenue
at risk, with particular focus on the Auckland–Hamilton–Ruakura–Tauranga rail corridor.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Projected sea-level rise, together with projected
increases in the severity, frequency, duration
and spatial extent of heavy and extreme rainfall,
wind and storm events, is expected to increase
flooding, erosion and slope/land instability across
key landside access corridors. These hazard
increases are likely to cause more frequent
and prolonged interruptions to road or rail by
temporarily restricting or preventing use of
affected corridors. Further FY2026 analysis has
identified two main impact pathways through
which DR4 may affect the Port financially.
However, further work is being undertaken to
establish whether one or both pathways are
capable of generating a material financial impact
in practice:
• Increasing cost to serve: Where disruption
affects key strategic road or rail corridors
carrying material Port freight flows,
maintaining or restoring those flows may
increase operating costs through the
following operational and recovery responses,
particularly where disruption becomes more
prolonged or recurrent:
• Freight-flow workarounds: including
rerouting, rail-to-road substitution/road
bridging and altered scheduling.
• Downstream catch-up and recovery:
where disruption to road or rail ingress
and egress delays or interrupts dependent
Port operations, including receiving/
dispatching, marshalling, yard clearance,
intermodal transfers and vessel loading/
unloading.
How DR4 affects the Port in practice is expected to depend
principally on the following network, operational and strategic
characteristics:
• Concentration in strategic rail corridors: Although both
road and rail networks are exposed to DR4 hazards, road
generally provides greater routing redundancy, while
rail can be more sensitive to localised landslips / slope
instability, inundation and other weather-related damage
that can interrupt service. Timaru also remains exposed
through the Main South Line and port spur; however,
consistent with the financial concentration identified
under Elements at risk, the FY2026 analysis focuses
principally on the Tauranga sites. The Port is particularly
dependent on the Auckland–Hamilton–Ruakura–Tauranga
rail connection, with further FY2026 analysis identifying
the Ruakura–Tauranga section of the East Coast Main
Trunk as having the greatest potential to generate material
DR4 impacts. By comparison, disruption to the East
Coast Main Trunk east of Tauranga, which primarily serves
forestry freight, can be more readily managed through
rail-to-road substitution, as demonstrated during
Cyclone Gabrielle.
• Inherent adaptive capacity and recovery: Existing
resilience across the Port and wider freight system
includes alternative routing, scheduling, storage, corridor
redundancy, rail-to-road substitution / road bridging
(including from Ruakura for containerised freight),
customer coordination and backlog recovery. These
capabilities mean short-lived disruption can generally
be absorbed and recovered from relatively well, while
prolonged or recurrent rail outages may be more difficult
to manage. Rail-to-road substitution and other routing
flexibility would also be constrained where a single
significant event disrupts key road and rail corridors
simultaneously. The Port has operational and recovery
responses available to mitigate the knock-on impacts of
external corridor disruption, but does not operate, control
or own the relevant road and rail corridors.
Of DR4’s two impact pathways,
5
increasing cost to serve is the more plausible
financial impact: it arises directly from the operational and recovery responses
needed to maintain or restore freight flows, whereas reduced freight volumes
through customer-led rerouting are considered a more remote possibility,
for the reasons outlined below. Any increase in cost-to-serve Opex above
current-day baselines would also be expected to be moderated by cost pass-
through, together with additional storage revenue where DR4-related delays
leave freight on Port sites for longer.
For the freight-volume pathway, a material loss is considered plausible
only where DR4 disruption is at the more prolonged or recurrent end of
possible Port climate scenario outcomes (given the Port’s inherent adaptive
capacity and recovery, and the sustained effect on service reliability and
customer commitments that rerouting would first require). Even then, the
Port’s broader relative resilience, including the point-to-point efficiency of its
integrated national network, is expected to favour retention. Leakage would
require repeated disruption to erode that efficiency advantage enough for a
commercially viable alternative port to become materially more attractive.
Scenarios: Consistent with DR1, uplift in the relevant acute hazards is
expected to remain limited and gradual before 2040. Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
presents the clearest potential for a material above-baseline uplift in cost to
serve from the late medium-term into the long-term, although the timing
and scale of any such uplift remain uncertain, in part because the impact
in practice will also depend on the adaptation response of third parties
responsible for the maintenance, repair, and resilience requirements of
key road and rail links. Under this scenario, more frequent and prolonged
disruptions are expected to place increasing demands on the freight-flow
workarounds and downstream catch-up and recovery needed to maintain
or restore freight flows. Disorderly (SSP2-4.5) presents a lower and more
uncertain potential for such an uplift, as its hazard trajectory is expected to
bring a later and less pronounced escalation in disruption. To the extent a
material loss of freight volumes through customer-led rerouting remains
possible, it is currently considered most plausible over the long-term under
Hothouse and, to a lesser extent, Disorderly. Orderly (SSP1-2.6) is expected to
generate limited DR4-driven pressure: a residual cost-to-serve effect may still
arise but is not expected to be material, and a material loss of freight volumes
is not expected, for the reasons outlined above.
Current response: The Port has inherent resilience to
physical risks in current assets and operational capacity
to manage disruptions. It continues to assess, plan and
invest accordingly for future resilience, and develop
disruption mitigation strategies and controls.
Corridor rerouting options and redundancies, and
the Port’s strategic network position, further supports
short-term management of road and rail disruption.
Transition objectives: Ensure robust and resilient
infrastructure fit for a changing climate, and:
• Support our workforce, stakeholders and
communities.
• Remain adaptive and responsive as the transition
unfolds.
The Port endeavours to provide New Zealand shippers
with the lowest emissions supply chain, including the
use of rail over road and accommodating larger, lower
emission ships.
Near-term priorities:
• Future infrastructure developments, evidence
base and monitoring, and climate-related risk
and transition activity integration across business
continuity, emergency response and workforce
planning.
Regarding the wider network:
• Complete the Stella Passage project as part of
the Port’s vision for an integrated, efficient, cost-
effective and resilient Upper North Island supply
chain involving the region’s existing three sea ports
– Tauranga, Auckland and Northport.
• Champion investment in resilient transport
networks, particularly rail, supported by
development of evidence base with key
stakeholders.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
26
Port of Tauranga Limited

How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Reduced freight volumes: Where sustained or
recurrent disruption to key strategic road or rail
corridors makes it more difficult for the Port to
recover before service reliability and customer
commitments are materially affected, customers
may then reroute freight to other ports,
potentially reducing freight volumes captured
through the Port.
Customer freight-routing: The Port’s broader relative
resilience, combining its Port-side abilities to absorb and
recover from disruption (as outlined at DR2) with the point-to-
point efficiencies of its integrated national network, is expected
to limit the potential for DR4 to cause a sustained and material
loss of freight volumes via customer-led rerouting.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Servicing infrastructure:
• Continue to engage with key decision-makers on
the strategic importance of the Port as a lifeline
utility. Share knowledge and insights on climate-
related risk where relevant, to drive awareness and
enhance the importance of adequate investment.
Short to medium-term goals:
• Integrated, efficient, cost-effective and resilient
supply chains for New Zealand.
• Targeted and timely investment in key infrastructure
to support a low-emissions and climate resilient
supply chain.
DR4: Increasing risk of disruption to road and rail access (continued)
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
27
Port of Tauranga Limited

Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
DR5: Risk to harbour access, wharves, and loading/unloading capability
Rising sea levels, amplified or offset by local vertical land movement, may alter tidal flows, sedimentation and scouring, affecting vessel access through harbour
entrances and channels to wharves at Port Group and joint venture-owned coastal sites. This may increase or reduce maintenance-dredging and consenting costs.
Where adverse changes cannot be managed effectively, access restrictions may disrupt loading and unloading, affecting Port service levels and revenue.
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Chronic: sea-level rise.
Acute: increasing severity, frequency, duration and spatial extent of heavy/extreme rainfall,
wind and storm events, events affecting sediment delivery/mobilisation.
All coastal Port Group, joint venture and part-owned sites: Port of Tauranga (Sulphur Point and Mount Maunganui Wharf),
Timaru Container Terminal, Northport (Marsden Point) and PrimePort Timaru. Relevant operations include harbour/channel
access and its maintenance, marine movements (ship entry/exit, pilotage, towage and berthing), and vessel loading/unloading.
Buildings, infrastructure and other site assets may also be affected if material loss of harbour or wharf access constrains their use.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Projected sea-level rise, together with projected
increases in the frequency and intensity of heavy and
extreme rainfall, wind and storm events, may alter
tidal dynamics, sedimentation and scouring at coastal
Port sites, changing harbour and channel navigability,
with effects on the Port expected to arise via two
main impact pathways:
6
• Changes in dredging / maintenance
requirements: the physical changes outlined
above can:
• Reduce channel/harbour navigability: Changes
in tidal dynamics driven by sea-level rise
(SLR), and increased fluvial sediment delivery
during heavy and extreme rainfall events,
may raise the chance of sediment build-up
in port approaches and channels, potentially
reducing effective depth/width and increasing
maintenance-dredging frequency and/or
volumes relative to baseline.
7
• Improve channel/harbour navigability:
Sea level rise (SLR) lifts mean water levels,
increasing under-keel clearance and, by
enlarging the tidal water volume, can in some
settings (e.g. constricted harbour entrances)
increase current velocities and promote
scouring, maintaining or increasing effective
depth/width and reducing maintenance-
dredging requirements.
• Constrained vessel-access capability: Where
adverse navigability changes reduce effective
channel depth or width, alter safe-transit windows
or otherwise affect vessel access, and the
required dredging or other harbour-management
responses cannot be consented or delivered
effectively, vessel-access constraints may increase
above baseline through draught restrictions or
changed vessel-handling requirements.
For the first impact pathway it is important to note
that sediment build-up and scouring may occur in
How DR5 affects the Port in practice is expected to depend
principally on the following exposure, harbour, operational and
strategic characteristics:
• Concentration of Group exposure: More than 93% of total
capital and revenue value at risk is concentrated at Tauranga,
the principal focus of the DR5 assessment. Northport,
PrimePort Timaru and Timaru Container Terminal remain in
scope for adaptation planning.
• Harbour conditions and management: Historical and recent
observations of how Tauranga’s harbour entrance and
approach channel respond to acute hazards provide useful
insights that inform how DR5 impacts may arise. To date,
annual maintenance dredging has maintained safe under-keel
clearance. However, significant storm-related infill in 2024 and
2025 increased dredging requirements and challenged existing
maintenance-dredging consent limits; ongoing storm patterns
(including observed La Niña/El Niño-related patterns) are
expected to keep requirements above historical baselines and
may put further pressure on consent limits. No SLR-attributable
change in sedimentation, scouring or access has been
identified to date; SLR may alter tidal dynamics, sedimentation
and scouring, but the likely effect on navigability remains
unresolved.
• Dredging consents: The Port already holds resource consent
to deepen the channel to 16 metres to accommodate larger
vessels, so that capital deepening does not first require a new
resource consent. That already-consented ability to deepen
the channel provides practical headroom that would offset at
least some deterioration in navigability if SLR-driven changes in
tidal dynamics at Tauranga produced material adverse effects
on channel conditions. While increasing maintenance dredging
requires resource consent, it is expected that this would be
granted if the need arose due to DR5-related impacts.
Broader relative operational and logistics resilience: The
significance of any residual vessel-access restriction depends on
Tauranga’s broader resilience relative to competing ports. For
persistent access constraints, the Port’s international-hub role,
larger-vessel capability, integrated network connecting sea and
inland ports via rail, road and coastal shipping, and point-to-point
efficiency are identified comparative resilience advantages.
Of DR5’s two impact pathways, constrained vessel-access capability remains a
valid risk pathway but is considered a comparatively remote possible outcome,
as adverse navigability changes would need to exceed what can be managed
through established maintenance dredging and already-consented channel-
deepening headroom before meaningful constraints arose. The prospect of
that pathway generating a material financial impact on its own is therefore
not currently considered plausible. The financial focus is instead changes in
dredging / maintenance requirements: an increase or decrease in maintenance-
dredging costs, together with any additional consenting costs, with any resulting
cost increase remaining with the Port only to the extent it is not recoverable or
able to be passed through.
Timing: Consistent with DR1, uplift in the relevant acute hazards before 2040
is projected to be generally limited and gradual, although the intensity of
selected upper-tail acute events is projected to increase within that period, with
some earlier divergence across scenarios, potentially placing further pressure
on maintenance-dredging requirements over the short-term. However, with
broader hazard uplift projected to remain gradual through to 2040, any such
increase is expected to remain manageable through established maintenance
dredging, supplemented by consent to increase maintenance-dredging
limits if required. The potential for more substantial and sustained change in
maintenance-dredging requirements increases over the longer term as broader
hazard uplift becomes more pronounced and relative SLR more influential.
Scenarios: Against the timing outlined above, Hothouse (SSP3-7.0) presents
the clearest longer-term potential for more substantial and sustained change
in maintenance-dredging requirements, reflecting the strongest uplift in the
relevant acute hazards and greatest projected relative SLR. Disorderly (SSP2-
4.5) presents a higher longer-term potential than Orderly, with the same
drivers becoming more pronounced later, though to a lesser extent than
under Hothouse. Orderly (SSP1-2.6) presents the lowest indicative prospect of
material navigability change, given comparatively contained hazard uplift and
much lower relative SLR. Across all three scenarios, the net direction remains
unresolved: maintenance-dredging requirements and costs may increase or
decrease depending on the balance of sediment build-up and scouring.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Current response: Assessment and planning
for all potential eventualities, with further
site-specific studies to be commissioned
as required (e.g. if a trigger event makes this
prudent). This enables adjustments to existing
maintenance dredging programmes as
required.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient
infrastructure fit for a changing climate.
Near-term priorities:
• The Port will continue to review and
monitor the effect of sea-level rise on the
harbour and work with key stakeholders
when planning and executing future
harbour access maintenance.
• All future infrastructure developments
are designed to take into account the
impacts from expected climate change
and ensure long-term resilience. While
the likelihood of sea-level rise impacting
ship access to Port wharves is low, this
issue will be given careful consideration
when planning future wharf upgrades to
ensure any prudent adaptation measures
are incorporated into wharf extension
and upgrades.
• Both the above are part of and
supported by integration of CRR/Os and
transition activities into risk and strategic
management frameworks and practice.
Short to medium-term goals:
• The Port’s infrastructure vision,
investment and planning ensure climate
resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
28
Port of Tauranga Limited

How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
different parts of the same harbour and channel
system, requiring increased maintenance dredging
in some locations and less in others, with the net
change in requirements determining whether
dredging costs rise or fall overall and whether
additional consenting costs arise.
For temporary restrictions, its multi-cargo operations can absorb
some disruption, while additional crane deployment can help
recover delayed vessel servicing once access resumes. These
characteristics affect whether any remaining DR5 constraint is
sufficient to alter Tauranga’s overall service, cost or point-to-point
efficiency for shipping lines and customers.
DR5: Risk to harbour access, wharves, and loading/unloading capability (continued)
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
29
Port of Tauranga Limited

DO1: Structural changes to New Zealand’s national freight system (road to multi-modal)
The Port’s integrated national freight network is expected to benefit from transition drivers aimed at or associated with decarbonising and strengthening the
resilience of New Zealand’s freight network. These drivers are expected to shift a growing share of inter-regional freight from dispersed road freight to rail and
coastal shipping, concentrating flows and, in turn, supporting increasing movement towards a hub-and-spoke port network, potentially reinforced by DO2.
This could help the Port attract or retain freight and increase use of its services and assets, supporting revenue.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related opportunities
Material
HighVery high
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Transition drivers: government policy, market pressure and new technology aimed
at cutting heavy-transport emissions and making the freight network more resilient.
Port Group and joint venture freight-handling, inland-port and rail-linked operations and assets, including terminal operations,
multi-cargo handling, marine services, freight storage, wharves, buildings, hardstand, plant and equipment, and leased premises.
MetroPort Auckland is also a key part of the network, although the Port Group does not own or operate it.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Policy, market and technology changes
aimed at decarbonising heavy transport
and strengthening the freight network are
expected to gradually move inter-regional
freight from road to rail and coastal
shipping
8, 9
. This could benefit the Port in
two connected ways:
• More freight through the Port’s
network: Rail and coastal shipping
work best when freight is gathered in
larger volumes and moved between
connected hubs. More inter-regional
freight may therefore pass through
the Port’s inland ports, rail links and
regional port connections.
• Freight concentrating at a main hub
port: Over time, this shift is expected to
encourage a “hub-and-spoke” model,
where international ships call at one
or two main port(s) and smaller ports
are served by coastal feeder ships.
As New Zealand’s largest port,
Tauranga would be a natural hub.
Larger ships (DO2) are expected to
reinforce this.
How much DO1 benefits the Port is expected to depend mainly on
four things:
• Whether rail and coastal shipping become real alternatives:
A significant shift needs investment in rail, coastal shipping and
connecting infrastructure, and services that are frequent and
reliable enough to compete with trucks
10
. If this is slow, the shift
will be too, however strong the push to decarbonise.
• Whether customers use them: Once alternatives are available,
customers will choose based on cost, reliability and their own
emissions goals. Shipping lines, freight companies and other
ports will also respond, which affects where freight ends up.
• Whether the shift brings new freight to the Port: The Port’s
hub role, rail-linked inland ports and ability to expand handling
put it in a strong position. But more rail or coastal shipping
does not automatically mean more freight for the Port. It may
simply change how freight the Port already handles gets there.
• How far freight concentrates at hub ports: This depends on
the relative costs of hub and regional services, shipping lines’
routing decisions and whether the system can handle the
concentrated volumes. Larger ships (DO2) may speed this up,
and more frequent weather disruption across ports (DR2) could
also push shipping lines towards fewer, more resilient ports,
although that link is still to be tested. The opportunities overlap
and the benefit is only counted once.
The main financial benefit would be more freight revenue, from terminal
operations, multi-cargo handling and marine services, where the shift
brings additional or retained imports and exports through the Port’s
network. Better use of existing capacity would also help margins, and
a larger rail and coastal network would strengthen the Port’s lower-
emission logistics offer to customers. If volumes grew enough, demand
for Port buildings, storage and leased space could rise too, although any
new investment to meet it would carry its own costs.
This year’s assessment found no benefit yet that can be linked to the
shift: recent growth at the inland ports and in transhipment reflects
commercial and service changes, not climate-driven change. Because
any future benefit depends on national policy, infrastructure investment
and how competitors respond, it cannot yet be reliably estimated.
Timing: Rail and coastal shipping need years of investment before they
can carry much more freight. Any significant benefit is therefore expected
to build from the medium term, with smaller, earlier effects possible
where policy is well coordinated.
Scenarios: Orderly (SSP1-2.6) offers the clearest potential for a material
benefit: coordinated policy and investment support the shift from the
short-term, and the Port’s network positions it to capture a meaningful
share as freight concentrates over the medium to long term. Under
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5), a material benefit is possible but later and less
certain, as delayed and uneven investment squeezes the shift into the
medium term. Under Hothouse (SSP3-7.0), the shift is slower and driven
by resilience rather than emissions. Because rail is itself more exposed to
severe weather in this scenario (see DR4), any benefit is expected to be
smaller and to come later.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Not material
Not material
Current response: The hub-and-spoke model has been
positioned as a strategic response that links lower-carbon
logistics, national supply-chain resilience and the Port’s
role.
Climate change initiatives to decarbonise Port operations
and support New Zealand exporters with the lowest
emissions supply chain, including advocacy for rail
transport and coastal shipping as an alternative to road
transport for moving large volume and heavy cargo.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient infrastructure
fit for a changing climate, and providing New Zealand
exporters with the lowest emissions supply chain.
Near-term priorities:
The Port will continue to invest in the capability to
accommodate larger vessels as the hub-and-spoke model
emerges, including:
• Complete the planned Sulphur Point wharf extension
project, as part of the Stella Passage development,
which will provide the Tauranga Container Terminal
with additional berth capacity to cater for the expected
growth in coastal shipping and vessels larger than
12,000 TEU.
• Complete the second stage of capital dredging to
cater for the larger vessels expected to cascade into
the Oceania shipping network. Currently under way
and due for completion in mid-2027.
• Champion investment in resilient transport networks,
particularly rail, supported by development of evidence
base with key stakeholders.
• All future infrastructure developments are designed to
take into account the impacts from expected climate
change and ensure long-term resilience.
Short to medium-term goals:
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and
planning ensure climate resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
30
Port of Tauranga Limited

DO2: Introduction of larger low-carbon shipping vessels
Transition drivers aimed at or associated with decarbonising international shipping (e.g. EU Emissions Trading System carbon pricing, the potential International Maritime
Organisation Net-Zero Framework, uptake of alternative fuel technologies, and growing supply chain pressure to cut embodied emissions) are expected to drive
deployment of larger, lower-emission vessels to New Zealand, which the Port is positioned to accommodate, with capital dredging under way to extend that capability.
As other ports currently face certain constraints which may limit their ability to do the same, greater freight volumes may be channelled through Port of Tauranga as a result.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related opportunities
Material
HighVery high
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Decarbonisation drivers: shipping-emissions regulation / carbon pricing; lower-emission
and alternative-fuel vessel technologies; supply-chain/customer emissions pressure.
Secondary systemic drivers: energy-security and resilience pressures.
Port Group and joint venture coastal and inland-port operations, particularly international cargo handling,
marine services, transhipment and coastal shipping. Relevant assets include harbour and channel access,
wharves, berths, cranes, terminal capacity and freight storage.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Pressure to cut emissions from
international shipping is expected to
bring larger, lower-emission ships to New
Zealand routes
11
. Larger ships burn less
fuel per tonne of cargo and are better
suited to new low-emission fuels. This
could benefit the Port in two connected
ways:
• Winning or keeping international
services: Tauranga can take larger ships
than most other New Zealand ports. As
these ships arrive, more international
services and freight may come through
Tauranga.
• Freight concentrating at a main
hub port: Regional ports that cannot
take larger ships may increasingly be
served by smaller coastal feeder ships,
bringing more transhipment through
Tauranga as a hub port. This overlaps
with DO1.
How much DO2 benefits the Port is expected to depend mainly
on four things:
• Whether larger ships are actually sent to New Zealand:
New ships worldwide are getting bigger and cleaner, but
shipping lines decide which routes they serve. Bigger ships
being built overseas does not guarantee they will be used here.
• Tauranga’s capability compared with other ports: Tauranga
can already take the largest container ships visiting New
Zealand and is currently undertaking further capital dredging to
deepen its channel. Its advantage depends on having enough
berth, crane and terminal capacity, and on whether other ports
overcome their own channel limits.
• How shipping lines and customers respond: Bigger ships do
not necessarily mean more freight or more ship visits. The
benefit depends on how shipping lines rearrange their services
and how much cargo is exchanged at each visit, and on
customers’ choices about cost, reliability and emissions.
• How far freight concentrates at hub ports: Where regional
ports cannot take larger ships, shipping lines may route
international services through Tauranga with coastal feeders.
This depends on the cost of feeder services and demand from
customers. The benefit overlaps with DO1 and is only counted
once.
The main financial benefit would be more freight revenue where larger ships
bring international services and cargo to Tauranga that might otherwise
go elsewhere, together with more transhipment and better use of existing
capacity. Access to lower-emission international shipping may also draw
customers looking to cut their supply-chain emissions. Marine services
revenue could rise with more international services, although fewer, larger
ships may partly offset this.
Larger ships are expected to come to New Zealand eventually for cost
reasons alone. The climate-related opportunity is the extent to which
emissions pressure brings them sooner or in greater numbers. This year’s
assessment found no benefit yet that can be linked to this, and estimating
it would need a specific case of which ships are deployed on which routes.
The Port will consider whether such a case can be assessed in future
reporting.
Timing: The Port expects ships larger than 12,000 TEU (twenty-foot
equivalent units) to reach the Oceania network over the short to medium-
term. How quickly they arrive depends on the scenario.
Scenarios: Orderly (SSP1-2.6) offers the clearest potential for a material
benefit, from the short to medium term, as carbon pricing on shipping
and customer demand for lower-emission supply chains bring larger ships
sooner. Under Disorderly (SSP2-4.5), a material benefit is possible but
later and less even. Under Hothouse (SSP3-7.0), larger ships still arrive, but
more slowly and mainly for fuel efficiency and energy security rather than
emissions. The benefit is expected to be positive but lower, over the medium
to long-term.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Not material
Not material
Current response: Climate change initiatives to
decarbonise Port operations and support New Zealand
exporters with the lowest emissions supply chain,
particularly with focus on readiness for lower-emissions
vessels.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient infrastructure
fit for a changing climate and providing New Zealand
exporters with the lowest emissions supply chain.
Near-term priorities:
The Port will continue to invest in the capability to
accommodate larger vessels as the hub-and-spoke model
emerges, including:
• Complete the planned Sulphur Point wharf extension
project, as part of the Stella Passage development,
which will provide the container terminal with
additional berth capacity to cater for the expected
growth in coastal shipping and vessels larger than
12,000 TEU.
• Complete the second stage of capital dredging to
cater for the larger vessels expected to cascade into
the Oceania shipping network. Currently under way
and due for completion in mid-2027.
• All future infrastructure developments are designed to
take into account the impacts from expected climate
change and ensure long-term resilience.
• Continue to regularly consult with key customers
regarding forecasts and long-term trends in order to
understand, manage and mitigate any impacts on the
business.
Short to medium-term goals:
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and
planning ensure climate resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
31
Port of Tauranga Limited

IDR1: Increasing seasonal variability and gradual decline in export commodity supply
Projected increases in acute and chronic physical hazards may increasingly affect dairy, forestry and kiwifruit exports through the Port: first, via a gradual increase
in seasonal production volatility (e.g. yield losses from acute events or climate-amplified El Niño conditions); second, through the cumulative effects of acute
and chronic hazards, which may gradually reduce total annual productive capacity and erode the economic viability of affected dairy systems, leading to a sustained
decline of exports.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Chronic climate hazards: rising average temperatures and the average number of hot days
per year (>25°C); increasing solar radiation; wetter winters and drier summers; reduced winter chill,
and fewer frost days/cold nights (kiwifruit only);
Acute climate hazards: heavy/extreme rain, wind, storm and wildfire hazards, with projected
increases in frequency, intensity and/or spatial extent as applicable; drought.
Related natural hazards: landslides/slope instability, soil erosion and increased pests/pathogens.
Agricultural systems supplying the Port’s three main export commodities, located across its key freight catchment areas:
(a) Dairy (farming and processing systems). Key regions include Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki and the lower North Island,
Northland; (b) Forestry (plantation forests). Key regions include the Central North Island, Bay of Plenty, Waikato; and
(c) Kiwifruit: orchard systems. Key regions include the Bay of Plenty (around 80% of New Zealand’s kiwifruit). Zespri reports
that more than 95% of its New Zealand fruit is exported through the Port. Scope note: Includes systems supplying freight
that reaches the Port overland or by transhipment
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Projected increases in a range of acute and
chronic climate hazards (see list above)
have the potential to impact dairy, forestry
and kiwifruit export volumes via two
established pathways
12
:
• Increasing seasonal volatility:
More frequent and intense acute
events, chronic changes in seasonal
conditions, and climate-amplified El
Niño conditions may increase seasonal
production volatility, with outcomes
varying by commodity:
• Dairy: Acute events, together with
hotter and drier seasonal conditions,
could reduce pasture growth and
domestic supplementary feed
production, stress animal health
and reduce water availability (e.g.
for irrigation), amplifying seasonal
production volatility
13
.
• Forestry: Projected increases in
the frequency, intensity and spatial
extent of rain, wind, storm and
wildfire hazards may increase
the potential for damaged trees,
slope destabilisation and disrupted
access. However, these impacts
tend to trigger salvage and early
harvesting, which in the past has
led to temporary post-event pulses/
increases in log export volumes.
• Kiwifruit: More frequent and
intense rain, wind and storm events
can damage vines and orchard
infrastructure, disrupt harvest and
reduce volumes in affected seasons.
How IDR1 affects the Port in practice is expected to depend
principally on two sets of conditions: first, how affected
agricultural systems respond and adjust to climate pressures,
and what that means for export volumes through the Port; and
second, how the Port accommodates the resulting changes
in freight. Beginning with the agricultural systems, the key
considerations are:
• Adaptation: Adaptation measures and productivity improvements
are expected to moderate climate impacts on production:
• Seasonal volatility: In dairy, storage, processor scheduling
and production from other regions can buffer the effects
of seasonal shocks on export volumes. Kiwifruit is more
vulnerable to sudden export-volume losses from acute
events, as there is less scope to buffer lost exportable
supply through stockpiling or production from other
regions. Forestry is also vulnerable to acute events, but
salvage and early harvesting can temporarily increase log
export volumes rather than reduce them.
• Structural decline: Dairy, forestry and kiwifruit have a
range of adaptation measures expected to moderate
structural impacts
17
(see the Port’s FY2025 disclosure,
pages 28–30). However, access to and the effectiveness
of some measures, particularly capital-intensive or
site-dependent measures, will vary across the regions
supplying the Port. Under higher-emissions scenarios,
increasing water stress and tighter water-use controls may
also make irrigation less viable, or rule it out, in affected
dairy and kiwifruit-growing areas. Where adaptation is
unavailable, insufficient, uneconomic or too slow to
preserve viability, changes in production systems or land
use may follow.
• Replacement production: Where structural decline triggers
land-use change, land is expected to be repurposed to the
next-best productive use, which in most cases is likely to
remain export-oriented, providing at least a partial offset
to the decline in export volumes of the affected commodity.
IDR1’s two impact pathways have the potential to affect the Port principally
through changes in freight-related revenue. The scale, timing and direction of
any financial impact are difficult to assess with certainty, as they depend on
how agricultural systems respond and on the Port’s adaptive capacity (see What
shapes the impact on the Port). However, initial work is under way to narrow
the plausible range of outcomes under each of the Port’s climate scenarios. The
circumstances in which each pathway would affect revenue are already clear:
• Seasonal volatility: Revenue is affected only where climate-driven production
swings are large enough to change export volumes through the Port beyond
ordinary seasonal variation. Where exportable production is lost in a single
season, the Port forgoes the associated revenue, as short-notice shortfalls
usually leave too little time to backfill vacated capacity. By contrast, the Port
expects that a multi-season shortfall would give it the time needed to secure
replacement cargo, offsetting all or part of the lost revenue. Forestry differs,
as brought-forward harvesting is more likely to increase revenue temporarily,
although later reductions in log exports could diminish that gain.
• Structural decline: Where structural decline triggers land-use change, the
next-best productive use is likely to remain export-oriented in most cases.
The change in freight through the Port therefore reflects both declining
exports of the original commodity and replacement exports, which may
differ in volume, cargo form and timing:
• Containerised capacity (dairy; containerised kiwifruit): The Port
anticipates being able to backfill vacated capacity with alternative
containerised freight (export or import), as container demand is expected
to outstrip available capacity before a material structural decline in key
export commodities becomes feasible under the projected gradual
escalation of climate hazards (see Scenarios). Structural decline in dairy
or containerised kiwifruit exports is therefore not expected to generate a
material revenue loss.
• Bulk and specialised capacity (logs; palletised kiwifruit): The Port can
also redeploy this capacity, but not as quickly as containerised backfill
(see What shapes the impact on the Port). Where log or palletised kiwifruit
exports decline faster than replacement cargo builds up, the Port could
forgo revenue while capacity remains under-utilised. Whether this interim
shortfall contributes to a material financial impact, on its own or in
conjunction with other key risks, depends on its scale and duration.
Current response: Port of Tauranga has a long-
term strategy of diversifying cargoes and income
streams to increase business resilience. The
Port regularly consults with its customers and
continuously seeks opportunities to innovate to
serve existing customers’ changing needs as well
as secure new customers and/or cargoes.
The Port has demonstrated good capacity to
manage potential operational disruptions and
has mitigation strategies and controls in place.
This enables it to deploy a range of adaptation
measures and additional hazard controls identified
under all Port scenarios. The innovation and
adaptive capacity of the primary production sector
is also acknowledged as a risk mitigant.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient
infrastructure fit for a changing climate.
Near-term priorities:
• Continue to regularly consult with key
customers regarding forecasts and long-term
trends in order to understand, manage and
mitigate any impacts on the business.
• Monitor climate-related changes affecting
global trade and domestic production to
ensure ongoing proactive and agile response to
evolving cargo patterns, and further strengthen
the Port’s strategic positioning.
Short to medium-term goals:
• New Zealand’s primary hub port, providing lower
carbon supply chain for importers and exporters
to and from international markets, serviced by
extensive inland port and rail networks.
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and
planning ensure climate resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
32
Port of Tauranga Limited

How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Extreme acute events (such as
Cyclone Gabrielle) can also damage
vines and root systems, with the
potential to suppress yields across
multiple seasons if impacts are
widespread.
• Declining structural capacity: Over
time, these acute and chronic hazards
are also expected to generate a range
of enduring environmental stressors
that may gradually reduce total annual
productive capacity and erode the
economic viability of affected agricultural
systems, leading to sustained declines
in export volumes, with outcomes
expected to vary by commodity:
• Dairy: Increasing pressure on soil,
water, pasture and feed availability,
and animal health may drive gradual
declines in productive capacity and
raise on-farm costs – outcomes that
may erode farming viability in select
locations, especially if accompanied
by tighter irrigation controls
14
.
• Forestry: Increasing pressure on
slopes, soils, water availability and
pests and disease may limit growth,
raise management costs and drive
land-use change in higher-risk sites.
Some regions may experience
offsetting growth benefits where
warmer conditions ease cold
limits, moisture remains adequate,
and higher CO₂ extends growing
seasons, though the scale of these
benefits remains uncertain
15
.
• Kiwifruit: Warmer winters can reduce
winter chill, delaying or unevenly
triggering bud-break and lowering
yields (especially in green varieties).
Hotter, drier summers and changing
rainfall patterns can increase the
potential for sunburn and soft-fruit
losses, water stress and pest and
disease pressure. Over time, these
stressors have the potential to reduce
productive capacity
16
.
However, replacement production may differ from the existing
use in when it first becomes exportable, how frequently and
in what volumes it generates freight, and in cargo form (e.g.
containerised rather than bulk) and route. These differences
influence how replacement freight flows through the
Port and, in turn, when and to what extent the revenue it
generates offsets losses from declining exports of the affected
commodity.
The second set of conditions concerns the Port’s inherent
adaptive capacity (how readily it can backfill or redeploy the
capacity vacated by the resulting changes in freight), which
differs markedly between the seasonal volatility and structural
decline impact pathways common to IDR1.A–C:
• Seasonal volatility: Export-volume losses from acute events
are difficult to backfill at short notice, given the lead-in times
typically required for international freight movements. This is
particularly so for bulk and specialised freight, which lacks the
interchangeability of containers. By contrast, a multi-season
shortfall (e.g. in palletised kiwifruit, where a severe cyclone
requires widespread vine replacement) provides more scope
to backfill the vacated capacity.
Structural decline: By contrast, gradual decline gives the Port
the lead-in time needed to redeploy or retool vacated capacity
towards its next-best use, although how readily depends on the
type of capacity. Containerised capacity (dairy; containerised
kiwifruit) is readily redeployed, as containers are a modular,
interchangeable freight mode requiring minimal or no wharfside
retooling. Container demand is also expected to outstrip available
capacity ahead of the longer-term window in which structural
decline could become material, allowing vacated capacity
to be backfilled by alternative import or export customers.
Bulk and specialised capacity (logs; palletised kiwifruit) is less
readily redeployed, as the Port would first seek alternative bulk
or specialised customers, with conversion to container use a
longer-term option.
Structural decline therefore has the greater potential to generate a material
revenue loss where it affects logs or palletised kiwifruit than where it affects
dairy, in the form of a temporary shortfall rather than a permanent loss of the
declining commodity’s revenue.
Scenarios: Consistent with the climate hazard trajectories outlined under DR1,
physical impacts on dairy productive capacity and associated export volumes
are expected to remain small, gradual and broadly immaterial through the late
medium-term across all Port scenarios. For forestry and kiwifruit, export-volume
impacts are similarly expected to remain immaterial through the early medium
term. Under Orderly (SSP1-2.6), lower projected hazard escalation, together with
sector adaptation, is expected to keep structural export-volume impacts non-
material over the long-term across all three commodities, limiting the potential
for material freight-related revenue effects.
Under Disorderly (SSP2-4.5) and particularly Hothouse (SSP3-7.0), stronger
escalation of acute and chronic hazards beyond 2040 increases the potential
for material declines in dairy and forestry productive capacity and associated
export volumes, particularly in exposed regions where adaptation becomes
constrained. Dairy may also experience sharper, more frequent and widespread
seasonal production volatility, with the greatest potential under Hothouse as
compounding hazards increasingly challenge the effectiveness of adaptation
measures. Forestry differs in that more severe acute events may generate
temporary increases in log exports through salvage and early harvesting,
potentially followed by reduced future harvest volumes. Some forestry regions
may also experience offsetting growth benefits, leaving the net direction of
export-volume impacts uncertain.
For kiwifruit, increasing acute-event disruption may result in more pronounced
seasonal export-volume losses, including multi-season effects where severe vine
or root damage delays recovery. Longer-term structural pressures are expected
to increase under Disorderly and particularly Hothouse, although the sector’s
coordinated approach to adaptation is expected to moderate impacts. Material
structural export-volume declines remain principally plausible under Hothouse, with
lesser potential under Disorderly, depending on the effectiveness of adaptation.
Against the financial-impact assessment above, these trajectories increase the
potential for residual freight-related revenue impacts under Disorderly and
particularly Hothouse, most notably where seasonal export-volume shortfalls
or structural changes leave freight capacity under-utilised. Whether these
effects become material, individually or in combination with other risks, remains
dependent on their scale and duration, with additional uncertainty over the net
direction of forestry-related freight impacts.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
IDR1: Increasing seasonal variability and gradual decline in export commodity supply (continued)
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
33
Port of Tauranga Limited

IDR2: Reduced availability and/or increased cost of imported stock feed
Projected increases in acute and chronic physical hazards may create seasonal shocks and long-term structural constraints in key overseas stock-feed cultivation systems,
reducing supply and increasing costs. Rising global demand from competing uses, particularly biofuels and renewable fuels, may also create additional sustained price
increases. Together, these pressures may erode affordability over time for New Zealand agricultural end users to varying degrees, particularly among more price-sensitive
users. Any resulting reductions or changes in feed purchases may, in turn, materially reduce imported volumes of some or all stock feed categories via the Port.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Physical climate hazards: See acute, chronic, and related
natural hazards outlined at IDR1
Transition driver: rising global biofuel and renewable-fuel
demand competing for relevant feedstocks
Key stock feed imports including: (a) Palm kernel expeller (PKE): the largest single stock feed import, making up around 54% of total
annual imports, sourced predominantly from Malaysia and Indonesia; (b) Grains and oilseeds: Typically the second largest category,
together accounting for roughly one-third of total imports. This includes wheat and barley (mainly from Australia, with some volumes from
North America), maize and maize products (Australia, USA, South America), and soybean meal (Argentina, Brazil, USA); (c) By-products
and residuals: Smaller share (generally under 10% of imports), comprising distillers’ dried grains (USA), bran/pollard and milling by-products
(Australia), canola meal (Australia), citrus pulp pellets (USA/Brazil), molasses (Australia/Pacific), and fish meal (Peru/Chile).
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Stock-feed import volume, mix and timing
are heavily influenced by global supply and
prices, both of which may be increasingly
shaped by two climate-related pathways
18
:
• Physical climate impacts on offshore
stock-feed production and supply:
Offshore cultivation, processing and
export systems that produce most
imported stock feed are expected to
face more frequent and intense acute
hazards, including droughts, floods,
heatwaves and storms, increasing the
prospect of seasonal production dips
and associated price spikes. Rising
chronic hazards may reduce climatic
suitability, eroding productive capacity
and driving gradual cost increases.
• Transition-driven competition for
agricultural feedstocks: Rising demand
from first-generation biofuel producers
may increase competition for oilseeds,
maize and palm kernel, putting upward
pressure on prices. However, this
pressure may ease as next-generation
biofuels (using non-food feedstocks)
displace food-crop-based biofuel
production.
Either or both pressures may make
imported stock feed unavailable or
unaffordable for some New Zealand
agricultural end users. Resulting changes
in feed purchases may reduce import
volumes or alter the mix or timing of stock
feed moving through the Port.
How IDR2 affects the Port in practice is expected to depend
principally on the following offshore production, importer,
agricultural demand and Port operational characteristics:
• Supplier adaptive capacity: Most stock-feed import categories
have a geographically diverse supply base, reducing the risk
of acute events and chronic shifts materially affecting supply
and cost. The main exception is palm kernel expeller (PKE),
whose concentrated production base (Malaysia/Indonesia)
increases vulnerability to physical climate impacts and whose
large import share amplifies potential impacts from supply
and price pressures. Offshore producers can use irrigation
and changed crop management to improve resilience in the
nearer term, but these measures are likely to be more limited
under greater long-term warming and drought, when more
resilient crop varieties or shifts to better-suited growing regions
offer further options.
• Importer flexibility: Because livestock nutritional requirements
can be met through different feed combinations, stock-feed
importers routinely adjust feed types and geographical
sources in response to global price fluctuations and supply
disruptions. A problem with a particular feed or producing
region is therefore expected to change the mix, origin or
timing of imports, which the Port is accustomed to handling,
while supply is broadly maintained. This flexibility is more
limited for PKE, and will not always guard against higher or
more volatile prices reaching end users, particularly if acute
events become more frequent or intense.
• End-user adaptation: End users also have a range of ways
to adapt to price fluctuations and supply disruptions. Buffer
stocks help manage short-term spikes. They can also
reformulate rations, replacing a costly or scarce feed with
another. This option tends to be more readily available to
dairy producers than to poultry and pig producers. If prices
stay high, end users may use less feed, which could reduce
imports. Conversely, poor pasture growth in New Zealand,
including from increasing physical climate pressures (IDR1.A),
may increase demand for imported feed, even where higher
prices would otherwise discourage purchases.
Changes in the mix, origin or timing of imports, whether climate-driven or not,
are not expected to generate a material financial impact, as the Port routinely
accommodates such changes. The financial focus is therefore a reduction in total
stock-feed import volumes, where a material impact would arise as lower revenue
from stock-feed throughput. A material reduction is only considered plausible
where sustained or widespread price pressure erodes affordability enough to
reduce dairy producers’ feed purchases, as they account for most imported feed
and are less sensitive to higher feed prices than other agricultural end users.
While the combined effects of supply constraints caused by physical climate
hazard escalation, biofuel competition for agricultural feedstocks and the
adaptive capacity of offshore producers, importers and end users cannot
be assessed with certainty, material impacts on import volumes are only
considered plausible under the Port’s Disorderly and Hothouse scenarios in the
long term, as these are the only scenarios where:
• For the reasons outlined at DR1 and again at IDR1.A–C, projected climate
hazard escalation post-2040 has the potential to exceed the buffering
capacity of adaptation measures and constrain supply to levels that materially
affect import volumes (e.g. where imported feed becomes unaffordable for a
sufficient share of domestic end users); and
• Reliance on first-generation biofuels may persist for longer, extending and
intensifying competing price pressures on oilseeds, maize and palm kernel
to levels that may also materially affect import volumes, most clearly under
Disorderly, where the transition is delayed.
Uncertainty as to the scale of any reduction anticipated under Disorderly and
Hothouse is compounded by a number of other variables. The same acute
and chronic hazards expected to affect offshore stock-feed production are also
likely to reduce pasture growth in New Zealand (IDR1.A), increasing reliance
on and demand for imported feed. At the same time, broader energy- and
food-security priorities and macroeconomic conditions contemplated by the
global reference scenarios that both Port scenarios are based on also have the
potential to restrict access to that feed and erode its affordability.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Current response: Response to seasonal variability
and gradual decline in export commodity supply
also applicable to reduced import demand.
This includes diversifying cargoes and income
streams, regular consultation with customers, and
responding to existing customers’ changing needs
as well as securing new customers and/or cargoes.
Also relevant are measures to ensure ongoing
operational capacity and efficiency, while
acknowledging innovation and adaptive capacity
of the primary production sector as a risk mitigant.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient
infrastructure fit for a changing climate.
Near-term priorities:
• Continue to regularly consult with its key
customers regarding forecasts and long-term
trends to understand, manage and mitigate any
impacts on the business.
• Monitoring climate-related changes affecting
global trade and domestic production to
ensure ongoing proactive and agile response to
evolving cargo patterns, and further strengthen
the Port’s strategic positioning.
Short to medium-term goals:
• New Zealand’s primary hub port, providing lower
carbon supply chain for importers and exporters
to and from international markets, serviced by
extensive inland port and rail networks.
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and
planning ensure climate resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
34
Port of Tauranga Limited

How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Demand drivers: Approximately 60% of stock feed consumed
in New Zealand is imported, with dairy accounting for
approximately 75% of those imports
19
. Supplementary feed is
deeply embedded in dairy production systems, making dairy
producers less price-sensitive than poultry and pig producers.
Because the dominant buyer is also less price-sensitive, total
import volumes are expected to be partly insulated from
higher feed prices. However, lower milk prices or weaker
export demand (IDR3) may weaken dairy profitability and feed
purchasing. Sustained or widespread pressure on dairy margins
could materially reduce total import volumes.
IDR2: Reduced availability and/or increased cost of imported stock feed (continued)
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
35
Port of Tauranga Limited

IDR3: Reduced demand for dairy export commodities
Transition-driven shifts in consumer and commercial customer preferences/buyer behaviour, together with the emergence of low-emission dairy alternatives,
have the potential to progressively erode demand for key dairy exports in both established and emerging markets, particularly in advanced economies.
These pressures, potentially amplified by other related transition drivers, may reduce market demand and price, which could, in turn, materially lower dairy
export volumes moving through the Port.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Market drivers: growing consumer and business-customer concern about the emissions
in food products, and pressure from large buyers to cut emissions in their supply chains.
Technology drivers: better and cheaper alternatives to dairy, including proteins made
through precision fermentation (using microbes rather than cows).
Overseas demand for New Zealand dairy exports, particularly in wealthier markets and from large multinational buyers.
Relevant products include milk powders, butter and other milk fats, cheese, casein and protein products, and infant formula.
For the Port, the exposure is mainly containerised dairy freight.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Changing consumer tastes, buyers’
emissions requirements and new dairy
alternatives may gradually reduce demand
for traditional New Zealand dairy products
in two ways
20
:
• Pressure from consumers and buyers:
Consumers choosing lower-emission
food, and large buyers setting emissions
targets for their suppliers, may reduce
demand for traditional dairy, mainly in
wealthier markets.
• Competition from dairy alternatives:
Precision fermentation and similar
technologies may take market share
from some dairy products. Current
evidence suggests this is most likely in
specialist proteins and ingredients, not
in high-volume products such as milk
powder.
Lower demand or prices could, over time,
affect how much New Zealand produces
and exports, and in what form.
How much IDR3 affects the Port is expected to depend mainly
on four things:
• Where New Zealand dairy is sold: These pressures are
expected first in wealthier markets. But more than half of
New Zealand’s dairy exports go to developing and emerging
economies, where affordability and food security matter
more. Losing ground in some wealthier markets would not
necessarily reduce total exports.
• New Zealand’s competitive position: New Zealand dairy
is relatively emissions-efficient, which may help it keep
customers who favour lower-emission suppliers, as higher-
emission producers are expected to lose ground first. Recent
trade agreements with the EU and UK, population growth and
climate pressures on competitors’ production also support
demand.
• How far alternatives can go: Dairy alternatives still face
hurdles in cost, scale, regulation and consumer acceptance.
There is no current evidence that they will replace milk
powder and other high-volume products.
• Whether the Port’s freight actually changes: Lower demand
only affects the Port if it changes how much dairy moves
through it. At first it is more likely to slow growth or change
the product mix. If volumes did fall, the Port’s ability to fill the
container space with other cargo (see IDR1) would determine
the financial effect.
The main financial risk would be lower freight revenue if dairy exports
through the Port fell overall. For that to happen, the protections
described above would all need to give way: demand from developing
markets, New Zealand’s emissions advantage, its trade access, and the
limited reach of alternatives into high-volume products. The current
assessment does not suggest this is likely.
If dairy volumes did fall, the effect on the Port would depend on how far
and how fast. Under IDR1, a gradual fall in containerised dairy exports
is expected to give the Port time to find replacement cargo, because
container demand is expected to outgrow capacity over the longer
term. The competitive nature of New Zealand’s container freight market
means that Port of Tauranga could also potentially replace a reduction
in containerised dairy volumes with cargo won from other ports (i.e.
market share gain). A fall under IDR3 could come earlier than that, so
filling the space would be less certain. This year’s assessment found no
fall in dairy freight linked to these pressures, and the risk cannot yet be
reliably estimated.
Timing: Where action on emissions is strong, these pressures are
expected from the short to medium-term, earlier than the physical risks
to dairy assessed under IDR1.
Scenarios: Orderly (SSP1-2.6) brings the strongest pressure overall,
starting in wealthier markets over the short to medium-term and building
over the long term, and the fastest progress on alternatives, although
these are still unlikely to replace high-volume products. A material
impact on Port revenue is not expected, although replacement cargo is
less certain this early. Under Disorderly (SSP2-4.5), the pressure comes
later but more abruptly, and more unevenly, and is softened by demand
from developing markets; a material impact is not expected. Under
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0), weak action on emissions and a stronger focus on
affordable food support continued demand for traditional dairy, and no
material loss of demand is expected.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Current response: Existing strategies related to diversifying
cargoes and income streams, regular consultation
with customers, and responding to existing customers’
changing needs as well as securing new customers and/
or cargoes.
Climate change initiatives to decarbonise Port operations
and support New Zealand exporters with the lowest
emissions supply chain.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient infrastructure
fit for a changing climate and providing New Zealand
exporters with the lowest emissions supply chain.
Near-term priorities:
• Priorities include consulting with key customers
regarding forecasts and long-term trends, and
monitoring climate-related changes affecting global
trade and domestic production to ensure proactive and
agile response to evolving cargo patterns.
Regarding a low-emissions supply chain:
• Further develop the hub-and-spoke model, with Port
of Tauranga as the hub port that is big ship capable and
tranships cargo to other spoke ports through coastal
shipping.
• Advocating for rail transport and coastal shipping as an
alternative to road transport for moving large volume
and heavy cargo.
• Planning and implementation of the necessary works to
accommodate larger vessels, including berth extensions
and dredging, will be coordinated and aligned with
introduction of larger vessels to New Zealand routes.
Short to medium-term goals:
• New Zealand’s primary hub port, providing lower
carbon supply chain for importers and exporters to and
from international markets, serviced by extensive inland
port and rail networks.
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and planning
ensure climate resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
36
Port of Tauranga Limited

IDR4: CBAM and climate regulation impacts on commodity exports
The anticipated introduction and expansion of carbon border adjustment mechanisms (“CBAMs”) and other climate change-related regulations have the potential to
directly or indirectly influence market access and/or demand for all key export commodities (dairy, logs, other forestry products and kiwifruit) in applicable offshore
markets. For example, CBAMs can add carbon-related costs to covered goods, shipping-emissions pricing can raise freight costs, and climate-reporting requirements can
incentivise purchasers to reduce high-emission supply. These effects may strengthen or weaken demand, in turn increasing or reducing export volumes through the Port.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Transition drivers — existing, emerging and anticipated climate-related regulation:
• CBAMs and other carbon-border adjustment measures.
• Behind-the-border requirements, including deforestation regulation, mandatory climate
disclosures and product-labelling/embodied-emissions requirements.
• Shipping carbon-pricing frameworks (e.g. the EU ETS extension to shipping).
• International shipping fuel and emissions regulation (e.g. the potential IMO Net-Zero Framework).
Overseas demand for, and access to markets for, the Port’s main export commodities: dairy, logs, other forestry
products and kiwifruit. Key markets include China, the United States, Australia, the EU, the UK, Japan, South Korea
and Southeast Asia. Mandatory climate reporting is in force or proposed in markets taking around 80% of New Zealand
exports by value, and around 40% go to countries with carbon border taxes in place or under consideration.
For the Port, the exposure is through the volume, mix and routing of export freight.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Climate-related trade rules are expected
to spread across New Zealand’s export
markets
21
. They could raise costs or change
demand for New Zealand exports, in either
direction, in three ways:
• Carbon border taxes (CBAMs): These
add a carbon cost to imported goods.
The EU scheme, and the UK scheme
planned from 2027, cover industrial
goods only and exclude food and
fibre, but the EU has named dairy as
a possible future addition. Applied as
intended, they could favour lower-
emission New Zealand products
22
.
• Rules inside export markets:
Requirements such as the EU’s
deforestation rules and emissions
labelling or tracing can add compliance
costs and affect access to customers,
but can also reward suppliers who can
prove low-emissions or sustainable
sourcing.
• Carbon pricing on shipping: Schemes
such as the EU’s carbon pricing for
shipping, and possible international
rules, raise the cost of getting goods
to market, which matters more for a
country as far away as New Zealand.
How much IDR4 affects the Port is expected to depend mainly
on five things:
• What the rules cover and how they work: Which products
are included, how emissions are measured, any exemptions
or phase-in periods, and whether New Zealand’s performance
is recognised. Few current rules apply directly to the Port’s
main exports.
• New Zealand’s emissions performance: New Zealand’s
relatively low-emission dairy and certified sustainable forestry
could turn some rules into an advantage.
• Exporters’ readiness: Many exporters already measure and
report emissions for domestic rules and customers, which
lowers the cost of meeting overseas requirements.
• Which markets act first: Wealthier markets are expected to
introduce rules first, with developing markets following later.
Exports weighted towards developing markets, particularly
dairy, are partly protected in the short to medium-term.
• Distance: New Zealand’s distance from its main markets
means carbon charges on shipping cost its exporters more
than closer competitors.
IDR4 could change the volume, mix or routing of exports through the
Port, and with it freight revenue. The direction is uncertain and may
differ by product and market: compliance and shipping costs could
weaken demand in some markets, while recognition of New Zealand’s
lower emissions could strengthen it in others. The more likely effect is
a shift in which products go to which markets, rather than a change in
total export volumes.
No effect on the Port was seen in FY2026. The EU’s carbon border tax
took full effect in 2026 but does not cover the Port’s main exports, the
EU deforestation rules have been delayed, and recent export changes
reflect seasons, demand and production rather than climate rules.
Because the outcome depends on future rules in many countries, IDR4
is assessed qualitatively.
Timing: Where action on emissions is strong, new rules are expected in
wealthier markets in the short term, with developing markets following
from the medium-term.
Scenarios: Orderly (SSP1-2.6) brings rules earliest and most widely,
including higher shipping costs, but also the most predictable timetable
and the best chance for New Zealand exporters to benefit from their
lower emissions. Disorderly (SSP2-4.5) brings rules later but more
abruptly and inconsistently, making it the most disruptive and hardest
to predict, although slower action in developing markets softens the
effect. Under Hothouse (SSP3-7.0), there is little coordinated regulation,
although some markets or buyers may still set requirements. In all three
scenarios, a material impact on Port revenue is not expected, and the
direction of any effect remains uncertain.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Current response: Existing strategies related to diversifying
cargoes and income streams, regular consultation
with customers, and responding to existing customers’
changing needs as well as securing new customers and/
or cargoes.
Climate change initiatives to decarbonise Port operations
and support New Zealand exporters with the lowest
emissions supply chain.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient infrastructure
fit for a changing climate and providing New Zealand
exporters with the lowest emissions supply chain.
Near-term priorities:
• Priorities include consulting with key customers
regarding forecasts and long-term trends, and
monitoring climate-related changes affecting global
trade and domestic production to ensure proactive and
agile response to evolving cargo patterns
Regarding a low-emissions supply chain:
• Priorities include developing the hub-and-spoke model
to enable coastal shipping, advocating for rail and
coastal shipping as an alternative to road transport and
accommodating larger vessels at Tauranga.
Short to medium-term goals:
• New Zealand’s primary hub port providing lower carbon
supply chain for importers and exporters, to and from
international markets, serviced by extensive inland port
and rail networks.
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and planning
ensure climate resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
37
Port of Tauranga Limited

IDR5: Decarbonisation of New Zealand’s transport and broader energy systems
Policy, market and technology-based transition drivers specific to transport and other fuel-intensive sectors are expected to progressively reduce
New Zealand’s reliance on imported liquid fuels. For example, increasing electrification of the light vehicle fleet, increased use of public and active
transport options, and gradual uptake of alternative fuels for heavy transport are likely to alter the scale and composition of future fuel demand
over time, reducing traditional liquid-fuel imports through the Port as a result.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related risks
Low
ModerateHighExtreme
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Transition drivers of particular note:
• Declining production of internal combustion engine vehicles, particularly light vehicles, alongside
accelerating electric vehicle adoption and charging-network rollout.
• Policies incentivising mode shift from private vehicles to public and active transport.
• Development and uptake of alternative-fuel technologies for heavy transport, together with freight
mode shift to rail and coastal shipping.
Potential regulatory changes, including internal combustion engine import restrictions, mandated
biofuel blending and fuel-efficiency requirements.
Demand for imported liquid fuels moving through the Port. Nationally, liquid fuel imports in 2025 were roughly
47% diesel, 31% petrol and 20% aviation fuel
23
. Diesel is used mainly for freight, farming, construction and backup
power, and petrol mainly for cars. Only a small amount of aviation fuel moves through the Port, so its exposure
is mainly to petrol and diesel. Imports of biofuels may partly replace some of these.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Policy, market and technology changes in
transport and other fuel-heavy sectors are
expected to reduce New Zealand’s reliance
on imported fossil fuels, and so the volume
of fuel coming through the Port
24
. The
pace will differ by fuel:
• Petrol: expected to fall first and fastest,
as electric and more efficient cars
replace petrol vehicles and more people
use public transport, walking and
cycling.
• Diesel: expected to fall more slowly,
because trucks, farm and construction
machinery and backup generators are
harder to switch to other fuels.
• Aviation fuel: expected to fall slowest,
because alternatives for aircraft are
limited and expensive.
Biofuels and other alternative fuels may
partly make up the lost volume where
they replace diesel or aviation fuel and are
imported through the Port.
How much IDR5 affects the Port is expected to depend
mainly on four things:
• How easily each fuel can be replaced: This is easiest
for petrol in cars and hardest for aviation and heavy
diesel uses.
• Policy and infrastructure: Clean-vehicle policy,
charging networks and the rate at which vehicles
are replaced determine how quickly lower demand
reaches the Port.
• Other causes of change: Fuel imports also rise and
fall with prices, stock levels, the economy, air travel
and fuel security, which can hide or exaggerate
transition effects in any one year.
• Whether alternative fuels come through the Port:
Biofuels and other alternatives only offset lost volume
if they are imported through the Port and can be
handled with existing facilities.
The main financial risk is lower revenue from handling fuel imports
as volumes fall. Because petrol is expected to fall first and diesel and
aviation fuel more slowly, the effect is expected to build gradually
rather than all at once. Alternative fuels may offset part of it, but are not
expected to replace it fully.
Oil product imports through the Port fell by more than 2% in the year to
30 June 2026, but this has not been linked to the transition, as prices,
stock levels and other factors also affect volumes. IDR5 is assessed
qualitatively this year, with partial quantification by fuel type planned for
FY2027, depending on available data.
Timing: Where policy is strong and early, lower petrol demand could
start to affect Port volumes in the short-term and deepen through the
medium-term, with diesel and aviation fuel following later.
Scenarios: Orderly (SSP1-2.6) brings the earliest and steadiest decline,
led by petrol from the short term, with the clearest offset from biofuels.
Under Disorderly (SSP2-4.5), the decline is delayed and then sharper
through the medium term, with less certain offsets. Under Hothouse
(SSP3-7.0), fossil fuel use persists longer, and later change is driven by
fuel security and cost rather than emissions. A material impact is not
expected in the short term. Whether the decline becomes material in
the medium to long-term under Orderly and Disorderly will be tested
through the FY2027 quantification.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Current response: Similarly to other import and export impacts,
existing strategies related to diversifying cargoes and income
streams, regular consultation with customers, and responding
to existing customers’ changing needs as well as securing new
customers and/or cargoes.
On wider transport and energy system change, climate change
initiatives to decarbonise Port operations and support New Zealand
exporters with the lowest emissions supply chain.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient infrastructure fit for a
changing climate and providing New Zealand exporters with the
lowest emissions supply chain.
Near-term priorities:
• Priorities include consulting with key customers regarding
forecasts and long-term trends, and monitoring climate-related
changes affecting global trade and domestic production to
ensure proactive and agile response to evolving cargo patterns.
And further supporting a low-emissions supply chain:
• Priorities include developing the hub-and-spoke model to enable
coastal shipping, advocating for rail and coastal shipping as an
alternative to road transport and accommodating larger vessels
at Tauranga.
• Consider and develop supply and demand-side options for
energy management and resilience in infrastructure design
and planning. Inform strategy by modelling future scenarios
i.e. granular forecasting where possible, electricity market and
dynamics, and demand-side economics.
Short to medium-term goals:
• New Zealand’s primary hub port, providing lower carbon supply
chain for importers and exporters to and from international
markets, serviced by extensive inland port and rail networks.
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and planning ensure
climate resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
38
Port of Tauranga Limited

IDO1: Increased demand for logs and other forestry export commodities
Transition-driven shifts in consumer and commercial buyer preferences, together with an increasing number of policy- and technology-enabled uses of
sustainable timber in emissions-intensive sectors such as energy, transport, construction and manufacturing, may increase demand for New Zealand forestry
products. Examples include engineered wood substituting steel and concrete, cellulose replacing plastics, woody biomass and biofuels displacing fossil-fuel
alternatives, and other bio-based materials. Any resulting uplift may affect the composition and/or volume of forestry exports through the Port.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related opportunities
Material
HighVery high
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Market and stakeholder drivers: increasing consumer and commercial-buyer focus
on embodied emissions and broader environmental impacts; increasing preference
and procurement demand for low-carbon alternatives; and increasing supply-chain
emissions-reduction pressure from customers, lenders, investors and insurers.
Policy and technology drivers: policy settings and technological advances supporting
substitution of emissions-intensive materials and fuels with sustainable timber and
wood-fibre alternatives, including engineered wood, biomass/biofuels and bio-based materials.
Overseas demand for New Zealand forestry exports: logs, woodchips, pulp and paper, sawn timber and
engineered wood, and newer uses of low-grade logs and residues such as bioenergy, biofuels and bio-based
materials. Key markets include China, the United States, Japan, Australia, South Korea and Southeast Asia.
For the Port, the exposure is through the volume, mix and form of forestry exports.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
As buyers seek lower-emission materials
and policy and technology open up new
uses for wood, demand and prices for
New Zealand forestry products may rise
25
.
Three uses have the greatest potential:
• Building with wood: timber and
engineered wood products replacing
steel and concrete.
• Energy and fuels: wood residues and
low-grade logs used for heat, bioenergy
and biofuels.
• Bio-based materials: wood fibre
replacing fossil-based plastics,
packaging, textiles and chemicals.
Sustained higher demand could encourage
more planting, more of the harvest going
to export, and changes in the types of
forestry products moving through the Port.
How much IDO1 benefits the Port is expected to depend mainly
on four things:
• Whether demand becomes lasting: New uses need
consistent policy and buyer demand before they scale
up. Building with wood is the most developed; bio-based
materials are at an earlier stage.
• The harvest cycle: Forestry exports are expected to peak
around 2026 and fall by up to a third in the 2030s, for reasons
unrelated to climate, before recovering. Any climate-driven
increase sits on top of this cycle, and new forests take
decades to reach harvest.
• Whether demand matches what New Zealand grows and
makes: New demand needs to be for the types of wood fibre
New Zealand can supply, and processing investment needs to
turn it into exportable products. The benefit may come more
through higher-value or processed products than through
more logs. Residues and low-grade wood may also be used
within New Zealand for heat or fuel rather than exported.
• Supply and competitors: Climate impacts on New Zealand
forests (IDR1) may limit supply, while competitor countries
facing bigger climate impacts could strengthen New Zealand’s
position.
The main financial benefit would be more freight revenue from forestry
exports. This is more likely to come from changes in the type and value
of products than from more logs. Any increase could also help offset the
period of spare bulk capacity identified under IDR1 if log exports fall.
No effect on the Port has been seen so far: newer uses of wood have
not yet changed exports, and recent movements reflect markets, prices
and the harvest cycle. Because the benefit depends on new industries
and processing developing, it cannot yet be reliably estimated.
Timing: Wood residues and low-grade logs could respond sooner, but a
lasting increase depends on new or replanted forests reaching harvest,
so any significant effect is expected in the medium to long term.
Scenarios: Orderly (SSP1-2.6) offers the strongest opportunity over the
medium to long term, led by building with wood. However, because
the benefit is likely to show up mainly in product type and value rather
than volume, and some wood may be used within New Zealand, it is not
expected to be material for the Port on its own. Under Disorderly (SSP2-
4.5), the opportunity comes later and less predictably. Under Hothouse
(SSP3-7.0), weak climate policy leaves a narrow opportunity, mainly in
bioenergy, much of which may be used domestically. A material benefit
is not expected under Disorderly or Hothouse.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Not material
Not material
Not material
Current response: Response to seasonal variability
and gradual decline in export commodity supply also
applicable to increased demand. This includes diversifying
cargoes and income streams, regular consultation
with customers, and responding to existing customers’
changing needs as well as securing new customers and/
or cargoes. Also relevant are measures to ensure ongoing
operational capacity and efficiency.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient infrastructure
fit for a changing climate and providing New Zealand
exporters with the lowest emissions supply chain.
Near-term priorities:
• Priorities include consulting with key customers
regarding forecasts and long-term trends, and
monitoring climate-related changes affecting global
trade and domestic production to ensure proactive
and agile response to evolving cargo patterns.
Regarding a low-emissions supply chain:
• Priorities include developing the hub-and-spoke model
to enable coastal shipping, advocating for rail and
coastal shipping as an alternative to road transport
and accommodating larger vessels at Tauranga.
Short to medium-term goals:
• New Zealand’s primary hub port, providing lower
carbon supply chain for importers and exporters to and
from international markets, serviced by extensive inland
port and rail networks.
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and planning
ensure climate resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
39
Port of Tauranga Limited

IDO2: Impacts of climate migration and transition on demand for imported goods
The transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient future, alongside the physical effects of climate change, is expected to both lift and dampen demand for imported goods:
population growth, including climate-induced migration, and large-scale investment in decarbonisation and resilience measures are expected to increase demand for
some import categories (e.g. commercial materials, components, plant and equipment), while macroeconomic headwinds from transition and physical impacts may
dampen demand for others (e.g. household, consumer, food and beverage goods). The balance of these opposing forces may increase import volumes through the Port.
Key
Impact rating:Climate-related opportunities
Material
HighVery high
Climate hazard/driverElements at risk/aligned
Systemic climate drivers: cumulative economy-wide effects of the transition to a low-carbon,
climate-resilient economy and the physical impacts of climate change.
Demand-uplift systemic climate drivers: mitigation and adaptation/resilience investment; population
growth, including climate-induced migration. Demand-dampening systemic drivers: macroeconomic
and broader economic-structural headwinds arising from transition and physical climate impacts.
Demand for imported goods moving through the Port, including capital goods and infrastructure, building
and commercial materials, technology, food and drink, and household goods. These differ in how much freight
they generate: high-value equipment and technology take up relatively little space, while materials, food
and household goods account for more volume.
How the risk arisesWhat shapes the impact on the PortAnticipated impactsResponse and outcomes
Climate change and the shift to a low-
emission economy are expected to push
demand for imports both up and down,
through three opposing forces:
• Investment: Spending on cutting
emissions and adapting to climate
change may increase imports of
materials, components, machinery,
technology and infrastructure.
• Population growth: A growing
population, including people moving
to New Zealand because of climate
impacts elsewhere, may support
demand for food, household goods and
building materials.
• Economic pressure: Higher costs,
weaker incomes and pressure on public
budgets from climate impacts and
the transition may reduce demand for
household, discretionary and some
business imports.
The balance between these forces may
change how much is imported through
the Port, and what.
How much IDO2 benefits the Port is expected to depend mainly
on four things:
• Which force is stronger: A net increase only happens where
investment and population growth outweigh economic
pressure elsewhere. Broad growth across all imports is not
expected.
• Funding and sourcing: Public investment and support
help unlock private investment in emissions reduction and
adaptation; if public budgets are stretched, this investment
slows. Whether goods are made locally or imported, and
global supply constraints, also affect how much reaches the
Port.
• Value versus volume: Expensive equipment and technology
add relatively little freight. Materials, food and household
goods matter more to the Port.
• Whether imports come through Tauranga: Population
growth in the Upper North Island and the Port’s hub role help
it capture additional imports, and DO1 and DO2 make this
more likely.
The main financial benefit would be more import freight revenue, mostly
from containers, in the categories where investment or population
growth outweighs economic pressure. The effect is more likely to show
up as changes in what is imported and when, plus growth in some
categories, than as broad import growth.
No change linked to these drivers has been seen so far. Imports rose
in the first half of FY2026, but mainly because of strong demand for
agricultural products. Because the forces involved pull in opposite
directions, the net effect cannot yet be reliably estimated.
Timing: Where investment in emissions reduction is well coordinated,
it could lift some imports from the short to medium term. Imports for
adaptation and repair are expected to grow later, as physical impacts
build up.
Scenarios: Orderly (SSP1-2.6) offers the clearest potential for growth in
some import categories over the short to medium term, as coordinated
investment starts earlier and economic pressure is easier to manage.
Under Disorderly (SSP2-4.5), any growth is later and more volatile. Under
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0), there is less investment in cutting emissions,
and imports for repair and adaptation are likely to be irregular and
outweighed by economic pressure. In all three scenarios, IDO2 is not
expected to be material on its own, and the overall direction remains
uncertain.
Orderly (SSP1-2.6)
Disorderly (SSP2-4.5)
Hothouse (SSP3-7.0)
Not material
Not material
Current response: Similarly to other import and export
impacts, existing strategies related to diversifying cargoes
and income streams, regular consultation with customers,
and responding to existing customers’ changing needs as
well as securing new customers and/or cargoes.
On wider transport and energy system change, climate
change initiatives to decarbonise Port operations and
support New Zealand exporters with the lowest emissions
supply chain.
Transition objectives: Robust and resilient infrastructure
fit for a changing climate and providing New Zealand
exporters with the lowest emissions supply chain.
Near-term priorities:
• Priorities include consulting with key customers
regarding forecasts and long-term trends, and
monitoring climate-related changes affecting global
trade and domestic production to ensure proactive and
agile response to evolving cargo patterns.
And further supporting a low-emissions supply chain:
• Priorities include developing the hub-and-spoke model
to enable coastal shipping, advocating for rail and
coastal shipping as an alternative to road transport and
accommodating larger vessels at Tauranga.
Short to medium-term goals:
• New Zealand’s primary hub port, providing lower
carbon supply chain for importers and exporters to and
from international markets, serviced by extensive inland
port and rail networks.
• Future development of Northport berths and adjacent
land holdings to cater for increases in import cargo
volumes.
• The Port’s infrastructure vision, investment and planning
ensure climate resilience.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
40
Port of Tauranga Limited

Climate-related risks and opportunities previously assessed as immaterial and carried forward for FY2026
In FY2024 and FY2025 the Port identified a number of direct physical risks, direct transition risks and opportunities, and indirect physical risks and opportunities that were deemed immaterial,
but had the potential to become material over time. These have been carried forward for FY2026. The Port remains aware of and continues to monitor this cohort of lower-level risks and
opportunities on a precautionary basis for any changes that may affect materiality. The tables below list each of these risks and opportunities:
Continued monitoring of direct physical risks currently deemed immaterial
Impact of wetter winters:
Physical risk
All Port sites are projected to experience warmer wetter winters, which can
cause lower levels of accelerated wear and tear to Port assets and infrastructure.
Existing maintenance programmes and asset resilience limit materiality.
Impact of drier summers:
Physical risk
All Port sites are located in areas projected to experience drier summers.
Prolonged dry conditions can cause soil to shrink and contract, damaging
underground utilities and building foundations in the process.
Groundwater rise:
Physical risk
Rising coastal water tables may increase hydrostatic pressure exerted on
foundation slabs and other underground elements, such as basement levels and
underground utilities. It can also lead to “salinity intrusion” that attacks concrete
and reinforcing. Most exposed assets will be decommissioned in the relevant
timeframe.
Temperature increases:
Physical risk
Increasing temperatures and solar radiation were identified as having the potential
to impact thermal comfort levels, lead to increased air conditioning use, generate
widespread but low-grade additional wear and tear.
Worker health and safety:
Physical risk
Various acute and chronic climate hazards were identified as having the potential
to increase the prevalence of certain workplace hazards and/or potential harm
they may cause. However, existing and readily available Workplace Health
and Safety measures, can adequately mitigate and manage these anticipated
increases in workplace hazards due to climate change.
Continued monitoring of indirect physical risks and opportunities currently deemed immaterial
Comparative extent of
climate impacts:
Physical opportunity
New Zealand’s geographic isolation and relatively moderate pre-existing climate
may lead to producers of primary exports experiencing less severe physical
climate impacts compared to their counterparts in other key producing nations,
potentially resulting in increased demand in offshore markets. Such an outcome
may in turn have a positive impact on exported volumes.
Shipping disruptions:
Physical risk
Physical climate risks have the potential to disrupt and adversely impact
shipping in numerous ways. Having assessed the potential impacts and available
adaptation measures that the shipping sector will or may implement, it was
determined that any resulting impacts on the Port would likely be immaterial
based on the Port’s current understanding.
Impacts on dairy
transport:
Physical risk
Acute events are expected to increasingly disrupt farm-gate access and supply
chains. For example, Cyclone Gabrielle cut access to over 600 Fonterra farms
through slips and flooding, but the impact on total exports was minimal given
New Zealand’s ~21 billion litres of annual milk production.
Continued monitoring of direct transition risks and opportunities currently deemed immaterial
Stakeholder and public
expectations:
Opportunity and risk
The Port anticipates increased scrutiny of its greenhouse gas emissions and
climate-related risk profile by all stakeholders. However, it anticipates that robust
reporting alongside effective and ambitious transition planning will ensure that
this presents an opportunity.
Cost and security of
electricity supply:
Transition risk
Electricity costs are expected to increase and become more volatile, especially
under the Port’s Orderly and Disorderly scenarios. From a cost perspective, this
risk was deemed manageable, as any electricity cost increases are likely to be
passed on in full. Potential brownout or blackout risks were also deemed low.
Building regulation
changes:
Transition risk
The Port anticipates that changes to building regulations imposing whole-of-life
embodied and operational emissions rules will be implemented in the short to
medium-term. However, additional costs can be passed on and low-carbon,
energy-efficient new builds are already a priority. Therefore this risk is currently
deemed immaterial.
Other supply chain risks,
cost and access:
Transition risk
Decarbonisation of supply chains at the global and domestic levels has the
potential to increase the general cost of materials and potentially lead to supply
shortages as manufacturers re-tool, and end user demand for low embodied
emission materials increases. Again, such costs are expected to be passed on.
Access issues can also be managed via prudent transition planning.
Shore-to-ship power:
Transition opportunity
Investing in shore-to-ship power would enable the Port to secure a meaningful
reduction in Scope 3 emissions. This mitigation measure is being investigated,
however current transmission capacity constraints may make this a medium to
long-term opportunity.
Resource management
and consenting:
Transition risk
Port anticipates that resource management and environmental policies will
be subject to ongoing changes as they respond to increasing physical risks
and implement changes recommended in national emission reduction and
adaptation plans. As it is not currently possible to anticipate the exact substance
and timing of such policy changes, the Port will continue to monitor this risk.
Increased insurance
costs:
Transition risk
The increased frequency and severity of climate events like Cyclone Gabrielle
are expected to have significant impacts on insurance costs, underwriting
criteria, and cover. The Port intends to mitigate this anticipated cost pressure
by continuing to focus on preserving climate resilience and engagement with
insurance stakeholders.
Climate-related Disclosures Report 2026
41
Port of Tauranga Limited