Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Maori Committee



Date:                 Tuesday 20 September 2011

Time:                10.00am (Morning Tea at 9.45am)


Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street






Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page


1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations

3.         Short Term Replacements  

4.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Maori Committee held on 30 August 2011

5.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the  Maori Committee held on 30 August 2011

6.         Consideration of General Business Items

7.         Action Items From Previous Maori Committee Meetings

Decision Items

8.         Replacement Maori Committee Member on Environmental Management Committee

9.         Maori Constituency

Information or Performance Monitoring

10.       Tukituki High Flow Allocation Modelling

11.       Strategic Approach to Wetland Management

12.       Update on Unwanted Agrichemical Collection Programme

13.       General Business  

Please Note - Pre Meeting for Māori Members of the Committee begins at 9 am

1.      Two hour on-road parking is available in Vautier Street at the rear of the HBRC Building.

2.      The public park in Vautier Street on the old Council site costs only $6 for all day parking. This cost will be reimbursed by Council.

3.      There are limited parking spaces (3) for visitors in the HBRC car park – entry off Vautier Street - it would be appropriate that the “Visitors” parks be available for the Members travelling distances from Wairoa and CHB

N.B. Any carparks that have yellow markings should NOT be used to park in.




Maori Committee  

Tuesday 20 September 2011

SUBJECT: Short Term Replacements        



1.      Council has made allowance in the terms of reference of the Committee for short term replacements to be appointed to the Committee where the usual member/s cannot stand.




That the Maori Committee :

That ______________  be appointed as member/s of the Maori Committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for the meeting of Tuesday, 20 September 2011 as short term replacements(s) on the Committee for ________________





Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager



Andrew Newman

Chief Executive



There are no attachments for this report.  


Maori Committee  

Tuesday 20 September 2011

SUBJECT: Action Items From Previous Maori Committee Meetings        



1.   On the list attached as Appendix 1 are items raised at Council meetings that require actions or follow-ups. All action items indicate who is responsible for each action, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment for each action. Once the items have been completed and reported to Council they will be removed from the list.



Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that as this report is for information only and no decision is required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.



1.      That the Maori Committee receives the report “Action Items from Previous Meetings”.





Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager





Action Items from Previous Maori Committee Meetings




Action Items from Previous Maori Committee Meetings

Attachment 1


Actions from Maori Committee Meetings



Agenda Item


Person Responsible

Due Date

Status Comment


Maori Committee Joint Hui

Advise of progress



Discussions with HDC – proposed dates in July or August to be confirmed


Regional Policy Statement

Circulate copy to all Committee members





Maori Constituency Option

Circulate all previous papers relating to this subject



Agenda item to be presented at this meeting





Maori Committee  

Tuesday 20 September 2011

SUBJECT: Replacement Maori Committee Member on Environmental Management Committee        



1.      At the last Maori Committee meeting on Tuesday, 30 August, Mr Morry Black confirmed that meeting would be his last one with the Maori Committee.  Mr Black had also indicated at the last Environmental Management Committee on 10 August that he would be resigning as a Maori representative on that Committee.

2.      This paper is to provide an opportunity to nominate a member of the Maori Committee to replace Mr Black on the Environmental Committee.

3.      At present Mr Black and Mr Peter Paku represent the Maori Committee on the Environmental Management Committee.


4.      While the Council’s committees are undergoing a review in light of the establishment of the Joint Planning Committee, it is envisaged that the Environmental Management Committee will continue for some time yet.

5.      On that basis it is appropriate to seek a replacement nomination for this Committee.




The Maori Committee recommends to the Environmental Management Committee:

1.    That…………………………………….replaces Mr Morry Black as one of the two Maori Committee  representatives on the Environmental Management Committee.




Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager



Andrew Newman

Chief Executive



There are no attachments for this report.


Maori Committee  

Tuesday 20 September 2011

SUBJECT: Maori Constituency        



1.      The Maori Committee has an opportunity to recommend to the Regional Council its position on the possible formation of a Maori Constituency for the 2013 local authority elections.

2.      Under section s19Z of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Regional Council may resolve to have a Maori Constituency included in the 2013 elections. If it agrees to do so it must pass a resolution in November 2011.

3.      This was last considered in 2005 when the then Maori Committee recommended to Council that it did not support the establishment of a Maori Constituency.

4.      The Regional Council at the time decided not to make a decision either way on that basis.


5.      The decision by the Committee in 2005 resulted from feedback from two hui and further discussion by each of the groups represented at the Committee.

6.      While there was broad agreement with direct Maori involvement in Council decision making, there were issues that made support of the establishment of a Maori Constituency difficult to agree to.

7.      One of the main issues was the difficulty of one Maori seat representing all Maori in the region and further, if that seat should go to a Maori person who was not tangata whenua.

8.      It was also felt that the role of the Council’s Maori Committee would come under scrutiny if a Maori Constituency was established. It was strongly felt that the representation model used to form the Maori Committee was more likely to achieve a broad support and voice for Maori notwithstanding the limited input into decision-making by this model.

9.      These issues are likely to still be relevant for the present Committee and may be even more relevant with the establishment of the Planning Committee with four Treaty settlement groups.

10.    While no indication has come from Council regarding the future for the Maori Committee if a Maori Constituency was established, it would undoubtedly be considered if Council decided to establish a Maori Constituency.

11.    The Maori Committee should consider whether it wishes to recommend to Council that a Maori Constituency should or should not be established for the 2013 local authority elections.



1.    That the Maori Committee receives the report on the establishment of a Maori Constituency

2.    That the Maori Committee recommends that Council consider the establishment by the Regional Council of a Maori Constituency for the 2013 local authority elections.





Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager



Andrew Newman

Chief Executive



There are no attachments for this report.  


Maori Committee  

Tuesday 20 September 2011

SUBJECT: Tukituki High Flow Allocation Modelling        



1.      This paper provides a summary of the high flow allocation modelling work undertaken for the Tukituki River catchment.


2.      Water resources in Hawke’s Bay are facing increasing pressure from consumptive abstraction.  The region is characterised by a warm dry climate with long dry periods with low rainfall and low river flow conditions.  The core allocation in many Hawke’s Bay catchments is now full or over-allocated and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is currently exploring different water management options for the region.

3.      One method used to mitigate the interruption of water supply during periods of low flow conditions (reducing the exposure to abstraction bans) is by sustainably harvesting and storing water during periods when river flows are high.

4.      High flow abstractions are an intrinsic component of water storage solutions.  High flow allocation provides access to water for purposes such as water harvesting and storage at times when river flows are high enough to provide adequate instream habitat.

5.      A generalised picture of how high flow allocation can be managed within existing water allocation practices is presented in the following figure:

Idealised River Flow Allocation on a Flow Duration Curve

6.      Minimum flows and core allocation have been established on rivers throughout Hawke’s Bay in accordance with the RRMP.  However, no high flow thresholds have been set as numerical standards in the RRMP.

7.      There are a number of approaches that have been adopted to set high flow allocation in New Zealand rivers including the use of high flow allocation minimum flows (thresholds), allocation blocks and implementing flow sharing arrangements.  A high flow allocation threshold (HFA threshold) is required so that water harvesting only occurs when the river flow is above this level.  A flow sharing approach for high flow allocation (e.g. a 1:1 flow share ratio where 50% of river flow is allocated for abstraction and 50% remains in the river) would seek to maintain flow variability in the river and not unduly impact on ecological values such as flushing or disturbance flows that are essential to maintaining the instream ecosystem and channel structure.

8.      High flow allocation should ideally occur during winter and spring when river flows are higher, so that harvesting of flow has only a small proportionate effect on reducing river flows.

9.      High flow allocation is also referred to in other regions as supplementary allocation or B/C block allocation.

10.    Two reports on high flow allocation modelling have previously been undertaken for the HBRC on the Ngaruroro River by MWH (Harkness 2008 & 20101).  This report focuses and builds on the principles contained in these reports.


11.    This report assesses the effect of different potential methods of water allocation during high river flows within the winter and spring months of June to November, from four established hydrological sites on rivers in the Tukituki Catchment: Tukipo River at State Highway 50, Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd, Waipawa River at RDS and Tukituki River at Red Bridge.

12.    The most suitable methods for each site have been selected based on the results of hydrological, ecological and security of water supply analyses.  High flow allocation methods have been selected to provide a sustainable flow (HFA threshold) above which high flow allocation is made available, combined with a sustainable allocation limit (allocation cap) allowing for abstraction without adversely impacting on flow variability and instream ecological requirements, while providing an optimum security of supply.

13.    Eight different high flow allocation scenarios were developed for each site which use HFA thresholds set as either mean or median flow combined with either of two selected allocation caps for each site.  A flow sharing approach has been used in all scenarios where either 50% or 33% of flow above the HFA threshold up to the allocation cap is allocated for abstraction, with the rest (50% or 67% respectively) remaining in the river.


14.    Hydrological analyses identified minor variations between the naturalised and modelled flow records for each high flow allocation scenario.

15.    The availability of water for abstraction under each allocation scenario was assessed.  The quantity of the allocation that can be utilised for abstraction depends on the duration and magnitude of high river flows.

16.    The potential security of supply to water users provided by each high flow allocation scenario was assessed in terms of the percentage of time water is available for abstraction.  All scenarios with median flow HFA thresholds provide water available for abstraction for a greater percentage of time than scenarios with mean flow HFA thresholds.  Therefore all scenarios with median flow HFA thresholds provide high flow allocations with the greatest security of supply to water users.

17.    An example of the difference in security of supply for four of the Tukituki River at Red Bridge scenarios is shown in the following figure:

Abstraction Availability for Red Br Scenarios with 2000l/s Allocation Cap


18.    The FRE3 analyses (a hydrological index identified by Clausen & Biggs (1997) as the most ecologically relevant for characterizing hydrological regimes in New Zealand streams and rivers) showed that all modelled scenarios for each site alter the FRE3 by less than 10 percent and were therefore supported as potential high flow allocation regimes.

19.    An analysis based on the Range of Variability Approach (RVA) developed by Richter et al. (1997), investigated the degree of hydrologic alteration between the naturalised and modelled flow records.

20.    The investigation highlighted that it is essential to first establish the key river values that require protection and identify the level of change to the natural flow regime or degree of hydrologic alteration that must not be exceeded in order to maintain and sustain the required protection of river values.

21.    Until establishing the degree of hydrologic alteration and the level of change to the natural flow regime that will sustain and maintain the protection of key values for rivers in the Tukituki Catchment, a conservative approach to selecting the most preferable allocation methods from those modelled in this investigation was necessary.  In terms of hydrologic alteration, scenarios which produced the lowest average percentage of hydrologic alteration (10%) were considered as potentially suitable allocation methods.  This study is a vital input into the current plan change on water allocation and it is hoped that the various consultation processes required by this plan change will help refine and select a high flow abstraction regime following at Part II RMA analysis.


22.    Based on the results of the hydrological and ecological analyses and the assessment of security of supply to water users, the most suitable high flow allocation scenarios for each site have been selected in terms of those which produced the least amount of change to the natural flow regime (where the disturbance to the structure and function of the riverine ecosystem is minimal) while providing a high flow allocation with the greatest security of supply to water users.

23.    The following table presents the high flow allocation scenarios selected as the most suitable for each site:

The Selected High Flow Allocation Scenarios

24.    The following graph presents some of the key results from the range of analyses for the selected high flow allocation scenarios.  The four selected scenarios produced an average percentage of hydrologic alteration of less than or equal to 10 percent.  All scenarios have an HFA threshold set at median flow.  River flows at all four sites during June to November were above the median flow for greater than 65 percent of time and for all scenarios, the full high flow allocation (100%) was available for abstraction more than 53 percent of time.

Key Results for the Selected Scenarios

25.    The high flow allocation scenarios modelled in this investigation are all based on a 50% flow share approach.  A flow sharing approach enables water to be abstracted from a river whilst maintaining a level of flow variability in the river.  The practicalities of implementing high flow allocation methods based on a flow sharing approach need to be carefully considered.  One possible approach could be to issue global water take consents to water user groups (instead of the current allocation process which issues consents to individual water users) whereby the abstraction is managed collectively by the group, employing measures such as rationing and rostering to ensure abstraction complies with any abstraction restrictions.

26.    Alternative approaches to high flow allocation which do not include any flow sharing arrangements may pose fewer difficulties to management practices.  Further work would be required to assess the impact on natural river flow regimes of any alternative approaches.

27.    Before undertaking further hydrological and ecological analyses on any alternative high flow allocation methods, the regulatory tools that are currently available to implement and manage high flow allocation need to be identified and assessed to ultimately determine what type of high flow allocation methods can realistically be implemented and managed effectively.


Report Recommendations

28.    This report presents a conservative assessment.  It must be determined if the high flow allocation caters for the present and near future demand.  If further water is required in the catchment at high river flows, a ‘management team’ or ‘expert panel’ could be established to determine the acceptable degree of hydrologic alteration to each IHA parameter and the acceptable level of change to all relevant key hydrological and ecological indices before assessing any potential high flow allocation regimes in the future.

29.    To further develop the high flow allocation methodology, a values assessment could be undertaken to establish the key river values that require protection in the Tukituki catchment (plus any catchments where water is or has the potential to be allocated for abstraction) and identify the level of change to the natural flow regime that must not be exceeded in order to maintain and sustain the required protection of river values.

30.    Further combinations of high flow allocation regimes could be modelled and assessed to find the scenario for each Tukituki site that provides the optimum level of sustainable allocation (that does not adversely impact on flow variability and instream ecological requirements) with an optimum security of water supply.

31.    Detailed security of water supply analyses are recommended to be undertaken in conjunction with future allocation regime modelling to aid in the selection of optimum allocation regimes.

32.    The current water allocation plan change is critical and taking this work forward into the RMA process and the various consultative processes used to determine what type of high flow allocation methods can realistically be implemented and managed effectively.


33.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.



1.      That the Maori Committee receives the report.





Rob Waldron

Resource Analyst


Rob Christie

Team Leader - Hydrology


Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science





Tukituki River Catchment High Flow Allocation Modelling


Under Separate Cover



Maori Committee  

Tuesday 20 September 2011

SUBJECT: Strategic Approach to Wetland Management        



1.      This agenda item will inform Council on the value of wetlands as they relate to Council’s strategic goals and provide an update on how Council is currently fulfilling obligations in respect to these goals. The report further discusses limitations in our current approach to wetland management and provides rationale for the creation of a regional wetland inventory.


2.      The vast majority of New Zealand’s wetlands have been drained or irretrievably modified for coastal land reclamation, farmland, flood control, and the creation of hydro-electricity reservoirs. This occurred mostly between 1920 and 1980 but still continues to a limited degree in some areas (MfE, 1997).

Wetland Values

3.      Wetlands perform vital ecosystem services such as improving water quality and mitigating against land use change (demonstrated high capacity for stripping nutrients), reducing flood risks (by buffering the intensity of runoff), retaining water in the landscape (thereby improving resilience to drought) and acting as carbon sinks. Wetlands have high biodiversity values by supporting a greater diversity of native birds, fish, invertebrates and plants than most other habitats. Wetlands are also of cultural and spiritual significance to Maori and can have very high educational & recreational values.


4.      Wetlands are a ‘waterbody’ under the RMA.  That means the same decision-making powers and responsibilities applicable to rivers, lakes, streams and aquifers also apply to wetlands.  The RMA does not automatically protect wetlands nor require their preservation. Nevertheless, councils must consider the values of wetlands and effects of activities on wetlands when preparing plans and making decisions on resource consent applications.  Those considerations have been significantly strengthened by the 2011 National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management with the objective that:

4.1.   The overall quality of fresh water within a region is maintained or improved while:

4.2.   protecting the quality of outstanding freshwater bodies and

4.3.   protecting the significant values of wetlands.”

5.      A proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, while yet to be finalised, also provides a strengthened focus and direction on the indigenous biodiversity values of wetlands.

6.      Amongst many objectives and policies in the Regional Policy Statement, Objective 15 is “the preservation and enhancement of remaining areas of significant indigenous vegetation, significant habitats of indigenous fauna and ecologically significant wetlands.” (The RPS states non-regulatory methods will be the primary means for achieving preservation and enhancement of ecologically significant wetlands and the relevant overall anticipated environmental result being:

6.1.   “no further loss of ecologically significant wetlands where the indicator is the extent of wetlands in the region using the Council’s GIS data sources”.

7.      The Department of Conservation prepared a report (Adams, 1995), which selected the ten “best” wetlands in Hawke’s Bay that would benefit from restoration and enhancement work. Council established policy for each of these wetlands in the mid 1990’s with the aim of preventing further degradation and enhancing biodiversity values in line with Objective 15 of the RPS. This has been achieved through taking direct ownership and / or management responsibility of wetlands or through advocacy - educating and encouraging existing owners to enhance their wetlands. However, the RRMP’s ‘priority’ wetlands represent only a very small percentage of wetland ecosystems that currently exist across Hawke’s Bay.



8.      Council has been conducting ecological restoration and enhancement works along the regions’ waterways, including enhancement or creation of riparian wetlands. Major projects along Te Karamu Stream, Plantation Drain, Taipo Stream, the Ngaruroro River and the Tutaekuri River all include a wetlands component. In many cases, Council is creating wetlands, either as habitat or to serve as filtration devices for the waterway. The Ngaruroro Ecological Management and Enhancement Plan (EMEP) and the upcoming Tutaekuri (EMEP) make specific recommendations towards preservation or creation of existing and potential wetlands along these rivers.


9.      Biosecurity are actively providing advice and support to community groups for pest control on a number of the regions wetlands with a particular emphasis on Opoutama and Whakaki.


10.    Of the ten priority wetlands, Council now have full management responsibility for Pekapeka Swamp and the Waitangi wetland complex. Council also manages the Tukituki Estuary for ecological enhancement. These three wetlands, totalling 398ha, are referred to as the “Council owned wetlands”. Their protection and enhancement has been guided through a series of five year management plans drafted in consultation with the local community. The first plan was implemented in 1998 for the Pekapeka Swamp. Management outcomes for these wetlands have evolved over time and now include enhancing their open space and champion values as well as ecological enhancement.

Land Management

11.    Land Management retains an advocacy and advisory role in promoting the preservation and enhancement of wetlands across the wider region. These programmes help to fulfil Council’s obligations to wetland environments under the RMA and resulted from a realisation that significant gains could be made working with farmers to protect wetlands on their properties.

12.    The current RLS policy can provide a grant for on farm wetland projects where these provide wide benefit for water quality, ecosystem and biodiversity enhancement. The programme has been very popular and has been fully subscribed in some years.

13.    To date the RLS has funded 138 ‘on farm wetland’ projects on no fewer than 110 properties. $496,748 of grant has been allocated.  When combined with landowner contributions, the total value of these projects exceeds $1.3 million.

14.    In 2005 a separate grant category for ‘significant wetlands’ was introduced through the RLS.   Since 2005, 33 significant wetland projects, on 22 properties have been funded to the value of $230,812..

15.    Landowners applying for a ‘significant wetland’ grant are required to have a management plan and covenant for the wetland concerned. The eligibility of a project for significant wetland funding is to a degree open to interpretation. The need for a more prescriptive and informed assessment has been identified.


16.    The Resource Science section has undertaken monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the management actions on the wetlands identified in the RRMP (2006). This is the only wetland monitoring that the Regional Council has undertaken. Information from these surveys is used to report on the state of the regions wetlands to fulfil Council’s State of Environment reporting obligations.

17.    A review of the current wetland monitoring and enhancement programme was carried out in 2009 with the aim of:

17.1. Assessing how well the current programme addresses our objectives and policies in the RRMP & RCEP;

17.2. Looking at how well our programme fits with national protocols; and

17.3. Addressing how the current programme can be developed to provide a more comprehensive and representative monitoring programme that will report on the state of Hawke’s Bay wetlands.

18.    From the findings of the review, the current monitoring strategy does not allow council to effectively report on the true state of the regions wetlands.  This is due to the fact that only the priority wetlands, representing only a small percentage of Hawke’s Bay wetlands are monitored and the full spectrum of wetlands (extent and type) within the region are not considered or documented.


19.    To adequately identify the region’s wetland assets and allow wetland’s specific values to be determined, and support prioritisation of Council investment through the RLS as well as being able to effectively monitor the state of the regions wetlands, development of a comprehensive inventory of Hawke’s Bay wetlands is recommended.

20.    The inventory would consist of a GIS database that utilises new techniques and approaches to mapping wetlands via aerial mapping. This would provide Council with detailed information to classify wetlands. This would then be used as a basis to assess the wetland for its ecological, cultural, social and economic values thus enabling a more strategic approach to how we manage our wetland assets outside of the ten priority wetlands already recognised in the RPS. The GIS wetland inventory database would provide the tool required under Objective 15 of the RPS – to identify “the extent of wetlands in the region using the Council’s GIS data sources”.

21.    Using the overall strategic goals of a vibrant community, a prosperous region and a clean and healthy environment, the wetland inventory will assist with these objectives under the following goals:


Strategic Goal


Water Futures

Investigating mechanisms for valuing water bodies.

Land Use Change

Informing mitigation of land use changes in the region

Develop financial competencies to improve land management advice

Investigate options for integrating carbon sequestration with other land uses

Climate Change

Identify potential opportunities arising from climate change

Open Space

Fulfil open space needs in partnership with the Department of Conservation, Territorial authorities and private landowners where appropriate

Partnerships with Maori

Acknowledge and explore issues impacting on the economic, environmental, social and cultural well being of Maori in Hawke’s Bay.

22.    A complete inventory of the region’s wetlands would assist ongoing Council programmes by:

22.1. Assisting the Land Management section in terms of targeting and managing applications through the RLS.

22.2. Providing a regionally representative sample of wetlands where long term monitoring can be set up enabling detection of regional trends and robust State of Environment reporting;

22.3. Providing an information resource of consent applications decisions;

22.4. Informing any future plan policy on areas for protection.


1.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.



That the Maori Committee receives the report titled  “Strategic Approach to Wetland Management”Environmental Management





Fiona Cameron

Senior Resource Analyst




Steve Cave

Environmental Manager Operations





Warwick Hesketh

Land Management Advisor


Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy





Adam Uytendaal

Team Leader Water Quality & Ecology


Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science



Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services


Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management



There are no attachments for this report.


Maori Committee  

Tuesday 20 September 2011

SUBJECT:   Update on Unwanted Agrichemical Collection Programme        



1.      The purpose of this agenda item is to update the Committee on the unwanted agrichemical collection (“Operation Spring-clean”) and to outline the overall costs and quantities of unwanted agrichemicals collected over the seventeen year period from June 1994 to May 2011


2.      In March 1994 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council initiated a region wide agrichemical collection named “Operation Spring-clean”.  The purpose of the collection was twofold:

2.1        To reduce environmental, health and economic risks posed by accumulated unwanted, unidentifiable, unusable, deregistered and leaking agricultural chemical by collecting and disposing of them safely:


2.2        To provide education on the safe storage and disposal of agrichemicals and their containers and reduce the need for future collections.


3.      The main intensive collection was completed in October 1994 with 27 tonnes of unwanted agrichemical collected. Of the total quantity collected 19.6 tonnes was disposed of in New Zealand and 7.4 tonnes shipped overseas for disposal by high temperature incineration.

4.      The policy was reviewed in 1999 and again in 2001. The Council resolved to continue ‘Operation Spring-clean” in accordance with the following policy:


4.1        that a collection service be offered within the region not less than three times per year, and that the timing of collections shall be publicly notified in the area;

4.2        That collections shall be prearranged and take place subject to conditions being met;

4.3        that a collection be limited to agricultural chemicals that are deregistered, intractable, unidentifiable, contaminated or no longer able to be used for reasons of industry standards, with other materials such as fuel, household chemicals, industrial chemicals and laboratory wastes not accepted;

4.4        that advice be prepared for and disseminated to landowners on the safe disposal of chemicals that are not accepted under item 3 above;

4.5        that where persons request one-off collection of chemicals between advertised collection runs, the full costs of collection shall be recovered;

4.6        that no chemicals be accepted at Council’s offices and depots except by special arrangement;

4.7        that except for item 5 above, the project continue to be public good funded in recognition of the risks that these unwanted agrichemicals  pose to the environment.





Quantities Of Unwanted Agrichemical Collected

5.      In the seventeen year period from June 1994 to May 2011, a total of 105 tonnes of unwanted agrichemicals have been collected, this being made up of 44 tonnes of intractable shipped overseas and 61 tonnes of agrichemicals disposed of in New Zealand.

6.      For the ten year period from July 2000 to May 2011, the average yearly collection quantity has been 6.7 tonne, with a high of 10.3 tonne during 2003/04 and a low of 3.8 tonne for 2008/09.

7.      The quantity collected for the current 2010/11 financial year is 4.5 tonne.

Costs Of Unwanted Agrichemical Collection

8.      In the seventeen year period from June 1994 to May 2011 the Council’s unwanted agrichemical collection has cost $1,663,362.

9.      The initial intensive Operation Springclean collection during the period March to October 1994 cost $434,000. This cost is included in the above figures.

10.    During the 2003/04 financial year the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) introduced a programme in which they agreed to fund the disposal of selected unwanted agrichemicals for a two year trial basis and HBRC was one of the Councils chosen for the trial due to our having an established agrichemical collection programme in place.

11.    MfE funded the disposal costs of our unwanted agrichemical via two one-off contracts, being for the November 2003 and March 2004 collections respectively, with Council being refunded costs totaling $20,154.

12.    For the 2004/05 and 2005/06 financial years MfE contracted with Council whereby MfE paid for the disposal of up to a maximum of eight tonne of collected unwanted agrichemical for each financial year.

13.    The approximate disposal costs paid by MfE for 2004/05 was $57,450 (8.7 tonne) and $57,100 (7.5 tonne).

14.    The total disposal costs paid by MfE was $134,704.

Factors Affecting Unwanted Agrichemical Collections

15.    From 1999 onwards there have been key developments in the horticultural industry that have resulted in an increased range of agrichemicals being unable to be used by growers which in turn has caused the quantity of agrichemicals collected to remain constant due, in part, to the following factors:

22.1      Organic certification - the increase in growers changing to organic production in Hawke’s Bay, with the result that strict audits by organic certifying organisations require the removal of all non-organic chemicals from the properties;


22.2      Agrichemical Use Restrictions – due to increasing pressure from overseas buyer groups, ENZA, (along with the newly established pipfruit export organisations that resulted from the deregulation of the pipfruit industry), has, with increasing frequency, reduced the range of agrichemicals that could be applied

22.3      While this has been good for the environment in the long term it has meant that much of the bulk quantities purchased at the end of each financial year, in preparation for the following season, could not be used so remained unused and forgotten in sheds

22.4      Grower audits - overseas buyer groups such as Tesco’s, Natures Choice, Sainsbury’s and the expanding Global-gap audit requirements have resulted in on-site auditing of grower properties requiring the removal of an increasing range of agrichemicals which are no longer approved for application.


16.    In hindsight it is now realised that there was far more agrichemical out on orchard/farm properties than was originally estimated due to the practice, now discontinued, of the rural sector buying up large quantities of agrichemicals at the end of each financial year for taxation reduction purposes.

17.    In September 2004 the NZ Government ratified the international Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) which requires all parties to commit themselves to a long term international effort to reduce or eliminate health and environmental risks from chemicals specified in the convention.

18.    The chemicals that the convention focuses on includes PCPs (polychlorinated biphenyls), dioxins and furans, and nine organochlorine pesticides.

19.    As party to the convention, New Zealand has banned the manufacture and use of the toxic chemicals covered by the convention.  Future efforts will focus on reducing dioxin emissions, cleaning up industrial sites and on collecting and disposing of hazardous pesticide waste.

20.    Other rural sectors are also having to meet overseas buyer group requirements, e.g. cattle and sheep farmers being more intensively audited by meat processing companies and the kiwifruit industry being required to meet Globalgap audit requirements for export

Acknowledgement Of Support For Unwanted Agrichemical Collection

21.    The main form of advertising of the collection is by the distribution of flyers through the Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association magazine.  Council staff would like to acknowledge the consistent support given to the collection programme over the years by Diane Vesty, HB Fruit Growers Association.

22.    Flyers are also distributed to clients by Farmlands, PGG Wrightson and Skeltons via their outlets in Hawke’s Bay.

23.    Ray McGregor (R & S McGregor Ltd) has carried out the collections in a highly professional manner over the years and his knowledge of the collection and disposal of agrichemicals is outstanding.

Annual Hazmobile (Household Hazardous Waste) Collection

24.    The annual Hazmobile collection, held in November each year, also receives unwanted agrichemicals from the urban areas of Napier and Hastings.   HBRC contributes $10,000 annually to the collection to defray the costs of disposing of the agrichemical collected.

25.    Hazmobile collections are not held in Wairoa or Central Hawke’s Bay.

Benefits Of The Unwanted Agrichemical Collection To Hawke’s Bay

26.    The Hawke’s Bay economy is heavily dependent on its primary industries and the resulting export of produce to overseas markets.

27.    The misuse of agrichemicals in the past has resulted in temporary trade bans on exports, in particular where the misuse has been due to banned/deregistered agrichemical being used.

28.    In 2007 NZ beef exports to Korea were suspended when endosulfan (a newer organochlorine insecticide licensed for use on plants) was detected in a consignment of beef.  Endosulfan is now banned for use in NZ.

29.    On a national basis, NZ uses our “clean, green” image as a key marketing tool for our primary exports, however, this image is at risk due to the quantities of older deregistered agrichemicals that remain stored and unsecured on rural land, often in rusting and deteriorating containers.

30.    As our primary exports impact on the local growers in our key overseas markets, there is concern that our legacy of quantities of banned agrichemicals remaining on production land could result in trade barriers being applied to our exports. The NZ wine industry has particular concerns over this and Hawke’s Bay vintners are becoming increasingly proactive with disposing of unwanted agrichemical.


31.    In the seventeen year period from June 1994 to May 2011 the Council’s management of the agrichemical collection programme has resulted in the collection of 105 tonne of unwanted agrichemical at a cost of $1,663,362.

32.    The Hawke’s Bay economy is heavily dependent on the export of primary produce to overseas markets and it is of increasing importance that the quantities of banned/deregistered agrichemical remaining on rural properties is reduced to avoid possible future trade barriers being imposed by overseas markets.


33.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.



1.    That the Maori Committee receives the report.






Fred King

Advisor Hazardous Substances


Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science



There are no attachments for this report.


Maori Committee

Tuesday 20 September 2011

SUBJECT: General Business        



This document has been prepared to assist Committee members note the General Business to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 6.



Councillor / Staff