Agenda of Maori Committee - 30 October 2012

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
1.	Biodiversity Strategy	Stakeholder Group and Terms of Reference to be established	IM/TS	Oct	First meeting of the Technical Group to be held on Wednesday, 24 October. Verbal update will be provided at this meeting
2.	Tukituki Plan Change Update	Summary of draft comments be prepared following closing date for comments	HC	Oct	To be reported on at meeting
3.

Tukituki Values and Uses Section 6

Attachment 1

Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses

Section Six: Māori Planning Perspectives

6.0 Introduction

District and regional councils have a statutory obligation to provide for Māori values and interests, to ensure environmental indicators also include Māori perspectives and priorities. It is important for there to be planning provisions in place for these purposes and which are effective in meeting Māori environmental outcomes. Māori need to express their relationship and values within the Tukituki River catchment in particular, within both the spiritual and physical dimension, through concepts such as mauri, manawhenua and Kaitiakitanga. Improving the ecological health conditions of the Tukituki River catchment needs to reflect Māori values and knowledge, whakapapa, and the spiritual relationships mana whenua have with a particular area. Marae and Hapū are the kaitiaki of their tūrangawaewae, rohe, takiwā and as such, want greater access to much of the environmental information for use in the identity of Māori indicators and outcomes, monitoring, management and policy development of the Tukituki River catchment in particular.

This section will provide an overview of the RMA statutory framework in terms of relevance to tangata whenua considerations. Next is a discussion on the development of Māori environmental indicators with a focus on mana whenua, mauri and wāhi tapu outcomes and monitoring measures. Finally, there are some recommendations for the HBRC to consider.

6.1 RMA Statutory Framework

The RMA is the mechanism under which the natural and physical resources of New Zealand are to be managed. Part II of the RMA provides for tangata whenua considerations. Section 5, 6, 7 and 8 set out key requirements for what must be considered when exercising functions under the RMA and are outlined below:

Section 5: Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

(2) In this Act, “sustainable management” means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well being and for their health and safety while -

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment, and

(f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

The consideration of cultural wellbeing implies a requirement to protect anything important to tangata whenua and includes spiritual and traditional relationships within the Ruataniwha rohe. Marae/ hapū of the area are enabled to provide for their social and cultural wellbeing.

The duties and the obligations the RMA imposes are for all people who exercise functions or powers under the Act in relation to the use of natural resources.

Section 6: Matters of national importance - In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:

(e) The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites wāhi tapu, and other taonga.

There needs to be some definition of natural character (ie, health state of ecosystems, rivers, streams), and some guidance provided on the point at which the cumulative effects of water take and land intensification interferes with the natural character of water flows, water quality and so forth. The HBRC and other local Authorities are obliged to both recognise and to provide for tangata whenua values and traditional relationships with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga which are deemed to be of national importance. Mauri is not specifically referred to in the RMA but is recognised as a matter of national importance and therefore councils can make specific recognition of, and protection for, mauri.

Section 7: Other matters - In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to –

(a) Kaitiakitanga…

The concept of kaitiakitanga invokes stewardship, involvement in decision making, equal partnership and participation in the management of taonga tuku iho (ie, rivers and water quality, the intrinsic values of ecosystems and environmental quality). The HBRC and other local Authorities will need to have particular regard to the concept of kaitiakitanga when fulfilling the functions under the RMA. Tangata whenua exercising their kaitiaki responsibilities require knowledge and focussed information gathering on environmental quality and understanding of the characteristics of natural taonga potentially affected by water take, land intensification and other concerns.

The HBRC have stated their commitment to developing a more effective partnership with Māori, with full regard to the ethic of kaitiakitanga:

… a mutually beneficial partnership arrangement and a proactive role in Treaty settlement negotiations. Fuller incorporation of Māori values associated with water is a critical issue in relation to building and maintaining relationships.^{^[1]}

Section 8: Treaty of Waitangi - In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

The HBRC and other local Authorities are obliged to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when fulfilling functions under the RMA and includes the protection of taonga, mauri of rivers, streams and water quality, wāhi tapu and other tangata whenua values.

6.2 Development of Māori Environmental Indicators

The RMA does provide a statutory basis for the development of environmental indicators which needs to include Māori environmental indicators even though it does not specifically refer to outcomes and indicators. By outcomes, we mean the expression of environmental aspirations for marae, hapū and iwi and the indicators are measures used to determine whether the outcomes have been achieved.

The councils are required to identify AERs (anticipated environmental results) of their plan provisions and to undertake monitoring to evaluate whether these results have been achieved. There are also community outcomes the district or region must incorporate into council planning provisions. The HBRC is to be acknowledged for giving some consideration of Māori cultural values and to consulting with manawhenua for guidance and direction of what these values are. However, the council will need to develop a statutory rationale for incorporating Māori outcomes and indicators and linking them back to the Tukituki River catchment change plan and their implementation. There will also need to be a robust monitoring strategy operating to show how effective the plan is successfully incorporating Māori indicators and outcomes because currently, the methods for evaluating plan outcomes is lacking.

Jefferies & Kennedy (2009) have developed and integrated Māori environmental indicators and outcomes in statutory and planning documents identifying three kete: mana whenua, mauri and wāhi tapu. This may be useful for assessing the Tukituki River catchment change plan and evaluating council performance in the use of mātauranga Māori and kaitiakitanga. The indicators and measures developed for each kete determines whether the overarching outcome is being achieved. The three kete are applied to determine how mana whenua cultural values and their uses can be incorporated into the Tukituki River catchment change plan and are discussed below:

Outcome One: HBRC acknowledge Mana Whenua

The recognition of Mana whenua is a fundamental issue essential to their effective participation in resource management processes. Historically, mana whenua rights and obligations have not been recognised and otherwise ignored which has offended whānau, marae, hapū and iwi resulting in an unwillingness to develop a working relationship with district and regional council. There is sufficient evidence historically to indicate that mana whenua have not participated sufficiently in district and regional council planning and decision-making, which has resulted in cultural values being largely ignored (Bassett & Kay, 2006). For marae, hapū and whānau within the rohe of Heretaunga and Tamatea, their claims were lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal in 2003 to seek redress of several issues. The “umbrella” claims are represented by He Toa Takitini on behalf of the claimant group bringing together several claims concerned with breaches to the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 with regard to:^{^[2]}

· Land base and resources;

· Rivers and waterways (including the Tukituki catchment);

· Old land claims;

· Waipukurau transaction (and in particular Lake Whatuma);

· Failure to provide alternatives to sale;

· Crown purchase transactions and methods (such as the Gwavas Forest Park); and,

· Other grievances lodged alongside individual claims.

The claim concerning “environment” refers to the failure of the Crown to recognize hapū rights to exercise their tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga responsibilities. Much of their traditional lands were destroyed or changed such as many of the traditional habitats (ie, bush, rivers, swamps, wetlands, lakes). Hapū access to indigenous flora and fauna for cultural harvesting was severely impacted and the introduced exotic flora and fauna were not adequately controlled, causing further degradation and depletion of mahinga kai resources. The claim also highlights the destruction to wāhi tapu sites of significance such as ‘Ngā Kai Hinaki a Whata and Mahinata Kahukura Takapau.’ Other specific areas of concern have included the overflow from oxidation ponds in and around Waipukurau and Waipawa which have contributed to pollution of surrounding land and waterways within the Tukituki catchment in particular.

The HBRC will need to carefully consider the implications of these pending Waitangi Tribunal claims in terms of the proposed water storage dam on the Mākāroro; participation of tangata whenua in the governance and environmental management of natural resources; mitigating past, present and future effects on the ecological health state of the Tukituki River catchment and other areas of concern.

In more recent years, mana whenua have been participating in resource management issues and have formed relationships with the district and regional council discussed below to highlight some of successes achieved in forming co-management regimes between the Hastings District Council (HDC) and Heretaunga marae/ hapū in particular.

Hastings District Council (HDC)

The HDC established the Maori Standing Committee in the late 1980s prior to the RMA reforms of the 1990s with representatives from marae/ hapū within the Hastings region. The main resource management issues were:

· Establishing papakainga designated land

· Developing silent files on wāhi tapu

· Issues surrounding waste management of untreated human and industrial effluence into sea and river catchment and other land developments

The RMA (1992) created an opportunity for marae/ hapū to participate in resource management decision making. The HDC realised they needed to engage with local marae/hapū on resource management issues.

The Heretaunga Taiwhenua became increasingly involved in various resource management and environmental issues, mainly in a supportive role. This was alongside, the Heretaunga Maori Executive jointly representing nga marae hapū interests before hearings, and attending the various council committee meetings. Various submissions were presented jointly in response to key issues such as regional and district plan reviews, papa kāinga, wāhi tapu, waste management.

The current Te Kaihautu held wānanga, hui and facilitated consultations, for example, the Cape Kidnappers golf resort, Whakatū Coolstores Ltd applications - services paid for by the applicants. A significant defining point was the victory for the whānau halting the Northern Arterial route through their Māori ancestral land.

By the 2000s, the establishment of Te Rūnanga Putaiao within the Taiwhenua focused on customary fisheries and hapū management plans. The committee was reported directly to Te Haaro committee of Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga but was disestablished in the mid-eighties. Over the next few years it became apparent resource management issues grew in nature, extent and time needed to deal with them. A new committee was formed being the current Te Rūnanganui o Heretaunga, as well as an environmental and community development unit, Te Manaaki Taiao. The vision of the Rūnanga and Te Manaaki Taiao is expressed in the Organisation’s overall vision, mission and goal to establish this working entity for and behalf of marae.

A major issue for marae/ hapū has been an objection to human excrement into Tangaroa which has resulted in submissions against the HDC waste management discharge application. The hearings panel upheld a Tangata whenua concern in relation to the Coastal Plan. The Minister for the Environment became involved and the outcome of this experience became the catalyst for tangata whenua rights to be acknowledged. The HDC formed the tangata whenua waste management joint committee and Te Kaihautu (Marei Apatu) was invited as an ex-officio.

This committee has continued to evolve and to strengthen their co-management roles, functions and responsibilities with the HDC. In the present context, Tangata whenua arguably have a major influence in key resource management issues. An example of the effective co-management regime between HDC and tangata whenua is reflected in the cultural philosophy adopted in waste management policies and procedures. This is aptly expressed by Kaumātua who state that:

….in terms of waste disposal on top of papatuanuku - the assistance should come from her children (ie, when the mauri as it enters our systems becomes degraded) and the children of papatuanuku are called upon through a natural process (ie, Whiro -good and bad bugs) that remove the human excrement however, the removal of these natural elements creates the “noa” state diminishing mauri so the mauri needs to be restored and the process of Rakahore (through the papatūānuku channel) the deity for rocks and shingle creates the flow to meet force and vortex – causing treated waters to swirl and aerate putting mauri back into the treated waters...this is all part of the natural process created by her children where another of her children Tangaroa, does his job and removes further degradation through the sea salt and is assisted by his brother Tawhirimatea creating the wave movements.

A key role of the committee has been to monitor discharges in the waterways by analyzing technical reports from a cultural perspective. Their involvement has significantly influenced key decisions. Monitoring and reporting is trending well on performance to date which contributes toward enhancing the mauri of the river. It is still early days though and it needs to be acknowledged, that there are still non-point pollutant sources in the waterways, such as agricultural runoff and the detrimental effects of land intensification.

The joint waste management committee can be considered an excellent model of co-governance between a district council and tangata whenua. Such has been their success that there are discussions being held with the HDC to broaden the terms of reference to incorporate all water management issues (ie, drinking water, storm water, improving the mauri of the Ngaruroro and Karamu waterways).

Waitangi Tribunal Claims

Te Runanga Putaio unit of Heretaunga Taiwhenua has also taken a leadership role to progress the Tribunal claims by establishing He Toa Takitini back in the early 2000s. In 2003, the “umbrella” statement of claim for the Heretaunga and Tamatea Inquiry District (Hastings and Central Hawke’s Bay Districts) was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal. The claims are represented by He Toa Takitini, formed and led by on behalf of the claimant group bringing together several claims concerned with breaches to the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 with regard to:^{^[3]}

· Land base and resources;

· Rivers and waterways (including the Tukituki catchment);

· Old land claims;

· Waipukurau transaction (and in particular Lake Whatuma);

· Failure to provide alternatives to sale;

· Crown purchase transactions and methods (such as the Gwavas Forest Park); and,

· Other grievances lodged alongside individual claims.

The claim concerning “environment” refers to the failure of the Crown to recognize hapu rights to exercise their tinorangatiratanga (self determination) and kaitiakitanga responsibilities. Much of their traditional lands were destroyed or changed such as many of the traditional habitats (ie, bush, rivers, swamps, wetlands, lakes). Hapū access to indigenous flora and fauna for cultural harvesting was severely impacted and the introduced exotic flora and fauna were not adequately controlled, causing further degradation and depletion of mahinga kai resources. The claim also highlights the destruction to wāhi tapu sites of significance such as ‘Nga Kai Hinaki a Whata and Mahinata Kahukura Takapau.’ Other specific areas of concern have included the overflow from oxidation ponds in and around Waipukurau which have contributed to pollution of surrounding land and waterways within the Tukituki catchment in particular.

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Another influential advisory group to be established in the mid 1980s was the HBRC Māori Standing committee. Initially Māori were represented by the NZ Māori council and eventually, after the RMA was established, there was a move towards including Iwi representation from the Taiwhenua established under Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kahungunu.

Over the years, this committee has continued to evolve providing advice to the HBRC on a wide range of resource management issues. In the last few years there has been a shift towards forming a co-management model between the large natural groups (ie, Treaty of Waitangi claimant groups). However, one of these claimant groups He Toa Takitini, have chosen not to participate in the new structure being proposed until their Tribunal claims are progressed further.

Key Points

The overall arching goal is to acknowledge mana whenua in the co-governance, management and operational levels of resource management. The excellent co-management relationship established between HDC and Heretaunga mana whenua provides a model of an effective relationship based on trust, open communication and a respect of the collective wellspring of knowledge and expertise. The HBRC are currently re-structuring their co-management processes but will need to carefully ensure the other claimant groups not participating in this process, are still able to input into key environmental concerns. Mana whenua have a reciprocal responsibility as kaitiaki to ensure the wise management and use of taonga-tuku-iho for future generations.

The indicators to ensure this outcome is achieved for this goal might involve:

· Whether mana whenua agrees the district and regional council acknowledge their kaitiakitanga roles and responsibilities and make provision within statutory plans.

· Extent to which iwi/ marae/ hapū tribal boundaries are known to the Council.

· Extent to which Council monitoring has determined whether Anticipated Environmental Results (AERs) relating to mana whenua provisions are achieved.

· Extent to which marae/ hapū participate in kaitiaki activities and capacity to protect and maintain mana whenua.

Outcome Two: Mauri of all Waterways

Mana whenua as kaitiaki have an active role in environmental management of natural resources, taonga tuku iho passed down through whakapapa interrelationships between the physical and spiritual worlds within Te Ao Māori. Ensuring the mauri of all living things are maintained, restored and protected is a fundamental responsibility for Kaitiaki. A taonga whose life force has been diminished or depleted presents a major concern for mana whenua who must do all in their power to restore the mauri of the taonga to its original strength. Kaitiakitanga is an integral part of the expression of tino rangatiratanga where there is authority to control access to, and use of natural resources. However, failure to exercise their kaitiaki responsibilities will result in the mana of marae and hapū being diminished and may have negative impacts on the wellbeing of whānau.

Throughout this report mana whenua have given expression to how all forms of life are interrelated and interdependent, where the mauri life force essence within the natural environment is integral to the wellbeing of people. Mauri provides a means for assessing balance and inter-connectedness within an environmental system. There is a reciprocal understanding and responsibility to protect all life – because what gave people life, also gave them obligations. The natural order of life established tikanga and kaupapa to ensure the care and protection of mauri.

The development of indicators for mauri is being sought by marae and hapū because the mauri of water quality has become a critical issue. This has largely been in response to the continuing degradation and deterioration of the Tukituki River catchment as a result of poorly managed land use effects to sustain ecosystems. The associated indicators need to provide methods and measures to determine whether the mauri of all waterways are in optimal good health. It is also important to assess the contribution district and regional councils can play in achieving this aspiration or goal.

Key Points

The key areas of concern identified by mana whenua in this report include:

· Priority must be given to restoring habitats of particular native species such as, tuna (ie, longfin), fresh water koura, fresh water mussels and whitebait (ie, īnanga), spawning areas.

· Measures of water quality are vital for a more consistent monitoring of water conditions and trend. The evidence of diverse aquatic macro invertebrates in the water can provide an important indicator of the health condition of the mauri of water.

· Restoring native biodiversity and the recovery of habitats are also important indicators to determine improvements in water quality management and policy development in the implementation of the plan.

· The acknowledgement and integration of mātauranga Māori with western knowledge to restore and protect native biodiversity, the mauri of taonga species and ecosystems.

The indicators to ensure this outcome is achieved might involve:

· The extent to which the HBRC will protect mauri of the waterways and contains provisions within the Tukituki River catchment plan to protect mauri.

· The extent to which mana whenua protect mauri and have the environmental management processes in place to establish a co-management approach.

· The actions of other agencies to understand and actively work with mana whenua to develop strategies to improve mauri of taonga species and ecosystems.

· Whether community and interest groups take active measures to protect and restore mauri.

· Monitoring methods in the provisions to identify characteristics of waterway inhabitants, presence of potential human and animal threats and other data.

Mana whenua will need to develop a consistent approach and robust methods for environmental monitoring which can be meaningful for marae, hapū and council. Factors to consider when assessing Mauri are listed in Table 6.0 over page:

Table 6.0 Factors for Assessing Mauri^{^[4]}

Factors for Assessing Mauri

Water table

Color, depth, temperature of water

Nutrient status (ie, phosphorus)

Size of plants, taonga present

Abundance of taonga fish species

Taonga birds present

Whether You can eat fish, plants

Evidence of pollution, sewage

Diversity of fish species

Abundance and diversity of bird species

Absence or presence of fish and birds

Presence or absence of stock on the water

Evidence of contamination

Algal growth

Smell of water

Flow of water, oxygenation

Characteristics of riparian vegetation

Evidence of introduced pests and plants

Māori wellbeing, health

Māori cultural values of mahinga kai

Wāhi tapu

Outcome Three: Protection of Wāhi Tapu

Another outcome being sought by mana whenua is to protect wāhi tapu from further desecration. Wāhi tapu are specifically recognised and provided for in several pieces of legislation including the RMA (section 6) and the Historic Places Act (HPĀ) (1993). Unlike archaeological sites, legislation does not necessarily protect sites of significance to Māori. There is no specific recognition of whakapapa, ancestral landscapes or wairua in the RMA or HPA. The protection of wāhi tapu is often at odds with competing western values (of development) and the councils need to develop a joint- management approach with marae. hapū and iwi to identify existing and potential measures towards protecting, restoring and preserving wāhi tapu.

The indicators to ensure this outcome is achieved might involve:

· Extent to which there are provisions within district and regional documents to protect wāhi tapu.

· Whether mana whenua have provisions in place to form co-management arrangement with council and other agencies to protect wāhi tapu.

· Information on wāhi tapu is protected and access of location and knowledge has protocols established with local marae and hapū.

· Physical characteristics of wāhi tapu are identified and protected.

· The presence of any threats are identified and mitigated.

6.3 Summary of Māori Environmental Indicators and Outcomes

Table 6.1 Developing Māori Environmental Outcomes, Indicators, Monitoring

Outcome

Indicators

Monitoring

Outcome One:

HBRC acknowledge Mana Whenua

- The extent that HBRC make provision within statutory plans

- Extent to which iwi/marae/hapū tribal boundaries are known to the Council

- Extent to which marae/ hapū participate in kaitiaki activities and capacity to protect and maintain mana whenua

- Monitoring the extent that mātauranga is integrated in the current resource management regime giving effect to Kaitiakitanga principles across all levels

- Extent to which Council monitoring has determined whether Anticipated Environmental Results (AERs) relating to mana whenua provisions are achieved

- Mana whenua monitor council commitment to develop co-management regimes to acknowledge kaitiaki role

Outcome Two:

Improve Mauri of all waterways

- The extent to which the HBRC will protect mauri of the waterways and contains provisions within the Tukituki River catchment plan

- The extent to which mana whenua protect mauri and have the environmental management processes, resources, capacity and knowledge systems in place to establish a co-management approach

- The actions of other agencies to understand and actively work with mana whenua to develop strategies to improve mauri of taonga species and ecosystems

- Whether community and interest groups take active measures to protect and restore mauri

- Develop taonga inventories to determine the presence or absence of taonga (ie, fauna and flora returned or restored that has been modified, destroyed or damaged)

- Extent that mauri-indicators will be incorporated into the Biodiversity strategy plan

- Utilizing CHI tools, SHMAH kit, State of the rohe and other models to gather baseline data for assessment

- Monitoring of fish stocks, fishery habitats and their associated biodiversity

Mana whenua to gather oral histories on mātauranga for transferring to next generation as part of succession planning

- Mana whenua produce marae and hapū resource management plans with mauri indicators, measures for monitoring progress

- Monitoring methods in the provisions to identify characteristics of waterway inhabitants, presence of potential human and animal threats and other data

- Monitor the effects of unwanted flora and fauna species that are exotic, foreign or introduced and the extent of damage and displacement of taonga

- Monitoring the development of mauri-measures within the Biodiversity strategic plan

- Development of mauri -measures for improving the health of all the waterways within the Tukituki River catchment and provisions to monitor improvements within the plan change

Outcome Three:

Protection of Wāhi Tapu

- Extent to which there are provisions within district and regional documents to protect wāhi tapu

- Whether mana whenua have provisions in place to form co-management arrangement with council and other agencies to protect wāhi tapu

- Information on wāhi tapu is protected and access of location and knowledge has protocols established with local marae and hapū

- Mana whenua to define the cultural significance of sites, cultural heritage sites, wāhi tapu, wāhi taonga

- Identify, understand and give effect to this in planning and policy

- Monitor extent of modification/ destruction, sites affected by human activity, registered sites with council etc

- Physical characteristics of wāhi tapu are identified and protected and the presence of any threats are identified, mitigated and monitored for improvement, restoration and protection

- Mana whenua work with council to develop protocols to access mataurangā Māori on wāhi tapu and to monitor establishment of co-management approach and processes

6.4 Recommendations for the HBRC to Consider

The recommendations are aimed at assisting the HBRC to consider how they might integrate cultural values into the plan change for the Tukituki River catchment and are listed below:

Recommendation One:

That the HBRC will undertake to develop Māori indicators and to evaluate Māori policy to ensure there is provision for mana whenua to have greater participation in decision-making at governance, management and operational levels of regional planning.

The HBRC may need to undertake an audit/ peer review to determine the extent that the overarching regional environmental outcomes include environmental Māori outcomes and indicators.

The HBRC will also need to engage with mana whenua to evaluate whether the overarching outcomes relating to important environmental Māori cultural values are being achieved. This may involve an evaluation of the plans and their performance against the cultural values indicator, outcome and monitoring measures framework constructed within this report.

Recommendation Two:

That the HBRC will undertake to integrate the fragmented efforts that have occurred to date between the local and regional council for a more consistent planning approach towards the development of outcomes, indicators and monitoring measures seeking to improve the mauri of the Tukituki River catchment.

Recommendation Three:

That the HBRC will work alongside marae/ hapū in identifying existing and potential measures toward protecting wāhi tapu and cultural sites of importance to mana whenua.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 30 October 2012

SUBJECT: Tukituki Choices - Responses

Reason for Report

1. At its meeting on Wednesday 31 October, Council will consider the 163 responses received on the Tukituki Choices discussion document. These provide an indication of different stakeholder positions on how land and water in the Tukituki Catchment should be managed in the future and how storage might fit into the overall catchment management for the desired environment, economic, social and cultural outcomes.

2. At the Maori Committee meeting on Tuesday 30 October, staff will give an overview of the responses and key issues. Committee members will also be provided with the equivalent Council paper on this matter which was still in preparation at the time of writing the paper for the Maori Committee.

A summary of the responses is provided in Attachment 1. Individual responses will be available to view on the Council’s website on Monday 29 October 2012.

Council’s approach to the issues in the Tukituki Catchment

3. The Council has been working on a three pronged approach towards managing the land and water issues in the Tukituki Catchment.

4. Council’s first priority has been finding ways to improve summer flows.

5. One way is to increase the river flow at which consent holders would be required to stop taking water. This ‘minimum’ flow can be set for different levels of habitat protection and it is proposed that the Tukituki River warrants a high level of protection for both longfin eel and trout. This does have economic impacts on existing irrigators and a contested process and a long transition time is likely to this approach.

6. Another way is to enable and facilitate the collection of high river flows into storage with the migration of some, if not all, existing irrigation from surface and groundwater supplies to stored water. This would result in more natural flow conditions particularly over the low flow period, over and above the flow that would occur even if the minimum flow cutoff is increased.

7. The second priority has been to reduce phosphorus (P) inputs to the river as the most practical way to achieve a reduction in algae growth in the river. The Waipukurau and Waipawa wastewater discharges contain high levels of phosphorus, and during summer low flows, it makes up 50-70% of the phosphorus input in the catchment. HBRC has known the river was P limited for a number of years and the consent it issued for the wastewater discharges requires a significant reduction in the P levels by September 2014. While HBRC has actively sought to assist the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council to find a technically feasible and financially acceptable land based solution for its municipal wastewater discharges, and even purchased and planted land for that purpose, CHBDC is proposing to reduce the phosphorus in the wastewater through chemical treatment in order to meet the effluent quality limits on the consent.

8. Meeting the new effluent standards will make a significant difference to P concentrations and algal growth in the river.

9. Another source of P is sediment. Stock exclusion from water ways is proposed to minimise the amount of sediment getting into the water. This will improve the water quality for swimming and fishing. Water quality limits will be set for phosphorus and the Council’s land management team will target sub-catchments with high phosphorus levels to minimise sediment discharges and other sources of phosphorus discharges.

10. Thirdly, nitrate concentration in the rivers will be managed to protect aquatic species from nitrate toxicity effects and nitrogen load limits will be set for the catchment. HBRC initiated new research on nitrate toxicity for native fish (inanga) and mayfly which found that these species are more tolerant to nitrate concentrations than rainbow trout and the even more sensitive lake trout. The proposed levels provide good protection for trout species and given the higher tolerance of inanga, an even higher protection to other species.

11. Fourthly, the exclusion of stock from waterways, riparian planting and nutrient management plans required as part of the mitigation measures for the storage scheme will allow stream banks and rivers to recover to provide improved habitat for aquatic species including long fin eel and other native fish species. The contractual arrangement between irrigator and scheme owner would enable access to water to be withheld if these practices as conditions of supply are not met.

Consultation Process

12. The purpose of the consultation was to integrate the Ruataniwha Water Storage project into the options for the future management of land and water in the Tukituki Catchment. It provided four choices to consider, two without storage (A and B) and two with storage (C and D). The choices considered different minimum flow regimes and different water quality limits for nitrate.

13. The consultation on the Tukituki Choices discussion document is an ‘informal’ non-statutory process. Council is not required to do it but it is considered to be good planning practice. Policies and rules for land and water management in the Tukituki River Catchment are to be contained in the Regional Resource Management Plan. This will be done by way of a ‘Plan Change’ which follows a formal statutory process.

14. While Council has been actively engaging with key stakeholders over the last two years specifically around the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project, the Tukituki Choices process has provided stakeholders who are directly affected by decisions around land and water management, and the wider regional community, with an opportunity to comment on possible land and water management options, the role of storage, and to indicate what is important to them.

15. The community was advised of this opportunity in a number of ways:

15.1. Direct mail-out of the Tukituki Choices Discussion Document to stakeholders

15.2. Public notices in the community newspapers across the region

15.3. Special edition of ‘Our Place’ delivered to all households (55,000) in the region

15.4. Presentations at three public meetings and two breakfast meetings

16. It was also the topic of discussion at an EIT led public meeting.

17. The community has therefore been well informed of the opportunity to comment on Tukituki Choices.

Number of Responses Received and Analysis of Responders

18. A total of 163 responses have been received. The table below shows an analysis of responders. It provides an understanding of which sectors of the community have responded and an understanding of their key drivers. Decisions around water allocation, minimum flows and water quality limits can have financial impacts on people who are currently taking water for their business operations and who are farming the land.

19. If storage proceeds, irrigators will face very significant financial decisions in the future in return for water security and the local community will also face changes.

Responder Category	Number of Comments Received
Irrigators / Landowners in the catchment	44
Iwi organisations (included Marae)	4
Industry Sector	18
Statutory Organisations (eg TAs, Department of Conservation, Conservation Board, HBF&G)	6
Non-statutory Environmental / Recreational Groups	8
Individuals outside the catchment	127
Total	163

20. A summary of the key issues raised will be presented at the meeting.

Where to from here?

21. These responses will also be considered by the Regional Planning Committee at its meeting on 7 November 2012. The Regional Planning Committee will consider draft objectives, policies, methods and rules for the Tukituki Plan Change in a workshop session. It is anticipated that an additional Regional Planning Committee meeting will need to be scheduled to formally consider the plan change and make recommendations to the Council to adopt the plan change for public notification.

22. Decision Making Process

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.

Recommendation

1. That the Maori Committee receives the report on the Tukituki Choices responses.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View

Summary Comments

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 30 October 2012

SUBJECT: Update on Winter Air Quality Results & Heat Smart Update

Reason for Report

1. This report is for information only and presents the results of air quality monitoring, specifically PM₁₀ monitoring, in the Napier and Hastings airsheds during the winter of 2012, including a comparison to previous years.

2. Also provided is a summary of findings from the air quality modelling project undertaken by Golder Associates in 2011/12. The purpose of the modelling was to estimate the reduction in emissions needed to meet the National Environmental Standard (NES) for PM₁₀ and to investigate the transport of PM₁₀ between and within airsheds.

3. In tandem with the modelling project was work undertaken by Environet Ltd which aimed to put the modelling projections into the context of measures already in place to manage PM₁₀ emissions from domestic heating and whether these are likely to be sufficient to achieve the NES.

4. Finally, a brief mention is made of the results from the recently completed PM₁₀ screening monitoring campaign in Waipukurau that was conducted for a period of one year.

Background

5. Prior to this year, the NES for PM₁₀ (50µgm^-3 averaged over 24 hours) has been exceeded every winter in the Napier and Hastings airsheds since continuous PM₁₀ monitoring was established in both cities in 2006.

6. The NES regulations require that by September 2016 the Napier airshed must not exceed the standard more than once per year and the Hastings airshed no more than three times. By September 2020 both airsheds must not exceed the standard more than once per year. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is responsible for ensuring the standard is met.

7. Investigations into the sources of PM₁₀ within these airsheds identified that fires used for domestic heating are the primary contributor to measured concentrations. Council put in place a number of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to reduce emissions from this source. These include a ban on open fires and the gradual phase-out of older wood burners as well as providing funding assistance for conversions to clean forms of heating through the Heatsmart scheme.

8. The effectiveness of those measures should, over time, be evident in the concentrations of PM₁₀ being measured and it is anticipated that concentrations will progressively decrease as the dates for NES compliance draw near.

PM₁₀ monitoring 2006-2012

9. The measured PM₁₀ concentrations (24 hour averages) for Napier from 2006 to September 2012 are shown in Figure 1. Typically the NES has been exceeded 3-5 times each year but for the first time since continuous monitoring began, no measurements exceeded the standard during the 2012 winter, with the highest concentration being 49.4 µgm^-3.

Figure 1: Daily PM₁₀ (µgm^-3) concentrations at Marewa Park Napier from 2006 to September 2012.

10. The measured PM₁₀ concentrations (24 hour averages) for Hastings from 2006 to September 2012 are shown in Figure 2. Prior to this year the NES has been exceeded 12-28 times each year but only 10 occasions were observed during the 2012 winter. The highest concentration recorded was 59 µgm^-3 (which is the lowest winter maximum since continuous monitoring began at the St John’s site).

Figure 2: Daily PM₁₀ (µgm^-3) concentrations at St John’s College, Hastings, from 2006 to September 2012.

11. Air quality and meteorology are closely linked due to the role weather has in dispersing pollutants and providing the conditions which lead to the need for home heating. It is important to consider differences in winter weather when trying to assess any variations of PM₁₀ concentrations from year to year. This is done by taking the average of PM₁₀ concentrations only on days when the NES is most likely to be exceeded, otherwise known as “normalised” concentrations. Normalising concentrations to account for varying weather conditions is a widely accepted practice amongst Regional Councils and typically involves performing a regression tree analysis to identify the meteorological conditions associated with high pollution days. Such an analysis was undertaken by Environet Ltd for the Napier and Hastings airsheds.

12. In both Napier and Hastings the normalised winter PM₁₀ concentration in 2012 was lower than the previous 6 years (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Normalised winter PM₁₀ concentrations (µgm^-3) for the Napier and Hastings airsheds from 2006-2012.

13. It is important to note that the PM₁₀ standard must not be breached for five years before an airshed can be deemed non-polluting for the purpose of determining whether significant new discharges from industry require offsets.

Airshed modelling

14. In 2011 Golder Associates started a project modelling PM₁₀ concentrations in the Napier and Hastings airsheds based on monitoring data up to 2010. The purpose was to provide an estimate of the spatial distribution of PM₁₀, to quantify transport of the pollutant between and within airsheds and to update projected reductions in emissions required to meet the NES. The main findings from this exercise were:

14.1. The peak modelled PM₁₀ (24 hour average) was relatively high in Marewa (the site of monitoring) but the concentration is potentially higher in Pirimai.

14.2. The St John’s site in Hastings is relatively well placed, being within a ring of peak PM₁₀ levels around central Hastings.

14.3. Very little of the PM₁₀ in Napier’s Airzone 1 originates in Hastings and vice versa. Nearly all exceedances of the NES in Napier would still occur if there were no emissions in Hastings and vice versa.

14.4. Dispersion within airsheds is significant. Approximately 30-40% of modelled PM₁₀ at Marewa Park originates within the Marewa Census Area Unit (CAU) with the largest contributions from other CAUs coming from those lying to the west and south. Approximately 30-60% of modelled PM₁₀ at St John’s College originates from the Mayfair CAU, with the largest contribution from other CAUs coming from Parkvale to the south.

14.5. The overall reduction in emissions, from 2010 levels, required to meet the NES is 44% in Napier and 48% in Hastings. This includes an “unmanageable” contribution from natural sources so the estimated reduction in emissions from domestic heating is 47% and 50% for Napier and Hastings respectively.

PM₁₀ Management

15. Environet Ltd compared the modelling projections with the reductions that are anticipated from implementing the regulatory and non-regulatory measures adopted by Council. The initial aim of those measures was for Napier and Hastings to reach compliance with the NES in 2020.

16. Management plans produced for Napier and Hastings by Environet are appended. The main conclusion is that the rules and incentives (provided by HeatSmart) currently in place should be sufficient to achieve the NES.

17. The main focus of HBRC’s HeatSmart programme is the phasing out and replacement of domestic fires that do not meet current national emission standards. In order to meet exceedance targets for PM₁₀ it has been estimated that HBRC would need to financially support the replacement of 10,000 domestic fires by 2020. The fire replacement target for HeatSmart up to 30 September 2012 was 1094. The actual number of replacements taking up HBRC grants/loans has been 1515, and the number accessing EECA subsidies has been 2637.

18. Home insulation incentives and the Dry Wood Scheme also contribute to the reduction of PM₁₀. Since 2009 766 homes have taken up HBRC financial assistance for insulation. Compared to national trends for insulation and clean heat take up through EECA schemes Hawke’s Bay continues to perform well, with 23% of houses in the Napier and Hastings airsheds accessing funding compared to a national average of 13%.

PM₁₀ Monitoring in Waipukurau

19. Screening monitoring for PM₁₀ was undertaken in Waipukurau from June 2011 to June 2012 with samples being taken every three days and 24 hour averages calculated. The purpose of screening monitoring is to collect data where no information about PM₁₀ concentrations currently exist and to determine whether high concentrations are observed. This type of monitoring utilises instruments that do not comply with the NES regulations so the results can provide an indication only of whether the NES for PM₁₀ might be exceeded.

20. Figure 4 shows a pie chart of results from PM₁₀ monitoring in Waipukurau. The standard of 50 µgm^-3 was not exceeded on any of the sample days. The highest concentration recorded was 41 µgm^-3 and for the most part air quality was good or excellent (less than 16.6 µgm^-3). It is quite possible that sampling every three days could miss an occurrence of high concentrations however it is noted that on two days when samples were taken the NES was exceeded in Hastings and on one of those days the NES was also exceeded in Napier.

Figure 4: Pie chart showing the percentage of samples from PM₁₀ monitoring in Waipukurau that fall within categories of NES Exceedance (>50µgm^-3), Alert (33.3-50 µgm³), Acceptable (16.6-33.3 µgm^-3), Good (5-16.6 µgm^-3) and Excellent (<5 µgm^-3).

Decision Making Process

21. 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.

Recommendation

1. That the Maori Committee receives the report.

Kathleen Kozyniak

Senior Scientist Climate & Air

Mark Heaney

Heat Smart Programme Coordinator

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Attachment/s

1 View	Airshed Action Plan for Hastings
2 View	Airshed Action Plan for Napier

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
14 September 2012	HDC	7	Proposed Plan Change 57 – Omahu North Industrial Area HDC-initiated district plan change proposes to establish a new industrial area on the northern side of Omahu Road, Hastings.	HDC	Notified by HDC	1 October 2012 · HBRC staff are currently assessing Plan Change 57 to determine whether HBRC should lodge a submission. HDC undertook a significant amount of pre-notification consultation with HBRC in the development of the Plan Change with a particular focus on stormwater disposal. · Submissions close 26 October 2012.
10 September 2012	NCC	6	Draft Stormwater Bylaw 2012 Draft Bylaw proposed by NCC to enable NCC to inspect and control stormwater quality from individual premises discharging into NCC’s reticulated stormwater network.	NCC	Notified by NCC using the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative process	1 October 2012 · HBRC staff are currently assessing the contents of the draft Bylaw to determine whether HBRC should lodge a submission. · Submissions close 17 October 2012.
17 February 2012	WDC	5	Draft Trade Waste & Wastewater Bylaw 2012 Draft technical Bylaw proposed by WDC to regulate the WDC wastewater and trade waste system.	WDC	Notified by WDC using the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative process	1 October 2012 · Pending WDC’s decisions on submissions. 24 April 2012 · Submission lodged in support of WDC’s intent to gain greater control over the quality of wastewater received at the WDC wastewater treatment plants as it will result in positive environmental outcomes for the district.
12 August 2011	NCC	3	Proposed Plan Change 7 – Jervoistown NCC-initiated district plan change purpose is to create a new zone with new policies and rules for Jervoistown. The plan change seeks to counteract the effects of ad-hoc development within Jervoistown.	NCC	Notified by NCC	1 October 2012 · Pending hearing by NCC on submissions. 15 August 2012 · Submission period closed 22 June 2012. · In general HBRC is supportive of the broad intention of the plan change however notes that servicing constraints are a limiting factor. In particular a high water table contributing to the cross contamination of wastewater and stormwater, at capacity stormwater drains and cross boundary runoff and flooding. · Submission noted that Jervoistown is not included in the preferred settlement pattern included in the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. 11 May 2012 · Formal notification of Plan Change 7.
24 May 2010	NCC	2	Resource Consent - Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide an area of land currently zoned as main rural on 66 Franklin Road, Bay View into 6 lots and undertake earthworks.	Brian Nicholls	Notified by NCC Restricted Discretionary (hearing pending)	1 October 2012 · No further update. Pending hearing by NCC. · Previously HBRC lodged a submission opposing proposal unless all 6 lots were fully serviced. HBRC staff have had discussions since lodging submission with NCC and applicant. Discussions focused on stormwater and wastewater design options for the proposed subdivision.
23 August 2010	NCC	1	Resource Consent – Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide 58 McElwee Street, Jervoistown Certificate of Tile HBM2/1351 into two separate lots.	Mr B. Joseph Consultant – Consult Plus Ltd	Notified by NCC Restricted Discretionary (subject to appeal)	1 October 2012 · No further update. Application on hold pending hearing by NCC re Plan Change 7. · Previously HBRC lodged submission opposing proposal. NCC declined consent and applicant appealed NCC’s decision. HBRC joined appeal proceedings as an interested party. HBRC’s interests primarily relate to stormwater management and disposal.

[1] HBRC Environmental Management Committee 11 November, 2009: Agenda Item 9

1 View	Statutory Advocacy Update
2 View	Statutory Advocacy Map

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.