Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 18 February 2015

Timetable: 10.15am Morning tea for tangata whenua reps (Mohaka Room)

10.30am Start for Pre-meeting of tangata whenua reps (Mohaka Room)

Items for discussion:

Biodiversity Strategy Update

Committee Structure Agenda Item

Incorporating Tangata Whenua Views Agenda Item

12.30pm Lunch (Ahuriri Room)

1.00pm Committee meeting starts (Open to public)

Venue:

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 20 August 2014

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 20 August 2014

5. Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings 3

6. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 5

Decision Items

7. HBRC Committee Structure 7

8. Incorporating Tangata Whenua Views 15

9. Mohaka Engagement Plan 23

10. TANK Engagement Plan 45

11. Iwi Hapu Management Plans 67

Information or Performance Monitoring

12. February 2015 Resource Management Planning Project Update 71

13. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 75

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Nigel Baker	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini
Rangi Spooner	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Toro Waaka	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Walter Wilson	Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Christine Scott	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Dave Pipe	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Chairman Fenton Wilson	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Peter Beaven	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rex Graham	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rick Barker	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Tom Belford	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 18 February 2015

Subject: HBRC Committee StructurE

Reason for Report

1. HBRC has had the current committee structure in place since 2012, at which point the Environmental Management Committee and the Asset Management & Biosecurity Committee were merged to become the Environment and Services Committee, and the Regional Planning Committee was created.

2. The purpose of this report is to seek the Regional Planning Committee’s feedback on some options that the Corporate and Strategic Committee considered at its 11 February 2015 meeting. The options are proposed following on from previous discussions covering:

2.1. The lack of clarity around the most appropriate place for the receipt of environmental management reports and the potential duplication of items to the Environment & Services and Regional Planning committees

2.2. The previously signalled review of the continued operation of the Maori Committee.

3. The Corporate and Strategic Committee’s review is also looking at the establishment of an Audit and Risk Committee but this report does not consider that aspect of the review.

Environment and Services Committee / Regional Planning Committee

4. When the Regional Planning Committee was established in 2012, Council reviewed the Terms of Reference for the previous Environmental Management Committee and the Asset Management Committee and decided to amalgamate those two committees into a single Environment and Services Committee. The reason for this was that the plan development work previously undertaken by the Environmental Management Committee would subsequently be carried out by the Regional Planning Committee.

5. Many of the papers and reports that the Environment and Services Committee considers provide significant background information to the plan development process, including monitoring and investigation reports, State of the Environment reports, consents and compliance reporting. All of this helps provide the greater resource management context.

6. Under the current terms of reference, Councillors are receiving that environmental information but the Maori members of the Regional Planning Committee are not. This presents a significant gap in their upskilling and capability to perform the key task of that Committee; being plan development.

7. There have been suggestions that relevant committee papers are presented to the RPC Maori members at their pre meetings so that Councillors do not have to sit through the items again. This requires a duplication of effort on behalf of technical staff and administration staff and if Councillors are not in attendance, the Maori members do not get the benefit of their questioning and views on the matter. It is both efficient and transparent to ensure that all plan development decision makers receive the same information at the same time and in public.

8. Recent workshops of the Regional Planning Committee have highlighted the need for the whole committee to have a more thorough knowledge of the information and monitoring cycle by which HBRC manages natural resources. The workshops have also highlighted the view that the committee meetings are not sufficiently frequent to ensure that opportunities for upskilling occur consistently. Staff are reluctant to schedule meetings where there are insufficient items of business on the agenda, however if aspects of the Environment and Services Committee functions were to be undertaken instead by the Regional Planning Committee the workload could provide for more regular meetings.

9. More importantly it would provide a more complete information loop upon which plan development decisions could be made by the Regional Planning Committee.

10. The current Terms of Reference for the Environment and Services Committee are attached. (Attachment 1). The environmental monitoring and research, statutory process functions, and aspects of the implementation, compliance and enforcement functions would be carried out by the Regional Planning Committee.

11. Feedback is sought from this Committee meeting on:

11.1. Broadening the Terms of Reference for the Regional Planning Committee to include those elements of the Environment and Services Committee relating to resource management functions. (As a consequence, this will require the reinstatement of the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee to replace the Environment and Services Committee. The Terms of Reference under which the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee previously operated are attached. (Attachment 2).

11.2. From May 2015 amend the meeting schedule so that Regional Planning Committee meetings occur where Environment and Services Committees are presently scheduled (two-monthly), and Asset Management & Biosecurity Committee meetings occur where Planning Committees are currently scheduled (three-monthly).

12. Any amended Terms of Reference for the RPC would need to address voting procedures given that the RPC Terms of Reference requires an 80% majority to pass a motion on plan development related papers. Feedback is also sought on this point.

13. This Committee and Council need to consider whether this model should apply to all papers presented to the RPC or whether there should be a distinction between plan development related papers and other papers.

14. If there is a distinction for ‘other papers’, one option is for normal standing orders to apply. That is, majority voting (50%) with all members being entitled to vote. Another option is for all members to have speaking rights but only Councillors having voting rights. The latter might be appropriate where the recommendation is related to Council funding. However all decision recommendations would be further debated by the Council anyway.

15. If the changes to the Committee Structure as outlined above are agreed to in principle by the Corporate and Strategic Committee and the Regional Planning Committee, any formal changes will need to be made to Terms of Reference at the next suitable Council meeting.

16. While acknowledging that the future role of the Maori Committee is under review, it is noted that there was a proposal from the Maori Committee to the Council that the Chairman of the Maori Committee be appointed as an ex-officio member of the Regional Planning Committee. This would provide a conduit for information between the two Committees.

17. It is also noted that the Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference must be reviewed within six months of the HB Regional Planning Committee legislation being enacted.

Decision Making Process

18. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

18.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

18.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

18.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

18.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers for the region and the wider tangata whenua community.

18.5. Options that have been considered include retaining the existing committee structure, however it is considered that greater efficiencies and improved governance will occur as a result of the recommended changes to the committee structure.

18.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

18.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Makes the following changes to its committee structure:

2.1. Amends the terms of reference for the Regional Planning Committee to incorporate resource management functions currently undertaken by the Environment and Services Committee.

3. Amends the revised Terms of Reference so that voting on the additional papers that the Regional Planning Committee would be considering as a result of incorporating additional resource management functions is based on:

3.1. Majority voting (50%); and

3.2. All members having voting entitlement.

4. Agrees to the appointment of the Maori Committee Chairman as an ex-officio member of the Regional Planning Committee and amends the revised Terms of Reference accordingly.

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1	The Terms of Reference for the Environment and Services Committee
2	The Terms of Reference for the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 18 February 2015

Subject: Incorporating Tangata Whenua View

Reason for Report

1. This paper is being considered by both the Maori Committee and the Regional Planning Committee at its meetings on 17^th and 18^th February 2015 respectively. Staff have prepared it in response to two matters:

1.1. the proposals put forward by the Maori Committee as part of the Long Term Plan process (see Attachment 1) and

1.2. the need to support the Regional Planning Committee, and particularly the Maori members in order for the RPC to be a fully conversant and capable of good decision making in relation to the planning process.

2. Staff propose that a small working group of Committee members and staff be established to develop a terms of reference for a review of:

2.1. how HBRC currently incorporates tangata whenua views across its activities at both an operational and governance level,

2.2. HBRC’s performance in that regard from a council and tangata whenua perspective; and

2.3. how other councils are incorporating tangata whenua views.

Background

3. Both Committees were given an opportunity early in the Long Term Plan process to identify areas that the Council should focus on over the next Ten Years. The Regional Planning Committee in particular has a specific role to reviewing the Resource Management Planning Programme for the ten year period.

4. Members of the Maori Committee presented a number of proposals for the Council to consider and these are provided in Attachment 1 along with HBRC’s initial response.

5. The issue of support for the Regional Planning Committee was traversed in the Regional Planning Committee workshops held in the latter part of 2014, particularly in terms of the capacity and capability of the Maori members to up-skill in RMA planning processes and to provide for secession planning,

6. It is also relevant that the Tukituki Cultural Values and Uses Report that was prepared by Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga as part of the Tukituki Plan Change supporting documents included three recommendations for the Council to consider.

7. The report suggested that HBRC may ‘need to undertake an audit / peer review to determine the extent that the overarching regional environmental outcomes include environmental Maori outcomes and indicators. The HBRC will also need to engage with mana whenua to evaluate whether the overarching outcomes relating to important environmental Maori cultural values are being achieved. This may involve an evaluation of the plans and their performance against cultural values indicators, outcome and monitoring measures framework constructed within this report’.

8. The similar report for the Tukituki River produced by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga also contained a raft of recommendations that could be considered in the wider context.

Discussion

9. Given the range of questions being asked of Council, staff propose that Council should take a broader look at how best it can incorporate tangata whenua values and how best it can support the Regional Planning Committee.

10. Exploring the answers to this question (Phase 1 of the review) would involve:

10.1. a review of what HBRC is doing now and how it is structured (eg Maori Committee, Regional Planning Committee, marae/hapu engagement in Council projects);

10.2. a review of how well those actions incorporate tangata whenua views from the HBRC’s perspective, tangata whenua perspective as well as other stakeholders perspective;

10.3. a review of how other councils are incorporating tangata whenua views and how well that is being perceived.

11. The review would incorporate the Maori Committee proposals and would provide them with a broader context.

12. If Phase 1 shows there are shortfalls or things that HBRC can do better, then Phase 2 would involve consideration of the options available and funding implications.

13. It is important that Council’s tangata whenua representatives both on the Maori Committee and the Regional Planning Committee approve the way this review is undertaken. It is therefore suggested that a small working group comprising four tangata whenua representatives and two Councillors assist staff in the development of a terms of reference for Phase 1 and the process for engaging an appropriate independent person to undertake the Phase 1 review. It is suggested that the membership of this working group be the Chair of the Maori Committee, the co-Chairs of the Regional Planning Committee. 1 other member each from the Maori Committee and Regional Planning Committee, and one other councillor.

14. This group would give final approval to the terms of reference and the selection process for the consultant.

15. In terms of timing, it is expected that this Review could be completed by 30 June 2015 if the contract was awarded by the end of March.

Financial Implications

16. Once the Terms of Reference are agreed, proposals and costing will be sought from suitably qualified consultants. It is anticipated that the cost of such a study could be in the order of $15 - 25,000, depending on the scope. It is proposed to fund this from Strategy and Planning Project 192.

17. Given the timing of Phase 1, we will not be in a position to provide specific funding in the Long Term Plan for Phase 2 but the Council may consider making a provisional funding allocation in the draft Long Term Plan.

Decision Making Process

18.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

18.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

18.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

18.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers for the region and the wider tangata whenua community.

18.5. Options that have been considered include not undertaking the review and considering discrete proposals for incorporating tangata whenua values.

18.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

Recommendations

The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2. Agrees to undertake a review of HBRC’s practices to incorporate tangata whenua values to determine how HBRC can best incorporate tangata whenua values and how it can best support the Regional Planning Committee.

3. Agrees to establish a working group of tangata whenua representatives from the Maori Committee (2) and the Regional Planning Committee (2) and Councillors(2) to assist staff in the Review Project, principally:

3.1 Agreeing the Terms of Reference for the Phase 1 Review

3.2 Agreeing the selection criteria and process for appointment of the consultant

4. Endorses the following RPC members and Councillors for the working group:

4.1 Cr Wilson (co - Chair of Regional Planning Committee)

4.2 Mr Toro Waaka (co - Chair of Regional Planning Committee)

4.3 Cr ? (Councillor)

4.4 ? (Regional Planning Committee member)

5. Considers provisional funding in the draft Long Term Plan for the implementation of Phase 2.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Councils Response to LTP Proposals from Maori Committee

Councils Response to LTP Proposals from Maori Committee

Attachment 1

Maori Committee Proposals and HBRC’s preliminary response

The following is a summary of the proposals submitted by Council's Maori Committee for early consideration in Long Term Plan process and Council’s preliminary response. The proposals formed the basis of a presentation by Roger Maaka, Marei Apatu, Mike Mohi and Shaun Haraki at the Council Workshop on Wednesday 17 September 2014.

The Council appreciated the presentation by the Maori Committee representatives and the thought that had gone into developing the proposals.

In summary, many of the proposals fall into current projects and do not require additional funding while other proposals do. Council’s response follows each proposal description.

1. Establishment of a second tier role- Group Manager Maori and a senior advisor role to actively assist with capacity building within Council. Important to provide support and a 'Maori resource' to staff, councillors and members of RPC. Vital to assist with capacity building. Helps build understanding for both partners. Possibility of resource to 'hire in' relevant 'experts' to assist (RPC)

Council’s Response

Provision has been made in the draft LTP for a new position in the Policy team for a Maori Policy Advisor. This role would have a focus on the resource management planning work that Council has before it over the next ten years and the engagement with iwi and hapu and the integration of cultural values into those processes and planning documents. It would support Council’s obligations with respect to the involvement of tangata whenua in resource management in the region. This role would also support the RPC. Consideration is alos being given to the establishment of a 2^nd tier position.

2. Establishing close partnership arrangements with post settlement entities. Note: this is about close partnership and not close 'working' arrangements; subtle but very important difference . Inclined to take more notice of our 'partners'! Includes provision to have Chair of Maori Committee attend RPC meetings with speaking rights but not voting rights.

Council’s Response

The existing 2^nd tier position of Group Manager External Relations has responsibilities for maintain relationship with tangata whenua whether it is the negotiating group or the post settlement entity. This position is held by Liz Lambert who is also currently the Interim Chief Executive.

There is a willingness of Council for the Chair of the Maori Committee to attend RPC meetings on an ex-officio basis. This will be formally presented to the RPC at its next meeting in February. 2015.

3. Prioritising wet land restoration projects with tangata whenua e.g. more Whangawehi type initiatives. Accepting tangata whenua priorities as important. Work where needed not necessarily where 'easiest'. Whangawehi an excellent example and an example of joint venture with Nga Whenua Rahui, Council and tangata whenua . Also joint assistance at Whaakaki.

Council’s Response

In general, Council is moving away from the approach of working with the people who want to be worked with to working in areas where it is most needed.

The Regional Landcare Scheme will be focused in priority sub-catchments or otherwise on projects that align with the objectives of the Land Management Operational Plan. The Biodiversity Strategy will also provide for an alignment for priorities.

Council has been working with the hapu of Bridge Pa on its restoration objectives.

Council is more than happy to work with tangata whenua groups where there is an alignment of outcomes and funding is available.

4. Work closer with hapu/marae on development and monitoring of waterways within their rohe. Facilitating initiatives with other government agencies. Look to leverage off other agencies particularly Nga Whenua Rahui. Build on successes which encourage others to take part. Encourage more tangata whenua involvement in monitoring requirements . Need to establish MOR with such entities .

Council’s Response

Work in this area has started with the development of a monitoring framework for the Papanui Stream. The Tukituki plan change also requires the development of a cultural monitoring framework and it is desirable that the framework could be used to develop cultural monitoring programmes for the whole region.

However, there is a lot of korero needed to develop this project and to understand what needs to be done to make it successful.

5. Promote and support appropriate training for hapu reps, MC members etc e.g. Cultural Health Index (CHI), state of Takiwai, RMA commissioner and other workshops and initiatives. Promotion and participation in science wananga.

6. Provision of scholarship(s) that help develop tangata whenua capacity to interact on resource issues on an equal footing.

Looking for Council to actively provide for appropriate training for tangata whenua opportunities across the various functions Council is involved in. This is also about capacity building that allows tangata whenua to be better informed so that discussions with Council are more effect ive.

As part of the spectrum of Maori capacity building we see the next natura l progression would be for Council to support scholarships. To allow for the ability of 'mature' student to be able to apply we suggest a contribution to cover their living costs for a year so they can 'survive' while studying. We recommend a sum of $70,000 per year.

Council’s Response

Council’s focus for training must necessarily be for the members of the Regional Planning Committee. Some training requirements will fall out of the cultural monitoring framework project described above.

The Council does not support a contribution to a scholarship at this time but it does have an existing cadetship initiative in the Asset management section as a means of addressing the skills shortage in that area.

7. Gas and oil mana whenua group

At present there isn't a region wide approach from tangata whenua to look at the issues around this subject. Looking to the Regional Council to take a facilitation role e.g. promote and assist with organising a regional forum for tangata whenua. Ensures tangata whenua are involved at an early stage rather than running to 'catch up'.

Council’s Response

Council has made funding available in the current year to commence public engagement on this issues with a view to determining whether a plan change is required. There has also been discussion more broadly around energy. While work on this has not yet started, Council will discuss these issues and the desired engagement with tangata whenua with the Maori Committee and Regional Planning Committee.

8. Promoting te reo wherever possible

Looking for Council to be proactive in the promotion of te reo. Also recognising the likelihood that Council will be required to provide translation options if Maori chose to present to Council using te reo, whether written or verbal. More likely in future as more te reo speakers come through.

Council’s Response

Council already responds to requests to present submissions and evidence in te reo at part of its hearings processes.

While the Council’s building has signage in te reo, more consideration is needed as to whether our publications could better promote te reo.

9. Encourage development of Maori tourism via tagged funding to Tourism HB

Look to 'tag' some of Council's contribution to Tourism HB to develop a Maori tourism strategy or to support Maori initiatives. There is a real opportunity for HB to build on the cultural value of the region and the ability to bring visitors to the Region based on Maori tourism development . E.g. Matatini, Iron Maori etc . To support Matatini we recommend $100,000 over next 2/3 years be set aside as potential Council's contribution .

Council’s Response

Tourism Hawke’s Bay has a contractual agreement with HBRC incorporating a number of key performance indicators. Their principal function is to attract people to Hawke’s Bay from outside the region. It is then up to each tourism facility to attract people to their own operation once they are in Hawke’s Bay. HBRC is proposing in its draft LTP to renew its funding agreement with Tourism HB for a further three years. As part of the discussions a new contract HBRC will put forward a KPI to seek an effective focus in their advertising campaigns by Tourism Hawke’s Bay on cultural opportunities for tourists.

With respect to Matatini the focus for HBRC is on working alongside the event organisers to support the readiness of marae facilities to receive and host their guests. HBRC has offered technical support in the first instance for an assessment of marae facilities to scope the level of upgrading required.

10. Encourage partnership development with Maori land owners e.g. land use capability studies.

Develop a strategy to develop closer working relationships with Trusts and Incorporations to promote sustainable land use practices and agri-business opportunities.

Council’s Response

One of the proposals in the Draft LTP is the development of an East Coast Hill Country Strategy. The Maori Committee has received a presentation on this concept during the year. Council would welcome a closer working relationship with key Maori landowners as part of that process.

11. Targeted sustainable Maori economic development initiatives.

Look to provide specific assistance to assist with Maori economic development. Will tie in with Treaty settlement s as well as other initiatives.

Council’s Response

Council already have some funding committed to Maori economic development. A review of the Regional Economic Development Strategy is currently underway and Maori economic development should be part of that. Economic development will no doubt be a focus for the Post Settlement Governance Entities and Council welcomes a relationship with them in this area.

12. Investigate opportunities for alternate energy options e.g. solar power for Marae.

Assisting with alternate energy sources for marae would not only benefit the marae community but also better prepare marae for emergency events.

Council’s Response

As discussed above, Council has already provided funding for the development of an energy strategy and the current budgets already provide for a solar power scheme subject to a feasible business case. These types of initiatives are likely to be explored as part of that project.

As part of the assessment of marae for their readiness for Matatini the assessment will look at their potential needs for emergency events. While initially this will apply in only the Ahuririi and Heretaunga rohe it can be extended to Wairoa and Tamatea for civil defence emergency preparedness purposes.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 18 February 2015

Subject: Mohaka Engagement Plan

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Regional Planning Committee’s approval of the proposed engagement, for the Mohaka Plan Change as described in the Engagement Plan (Attachment 1).

Resource Management Act requirements

2. Clause 3 of the RMA’s Schedule 1 outlines the consultation requirements during the preparation of a proposed plan. Clause 3 states:

3 Consultation

(1) During the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan, the local authority concerned shall consult—

(a) the Minister for the Environment; and

(b) those other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the policy statement or plan; and

(c) local authorities who may be so affected; and

(d) the tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities; and

(e) any customary marine title group in the area.

(2) A local authority may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.

(3) Without limiting subclauses (1) and (2), a regional council which is preparing a regional coastal plan shall consult—

(a) the Minister of Conservation generally as to the content of the plan, and with particular respect to those activities to be described as restricted coastal activities in the proposed plan; and

(b) the Minister of Transport in relation to matters to do with navigation and the Minister's functions under Parts 18 to 27 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994; and

(c) the Minister of Fisheries in relation to fisheries management, and the management of aquaculture activities.

(4) In consulting persons for the purposes of subclause (2), a local authority must undertake the consultation in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. It states that HBRC must consult with Ministers for the Environment and Conservation, other relevant Ministers, local authorities, tangata whenua and any customary marine title group.

4. It also states that HBRC may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed plan.

5. The Mohaka Engagement Plan in Attachment 1 identifies those other parties that HBRC considers should be specifically engaged and outlines how HBRC will engage with them regarding the preparation of the Mohaka Plan Change.

Hapu/Iwi Engagement Plan

6. A separate, but complimentary, Mohaka Hapu/Iwi Engagement Plan is being prepared so that Maori values around engagement can be incorporated into the document as well as into the engagement philosophy. Staff will continue to hold discussions to inform this Plan with Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Hineuru, Ngati Pahauwera and Mana Ahuriri, along with Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated.

7. Staff have approached Ngai Tuhoe, Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare to confirm their respective relationships with the Mohaka catchment area and, as necessary, to incorporate their preferred engagement. Staff would value any guidance on this issue from the Mohaka Treaty Partners represented on this Committee.

8. Once drafted, the Hapu/Iwi Engagement Plan will be brought to this Committee for consideration and recommendation for adoption at the May meeting.

Engagement Principles

9. HBRC has adopted a Significance and Engagement Policy^{^[1]} in accordance with the Local Government Act. That Policy includes an engagement spectrum^{^[2]} as shown in Figure 1. The engagement spectrum identifies five levels of engagement, describes the key objective of each level and what it involves.

10. The Engagement Plan outlines when HBRC will consult, involve and collaborate with stakeholders in the development of the Mohaka Plan Change. It principally uses Levels 2, 3 and 4 of the engagement spectrum depending on the stakeholder group. This Engagement Plan assumes Informing (Level 1) will occur as a backdrop to Level 2-4 engagement methods.

Figure 1: Engagement spectrum





Level	1. Inform	2. Consult	3. Involve	4. Collaborate	5. Empower

What it involves	One-way communication - to provide public with balanced, objective information to assist them in understanding problems, alternatives, opportunities and/ or solutions	Two-way communication - to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/ or decisions	A participatory process - to work with public through the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered	Working together - to partner with public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and identifying the preferred solution	Public empowerment - to place final decision-making in public hands

Taharua Stakeholder Group

11. This Engagement Plan has not been developed from a ‘blank canvas’. Collaborative stakeholder engagement in the Taharua catchment has been occurring since the Taharua Stakeholder Group (TSG) was formalised by HBRC in 2009. Its remit was to develop lasting solutions to address the adverse impacts of more intensive land use on the Taharua and upper Mohaka rivers. Discussions are well advanced.

12. In parallel since 2012, a Taharua landowners’ group (a working sub-group of the TSG) has been meeting to discuss and implement on-farm actions for adaptive nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and soils management. The group have agreed ongoing action, which form the initial basis of a catchment management plan.

13. In 2012 the TSG put forward an outline ‘Taharua Proposal’, which comprises a plan change and linked catchment management plan as an integrated package for more sustainable catchment management. The Proposal was supported in principle by the HBRC Regional Planning Committee^{^[3]} and HBRC^{^[4]}, subject to further definition and scrutiny. The Mohaka Stakeholder Group (below) provides a useful forum for this, as any Taharua provisions will need to form an integral part of the plan change for the whole Mohaka catchment. RMA section 32 requires that any plan change proposal is examined against other reasonably practicable options to ensure the preferred provisions are the most appropriate way to achieve objectives.

Mohaka Stakeholder Group

14. In 2015 the Mohaka Stakeholder Group will be formed by expanding the existing TSG to provide a high-level forum for the Mohaka plan change now that its scope covers the entire catchment. The remit of the MSG in relation to Taharua will be detailed in its terms of reference (to be agreed). The MSG will include most existing TSG representatives, although Taharua landowners will generally be represented by a few individuals, who will feed back to the Taharua landowners’ group.

15. With this expansion in representation, the engagement level (Fig.1) will shift from ‘collaboration’ (Level 4) to ‘involvement’ (Level 3). This decision to move to a more traditional, less intensive engagement approach is informed by:

15.1. HBRC and stakeholders’ preference to deliver a Mohaka Catchment Plan Change as a regional planning priority, primarily to address the Taharua issue;

15.2. Taharua policy development is already well advanced from HBRC’s intensive collaboration with the TSG since 2009; and

15.3. preliminary discussions with Mohaka iwi and other stakeholders indicate other Mohaka issues should be relatively uncontentious.

16. It is acknowledged that the Regional Planning Committee has previously expressed commitment to having particular regard to the TSG’s recommendations in relation to the Taharua catchment. The extent this Committee’s future commitment to the MSG with regard to the wider Mohaka catchment will be clarified in the MSG terms of reference and informed by the MSG’s specific ‘involvement’ role (Figure 1).

Review of the Engagement Plan

17. Staff preparation of the Mohaka Engagement Plan has been informed by previous discussions with tangata whenua and other Taharua and Mohaka stakeholders. However, the document itself has not been yet viewed by these parties. Therefore, staff propose that Committee recommend Council approval of the Engagement Plan, allowing for staff to make any minor alterations or gap-filling arising through stakeholder discussions. Any significant proposed alterations would be brought back to the Committee for further consideration before finalising the Engagement Plan.

18. Once finalised, if the Engagement Plan needs to be reviewed and amended during Phase One of the Mohaka Plan Change, any amendments would be brought back to the Regional Planning Committee and the Regional Council.

19. An example of one reason why it might be reviewed could be the benefit of adjusting stakeholder engagement initiatives to better align with possible process and/or content amendments to the Resource Management Act proposed by the Government over the 2015-2016 period.

Financial and Resource Implications

20. Any costs associated with forthcoming engagement are funded out of budgets for Project 192 Strategy and Planning. The most significant costs associated with engagement were invested over the five year collaborative Taharua Stakeholder Group process.

Decision Making Process

21. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

21.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

21.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

21.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

21.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

21.5. Options that have been considered include: limiting stakeholder engagement to the Mohaka Stakeholder Group and Mohaka iwi/hapu; combining the general Mohaka Engagement Plan with the Mohaka Hapu/Iwi Engagement Plan; and not preparing an engagement plan. It was considered that documenting the level of engagement provides transparency and manages expectations for all stakeholders.

21.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

21.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2. Approves the Mohaka Engagement Plan for the Mohaka Plan Change, subject to:

2.1. finalisation by staff, including any minor amendment arising from stakeholder feedback; and

2.2. any major proposed amendments being brought back to the Committee for further recommendation.

Chris Reed

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Attachment/s

Draft Mohaka Engagement Plan

Draft Mohaka Engagement Plan

Attachment 1

1 Introduction

Hawke's Bay Regional Council (‘HBRC‘) is reviewing the current provisions of the Regional Resource Management Plan (‘RRMP’) for the management of land, surface water and groundwater resources in the Mohaka catchment. This area includes the Taharua headwater catchment and ten other catchments including the Ripia, Waipunga, Te Hoe-Hautapu and the Upper, Middle and Lower Mohaka. The spatial extent of the Mohaka catchment is shown in Appendix A.

The development of a catchment specific resource management plan will involve making a change to the operative RRMP (commonly referred to as a ‘plan change’). It will focus on water-related issues, including water quality, flows/allocations and riparian health. Managing key impacts and risks to water from the land will be essential. The Mohaka Plan Change forms part of the Regional Council’s broader rollout of catchment-wide plan changes to assist implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) throughout the region. However the plan change will not (and cannot) address all catchment issues. As a regulatory tool, defined and limited by the Resource Management Act (RMA), it should be viewed as one of a potential suite of interventions that can, over time, contribute to more integrated catchment management.

The purpose of the Engagement Plan is to contribute to high quality stakeholder involvement in the Mohaka Plan Change process and enduring solutions in the regional plan itself.

The Engagement Plan outlines how HBRC will engage with stakeholders in relation to the development and preparation of a proposed plan change. A separate, yet complementary, Engagement Plan is being prepared for the engagement of hapu and iwi.

This Engagement Plan has not been developed from a ‘blank canvas.’ Stakeholder engagement in the Taharua catchment has been occurring since 2009 following HBRC’s decision to initiate collaborative development of a Taharua Plan Change. As a result, Taharua stakeholder discussions are well advanced. In late 2012, HBRC agreed to extend the plan change to the entire Mohaka River catchment for an integrated ‘mountains to sea’ approach to water and land management^{^[5]}. This was both a response to the NPS-FM and also public feedback on a Taharua and Upper Mohaka Draft Strategy^{^[6]}. Subsequently, HBRC staff initiated dialogue with a wide range of Mohaka stakeholders, including iwi, to inform the extended engagement process.

There are a number of sectors in the community that have an interest in the management of the natural and physical resources in the Mohaka catchment. These can be categorised as follows:

§ Primary production (farmers, forestry, industry groups)

§ Local government

§ Central government

§ Non-governmental organisations

§ Hapu/iwi

§ Environmental groups

§ Recreational users

§ General public.

2 Timeframe for this Engagement Plan

As with any regional plan change process, the Mohaka Plan Change will involve a number of phases. The three broadest phases are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Phases in preparing Regional Plans

Phase	Title	Key Activities	Key Milestones
Phase 1	Developing the Plan To be completed by December 2017	§ Community engagement § Identifying values and objectives § Identifying and evaluating policy options § Informal consultation	§ Draft Plan Change document § Proposed Plan Change document § S32 RMA Evaluation Report
Phase 2	Formal consultation To be completed no more than 2 years after notification of Proposed Plan Change	§ Notifying the Proposed Plan Change § Making submissions and further submissions § Hearing the submissions § Making and notifying the decision on submissions	§ Summary of submissions available for further submissions § Officers report in response to submissions § Council’s decisions on submissions
Phase 3	Appeals	§ Appeals lodged against part or all of the decision § Mediation § Environment Court hearings	§ Court assisted mediation § Negotiated Consent Orders § Court decisions

This Engagement Plan applies to Phase 1 only.

Engagement in Phases 2 and 3 is primarily with submitters via formal processes prescribed by the RMA.

At this stage, HBRC is aiming to complete Phase 1 by December 2017. Phase 2 must take no longer than 2 years in accordance with RMA requirements. The timing and duration of Phase 3 largely depends on the Court workload and the time parties commit to mediation and/or evidence preparation for Court hearings.

3 Regional Council statutory consultation requirements

Clause 3 of the RMA’s Schedule 1 outlines the consultation requirements during the preparation of a proposed plan. Clause 3 states:

3 Consultation

(1) During the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan, the local authority concerned shall consult—

(a) the Minister for the Environment; and

(b) those other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the policy statement or plan; and

(c) local authorities who may be so affected; and

(d) the tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities; and

(e) any customary marine title group in the area.

(2) A local authority may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.

(3) Without limiting subclauses (1) and (2), a regional council which is preparing a regional coastal plan shall consult—

(a) the Minister of Conservation generally as to the content of the plan, and with particular respect to those activities to be described as restricted coastal activities in the proposed plan; and

(b) the Minister of Transport in relation to matters to do with navigation and the Minister's functions under Parts 18 to 27 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994; and

(c) the Minister of Fisheries in relation to fisheries management, and the management of aquaculture activities.

(4) In consulting persons for the purposes of subclause (2), a local authority must undertake the consultation in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

It states that HBRC must consult with Ministers for the Environment and Conservation, other relevant Ministers, local authorities, tangata whenua and any customary marine title group.

It also states that HBRC may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed plan.

This Engagement Plan identifies those other parties that HBRC considers should be specifically engaged and outlines how HBRC will engage with them regarding the preparation of the Mohaka Plan Change.

4 Engagement principles

HBRC has adopted a Significance and Engagement Policy^{^[7]} in accordance with the Local Government Act. That Policy includes an engagement spectrum^{^[8]} as shown in Figure 1. The engagement spectrum identifies five levels of engagement, describes the key objective of each level and what it involves.

The Engagement Plan outlines when HBRC will consult, involve and collaborate with stakeholders in the development of the Mohaka Plan Change. It principally uses Levels 2, 3 and 4 of the engagement spectrum depending on the stakeholder group. The Engagement Plan assumes Informing (Level 1) will occur as a backdrop to Level 2-4 engagement methods.

Figure 1: Engagement spectrum





Level	1. Inform	2. Consult	3. Involve	4. Collaborate	5. Empower

What it involves	One-way communication - to provide public with balanced, objective information to assist them in understanding problems, alternatives, opportunities and/ or solutions	Two-way communication - to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/ or decisions	A participatory process - to work with public through the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered	Working together - to partner with public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and identifying the preferred solution	Public empowerment - to place final decision-making in public hands

5 Level of engagement

A number of specific stakeholder groups have been identified for the Mohaka Engagement Plan. The level of engagement for each group, as well as other organisations and cohorts is shown in Table 2. The key stakeholder groups are described in Section 6. A complementary Engagement Plan is being prepared for engagement of hapu and iwi in the Mohaka Catchment.

Table 2: Engagement Plan outline

Group/ Organisation	Level of engagement	Method	Frequency / Information / Action	How information is passed on
Taharua Stakeholder Group (TSG) *Superseded by MSG - 2015*	Collaborate	Meeting	Semi-regular HBRC facilitated meetings following an informed, TSG-led plan development process (2009-14)	Members report back to their respective organisations and HBRC Regional Planning Committee through HBRC staff
Taharua Landowners’ Group	Collaborate	Meeting	Semi-regular HBRC facilitated meetings to explore and implement adaptive land management actions. Group-led	Members report to managers/owners as required and to TSG or MSG
Mohaka Stakeholder Group (MSG) *Supersedes TSG in 2015*	Involve	Meeting	Bi-monthly (approx.) HBRC/independently facilitated meetings following an HBRC-led process	Members report back to their organisations and HBRC Regional Planning Committee through HBRC staff
Department of Conservation	Consult	HBRC initiated meeting	On draft plan change
Ministry for the Envt. Ministry for Prim. Inds. Ministry of Bus. Innov. & Employ.	Consult	HBRC initiated meeting	On draft plan change
Primary Industry Pan-Sector Group	Consult	Meeting	Progress report from HBRC at meetings as scheduled	Members report back to their respective organisations
Other groups	Consult	Meeting on request	On draft plan change
General public	Inform	Public notices, media releases, website, social media	Advise of progress as per communication plan On draft plan change

6 Key stakeholder groups

6.1 Taharua Stakeholder Group

The key plank for community engagement in the ‘hotspot’ Taharua catchment has been the Taharua Stakeholder Group (TSG). This collaborative working group was formalised by HBRC in November 2009. The remit was to develop a Taharua Plan Change as a statutory framework to address, within a to-be-agreed timeframe, the adverse impacts of more intensive Taharua land uses on the Taharua and upper Mohaka rivers. In parallel to this, catchment landowners would be assisted by HBRC to implement on-farm adaptive management measures for improved nutrient and soil management.

The TSG terms of reference are provided in Appendix B.

This collaborative working group of 18 represents a broad range of interests and sectors. While the organisations represented are unchanged (except dairy farms), participating individuals have changed considerably since the Group was established. Table 3 identifies more recent TSG membership.

Table 3: Taharua Stakeholder Group membership

NAME	ORGANISATION
Nigel Baker	Ngati Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Incorporated
Toro Waaka / Gerald Aranui	Ngati Pahauwera Development Trust
Rangi Spooner	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
Neil Grant; Michel Dedual	Department of Conservation (Lower and Central North Island)
Peter McIntosh	Fish and Game Council (Hawke's Bay branch)
Kevin Mitchell	Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Hawke’s Bay)
Sharon Morrell	DairyNZ
Andrew Kempson / Carolyn Mortland	Fonterra
Steve Smith	Poronui Station (Westervelt)
Roger and Kay Feather	Wairango Farm
Andy Macleod, Bruce Hunter, Paul O’Hagan	Taharua Farms (Shanghai-Pengxin / Landcorp)
Carla Fleming and Tony Fleming	Country Spirit
Rob Bonson	Lochinver Station (Stevenson Group)
John Hura	NZ Forest Managers Ltd
Colin Maunder	Timberlands Ltd
Sue Mavor / Nick Carroll	Taupo District Council
Brendan Powell (facilitator)	Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

The TSG has followed an informed, group-led process to develop a catchment vision, management objectives and an outline ‘Taharua Proposal’^{^[9]} (comprising a plan change and linked catchment management plan) as an integrated package for more sustainable catchment management. This Proposal has been supported in principle by both the HBRC Regional Planning Committee^{^[10]} and HBRC^{^[11]}, subject to further definition and scrutiny.

The Taharua Proposal will be considered by the new Mohaka Stakeholder Group (MSG) as an integral part of the extended plan change for the Mohaka catchment (see 6.2). The TSG will be expanded to create the larger MSG, which in effect supersedes it. The exact remit of the MSG in relation to the Taharua catchment and existing Taharua Proposal will be detailed in its terms of reference (to be agreed).

6.1.1 Taharua Landowners’ Group

Since April 2012 a Taharua landowners’ group has been meeting as an informal sub-group of the TSG to discuss and implement on-farm actions for adaptive nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and soils management. Representatives are:

· Wairango Farm

· Taharua Farms

· Country Spirit

· Poronui Station

· Lochinver Station

· Dairy NZ

· HBRC (facilitator)

This landowner group is already implementing a list of agreed actions, which form the basis of a catchment management plan within the Taharua Proposal. Under this Engagement Plan the landowner group will continue in its adaptive management role, overseen (at least initially) by HBRC Land Services. The landowner group will also report to and inform the MSG and HBRC Regional Planning Committee, as required.

6.2 The Mohaka Stakeholder Group

The MSG, to be convened during 2015, provides a high-level reference forum for the Mohaka Plan Change. The MSG is to be formed by expanding the TSG. With this expansion of scope, engagement level will shift from ‘collaboration’ (Level 4) to ‘involvement’ (Level 3) (refer Figure 1). This decision to move to a more conventional, less intensive engagement approach is informed by:

· HBRC and stakeholders’ preference to deliver a Mohaka Plan Change as priority, primarily to address the Taharua issue;

· Taharua policy development is already well advanced from HBRC’s intensive collaboration with the TSG since 2009; and

· Preliminary discussions with a range of stakeholders indicate other Mohaka catchment issues should be relatively uncontentious.

The MSG’s terms of reference are in Appendix C. Indicative participating organisations are listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Mohaka Stakeholder Group (indicative)

ORGANISATION

TAHARUA STAKEHOLDER GROUP (as Table 3)

Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated

Ngai Tuhoe, Ngati Mananwa, Ngati Whare (to be confirmed)

Whitewater NZ

Hawke’s Bay Canoe Club

Mohaka Rafting

Hawke’s Bay Forestry Group

Federated Farmers of NZ (Wairoa-Gisborne)

Farmers and Landholders – as representative of Mohaka catchment

Forest and Bird (Napier and Hastings-Havelock North)

Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environmental Forum

Hastings District Council

Wairoa District Council

Bay of Plenty Regional Council

The MSG will primarily focus on assisting HBRC’s development of plan change provisions for the wider Mohaka catchment, but this will also need to integrate Taharua catchment provisions. While HBRC has indicated support in principle for the TSG’s Taharua Proposal, there is a requirement under RMA section 32 to examine any plan change proposal against other reasonably practicable options in order to ensure the preferred provisions are the most appropriate way to achieve objectives. The MSG provides a wider forum to assist this evaluation process.

6.3 Primary Industry Pan-Sector Group

The Primary Industry Pan Sector Group is an established group that HBRC works with on a range of issues of mutual interest. Resource management planning is one of the key areas. The membership and terms of reference is provided in Appendix D.

7 Records of engagement

Notes will be taken for each meeting held as set out in Table 2. These notes will form a record of engagement and a record of the feedback given to HBRC in response to the information provided.

This is an important part of the process for the development of the proposed Mohaka Plan Change and associated evaluation of options, benefits and costs. Records of engagement will be incorporated in summary form in the RMA section 32 evaluation report that must accompany the proposed plan change when publicly notified.

8 Decision-making for Mohaka Plan Change

The HBRC’s Regional Planning Committee is responsible for considering the draft plan change^{^[12]} and recommending it to HBRC for informal consultation. The Regional Planning Committee is also responsible for considering the proposed plan change and to make recommendations to HBRC for formal notification.

As part of this process, the Regional Planning Committee will consider a number of reports of both a technical and planning nature that inform and underpin policy options and to inform their decision-making.

It is acknowledged that the Regional Planning Committee has previously expressed commitment to having particular regard to the Taharua Stakeholder Group’s recommendations in relation to the Taharua catchment. The extent the Committee’s future commitment to the MSG with regard to the wider Mohaka catchment will be clarified in the MSG terms of reference and informed by the MSG’s specific ‘involvement’ role (Figure 1).

This Engagement Plan is anticipated to be endorsed by the Regional Planning Committee and the HBRC.

9 Roles and responsibilities for the Engagement Plan

Responsibility for ensuring appropriate engagement on the Mohaka Plan Change occurs sits with the Policy Team of the HBRC Strategic Development Group.

10 Engagement Plan review

The Regional Council may review and amend this Engagement Plan at any time during Phase One of the Mohaka Plan Change project. Any amendments to this plan would need to be considered and endorsed by the Regional Planning Committee and the Regional Council.

An example of one reason why this Engagement Plan might be reviewed could be the benefit of adjusting stakeholder engagement initiatives to better align with possible process and/or content amendments to the RMA proposed by the Government over the 2015-2016 period.

11 Further information and resources

Further information about specific community engagement events, and much more information about the Mohaka Plan Change is available online at:

http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/Hawkes-Bay/Projects/Pages/Taharua-Mohaka.aspx

HBRC’s Policy Team can be contacted for any additional queries:

Freephone: 0800 108 838 or (06) 835 9200

email: info@hbrc.govt.nz

Draft Mohaka Engagement Plan

Attachment 1

Appendix B Taharua Stakeholder Group - Terms of reference

Taharua Stakeholder Group

Terms of Reference (2009)

Introduction

In September 2009 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council committed to addressing the effects of intensive land use in the Taharua catchment. This response follows increasing evidence of adverse impacts on water quality and the outstanding values of the upper Mohaka and Taharua Rivers.

The Regional Council supports a practical approach to addressing this issue, which includes effects based regulation along with adaptive management of land use practices and farming systems to meet agreed targets. This would allow farmers the flexibility to develop farm systems that operate within the limits of the receiving environment.

The Council is committed to working in partnership with all key stakeholders to develop (ideally agreed) solutions. The Taharua Stakeholder Group is being formalised for this purpose.

Purpose

For stakeholders to share knowledge and ideas to develop enduring solutions that address adverse impacts of land use on community values of the upper Mohaka and Taharua Rivers and the Taharua catchment.

Objectives

· To share knowledge and openly discuss ideas for improved catchment management

· To develop ownership of catchment issues and enduring solutions

· To identify environmental, social, cultural and economic values of the upper Mohaka and Taharua Rivers and the Taharua catchment to inform more sustainable management

· To develop and (ideally) agree catchment objectives and effects-based targets by mid-2010

· To help develop an effects based framework* to meet objectives and targets

· To advocate for ongoing development and implementation of on farm adaptive management measures

(*note: Council’s preference is for an integrated approach combining effects based regulation and on-farm adaptive management)

Timeframe (approx.)

· Development of objectives and effects based, in stream targets around mid-2010

· Notification of a plan change to give effect to an effects based framework around mid-2011

· Research and implementation of on-farm adaptive management – ongoing

Membership

· Dairy NZ

· Department of Conservation (Hawke’s Bay and Tongariro/Taupo)

· Fish & Game (Hawke’s Bay)

· Federated Farmers (Hawke’s Bay representatives)

· Fonterra (Sustainable Dairying Strategist)

· Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

· Mana Ahuriri

· Ngati Hineuru

· Ngati Pahauwera

· Ngati Tuwharetoa

· Taharua landowners (all)

· Taupo District Council

(Ideally 1 or 2 representatives per organisation)

Meeting frequency

Bi-monthly or as required to meet timeframes.

Operational protocols

· Group members will commit to open, honest and collaborative discussion. Contributions made within the Group will be “without prejudice” and not taken out of context outside of the Group. However, Group representatives are free to report and discuss Group proceedings with their respective organizations.

· Group members will commit to meeting attendance.

· The Regional Council, acting as Convenor, will:

o Provide administrative and technical support for the Group

o Provide adequate notification of meetings to all members

o Seek, compile and circulate agenda items from/to all Group members

o Produce and circulate minutes from each meeting to all members

· All press releases require Group agreement prior to release.

· These Terms of Reference may be updated as agreed by the Group.

Appendix C Mohaka Stakeholder Group - Terms of reference

(to be inserted when agreed)

Appendix D Primary Industry Pan Sector Group - Terms of reference

(AKA ‘Partner Charter’)

The Primary Industry Pan Sector Group has developed a strategy that intends to deal with Hawke’s Bay's economic and environmental issues and opportunities across the primary sector in a different way - it does not present a one way or single entity solution.

Rather, it reflects the reality that there are many organisations in Hawke’s Bay which are able to productively bring knowledge, skills and resources to bear individually or collectively on the primary sector economic and environmental issues and opportunities in Hawke’s Bay.

Accordingly, the underpinning operational philosophy is ACTIVE COLLABORATION by the organisations, progressing the essential objectives of improving the economic and environmental potential across the whole of Hawke’s Bay in partnership.

The ACTIVE COLLABORATION philosophy acknowledges each organisations' identity, independence, and priorities - as well as differing competencies and responsibilities.

Collaboration will have the vital elements of effective communication, sharing, trust, and respect and a willingness to overcome obstacles and difficulties when they occur. Collaboration will also allow for ‘in confidence’ discussions where commercial sensitivity and conflict of interests exist.

Pan Sector Group Composition

Owner of the Strategy:

HBRC Land Management Group – Nathan Heath

Facilitator:

HBRC nominee

Representatives from:

Fonterra DairyNZ

Silver Fern Farms Beef+Lamb

McCain Foods Heinz Watties

Foundation for Arable Research Fert Research

AgResearch Plant&Food

Massey HBRC

MAF Irrigation NZ

Farmer reps Rural Futures reps

Zespri NZ Wine Growers

HortNZ PipFruitNZ

Federated Farmers HB Fruit Growers

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council representatives:

Campbell Leckie: Land Services Manager

Nathan Heath: Land Services Advisor

Ian Millner: Senior Land Management Advisor

Brendan Powell: Senior Land Management Advisor

Graeme Hansen: Water Storage Project Manager

Monique Benson: Water Management Advisor

HBRC Consultants:

Stephen Daysh: (EMS)

Operational Protocols

Meetings will be held in Hastings or Napier at convenient venues.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will provide administrative support for the functioning of the Pan Sector Group.

The Group will generally meet every 2-3 months, or on an “as required” basis should a significant issue requiring consideration arise.

Representative organizations will commit having a representative attend meetings.

Group members will commit to open, honest and collaborative discussion. Contributions made within the Group will be “without prejudice” and not taken out of context outside of the Group. However, Group representatives are free to report and discuss Group proceedings with their respective organizations, so long as they are not reported in any form of publication by the Group member or any affiliated organization without the express permission of the Chief Executive of HBRC. With the consent of the Group, representatives may involve expert representatives to facilitate understanding and Group discussions.

This Partner Charter may be updated as agreed by the Group.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 18 February 2015

Subject: TANK Engagement Plan

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Regional Planning Committee’s approval of the proposed engagement for the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri (TANK) plan change as described in the Engagement Plan (Attachment 1).

Resource Management Act requirements

2. Clause 3 of the RMA’s Schedule 1 outlines the consultation requirements during the preparation of a proposed plan. Clause 3 states:

3. Consultation