Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 7 June 2017

Time: 1.00pm

Venue:

Council Chamber

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 3 May 2017

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

5. Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda 7

Decision Items

6. Framework for Outstanding Water Bodies in Hawke's Bay 9

Information or Performance Monitoring

7. OECD Environmental Performance Review and Public Perception Survey of NZ’s Environment 2016 51

8. June 2017 Statutory Advocacy Update 57

9. June 2017 Resource Management Planning Project Update 67

10. Items of Business Not on the Agenda 73

Decision Items (Public Excluded)

11. Confirmation of the Public Excluded Minutes of 3 May 2017 75

Parking

There will be named parking spaces for Tangata Whenua Members in the HBRC car park – entry off Vautier Street.

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Liz Munroe	He Toa Takitini
Joinella Maihi-Carroll	Mana Ahuriri Trust
Apiata Tapine	Tātau Tātau O Te Wairoa
Matiu Heperi Northcroft	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini
Toro Waaka	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Paul Bailey	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rick Barker	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Peter Beaven	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Tom Belford	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rex Graham	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Neil Kirton	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Mike Mohi	Hawkes Bay Regional Council - Maori Committee Chair
Fenton Wilson	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Total number of members = 19

Quorum and Voting Entitlements Under the Current Terms of Reference

Quorum (clause (i))

The Quorum for the Regional Planning Committee is 75% of the members of the Committee

At the present time, the quorum is 15 members.

Voting Entitlement (clause (j))

Best endeavours will be made to achieve decisions on a consensus basis, or failing consensus, the agreement of 80% of the Committee members in attendance will be required. Where voting is required all members of the Committee have full speaking rights and voting entitlements.

Number of Committee members present Number required for 80% support

19 15

18 14

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 07 June 2017

Subject: Framework for Outstanding Water Bodies in Hawke's Bay

Reason for Report

1. This report sets out the options to identify outstanding freshwater bodies (OFWB) in Hawke’s Bay.

2. At the March RPC meeting, staff presented several options for the preparation of a plan change identifying OFWB’s in Hawke’s Bay. The Committee did not agree on any of the options presented, and asked if staff could recommend a short list of potential OFWB in Hawke’s Bay.

3. Key concerns were also raised at the March RPC meeting around whether it was necessary to create a legally defendable framework to identify waterbodies which were ‘obviously outstanding’, and if the proposed approach adequately took tāngata whenua values into account.

4. Following discussions at the meeting in March, the committee members indicated a clear preference for an all-inclusive approach that identifies outstanding waterbodies across the region for all values^{^[1]}, at the same time. The committee asked staff to come back with an alternative to addressing OFWB in the region and associated cost estimates.

5. This report has been co-authored by Belinda Harper and Billy Brough^{^[2]} in order to provide co-ordinated advice to the RPC to identifying OFWBs in a way that ensures all values^{^[3]} (including Tāngata whenua values), are appropriately addressed during its development.

6. Since the March RPC meeting the RPC Tāngata whenua representatives have discussed the OFWB topic further during their April and May hui. Staff members were not present at those hui, but the two tāngata whenua representatives were present and together with Staff have identified a preferred approach to identifying OFWB in Hawke’s Bay.

Summary of Report

7. Freshwater is one of our region’s most precious natural resources and much of HBRC’s work revolves around how it is managed. The Council is in the process of undertaking a broader package of plan changes to improve the overall management of waterbodies in the region.

8. The OFWB Plan Change is a small but important plan change which provides stakeholders and the community with an assurance that those special and exceptional waterbodies within the region will be protected and provided for in the future.

Identifying OFWB in Hawke’s Bay is a requirement of the NPSFM and does not lessen the importance of, or values associated with, other waterbodies. The management of all other waterbodies remains the same regardless of the OFWB plan change, including through current and future catchment-based plan changes that will be undertaken by the Council.

9. This report sets out the Council’s past, current and planned freshwater programmes to improve water quality and protect the life supporting capacity of our rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands and aquifers. It will answer a number of questions raised at the March 2017 RPC meeting, cover past work which has been undertaken on OFWBs at a national level and present the various options available to the RPC to progress this matter in Hawke’s Bay.

Summary of Direction Requested

10. Other than presenting advice about process options going forward, staff have deliberately not advanced any further work on this plan change project, until a clear agreed direction is reached by the Committee. Consequently, this report seeks direction from Committee members on their preferred approach, particularly in relation to:

10.1. the process to identify outstanding waterbodies in Hawke’s Bay

10.2. the meaning of outstanding

10.3. whether economic and consumptive use values should be adopted as values which can potentially make a waterbody outstanding for the purposes of the NPSFM.

Summary of Key Options

11. Following discussions at the Committee meeting in March, six principal options have been developed for consideration by the RPC to identify outstanding waterbodies in Hawke’s Bay. A detailed analysis of each option is contained in Attachment 1.

12. Option 3 is the default option, which will occur if the RPC cannot come to a consensus on how to address OFWB in Hawke’s Bay. Option 3 has limited direct input by the RPC, with OFWB being determined on an adhoc basis between 2017 and 2022. Option 3 does not guarantee any consistency to the identification of OFWB throughout the region, nor any certainty that cultural values will be robustly assessed or that OFWB will be adequately protected during the development of each catchment based management plan.

13. Options 4 and 5 involve a comprehensive initial list of approximately 130 waterbodies, followed by a high level review and subsequent further short listing for detailed analysis. Options 4 and 5 have been specifically developed in response to advice from the RPC Tāngata whenua representatives from the April and May hui, and ensure the OFWB plan change process adequately addresses all values^{^[4]} (including cultural values) at the same time.

14. Option 6 skips the comprehensive initial list and high level review, and develops a short list based on Draft Change 5 (approx. 10 waterbodies) and any other waterbodies as agreed by the RPC for detailed analysis. Option 6 has been specifically developed in response to questions raised at the March RPC meeting around whether a short list of ‘obviously outstanding’ waterbodies could be compiled for consideration to the RPC.

15. Staff have attempted to estimate the likely financial costs of Options 4, 5 and 6^{^[5]}. There is significant uncertainty around the financial estimates associated with Option 3 at this stage. In the short term Option 3 is cost effective as no immediate direct action is required. However in the long term Option 3 may be more costly than the other options, as each catchment group will debate and re-debate the topic and come up with an independent plan to address OFWB in their catchment. In brief, the broad financial cost estimates for Options 4, 5, and 6 are between $100,000 and $175,000.

16. Despite the broad financial estimates being higher than Option 6, in order to ensure cultural values are adequately assessed, the authors of this report are recommending that Option 4 be adopted by the RPC. Option 4 ensures any waterbodies which may be potentially outstanding for cultural values are identified in the short list and allows the RPC to decide on what waterbodies are outstanding in the region in both the coastal^{^[6]} and freshwater areas, and allows the RPC to take a range of information into account in their final decision, rather than focusing solely on Gisborne District Council’s narrative criteria.

17. Table 1 in Attachment 1 sets out a detailed analysis of each option, noting the key steps and broad financial cost estimates associated with each option. The RPC is asked to provide direction on their preferred approach.

Overview of Current Work Programmes

18. The OFWB Plan Change is just one of a number of work programmes proposed as part of the Council’s overall NPSFM progressive implementation package. Attachment 2 contains a Regional Catchment Map which is a geographic representation of the catchments grouping and sequencing as part of the programme to progressively implement the NPSFM by 31 December 2025.

19. There are a number of catchment-based work programmes which are focusing on improving the management of freshwater to protect the life supporting capacity of our rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands and aquifers. These programmes will identify values, set objectives and develop policies and methods (including rules) for managing all waterbodies – regardless of ‘outstanding-ness’ to ensure overall water quality is maintained or improved. Degraded waterbodies will be addressed during those catchment based processes.

20. The current catchment-based work programmes are focused in the Greater Heretaunga, Ahuriri and Mohaka Catchments. Future programmes that will be undertaken include Esk-Tutira, Wairoa, Porangahau, and Southern Coast catchment areas. These latter ones are intended to be undertaken in parallel, rather than in any particular sequence.

21. Each of these catchment based plan changes will be guided and directed by a range of provisions already existing in national policy statements, national environmental standards, plus the Regional Policy Statement (including recent amendments added by Plan Change 5). The information gathered on each value (including Tāngata Whenua values) has the added benefit of informing the development of the catchment based plan changes.

22. Attachment 3 outlines Council’s current and future work programmes.

Key questions: March 2017 - RPC Meeting

23. In March 2017, two key questions were raised by RPC members. These were:

23.1. What extra protection do OFWB have over other waterbodies in the region?

Summarised answer: The protection of OFWB is greater than that given to waterbodies with WCOs and other waterbodies in the region. All significant values of OFWB are to be protected (i.e. no trade-offs between values), while the values of other waterbodies within the region are managed (i.e. trade-offs can occur between values). The NPSFM effectively limits the development potential of OFWBs.

23.2. Are there any consequences of not notifying an OFWB Plan Change prior to the TANK plan change?

Summarised answer: There are several potential outcomes if a catchment-specific plan change (e.g. TANK) is notified prior to an OFWB plan change: 1. Nothing, 2. strong dissatisfaction expressed by parties previously involved in Change 5, and 3) a judicial review could be lodged in the High Court against any catchment based plan changes which occur prior to notification of an OFWB plan change.

24. Those questions, and others, are discussed in detail in Attachment 6.

MfE’s Community Environment Fund – Outstanding Freshwater Bodies

25. In July 2015, HBRC formed a project group with Auckland Council and Ministry for the Environment officials to provide clarification around the intent of the NPSFM’s OFWB provisions and develop a set of criteria to identify OFWBs across New Zealand.

26. This project was largely funded by MfE (up to $80,000). The driver for the project was unhelpful ambiguities in the (then) wording of the 2011 NPSFM OFWB provisions. The 2014 version did little to remove the ambiguity.

27. The final report for this project is now complete and its executive summary and frequently asked questions are contained in Attachment 7. The FAQs provide a good overview of the findings and scope of the project. A copy of the full report can be found at http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/hawkes-bay/projects/freshwater-body-project/ (click on ‘final project report).

28. The key findings from the CEF project are:

28.1. the term ‘outstanding’ distinguishes something from others based on its exceptional qualities and is typically used to describe the ‘best of the best’

28.2. only a small number of waterbodies should be identified as outstanding throughout the country

28.3. despite nearly 40 years of research and investigations no nationally accepted criteria for the assessment of OFWB exists

28.4. The NPSFM never intended economic and consumptive use values be classed as outstanding. However, legal advice confirms the current wording of the NPSFM makes it theoretically possible for Councils to recognise economic and consumptive use values as ‘outstanding’ values if they wish to do so^{^[7]}.

28.5. Water Conservation Orders, case law and international literature such as RAMSAR appear to contain a number of accepted criteria and thresholds which have been used in the past to determine whether Tikanga Māori, ecology, landscape, natural character and recreational value sets are outstanding.

Economic and consumptive use values

29. The RPC is asked to provide direction on the following matter.

30. The NPSFM is not clear on whether outstanding values are restricted to only spiritual ecological, landscape and recreational values; or if they can they include consumptive and economic use values such as irrigation, hydroelectricity-generation and tourism.

31. There is no question that a number of waterbodies within the Hawke’s Bay region are of such huge economic value to the point they would likely be classed as outstanding (e.g. Heretaunga Plains unconfined aquifer). The key question is whether the NPSFM’s OFWB provisions are the correct tool to use to recognise and protect economic values, given their likely direct conflict with most other freshwater values.

32. Careful consideration needs to be made of the consequences of some economic uses (such as irrigation and hydro power-generation) having the ability of being recognised as outstanding values under the NPSFM.

What is causing the lack of clarity?

33. The lack of clarity is due to the NPSFM’s definition of OFWB which states:

33.1. “Outstanding freshwater bodies: are those water bodies identified in a regional policy statement or regional plan as having outstanding values, including ecological, landscape, recreational and spiritual values”.

34. While the NPSFM does not specifically refer to economic use values in the definition of ‘outstanding freshwater bodies’, the word ‘including’ allows for other freshwater values to be considered outstanding in addition to those specified.

Did the NPSFM intend economic and consumptive use values to be classed as outstanding?

35. It is the view of staff, having completed a comprehensive review of key background literature to the NPSFM, that the NPSFM never intended for economic and consumptive use values be classed as outstanding. This conclusion is based on the following two key factors:

35.1. The proposed 2008 NPSFM clearly did not allow for the recognition of economic and consumptive use values under the OFWB provisions. It is unlikely that subsequent versions of the NPSFM inserted the word ‘including’ into the definition of OFWB to allow for economic and consumptive use values to be classed as outstanding, without discussing the consequences of these changes.

35.2. The Government’s latest proposed amendments to NPSFM Objective A2^{^[8]} are proposing that councils be required to consider economic opportunities after environmental limits and protection measures are in place. Economic opportunities are not mentioned in this Objective as currently written. This further implies economic uses were not expected to be provided for within the OFWB provisions.

35.3. For further information see Appendix 5 which discusses this conclusion in detail.

36. Notwithstanding this and regardless of the intent of the NPSFM, its current wording does seem to allow for consumptive and economic uses to potentially be classed as outstanding if the RPC chooses to do so. However, given the uncertainty such a policy position could be subject to litigation in future.

What does the legal advice say?

37. In 2016 as part of the MFE-sponsored Community Environment Fund project, Simpson Grierson provided legal advice confirming it was theoretically possible to recognise economic and consumptive use values as ‘outstanding’ values for the purposes of the NPSFM.

38. However, the legal opinion is clear that this view is untested, and no case law precedent has been identified to support such as approach. Simpson Grierson further note that while it potentially may be possible to recognise an economic value as outstanding, such an approach will be contentious and could be difficult to justify as being consistent with the objectives of the NPSFM.

What are the implications of classing an economic or consumptive use outstanding?

39. The recognition of economic or consumptive use values as outstanding is likely to be contentious. This is because consumptive uses almost always have an effect on intrinsic and instream values of a waterbody often resulting in a conflict between values.

40. As far as the authors of this report are aware, there are currently no examples where economic and consumptive use values have been recognised as outstanding through NPSFM provisions, and so no lessons can be taken from other examples about exactly what the outcomes might be of giving economic and consumptive values priority over other values.

41. The following example is provided to demonstrate this uncertainty.

41.1. “A river in Hawke’s Bay has been identified as having an outstanding irrigation value. The river has no other outstanding or significant values”.

42. In this example, the NPSFM would require the outstanding irrigation value of the waterbody to be protected. This would present some conflict with the need to identify water quantity limits (.e.g. minimum flows). It is unclear whether a minimum flow could be increased to improve the ecological condition of the river, if doing so would compromise the outstanding value for irrigation.

43. Additionally, if economic values such as irrigation or tourism can be identified as outstanding, this could also mean that the likes of stormwater and water storage values can also be deemed to be outstanding values. It is currently unclear what the policy implications would be if this occurred.

The meaning of ‘outstanding’

44. Being outstanding is a high test. The term ‘outstanding’ distinguishes something from others based on its exceptional qualities and is typically used to describe the ‘best of the best’. Figure 1 is an illustration of where ‘outstanding’ rests on a spectrum of importance.

Important

Significant

Outstanding

45. While the NPSFM does not provide guidance on how those values should be assessed, it appears to have been widely accepted in case law that:

45.1. “the test as to what is outstanding is a reasonably rigorous one and that to qualify as outstanding a characteristic would need to be quite out of the ordinary on a national basis” ^{^[9]} and

45.2. “In an RMA context outstanding means ‘out of the ordinary’ or ‘standing out’^{^[10]}.

46. It is generally accepted that the test for outstanding sets a high bar. This indicates in order to be classed as outstanding a water body must be exceptional in some way, with the values or attributes related to it standing out from the rest on a national basis. For this reason it is expected that only a small number of OFWB will be identified across the country.

Implications for Tāngata whenua

47. Tāngata whenua have special cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional associations with freshwater. The relationship between Tāngata whenua and freshwater is founded in whakapapa, which is the foundation for an inalienable relationship between Māori and freshwater that is recorded, celebrated and perpetuated across generations. Freshwater is recognised by Māori as a taonga of paramount importance.

48. All waterbodies are important for spiritual, physical and customary reasons.

49. All Options will address tāngata whenua values to varying degrees. Options 4 and 5 will ensure tāngata whenua values are addressed as part of a robust process to identify OFWB.

50. The OFWB plan change does not act to lessen the importance of waterbodies that are not labelled ‘outstanding’ or change the way in which these waterbodies are managed. The plan change is one of a number of work programmes proposed as part of the Council’s overall NPSFM progressive implementation package that focuses on improving the management of freshwater to protect the life supporting capacity of our rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands and aquifers.

Financial and resource implications

51. The associated broad financial estimates (including staff time) associated with Options 4 to 6 are:

51.1. Option 4: $150,000 - $175,000

51.2. Option 5: $130,000 - $150,000

51.3. Option 6: $100,000 - $130,000.

52. If the RPC decides economic and consumptive use values can potentially make a waterbody outstanding for the NPSFM, then the associated financial estimates for each of these options will increase.

53. There is significant uncertainty around the financial estimates associated with Option 3 at this stage. In the short term, Option 3 is cost effective as no immediate direct action is required. However in the long term Option 3 may be more costly than the other options, as each catchment group will debate and re-debate the topic and come up with an independent plan to address OFWB in their catchment. Independent appeals may also occur on this topic on a catchment by catchment basis, further exacerbating costs.

54. In order to ensure cultural values are adequately assessed, the authors of this report are recommending that Option 4 be adopted by the RPC, despite the financial estimates being higher than Option 6.

55. Option 4 ensures any waterbodies which may be potentially outstanding for cultural values are identified in the short list and allows the RPC to decide on what waterbodies are outstanding in the region in both the coastal^{^[11]} and freshwater areas, and allows the RPC to take a range of information into account in their final decision, rather than focusing solely on GDC’s narrative criteria.

Decision Making Process

56. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Framework for Outstanding Water Bodies in Hawke's Bay” report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion 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.

2.2. Supports Option [ __ ] as the preferred approach to the preparation of the plan change to assess and identify outstanding [water/freshwater] bodies in Hawke’s Bay. This option [includes/excludes] coastal areas.

2.3. Agrees that for the purposes of drafting the outstanding [water/freshwater] body plan change, either:

2.3.1. values which can potentially make a waterbody outstanding are limited to ecological, cultural, recreational, landscape and spiritual values/ OR

2.3.2. all values have the potential to make a waterbody outstanding including economic and consumptive use values. For clarification, economic use and consumptive use values, may include activities such as irrigation, hydro-generation, tourism, water storage and stormwater discharges.

2.4. Agrees that in order for a waterbody to be classed as outstanding, it must contain at least one value which stands out from the rest on a national basis.

2.5. Acknowledges the potential risk to the policy work programme if OFWB are not identified in the region prior to the notification of the next catchment management plan in accordance with Change 5, however Council considers this risk to be minimal and are comfortable with staff not adhering to this timeframe.

2.6. Acknowledges that in not agreeing on any options, then by default OFWB within the region will be identified via Option 3 which identifies OFWB as part of catchment based future plan changes that implement the NPSFM.

Authored by:

Belinda Harper

Senior Planner

Billy Brough

Independent Advisor to tangata whenua representatives

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

⇩1	Table 1
⇩2	Regional Catchment Map
⇩3	HBRC Work Programme
⇩4	Template Example for Advanced Assessment of Short Listed Waterbodies
⇩5	Narrative Criteria used by Gisborne District Council to assess OFWB
⇩6	Key Questions raidsed at March 2017 RPC Meeting
⇩7	Community Environment Fund Outstanding Freshwater Body Project

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 07 June 2017

Subject: OECD Environmental Performance Review and Public Perception Survey of NZ’s Environment 2016

Reason for Report

1. Two recently released reports provide commentary on the management of natural resources and the environment in New Zealand. Given the role of the Council, and the Regional Planning Committee in particular, in managing and protecting the environment in Hawke’s Bay, a summary of the key findings of these reports is provided for the Committee’s information.

2. The first of these reports, released on 17 February 2017 and entitled Public Perceptions of New Zealand’s Environment: 2016, is produced by Lincoln University and is based on a biennial survey of New Zealanders that has been running since 2000.

3. The second report, produced by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), summarises the findings of an independent review of the performance of New Zealand’s environmental management system, undertaken approximately every 10 years.

Public Perceptions of New Zealand’s Environment: 2016

4. Since 2000 a team of researchers at Lincoln University has been undertaking a survey every two years of public perceptions to provide insights into the level of understanding among the general public of the current state of, and pressures on, the natural environment. The survey also provides data on perceptions of the adequacy of management responses to these issues.

5. The most recent survey in 2016, the eighth in the series, has been led by Professors Ken Hughey, Geoff Kerr and Ross Cullen. For the last three surveys the approach has been to use online surveying, as opposed to written postal surveys used previously, and as a consequence of this change in methodology trends dating back to the early 2000s need to be treated with some caution.

6. The 2016 survey sample was drawn from 7000 volunteers held on the database of a market research firm and in the 2016 survey a total of 2468 responses were received giving a margin of error of 3% at the 95% confidence level. When compared to 2013 Census data the sample has some bias, which is discussed further following.

7. Overall themes suggest New Zealanders consider themselves to be increasingly informed about environmental issues and perceive the environment to be in worse shape than was the case in the early 2000s. There are increasing perceptions of poor management of a number of key natural resources, particularly freshwater and marine, and unsurprisingly the effects of farming and farm runoff are cited as a top issue for water quality.

8. Māori have more negative perceptions of the state of the New Zealand environment and are far more likely to report participation in ‘pro-environment behaviour’ than are NZ Europeans or those of other ethnicities.

9. Key findings from the survey of note for the committee include:

9.1. Since 2000 there has been an increase in the number of people who consider they have a “very good” (6.5% in 2000 and 11.1% in 2016) or “good” (29.4% in 2000 and 32.6% in 2016) knowledge of environmental issues, and a corresponding decline in the number of people who considered they only had “adequate”, “bad” or “very bad” knowledge (62.4% combined in 2000 and 54.8% in 2016).

9.2. Since 2004 there has been a steady decline in the number of people who consider the “standard of living in New Zealand” to be “very” or “good” (72.5% combined in 2004 to 53.3% in 2016) and a corresponding increase in the number of people who considered it to be “bad” or “very bad” (3.1% combined in 2004 to 11.7% in 2016).

9.3. Perceptions of the overall state of the natural environment in New Zealand have fallen from “very” or “good” (58.3% combined in 2006 to 37.1% in 2016) and a corresponding increase in the number of people who considered it to be “bad” or “very bad” (6.9% combined in 2004 to 24.7% in 2016).

9.4. In 2016 “water” was cited as the most important environmental issue facing New Zealand (31.1% of respondents), with agriculture related issues cited by 9.9%. Greenhouse gases, climate change and ozone were cited most frequently as the biggest environmental issues facing the world (33.5%).

9.5. Rivers and lakes are perceived to be in the worst state, with 45.4% of respondents considering them to be in a “bad” or “very bad” state. This is a marked shift from 2004 when only 23.6% considered this to be the case. Air quality is perceived to be in the best state with only 8.1% considering it to be “bad” or “very bad”.

9.6. Of the natural resource management practices surveyed “farm effluent and runoff” was perceived most negatively with 65.5% of respondents considering this to be managed “badly” or “very badly”. 59% of respondents consider farming to be one of three biggest sources of damage to freshwater, followed by sewage and stormwater cited by 43.5% of respondents.

9.7. The management of rivers and lakes was perceived to be poor or very poor by 47.2% of respondents, which is well up from a low in 2008 of 20.9%. Correspondingly only 16.5% of respondents consider rivers and lakes to be well or very well managed. There is slightly less concern evident with the management of groundwater with 32.4% of respondents stating they felt this area is poorly or very poorly managed and 16.4% of respondents consider groundwater to be well or very well managed.

9.8. Marine fisheries are also cited as an area of management concern with 35.2% of respondents in 2016 perceiving these to be poorly or very poorly managed. This figure had been as low as 18.3% in 2008. 78% of respondents cited commercial fishing as being one of the three biggest sources of damage to marine fisheries.

9.9. There appears to be increasing concern about the management of soils with those considering these to be poorly or very poorly managed rising from 17.1% in 2000 to 29.4% in 2016. 48% of respondents considered farming to be one the three biggest causes of damage to soil.

9.10. Actions taken by individuals such as making submissions, recycling, buying environmentally friendly products etc. has remained broadly consistent over the 8 surveys. However, participation in environmental organisations has hit an all-time high at 20.1% “in the last year” and 4.8% “regularly”.

10. When comparing the survey sample to the whole of population data of the 2013 Census, there are some differences that may affect the data. Women, older people, middle-income earners and people with university qualifications appear to be over-represented in the survey group. This likely reflects the demographics of the volunteers being weighted toward retired people and less likely to involve lower income workers. Notably the urban/rural split was representative, although respondents from Wellington were over-represented and from Auckland under-represented.

11. The full survey can be read at: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/Documents/LEaP/perceptions2016_feb17_LowRes.pdf

OCED Environmental Performance Review

12. The OECD, based in Paris, is a member-based organisation, to which New Zealand belongs, that promotes the sharing of policies and mutual-cooperation for economic, social and sustainable development. The OECD includes an Environment Directorate which promotes debate and policy development on environment-related matters. This directorate is headed by former New Zealand Environment Minister, the Rt Hon Simon Upton, who is soon to take up the role of Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment back here in New Zealand. In the last year New Zealand held the chair of the Environmental Policy Committee of the OECD. Prior to joining HBRC, the Council’s Group Manager Strategic Development was responsible for New Zealand’s involvement in the OECD Environmental Policy Committee and in the performance review commented on below.

13. The OECD attempts to develop and promote best practice in public policy and public management practice. Every year it conducts reviews on aspects of the public policy and performance of public institutions of its member countries across economic, social and environmental matters. New Zealand was previously reviewed by the OECD for its environmental performance in 1996 and 2007.

14. The OECD states that “New Zealand’s growth model is approaching its environmental limits. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are increasing. Pollution of freshwater is spreading over a wider area. And the country’s biodiversity is under threat.” As such the review has focussed on particular topic areas of ‘green growth’, water resources management and urban development.

15. Opportunities for New Zealand cited by the OECD include:

15.1. an international reputation as a green and clean country

15.2. an advanced and comprehensive natural resource management system

15.3. a long tradition of public participation in decision making

15.4. a well-developed research and innovation system with competitive advantage in several environmental technologies

15.5. a low-carbon energy mix with 80% of power generated from renewables

15.6. a major reform of national freshwater policy to safeguard water quality and availability

15.7. a major reform of governance for Auckland, the largest city.

16. Challenges for New Zealand cited by the OECD include:

16.1. the largest share of GHG emissions from agriculture in the OECD

16.2. a transport system highly dependent on roads and in need of coherent taxes

16.3. local governments lacking national guidance in many environmental policy areas and struggling with insufficient resources

16.4. rising freshwater pollution and scarcity in some regions

16.5. complex urban planning that makes it difficult to reduce pressure on land use, housing and infrastructure from population growth.

17. On climate change the OECD notes that New Zealand remains among the ten most energy-intensive OECD economies and New Zealand’s car ownership rate is the highest in the OECD. Further, it is noted that the fleet is relatively old and inefficient. Work by the Council’s Regional Transport Committee to promote public transport, cycling and efficient transport networks all play an important part in managing these pressures. Current work exploring the role of the Council in promoting electric vehicles may play a further part.

18. The OECD notes that the Emissions Trading Scheme currently excludes biological emissions from agriculture and states that, “pricing or regulations are needed to curb these emissions”. Greenhouse gas mitigation (reduction) is primarily the purview of central government under the Climate Change Response Act. However, afforestation of erosion prone land within the region can play a useful role in offsetting on-farm GHG emissions with co-benefits for water quality. Re-consideration of the previous ‘Trees for Farms’ carbon funding mechanism, or a similar concept, as part of the upcoming 2018-2028 Long Term Plan is proposed by staff.

19. Freshwater reforms are likely to constrain the growth in animal-based agriculture in most places and in some areas reductions in the current extent of animal agriculture may be required. Rules within the Regional Resource Management Plan to control land use for water quality outcomes are likely to tilt incentives for land use away from intensive animal-based farming to land use with lower greenhouse gas footprints. Therefore, there are some synergies between the land and water regulatory reform programme the Council is currently pursuing and lower greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. The Council should be mindful that pricing or regulatory controls of farm greenhouse gas emissions by central government could come on top of significant increases in farm costs to meet water management requirements.

20. The OECD note that local authorities are required to consider the effects of climate change in their decisions, but consider that “many struggle to plan effectively”. They go on to say that the “first vulnerability assessments have yet to be translated into sectoral adaptation strategies”. The Hawke’s Bay Coastal Hazards Strategy currently under development is an example of where the assessments have been undertaken but the adaptation strategy is still a work in progress. Hawke’s Bay is at the leading edge of this nationally and moving ahead in a timely manner, albeit with the more difficult decisions for the community lying ahead. Climate change impacts are already considered in the water planning work of the Council.

21. The OECD notes that air quality in New Zealand “is generally good”. However, emissions from road transport have steadily risen since 2000 and we do not compare favourably on a per capita basis. Our winter pollution from home heating remains an issue, including in Hawke’s Bay, and is a work in progress with air quality limits currently being exceeded in the Hastings area during winter. The National Environment Standard on Air Quality is scheduled for review in the coming year and this may well necessitate further changes to the Council’s approach to managing air quality in the region.

22. Unsurprisingly water management was a major topic focus for the review. Co-governance with tangata whenua and collaborative approaches to planning were highlighted as important innovations in water management. In light of the Regional Planning Committee and the TANK Plan Change, Hawkes Bay can be considered to be at the more progressive end of these approaches nationally.

23. The OECD suggests expansion in “the use of economic instruments to internalise environmental and opportunity costs, promote innovation and encourage efficient use of water.” While there are legislative constraints to the economic instruments the Council can use to incentivise better water management the recent ‘efficiency review’ conducted by the Acting Chief Executive has highlighted the scope to review current charges for water use to alter the balance between ratepayers and water users in funding water management.

24. The OECD is critical of regional councils for being “slow to put the freshwater management policy into action” and identify the need to “Increase financial support and capacity for regional councils to deliver on the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. The Council has increased its resources and internal capability for freshwater reform significantly in recent years and the proposed increase in funding for water management hot spots through the 2017/18 Annual Plan continues to build on this. Determining the scale and nature of resources required for effective NPSFM implementation over the longer-term is a key priority for the upcoming 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process.

25. The OECD notes New Zealand has very high volumes of freshwater abstracted from irrigation on a per capita basis. This is not surprising given our comparatively low population and high dependence on agriculture for exports. A more useful comparison would be irrigation volumes proportionate to farm output if a measure of our efficiency of use was being considered. The OECD recommend that central government reviews its “support for irrigation to ensure funding is only provided for projects that would not proceed otherwise, and that have community wide benefits.” The recent review of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme has highlighted the necessity of the public investment in the scheme’s early years to enable the scheme to become established, and also highlighted the importance of ensuring the scheme delivers a net improvement in environmental outcomes. To this extent the Council’s approach to supporting irrigation development is consistent with the approach suggested by the OECD.

26. The OECD recommends the development of a “whole-of-government long-term strategy to increase the added value of export products within climate and freshwater quality and quantity objectives.” As part of the Council’s intended contribution to the Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy the Council has proposed leadership of the following actions:

26.1. 5.4 Work with primary producers to ensure productivity gains deliver the improved environmental performance required for freshwater reform; and

26.2. 5.5 Support natural resource users to identify and proactively manage business risks and opportunities arising from a changing climate.

27. Pilot work is currently underway in the Whakaki catchment on action 5.4 and an initial stock-take project is underway to inform action 5.5. However, considerably more work needs to be undertaken on the opportunities that exist for the Council in driving better economic outcomes from the way in which land, water and climate are managed. This analysis is a priority for this year and will form part of the advice to the Council on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

28. A key element of the Council’s Strategic Plan refresh is that the Council takes a stronger outcomes focus, with a more holistic ‘systems’ approach to its work. The proposed approach is to align the council’s activities more strongly behind core business. These elements of the Council’s proposed refreshed Strategic Plan provides a good foundation for ensuring the Council’s large freshwater reform effort aligns with climate change objectives and that the Council’s economic development effort is similarly aligned to, and is mutually reinforcing with, better land and water management outcomes. Precisely how the Council gives effect to this more integrated approach to its work is currently the subject of discussion among the Council’s executive team and is a key element of the soon-to-be-commenced review of land management functions, which will also feed into the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

29. The OECD also had a focus on urban development, and while the issues examined are of greater relevance to territorial and unitary authorities, the OECD has highlighted the need for better integration in the planning of transport, land use and urban development. The recently promulgated National Policy Statement on Urban Development goes some way toward this more integrated approach, as does the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. Work with Napier and Hastings councils on stormwater as part of the TANK plan change also seeks a more integrated approach to urban planning. This may be an area for further exploration by the Regional Transport Committee.

30. Overall, the Council can be satisfied that the issues identified by both the Public Perceptions Survey and the OECD Review are currently high priorities for the Council and work is underway to enhance the Council’s and the region’s performance in meeting the challenges identified. Further consideration of much of this effort will be a key part of the development of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Decision Making Process

31. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “OECD Environmental Performance Review and Public Perception Survey of NZ’s Environment 2016” report.

Authored and Authorised by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Note: All values means those values which have the potential to be outstanding, specifically ecological, cultural, recreational, landscape and spiritual values.

[2] Billy Brough is a resource management consultant engaged by HBRC to provide independent advisory services to the RPC’s Tāngata whenua representatives.

[3] Note: All values means those values which have the potential to be outstanding, specifically ecological, cultural, recreational, landscape and spiritual values.

[4] Note: All values means those values which have the potential to be outstanding, specifically ecological, cultural, recreational, landscape and spiritual values.

[5] If the RPC decides economic and consumptive use values can potentially make a waterbody outstanding for the purposes of the NPSFM, then the associated financial estimates with each of these options will increase.

[6] NOTE: If the identification of outstanding waterbodies in coastal areas are progressed, the name of the plan change will become outstanding water bodies (OWB) (as opposed to outstanding freshwater bodies (OFWB)).

[7] Note: legal advice confirms this advice is untested, and such an approach will likely be subject to future litigation, and the implications of such an approach are unknown.

[8] Proposed NPSFM amendments in the Government’s February 2017 ‘Clean Water’ discussion document.

[9] Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v NZ and Central South Island Fish and Game Council EnvC C109/04.

[10] Philip Milne’s opinion piece; Resource Management Journal.

[11] NOTE: Any outstanding waterbodies identified in coastal areas would result in amendments to the Regional Coastal Environment Plan. If the identification of outstanding waterbodies in coastal areas are progressed, the name of the plan change will become outstanding water bodies (OWB) (as opposed to outstanding freshwater bodies (OFWB)).

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.

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