Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 April 2020

Subject: Policy on Notification of Water Bottling Consents

Reason for Report

1. In December 2016 Council established a policy position that all takes for water bottling trigger special circumstances and therefore should be publicly notified by staff. This was amended and clarified further in May 2017.

2. Public notification of each application to take water for water bottling use would have allowed any person to submit on the application and could have led to a hearing of the application if the applicant or submitters wished to be heard. No one has applied for a resource consent to take water for water bottling use since this policy position was set.

3. This report provides the Council with the opportunity to reconsider this policy and follows on from the recent Apollo Foods presentation to Council. This presentation requested that Council review its policy in situations where an existing resource consent seeks a small-scale amendment to take and use a portion of the current take to include water bottling, without triggering the requirement for public notification.

Officers’ Recommendations

4. Four options are proposed for Council to review. The Council is requested to adopt one of these options. All options have risks but are intended to provide some relief to the public concerns with consenting water takes for bottling.

4.1. Council retain the current policy that directs staff to apply special circumstances to water bottling take consent applications. This approach was adopted in 2016 with modification in 2017. This stopped applications but it is not without risk. The risks would include that an applicant could seek costs against the Council if they apply for a water bottling use, have their application notified and heard, are required to defend their application against arguments that are not relevant under RMA, and are ultimately successful in obtaining a resource consent that allows them to take and use water for water bottling purposes.

4.2. Council or delegated Councillors/ Commissioners could assume the notification decision making responsibility on a case by case basis. If an application is to be notified, staff would then proceed to notify, process submissions and manage a hearing if required.

4.3. Initiate a Plan Change to introduce a rule that requires notification of “water bottling” activities. This is the option that presents least risk but will take time to achieve. But note that this approach could have been incorporated into the TANK Plan change, but it was not.

4.4. Revert to the pre 2016 policy that leaves the discretion with staff to consider on a case by case basis.

Executive Summary

5. The Council has a policy position established in 2016 that requires any water bottling proposal to be publicly notified.

6. Water bottling remains a contentious issue in the Hawke’s Bay Region and across the country. A lot of the opposition to water bottling is based around concerns such as foreign ownership of the businesses; that the water is exported with little value added in NZ; or the associated use of plastic bottles and the environmental effects of their downstream use and disposal. These are not activities directly associated with the taking and use of the water at the site.

7. The extent to which matters such as exporting and use and disposal of plastic bottles to package the water should be considered was tested in a recent Environment Court case where the applicant sought to expand their existing water bottling plant (Te Runanga o Ngati Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council (2019 NZEnvC 196). In this case the Environment Court granted consent in a majority decision.

8. In their discussion they asked in para[34] “whether, and if so to what extent, a consent authority or, on appeal, the Court, should or may consider matters beyond the particular activity for which consent is sought and take into consideration the end use of whatever may be produced by that activity or the effects of other activities for which consent is not required.” They concluded in para [66] in the body of their judgement, having explored other cases, that “ We therefore consider that, in this case, the end uses of putting the water in plastic bottles and exporting the bottled water are matters which go beyond the scope of consideration of an application for resource consent to take water from the aquifer under s 104(1)(a) RMA.”

9. The minority dissenting view recorded in para[324] that “My concerns are not about the water take per se but about the adverse effects on the environment of the end use of plastic bottles manufactured on site; and that the activity status for the resource consent application should have been considered as an industrial and therefore non-complying activity with wider public notification.”

10. This decision is being appealed to the High Court.

11. Apollo Foods have taken the opportunity to present to staff and Council on their concerns that their plans to include water bottling in their product range will be made difficult if their application is to be publicly notified. They sought that Council review the current policy with their situation in mind. They are locally owned, they value add making beverages using local product, they are wanting to compete across the range of products with multi national competitors. They are not seeking more water they are wanting to use up to 20% of the water they have been allocated for water bottling purposes (where greater than 90% of the bottled contents will be water).

12. This discussion affords Council the opportunity to review their policy on water bottling.

13. There is no specific recommendation. Updated options similar to those presented in 2016 are provided for Council to consider.

Background

14. The Council decided in December 2016 that:

14.1. all takes for water bottling trigger special circumstances and therefore should be publicly notified by staff.

14.2. for clarity, water bottling is defined as “taking and using water for bottling in bottles, bladders or other containers for human consumption where bore water makes up at least 90% of the content of the container”.

15. This was amended in May 2017 to provide clarification of the Council policy position by:

15.1. Amending the definition of water bottling to read “taking and using water for bottling in bottles, bladders or other containers for human consumption, where the water taken makes up at least 90% content of the container”

15.2. Amending the Hearings Committee Terms of Reference to include the delegations to hear and decide applications for lapse date extensions for water bottling resource consents

15.3. Advising that all applications to change any of the conditions of a water take resource consent for water bottling will be publicly notified

15.4. Advising that all applications to transfer a water bottling resource consent, in part or in full, from site to site will be publicly notified.

16. No applications have been lodged and therefore none have been notified since this policy position was established.

17. The ability to apply for new water from the Heretaunga Plains has changed since this policy was established. The results of the groundwater modelling work undertaken for TANK were reported to Council in August 2017. This work determined that the sustainable allocation limit for the groundwater resource was in the order of 90 million cubic meters per year. The exact volume of water allocated across the plains cannot be established as not all groundwater takes have annual volumes assigned to them but it is estimated that between 150 and 180 million cubic metres per year is allocated from the Heretaunga Plains groundwater resource. This is well in excess of the scientific recommendation and hence no more water has been allocated since this was determined, with some exceptions.

18. There was a transition period that applied where applications in process or underway and invested in on the basis of advice given prior to this date, were processed and granted. Apollo Foods was in this group and was able to obtain their water permit at this time. Their consent was issued in October 2017. Apollo Foods were aware of the policy position on water bottling and accepted that they would not seek to use the water for water bottling.

19. A condition and an advice note were included to document that the consent did not provide for the use of the water for water bottling purposes. These provided as follows:

19.1. Condition 14. The consent holder shall undertake all operations in accordance with any drawings, specifications, statements of intent and other information supplied as part of the application for this resource consent. This includes (but is not limited to) the statement confirming that ‘water bottling’ will not occur under this consent (see Advice Note VI).

19.2. Advice Note VI Water Bottling. The consent was issued on the basis of statements made in support of the application, including that water would not be taken and used for ‘water bottling’. ‘Water bottling’ is currently defined by the Council as “taking and using water for bottling in bottles, bladders or other containers for human consumption where bore water makes up at least 90% of the content of the container”. A change of consent conditions would be required to authorise any proposed ‘water bottling’ under this consent.

20. Also review conditions were included to allow for the review of the consent to ensure that it aligns with operative TANK plan provisions. An advice note is also included which explains that reductions or restrictions may occur as a result of the TANK plan change process.

Discussion

21. As mentioned no applications have been lodged for water takes for or related to water bottling use. There have been a number of enquiries including one to relocate to a new location and transfer the water permit to this location. Staff interpretation of the Council policy was that this would have to be notified and on the basis of that advice the application was not proceeded with.

22. There is a current application lodged by Lowe Corporation Limited and Graeme Lowe Tannery Limited to adjust the amount of water able to be taken between two related resource consents (with no overall increase) and to remove the use of water bottling from the resource consents. This has been processed without notification as the activity will no longer involve taking of water for water bottling purposes.

23. There is also the recent enquiry and discussion by Apollo Foods who would like to use some of their current allocation for water bottling purposes.

The example of Apollo Foods

24. The Council receive a presentation from Apollo Foods in April 2020 where they explained what they do and why they need to be able to include bottled water in their product range.

25. Apollo Foods is a beverage company and produce fruit juice and other high value beverage products. Much of the product they use is what they describe as “cosmetically challenged fruit”. They also have a partnership with Fonterra to produce milk drinks and potentially a protein-based energy drink.

26. Some of the potential product range would use more than 90% water in a bottle, triggering the requirement to publicly notify the consent amendment. Plus to complete their portfolio range and to be able to fully compete with their competitors they advised that they need to be able to provide bottled drinking water.

27. They are requesting that Council amend the requirement to notify a change of condition application that would allow for their resource consent to include the use of water for water bottling purposes. They propose that the consent be amended to allow a portion of their existing take (no more than 20%) to be used to produce products where more than 90% of the contents of a container is water.

The process prior to the 2016 Policy Position

28. Before this policy position was set, resource consents were issued for taking water without discriminating over the use. The use would be specified as part of the consent and as long as the volume of water could be justified as appropriate for the use intended, resource consent applications were granted provided other environmental considerations were satisfied. These included that:

28.1. there was water available from the water source (within the sustainable allocation limits)

28.2. effects on surface stream flows (through stream depletion) were understood and managed

28.3. effects on adjacent groundwater takes were understood and acceptable

28.4. the activity wouldn’t induce saltwater intrusion.

29. Between 2006 and 2015 approximately 5.1 million cubic metres of water was allocated for water bottling. (Of this 1.68 million was been allocated for a mix of uses e.g. irrigation, landscaping and may never be used for water bottling.) The actual taking of water for water bottling purposes is much less than this (28,000 cubic meters in the second half of 2019).

Issues that are raised about the take and use of water for water bottling

30. The taking and use of water for water bottling has grown as an issue over the past six years in Hawkes Bay and across the country. The concerns include that:

30.1. the taking is not sustainable

30.2. the taking is depriving others of access to the resource

30.3. the mauri of the water is impacted by this use

30.4. the water is being exported offshore

30.5. the consents are held by off shore companies and the profits go offshore

30.6. there is no charge or royalty paid for the water

30.7. there is limited value added to the community in the production of the water

30.8. the bottling requires plastic containers which can have adverse effects on the environment if not disposed of correctly and will take up landfill space if they are disposed of correctly.

31. Most of these concerns fall outside the scope of the matters the RMA would allow for the activity proposed.

32. In the recent decision Te Runanga o Ngati Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council (NZEnvC196) ^{^[1]} the Environment Court, in a majority decision, granted the expansion of a water bottling operation in Whakatane District. This included an increase in the rates and volumes of water able to be taken. On the use of plastic bottles and exporting they commented in the report as follows.

[63] In this case, a principal activity for which resource consent is required is the taking of water from the aquifer. The regional plan addresses the issues relating to the taking of water from aquifers comprehensively. There is no assertion that the plan has been prepared other than competently in relation to this particular activity.

[64] The end uses of the water, once taken, involve putting the water in plastic bottles, exporting the bottled water and consumption of it by people outside New Zealand. The end uses are ancillary activities which are not controlled under the regional plan. There is no suggestion that control of such activities comes within the ambit of the functions of the regional council under s 30 RMA. We are not aware of any direct control of such activities by other legislation and accordingly proceed on the basis that such activities are lawful. While such end uses are foreseeable, and while the effects on the environment of using plastic bottles and exporting water may well be adverse, refusing consent to the taking of water in this case will have no effect on all other instances where plastic bottles are used in New Zealand or where water is exported, whether in its natural form or as a component of other exports. We do not have specific evidence on the relative quantities involved, but as far as we understand the position, the scale of the proposed operation in this case would be a small component of the total bottling and export activities in New Zealand.

[65] For the purposes of our analysis we accept that the water would not be taken if it could not be bottled, and the proposed volume would not be taken if it could not be exported. Even on that basis, we do not think that on an appeal in relation to a particular proposal to take water we can, by our decision, effectively prohibit either using plastic bottles or exporting bottled water. Such controls would require direct legislative intervention at a national level.

[66] We therefore consider that, in this case, the end uses of putting the water in plastic bottles and exporting the bottled water are matters which go beyond the scope of consideration of an application for resource consent to take water from the aquifer under s 104(1)(a) RMA.

33. The majority decision recorded that “We have found that the take of water from the Otakiri aquifer at the volumes and rates applied for by Creswell will have negligible adverse effects on that water source and that any effects on te mauri o te wai can be managed through an appropriate kaitiaki involvement by local hapū and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa.” The hearing heard concerns related to the export of the water and the use of plastic bottles and were silent in on these in their decision.

34. The minority dissenting view recorded that “My concerns are not about the water take per se but about the adverse effects on the environment of the end use of plastic bottles manufactured on site; and that the activity status for the resource consent application should have been considered as an industrial and therefore non-complying activity with wider public notification.”

35. This decision is being appealed to the High Court.

Legal advice

36. Legal advice obtained for the 2016 decision is attached to this report. Summary points of this advice are:

36.1. An application could be notified due to special circumstances despite the activity being routine or uncontentious or minor in its effects.

36.2. The Council should be satisfied that public notification may elicit additional information bearing upon the non-complying aspects of the application.

36.3. It should not necessarily be assumed that the plan provides a sound touchstone about whether the activity is outside the common run of things.

36.4. Discretionary powers such as those relating to special circumstances must be exercised in conformity with the RMA and its purpose.

36.5. The fact that the Council is aware of interest in and/or opposition to any particular consent application is a relevant consideration but does not in itself automatically constitute special circumstances. In Paragraph 20 of the Conway opinion he notes case law (Murray vs Whakatane District Council [1997] NZRMA 433 HC at 46) that says “while the contentiousness of a proposal may not always be sufficient to amount to ‘special circumstances’ in itself, it may be a contributing factor”.

Options for consideration

37. This report is provided as a review of the current policy position. The options for consideration are following.

38. Option 1 Retain the current approach that directs staff to apply special circumstances to water bottling take consent applications. This option will leave it that any application to take water for water bottling purposes or to change a condition or to consider a lapse date extension would need to be publicly notified. The risks associated with this are that the notification may elicit submissions that are outside the scope of the RMA. If this is found to be the case then the applicant may have grounds to object to the costs associated with the entire process. This may also frustrate local initiatives that seek the water bottling option using some of their existing allocation to allow to compete with the larger multinational providers. It could be argued that this approach indicates predetermination and is not demonstrating a fair process. It could be open to judicial review. It may be preferable that this direction is established via a plan and a rule. It has worked to date. It is less necessary now that TANK has identified the Heretaunga Plains groundwater resource is over allocated.

39. Option 2 Council or delegated Councillors/ Commissioners could assume the notification decision making responsibility on a case by case basis. This would leave the discretion to be applied at the time of each application and for each to be considered on their merit.

39.1. If either of options 2 were adopted, where a notification decision is to be made, staff consider that the following process could be used:

39.1.1. An independent planner would prepare a decision recommendation report and report to a Panel appointed by Council who would make the notification decision.

39.1.2. Consideration would have to be given to which Councillors could sit on the Panel for this activity. It may be that there would need to be an independent panel to avoid any potential challenge of predetermination.

39.1.3. If submissions are made on the proposal the normal RMA based process (a hearing) would occur with the primary consideration being effects on the environment. It is envisaged that other matters may be raised by submitters, but these are unlikely to form grounds to decline the application.

40. Option 3. Another alternative approach would be to initiate a simple Plan Change to introduce a rule that requires notification of “water bottling” activities. This is the option that presents least risk but will take time to achieve. But it should be noted that this approach could have been incorporated into the TANK Plan change, it was considered and it was decided not to.

41. Option 4. Council could revert to the pre 2016 state and leave the discretion with staff to consider on a case by case basis. This is straight forward and would be consistently applied. It could leave Council frustrated if the applications are judged to have effects that are no more than minor and accordingly are not notified and not able to be submitted on.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

42. Water is of significant importance to Tangata Whenua. Notification of applications will always allow them the opportunity to submit on an application if they choose. There is a question of where to draw the line with notification. Should it just be for takes for water bottling or should it be for any groundwater take regardless of use? There may be occasions where tangata whenua would be considered affected and they would be specifically notified through the limited notified process.

Financial and Resource Implications

43. There are potential costs to Council depending on the option chosen.

44. Option 1 exposes Council to little additional cost given that the cost of the process is borne by the applicant. There would be a significant increase in the costs to applicants to proceed with applications if they are publicly notified. The scale of additional costs is difficult to quantify but would be substantial. As a result, it may prove to be prohibitive for people to apply for these consents. There is a risk that the notification decision could be contested in the High Court by judicial review. For example, in Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust vs Auckland Council [2014] NZHC 3405 the court found that notification was contrary to the purpose of achieving efficiency in the consenting process. If the notification decision was appealed to the High Court and the Council was found to have erred in process, then costs could be awarded against the Council.

45. Option 2 has no direct financial or resource implications. This would require some resourcing to convene meetings to decide whether to notify or not. The cost would be borne by the applicant. It may frustrate some applicants who do not wish to risk the notification process. It reduces the risk to Council if the process is run on an objective case by case basis consistent with the RMA. This is one way to do it as is option 4 Consultants and/or Councillors would need to be involved in certain parts. Decision making timelines will need to be met to avoid a discount of costs back to the applicant. Council or their delegates would need to be reasonably available to make any decisions held or delegated to them.

46. Option 3, a Plan change will have cost and resourcing implications that may impact on existing or proposed policy processes. These costs have not been estimated. However as mentioned the TANK process did consider this as an option (to include a notification Rule for water bottling in Plan Change 9) and this was not considered to be appropriate or necessary.

47. Option 4 would not need additional resources. It is the simplest in terms of process. It puts the responsibility on the Consenting staff to administer the process as per RMA requirements. This may not lead to the determination that a water bottling application warrants notification.

Consultation

48. No consultation was held on this matter. Other than the discussion and presentation initiated by Apollo Foods.

Decision Making Process

49. Council and its committees are 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:

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

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

49.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

49.4. The persons affected by this decision are Councillors, resource consent applicants, the community, and generally all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA

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

49.6. 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

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the “Policy on Notification of Water Bottling Consents” staff report.

2. 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.

3. Subject to confirmation at the 13 May 2020 Regional Council meeting, Council

Either

3.1. retains the current policy that directs staff to apply special circumstances to water bottling take consent applications, as adopted in 2016 with modification in 2017.

3.2. Agrees that delegated Councillors/ Commissioners will assume the notification decision making responsibility on applications for “water bottling” activities on a case by case basis.

3.3. Initiates a simple Plan Change to introduce a rule in accordance with RMA section 77D that requires notification of “water bottling” activities.

3.4. reverts to the pre 2016 decision and leaves the discretion with staff to consider notification of “water bottling” activities on a case by case basis and in accordance with Resource Management Act guidelines.

Authored by: Approved by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation

Attachment/s

⇩1

December 2016 Simpson Grierson opinion re notification test and special circumstances

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 April 2020

Subject: LGFA Deeds of Amendment and Restatement

Reason for Report

1. This report provides the means for Council to decide on the “Local Government Funding Agency” (LGFA), which HBRC is a current Borrower and Guarantor, request for approval to amend its current borrowing programme, through the means of revising its Foundation Policies.

Officers’ Recommendation

2. Officers recommend that Council approves the proposed amendments required for the Amended Deeds. It should be noted, that as the Council is not bound to borrow through the LGFA, these amendments allow greater flexibility to continue to utilise, when required, the benefit LGFA provides the Council.

Background /Discussion

3. As part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP) process, the Council consulted on the option to join the LGFA, the largest and preferred value lender to the local government sector. The reason for joining the LGFA was to access borrowings approved as part of the LTP at a reduced rate that would otherwise be available to the Council from other options.

4. It was agreed by Council that HBRC would join as an “unrated guaranteeing local authority”, providing a means for HBRC, through the LGFA, unlimited borrowing.

5. There are two defined proposed changes to its Foundation Policies, both which require approval by way of Ordinary Resolution, and give rise to Amended Deeds. In addition, there is also a Statement of Intent which indicates the LGFA Board will increase the Borrow Notes percentage on future issued stock.

6. At the LGFA annual meeting of Shareholders (AGM), the LGFA Principal Shareholders continually review the appropriateness of its Foundation Policies. As a result of the 21 November 2018 AGM, it was proposed to pursue the following amendments.

7. Allow local authority’s to be tested at a “group level” rather than at a “parent level” for compliance with LGFA covenants.

7.1. Purpose: Currently each council borrower's compliance is measured at the parent council level, i.e. it excludes any debt, revenue or interest payments made by a subsidiary entity. There was valid feedback from LGFA members that this measurement may not reflect the most accurate representation of a council's financial position, particularly in situations where the council delivers some of its services or activities or holds assets through a subsidiary entity.

7.2. Example: Auckland Council delivers a large amount of its services through Watercare and Auckland Transport and hence it more appropriately analysed at a group level by credit rating agencies.

7.3. Risks Created (HBRC): NIL, regardless of the measurement at a group or parent level, any council must remain compliant with the LGFA covenant.

8. Enable approved council-controlled organisations (CCOs) to borrow directly through the LGFA borrowing programme.

8.1. Purpose: Currently the LGFA only lends to the parent council and not to any other related entities. Feedback from LGFA members, has indicated this not ideal as several councils borrow and on-lend to CCOs, this proposal will give them the option to streamline the borrowing process and provide more flexibility in how they structure their borrowing. This has also been considered in anticipation of changes from the Three Waters Review currently being conducted for Drinking Water, Waste Water and Stormwater. Any CCOs that may be created from this review will benefit from borrowing in their own right, rather than through parent Councils.

8.2. Example: Christchurch City Council borrows and on-lend to its CCOs such as Christchurch City Holdings Limited. The proposed changes will provide the councils with greater flexibility in structuring their borrowing and on-lending activities.

8.3. Risks Created (HBRC): NIL, a CCO who borrows from LGFA will have a parent council guarantee or uncalled capital. It should also be noted, there has never been a default by a New Zealand local authority and there is strong oversight of the sector. As well as any lending undertaken by LGFA to local authorities is with a security charge over rates (meaning that in the event of a default by a local authority, a receiver can impose a special rate to recover the amount owing to LGFA).

9. LGFA increasing its Borrower Notes Percentage from 1.6% to 2.5%

9.1. The LGFA, delivers low cost funding to the local government sector with a current “AA/A-1+” S&P Credit Rating. To continue this ongoing success, every second year, the LGFA Board considers the capital structure of the company. As at March 2020, the Board considered the capital structure of LGFA, and agreed the need to increase capital through the means of increasing lending margins of future borrower notes.

9.2. Purpose: The LGFA continues to operate a fast-growing balance sheet as more council members uptake and increase both LGFA loan book and Liquid Assets Portfolio. It is highly important that LGFA retains the confidence of credit rating agencies and by its investors and having more capital, provides greater comfort to our guarantor councils.

9.3. Implication (HBRC): HBRC current $2.5m in loans with LGFA, are out of scope and will not be affected. The increase of the required percentage of Borrower Notes will only take effect once the amendment deed to the Notes Subscription Agreement is signed by all member councils. Overall the change means subscribing for $25 thousand of Borrower Notes per $1 million of new long-term borrowing compared to $16 thousand previously. This allows the LGFA to continue to access dept capital market at the lowest possible cost.

Options Assessment

10. There are two options available to Council to consider.

11. The first option is for Council to agree and approve the two proposed amendments to the Foundation Policies, thereby giving rise to the Amended Deeds and Restatements; Multi-Issuer; Guarantee and Indemnity; and Notes Subscription Agreement.

11.1. The proposed amendments from the LGFA do not materially change the current Deeds, to which HBRC agreed on when becoming a member of the LGFA. The HBRC is not bound to only borrow through the LGFA. Rejecting these amendments will only limit the market in which HBRC will have when seeking debt. It should be noted that although not currently applicable, in the future both amendments may result in benefiting HBRC if it decides to structure its operations differently.

12. The second option is to reject the two proposed amendments to LGFA Foundation Policies, and have the current deeds remain.

12.1. The proposed amendments require Amended Deeds to be executed. This means all 67 LFGA Local Authorities must agree to execute. If one or more Local Authorities reject the proposed amendments, the current deeds will remain as is for the entire 67 Local Authorities.

12.2. If Council rejects the amendments, Council Controlled Organisations will need to continue to borrow through their parents.

Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment

13. The changes proposed by the LGFA are not materially significant to the process that HBRC had consulted and accepted as part of the 2018-28 LTP therefore public consultation on the changes are not required.

Decision Making Process

14. Council and its committees are 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:

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

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

14.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

14.4. The persons affected by this decision are the local Rate Payers. If in future, the Council excuses its operations differently, the Council may not be able to borrow through the LGFA. The LGFA can at times offer the best terms in the market and HBRC will be excluded from these benefits of borrowing.

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

14.6. 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

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the “LGFA Deeds of Amendment and Restatement of Proposed Borrowings” staff report.

2. 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 or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. Confirms and approves to the proposed LGFA amendments and

Either

3.1. Appoints councilors ________________ and __________________, as the two elected representatives for HBRC, to execute each Deed of Amendment and Restatement (Multi-Issuer; Guarantee and Indemnity; and Notes Subscription Agreement), and authorises Simpson Grierson to date the deeds.

3.2. Rejects and dismisses the two proposed amendments and agrees that the current Deeds will remain as is.

Authored by: Approved by:

Geoff Howes

Treasury & Funding Accountant

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Attachment/s

⇩1	HBRC Requirements
⇩2	LGFA Notice of AGM 2018 and Proposed Amendments.pdf
⇩3	Increase in Borrower Notes

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 April 2020

Subject: Community Welfare Organisation Relief Fund

Reason for Report

1. This item seeks Council’s decision on whether to establish a community welfare relief fund to assist those organisations who may be adversely affected financially because of the additional workload placed on them by Covid 19.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

2. Staff recommend that Council considers whether to agree in principle to set aside $100,000 to provide a pool of funding that could be allocated to support local community organisations, by way of donation, that are suffering the financial impacts of Covid-19 due to their increased workload in recent weeks.

3. If Council agrees to do so, staff further recommend that the administration details and qualifying criteria be held over until it becomes clearer where the precise community need may be. Community welfare support in times of a civil defence emergency can take some time to fully emerge so it might be useful to hold back dispensing any such financial assistance until more is known of the effects longer term. This is relevant also because central government is currently making available its own funding pools for community organisations (see attached information and paragraph 18 following).

4. Furthermore, staff recommend that this funding assistance be paid directly to the organisation from HBRC rather than into a regional funding pool. This allows Council to set its own criteria and allocate its own funding to those organisations who merit assistance.

Discussion

5. Hastings District Council has established a one-off community welfare fund of $100,000 to support those agencies who are responding to the Covid-19 community response effort. They are encouraging other Councils in the region to act similarly.

6. The aim of the Hastings District Council fund is to help organisations to continue to operate and eliminate the risk that organisations will utilise their own cash reserves in the response phase of the pandemic and then not be available to support the recovery phase. A copy of the Hastings proposal can be found in Attachment 1.

7. In an effort to work collegially across the region, Council may wish to consider whether to deliver a response which aligns with this. Other councils in Hawke’s Bay are considering the same proposition but may be less financially able to assist to the same level due to a smaller rating base.

Financial and Resource Implications

8. The Council currently holds a contingency fund in its Annual Plan of $100,000. It is these funds which would be set aside to support any community welfare fund.

9. The fund would be administered by the Office of the Chief Executive and Chair in collaboration with the finance team.

Consultation

10. Consultation with regional Mayors and council Chief Executives would be undertaken to ensure regional awareness and alignment.

11. There is an opportunity to consider whether the fund would be advertised externally to seek applications. This is a detail which could be addressed further down the track if the concept of the community welfare fund proposal is approved by Council.

Other Considerations

12. Central government has provided additional funding for community organisations as a result of Covid-19 as listed below, with further information on both of these funds included in the attachments.

12.1. $27 million community funding package to support social services, disability providers and local communities, to ensure they can continue to provide essential services while New Zealand is under COVID-19 Alert Level 4.

12.2. Media release: Government approves further $30m to meet immediate welfare and food security needs.

13. In light of both of these funding opportunities, it would be worth Council considering whether there remains a need to establish its own community welfare fund.

Decision Making Process

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

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

14.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

14.4. The persons affected by this decision are ratepayers across the region as it is their rates payment which have contributed to Council’s available funds.

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

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the “Community Welfare Organisation Relief Fund” staff report.

2. 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 or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

Either

3. Agrees to establish a $100,000 Community Welfare Agency Relief fund to assist those organisations adversely affected financially by the additional workload placed on them by Covid-19, to be funded from the Contingency budget.

4. Requests that staff develop appropriate criteria for applications to the fund, for Council approval at the 27 May 2020 Regional Council meeting.

5. Agrees not to proceed with the establishment of a community welfare relief.

Authored by:

Joanne Lawrence

Group Manager Office of the Chief Executive and Chair

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇩1	Mayor Hazelhurst email re Community Organisation Relief Fund
⇩2	Welfare and Food Security media release
⇩3	MSD Covid-19 Community Awareness and Preparedness Grant Fund

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 April 2020

Subject: Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay Foundation Request to Change Funding

Reason for Report

1. The Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay Foundation Board has approached Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to request that the $200K currently allocated for the Biodiversity HB Endowment Fund for the 2020-21 financial year, be split evenly between the Endowment Fund ($100K) and Biodiversity HB operating expenses ($100K).

Background

2. The Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2050 was published in November 2015. It was developed collaboratively by a large number of independent people, businesses, agencies and councils. It is their considered and necessary response to declining biodiversity in the region. The strategy vision is ‘Working together Hawke's Bay's biodiversity is enhanced, healthy and functioning’.

3. A Biodiversity Action Plan (2017-2020) was produced as a stepped process to achieving the five key objectives of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy. This involved a series of special interest group meetings and outreach meetings with tāngata whenua, statutory agencies and the conservation community.

4. As per one of the six key Actions in the Biodiversity Action Plan, both the Biodiversity Guardians and the Foundation were established, which collectively are now known as Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay. There are currently two part time employees, a General Manager and an Administration Manager. These two roles are driving the delivery of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and support the Foundation and Guardian Management Committee. The Council’s Chief Executive is a trustee of the Foundation by right under the Trust Deed and abstained from voting on the Foundation’s resolution to enact this funding request due to the potential a conflict of interest.

5. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council currently supports Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay through providing an annual contribution of $200k to the endowment fund and $110k towards operating costs over the period of the current LTP.

6. Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay provided the following commentary to support this request:

6.1. Over the past two years Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay has matured significantly, particularly within the last six months after the appointment of two contracted staff who are building effective and strong relationships with a broad range of stakeholders, sharing information and knowledge and encouraging networking and constructive collaboration.

6.2. Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay is in a unique position to take a lead role in ensuring the effective collaboration and coordination of biodiversity programmes and responsibilities across our region. We have a clear vision, which will be presented to the five local councils shortly, to develop a regional biodiversity hub where we will continue to build the collaborative tools and information sharing, as this is the real value Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay can offer.

6.3. We have held successful community events around the region promoting biodiversity, sharing information and encouraging networking. We have a keen and enthusiastic membership which is steadily growing, as well as a rapidly growing strong social media presence.

6.4. Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay has invested in four community funding projects over the last year, including deer fencing at Little Bush. Additional projects, including a joint project with Hawke’s Bay Airport Ltd, are in progress throughout the region and we look forward to celebrating their successes this year.

6.5. We have also provided support in managing project finances to community groups and other successful DOC funded projects. Our offer of admin and financial support is also likely to be taken up by additional projects that we are currently in planning stages with, such as Te Karaka o Waipatiki.

6.6. We have engaged with industry groups like the Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers Association and will act as a coordinating point for projects with their members.

7. With the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity likely to be adopted, we are in a position to assist councils in achieving their obligations including being an independent source of information for landowners.

Discussion

8. Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay is in the process of drafting a joint Long Term Plan submission for HBRC and the four territorial authorities in Hawke’s Bay. This proposal will outline the strategic approach Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay will be taking, including other funding partners.

9. However, Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay has reviewed their cash flow forecast for the Foundation operating account through to July 2021. Currently there is a forecast deficit. To allow Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay to keep operating (keep the lights on) through to the next Long Term Plan additional operational funding is required.

10. As per appendix one, Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay has formally approached HBRC requesting that the $200K currently allocated for the Biodiversity HB Endowment Fund for the 2020-21 financial year, be split evenly between the Endowment Fund ($100K) and Biodiversity HB operating expenses ($100K).

Assessment of Significance

11. The Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy (the Policy) is the primary tool to determine the significance of Regional Council decisions and give clarity on when to engage.

12. The table below outlines staff’s assessment of the decision to change the intended use of the grant by the HB Biodiversity Foundation against the criteria for significance from the Policy.

Criteria for Significance	Assessment	Comment
The likely level of community interest	Low	A grant of $200,000 per year for four years to “kick-start a HB Biodiversity Foundation endowment fund” was consulted on in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan as part of the “Partnerships for Change” consultation topic. More than two thirds were in support of the broader partnerships proposal and there was little comment specifically on the grant funding.
The likely impact or consequences for affected individuals and groups in the region	Low	The most affected group is the HB Biodiversity Trust who has requested the change.
How much a decision or action promotes community outcomes or other Council priorities	Strongly promotes	“Healthy and functioning biodiversity” is one of four focus areas in the Council’s Strategic Plan. The decision to allow the Trust to use the endowment funding for operations will secure its business survival which directly promotes achievement of healthy and functioning biodiversity across the region
The impact on levels of service identified in the current Long Term Plan	None	The relevant Level of services statement from the LTP states “HBRC will work with partners and stakeholder to implement the HB Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan so biodiversity is enhanced healthy and functioning”. This level of service would remain unchanged but it could be argued that supporting the Trust’s request gives greater effect to it.

13. Staff have concluded that overall the decision is not significant, and that Council can make this decision without conferring directly with the community. Instead it is proposed to inform the community of the decision to change the intended use of the funding via the Annual Plan. The decision would be treated as a minor variation and noted in a bullet point under “What’s happening this year”.

Financial and Resource Implications

14. The use of the grant has no financial impact on Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

Next Steps

15. If Council supports the request from the HB Biodiversity Trust that the $200K currently allocated for the Biodiversity HB Endowment Fund be split evenly between the Endowment Fund ($100K) and Biodiversity HB operating expenses ($100K) the staff will include a resolution enacting this decision in the report to adopt the 2020-21 Annual Plan.

Decision Making Process

16. Council and its committees are 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:

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

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

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

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the “Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay Foundation Request to Change Funding” staff report.

2. 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 or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. Grants the Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay Foundation’s request to change funding to be split evenly between the Endowment Fund ($100K) and Biodiversity HB operating expenses ($100K), and requests that staff formalise the agreement through the 2020-21 Annual Plan process.

Authored by:

Desiree Cull

Strategy and Projects Leader

Mark Mitchell

Team Leader/Principal Advisor, Biosecurity/Biodiversity

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇩1

5 March 2020 Biodiversity HB Funding email request

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 April 2020

Subject: Biosecurity - Regional Pest Management Plan and Pest Control Activities

Reason for Report

1. This item provides an overview of Biosecurity activities, including TB control, possum numbers and progress towards achieving predator free Hawke’s Bay.

Background

2. The HBRC Biosecurity function comprises of three core teams, Pest Animals (3.6 FTE), Predator Free Hawkes Bay (6 FTE’s) and Pest Plants (4.4 FTE). The budget includes just over $1.9m for internal staff time and an additional $1.6m for external operating costs. The primary role of these teams is to deliver the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP), a statutory document underpinned by the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act) that provides the framework for the management of animal, plant, marine and horticultural pests in Hawke’s Bay.

3. Regional councils have a mandate under Part 2 of the Act to provide regional leadership in activities that prevent, reduce, or eliminate adverse effects from harmful organisms that are present in their region. Council therefore has a leadership role in pest management in the Hawke’s Bay region.

Discussion

4. Since the development of Council’s first Pest Management Strategy in July 1996, significant benefits have accrued to the region’s economy from pest plant and animal control. Although over the past 20 years approximately 80% of Council’s biosecurity resource have focussed on pests affecting agricultural production, there have been significant biodiversity gains arising from the delivery of these programmes. During the last RPMP review (2017-18), more emphasis was placed on managing environmental pests. As a result the revised RPMP (2018-28) includes new programmes to manage predators, feral goats, wilding conifers and marine pests, as well as the inclusion of exclusion pests and a framework to secure possum eradication long-term.

5. The RPMP operates within the administrative the boundaries of the Hawke’s Bay region and covers a total area (land and sea) of 1,419,153 hectares. The RPMP proposes to remain in force for a period of 20 years with a review being undertaken after 10 years from the date of commencement.

6. Staff manage Biosecurity programmes in both rural and urban areas, targeting specific species for control or eradication. This endeavour involves working closely with farmers, urban residents and a wide range of organisations to effectively manage and control a range of pests. Staff also work closely with other internal teams, including Biodiversity, Catchment Management, Science, Engineering, and Open Spaces,

7. The RPMP contains 33 pest plants, 23 pest animals, two marine pests and five horticultural pests. These pests sit within an Exclusion, Eradication, Progressive Containment, Sustained Control or Site-led programme. Some of the key programmes contained within the RPMP are as follows.

8. Council’s biosecurity functions are currently under review by an experienced external consultant. This review is intended to meet the requirements of S17a of the Local Government Act. This review will consider the biosecurity aspects of cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions.

Possum Control Area (PCA) programme

9. Hawkes Bay Regional Council has been controlling possums through its Possum Control Area (PCA) programme since 2001. This is a flag ship biosecurity programme with over $15m invested directly by Council in the initial knockdown and maintenance of low possums numbers to date. There has been a very high level of support for the PCA programme, and a strong belief by most land occupiers within the programme that it is providing value for money for Biosecurity ratepayers. The PCA programme was initiated to deliver multiple benefits for ratepayers including lowering the risk of TB, reducing the economic and amenity damage caused by possums and improving biodiversity. A benefits report done by the Lincoln Agricultural economic unit in 2006 also cited economic benefits from reduced pasture browse by possums of up to $2/ha.

10. Although the PCA programme is currently achieving its target of <4% residual trap catch (RTC), the data (red line in Figure 1 below) suggests a slow increase in RTC monitoring results. Over the last decade staff have seen an increase in the number of farmers undertaking their own control rather than using a contractor and in some cases this own control may not be being carried out annually and effectively. Partly this is because possum numbers generally have been low for a very long time and a level of complacency is developing forsome landowners on the programme. Alongside this however some landowners within the programme have experienced extremely challenging climatic conditions such as drought and flooding and have had to carefully prioritise farm expenditure. This gradual increase of the RTC also reflects the increasing number of properties that we are having to follow up on as they a have failed their RTC requirements. These changes are of concern to staff as only 10-15% of the overall PCA programme is monitored annually, resulting in some properties going unmonitored for 8-10 years.

11. The areas of current concern raised in paragraph 10 will be considered and addressed in the S17a review underway. This review will be fully reported to council on completion.

Figure 1 – PCA possum monitoring results

Rabbits

12. Rabbits are included in the RPMP, with occupiers being responsible for maintaining population levels below Level 4 on the Modified McLean Scale. Rabbits can cause a number of adverse effects on economic well-being and environmental values particularly in the more rabbit-prone lands. Staff undertake the following duties:

12.1. Conduct targeted surveillance of rabbit prone areas (Figure 2 below)

12.2. Conduct periodic monitoring of rabbits at known or suspected Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD) areas

12.3. Provide advice and education to land occupiers, including occupiers of small blocks, to help them control rabbits by the most efficient and effective means, and

12.4. At its discretion, and as set out in an approved management programme, meet up to 50% of the cost of rabbit control on rateable land where rabbit numbers exceed 4 on the McLean Scale.

13. Staff released RHDV1 K5 (a variant of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus) as part of a national release in 2018 but it has not had any detectible impact.

Figure 2 – regional annual rabbit night counts

Rooks

14. Rooks are declared a pest in the RPMP in the Eradication category. Rooks feed on maize, peas, squash, green feed and cereal crops at sowing and post emergent times, often causing extensive damage to these crops. Staff manage the rook eradication programme, targeting nests within all known rookeries during the breeding season. This involves large-scale aerial and ground control operations. Staff conduct annual rookery counts to determine the effects of the control. As shown in Figure 3 below, the rook programme has been very successful with rook numbers significantly decreasing from 2789 nests in 06/07 to just 494 nests this season. Operations are co-ordinated with Gisborne District Council and Horizons Regional Council. Council provide information to land occupiers on rook identification, the potential adverse effects that they cause, who to contact for rook control, and the risks of inappropriate control. While it is predicted that eradication will take approximately 30 years to achieve the success of the programme over the last decade has already seen the economic damage caused by rooks within the region significantly reduced.

Figure 3 – Rook trend data

Chilean needle grass (CNG)

15. CNG is a pest plant which can have significant negative impacts on animal welfare and poses a threat to the sustainability of farming in Hawke’s Bay. CNG is a very cryptic plant, which is hard to identify, seeds twice a year, is hard to kill without non-target impacts, has potential erosion issues post control and is spread by many vectors e.g. stock, people, machinery. Current measures undertaken have significantly slowed the spread of CNG across the region. Its current known extent is approximately 650ha, with an average of 11 new sites being detected annually. Most new sites detected are adjacent to properties with CNG and have gone undetected due to the cryptic nature of this pest pant. Staff have increased the advocacy surveillance programme and tightened pathway restrictions to minimise the further spread of CNG. The Pest Plant team focus almost exclusively on CNG during November-December, as there is a very short period where CNG can be identified and controlled. With additional properties being discovered each season, staff workloads have increased.

Old man’s beard

16. Old man’s beard is a significant environmental weed that smothers native vegetation. Its habitat is typically scrubland, wasteland, riverbanks, hedgerows and native bush margins. Old man’s beard is in the RPMP as a Progressive Containment pest and comprises of two areas:

16.1. North of SH 5 – old man’s beard is controlled across all land tenure with occupiers being responsible for the control of old man’s beard on their land. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations prior to seed set where it is practical to do so. Most properties qualify for a subsidy under the pest plant incentive scheme. HBRC undertakes an annual surveillance programme and works with land occupiers to undertake control.

16.2. Ruahine and Kaweka ranges – a buffer programme is in place to prevent the establishment of old man’s beard in the ranges. HBRC, in partnership with the Department of Conservation, control all old man’s beard within the park and a 500 metre buffer zone along the edge of the Ruahine and Kaweka ranges (as per map in RPMP 2018-38).

Marine Pests

17. Two of the most invasive marine pests have been include in the RPMP, being Mediterranean fanworm and clubbed tunicate. Marine pests have the potential to adversely affect our aquaculture and fishing industries, threaten human health and displace our native marine plants and animals. Marine pests are very difficult to control once established, with high control costs, rapid dispersal of very large numbers of juveniles, and a lack of safe, effective control technologies. Prevention is the best tool.

18. Currently there are only two known marine pests in Hawke’s Bay, Asian kelp and Australian tubeworm. In an attempt to prevent marine pests from establishing, a level of foul rule for hulls was also included in the RPMP. Risk pathway management can, at a relatively low cost, reduce the risk of marine pests. This is because, compared with other regions, Hawke’s Bay has a rugged coastline and limited number of ports/marinas.

19. Biosecurity staff have established strong working relationships with key stakeholders in the marine space (including MPI, Napier City Council, Napier Sailing Club, Harbourmaster, the Napier Port and the Top of the North Marine Biosecurity Partnership) and have developed a vessel risk assessment form that visiting vessels must complete. This process recently picked up a vessel with Mediterranean fanworm complete and carry out dive inspections of incoming vessels deemed high risk or suspect. Having this programme in the RPMP allowed staff to act immediately, removing adult farmworm with divers, wrapping the vessel and directing it to be hauled out of the water.

Exclusion pests

20. Recent amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993 allow Regional Pest Management Plans to include ‘Exclusion Pests’. These are pests that not known to be established in the region. Alligator weed, marshwort, Noogoora bur, senegal tea, spartina, and wallabies have been included in the RPMP under this category. Declaring these species as pests under the Exclusion programme gives Biosecurity staff the appropriate powers under the Biosecurity Act to respond to a population or if a vector pathway is detected.

Predator Free Hawke’s Bay

21. In 2011 Council partnered with the Department of Conservation and a range of other stakeholders in the Poutiri Ao ō Tāne project to explore if landscape scale predator control at lower cost was achievable on farmland. The strategic intention behind this was to see if the foundation of success provided by the PCA programme could be built on to leverage additional regional scale biodiversity and economic outcomes for ratepayers. That 8000 ha project Poutiri Ao ō Tāne then led on to an additional 26000 ha project Cape to City in 2015 to operationalize at scale what was learned in Poutiri Ao ō Tāne. In 2018 a four year project Whakatipu Mahia – Predator Free was initiated under the Predator Free 2050 vision with funding from a range of partners including PF 2050 Ltd. Whakatipu Mahia includes another 14000 ha of predator control and extended control to test what might be required for large scale possum eradication on farmland. It is currently the largest mainland possum eradication programme ever undertaken in New Zealand. The last decade of work has provided a regional foundation for Predator Free Hawkes Bay including:

21.1. The mechanism has been created within the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2039 for both Predator Control Areas and Possum eradication areas. This allows communities to support predator control or possum eradication based on the same model as the last two decades of PCA programme success.

21.2. Understanding some of the key research, technical and operational elements required for successful large scale predator control or possum eradication on farmland. This includes monitoring techniques, types of trap devices and placement, data management and in the case of eradication barrier options to reinvasion. In addition around 40 individual research and science projects have been completed by Manaaki Whenua (Landcare Research) considering a range of elements related to the programme. Research has been conducted on likely biodiversity outcomes, habitat connectivity, cutting edge techniques like pheromone lures and environmental DNA typing, wireless trap monitoring, education and engagement programmes.

21.3. Understanding how landscape scale predator control integrates into the range of other work programmes required to drive greater biodiversity outcomes for ratepayers. A number of Council activities deliver biodiversity benefits for example the ecosystem prioritisation programme, catchment management team planting activities, pest plant control and so on. Targeting landscape scale predator control to ‘clusters’ of biodiversity where council (or the community) has these additional investments will deliver better overall biodiversity outcomes for the ratepayer.

22. We are still some way away from being able to undertake landscape scale possum eradication. However the last ten years has seen a solid foundation built to step towards Predator Free Hawkes Bay through regional predator suppression at the scale and level of success we have enjoyed on our flagship possum control area programme. This will deliver significant additional biodiversity benefits. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment noted in her 2017 report "Taonga of an island nation: Saving New Zealand’s birds” predators are in the top three factors creating native birdlife decline.

Next Steps

23. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has a regional leadership role in pest management and Biosecurity has been core business of Council since its inception in 1989. The Council substantially delivers this through the Regional Pest Management plan which contains 61 pests. The Biosecurity team also supports and delivers pest control outside of this plan, including targeted control of environmental and agricultural pests at specific sites and working with community groups to protect and enhance high biodiversity value areas. Staff also play a key role in initiatives to support national coordination of Biosecurity practices such as the Biosecurity Working Group and Biomanagers.

24. Internally the Biosecurity team, works closely with other teams to integrate programmes, such as Predator Free Hawke’s Bay, Biodiversity and Catchment Management, to provide a holistic approach in environmental management.

25. Staff are in the process of conducting an LGA section 17a efficiency and effectiveness review of a range of Biosecurity operations in advance of the next LTP. The intention of this review is to test whether the current programmes are targeted and structured to deliver the best possible returns for ratepayer investment in biosecurity activities within the region.

Decision Making Process

26. 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 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council receives and notes the “Biosecurity - Regional Pest Management Plan and Pest Control Activities” staff report.

Authored by:

Campbell Leckie

Manager Catchment Services

Mark Mitchell

Team Leader/Principal Advisor, Biosecurity/Biodiversity

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 April 2020

Subject: Review of HBRC Activities in relation to the Mohaka Valley TB Outbreak

Reason for Report

1. This item provides background on Hawkes Bay Regional Council’s Possum Control Area (PCA) programme, our partnership with vector control activities delivered under the National Bovine Tuberculosis Pest Management Plan, and how that relates to the recent Bovine Tuberculosis outbreak in the northern part of the region.

Background

2. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has played an active role in managing the risk of TB since 1996. In 2001 the first PCA’s were formed. Since then the PCA programme has grown to cover approximately 775,000ha with over $15m invested directly by Council in the initial knockdown and ongoing maintenance of possums to low densities.

3. The PCA programme was initiated to deliver multiple benefits for ratepayers including lowering the risk of TB, reducing the economic and amenity damage caused by possums and improving biodiversity. A benefits report done by the Lincoln Agricultural economic unit in 2006 also cited economic benefits from reduced pasture browse by possums of up to $2/ha.

4. The PCA programme is implemented through the Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) which is underpinned by the Biosecurity Act 1993. A key feature of the RPMP is that once a PCA is created, land users within it have an obligation, enforceable by Council compliance action to keep possum numbers low on their property.

5. The RPMP recently underwent a review, with the new RPMP coming into effect on 1 February 2019. This Plan is not required to be reviewed until 1 February 2029, unless Council choses to.

6. Approximately $1million dollars is invested annually in the PCA programme, with about half internal staff time and half for external operational spend. We monitor approximately 10% of the PCA annually and it currently takes approximately 8-10 years to monitor all PCA’s within the programme.

7. Within the PCA area, possum monitoring is undertaken on between 80,000-100,000ha of land annually. This consists of approximately 1300 chew card lines across the monitored area to assess possum densities.

8. Residual Trap Catch (RTC), is the number of possum detections per unit of effort, according to a standard protocol specified by the National Pest Control Agencies (NPCA). This reflects the density of possums that remain after a control operation.

9. Land occupiers within the PCA programme must maintain possum densities at or below 4% RTC. This was recently decreased from 5% RTC during the Regional Pest Management Plan review. The following graph shows monitoring results across the PCA programme since its inception.

10. HBRC provides the following support to land occupiers in managing possums to the required densities:

10.1. Subsidised possum control products at Farmlands and PGG Wrightson

10.2. A PCA buffer control programme along the boundary of crown estate to minimise possums entering the PCA programme from unmanaged areas

10.3. A maximum possum contractor rate of $2/ha. If land occupiers use a contractor and the cost of possum control is greater than $2/ha, HBRC will cover the additional cost

10.4. HBRC also manages the DoC ‘exacerbator’ budget for smaller areas of DoC estate within the PCA programme.

11. Production forestry within the PCA programme is exempt from the RPMP rule, however a Good Neighbour Rule (500m buffer) applies. This means forests adjoining land within the PCA programme must manage possum densities at or below 5% RTC within a 500m buffer along the forestry edge. While this usually requires production forestry to manage a greater area than the 500 metre buffer to be confident that they comply with the good neighbour rule, this exemption does pose a risk to the PCA programme where forestry companies are not diligent in delivering annual control.

TB outbreak

12. In April 2019 a TB infected herd was detected in the Waitara Valley. Since then, further infected herds have been detected in Matahoura, Tutira, Waikoau, Waipataki, Patoka, and Rissington. The source of TB infection in this outbreak has been DNA strain-typed to wildlife from north of the Mohaka River which, as shown in attachment 1 (purple circle), is well within the OSPRI managed area.

13. OSPRI is the management agency in charge of managing TB in NZ. There has been some confusion in the community regarding each organisations roles and responsibilities, possibly due to HBRC undertaking vector control (possum management) on behalf of OSPRI until September 2013, when OSPRI transitioned this role to its own vector management department. In 2016 OSPRI reduced its national funding by $20m and reduced their staff in Hawke’s Bay. The vector management programme was then managed from Palmerston North.

14. HBRC contributed towards OSPRI’s vector control costs up till 2016 via a targeted TB rate. This was approximately 10% of the cost of annual vector control within the region. When the national funding model changed, Councils across NZ exited funding TB vector management. Council’s involvement with OSPRI operational activities, and therefore relationships, were not required to be as close post 2016 as they were previously.

15. In addition to this change, within Hawkes Bay there was an agreed RPMP mechanism and joint process (discussed below) to transition TB-Free vector control areas over to HBRC management on the PCA programme. This process has worked adequately till now and further reduced the need for the high level of communication maintained while HBRC managed vector management on behalf of OSPRI in the region.

16. When OSPRI declare an area TB free and cease possum management it is transferred into the HBRC PCA programme. During a three year period (2015-17) a large number of PCAs were rolled off OSPRI management and were entered into the PCA programme. The majority of these PCAs will now be affected by OSPRI’s planned vector management programme (shown in Map 1 – hatching). HBRC are working with OSPRI to notify affected PCA land occupiers of this change back to OSPRI led management.

17. HBRC undertook possum monitoring this financial year within nine PCA’s that are within the blue hatched area in attachment 1. These PCA areas had an average residual trap catch (RTC) of 2.9%, well below the 4% RTC requirement to meet the plan rule. This monitoring data has been shared with OSPRI.

18. HBRC staff were of the view that the transition process for vector control areas to the PCA programme was working adequately. Staff were not aware of, nor held information that could have made them aware of the imminent TB threat. This outbreak was a surprise to HBRC staff.

19. What has become apparent through the TB outbreak, largely across TB-Free vector control areas, is that more regular operational communication is required again between HBRC Catchment Services and OSPRI TB-Free staff. While OSPRI is the statutory authority to manage bovine tuberculosis, any TB outbreak potentially impacts on both HBRC’s management of the PCA programme and farmer relationships within outbreak areas which HBRC values.

Discussion

20. For absolute clarity, the current outbreak is not the result of HBRC failing in respect to any of our operational or legislative requirements. While enhanced communication between HBRC and OSPRI is desirable in future, a lack of communication between the agencies was equally not the cause of this outbreak.

21. HBRC is committed to maintaining low possum numbers within the PCA programme to help minimise the risk of TB spreading in Hawke’s Bay. It is important to note, however, the roles and responsibilities of each organisation.

22. HBRC has a regional leadership role under the Biosecurity Act in managing pests, such as possums. OSPRI is a not-for-profit limited liability company comprising a group of companies inclusive of TBfree NZ Ltd and NAIT Ltd. TBfree NZ Ltd is the statutory management agency for the National Bovine Tuberculosis Pest Management Plan, pursuant to the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Biosecurity (National Bovine Tuberculosis Pest Management Plan) Order 1998. The implementation of this legislation is funded through government contributions and levies. HBRC has not has any formal input into the OSPRI vector management programme since ceasing management of it in 2016.

23. It is important that HBRC and OSPRI have a strong operational relationships and work collaboratively. HBRC sits on the Hawke’s Bay TB Free committee and works with the local OSPRI team in transitioning properties out of TB vector managed areas into the HBRC PCA programme.

24. HBRC staff were not approached nor privy to the recent review undertaken by OSPRI and raised in discussion by OSPRI staff during the council presentation on 8 April 2020. Accessing this review might be useful in supporting the necessary closer relationship between OSPRI and HBRC staff to assist in the coordinated management of possums within the region. Staff are working with OSPRI to access this report.

25. The BioManagers Special Interest Group has formally approached OSPRI to take a sector led process of re-engagement at a strategic level with OSPRI leadership. We are particularly wanting to minimise risks of future outbreaks, and to discuss how councils can better engage with OSPRI.

26. HBRC has been working with OSPRI, attending community meetings, providing PCA data offering assistance with land occupier contact information. The HBRC Communications team has also offered to work with OSPRI in getting key messages out.

Next Steps

27. Staff are in the process of conducting an efficiency and effectiveness review of a range of biosecurity operations including the PCA programme in advance of the next LTP. This will be fully reported to Council at a future meeting.

28. The Group Manager – ICM has approached OSPRI leadership to request that discussions about our collective issues and exploration of how the two organisations can work more collaboratively in future continue. This has been positively received and we will seek to ensure engagement occurs both at a senior leadership level and operationally within each organisation.

Decision Making Process

29. 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 Council receives the “Review of HBRC Activities in relation to the Mohaka Valley TB Outbreak” report.

Authored by:

Mark Mitchell

Team Leader/Principal Advisor, Biosecurity/Biodiversity

Campbell Leckie

Manager Catchment Services

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Te Runanga o Ngati Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council

Environment Court, Auckland, 10/12/2019, Kirkpatrick Judge, Buchanan Commissioner, Kernohan Commissioner

ENV-2018-AKL-133, ENV-2018-AKL-134, ENV-2018-AKL-135, ENV-2018-AKL-166

[2019] NZEnvC 196

Topic	Raised by