Agenda of Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

	Agenda item	Follow-up item	Responsible	Status/Comment
1.	Councillor Barker Notice of Motion	Referred to 29 July Regional Council meeting	J Palmer	Item on 29 July 2020 Regional Council agenda resolved (as summarised) “staff to investigate establishment of a semi-autonomous unit called ‘Climate Mitigation Hawke's Bay’ through the 2021-31 Long Term Plan development process including consultation with the community as part of pre-LTP informal consultation”
2	Heretaunga Water Security	Once Tonkin + Taylor report is finalised, staff will prepare a business case to recommend a Heretaunga water storage site or sites for pre-feasibility investigations	T Skerman	Pre-feasibility recommendations for Heretaunga agenda item for decision on today’s EICC agenda.
3	Urbanisation of Heretaunga Plains	Resolution to urge Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (‘HPUDS’) to take action to protect and preserve productive soils	G Ide	Meeting of the HPUDS Implementation Working Group is scheduled on 14 September (was postponed from earlier in 2020 due to COVID19). The next review of HPUDS due to commence in 2021-22 will consider of a range of issues, including those raised about the Strategy’s role in protecting productive soils. The current HPUDS already features the following as one of its six guiding principles “Productive value of its versatile land and water resources are recognised and provided for and used sustainably.” The HPUDS Review will need to align with national legislation and directions, including the recent 2020 National Policy Statement for Urban Development, plus the Government’s new National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land anticipated to be released in early 2021.
4	Integration of Predator Free Hawke’s Bay With Council’s Strategic Objectives	Arrange a field trip to Whakatipu Mahia for recommendation to 16 September EICC meeting	I Maxwell	A field trip will be planned for the summer months, details will be provided as they become available.
5	Right Tree Right Place Update	Right Tree Right Place concept model and business case to be developed for LTP development process	I Maxwell / C Leckie	Integrated into the LTP development process, with initial business case presentation to 23 September Council workshop
6	Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme Level of Service Review Update	Staff to provide an update on the outcomes of the modelling undertaken for the Level of Service Review	C Dolley / M Groves	NIWA has reviewed the modelling for the Tutaekuri river. The outcomes are highlighting the areas which are most vulnerable and this is linked with the conditions assessment. Progress is being on Ngaruroro and Lower Tukituki river models with estimation to be finished by November/December.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2020

Subject: Regional Water Security - Community Engagement Options via the Regional Water Assessment

Reason for Report

1. This item updates the Committee on progress with the Regional Water Assessment and seeks feedback and guidance for a proposed community engagement proposal.

Officers’ Recommendations

2. Council officers recommend that the Committee notes the progress with the Regional Water Assessment project and provides direction for a community engagement model to assist with future community engagement in making decisions about management interventions for managing water supply and demand.

Executive Summary

3. At its meeting on 2 September 2020 the Corporate and Strategic Committee resolved to:

3.1. “urgently progress a focussed and targeted engagement strategy with iwi, landowners and wider community on the Regional Water Assessment project to develop broader non-storage policy solutions and interventions for achieving water security in the CHB District, including; water use conservation, efficiency measures, farm systems and land use change, water allocation and recovery policies, recycling water.”

4. After a delayed start because of covid-19, work is underway on the Regional Water Assessment (RWA) but with elevated time pressure in delivery. This is a project part funded by the HBRC under their freshwater security initiatives and partly by PGF funding.

5. The project encompasses 3 main phases, being:

5.1. Phase 1 Data and information framework– stocks and flows of water and supply and user accounts

5.2. Phase 2 Climate change, growth and social/demographic modelling for the development of scenarios to understand the trajectory of the region’s future water supply and demand challenges and opportunities.

6. Phase 1 is underway with the consultancy Envirostrat engaged to build the information/data framework. Data sources from a range of councils and agencies are being collated and assessed. This includes and assessment of minimum data requirements and data aggregation. Recommendations to address data gaps will also be part of this phase.

7. This report discusses options for Community engagement with the Regional Water Assessment project. The high level of public interest and the range of management interventions supported by various community interests highlight the need to adopt robust, open and transparent process in agreeing future scenarios and in identifying and assessing suitable options within a longer-term decision making frameworks.

Background /Discussion

8. Attachment 1 includes the most recent version of the Water Security Programme Communications plan, shared with Council on 5 August 2020.

9. Correct positioning of the Regional Water Assessment within the wider water security programme of work is essential. This is because while the council is concurrently investigating a range of water security options (including Managed Aquifer Recharge and storage options for the Ruataniwha and Heretaunga Plains), this Regional Water Assessment will enable these options to be assessed within a wider context which considers a range of possible future water supply and demand scenarios and in comparison with a wider range of management interventions.

10. This project will provide tools and information to help council and the wider community to make decisions about preferred management interventions and inform regional and territorial councils’ strategic and Long Term Plans.

11. The figure below illustrates the key components of the Regional Water Assessment project.

Figure 1: Overview of RWA project

12. There is a high level of interest in water management, and there are several challenges focusing the Council and community attention on current and future management of land and water resources. These challenges include:

12.1. Current water security issues in both the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Plains, arising from both the limit setting exercises in regional plan preparation and from the severe drought earlier this year and which is still impacting the community

12.2. Encouraging or incentivising greater utilisation of water in areas of more plentiful supply, such as Wairoa

12.3. The climate change impacts on future water supply and river flows and the risks this poses to the on-going water security for Hawke's Bay communities

12.4. The ongoing and increasing need for water to meet expected future demand

12.5. The need to manage scarce water resources and their use in more efficient and sustainable ways

12.6. The sustainable use of land in a way that also meets water quantity objectives.

13. The Regional Water Assessment project will result in development of a natural capital accounting approach and tools that assist the councils and their communities in making decisions about land and water management. It considers both current and future water supply and demand and will develop future scenarios that change water supply and demand including climate change impacts and the impact of urban growth and land use change.

14. These information management systems and tools will enable examination of a range of management interventions that will assist in closing the anticipated gap between supply and demand as illustrated in figure 2 following.

Figure 2: RWA programme structure

Community Engagement Options

15. This report addresses options for ensuring community buy-in and acceptance as the Regional Water Assessment project develops. This project is a component of the over-all water security programme being led by the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and both the communication’s strategy and the community involvement opportunities will need to be consistent with the overall programme.

16. The expectation is that the four elements of this programme of work will approach a point of clarity / decision in approximately 12-18 months’ time. For example, the Regional Water Assessment will be ready for community input, early data from the 3D aquifer modelling will be ready to share with the public and local communities, pre-feasibility analysis (or better) of water storage will be complete and ready for decisions on next steps.

17. All of these elements come together for an informed public conversation around the future of Hawke’s Bay’s water and the options available to the region to deliver it.

18. Particularly critical to the Regional Water Assessment project is the need to focus people’s attention and the discussion on the wider issues and range of solutions rather than the recent focus on storage options. A key aspect of the project is also understanding and preparing for a different water supply and demand future.

19. The project is currently subject to oversight by a steering group consisting of water managers from each of the territorial authorities, and the HBRC Māori partnership and Regional Water Security managers who provide largely technical oversight.

20. We are now proposing to address the community engagement aspects of the Regional Water Assessment project and have identified 3 main options:

20.1. Community reference group or collection of interest groups to follow a community decision making approach (as illustrated by TANK, Tukituki Leader’s forum)

20.2. Project team undertakes targeted stakeholder engagement – socializing the RWA and seeking feedback and input into the scenario development and shortlist of policy interventions that will be tested, or

20.3. Establishment of a Community Panel.

21. There are risks and opportunities in all these approaches as summarised in the table below. Given the sense of urgency and short timeframes option 2 would be the most stream-lined and easiest to implement by the project team.

22. Option 3 enables for more considered input by a group of people on a more targeted and formal basis. It has the potential to be much more stream-lined than a community reference group or stakeholder representation model. It enables assumptions to be tested by a wider pool of people than the project team by ensuring input from people with specified expertise with specific terms of reference and in relation to input required and outputs expected.

23. Option 3 is an alternative engagement model not previously used by council for freshwater and the proposal is further discussed below. Option’s 2 and 3 better account for the fact that there is currently no new information to discuss with the wider community (the RWA is a primarily a date and modelling exercise after all) but acknowledges the need for a wider input into decisions about scenarios and the types of management interventions that contribute to the outputs from this project.

Table 1: Costs of benefits of engagement options

Engagement option	Costs/risks	Benefits/opportunities
1. Community representative group	· Longer more complex process involving a large group – for set up and management, attendance etc. · Difficulty in reconciling competing ideologies, particularly when seeking recommendations. · Expectations of group members may not be met - leading to dissatisfaction with process. · Lack of specified criteria for membership. · Difficulty in getting full “community representation” · Tangata whenua skepticism of efficacy of participating in these types of forums.	· Enables wider involvement by interest groups and stakeholders · Wider community understanding of issues
2. Project team direct engagement with key stakeholders	· May miss some interest groups/people · Potential perception that it is superficial/token engagement. · Not sufficiently independent of HBRC thinking.	· Can be rapid and targeted · Focused and efficient
3. Community Panel	· Concern about degree that panel members reflect wider community views · Concerns about balance /expertise of members · Appointment process may be perceived to be biased	· Criteria for panel selection is agreed and transparent · Role of panelists clear · Specified outputs · Enables rapid engagement · Can be supported by additional targeted stakeholder engagement

Community Panel Proposal

24. HBRC has experienced both successes and challenges with collaborative reference groups whose membership is largely constituted on the basis of competing interests and views on the management of natural resources. Particularly so in the case of freshwater. On occasion recently HBRC has adopted a more targeted and focused approach with smaller panels whose primary objective is to give decision makers greater confidence in the processes that ultimately inform key investment and policy decisions. Examples include:

24.1. The RWSS Review reference group that was appointed to receive and provide feedback on that report prior to the final version being presented to Council

24.2. The Capital Structure Review Panel, whose work and recommendations formed the catalyst for the subsequent Port of Napier IPO.

25. Under this proposal, a Community panel could either be chaired (or co-chaired) by HBRC, or operate without HBRC Councillor membership. To maximise its effectiveness the panel should be a small group of no more than 6-8 people. The panel will be made of community leaders drawn from across the region who meet the criteria agreed by Council. For the avoidance of doubt, staff are not proposing a panel of subject matter experts as these skills will be sought in the creation of the report and through project briefs for specific information.

26. Staff have previously sought the views of affected iwi authorities on matters relating to governance and engagement in relation to the Heretaunga and Central Hawke's Bay water security projects. Based on feedback received, it is not unreasonable to assume that tangata whenua expectations would be for high if not equal representation in the membership of this panel.

27. If this option is preferred, it is recommended that, as a collective, the panel membership be selected such that panel benefits from experience across the following domains:

27.1. Knowledge of local government and territorial and regional functions

27.2. Familiarity with freshwater issues across the entire Hawke’s Bay

27.3. General experience and awareness of the RMA and LGA

27.4. An awareness and appreciation of Māori interests in freshwater management

27.5. Regional and international perspective on the economic impacts of HB primary production, processing industries and trade

27.6. Community education, engagement and consultation

27.7. Environmental advocacy

27.8. Impacts of climate change

27.9. Understanding and appreciation for the role of water across a range of water uses (including community, industrial and commercial water use and use of water in irrigation).

28. It is staff’s recommendation that, aside from the Chair/Co-Chair role, political leaders (for example – a selection of councillors from across the region) do not form a part of the membership of the panel. The objective of the RWA is to provide politicians with the tools, information and community input necessary to agree a Regional Freshwater Action Plan that sets out aspirations and prioritised interventions in the years (perhaps decades) ahead. In that regard, the political leadership across the region is the ultimate “customer” of the RWA and would, in staff’s view, be better served remaining independent from the completion of the RWA.

29. The panel’s role will be divided into two parts. First, to provide feedback and guidance on the delivery of the RWA project plan. Logically this applies to a lesser degree in relation to Phases 1 and 2 of the project which are fundamentally data aggregation and modelling exercises. But the panel would play an important role in shaping the selection and briefs for the range of policy and investment interventions that Phase 3 of the project will cover.

30. The panel’s heavy lifting would commence once the RWA’s draft report is complete (currently expected to be in August 2021). Following the panel’s own input and design work, the project team would undertake a region-wide community education and engagement process that procures feedback from the wider community on the information, issues and options contained in the draft report. The panel would provide oversight of this engagement step.

31. The panel would then consider and assess the feedback received.

32. At the conclusion of that process the panel will be tasked with finalising the report and provided decision makers with its own conclusions and recommendations. This last step could perhaps be likened to a community hearings process not dissimilar to LTP consultations. The table below summarises this thinking.

Table 2: Role and function of community panel

Role/function of the Panel	Level of effort
Awareness of the data framework phase 1 of the project	5%
Provision of feedback on scenario development and oversight of any work briefs	15%
Development of policy interventions · Identification of interventions to be included · Oversight of work briefs · Oversight of outputs	30%
Oversight and review of draft report · Community feedback assessment · Conclusions and recommendations to decision makers as summary chapter of project report	50%

33. Council has asked that staff identify an option that will deliver urgent focussed and targeted engagement community engagement. To the extent that the wider community engagement under option 3 does not commence well into next year then this option falls well short of this requirement, despite being very targeted. However wider community involvement can be achieved through the panel by a specific series of discussions (or interviews) with key freshwater stakeholders to ensure that the work done in Phase Three of the project sufficiently captures and assesses the wide range of views on the matrix of storage and non-storage options that need to be considered to drive regional water security over the long term. It should be noted that this would also be the approach taken by staff under Option 2.

34. The level of effort and input required from the Panel suggests that the panel members will need to receive payment and be supported by secretarial services. These will be met by the Regional Water Assessment project. Staff will provide cost estimates should Council select this option and provide further guidance on its preference for panel size and membership criteria.

Options Assessment

35. Staff have identified three options for urgently progressing a focussed and targeted engagement strategy with iwi, landowners and wider community on the Regional Water Assessment project.

35.1. Community reference group or collection of interest groups to follow a community decision making approach (as illustrated by TANK, Tukituki Leader’s forum)

35.2. Project team undertakes targeted stakeholder engagement – socialising the RWA and seeking feedback and input into the scenario development and shortlist of policy interventions that will be tested, or

35.3. Establishment of a Community Panel.

36. Taking into account the lack of new information on hand, the challenges of convening and managing a potentially larger group comprised of a range of interest groups staff do not recommend Option 1.

37. This report sets out the thinking behind Option 3 in detail. At a basic level it could be described as Option 2 with the addition of an external panel that can provide the community with an additional layer of confidence in the assessment process and final recommendations. Option 2 of course will be more agile and less expensive as this mostly involves the use of staff time and resources already committed to the project. However, there are perhaps political, community and stakeholder imperatives that could make Option 3 more attractive for Councillors in which case there will be resourcing implications that staff believe can be managed within programme budgets. Accordingly, staff do not have a preference as between options 2 or 3.

38. Should Councillors select Option 3, staff will require specific direction on:

38.1. Whether HBRC will Chair the panel, and

38.2. The size of the panel,

38.3. The panel membership selection criteria (Māori representation see paragraph 26, and proposed selection criteria see paragraph 27).

39. With this direction staff can develop a long list of candidates consistent with Council’s direction, cost and resourcing requirements, and a draft Terms of Reference for the panel. Final selection would then be a matter for Council or, in the interests of a faster turnaround, a sub-group with Council’s delegated authority (e.g. the Chief Executive, HBRC Chair and the EICC Chair).

Strategic Fit

40. This item is part of the Regional Water Assessment which is a component of the Water Security Programme. Council has already confirmed the strategic alignment of the Water Security Programme.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

41. In relation to the recommendations Tangata whenua involvement in all aspects of the water security programme, including the Regional Water Assessment is expected and management and governance frameworks account for this. The criteria for the community engagement panel that is the subject of this paper specifically seeks that awareness and appreciation of Māori interests and membership of the panel.

42. In relation to the broader project, the project makes provision for the RWA to include a specific and separate section on the views and interests of tangata whenua on water security. Staff have received specific feedback on the strength and value of the cultural case that formed a part of the recent Three Water’s review and will be looking to follow a similar approach for this project. The National Climate Change Risk Assessment also provides an excellent example of how an assessment can seek to factor in diverse Māori views and values, or identify and acknowledge gaps in the methodology and options for rectifying the same.

Financial and Resource Implications

43. The establishment of a community panel is provided for by existing Regional Water Assessment project budgets and the wider Water Security Programme.

Climate Change Considerations

44. MfE’s National Climate Change Risk Assessment for New Zealand (NCCRA), (https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/national-climate-change-risk-assessment-new-zealand-main-report) published in August of this year, identifies the risk to freshwater water supplies as being central to the most extreme risk – “Risk to potable water supplies (availability and quality) due to changes in rainfall, temperature, drought, extreme weather events and ongoing sea-level rise”. Specific reference is made that “[r]ural water supplies are also sensitive to climate change hazards, particularly where reticulated systems are limited or absent.”

45. The NCCRA categorised the following as priority risks for the Natural Environment domain:

45.1. N3 - Risks to riverine ecosystems and species from alterations in the volume and variability of water flow, increased water temperatures, and more dynamic morphology (erosion and deposition), due to changes in rainfall and temperature

45.2. N4 - Risks to wetland ecosystems and species, particularly in eastern and northern parts of New Zealand from reduced moisture status, due to reduced rainfall

45.3. N7 - Risks to terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, due to increased extreme weather events, drought and fire weather.

46. The NCCRA records, among others, the following Human Domain risks:

46.1. H2 - Risks of exacerbating existing inequities and creating new and additional inequities, due to differential distribution of climate change impacts

46.2. H3 - Risks to physical health from exposure to storm events, heatwaves, vector-borne and zoonotic diseases, water availability and resource quality and accessibility, due to changes in temperature, rainfall and extreme weather events

46.3. H4 - Risks of conflict, disruption and loss of trust in government from changing patterns in the value of assets and competition for access to scarce resources, primarily due to extreme weather events and ongoing sea-level rise

46.4. H6 - Risks to Māori social, cultural, spiritual and economic wellbeing from loss of species and biodiversity, due to greater climate variability and ongoing sea-level rise

46.5. H6 - Risks to Māori social, cultural, spiritual and economic wellbeing from loss of species.

47. The NCCRA records, among others, the following Economy Domain risks:

47.1. E3 - Risks to land-based primary sector productivity and output due to changing precipitation and water availability, temperature, seasonality, climate extremes and the distribution of invasive species.

48. Climate change will impact our freshwater systems in many ways and a transition to more extreme drought-flooding hydrological patters could have profound consequences for freshwater ecosystems, and severe social and economic impacts. The effects of higher temperatures, declining precipitation and more frequent extremes will have implications not only for land and water management, but also community resilience and well-being.

49. It is safe to say that we expect more extremes, which includes becoming more drought prone and more severe rainfall events leading to flooding, and this impacts the reliability and quality of the region’s water resources. We expect temperatures to increase in our lakes, rivers and streams which will affect the freshwater ecology.

Decision Making Process

50. 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:

50.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

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

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

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

50.5. 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

1. That the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee receives and considers the “Regional Water Security - Community Engagement Options via the Regional Water Assessment” staff report.

2. The Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional 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 or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

2.2. Directs staff to adopt the following model for community engagement for the Regional Water Assessment via:

EITHER

2.2.1. (Option 1) establishment of a Community reference group or collection of interest groups to follow a community decision making approach.

2.2.2. (Option 2) the RWA project team undertaking targeted stakeholder engagement – socialising the RWA and seeking feedback and input into the scenario development and shortlist of policy interventions that will be tested.

2.2.3. (Option 3) establishment of a Community Panel, in which case Committee members will make the following additional directions to staff.

2.2.3.1. Chair of the Panel is to be __________

2.2.3.2. Panel membership to total 6 or 8 of which no less than 50% are to be Māori

2.2.3.3. Panel membership to be determined based on the following criteria such that the Panel as a collective:

i. Representation from North, Central and Southern Districts

ii. Knowledge of local government and territorial and regional functions

iii. Familiarity with freshwater issues across the entire Hawke’s Bay

iv. General experience and awareness of the RMA and LGA

v. An awareness and appreciation of Māori interests in freshwater management

vi. Regional and international perspective on the economic impacts of HB primary production, processing industries and trade

vii. Community education, engagement and consultation

viii. Environmental advocacy

ix. Impacts of climate change

x. Understanding and appreciation for the role of water across a range of water uses (including community, industrial and commercial water use and use of water in irrigation).

AND EITHER

2.2.3.4. Delegates Community Panel appointments to a sub-group consisting of the Chief Executive, HBRC Chair and the EICC chair

2.2.3.5. Requests that the sub-group consisting of the Chief Executive, HBRC Chair and the EICC chair makes Community Panel membership recommendations to the Council for selection and appointment.

Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Acting Transport Manager

Tom Skerman

Acting Manager Regional Water Security

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1

Water Security Communications Plan

Water Security Communications Plan

Attachment 1

July 2020

Communications plan for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s integrated freshwater security programme

Introduction

“Freshwater is Hawke's Bay's most precious and valuable natural resource. There is nothing else that plays such a critically important role to the social, economic and environmental future of our region.

“The ultimate wellbeing of our communities and our people depends on how we manage our freshwater resources.” Rex Graham, HBRC Chair.

The above position is overarching context in terms of how Hawke’s Bay Regional Council leads, manages and engages with the local community and its stakeholders over its multi-year freshwater security programme of work.

This communications plan sets out the principles as to how the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will communicate on its freshwater security programme. It sets out the objectives of the communications; details the materials and resources HBRC will need in order to achieve its objectives; recommends messaging; covers key stakeholder groups and begins to step through the sequence of activity around the commencement of the four work streams.

It does not seek to provide a detailed breakdown or plan for each of the four individual projects as this will require detailed and highly specific communications and stakeholder engagement plans for each of the projects.

Context

This programme of work aligns with several key pieces of current context:

· Hawke’s Bay has just come through a serious 2019 / 2020 drought, as have other Councils across the country (e.g. Auckland)

· Communities are demanding political leadership in delivering solutions

· The country is entering into a post Covid-19 economic recovery, with a drive for rapid infrastructure development

· Commitment from the Provincial Growth Fund for acceleration of water security / storage initiatives

· The publication of the the HBRC’s Water Security Economic Impact Assessment outlining the impacts to the region of failing to advance water security

· Climate change-related impacts are continuing to be felt – Northland floods, Auckland drought.

The Regional Council has, as a consequence, publicly stated its commitment to actively investigating a range of water storage schemes in the Ngaruroro catchment as well as accelerating and prioritising the investigation and trial of Managed Aquifer Recharge in Central Hawke’s Bay.

The Tukituki Leaders’ Forum is engaging in the shaping of potential solutions in CHB – effectively picking up the challenge of delivering improved water security for Central Hawke’s Bay in a post RWSS context. They will be considering initial sites identified through the scoping level study at the end of July.

Further, HBRC is in the process of employing a dedicated Manager of Regional Water Security. This will provide a clear focus point for stakeholder engagement and communications outside of councillors and the CEO.

All of these elements converge to drive a sense of urgency across the water security programme of work which can afford to be reflected in the HBRC’s messaging and approach. With the SkyTEM aquifer mapping project now well underway, the Regional Water Assessment kicking off, confirmation of Heretaunga water storage investigations and guidance received from the Tukituki Leaders’ Forum’s water storage assessment for Central Hawke’s Bay, there is now momentum across each of the projects comprising the work programme.

The programme is now live, is moving relatively quickly and requires more focused, direct and assertive communication across all stakeholder groups.

The programme of work – the four projects

This document covers communications around the four freshwater projects announced to the Hawke’s Bay community during the Provincial Growth Fund allocations to Hawke’s Bay. They are:

· A whole-of-region freshwater assessment

· The 3D Aquifer Mapping Project

· The Heretaunga Water Storage initiative

· The CHB Water Security Project

While each of these projects can stand alone as a discreet and contained piece of work, they are also integrated and should be positioned accordingly. For example, reaching the pre-feasibility stage of Heretaunga water storage will likely coincide with the completion and publication of the Regional Water Assessment, enabling a more complete conversation with iwi, local communities and stakeholders.

The umbrella of the Regional Water Assessment

It is important that it is clearly understood that while the Regional Council is in action and has accelerated its Regional Water Security Programme, it has not predetermined any one solution. It is committed to engagement, consultation and informed community discussion around the measures which will collectively improve Hawke’s Bay’s water security.

To this end the positioning of the Regional Water Assessment is vital. While the Council is actively investigating a range of options, it is doing so in parallel with a comprehensive regional water assessment. With the completion of the regional water assessment in August 2021, the Council will be able to start an informed conversation with Hawke’s Bay communities around the region’s current and future supply and demand dynamics as well as tabling a range of options that can be used to close the gap between supply and demand – for example, storage, MAR, conservation, some potential land use changes.

This way, the regional water assessment comes first and is the pillar around which all options are anchored. It provides the full context around which solutions can be considered, discussed and decided. This approach ensures the conversation with the local community is one of integrity and the best possible information. (See appendix one).

However, it is also important to acknowledge that the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Plains have been subject to Resource Management Plan Changes, and are already subject to water limits and supply constraints. In the context of water security and allocation, these are the region’s most highly productive areas (therefore contributors to the regional economy) and are areas of mist significant local concern.

Principles of communication

Post Covid-19 and the 2019/2020 drought, there is acute and growing interest in the availability and security of Hawke’s Bay’s freshwater supplies across the region. This interest will only increase and will at times be periodically intense – during another drought, for example.

Given the interest in freshwater management from across the Hawke’s Bay community, the following principles should be applied consistently across how the HBRC communicates and engages around its freshwater security programme:

· Talk about ‘the programme’ over the sum of its parts

Wherever possible the Regional Council should seek to discuss the whole of its water security programme of work rather than as individual initiatives. Clearly there will be detail needed on each of the four projects and engagement will be required on each of them in a standalone capacity at certain times, but the power of the programme is in its integrated nature.

As individual projects running distinctly from each other we miss a huge opportunity to demonstrate a strategic approach and strategic plan in addressing the water security issues.

In continually coming back to an overarching freshwater security programme, the Regional Council can demonstrate leadership across the multiple issues facing water security in Hawke’s Bay: from fully understanding the region’s future freshwater supply and demand dynamics, to scientifically understanding the region’s aquifer systems, to both surface and ground water storage and augmentation initiatives for both water security and environmental benefit.

· Anchor the programme in climate change

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has declared a ‘climate emergency’, reflecting growing community and Council concern over the impacts on Hawke’s Bay of unmitigated climate change. It has commissioned and published significant research showing the negative economic impacts for the region in failing to address water security.

No clearer can the effects of climate change be felt and observed than in the impacts on freshwater. The programme of work fits neatly under the umbrella of the Council’s commitments to addressing the impacts of climate change on Hawke’s Bay.

· Lead the discussion; model transparency

The Regional Council must take the community on this journey with them. Wherever possible, community ownership of the programme, and engagement in it, should be encouraged and fostered. The Council cannot afford to be defensive or apologetic on this programme, nor to allow misinformation to gain a foothold. There needs to be a consistent commitment to engagement but also a determinedness and willingness to disagree with certain stakeholders from time-to-time in pursuit of its freshwater security objectives.

The Council is committed to transparency and, particularly given the critical nature of freshwater management to Hawke’s Bay, this programme must be a case study in transparency, proactive communication and engagement.

HBRC should be prepared to move this work forward with confidence on behalf of the region, acknowledging that no piece of work will satisfy everyone. There is an opportunity to be more assertive, direct and unapologetic for more rapidly advancing water storage for the whole of Hawke’s Bay within the broader water security programme of work.

Programme objectives

The high-level freshwater security programme objective is to ensure that:

‘Hawke’s Bay has long-term, climate-resilient and secure supplies of freshwater, for all.’

Sitting underneath these programme objectives are outcomes for each of the projects:

· Regional Water Assessment

A regional water assessment and decision tools that directly enables an informed community discussion from which flows policy and investments that promote freshwater supply resilience for communities in the context of climate change impacts.

· CHB and Heretaunga Water Security Projects

The development and, subject to viability, delivery of community water storage options in the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha catchments to help future-proof the security of supply and access to freshwater resource for all.

· 3D Aquifer Mapping Project

Part of the ongoing investment in continually improving our scientific understanding of the physical properties of the region’s natural resources – in this case the region’s key aquifers. This project supports and informs discussion and decision-making around future water management.

High-level approach to the narrative

The detailed planning for each of the four projects that comprise this programme of work requires a clear, overarching narrative.

This narrative must reflect and speak to the current context in which the programme is being launched, as discussed above.

This programme provides an important opportunity for HBRC to reset its engagement across the Hawke’s Bay stakeholders and communities on the issue of freshwater supply and demand. It is an opportunity to start to rebuild trust and confidence and this must start with honest and direct engagement and conversations.

Key points to guide the overarching programme narrative must be future-focused, inclusive and noting that while there’s no quick fix, there is urgency.

The following text is a demonstration of how these themes can start to come together in a draft narrative, for dicussion and debate:

“Freshwater is Hawke’s Bay’s most valuable natural resource. The region’s freshwater is also coming under increasing pressure from hard limits, moratoriums on new allocations and the challenges of climate change.

In addition to the environmental risks of having less water, ignoring or failing to take action to secure the region’s freshwater resources will cost the region up to $120 million in lost GDP per year by the middle of the century. This is not an option.

In response to this challenge, the Regional Council’s freshwater security programme is accelerating its work to tackle the most pressing issue for Hawke’s Bay – ensuring secure access to our water resources for the benefit of our environment, our economy and the people of Hawke’s Bay: our communities, industries, primary producers and those for whom recreational access to freshwater enhances their quality of life.

Climate change and the increasingly uncertain and extreme weather it brings places greater pressue on us all to jointly develop solutions that protect our access to freshwater, while also protecting the natural environment that makes Hawke’s Bay the special place it is.

The work to secure and protect our region’s freshwater resources is likely to never be complete. This is going to be an ongoing focus for the Regional Council and for all users of water – not just the primary sector. The burden for better water management also sits with municipal and industrial uses of water. Across all users, there is no quick fix, no single silver bullet and no clear point in the future when this problem is solved. Rather, all elements of water management will be required to play their part, including, for example: increasing water use efficiency and conservation, some land use changes, changes to more efficient horticulture and farming, more freshwater storage and ground water augmentation, investigating active aquifier replenishment and management.

We are now actively working on a range of integrated solutions to begin to tackle this challenge in a strategic way. We are starting with building a crystal clear understanding of our region’s supply and demand characteristics and profile for freshwater out to 2050 and beyond, at the same time as securing cutting-edge scientific understanding of Hawke’s Bay’s major aquifer systems.

At the same time, we are actively moving to targeted solutions to some of our most pressing problems – the impacts of water extraction on both surface and ground water systems.

In order to succeed, this programme aims to rebuild partnerships across Hawke’s Bay in service of freshwater solutions that we all aspire to and share. Nothing unites the people and communities of Hawke’s Bay more than a desire to secure our region’s future through securing our freshwater resources. With this common commitment, we can materially advance sustainable, equitable solutions to our region’s freshwater security challenge.”

Approach to stakeholder management

The detailed planning assessment of each of these four projects lists well-executed community and stakeholder engagement as success factors. The freshwater security programme represents a multi-year commitment to continuous, deliberate and well-planned stakeholder engagement and consultation if the projects are to deliver on the objectives set for them.

For each of the four projects a clear stakeholder engagement programme will need to be mapped out and executed on a continuous basis. The expectation is that the four elements of this programme of work will approach a point of clarity / decision in approximately 12-18 months’ time. For example, the Regional Water Assessment will be ready for community input, early data from the 3D aquifer modelling will be ready to share with the public and local communities, pre-feasability of water storage and aquifer recharge options will be complete and ready for decisions on next steps.

All of these elements come together for a concerted public conversation around the future of Hawke’s Bay’s water and the options available to the region to deliver it.

The following table attempts to highlight how a sense of community ownership and participation across this programme of work might occur at a high level:

Project	Interest / desired outcome
Regional Water Assessment	Outcome · To demonstrate a clear understanding of the region’s freshwater supply and demand requirements, both now and into the future. · To use a whole-of-region understanding of freshwater supply and demand to inform both short and long-term water security initiatives and policy. · Engage with iwi and a wide range of other stakeholders (industry, TAs, farmers, communities etc) regarding long-term solutions for water use and management that reflect trends and insights from the water assessment. Indicative activity · Present back updates and findings to stakeholders and project partners ahead of public release · Provide certain relevant findings or observations to the public via media on an ongoing basis to generate continued awareness, interest and momentum · Run community and specific stakeholder engagement sessions at the three quarter mark of the project to ensure community perspectives and ideas are represented in the final report · Publicly launch the completed report and its key findings through stakeholder events and briefings
Heretaunga Water Security Project	Outcome · Identify viable storage sites in the Heretaunga catchment to form a part of the mix of solutions for future-proofing water security · Effective engagement with landowners, neighbours, tangata whenua and key community / NGO stakeholders reduces risk in developing water storage options and ensures the social licence exists for a water storage solution Indicative activity · Sustained engagement with landowners and neighbouring communities in the pre-feasibility phase to ensure understanding and clarity on the scope of the project/s – what it is and what it is not · Comprehensive broader stakeholder engagement on water security programme and the role of water storage while pre-feasibility stage is being conducted · Regular public and stakeholder updates on progress, refinement of possible projects · Key focus on farming, environmental and TA stakeholders
CHB Water Security Scheme	Outcome · Identify viable storage sites and options (including MAR) in the Ruataniwha catchment to form a part of the mix of solutions for future-proofing water security · Effective engagement with tangata whenua, the community and key stakeholders to ensure clear understanding of the proposal, how it would work, what it is and what it is not and seek community support for the initiative · Sustained stakeholder engagement particularly in the to ensure understanding and clarity on the scope of the project – what it is and what it is not · Increased community understanding through HBRC communications around MAR – what it is, how it works, its limitations, how it could complement other initiatives · Regular public and stakeholder updates on progress, refinement of possible projects · Key focus on farming, environmental and TA stakeholders
3D Aquifer Mapping	Outcome · Support interest and understanding of stakeholders, communities and tangata whenua through the delivery of publicly-accessible information that allows them to explore subsurface groundwater systems and understand the region’s water / aquifer characteristics Indicative activity · Use a range of communication channels to explain this data and what it means for Hawke’s Bay and its water solutions · At appropriate intervals and in a controlled way, share updates on this programme, including what is being learned and what the implications are, with communities, sector groups, media, iwi etc · Regularly brief media and key stakeholders on data milestones and insights

Stakeholders and partners

It will be the task of the communications team that will support and lead the community engagement around these four projects to determine the right stakeholders that should be engaged, how and at which point. This will require detailed planning.

Iwi are the Regional Council’s partners in this work and will be treated as such throughout the programme, including through active participation, review, consultation and elements of project investigation, design and delivery – for example, storage design and construction, the presentation of research and data.

Although this is a somewhat obvious list, the following high-level key stakeholder groups hint at the levels of interest and according levels of engagement that will be required through this programme:

· Ratepayers

· Territorial Authorities

· Central government

· Landowners of water storage projects

· Neighbours and communities surrounding possible water storage projects

· Forest and Bird

· Fish and Game

· Department of Conservation

· Farmers and horticulturalists

· The Provincial Growth Fund

· Irrigators.

Each of these initial stakeholder groups will require significant engagement in their own right. Detailed planning and consistent engagement with dedicated HBRC people will be required here. It’s important to acknowledge that, as the HBRC moves ahead more rapidly with its water security programme, there will be detractors.

While HBRC will continue to operate a transparent and inclusive process, there will be times when, in the interests of momentum, Council may agree to disagree with some perspectives. Council should not be overly apologetic about this.

A proposed way of grouping and thinking about engagement with the various stakeholder groups with interests in water and the water security programme can be seen in appendix two.

Integrated communications are critical

Moving forward on these projects under the banner of responding to climate change is a critically important moment for HBRC, and one which must be coordinated, planned and carefully executed over the next two years.

This programme provides an important and unique opportunity to reset a number of critical relationships with key stakeholders across Hawke’s Bay, build common ground and accelerate projects of common interest for the benefit of the region.

It provides further impetus to draw a line under previous councils and projects – the RWSS in particular – and enables HBRC to provide tangible leadership on issues of increasing concern to almost every Hawke’s Bay resident.

A transparent and proactive approach to engagement and communication will require structure, resource and a commitment to leadership.

A communications team has been established within the Regional Council to support this programme of work with detailed timelines, messaging and stakeholder planning now occuring across all four projects.

Next steps

The purpose of this document is to generate a strategic framework and consistent understanding around the high-level communications approach to this programme of work.

The web pages for the whole water security programme of work are now live and will be continually updated. As landowner conversations kick off over the next two weeks a CRM system has been developed to track and record engagements and conversations within the work programme.

Media engagement around the HBRC’s water security programme has kicked off and there is a commitment to continued momentum in explaining the programme clearly to stakeholders via multiple channels, including media.

The project will provide a short report to Council on a bi-monthly basis in addition to scheduled Committee and Council meeting updates to ensure alignment of understanding and a high level of oversight as to progress. The communications team now meets regularly.

The most immediate steps now focus on 1:1 engagements with iwi and Heretaunga landowners and their neighbours around possible storage projects in their area, including giving them information packs on the programme of work, with a focus on water storage. At the same time, the Manager of Regional Water Security will be meeting with a wide range of stakeholders and influencers to begin to explain the water security programme in its entirety and ensure clear and direct lines of communication between the community and Council.

The water security website will detail how interested parties can engage with the project directly, set out the criteria it is looking at for water storage in Heretaunga and invite people with potential projects to get in touch directly. This is important in continuing to demonstrate the open mind of HBRC to all possible options.

Appendix one: Regional Water Security Programme Structure

Appendix two: Water Security Programme: HBRC Key Audience matrix

Keep Satisfied

Relevant Interest Groups

Ratepayers

General Public

Consent Holders

Non-represented consent holders

Engage Closely

HBRC Councillors

Ngati Kahungunu + Taiwhenua groups

PSGE’s

Mayors

PDU/MBIE

Affected Landowners

Relevant Ministers

Industry/Sector Groups

DOC

Conservation Groups

Business Sector groups

Monitor

Social Media Groups

Keep Informed

Local MP’s

RPC

Local iwi

Matariki

HBRC Staff and contractors

Other Regional Councils

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2020

Subject: Enviroschools Update

Reason for Report

1. This agenda item provides an update on Enviroschools in Hawke’s Bay and introduces a new video to showcase our Enviroschools programme.

Executive Summary

2. The kaupapa of Enviroschools provides our tamariki with real life natural experiences and plays a pivotal role in the delivery of environmental education.

3. The guiding principals include Learning for Sustainability, Māori Perspectives, Empowered Students, Sustainable Communities and Respect for the Diversity of People and Culture.

4. The different components of the Enviroschools process are not linear. They overlap, are revisited, modified and further developed. This supports schools and centres to develop their own holistic approach that deepens over time. It is a journey through which schools and ECE centres travel at their own pace.

5. Today we have 66 Hawke’s Bay Enviroschools, having welcomed our newest Enviroschool earlier this month, Kōwhai School in Hastings.

6. The programme includes kindergartens and schools between Te Mahia in the north and Sherwood School in Central Hawke’s Bay.

7. We have three part-time Environmental Education school facilitators across our region. The two Kindergarten Associations, Napier and Heretaunga, also have their own trained teacher/ facilitators.

Strategic Fit

8. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has been a long-time supporter of Enviroschools.

9. Enviroschools is specifically designed to meet Local Government outcomes including improving biodiversity, restoring waterway health, reducing waste at school and home, water conservation, energy efficiency, and resilient and connected communities.

10. The facilitation team is well placed to work with schools and their wider communities to deliver on Regional Council initiatives and campaigns, such as Climate Change.

11. Enviroschools programmes support the Regional Council’s focus areas for Water quality, safety and climate-resilient security; Climate-smart and sustainable land use, Healthy, functioning and climate-resilient biodiversity, and Sustainable and climate-resilient services and infrastructure.

12. Across our region schools are involved in restoration projects. These include recent planting at the Wairoa River, at Te Huka Waiohinganga at Eskdale and the ongoing restoration of an endangered Kahikatea stand at Omakere. These three examples link in with whānau and wider community.

13. This year we started a new collaboration with Te Mata Park Trust. The park is beginning a journey to create educational resources, in conjunction with mana whenua, for schools and early childhood centres. We are pleased to support this initiative with our local Enviroschools expertise.

14. A climate action camp for Enviroschools students is approaching in October at Guthrie Smith Arboretum. This camp will be an opportunity to engage with our tamariki to look at the impacts and issues of climate change on Tūtira Lake.

14.1. Students will be guided through Enviroschools activities. They will understand how their decisions and actions affect the environment, how to build knowledge and skills necessary to address complex environmental issues, as well as ways we can take action to keep our environment healthy and sustainable for the future.

14.2. Over the two days, students will first focus on Tūtira Lake then follow on with looking at their own school environment.

Opportunities for Growth

15. This Enviroschools community-facing programme would not exist in Hawke’s Bay without the Regional Council’s support. The Council is not legislatively required to fund or facilitate this programme, but it is highly-regarded by schools and enables more holistic and inter-generational behaviour change to occur, including career-path consideration.

16. Additional funding would enable more regular contact and support of teachers, more in-class and outdoor delivery time, and stronger associations with the Council’s environmental work programmes.

17. The first Hawke’s Bay Enviroschools promotional video will be released this month (and premiered at today’s EICC meeting).

17.1. The purpose is to grow our Enviroschools profile, raise awareness of the Regional Council and our other funders’ support for Environmental Education, and reinforce to teachers, parents, whānau and community what the Enviroschools approach delivers.

18. We have the potential to expand our presence in the Environmental Education sector here in Hawke’s Bay. This can be achieved by adding a part-time Environmental Education Advisor role to the team, supporting the Community Engagement Coordinator to:

18.1. Increase the number of Enviroschools in Hawke’s Bay.

18.2. Continued relationship with ‘Cape to City’ Educators through the Connected to Nature teacher workshop series. This is scheduled to begin in Wairoa during 2020.

18.3. Respond to our youth on Climate Change impacts in Hawke’s Bay.

18.4. Scope out new initiatives, such as a Native Tree Nursery programme in schools

18.5. Enable the development of local environmentally focused curriculum that is about ‘our place’.

Summary & Next Steps

19. The Enviroschools programme is highly-regarded, however it wouldn’t exist in this region without Council support.

20. The challenges around our changing climate will be a focus for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and all our region going forward. Our local Enviroschools are well placed to meet this challenge head on. Enviroschools plays an essential role in creating a sustainable future and with continued support we can all contribute to a positive change in our communities.

21. As mentioned in the Enviroschools Highlights 2019-20 update (9 July 2020) we would like to extend an invitation to our Councillor’s to join us at the Enviroschools Tūtira Camp on Thursday 15 October 2020.

Decision Making Process

22. 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 Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee receives and notes the “Enviroschools Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Sally Chandler

Community Engagement Coordinator (Schools)

Approved by:

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2020

Subject: Hawke's Bay Biosecurity & Biodiversity Section 17a Effectiveness and Efficiency Review

Reason for Report

1. This item sets out the findings of an independent review of Council’s biosecurity functions, and outlines proposals that respond to the reviewer’s recommendations for change, which will be put to Council for later consideration in the Long Term Plan (LTP) development process.

Executive Summary

2. The recommendations from the Review for the overall biosecurity programme, responding to the reviewer’s comments, are shown in italics following.

2.1. HBRC should be spending more on biosecurity. How much more and on which programmes requires a business case analysis through the LTP process to examine staffing and budget needs based on the finding in this report.

2.1.1. Staff have reviewed budgets and in line with minimising operational cost increases for the LTP will be seeking a small increase in overall budgets. Significant work is occurring to reorganise and realign resources to improve outcomes. Further advice will come to council on this as part of the LTP development.

2.2. Review the efficiency and financial sustainability of the subsidy programmes for plant and animal pests.

2.2.1. The work for plant pest will commence later this financial year and will form a proposal for change in an annual plan in the 2021-2031 LTP. It requires a greater level of analysis and more time than our LTP process allows. A further, more detailed review is currently underway for our possum control activities. Further advice will come to council on this matter as part of the LTP development.

2.3. Follow up and address the management related and operational suggestions made in the staff, contractor and community surveys. Underway now.

2.4. Restructuring budgets to align with pest programmes (or at least ability to report at this level) would improve transparency and the ability to benchmark against other councils. Underway now.

2.5. Be clear on how the resources dedicated to the Predator Free Hawke’s Bay programme relate to delivery of larger RPMP biosecurity objectives. The PFHB resources are significant and can alter the perception of HBRC’s biosecurity budget depending on how they are presented.

2.5.1. This will be clarified and budgets are currently being separated out for financial management in year one of the LTP.

2.6. Promote a standardised biosecurity budget structure among regional councils.

2.6.1. This will be taken through the regional sector BioManagers’ group for advancement.

Background/Discussion

The review

3. This review meets the requirements of S17a of the Local Government Act 2002 that requires, that a local authority must review the 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.

The reviewer

4. An independent reviewer was engaged by the Group Manager, Integrated Catchment Management to assess and make recommendations on the efficiency and effectiveness of council’s biosecurity and biodiversity functions.

5. The reviewer is Kevin Collins from the Waikato. Kevin has a Master of Environmental Science and Policy degree from Johns Hopkins University in the United States. Prior to his consulting career, Kevin managed biosecurity and biodiversity programmes for Waikato Regional Council.

6. His skills and experience have been shaped by more than 30 years of practical experience. Kevin has worked on a number of pest management issues and was part of the regional council steering group that developed the “Future of Pest Management” proposals with the Crown.

7. As chair of the Regional Council Biodiversity Working Group, Kevin was instrumental in launching the “Strategic Roadmap for Biosecurity and Biodiversity Research.” He currently chairs the joint MfE/regional council Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Group developing biodiversity and biosecurity indicators for regional councils.

8. Kevin also is a knowledge broker for the NZ Biological Heritage National Science Challenge. The Challenge’s mission is to reverse the decline of New Zealand’s biological heritage, through a national partnership to deliver a step-change in research innovation, globally leading technologies and community and sector action.

The scope

9. Kevin was asked to undertake the following activities.

9.1. A review of the allocation of resources through HBRC’s LTP to the service level statements with comment on the adequacy of resourcing and the spread of resourcing across the projects and programmes. Comment on the adequacy of resourcing to achieve the LTP service level statements.

9.2. Review the overall Catchment Services budget and comment on the allocation of resources across areas that are ‘core’ to HBRC’s functions and statutory responsibilities and those that are discretionary.

9.3. Comment on the design, structure and planned nature of delivery of the range of programmes and projects with specific reference to their fitness for purpose when compared to modern biosecurity practice, with a particular focus on rabbits, possums and Chilean Needle Grass. Identify areas for improvement and areas of high quality.

9.4. Review the maintenance control costs for the regions Possum Control Area programme and comment on the cost effectiveness of contract delivery of this work compared to in house delivery.

9.5. Comment on the activities delivered by the Catchment Services team and if better alignment of these is possible, to drive greater impact for biodiversity outcomes.

9.6. Review the cost recovery arrangements for the projects and programmes and compare this to national best practice.

9.7. Comment on the need for Pathways Management Plans for the region.

9.8. Comment on the management of stakeholder and partner relationships.

10. The attached report provides the detail of the findings and Kevin will be present at the meeting to provide additional explanations as requested.

Review findings at a high level

11. While the Biosecurity Act gives councils wide ranging powers to carry out pest management activities, it does not require any particular level of pest control or that any pest control occur at all. The Act stipulates what must be included in a regional pest management plan if a council chooses to have one, but it does not stipulate outcomes or performance levels.

12. In line with the point noted above, acceptable levels of “efficiency and effectiveness” in pest management are left to the discretion of councils. Councils themselves decide what constitutes “efficient and effective” pest management in the context of their region and their community expectations. In practice, this means that the approach taken by councils often differs widely.

13. The sector does not currently have any form of benchmarking. This review required that we develop our own. Across all sectors, the benchmarking surveys show clear agreement that in many cases HBRC’s biosecurity and biodiversity programmes are not considered to be operating as efficiently and effectively as possible.

14. A lack of resources – both staff time and money – is limiting the effective delivery of biosecurity programmes. This is particularly true for possum control, Chilean Needle grass, rabbits and for the biodiversity programme as a whole. Analysis done for this report shows that while HBRC’s budgets have grown, so have community expectations of how much work will be done. The starting point of HBRC’s biosecurity budgets was relatively small and budgets remain smaller than similar councils.

15. Compared to other regional councils, HBRC generally spends less on biosecurity – both in absolute terms and proportionally.

16. A useful comparative measure is to look at councils of similar rating base and total budget. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council does not compare well when benchmarked against councils that have similar operating budgets. The average spend on biosecurity for the four comparative councils is 10.7%, whereas HBRC is 6.3%.

17. HBRC also spends less on biosecurity in absolute terms than its North Island neighbours. We are tied for second to last in relation to total operating expenditure, and it is last based on land area.

18. The conclusion from all three surveys and the council benchmarking is that HBRC is not doing enough to effectively protect and restore biodiversity in the region. The feedback is that that this is largely due to inadequate resourcing.

19. Specific detail and feedback is provided in the report on our Possum Control Area programme, our rabbit control, our Chilean Needle Grass programme and surveillance and monitoring.

20. Well-designed and adequately resourced surveillance and monitoring programmes are critical to effective biosecurity and biodiversity management. All groups surveyed called for more surveillance designed to measure progress toward outcomes. The possum programme was singled out as needing more resources for surveillance. Surveillance for pest plants appears generally inadequate.

Specific recommendations on key programmes

21. Detail on specific areas identified in the review are set out following, including the staff response in italics.

Possum control programme

22. A full review of the possum control programme is warranted. The working assumption is that the total area needing possum control will continue to grow as areas come off TB control and as the public’s biodiversity expectations grow. An analysis is needed to fully understand the implications of that trend.

22.1. A review is currently underway and advice will come back to council as part of the LTP development.

23. The pros and cons of a contractor-based model should be examined. This will require considerable community engagement, particularly with directly affected landowners. The results of this review, however, suggest that the community is open to having this discussion.

23.1. This forms part of the review currently underway and will come back to council for advice as part of the LTP development.

Rabbit control programme

24. A full review of the rabbit control programme is warranted. HBRC is not significantly out of step with other councils. However, there is a clear sense in the region that the rabbit population is growing and that the current programme is not equipped to respond effectively. This is another area where a robust monitoring programme is critical to support decision making.

24.1. Rabbit control and monitoring is an ongoing issue across many regions in both the North and South islands. Anecdotally rabbit numbers have increased across most of the country in recent months. Options for enhanced rabbit control are going to be raised and discussed through the regional sectors BioManagers group.

Chilean Needle Grass programme

25. More staff are needed, at least during the busy summer season, if the Chilean needle grass programme is to deliver on the RPMP objectives.

25.1. Additional resourcing is being brought in for this summer’s control activities.

26. A more complete business case analysis is needed to examine whether the programme could be delivered more effectively in other ways, including control through contractors rather than landowners.

26.1. This work will take some time to develop and will be brought back to council as part of an Annual Plan process in the 2021-2031 LTP.

27. The Chilean needle grass surveillance programme should be reviewed to determine if it can confidently determine the current level of infestation and reliably detect spread.

27.1. This work will take some time to develop and will be brought back to council as part of an Annual Plan process in the 2021-2031 LTP.

Biodiversity programme

28. HBRC should be spending more on biodiversity. How much more and where requires a business case analysis through the LTP process to examine staffing and budget needs based on the finding in this report.

28.1. Noted, increases to the biodiversity programme will be brought forward as part of the LTP development.

29. Follow up and address the management related and operational suggestions made in the staff, contractor and community surveys. Underway.

30. Address the findings in the 2020 Lambourne report, particularly how to deliver the community’s desire for more work to enhance biodiversity.

30.1. Noted, increases to the biodiversity programme will be brought forward as part of the LTP development.

31. Work with regional councils and central government to implement nationally-consistent biodiversity monitoring programmes targeted at documenting regional state and trend (Tier 1) and measuring management effectiveness at sites (Tier 2).

31.1. To be raised and promoted through the regional sector BioManagers’ group.

32. Consider operational changes to deliver biodiversity improvement more effectively. For example, Greater Wellington Regional Council said it has “found it very beneficial to have both biodiversity policy/planning and operational skills and capacity in one department.”

32.1. Noted, this will be explored into the future through discussions with regions like GWRC and through the regional sector BioManagers’ group.

33. Treat biodiversity as a separate budget line in annual planning and reporting documents. Underway.

Surveillance and monitoring

34. Develop an Envirolink grant application, coordinated with other regional councils, to create an effective, affordable and statistically valid regional pest plant surveillance methodology.

34.1. To be raised through the regional sector BioManagers’ group.

35. Collaborate with the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge, which is developing a research theme on managing multiple pest plants at landscape scales.

35.1. Engagement with the National Science Challenges has been variable for the sector. Our ability to collaborate is limited by the capacity of staff. We will continue to explore the options and opportunities.

36. Evaluate the effectiveness of surveillance practices of other councils and agencies on a programme-by-programme basis. For example, Marlborough District does twice annual intensive in-water surveillance for marine pests, while HBRC monitors inner Ahuriri Harbour using divers every two to three years if finances allow.

36.1. Ongoing benchmarking will occur through the regional sector BioManagers’ group.

Other Considerations

37. The proposals in this paper have potential impacts on the current LTP development. Staff are preparing advice specifically on changes to the Possum Control Area programme and our approach to our animal pest subsidy programme. This advice will come to Council subsequently through the development of the LTP. Ultimately there may be matters associated with the proposals that need to be specifically consulted on through the LTP process.

Decision Making Process

38. 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.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee receives and notes the “Hawke's Bay Biosecurity & Biodiversity Section 17a Effectiveness and Efficiency Review” staff report.

Authored & Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

Attachment/s

⇩1

Hawke's Bay Biosecurity and Biodiversity Review report

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2020

Subject: Te Karamu

Reason for Report

1. This item provides the Committee with an update on the progress of enhancement works undertaken as part of the Te Karamū Enhancement Review & Management Strategy 2016-25, ‘the Enhancement Strategy’.

Executive Summary

2. Progress has been made in the priority planting across the 7 zones and this work is well underway. Of the 9.4ha of priority planting that was identified in the Enhancement Strategy to be undertaken between 2016-2025, 77% of that has been delivered (7.29 ha), with 100% of the priority planting identified for the Havelock and Irongate zones having been completed.

3. The challenge is now keeping pace with the demand and expectations from the community. This has meant the last 12 months has seen focus on coordinating, supporting, and enabling the community, partners, and corporate sponsors involvement.

4. The implementation plan was approved by Council in 2016 is being updated to reflect increase in demand and propose to reset priorities so as to keep pace and align with the expectations of this highly valued community initiative and but also be aware of the original expectations and drivers set in the original document.

5. The program is funded from targeted rates collected from Karamū ratepayers each year for this project of $234,000.

Strategic Fit

6. The Enhancement Strategy shares the HBRC vision for a region with a ‘vibrant community, a prosperous economy, a clean and healthy environment’, now and for future generations, with an overarching purpose ‘to improve habitat and ecosystem health whilst providing flood and erosion protection’.

7. The Enhancement Strategy provides a toolbox to enable the Karamū Stream and its tributaries to be maintained as a highly valued asset to Hawke’s Bay, providing a vision for:

7.1 A balancing of values where grazing, native vegetation, and recreational areas support a rich and abundant ecosystem that is accessible and easily managed.

7.2 A network of clean healthy waterways, connecting and unifying the residents of the Heretaunga Plains.

7.3 An asset and resource that supports the cultural, commercial, social and recreational needs of the community.

8. This enhancement programme also directly aligns to the values outlined in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Parks Network Plan for the management of open space, and contributes to the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2050.

Background

9. The ‘Te Karamū Catchment Review and options for Enhancement (2004)’ report provides thorough analysis and detailed recommendations for the management of The Karamū catchment. Part of the information formally approved in 2004 included a “Rough Order Cost Estimation” and it was recommended that staff would develop further detailed proposed work program.

10. In 2007 a draft Karamū Revegetation Strategy and Concept Plan was developed and site-specific earthwork and planting plans. Community support, engagement and awareness has grown with the maturing of the initial enhancement project and the 2016 strategy assists to further progress and direct the management of this valuable assets by the HBRC on behalf of residents of Hawke’s Bay.

11. Te Karamū Stream and its tributaries are a highly valued asset and resource that supports the cultural, commercial, social and recreational needs of the community in the Hawke’s Bay.

12. The Enhancement Strategy divided waterways into a series of zones. These zones are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1 - Karamū Enhancement Zone

Zone	Water body	Description
Zone 1 - Whakatū	Karamū-Clive, Muddy Creek	Clive bridge to Karamū/Raupare confluence.
Zone 2 - Ruahāpia	Karamū, Ruahāpia	Floodgates to SH2 bridge
Zone 3 – Twyford	(Excluding the Twyford targeted rate area)	U/s of Karamū/Raupare confluence
Zone 4 - Waipatu	Karamū, Awahou/Windsor/ Riverslea, Mangateretere, Karitūwhenua	SH2 bridge to Crosses Rd bridge
Zone 5 - Havelock	Karamū, Herehere, Louisa	Crosses Rd bridge to Awanui/ Irongate/Karamū Stream confluence
Zone 6 - Irongate	Irongate, Southland	K5 Irongate-Southland
Zone 7 - Awanui, Kārewarewa, Paritua	Awanui, Kārewarewa, Paritua, Poukawa	K3 Awanui, K2 Paritua-Kārewarewa, K1 Poukawa

13. This report provides an opportunity to update Council on the progress of the enhancement work programme.

14. The Enhancement Strategy used a prioritisation criteria to identify priority enhancement areas for planting between 2016-2025. These areas make up 8.68% of the total area or 9.4464ha and an annual planting programme has been undertaken since then to achieve this objective. The table below outlines the progress of that planting programme between 2016 and 2020.

Table 2 – Priority Planting Progress

Zone	Identified priority planting 2016-25 (Ha)	Actual Planting 2016-20 (Ha)	Percentage of Priority Planting delivered	Remaining Planting 2020-2025 (Ha)
Zone 1 - Whakatū	1.3266	0.397	30%	0.9296
Zone 2 - Ruahāpia	4.9250	4.2908	87%	0.6342
Zone 3 – Twyford	0.00	0.0115	0%	-0.0115
Zone 4 - Waipatu	1.1062	0.7427	67%	0.3635
Zone 5 - Havelock	0.2480	0.2480	100%	0
Zone 6 - Irongate	0.6734	0.6734	100%	0
Zone 7 - Awanui, Kārewarewa, Paritua	1.1672	0.8464	73%	0.3208
Total	9.4464	7.2908	77%	2.2366

15. On an annual breakdown, there has been a reduction in the area of priority planting over the last two years, as the initiative has transitioned from the more accessible planting zones into more focused areas, and as community engagement and involvement has increased, which requires more planning and coordination. The 2019/20 autumn planting period was also impacted by Covid-19 which meant less planting was achieved however staff expect to be able to make that up in 2020/21.

Table 3 – Annual Planting Area

Zone	Total Area* (approx. Ha)	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20	Total


Zone 1 - Whakatū	18.6559	0.3830	0.0000	0.0000	0.0140	0.3970
Zone 2 - Ruahāpia	21.1462	0.7976	2.3006	0.6081	0.5845	4.2908
Zone 3 – Twyford	0.0493	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0115	0.0115
Zone 4 - Waipatu	23.0398	0.2735	0.1147	0.1070	0.2475	0.7427
Zone 5 - Havelock	39.0163	0.2480				0.2480
Zone 6 - Irongate	22.8742	0.2205	0.4529	0.0000	0.0000	0.6734
Zone 7 - Awanui, Kārewarewa, Paritua	17.7489	0.5476	0.2797	0.0000	0.0191	0.8464
Total		2.4702	3.1479	0.7151	0.8766	7.2098

Next Steps

16. To define future and priorities within the allocated budget.

17. Staff are in the process of updating implementation plan to create focus on what is still required to be achieved and to consider options to match timeframes with community involvement, which may include speeding up or slowing down some areas. Staff are proposing to present this plan and possible scenarios to Council later this year.

Decision Making Process

18. 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 Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee receives and notes the “Te Karamu” staff report.

Authored by:

Martina Groves

Acting Regional Asset Manager

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.