Agenda of Maori Committee - Wednesday, 2 August 2023

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Māori Committee

Wednesday 2 August 2023

Subject: Māori Committee Appointees' Remuneration Review

Reason for report

1. This item provides the Committee with the opportunity to discuss the Fees Review for: Tāngata Whenua representatives (Māori Committee) report from Strategic Pay and provide feedback for Council to consider when making the associated decisions on remuneration levels on 30 August 2023.

Executive Summary

2. Strategic Pay (SP) was appointed by the Māori Committee to undertake a review of its members meeting fee payments and Co-chairs salary. The process started in September 2022 and was completed in mid-July 2023. Following an opportunity for feedback from selected Māori Committee members, the review was presented to the Council on 26 July 2023 (along with a similar review for RPC tāngata whenua members). At that meeting the Council deferred the matter until the end of August 2023 to allow both RPC and Māori Committee tangata whenua members to consider the review reports first.

Background

3. The last significant review of Māori Committee tāngata whenua members remuneration was carried out in February 2018. This triennium, a similar review was due for the RPC tāngata whenua members, and it was considered appropriate that both the RPC and Māori Committee remuneration reviews be completed together.

4. This matter was considered by the Māori Committee at its 7 September 2022 meeting where the Terms of Reference for the review was approved and SP was appointed to complete this.

Review process

5. SP attended a Māori Committee workshop on 8 February 2023 and then they interviewed Co-Chair Mike Paku in April 2023 to understand the scope and complexities of the role of a tāngata whenua Committee member.

6. Following delays due to Cyclone Gabrielle - in early June 2023 SP provided the Council with a draft of the Fees Review for: Tāngata Whenua representatives (Māori Committee). The draft was circulated to both Māori Committee Co-chairs and the NKII Board representative for comment directly to SP. Feedback was only received from the NKII Board representative.

7. In mid-July Council received the final report on the completed review for the Māori Committee (attached).

8. The recommendations contained in the review are summarised as:

8.1. Māori Committee Tāngata Whenua members meeting attendance fee remains at $452 per meeting.

8.2. Māori Committee Co-chairs receive an increase in salary (from $13,750) to between $15,000 and $17,000 p.a. This increase directly relates to recommendations made by SP that the salary for the RPC Tāngata Whenua Co-chair increases to between $30,000 - $34,000. The Māori Committee Co-chairs share that per annum salary.

9. The remuneration set for the Māori Committee tāngata whenua appointees will be effective from 1 July 2023 through the remainder of the current Council term ending in October 2025.

Decision Making Process

10. 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:

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

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

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

10.4. The persons directly affected by this decision are the appointed tangata whenua members of the Māori Committee.

10.5. 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

That the Māori Committee:

1. Receives and considers the Māori Committee appointees' remuneration review report.

2. Delegates the Māori Committee Co-chairs to pass on the feedback from today’s meeting to the 30 August 2023 Regional Council meeting.

3. Endorses the recommendations contained in the Strategic Pay July 2023 report Fees Review for: Tāngata Whenua representatives (Māori Committee).

Authored by:

Peter Martin

Senior Governance Advisor

Approved by:

Pieri Munro

Te Pou Whakarae

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Māori Committee tāngata whenua representatives' fees review July 2023 - Strategic Pay report

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Māori Committee

Wednesday 2 August 2023

Subject: Land for Life project update

Reason for Report

1. This item provides the Committee with an update on the Land for Life (formerly Right Tree Right Place) project and outlines its current positioning in relation to regional recovery and direction of travel.

2. The Committee is invited to provide feedback in relation to opportunities for the project to provide for outcomes for whenua Māori and the outcomes measured by the environmental monitoring programme.

Executive Summary

3. The essence of the project is to work with private landowners to improve land use and management, leading to improved environmental, economic and social outcomes for their property.

4. The first year of the project worked with an early pilot farm to produce a farm plan that guided initial planting in August 2022. It conducted a farmer survey that supported the development of a pipeline of potential Land for Life farms. In year 2, the project completed farm plans on a further 12 pilot farms.

5. The project has developed a model and has momentum and potential to support regional recovery by scaling the project to ~600 farms over three years, providing the opportunity to underpin the rural recovery and future resilience of Hawke’s Bay pastoral farmland.

6. HBRC’s role in relation to a scaled project is aligned to its existing function as a catalyst for land and environmental improvement, quality assurance, monitoring and measurement of outcomes, and as a critical partner for central government and the wider sector. The business case does not propose that HBRC will be involved in financing on-farm interventions for afforestation.

7. Scaling the project will need additional capacity, expertise, tools and funding including:

7.1. a digital farm planning tool

7.2. increased consultancy expertise

7.3. funding for farm planning

7.4. capacity to manage farmer engagement and collateral development

7.5. geospatial and other support functions

7.6. monitoring and evaluation programme

7.7. possible research, etc.

8. A business case (using the Treasury’s Better Business Case model) has been developed to provide a basis for a go/no go decision for the project. The business case is undergoing a decision-making period for HBRC, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to consider if and how to progress the project.

9. Recognising the challenges to raise finance for whenua Māori, the project is exploring options to develop financing mechanisms that will be sympathetic to whenua Māori.

Project background and objectives

10. The project is a collaboration between HBRC, TNC, central government, farmers and farming communities, to reduce the region’s erosion challenges, address climate change, improve freshwater quality and protect biodiversity. It approaches this through two principal interventions:

10.1. Supporting farmers to plant the right trees in the right places to slow erosion, improve freshwater quality, improve biodiversity and build resilient farms; and

10.2. Supporting improvements in pastoral farm systems and regenerative farming practices that are good for farmers’ bottom lines and the environment.

11. Prior to the project commencing, HBRC and Te Uru Rākau – New Zealand Forest Service (One Billion Tree Fund) jointly-funded extensive research involving SCION and several other providers that covered a range of forest systems, financing mechanisms, carbon accounting, woodflow and infrastructure mapping, social research and pasture farming considerations.

12. This work culminated in the development of an earlier business case that was presented to Council during the 2021-31 long term plan process. On the basis of this, Council agreed to fund the project to address the significant erosion problem in Hawke’s Bay through demonstrating a successful Land for Life model by refining a planting model with several objectives:

12.1. To recover its own costs

12.2. Encourage planting of trees on erodible land

12.3. Stimulate the market to invest in trees on farms that strengthens financial and environmental outcomes

12.4. Reducing the need for whole farm afforestation

12.5. Plant enough trees to prepare for climate change; and

12.6. Significant environmental benefits.

Project status

13. The project started with an early pilot farm (Waipapa), for which the farm planning process was completed and first trees planted in the ground in August 2022. The learning from this process informed the year-two work programme involving a more structured approach to develop farm plans on a further 12 pilot farms. The farm plans are the basis for due diligent efforts needed to underpin the business case to scale up the Land for Life concept.

14. A survey of candidate farms and selection process was completed in mid-2022. Key take-outs from the survey included:

14.1. 75% of respondents are very interested in further conversations about the scheme.

14.2. 78% strongly agree that they “would plant more trees or plant at a faster rate if I had greater access to resources (capital, labour, expertise etc).”

14.3. 64% said they would be interested in starting as soon as possible.

15. The survey helped to develop a pipeline of potential Land for Life farms across erosion-prone areas of the region. Farm selection is guided by agreed selection criteria and is based on attributes of the farm and suitability of the farmer as an early adopter and potential champion for the Land for Life model.

16. MPI has continued to partner in the project, assisting as part of the project team, contributing funding and resourcing for business case development and participating in strategic discussions about how to leverage and scale the project to support regional recovery and long-term resilience.

Recovery to resilience: Sharpening the focus

17. In response to Cyclone Gabrielle, Council, TNC and MPI have identified the opportunity to reposition the project to be a cornerstone component of rural recovery and important tool in the implementation phase of the recovery plan. At scale, the project provides a mechanism to have real impact to the future resilience of Hawke’s Bay’s farmland, waterways, environment and biodiversity, climate change, communities and wider regional economy.

Business Case Process

18. The purpose of the business case is to support a go/no go decision to proceed to implementation of the Land for Life project. This is for joint consideration by HBRC, TNC and MPI, which is coordinating the interests of the Government’s natural resource sector agencies.

19. The business case will outline the justification and proposed approach, timing, cost, roles and funding for establishing the Land for Life project, including options to structure a financing model that leverages private capital against public investment to support landowners with land use change.

20. Following completion of the business case, a three-month decision-making period will allow HBRC, TNC and MPI partners to consider if and how to take the project forward. Subject to guidance from the partners, in parallel to the decision-making process, the project will begin work on an implementation plan to scale efforts if this is the chosen direction of travel.

21. The project timeline is illustrated in the figure below.

HBRC roles and responsibility

22. The project delivers directly against the four focus areas outlined in HBRC’s strategic plan:

22.1. Water quality, safety and climate-resilient security

22.2. Climate-smart and sustainable land use

22.3. Healthy, smart and climate-resilient biodiversity

22.4. Sustainable and climate-resilient infrastructure (supported through increased protection of infrastructure from buffering to flood flows from rain events and through reduced woody debris in flood waters.

23. The figure following illustrates the Land for Life structure and model. HBRC’s role in the project involves partnering in aspects of the Project Team and the Technical Assistance (TA) facility.

24. The farm plan is a key part in the Land for Life model. It effectively articulates a landowner’s vision for their land and with support from experts a plan is developed. The plan provides the confidence and knowledge for a landowner to start/continue on their journey of improved land and environmental management. It also deals with compliance aspects of MfE’s Fresh Water Farm Plan initiative and greenhouse gas targets.

25. Catchment advisors will leverage their existing landowner relationships and functions. When they consider that a landowner may be interested in the Land for Life model, they act as a broker to call in the expertise needed to develop relevant components of detailed farm plans: such as afforestation options, greenhouse gas and emissions trading scheme implications, nutrient budgets, pasture production management, financial modelling, etc.

26. Armed with a Land for Life farm plan, a farmer then has a choice about how they finance implementation, whether it be through farm cashflows, lending through their current bank, financing arrangements that Land for Life is considering or other partnership or joint venture arrangement.

27. HBRC’s role in the Land for Life model is proposed to be one of facilitation of planning by working alongside landowners, acting as a broker service using the CA team, quality assurance of the Land for Life model, access to financing options, and in provision of its current suit of services such as catchment orientated programmes of work, pest management and biodiversity programme assistance, science and environmental monitoring of outcomes. HBRC will be the up-front catalyst to get farm planning done and develop strong relationships with MPI and the sector to deliver the programme.

28. Scaling the project will need additional capacity, expertise, tools and funding: a digital farm planning tool; increased consultancy expertise; funding for farm planning; capacity to manage farmer engagement and collateral development; geospatial and other support functions; monitoring and evaluation programme; possible research; etc. These will be described further in the business case.

Māori considerations

Initial approach with Māori engagement

29. From the outset, Māori engagement was considered a fundamental aspect for the project. It was felt that the outcomes sought by the project in relation to more resilient whenua and communities, improved land and environmental stewardship, and enabling the realisation of the long-term vision of landowners resonate well with mana whenua values.

30. Further, the difficulty to raise finance through traditional mechanisms for whenua Māori when it is owned by many parties was widely acknowledged, as is the capability and capacity of Māori to participate equitably in competitive funding processes. The project had the potential to explore financing mechanisms that would be sympathetic to ownership structures for whenua Māori.

31. The project team discussed options for Māori engagement with the HBRC Māori partnerships team. Since the project team didn’t know where pilot farms would be concentrated, they opted to focus Māori engagement at the farm/catchment scale initially. This would allow engagement to align with pilot farms as they were identified rather than to front-load engagement across the entire region, which would swamp pilot stage project resources and potentially result in expectations for support that the project could not deliver on.

32. Whenua Māori was considered as a theme when selecting pilot farms to ensure that insights about opportunities and challenges during the farm planning process on pilot farms were learned.

Māori engagement during the pilot phase of the Project

33. Māori engagement during the farm planning process with pilot farms included the following:

33.1. Pilot farm plan development on whenua owned by a Māori trust

33.2. Pilot farm plan development on whenua owned by individual Māori whanau that are active in their local marae and catchment group

33.3. Project engagement about farm planning and the Land for Life model including presentations to trustees of multiple blocks of whenua Māori

33.4. Early discussions relating to investment opportunities for post settlement governance entities in project financing

33.5. Engagement with multiple stakeholders related to the kaupapa that the Project offers to Māori and to explore potential alignment of work programmes.

Opportunities for Māori engagement as the project scales

34. The HBRC Māori partnerships team has good relationships with whenua Māori entities. Alongside the MPI and TPK Māori engagement teams, the project will take an aligned approach to engagement and leverage existing knowledge and networks within these organisations.

35. Consistent with all landowners, impacts from the cyclone have intensified the need to support mana whenua work through their aspirations for whenua Māori. Financing mechanisms and will be an important component to consider during project implementation process. An environmental monitoring programme will need to be developed to measure outcomes from the project.

36. There are significant benefits to be gained through coordinated engagement with HBRC, MPI, TPK and other stakeholders at the marae, hapū and iwi scale in relation to co-design of land use aspirations, plans and implementation. This is especially so with the nine effected hapori.

Next Steps

37. The project will continue to work with the Cyclone Recovery Committee to consider the business case and HBRC’s role in the project with a view to making a go/no-go decision in October 2023.

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.

Recommendation

That the Māori Committee:

1. Receives and notes the Land for Life project update

2. Provides a view to staff about opportunities for the project to provide outcomes for whenua Māori.

3. Provides a view to staff about opportunities for the monitoring and evaluation programme to monitor outcomes that are of value to mana whenua.

Authored by:

Michael Bassett-Foss

Land For Life Project Manager

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Māori Committee

Wednesday 2 August 2023

Subject: July 2023 Statutory Advocacy update

Reason for Report

1. This item updates the status of reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project.

2. The Statutory Advocacy project centres on local resource management-related proposals on which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission. These include, but are not limited to:

2.1. resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.2. district plan reviews or district plan changes released by a territorial authority

2.3. private plan change requests publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.4. notices of requirements for designations in district plans

2.5. non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, etc prepared by territorial authorities, government ministries or other agencies involved in resource management.

3. In all cases, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent. In the Statutory Advocacy project, the Regional Council is purely an agency with an opportunity to make comments or lodge submissions on others’ proposals. The Council’s position in relation to such proposals is informed by the Council’s own plans, policies and strategies, plus its land ownership or asset management interests.

4. The summary outlines those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in.

Decision Making Process

5. 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 Māori Committee receives and notes the July 2023 Statutory Advocacy update.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Principal Advisor Strategic Planning

Nichola Nicholson

Team Leader Policy & Planning

Approved by:

Ceri Edmonds

Manager Policy & Planning

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

August 2023 Statutory Advocacy Update

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Māori Committee

Wednesday 2 August 2023

Subject: Spatial Climate Vulnerability Assessment tool

Reason for Report

1. This item is to demonstrate Stage 1 of the Climate Change Risk Explorer tool to the Māori Committee and seek advice on how to progress the Kaupapa Māori aspect of the project.

Background

2. The Climate Change Risk Explorer is a spatial-based regional risk assessment tool that layers hazards, assets and other information (e.g. socio economic deprivation) to identify exposure, vulnerabilities and consequences.

3. Council engaged Urban Intelligence (UI) to undertake this work to inform the work of the Climate Action Ambassador and to provide the science for the climate chapter of the Kotahi Plan.

4. The UI spatial approach was preferred over a more traditional risks register approach given its power to engage with the community about climate risks and its evaluation of societal consequences.

5. Since Cyclone Gabrielle, it has been even more obvious that we need to communicate risk and hazard information to our communities in a form that is easily understandable and that this information should include a combined approach to risk (not just taking into account one risk at a time), and consider projected changes to hazards.

Stages of work / progress

6. Presently, Stage 1 is complete. This stage has included all readily (publicly) available data on hazards in the region and establishing the online map of vulnerabilities. Exposure and vulnerability of infrastructure is included along with natural features and mapped socioeconomic data.

7. Infrastructure across 3 subdomains has been included: Natural, Built and Human.

8. This stage will be demonstrated on screen to the Committee on 2 August.

9. The following stages are under development:

9.1. Stage 2: Gap filling – hazard and scenario modelling, and asset data development. This stage is particularly important so that we can commission data for identified gaps in hazard information as well as include the asset / infrastructure information in the other 3 subdomains – Kaupapa Māori, Governance and Economic.

9.2. Stage 3: Second-pass risk assessment – updating the risk assessment with the new information.

9.3. Stage 4: Semi-quantitative risk assessment (workshops) to support adaptation planning and climate risk reporting.

9.4. Stage 5: Adaptation planning and community engagement.

9.5. Stage 6: Monitoring, reporting and risk iteration.

10. We have applied for recovery funding to increase scope and commission missing data modelling.

11. To include exposure and assess vulnerabilities and criticality in the Kaupapa Māori domain for direct and indirect impacts on tangata whenua and taonga, we would like to engage with mana whenua to adapt the tool to their requirements and ensure this information is of use for adaptation (and recovery) planning. Advice is sought from the Māori Committee on how to go about this.

Decision Making Process

12. 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 Māori Committee receives and notes the Spatial Climate Vulnerability Assessment staff report.

Authored by:

Pippa Mckelvie-Sebileau

Climate Action Ambassador

Approved by:

Desiree Cull

Strategy And Governance Manager

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Māori Committee

Wednesday 2 August 2023

Subject: Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy and its Mātauranga Māori Workstream updates

Reason for Report

1. This item provides a progress update on the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy (the strategy).

Background

2. The strategy is now in Stage 4 of a four-stage development process that began in late 2014.

3. This is a coordinated approach to identifying and responding to the coastal hazards of erosion and inundation, and the influence of sea level rise, over the next 100 years.

4. Project governance is provided by a Joint Committee, formed with members from Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Hastings District Council, Mana Ahuriri Trust, Napier City Council and Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust.

5. Initially focusing on the coastline between Clifton and Tangoio, the strategy is intended to provide a model to adapt and roll out to other parts of the region that are exposed to coastal hazards.

6. The vision of the strategy is for coastal communities, businesses, and critical infrastructure from Tangoio to Clifton to be resilient to the effects of coastal hazards.

7. In 2018 a report was prepared by Community Assessment Panels, recommending adaptive pathways for 9 priority units within the strategy area.

8. Since then, the Joint Committee and Councils have been working on a response to the recommendations of the 2018 report, including:

8.1. Developing more detailed designs and costings for the short-term works proposed under each of the recommended pathways

8.2. Developing thresholds to determine when pathways need to be implemented to avoid intolerable coastal hazards effects

8.3. Defining what a managed retreat response might look like in Hawke’s Bay, how it might be done, and how much it might cost

8.4. Developing an agreed position as between the Partner Councils as to who will lead Strategy implementation, including the funding of works under the Strategy.

9. The recommended pathways from the Community Panels are presented in tables 1 and 2 following. These pathways were refined through further community engagement in 2021 and 2022 with updates to the pathways shown as blue underline text.

Table 1: Recommend Pathways - Northern Cell Assessment Panel

Unit	Preferred Pathway	Short Term (0-20 yrs)	→	Medium Term (20 – 50 yrs)	→	Long Term (50 – 100 yrs)
Whirinaki (B)	Pathway 4	Status quo/ Renourishment	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Sea wall
Bayview (C)	Pathway 3	Status Quo/ Renourishment	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures
Westshore (D)	Pathway 3	Renourishment	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures
Ahuriri (E1)	Pathway 6	Status quo	→	Sea wall	→	Sea wall
Pandora (E2)	Pathway 3	Status quo	→	Storm Surge Barrier	→	Storm Surge Barrier

Table 2: Recommend Pathways - Southern Cell Assessment Panel

Unit	Preferred Pathway	Short Term (0-20 yrs)	→	Medium Term (20 – 50 yrs)	→	Long Term (50 – 100 yrs)
East Clive (J)	Pathway 1	Status Quo	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Retreat the Line / Managed Retreat
Haumoana (K1)	Pathway 2	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Managed Retreat
Te Awanga (K2)	Pathway 3	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures
Clifton (L)	Pathway 5	Status quo	→	Sea wall	→	Managed Retreat

10. The most recent updates to the Māori Committee occurred on 9 June 2021 and 6 April 2022 (Attachment 1).

11. The 9 June 2021 update provided an overview of the strategy and its development process which remains relevant and can be referred to for additional project background if required.

12. The 9 June 2021 update also outlined a proposed mana whenua engagement plan and sought feedback from the Māori Committee on the proposed approach. The mana whenua engagement plan was intended to inform mana whenua about the strategy and what was being proposed and to facilitate feedback into the process before formal consultation commenced.

13. The 6 April 2022 update reported back to the Māori Committee on activities under the confirmed mana whenua engagement plan and other general project updates.

14. The update noted that following the mana whenua engagement plan, the project team had met with Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga at their Te Runanganui o Heretaunga hui and also attended a hui at Matahiwi Marae. These interactions provided a good opportunity for discussion on the Strategy, what impacts might be caused by coastal hazards, and some of the issues and risks with the measures proposed to respond to those hazards.

15. Other hui on the mana whenua engagement plan were not held due to other priorities, including ongoing COVID response issues, for the marae, Taiwhenua and PSGE organisations staff were seeking to engage with at that time.

16. Following the April 2022 update to the Māori Committee, the Joint Committee sought to allocate additional project resources to facilitate more effective input from mana whenua and to ensure the strategy is informed by Mātauranga Māori.

17. This resulted in the establishment of a new Mātauranga Māori Workstream under the Strategy.

18. The Joint Committee established a working group to develop the workstream, comprising Tangata Whenua and Councillor Joint Committee Members with support from HBRC’s Māori Partnerships Team.

19. It was intended to notify the strategy for public review and comment in August 2023. In consideration of cyclone recovery efforts, the Joint Committee has since recommended (and this has been accepted by HBRC) that Strategy notification is delayed until August 2024.

20. Alongside work under the Mātauranga Māori and Coastal Ecology Workstreams, a key remaining task under the strategy ahead of public notification is the development of a funding model to determine how to allocate the costs for Strategy implementation.

Discussion

21. The strategy is proposing fairly significant changes in the coastal environment in order to increase resilience to coastal hazards impacts. Effective mana whenua involvement will be central to the overall success of the Strategy.

22. Provided as Attachment Two is the scope for the Mātauranga Māori Workstream as developed by the working group and confirmed by the Joint Committee at their meeting in September 2022.

23. Any feedback or discussion on the workstream scope would be welcomed and appreciated.

24. Implementation of the Mātauranga Māori Workstream is being supported by Aramanu Ropiha, who previously prepared a Cultural Values Assessment for the strategy in 2017 and was engaged as the Kaitiaki o te Rōpū for the community assessment panel process though 2017 and 2018. Aramanu will be in attendance at the Māori Committee meeting to support any discussion and assist with questions.

25. The project team would like to continue to update the Māori Committee on progress, both on work under the Mātauranga Māori Workstream and the strategy more broadly. Any further feedback from the Committee on the preferred frequency and nature of updates would be appreciated.

Next Steps

26. Subject to discussion and any direction from the Māori Committee, the project team will look to provide 6-monthly updates as we progress towards August 2024 public notification. Additional workshops and discussions may also be requested as part of advancing work under the Mātauranga Māori Workstream.

Decision Making Process

27. 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 Māori Committee receives and notes the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy and its Mātauranga Māori workstream updates report.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Coastal Hazards Strategy Project Manager

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s