Agenda of Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
	12	Media statement to be made to celebrate the award of a Paul Harris Rotary Fellowship to Neil Daykin	MA	May 2011	This award was featured in Council’s latest Big Picture and on Council’s website.
	10	Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme Review	MA	May 2011	An update on this project was planned for this meeting, however key modelling staff have been diverted to other work following the Japanese tsunami which has increased the expectation of the tsunami risk to Hawke’s Bay is better understood. At this stage the overall HPFCS project can still be completed by November 2011.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

Wednesday 11 May 2011

SUBJECT: Land Management Work Programme 2011/12

REASON FOR REPORT:

1. The purpose of this report is to set out the proposed work programme for Council’s land management section for the 2011/12 financial year.

BACKGROUND:

2. The structure of the work programme follows the 2010/11 work programme presented to Council in November 2010.

3. As part of the development of the Council Ten Year Plan 2012/22, Council are reviewing how best it can influence best practice land use throughout the region. This review may lead to a change in focus for the land management section.

4. Therefore the 2011/12 financial year may be a transition year for the section as it develops new projects and programmes aligned to the outcome of the review.

5. This work programme includes a number of work streams that are anticipated as part of this strategic review, particularly interventions Council could undertake to increase its influence in improving the economic and environmental performance of the primary productive sector.

6. The attached programme of work therefore needs to be considered in the light of preliminary discussions on Council’s strategy on land and land use.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

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

7.1 Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

7.2 Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

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

7.4 The persons affected by this decision are Council staff.

7.5 The options considered are set out in this briefing paper.

7.6 Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

7.7 Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommends that Council:

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

2. Approves the proposed 2011/12 work programme for the Land Management section while noting that the programme may be impacted by the need to resource the development of new programmes to increase Council’s influence in improving the economic and environmental performance of the primary productive sector.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

1 View

Land Management workstream programme 2011/12

Land Management workstream programme 2011/12

Attachment 1

2011/12 work programme

Work Stream 1 - Demonstration & Research Initiatives Programmes

Programme

Goal/description

Rationale

Initiatives

2011/12 targets

Research strategy

Identify research needs within Hawke’s Bay associated with land use activity and develop a research strategy, including funding sources, for Council.

Robust research is needed to support new initiatives and best land use practice. The identification of research needs and the development of a research strategy are essential to underpin the land management team’s work.

Identify any gaps in knowledge and research needs.

Develop a research strategy and funding options.

Identify and investigate ideas and initiatives that have the potential to assist land management and Council achieve their goals.

Develop strong working relationships with Massey and Crown Research Institute(s) through the application of at least one new research project focused on east coast primary productive sector environmental and/or economic performance improvement.

Investigate catchment nutrient modelling options capable of determining impact of farming practices on surface water quality at farm scale.

Huatokitoki Valley Research Programme

Realising the potential of a summer dry, erodible, hill country catchment-scale landscape through working across economic, social and environmental domains.

The programme is land-owner based and is geared to looking at landscape patterns and innovative solutions, as well as building a strongly collaborative social network and values. Evaluating and preparing an inventory of land systems and functions over space is a prerequisite to realising this potential.

Community catchment programmes:

· develop a collective vision, and clearer views on future threats and opportunities

· raise questions, dialogue ideas and build knowledge

· create safe communities within which to innovate and adapt, and share information and experiences of trials done.

Full scale example for demonstration/encouragement of opportunities associated with improving economic, environmental and social performance of farming units

Continue to facilitate the resource inventory and research ideas of the community.

Identify and implement monitoring strategy which demonstrates achievements.

Coordinate between researchers and community

Facilitate land use change through RLS as required.

All properties within the catchment have land use capability maps completed and at least one community information session has been held to enable property owners to understand how those maps can be used to assist in farm planning and management.

70% of farms within Huatokitoki catchment complete land environment plans to level 3 (highest level, necessary for ISO accreditation).

CRI research programme for the length of the project adopted by the Huatokitoki community

Programme

Goal/description

Rationale

Initiatives

2011/12 targets

Ballance Farm Environmental Awards

Reward farmers with management systems that represent sustainable management across environmental, social and economic dimensions, and demonstrate those to the region.

Publicity of the awards and field days on award winning farms will demonstrate best practice to other farmers.

Demonstrating successful farm management systems is highly influential in spreading ideas, identifying opportunities, and motivating initiatives that are in the interests of both the private individuals and the public good.

This strongly aligns with generating ideas, dialogue, initiatives and value change within the rural community that are all prerequisites to positive change toward sustainable land management outcomes and goals.

Facilitate applications and awards process, and follow up field days and publicity.

Hold at least 2 field days in Hawke’s Bay to demonstrate award winning properties.

Strategy for at least 2 new entrants for awards each year, with quality of entrant farming operations maintained.

Hill Country Erosion Scheme (Northern Hawke's Bay)

Increase and protect woody vegetation in pursuit of soil erosion control, with added benefits in regards to carbon and biodiversity.

The project covers four catchments of the Northern Hawke's Bay area: Ruakituri, Hangaroa, Whakaki, and Kopuawhara.

Work involves engagement with individuals to build trust, identification of constraints to the achievement of goals (farm enterprise limitations), and trials that have to potential to engage the community, and provide solutions to land management issues.

Northern Hawke's Bay has traditionally been poorly resourced, and is a particularly difficult social environment within which to encourage sustainable land use practices.

This project provides an opportunity to increase the influence of Land Management staff within the area.

This is particularly important given both the high soil erosion risks within the region related to soils, climatic events, and topography, as well as the economic constraints of the more marginal economics of both forestry and agriculture within the area. It is due to these social, economic and environmental constraints that the identification of issues and points of leverage for encouraging positive change requires more emphasis within this area if sustainable land management is to be achieved.

Continue to identify issues and build relationships within the catchments.

Continue to work with community groups focusing on increasing the viability of land use within the region

Continue to trial land management options

Encourage debate about issues and land management options through public engagement (field days, seminars etc.), demonstration trials, and the media

Hold at least 2 meetings with each of 2 catchment groups (representing no less than 50% of the farms in each catchment) at which issues specific to the catchments are discussed and areas of interest for future meetings are identified.

Hold initial discussions with at least 50% of farmers in the Hangaroa catchment and identify issues specific to that catchment.

Maintain website for project and prepare and distribute at least two newsletters providing updates on project activities.

Hold at least one field day to disseminate information of interest and best farming practice.

Work Stream 2 - Operational Works

Programme

Goal/description

Rationale

Initiatives

2011/12 targets

Priority Catchments

To target catchments where resources will have the greatest positive impact on environmental and social outcomes.

Priority catchments include Huatokitoki, Pouhokio, Mangakuri, Maraetotara, Whakaki, and Mangaone.

Priority catchments are those identified with

· high biodiversity values and declining water quality.

· Other at risk aspects of catchment health including soil conservation, terrestrial biodiversity, social and economic factors.

· High natural sediment levels.

Continue to work with land owners and communities within priority catchments

Continue to open dialogue with farmers about other wider-catchment options that may impact on the quality of the river, including on-farm wetlands, nutrient management, stock management, pasture management, and any identified point source (e.g. yards, tracks, wool sheds) or ephemeral storm-related discharges.

Review criteria for priority catchments based on future strategy for land management.

Afforestation Grant Scheme Administration

HBRC administers the regional council pool of the AGS and has two members on the National Panel which governs the process and approves applications.

Encourage local farmers to take up opportunities arising from the AGS.

Regional Councils are jointly responsible for administration of a portion of the AGS pool.

Continue national administrative functions as agreed.

Monitor and act on changes to the AGS funding pool and criteria.

Meet national requirements for AGS administration.

Facilitate and administer projects approved for Hawke’s Bay

Programme

Goal/description

Rationale

Initiatives

2011/12 targets

Farmer engagement and public inquiry

Reinforce the position of Council as a key source of knowledge and advice to the farming community, with the ability to assist through financial support.

Council is the holder of considerable intellectual property and knowledge through its staff and records.

Staff will continue to interface with the public and provide effective support.

Continue working within groups and one-on-one with land owners in key risk areas relating to soil, drought, water quality, energy (e.g. nutrient use) and carbon toward improving keystone landscape functions.

Establish operating approach to improve influence on primary productive sector. (it is anticipated that this will involve at least one key flagship project to assist farmers improve economic and environmental performance).

Identify key information barriers to Council in engaging with rural community and establish process to overcome that.

Continue to respond to public inquiry.

Seminars, Workshops, Field Days supported/arranged in conjunction with other organisations eg MAF, SFF, Beef & Lamb

The proactive organisation, promotion and successful completion of relevant seminars, workshops and discussion forums aimed at raising awareness, debate, ideas, and initiatives relevant to sustainable land management outcomes.

Forums provide a good return on investment in influencing behaviours, raising the HBRC profile to the rural community, and building networks with land use professionals, researchers, organisations such as universities, as well as with individual land users. They also create future opportunities provided LM is flexible enough to identify and pursue.

Facilitate, arrange or support seminars or field days where these will assist in achieving Council’s goals.

Facilitate, arrange or support at least five seminars or field days, in addition to that associated with the Balance farm environmental award.

Work Stream 3 - Indirect influence

Programme	Goal/description	Rationale	Initiatives
Dairy Liaison Group	Long-term sustainability and performance of the Dairy sector through active engagement between Council and the sector	Development of a constructive relationship between Council and the dairy sector will allow open dialogue with regard to land management and regulatory issues facing that sector.	Continue to develop a constructive and positive relationship between Council and the dairy sector.	Facilitate at least 2 meetings of the dairy liaison group.
Pastoral Steering Group	Long-term sustainability and performance of the pastoral hill country sector (primarily sheep & beef)	Development of a constructive relationship between Council and the pastoral sector will allow open dialogue with regard to land management and regulatory issues facing that sector. An initial meeting was held in October 2010.	Develop a constructive and positive relationship between Council and the pastoral sector	Facilitate at least 2 meetings with the pastoral sector including federated Farmers, Beef and Lamb NZ and MAF.
Sector Liaison Initiative (SLI)	Long-term sustainability and performance of particular sectors. E.g. Cropping, Horticulture, Viticulture.	Liaison groups provide a means of addressing issues of concern both for the HBRC and sector relationship, as well as providing a base from which HBRC can work collaboratively with the sectors to address current and future issues, or facilitate current and future opportunities.	Identify longer term needs of horticulture, cropping and viticulture groups, and where Council can assist in meeting those needs.	Determine whether working through industry groups or water user groups is the most effective way of identifying and meeting the needs of these sectors.

Work Stream 4 - Community Engagement, Participatory Initiatives, Targeted Engagement

Programme	Description	Rationale	Initiatives		2011/12 targets
Key Clients – LandWISE, Landcorp, key farmers, Brownriggs, SFF, MAF, AgResearch, Scion	Develop relationships with other industry sector groups and key organisations.	Within any sector there are key individuals or organisations that represent major nodes of influence. Indentifying and being open to opportunities to work with such key clients represents a cost-effective way of influencing positive outcomes, and reducing the risk of negative outcomes.	Establish level of interest and ability for Council to influence land use change through development of relationships with key organisations, with an approach made to at least 2 in any one year.		Involve key stakeholders (clients) in discussions on land management strategy and forward work programmes, particularly of intensive farming areas.
Media & information publications	The proactive production of media stories relevant to sustainable land management outcomes, and particularly those leverage points likely to effect change within the rural community.	Knowledge and information systems are essential to the buffering and adaptability in the face of threats, and the realisation of opportunities.	Proactively prepare news releases where appropriate Prepare discussion pieces for local media		Prepare and have published at least 3 media releases on key issues.
Drought Committee	Ensure Council is recognised as the lead local government agency for issues associated with the primary sector.	Drought is a natural hazard with serious economic, biophysical, and particularly social consequences. While drought and other natural hazard events have the potential to significantly adversely impact the primary sector, they provide an opportunity for Council to reinforce its role as the lead local government agency for issues associated with the primary sector.	Be proactive in initiating establishment of appropriate organisational representatives as and when required		Initiate drought coordination of information dissemination meetings should climate warrant such an approach.
Taharua Catchment	Develop through a community stakeholder process an integrated adaptive management and effects-based regulatory process	The Taharua initiative is aimed at restoring sustainable land management values and outcomes. The approach has built relationships with key stakeholders.	Develop and implement plans collaboratively with the community.		Continue with integrated to identify
Programme	Goal/description	Rationale		Initiatives	2011/12 targets
Community Coastal Restoration groups	Coastal Dune restoration has both a biodiversity enhancement and erosion protection role. A number of groups have been established and Council continues to support them.	Coastal restoration work is relevant to biodiversity and erosion protection outcomes, as well as development of strong communities through participatory stakeholder processes. The experience of dealing with these groups provides useful institutional knowledge within the HBRC. There are presently groups actively engaged in dune restoration projects (Mahanga, Tangoio, Waimarama, Kairakau, Pourere and Poragahau. There have also been projects at Waipatiki, Ocean Beach and Mangakuri within the last three years and further interest elsewhere.	Continue to liaise with and support as appropriate established coastcare groups		Continue to liaise and support active coastcare groups

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

Wednesday 11 May 2011

SUBJECT: Biosecurity Operational Plans 2011/2012

REASON FOR REPORT:

1. Council is the management agency for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy (RPPMS). Section 85 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires that the management agency for a Pest Management Strategy prepare and review the operational plan for each strategy annually. Operational Plans have been prepared for both the RPMS and RPPMS and are appended to this paper for Committee reference and are available to other parties on request.

2. Staff believe that the current operational plans have proven to be effective and therefore only minor changes to the plans are proposed.

3. This agenda item seeks Council adoption of these operational plans for the 2011/12 financial year.

COMMENT:

4. Regional Pest Management Strategy:

4.1 Work in progress that is not specifically included in the RPMS has been included in the 2011/12 operational plan. This includes:

4.1.1 The control of possums within urban areas;

4.1.2 Council’s participation as part of multi-agency approach to the long term management of didymo and specifically the objective of maintaining the North island free of didymo for as long as possible.

4.1.3 The surveillance of the extent of the argentine ant infestation in the region and assessment of the most effective long term management response options.

Appendices 1 & 2 are the Plant and Animal Pest Operational Plans 2011/12 are attached for Councillors. Copies are available to others on our website www.hbrc.govt.nz

5. Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy:

5.1 There has been no requirement for Council to undertake any activities under the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy. No changes are proposed to this operational plan. The plan is included with this briefing paper as Appendix 3 for Committee members only. Copies are also available on our website www.hbrc.govt.nz

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

6.1 Section 88 of the Act covering the change in the mode of delivery of a significant activity and Section 97 covering a significant change in the intended level of service provision for a significant activity do not apply at this stage.

6.2 Section 83 which sets out the requirements in the Act and other enactments where a special consultative procedure must be carried out does not apply.

6.3 The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council's policy on significance.

6.4 Under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (sec 85), Council is required to review its operational plans annually.

6.5 The operational plans must be consistent with the pest management strategy they are prepared for, and therefore will only affect persons to an extent that has already been considered by Council through the process of developing the existing pest management strategy.

6.6 Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are significantly inconsistent with any existing policy or plan does not apply.

6.7 Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79 (1) (a) and 82 (3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to 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 to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommend to Council that it:

2. Adopt the:

2.1. Animal Pest Operational Plan 2011/12.

2.2. Plant Pest Operational Plan 2011/12.

2.3. Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2011/12.

In accordance with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993; after the inclusion of any amendments made as a result of the Committee’s consideration.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Campbell Leckie

Biosecurity Manager

Attachment/s

1	Plant Pest Operational Plan 2011/12	Under Separate Cover
2	Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2011/12	Under Separate Cover
3	Animal Pests Operational Plan 2011/2012	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

Wednesday 11 May 2011

SUBJECT: Infrastructure Insurance

REASON FOR REPORT:

1. On 13 April 2011 Council received a letter from the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) advising that with effect from that day LAPP is not able to provide any more cover for reticulation and flood protection assets until at least 30 June 2011 or suitable reinsurance cover and/or government support is in place.

2. LAPP was established for participation by New Zealand local authorities as a viable means of helping LA’s meeting their funding obligations under the Disaster Recovery Government assistance criteria. LAPP operates as a mutual insurance fund.

3. Council is a member of LAPP, with LAPP insurance covering a portion of the costs of damage infrastructure assets following a major disaster event.

4. This paper updates Council on the situation with regard to Council’s infrastructure insurance cover.

BACKGROUND:

5. In February 2007 Council completed its most recent review of its infrastructure asset insurance. Council’s Disaster Damage Risk Management policy is set out in section 2.5 of Councils Policy handbook. (Copy attached as Appendix 1 for Committee member information).

6. The current policy is based on mitigating the risk to Council for its infrastructure assets by a combination of measures including:

6.1. Maintenance of infrastructure assets to their original design criteria; and

6.2. Where feasible and economic, protection of assets from the effects of natural disasters; and

6.3. Financial strategies to provide for the cost of repair and restoration of assets damaged in a disaster which include insurance cover up to $15M on Council infrastructure assets with $3M excess on each and every claim, and the establishment of adequate provisions to meet the disaster damage insurance excess.

7. As at July 1^st 2010 the replacement value of Council’s infrastructure assets was approximately $134M.

8. Insurance cover for these assets includes:

8.1. Fixed Assets - Council’s pump stations are insured through a commercial material damage policy. This policy has an excess of $10,000 and will meet the cost of damage to pump stations whether it be from natural disaster or mechanical or electrical failure.

8.2. LAPP Disaster Fund - The LAPP Disaster Fund covers generally uninsurable assets and will pay 40% of the claim costs above an excess of 0.2% (approx $260,000) of the declared asset value of Council’s infrastructure assets. The remaining 60% of uninsurable assets is paid at the discretion of the Government in accordance with a National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan or Council’s own reserve arrangements.

In a major flood event staff anticipate that the majority of damage to its larger river control schemes, (Upper Tukituki Scheme and Heretaunga Plains Scheme Rivers) will be live tree edge protection. LAPP together with government funding would cover the replacement of these assets.

8.3. Commercial Insurance - Payment under the National Civil Defence Recovery Plan is at the discretion of Government and there is therefore no guarantee that financial assistance will be provided. Council has commercial insurance to cover 60% of its assets replacement should government not agree to meet that cost. However commercial insurance will not cover live tree edge protection...

8.4. Regional Disaster Reserve - ($3.6 million at 30 June 2010) Council established a Regional Disaster Reserve to meet the cost difference between its commercial insurance excess of $3m and the individual disaster damage excess for individual schemes. This reserve is maintained through a range of investments the performance of which is reported on through Council’s normal financial reporting.

8.5. Scheme Disaster Reserves - Flood Control and Drainage Schemes are required to maintain their own disaster reserve fund. All schemes which include infrastructure assets hold disaster reserves.

9. LAPP advises that it may not have enough cover in place for the 22^nd February earthquake as LAPPs reinsurance was capped at 40% of $272.5m per event for reticulation and flood protection works. LAPP believes its liability could be as much as $300m. LAPP is now struggling to find reinsurance from 1^st July 2011 that is not unacceptably priced. LAPP advises that its two lead insurers, who are two of the biggest reinsurance companies in the world, have declined to offer LAPP further cover. There is some reinsurance cover available to LAPP through other reinsurers, but suitable terms have still to be negotiated.

With the potential to receive 60% of reinstatement costs from Government; 60% from Commercial insurance, and 40% from LAPP, Council have been well insured.

10. The Council policy requires that its infrastructure asset insurance policy is reviewed every 5 years. The next review is therefore due early in 2012. Staff expect that insurance costs will significantly increase in the future but as yet it is unclear what the quantum of any increases are likely to be. Staff are continuing to monitor the situation and will take into account the costs of insurance in the next review to be undertaken.

11. Clearly, in the meantime, there is potentially an increased financial risk to Council should a disaster event significantly impact on Council’s infrastructure assets prior to 1^st July 2011, and following that date should LAPP be unable to secure reinsurance at an affordable price. Staff are currently working with Council insurers to determine if increasing Council’s commercial insurance to cover 100% of loss is feasible.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

12. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee receives the report and notes the advice provided by LAPP, the associated increase in financial risk to Council as a result of this advice, and the enquiries being made by staff to determine what options are available to Council to mitigate that risk.

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Attachment/s

1 View

Section 2.5 Disaster Damage Risk Management

Section 2.5 Disaster Damage Risk Management

Attachment 1

SECTION 2.5 DISASTER DAMAGE RISK MANAGEMENT

A. BACKGROUND

i) A review of Council’s Disaster Damage Risk Management was last completed in February 2007. This review updates previous reviews kept on File 2/44, and also as report AM01/13, HBRC plan number 3055. This February 2007 review is documented in Regional Council agenda item 10, 27 September 2006 and Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee agenda item 6, 14 February 2007; and the minutes from those meetings. This review was based on a report prepared in August 2001 (Library reference ADMA98).

The review concluded that Council continues to face considerable ongoing risk from natural disasters.

The review was not a totally comprehensive exercise. It dealt specifically with disaster damage risks to Council-owned infrastructure assets.

It was concluded the Council may qualify for some Central Government assistance for the repair or restoration of Council infrastructure assets in the event of a disaster, however the amount of any assistance would only be significant in a major disaster. It is therefore prudent to ensure Council can meet the expectations of central government with regard to risk management by providing for small to medium disasters where Council’s financial risk appears greatest and for large disasters where central government funding may not be forthcoming.

ii) Council agreed in September 2006 to become a member of the LAPP scheme by 1 July 2007 and delegate to the Chief Executive authority to commit Council to joining the scheme and negotiate with the LAPP managers arrangements for Council to obtain cover under the Scheme, and details of the insurance cover period.

B. RISK MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

In 1996 Council considered a range of options for risk management. The range of options were not reconsidered as part of the February 2007 review but Council confirmed that the following risk management initiatives (i, ii and iii below) remain the most prudent:

i) Disaster damage to Council - owned fixed assets

· Insurance policies to be held with appropriate indemnity or replacement value cover; and

· On-going asset protection.

ii) Disaster Damage leading to Third Party Liability

Reliance by Council on statutory defences which should be ensured by following Council Policy and sound Technical practices for the maintenance of Council assets thereby minimising any exposure through negligence.

iii) Disaster impact on Council’s Business Continuance Ability

A Business Continuance Plan was completed in June 2001 which contains specific actions and on-going requirements to help ensure Council is able to continue to operate after a disaster.

In February 2007 Council reviewed its disaster damage risk management approach for its infrastructure assets and revised its approach as set out in (iv) below.

iv) Disaster Damage to Council owned infrastructure assets

Risk to Council will be reduced and managed by a combination of measures including:

· Maintenance of infrastructure assets to their original design criteria; and

· Where feasible and economic the protection of assets from the effects of natural disasters, and ongoing improvement of their resilience to damage; and

· Financial strategies to provide for the cost of repair and restoration of assets damaged in a disaster which will include;

(a) The maintenance of funding provisions to meet disaster damage insurance excess amounts, meet the cost of managing the response and recovery from a disaster event, and meet 60% of the cost of unfunded portion of asset reinstatement costs.

(b) Membership of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP), a mutual fund specifically established to meet 40% of the cost of reinstatement of Council’s infrastructure assets following a disaster (above an excess amount set by the fund).

(c) Insurance cover to meet 60% of the cost of reinstatement of Council’s infrastructure assets following a disaster, with a loss limit of 60% of $19M and an excess of 60% of $1M.

C. DISASTER DAMAGE INSURANCE EXCESS

This is to be provided for in a combination of ways including:

· Disaster Reserve Investment Funds accumulated by the Regional Community.

· Disaster Damage Investment Funds accumulated by each individual Council managed Flood Control and Drainage Scheme.

· A proportion of annual maintenance budgets of various Flood and Drainage Schemes able to be redirected to repairing disaster damage.

These sources of funds are to be referred to as Disaster Damage Insurance Excess Reserves.

D. DISASTER DAMAGE RESERVES

These reserves will be available to deal with any situation resulting in damage to infrastructure assets regardless of the level of financial loss but within specified criteria.

The disaster reserves for each scheme shall be built up to a level in excess of the minimum amount required to meet the costs of a single disaster. The disaster reserve for each scheme may be capped at a target level of the greater of 1.5 times the level required to meet the scheme excess of one disaster event, less 20% of each scheme’s current years maintenance budget; or the level required to meet the scheme excess for one disaster event. Furthermore, all schemes with infrastructure assets will have a disaster reserve of at least $5,000. The table below sets out the required Scheme excess, and target levels. If any scheme account ends with a significant surplus in any one year, and the disaster reserve target level has not been achieved, consideration will be given whether or not to increase the level of contribution made to the scheme disaster fund.

Scheme

Excess

(2006 asset values)

Maintenance expenditure able to be redirected

Target level for disaster reserve

Balance at 30 June 2006

Year achieved target level 2010

Heretaunga Plains Rivers

Heretaunga Plains Drains

Napier Meeanee

Brookfields Awatoto

Pakowhai

Muddy Creek

Haumoana

Karamu

Twyford Raupare

Tutaekuri Waimate

Puninga

Upper Tukituki

Makara

Paeroa

Poukawa

Esk

Whirinaki

Ohuia Whakaki

Te Awanga

Kopuawhara

$654,004

$89,468

$10,681

$15,581

$14,623

$18,980

$189,943

$39,485

$41,115

$6,953

$408,690

$30,898

$20,735

$12,452

$5,000

$9,343

$11,332

$7,466

$5,000

$100,000

$30,000

$7,500

$11,500

$17,000

$9,000

$59,500

$16,500

$20,000

$8,000

$67,500

$2,500

$3,100

$2,000

$1,000

$2,800

$1,000

$881,066

$104,202

$10,681

$15,581

$14,623

$19,470

$225,415

$42,727

$41,672

$6,953

$545,535

$43,847

$28,002

$15,578

$5,500

$13,014

$14,198

$10,199

$6,500

$708,191

$55,482

$6,009

$13,523

$12,091

$115,754

$24,816

$21,078

$4,192

$266,696

$25,547

$23,912

$10,168

$11,834

$9,064

$10,126

$4,353

$100

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

2015

2010

The Regional Disaster reserve will

(a) Meet any extraordinary costs of managing the response and recovery to a disaster event.

(b) Meet 60% of any unfunded portion of asset reinstatement cost following a disaster event.

The Regional Disaster Reserve will generally be managed such that the value of its investments (including any cash) remains within the range $2.75M to $3.75M.

If investments exceed $3.75M in value then some investments may be sold and the proceeds credited to Council’s general funding operating account. The Chief Executive of Council shall have discretion to decide what investments should be sold, and the timing of any sale, and shall report any sales to Council.

E. CRITERIA FOR THE BUILD UP, USE AND MAINTENANCE OF DISASTER DAMAGE INSURANCE EXCESS RESERVES

· Reserves will always be a funding call of last resort e.g. if priorities can be re-established to cover the expenditure, or if unbudgeted income is received these sources of funds will be used.

· Reserves will be used to meet the cost of reinstatement of infrastructure assets (to an equivalent standard to that in place before the damage was incurred).

· The initial cost of restoring the Council’s infrastructure assets (to be referred to as Scheme Excesses) will be met by each relevant Flood Control and Drainage Scheme to a maximum level per Scheme of 2.5% of the replacement value of edge protection, plus 2% of the replacement value of stopbanks and detention dams plus, 1.5% of the replacement value of all drainage assets of each Scheme. This obligation will be met by Disaster Damage Investment Funds and annual maintenance budgets able to be redirected to repairing disaster damage.

· All efforts will be made to maximise any disaster recovery contributions from Central Government or any other sources.

· Income earned on Reserve investment funds may be used to meet the cost of commercial insurance cover taken on Council “generally uninsurable” infrastructure assets.

· Income from all Disaster Reserve and Disaster Damage investments will be credited to the respective Reserves until such time as the Reserves build up their required level of funding. At such time as each Reserve meets the target level, income will be available to help meet the funding requirements of Council or Flood and Drainage Scheme annual operational expenditure.

· Once Reserves have met their target level of funding and are subsequently reduced below the scheme excess the Reserve must be reinstated to the target level for each disaster reserve within 10 years.

F. PROVISION TO MEET DISASTER DAMAGE INSURANCE EXCESSES AND COMMITMENTS

· Regional Community;

The required reserve is in place and is managed in accordance with Council’s investment policies.

· Flood and Drainage Schemes;

The Group Manager, Asset Management, will periodically establish the make-up of the Scheme Excess and report any changes to Council. The make-up will be a mix of Disaster Damage Insurance Excess Reserves and annual maintenance budgets able to be redirected. Contributions to reserves shall be of such an amount to ensure that, subject to no draw down of those reserves, the target level for the disaster reserve for each scheme is reached before the dates set out in the table in D) above.

Should a call be made on scheme disaster reserve funds, but insufficient funds are available to meet the required disaster damage excess, Council will decide at the time, and for each individual scheme, whether to either borrow externally or to loan funds from other Council funding sources.

However the Group Manager Asset Management is authorised to transfer credit balances in individual scheme rating account balances to their disaster damage insurance excess reserves if this is appropriate.

G. FREQUENCY OF DISASTER DAMAGE RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEWS

Reviews will be carried out at least once every five years.

H. RELATIONSHIP TO COUNCIL’S FUNDING POLICY

The policy contained in this Section relating to the cost of reinstatement of assets as a result of a disaster event will override Council’s policy for general funding contributions to Flood Control and Drainage Schemes.

1. Agree to meet the entry cost to the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) of $575,000 from the proceeds from investments held as part of Council’s Regional Disaster Reserve, with payment to LAPP being made before 30 June 2007.

2. Agree that the annual contributions to LAPP will be met from operating accounts of the individual Schemes in accordance with the following formula.

(Value of scheme drainage channel assets x0.2 + value of scheme culverts and structures x0.2 + value of scheme stopbanks and flood detention dams x0.4 + value of scheme live edge protection x1.0);

Divided by

(total value of Council drainage channel assets x0.2 + total value of Council culverts and structures x0.2 + total value of Council stopbanks and flood detention dams x0.4 + total value of Council live edge protection x1.0);

Multiplied by

Annual LAPP contribution.

3. Agree that Council take out insurance on the international insurance market for its “generally uninsurable” infrastructure assets, excluding live tree edge protection to meet 60% of the cost of reinstatement of those assets following a disaster, with a loss limit of 60% of $19M and an excess of 60% of $1M; and meet the annual premium for that insurance from proceeds from investments held as part of Council’s Regional Disaster Reserve.

Summary of Submissions

Attachment 1

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Submitter 1

Wants a stronger role by Regional Council regarding pest control, especially in regards of control for Argentine Ants and Purple Ragwort. Also wants Pampas grass controlled. There is public benefit to plant pest control hence the public interest should be a function and cost for the region.

Submitter 2

Wants invertebrate and pathenogenic pests controlled, via prevention and preparedness. Believes that the scope of the pest management strategy is not broad enough to protect the horticultural sector in Hawke’s Bay.

Control of rabbits is also required as their numbers are increasing.

Submitter 3

Fully supports the PCA program. Would support an extension of the program to control mustelids and cats, if it showed reasonable cost-benefit. The changes to privet and purple ragwort make sense.

Some resources may need to be set aside to control rabbits as their numbers are starting to grow. The pressure should be kept on controlling rooks.

The control of goats should only be considered in specially identified sites.

The council need to work more closely with MAF to improve outcomes for pest surveillance.

Submitter 4

Believes that the Pest Management Strategy should look to protect the regional economy – 40% of which is generated by the horticultural sector. The Pest Management Strategy should be widened to become a regional Biosecurity Management Strategy.

Submitter 5

Does not think the council should control goats. However states that the Department of Conservation should be supported with boundary fencing for sensitive sites.

Submitter 6

Same submission as submitter 5

Submitter 7

Agrees with proposal for plant pest control. Believes that some controls of possums in forest and DOC areas must be considered to stop reinfestation.

Control for cats and mustilids should be considered, if cost effective.

Notes that goats are effective for weed control on farms. Control of goats should only be considered where they are not wanted.

Submitter 8

Supports the control of Argentine Ants

Submitter 9

Supports continued control of possums. Wants the Council to ensure that all farmers contribute to possum control maintenance work.

Submitter 10

Feel very strongly about the importance of implementing possum control. Note that success has been dramatic, and that those farmers that are contributing are creating an enormous benefit for all. Concerned about those farmers who are not continuing to control possums on their land.

Submitter 11

Believe the Council has done a great job in reducing possum numbers. Concern expressed that continual control is not being maintained.

Concern about the way monitoring is being conducted. Believes that all landowners should be required to maintain their bait stations. It should not be voluntary, as it undermines the whole eradication programme.

Submitter 12

Concern that the Council has no appropriate response policy in place regarding the control and eradication of serious bio predators such as mustelids. Provides kill numbers for boundary stream, which the submitter contents are strongly suggestive that the problem is significant, and therefore the Council, should undertake a widespread control program.

Submitter 13

States that the Council has proven ineffective, inflexible and extremely poor at accepting views which counter its own.

Contends that total control plant pests should be a whole community issue, not just the landowner.

Believes that landowners should be able to receive every six months Council funded pest control of rabbits, goats, and Canadian geese.

Submitter 14

Strong advocate of the Animal Health Board initiatives on vector control, and encourages the Council to continue to support the Animal Health Board.

Submitter 15

Supports control of Argentinean Ants. Believes Council should organise contractor to eradicate them.

Submitter 16

Believes that the possum control programme is one of the best initiative undertaken between the Council and farmers. However, has concerns that some farmers and lifestylers are not completely committed to the eradication programme.

A certain amount of compulsion needs to be implemented to safe guard this programme.

Submitter 17

Supports the Council in its achievements. Encourage a co-ordinated approach to the control of rooks. Support the management of rooks, goats, and Pinus contorta.

Submitter 18

Supports control of goats and gorse where these are major problems, and is in favour of devolving responsibly to local pest management boards.

Supports control of Argentine ants, and the council becoming involved in pest pathway management, and incursion surveillance.

Submitter 19

Wants to promote a culture of weed consciousness and knowledge of weeds by landowners. With the knowledge of identification goes the means to control.

Submitter 20

Notes that the spread of thistles on Te Aute Road has become worse in the last two years, and needs control.

Submitter 21

Concerned at the increase in rabbit populations. Believes there should be more assistance from Council to combat this problem.

Notes that the possum control program has been a great success, but believes that every landowner should be compelled to employ an approved contractor to ensure possums are kept under control.

Submitter 22

Expressed concern about the ongoing cost of monitoring and pest control, with possum numbers slow low, as to note make it economical to continue control.

Does not believe that the control of goats is necessary. Expressed concern that if rabbit control is the responsibility of the landowner, what is the pest destruction rate for?

Submitter 23

Notes that the possum control program has been a success story. However, now believes that the programme must be updated to continue the good work. Submitter proposes that the Council make is compulsory for all landowners to use a contractor to carry out their maintenance.

Also notes that the Council needs to change the monitoring protocol to allow it to target specific landowners or more specifically target parts of their properties where high possum numbers are suspected.

Notes that AHB as recently changed its policy to one of eradication of possums due to the effectiveness of control work. Believes it is possible to Hawke’s Bay to achieve this status.

Submitter 24

Believes that there is a lack of adequate Biosecurity focus and support for the horticultural industry in Hawke’s Bay.

Wants to see increase in surveillance of key pests, increase early response readiness, be included into the regional policy statement.

Expressed concern that Biosecurity is not identified as a regionally significant issue and that the current target pest list does not extend widely enough to satisfy other primary industry like horticulture.

Submitter 25

Notes that the present pest management strategy has been successful, apart from the spread of Argentine ants and rabbits.

Notes that with the proposed reform of Biosecurity control, the role of tangata whenua in pest management has been acknowledged as requiring more focus.

Submission notes that it is unclear how the proposed changes will alter the role of Maori in pest management. However, goes on to say that the present Maori Committee arrangement is unlikely to remain acceptable to tangata whenua, as we move into a co-management/ co-governance era.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.