Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Maori
Committee
Date: Tuesday 27 August 2013
Time: 10.15 am
|
Venue:
|
Council Chamber
Hawke's Bay Regional Council
159 Dalton Street
NAPIER
|
Agenda
Item Subject Page
1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies
2. Conflict of Interest Declarations
3. Short Term Replacements
4. Confirmation of Minutes of the
Maori Committee held on 25 June 2013
5. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Maori Committee held
on 25 June 2013
6. Call for General Business Items
7. Action Items from Previous Maori Committee Meetings
Decision Items
8. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated Marine and Freshwater
Fisheries Strategic Plan
Information or Performance Monitoring
9. Update on Current Issues by the Interim Chief Executive
10. Verbal Update Coastal Water - Science Team
11. Statutory Advocacy Update
12. General Business
Please Note - Pre Meeting for Māori Members of
the Committee begins at 9 am
1.
As building alterations are currently
underway on site, access to parking spaces on site is unavailable.
2.
Green Parking permits have been included
with this agenda to allow you to park in the Napier City Carpark in Vautier
Street for the meeting. There is no requirement for you to purchase a ticket from the
machine.
3.
Please note the instruction on the permit
which state the green permit should be placed right side up inside your car
windscreen.
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Maori
Committee
Tuesday 27 August 2013
SUBJECT: Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated Marine and Freshwater
Fisheries Strategic Plan
Reason for Report
1. This paper outlines
implications of Kahungunu ki Uta, Kahungunu ki Tai, Marine & Freshwater
Fisheries Strategic Plan (‘the Strategic Plan’) for Council’s activities and
responsibilities. The Strategic Plan was previously circulated to Committee
members at the meeting on 25 June 2013 after being lodged by Ngati Kahungunu
Iwi Incorporated on 14 June. This paper recommends that the Strategic Plan be
‘received’.
Background
2. In April, the Committee
agreed to a process for receiving iwi/hapu management plans (IHMPs). The
Strategic Plan is the first IHMP to have been lodged with the Council since
that process was adopted.
3. In general terms, IHMPs are tools for
outlining the concerns and aspirations of iwi/hapu that may (or may not) relate
to resource management and local authority planning. There is no prescribed
format or content for IHMPs.
4. If the Council were to
receive a IHMP that had been approved by the iwi authority (Ngati Kahungunu Iwi
Inc in this case), then the Council would be expected to consider the IHMP for purposes of decision-making under the Resource
Management Act (RMA). In short, the RMA requires Council to:
4.1. take into account any
relevant IHMPs when preparing or changing regional plans and policy statements
4.2. have regard to any
relevant IHMPs when considering resource consent applications.
5. IHMPs may also have a bearing on the Council’s broader projects and
roles under the Local Government Act.
6. The term ‘receiving’ a
IHMP is deliberate. The Council is not being asked to accept or reject the
document, instead, simply receive it so the document can be taken into account
as part of the Council’s future planning and decision-making.
Kahungunu ki Uta, Kahungunu ki Tai
7. Kahungunu ki Uta, Kahungunu
ki Tai is formed by three groups, Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated; the Coastal
Hapu Collective Incorporated Society; and Kahungunu Asset Holding Company
Limited. The group’s objective is to develop a strategic plan to guide the
integrated management of fisheries, freshwater and coastal resources within the
Kahungunu rohe. Regional Council staff understand that the Strategic Plan was
drafted and finalised in 2008. The Strategic Plan is intended to establish the
basis for a “single door policy” for all agencies and groups seeking to consult
on marine, estuarine and freshwater fisheries issues in the Kahungunu rohe.
Key Features of the Strategic Plan
8. In its own words, the
Strategic Plan “sets out the aspirations of Kahungunu for the use and management
of marine and freshwater fisheries” within the Kahungunu rohe. The
Strategic Plan states a number of high level goals/desired outcomes along with
methods, tasks and related timelines to achieve the stated goals. These goals “set
us on a path to begin rectifying the problems, and a long list of activities
that will need to be completed in order to begin to realise those goals”.
9. Table 1 below repeats
those goals/desired outcomes of Kahungunu alongside some of the key
implications of the goals on Council’s activities and responsibilities.
TABLE 1: Strategic Plan
Goals and key implications for HBRC activities
|
Kahungunu
goal/desired outcome
|
Key
implications for HBRC activities / responsibilities (indicative only)
|
|
1. Kahungunu is involved effectively in all
regulatory fisheries management processes affecting key icon/taonga species
|
a) HBRC is not
responsible for commercial, recreational or customary marine or freshwater
fisheries management regulation. This is managed by Ministry of Primary
Industries through the Quota Management System under the Fisheries Act 1996.
b) Department of
Conservation also has responsibilities under the Conservation Act 1987 for
controlling fisheries in protected areas.
c) HBRC controls
the occupation of space in the coastal marine area for the purpose of
aquaculture activities through the Regional Coastal Environment Plan.
d) Kahungunu should
be considered an affected party and served notice of resource consent
applications to undertake aquaculture activities, but...
e) the ‘single
door’ approach promoted by the Strategic Plan may be difficult to apply where
Kahungunu are also the applicant proposing to undertake the commercial
aquaculture activity.
|
|
2. Measures are in place for localised fisheries
management to minimise conflict between competing uses (including through
voluntary agreements and the restoration/ enhancement of appropriate areas).
|
f) HBRC engages
with stakeholders (including Kahungunu) to identify catchment values and
objectives. Some of those management objectives may relate to fishery values
and also associated trade-offs alongside consideration of other values. This
leads to preparation and review of catchment-based regional plans under RMA.
g) HBRC’s
management of regional parks and river control and drainage scheme areas may
involve initiatives (e.g. physical works and agreements) to restore and
enhance specific areas.
|
|
3. Environmental issues affecting inland
waterways and coastal waters are more effectively managed to maintain,
restore and enhance mauri and to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on
fisheries and their habitats.
|
h) see (f) above.
i) Existing
regional plans and policy statement recognise the need to manage waterways
and coastal waters to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects. RPS
includes objectives for recognising iwi values, consultation, protecting
waahi tapu, tauranga waka, mahinga kai, mahinga mataitai, taonga raranga, and
taonga rongoa. Another example is Plan Change 6 (‘Tukituki River Catchment’)
which proposes management objectives to ensure adverse effects on aspects of
water quality and quantity that contribute to mauri are avoided, remedied or
mitigated.
|
|
4. Hapu are empowered and respected as effective
managers of customary fishing within their Rohe, and full participants in
wider fisheries management. The customary Kaimoana needs of Hapu are
identified and provided for.
|
j) see (a) and
(b) above.
|
|
5. The value of Kahungunu commercial fishing
assets, and the returns (both tangible and intangible) from those assets, are
maximised now and into the future, consistent with this Strategy.
|
k) Not directly
relevant to HBRC’s activities and responsibilities.
|
|
6. Recreational fishing is effectively managed,
with appropriate input by those with Kaitiaki responsibilities.
|
l) Not directly
relevant to HBRC’s activities and responsibilities. See (a) and (b) above.
|
|
7. Hapu are effectively involved in compliance
activities across all fisheries sectors.
|
m) Not directly
relevant to HBRC’s activities and responsibilities. See (a) and (b) above.
|
|
8. Improved capacity, co-operation between
Kahungunu iwi and hapu, commercial and non-commercial fishing interest
improves cohesiveness and a ‘one door’ policy ensures more effective
interactions with other agencies.
|
n) Not directly relevant
to HBRC’s activities and responsibilities. See (a) and (b) above in relation
to fisheries management.
o) Also see (f),
(g) and (i) above in relation to decision-making under RMA for management of
water quality and quantity issues.
|
|
9. Well-informed fisheries managers are empowered
to make good fisheries management decisions.
|
p) HBRC shares data
and information about natural resources with Kahungunu, and vice-versa. This
could cover wetlands, biodiversity, water quality and water quantity information.
Many technical scientific reports on these topics are already publicly
available.
q) Information
requests might need to be co-ordinated from across the Council through a
single point of contact to give effect to the relationship style sought by
Kahungunu.
|
|
10. Effective lines of communication exist within
Kahungunu between Iwi and Hapu fisheries managers, their constituents, and
between commercial and non-commercial interests
|
r) HBRC’s
activities re. fisheries relates to ecosystems (including wetlands and
estuaries) water quality and water quantity. See (f), (g) and (i) above.
s) Currently
within HBRC, there is no “single point of contact” identified for
communication with Kahungunu.
|
|
11. Kahungunu is recognised as a leader in
fisheries management in its rohe and exercises effective influence with
fisheries management agencies. Fisheries stakeholders support Kahungunu
aspirations for fisheries in the rohe.
|
t) Not directly
relevant to HBRC’s activities and responsibilities.
u) Also see (f),
(g) and (i) above in relation to decision-making under RMA for management
where Kahungunu can be regarded as a stakeholder and leader in fisheries
management.
|
|
12. Kahungunu Iwi members have the skills and
expertise to participate at all levels of fisheries management and
operations.
|
v) See (p) above
regarding sharing of information.
w) In relation to
RMA decision-making, the skills and expertise of Kahungunu Iwi members
contributes positively to enduring resource management outcomes in Hawke's
Bay.
|
10. The 2012-22 Long Term
Plan (LTP) currently includes a number of projects and initiatives (such as
research and studies within flood control scheme areas and river corridors)
that Kahungunu Iwi are likely to be, or become, involved in. Continuing the Te
Karamu project and reviews of asset management plans for the drainage scheme
areas are other examples of projects that are likely to involve Kahungunu Iwi.
11. It should also be noted
that the Council continues to engage with iwi/hapu in catchment-based regional
plan change projects as part of collaborative stakeholder group processes (e.g.
for the Mohaka and Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri catchments).
Financial and Resource Implications
12. There are no direct
financial or resource implications arising from a decision to ‘receive’ the
Strategic Plan. Once received, the Council will be obligated to take the
Strategic Plan into account when preparing and changing regional planning
documents under the RMA. Budgets are already in place for plan change
processes currently underway which would now need to consider this Strategic
Plan. Any financial and resource implications arising from having regard to
the Strategic Plan when considering resource consent applications will lie
within the Council’s adopted policy for resource consent fees and charges.
Decision Making
Process
13. Council is required to
make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act
2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub
Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:
13.1. The decision does not
significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
13.2. The use of the special
consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
13.3. The decision does not
fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
13.4. 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.
13.5. Options that have been
considered were to receive or not receive the Strategic Plan.
13.6. The decision is not
inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
13.7. 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
The Maori
Committee recommends 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. Receives the Kahungunu ki Uta, Kahungunu ki Tai, Marine &
Freshwater Fisheries Strategic Plan as a iwi/hapu management plan for
purposes of Council’s decision-making under the Resource Management Act.
|
|
Esther-Amy Bate
Planner
|
Gavin Ide
Team
Leader Policy
|
|
Helen Codlin
Group
Manager
Strategic
Development
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Maori
Committee
Tuesday 27 August 2013
SUBJECT: Statutory Advocacy Update
Reason for Report
1. This paper 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 between
25 June and 20 August 2013.
2. The Statutory Advocacy
project (‘Project 192’) centres on resource management-related proposals upon
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 plus
accompanying map outlines those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy
project is currently actively engaged in.
Decision Making
Process
5. 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 Maori Committee receives the
Statutory Advocacy Update report.
|
|
Esther-Amy Bate
Planner
|
Helen Codlin
Group
Manager
Strategic
Development
|
Attachment/s
|
1View
|
Statutory Advocacy Update
|
|
|
|
2View
|
Statutory Advocacy map
|
|
|
