|
Tukituki Values and Uses Section 6
|
Attachment 1
|
Tukituki
River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses
Section
Six: Māori Planning Perspectives
6.0 Introduction
District
and regional councils have a statutory obligation to provide for Māori
values and interests, to ensure environmental indicators also include
Māori perspectives and priorities. It is important for there to be
planning provisions in place for these purposes and which are effective in
meeting Māori environmental outcomes. Māori need to express their
relationship and values within the Tukituki River catchment in particular,
within both the spiritual and physical dimension, through concepts such as
mauri, manawhenua and Kaitiakitanga. Improving the ecological health
conditions of the Tukituki River catchment needs to reflect Māori values
and knowledge, whakapapa, and the spiritual relationships mana whenua have with
a particular area. Marae and Hapū are the kaitiaki of their
tūrangawaewae, rohe, takiwā and as such, want greater access to much
of the environmental information for use in the identity of Māori
indicators and outcomes, monitoring, management and policy development of the
Tukituki River catchment in particular.
This
section will provide an overview of the RMA statutory framework in terms of
relevance to tangata whenua considerations. Next is a discussion on the
development of Māori environmental indicators with a focus on mana whenua,
mauri and wāhi tapu outcomes and monitoring measures. Finally, there are
some recommendations for the HBRC to consider.
6.1 RMA
Statutory Framework
The
RMA is the mechanism under which the natural and physical resources of New
Zealand are to be managed. Part II of the RMA provides for tangata whenua
considerations. Section 5, 6, 7 and 8 set out key requirements for what must
be considered when exercising functions under the RMA and are outlined below:
Section 5: Purpose
(1) The purpose of
this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical
resources.
(2) In this Act,
“sustainable management” means managing the use, development, and protection of
natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and
communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well being and
for their health and safety while -
(a)
Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the
reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;
(b)
Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems;
and
(c)
Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment, and
(f)
The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and
development.
The
consideration of cultural wellbeing implies a requirement to protect anything
important to tangata whenua and includes spiritual and traditional
relationships within the Ruataniwha rohe. Marae/ hapū of the area are
enabled to provide for their social and cultural wellbeing.
The
duties and the obligations the RMA imposes are for all people who exercise
functions or powers under the Act in relation to the use of natural resources.
Section 6: Matters of
national importance - In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons
exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use,
development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise
and provide for the following matters of national importance:
(e)
The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral lands, water, sites wāhi tapu, and other taonga.
There
needs to be some definition of natural character (ie, health state of
ecosystems, rivers, streams), and some guidance provided on the point at which
the cumulative effects of water take and land intensification interferes with
the natural character of water flows, water quality and so forth. The HBRC and
other local Authorities are obliged to both recognise and to provide for
tangata whenua values and traditional relationships with their ancestral lands,
water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga which are deemed to be of national
importance. Mauri is not specifically referred to in the RMA but is
recognised as a matter of national importance and therefore councils can make
specific recognition of, and protection for, mauri.
Section 7: Other matters - In
achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers
under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of
natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to –
(a)
Kaitiakitanga…
The
concept of kaitiakitanga invokes stewardship, involvement in decision making,
equal partnership and participation in the management of taonga tuku iho (ie,
rivers and water quality, the intrinsic values of ecosystems and environmental
quality). The HBRC and other local Authorities will need to have particular
regard to the concept of kaitiakitanga when fulfilling the functions under the
RMA. Tangata whenua exercising their kaitiaki responsibilities require
knowledge and focussed information gathering on environmental quality and
understanding of the characteristics of natural taonga potentially affected by
water take, land intensification and other concerns.
The HBRC have
stated their commitment to developing a more effective partnership with
Māori, with full regard to the ethic of kaitiakitanga:
… a mutually
beneficial partnership arrangement and a proactive role in Treaty settlement
negotiations. Fuller incorporation of Māori values associated with water
is a critical issue in relation to building and maintaining relationships.[1]
Section 8: Treaty of Waitangi
- In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and
powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection
of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of
the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).
The
HBRC and other local Authorities are obliged to take into account the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when fulfilling functions under the RMA
and includes the protection of taonga, mauri of rivers, streams and water
quality, wāhi tapu and other tangata whenua values.
6.2 Development
of Māori Environmental Indicators
The
RMA does provide a statutory basis for the development of environmental
indicators which needs to include Māori environmental indicators even
though it does not specifically refer to outcomes and indicators. By outcomes,
we mean the expression of environmental aspirations for marae, hapū and
iwi and the indicators are measures used to determine whether the outcomes have
been achieved.
The
councils are required to identify AERs (anticipated environmental results) of
their plan provisions and to undertake monitoring to evaluate whether these
results have been achieved. There are also community outcomes the district or
region must incorporate into council planning provisions. The HBRC is to be
acknowledged for giving some consideration of Māori cultural values and to
consulting with manawhenua for guidance and direction of what these values
are. However, the council will need to develop a statutory rationale for
incorporating Māori outcomes and indicators and linking them back to the
Tukituki River catchment change plan and their implementation. There will also
need to be a robust monitoring strategy operating to show how effective the
plan is successfully incorporating Māori indicators and outcomes because
currently, the methods for evaluating plan outcomes is lacking.
Jefferies
& Kennedy (2009) have developed and integrated Māori environmental
indicators and outcomes in statutory and planning documents identifying three
kete: mana whenua, mauri and wāhi tapu. This may be useful for assessing
the Tukituki River catchment change plan and evaluating council performance in
the use of mātauranga Māori and kaitiakitanga. The indicators and
measures developed for each kete determines whether the overarching outcome is
being achieved. The three kete are applied to determine how mana whenua cultural
values and their uses can be incorporated into the Tukituki River catchment
change plan and are discussed below:
Outcome
One: HBRC acknowledge Mana Whenua
The
recognition of Mana whenua is a fundamental issue essential to their effective
participation in resource management processes. Historically, mana whenua
rights and obligations have not been recognised and otherwise ignored which has
offended whānau, marae, hapū and iwi resulting in an unwillingness to
develop a working relationship with district and regional council. There
is sufficient evidence historically to indicate that mana whenua have not
participated sufficiently in district and regional council planning and
decision-making, which has resulted in cultural values being largely ignored
(Bassett & Kay, 2006). For marae, hapū and whānau within the rohe
of Heretaunga and Tamatea, their claims were lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal
in 2003 to seek redress of several issues. The “umbrella” claims are
represented by He Toa Takitini on behalf of the claimant group bringing
together several claims concerned with breaches to the Treaty of Waitangi 1840
with regard to:[2]
· Land
base and resources;
· Rivers
and waterways (including the Tukituki catchment);
· Old
land claims;
· Waipukurau
transaction (and in particular Lake Whatuma);
· Failure
to provide alternatives to sale;
· Crown
purchase transactions and methods (such as the Gwavas Forest Park); and,
· Other
grievances lodged alongside individual claims.
The
claim concerning “environment” refers to the failure of the Crown to recognize
hapū rights to exercise their tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga
responsibilities. Much of their traditional lands were destroyed or changed
such as many of the traditional habitats (ie, bush, rivers, swamps, wetlands,
lakes). Hapū access to indigenous flora and fauna for cultural harvesting
was severely impacted and the introduced exotic flora and fauna were not
adequately controlled, causing further degradation and depletion of mahinga kai
resources. The claim also highlights the destruction to wāhi tapu sites
of significance such as ‘Ngā Kai Hinaki a Whata and Mahinata Kahukura Takapau.’
Other specific areas of concern have included the overflow from oxidation ponds
in and around Waipukurau and Waipawa which have contributed to pollution of
surrounding land and waterways within the Tukituki catchment in particular.
The
HBRC will need to carefully consider the implications of these pending Waitangi
Tribunal claims in terms of the proposed water storage dam on the
Mākāroro; participation of tangata whenua in the governance and
environmental management of natural resources; mitigating past, present and
future effects on the ecological health state of the Tukituki River catchment
and other areas of concern.
In
more recent years, mana whenua have been participating in resource management
issues and have formed relationships with the district and regional council
discussed below to highlight some of successes achieved in forming co-management
regimes between the Hastings District Council (HDC) and Heretaunga marae/
hapū in particular.
Hastings
District Council (HDC)
The
HDC established the Maori Standing Committee in the late 1980s prior to the RMA
reforms of the 1990s with representatives from marae/ hapū within the
Hastings region. The main resource management issues were:
· Establishing papakainga designated land
· Developing silent files on wāhi tapu
· Issues surrounding waste management of untreated human and
industrial effluence into sea and river catchment and other land developments
The
RMA (1992) created an opportunity for marae/ hapū to participate in
resource management decision making. The HDC realised they needed to engage
with local marae/hapū on resource management issues.
The
Heretaunga Taiwhenua became increasingly involved in various resource
management and environmental issues, mainly in a supportive role. This was
alongside, the Heretaunga Maori Executive jointly representing nga marae
hapū interests before hearings, and attending the various council
committee meetings. Various submissions were presented jointly in response to
key issues such as regional and district plan reviews, papa kāinga,
wāhi tapu, waste management.
The
current Te Kaihautu held wānanga, hui and facilitated consultations, for
example, the Cape Kidnappers golf resort, Whakatū Coolstores Ltd
applications - services paid for by the applicants. A significant defining
point was the victory for the whānau halting the Northern Arterial route
through their Māori ancestral land.
By
the 2000s, the establishment of Te Rūnanga Putaiao within the Taiwhenua
focused on customary fisheries and hapū management plans. The committee
was reported directly to Te Haaro committee of Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga but
was disestablished in the mid-eighties. Over the next few years it became
apparent resource management issues grew in nature, extent and time needed to
deal with them. A new committee was formed being the current Te
Rūnanganui o Heretaunga, as well as an environmental and community
development unit, Te Manaaki Taiao. The vision of the Rūnanga and Te
Manaaki Taiao is expressed in the Organisation’s overall vision, mission and
goal to establish this working entity for and behalf of marae.
A
major issue for marae/ hapū has been an objection to human excrement into
Tangaroa which has resulted in submissions against the HDC waste management
discharge application. The hearings panel upheld a Tangata whenua concern in
relation to the Coastal Plan. The Minister for the Environment became involved
and the outcome of this experience became the catalyst for tangata whenua
rights to be acknowledged. The HDC formed the tangata whenua waste management
joint committee and Te Kaihautu (Marei Apatu) was invited as an ex-officio.
This
committee has continued to evolve and to strengthen their co-management roles,
functions and responsibilities with the HDC. In the present context, Tangata
whenua arguably have a major influence in key resource management issues. An
example of the effective co-management regime between HDC and tangata whenua is
reflected in the cultural philosophy adopted in waste management policies and
procedures. This is aptly expressed by Kaumātua who state that:
….in
terms of waste disposal on top of papatuanuku - the assistance should come from
her children (ie, when the mauri as it enters our systems becomes degraded) and
the children of papatuanuku are called upon through a natural process (ie,
Whiro -good and bad bugs) that remove the human excrement however, the removal
of these natural elements creates the “noa” state diminishing mauri so the
mauri needs to be restored and the process of Rakahore (through the
papatūānuku channel) the deity for rocks and shingle creates the flow
to meet force and vortex – causing treated waters to swirl and aerate putting
mauri back into the treated waters...this is all part of the natural process
created by her children where another of her children Tangaroa, does his job
and removes further degradation through the sea salt and is assisted by his
brother Tawhirimatea creating the wave movements.
A key
role of the committee has been to monitor discharges in the waterways by
analyzing technical reports from a cultural perspective. Their involvement has
significantly influenced key decisions. Monitoring and reporting is trending
well on performance to date which contributes toward enhancing the mauri of the
river. It is still early days though and it needs to be acknowledged, that
there are still non-point pollutant sources in the waterways, such as
agricultural runoff and the detrimental effects of land intensification.
The
joint waste management committee can be considered an excellent model of
co-governance between a district council and tangata whenua. Such has been
their success that there are discussions being held with the HDC
to broaden the terms of reference to incorporate all water management issues
(ie, drinking water, storm water, improving the mauri of the Ngaruroro and
Karamu waterways).
Waitangi
Tribunal Claims
Te
Runanga Putaio unit of Heretaunga Taiwhenua has also taken a leadership role to
progress the Tribunal claims by establishing He Toa Takitini back in the early
2000s. In
2003, the “umbrella” statement of claim for the Heretaunga and Tamatea Inquiry
District (Hastings and Central Hawke’s Bay Districts) was lodged with the
Waitangi Tribunal. The claims are represented by He Toa Takitini, formed and
led by on behalf of the claimant group bringing together several claims
concerned with breaches to the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 with regard to:[3]
· Land
base and resources;
· Rivers
and waterways (including the Tukituki catchment);
· Old
land claims;
· Waipukurau
transaction (and in particular Lake Whatuma);
· Failure
to provide alternatives to sale;
· Crown
purchase transactions and methods (such as the Gwavas Forest Park); and,
· Other
grievances lodged alongside individual claims.
The
claim concerning “environment” refers to the failure of the Crown to recognize
hapu rights to exercise their tinorangatiratanga (self determination) and
kaitiakitanga responsibilities. Much of their traditional lands were destroyed
or changed such as many of the traditional habitats (ie, bush, rivers, swamps,
wetlands, lakes). Hapū access to indigenous flora and fauna for cultural
harvesting was severely impacted and the introduced exotic flora and fauna were
not adequately controlled, causing further degradation and depletion of mahinga
kai resources. The claim also highlights the destruction to wāhi tapu
sites of significance such as ‘Nga Kai Hinaki a Whata and Mahinata Kahukura
Takapau.’ Other specific areas of concern have included the overflow from
oxidation ponds in and around Waipukurau which have contributed to pollution of
surrounding land and waterways within the Tukituki catchment in particular.
Hawkes
Bay Regional Council
Another
influential advisory group to be established in the mid 1980s was the HBRC Māori
Standing committee. Initially Māori were represented by the NZ Māori
council and eventually, after the RMA was established, there was a move towards
including Iwi representation from the Taiwhenua established under Te
Rūnanga o Ngāti Kahungunu.
Over
the years, this committee has continued to evolve providing advice to the HBRC
on a wide range of resource management issues. In the last few years there has
been a shift towards forming a co-management model between the large natural
groups (ie, Treaty of Waitangi claimant groups). However, one of these
claimant groups He Toa Takitini, have chosen not to participate in the new
structure being proposed until their Tribunal claims are progressed further.
Key
Points
The
overall arching goal is to acknowledge mana whenua in the co-governance,
management and operational levels of resource management. The excellent
co-management relationship established between HDC and Heretaunga mana whenua
provides a model of an effective relationship based on trust, open
communication and a respect of the collective wellspring of knowledge and
expertise. The HBRC are currently re-structuring their co-management processes
but will need to carefully ensure the other claimant groups not participating
in this process, are still able to input into key environmental concerns. Mana
whenua have a reciprocal responsibility as kaitiaki to ensure the wise
management and use of taonga-tuku-iho for future generations.
The
indicators to ensure this outcome is achieved for this goal might involve:
· Whether
mana whenua agrees the district and regional council acknowledge their
kaitiakitanga roles and responsibilities and make provision within statutory
plans.
· Extent
to which iwi/ marae/ hapū tribal boundaries are known to the Council.
· Extent
to which Council monitoring has determined whether Anticipated Environmental
Results (AERs) relating to mana whenua provisions are achieved.
· Extent
to which marae/ hapū participate in kaitiaki activities and capacity to
protect and maintain mana whenua.
Outcome
Two: Mauri of all Waterways
Mana
whenua as kaitiaki have an active role in environmental management of natural
resources, taonga tuku iho passed down through whakapapa interrelationships
between the physical and spiritual worlds within Te Ao Māori. Ensuring
the mauri of all living things are maintained, restored and protected is a
fundamental responsibility for Kaitiaki. A taonga whose life force has been
diminished or depleted presents a major concern for mana whenua who must do all
in their power to restore the mauri of the taonga to its original strength.
Kaitiakitanga is an integral part of the expression of tino rangatiratanga
where there is authority to control access to, and use of natural resources.
However, failure to exercise their kaitiaki responsibilities will result in the
mana of marae and hapū being diminished and may have negative impacts on
the wellbeing of whānau.
Throughout
this report mana whenua have given expression to how all forms of life are
interrelated and interdependent, where the mauri life force essence within the
natural environment is integral to the wellbeing of people. Mauri provides a
means for assessing balance and inter-connectedness within an environmental
system. There is a reciprocal understanding and responsibility to protect all
life – because what gave people life, also gave them obligations. The natural
order of life established tikanga and kaupapa to ensure the care and protection
of mauri.
The
development of indicators for mauri is being sought by marae and hapū
because the mauri of water quality has become a critical issue. This has
largely been in response to the continuing degradation and deterioration of the
Tukituki River catchment as a result of poorly managed land use effects to
sustain ecosystems. The associated indicators need to provide methods and measures to
determine whether the mauri of all waterways are in optimal good health. It is
also important to assess the contribution district and regional councils can
play in achieving this aspiration or goal.
Key
Points
The
key areas of concern identified by mana whenua in this report include:
· Priority
must be given to restoring habitats of particular native species such as, tuna
(ie, longfin), fresh water koura, fresh water mussels and whitebait (ie,
īnanga), spawning areas.
· Measures
of water quality are vital for a more consistent monitoring of water conditions
and trend. The evidence of diverse aquatic macro invertebrates in the water
can provide an important indicator of the health condition of the mauri of
water.
· Restoring
native biodiversity and the recovery of habitats are also important indicators
to determine improvements in water quality management and policy development in
the implementation of the plan.
· The
acknowledgement and integration of mātauranga Māori with western
knowledge to restore and protect native biodiversity, the mauri of taonga
species and ecosystems.
The
indicators to ensure this outcome is achieved might involve:
· The
extent to which the HBRC will protect mauri of the waterways and contains
provisions within the Tukituki River catchment plan to protect mauri.
· The
extent to which mana whenua protect mauri and have the environmental management
processes in place to establish a co-management approach.
· The
actions of other agencies to understand and actively work with mana whenua to
develop strategies to improve mauri of taonga species and ecosystems.
· Whether
community and interest groups take active measures to protect and restore
mauri.
· Monitoring
methods in the provisions to identify characteristics of waterway inhabitants,
presence of potential human and animal threats and other data.
Mana
whenua will need to develop a consistent approach and robust methods for
environmental monitoring which can be meaningful for marae, hapū and
council. Factors to consider when assessing Mauri are listed in Table 6.0 over
page:
Table
6.0 Factors for Assessing Mauri[4]
|
Factors
for Assessing Mauri
|
|
Water table
Color, depth,
temperature of water
Nutrient
status (ie, phosphorus)
Size of
plants, taonga present
Abundance of
taonga fish species
Taonga birds
present
Whether You
can eat fish, plants
Evidence of
pollution, sewage
Diversity of
fish species
Abundance and
diversity of bird species
Absence or
presence of fish and birds
|
Presence or
absence of stock on the water
Evidence of
contamination
Algal growth
Smell of water
Flow of water,
oxygenation
Characteristics
of riparian vegetation
Evidence of
introduced pests and plants
Māori
wellbeing, health
Māori
cultural values of mahinga kai
Wāhi tapu
|
Outcome
Three: Protection of Wāhi Tapu
Another
outcome being sought by mana whenua is to protect wāhi tapu from further
desecration. Wāhi tapu are specifically recognised and provided for in
several pieces of legislation including the RMA (section 6) and the Historic
Places Act (HPĀ) (1993). Unlike archaeological sites, legislation does
not necessarily protect sites of significance to Māori. There is no
specific recognition of whakapapa, ancestral landscapes or wairua in the RMA or
HPA. The protection of wāhi tapu is often at odds with competing western
values (of development) and the councils need to develop a joint- management
approach with marae. hapū and iwi to identify existing and potential
measures towards protecting, restoring and preserving wāhi tapu.
The
indicators to ensure this outcome is achieved might involve:
· Extent to which there are provisions within district and regional
documents to protect wāhi tapu.
· Whether mana whenua have provisions in place to form co-management
arrangement with council and other agencies to protect wāhi tapu.
· Information on wāhi tapu is protected and access of location
and knowledge has protocols established with local marae and hapū.
· Physical characteristics of wāhi tapu are identified and
protected.
· The presence of any threats are identified and mitigated.
6.3 Summary
of Māori Environmental Indicators and Outcomes
Table
6.1 Developing Māori Environmental Outcomes, Indicators, Monitoring
|
Outcome
|
Indicators
|
Monitoring
|
|
Outcome
One:
HBRC
acknowledge Mana Whenua
|
-
The extent that HBRC make provision within statutory plans
-
Extent to which iwi/marae/hapū tribal boundaries are known to the
Council
-
Extent to which marae/ hapū participate in kaitiaki activities and
capacity to protect and maintain mana whenua
|
-
Monitoring the extent that mātauranga is integrated in the current
resource management regime giving effect to Kaitiakitanga principles across
all levels
-
Extent to which Council monitoring has determined whether Anticipated
Environmental Results (AERs) relating to mana whenua provisions are achieved
-
Mana whenua monitor council commitment to develop co-management regimes to
acknowledge kaitiaki role
|
|
Outcome
Two:
Improve
Mauri of all waterways
|
-
The extent to which the HBRC will protect mauri of the waterways and contains
provisions within the Tukituki River catchment plan
-
The extent to which mana whenua protect mauri and have the environmental management
processes, resources, capacity and knowledge systems in place to establish a
co-management approach
-
The actions of other agencies to understand and actively work with mana
whenua to develop strategies to improve mauri of taonga species and ecosystems
-
Whether community and interest groups take active measures to protect and
restore mauri
-
Develop taonga inventories to determine the presence or absence of taonga
(ie, fauna and flora returned or restored that has been modified, destroyed
or damaged)
-
Extent that mauri-indicators will be incorporated into the Biodiversity
strategy plan
-
Utilizing CHI tools, SHMAH kit, State of the rohe and other models to gather
baseline data for assessment
|
-
Monitoring of fish stocks, fishery habitats and their associated biodiversity
Mana whenua to
gather oral histories on mātauranga for transferring to next generation
as part of succession planning
-
Mana whenua produce marae and hapū resource management plans with mauri
indicators, measures for monitoring progress
-
Monitoring methods in the provisions to identify characteristics of waterway
inhabitants, presence of potential human and animal threats and other data
-
Monitor the effects of unwanted flora and fauna species that are exotic,
foreign or introduced and the extent of damage and displacement of taonga
-
Monitoring the development of mauri-measures within the Biodiversity
strategic plan
-
Development of mauri -measures for improving the health of all the waterways
within the Tukituki River catchment and provisions to monitor improvements
within the plan change
|
|
Outcome
Three:
Protection
of Wāhi Tapu
|
- Extent to which there are provisions within district and
regional documents to protect wāhi tapu
- Whether mana whenua have provisions in place to form
co-management arrangement with council and other agencies to protect
wāhi tapu
-
Information on wāhi tapu is protected and access of location and
knowledge has protocols established with local marae and hapū
-
Mana whenua to define the cultural significance of sites, cultural heritage
sites, wāhi tapu, wāhi taonga
|
-
Identify, understand and give effect to this in planning and policy
-
Monitor extent of modification/ destruction, sites affected by human
activity, registered sites with council etc
-
Physical characteristics of wāhi tapu are identified and protected and
the presence of any threats are identified, mitigated and monitored for
improvement, restoration and protection
-
Mana whenua work with council to develop protocols to access mataurangā
Māori on wāhi tapu and to monitor establishment of co-management approach
and processes
|
6.4 Recommendations
for the HBRC to Consider
The
recommendations are aimed at assisting the HBRC to consider how they might
integrate cultural values into the plan change for the Tukituki River catchment
and are listed below:
Recommendation
One:
That
the HBRC will undertake to develop Māori indicators and to evaluate
Māori policy to ensure there is provision for mana whenua to have greater
participation in decision-making at governance, management and operational
levels of regional planning.
The
HBRC may need to undertake an audit/ peer review to determine the extent that
the overarching regional environmental outcomes include environmental
Māori outcomes and indicators.
The
HBRC will also need to engage with mana whenua to evaluate whether the
overarching outcomes relating to important environmental Māori cultural
values are being achieved. This may involve an evaluation of the plans and
their performance against the cultural values indicator, outcome and monitoring
measures framework constructed within this report.
Recommendation
Two:
That the HBRC
will undertake to integrate the fragmented efforts that have occurred to date
between the local and regional council for a more consistent planning approach
towards the development of outcomes, indicators and monitoring measures seeking
to improve the mauri of the Tukituki River catchment.
Recommendation
Three:
That the HBRC
will work alongside marae/ hapū in identifying existing and potential
measures toward protecting wāhi tapu and cultural sites of importance to
mana whenua.
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Maori
Committee
Tuesday 30 October 2012
SUBJECT: Tukituki Choices - Responses
Reason for Report
1. At its meeting on
Wednesday 31 October, Council will consider the 163 responses received on the
Tukituki Choices discussion document. These provide an indication of different
stakeholder positions on how land and water in the Tukituki Catchment should be
managed in the future and how storage might fit into the overall catchment
management for the desired environment, economic, social and cultural outcomes.
2. At the Maori Committee
meeting on Tuesday 30 October, staff will give an overview of the responses and
key issues. Committee members will also be provided with the equivalent
Council paper on this matter which was still in preparation at the time of
writing the paper for the Maori Committee.
A summary of the responses
is provided in Attachment 1. Individual responses will be available to view on
the Council’s website on Monday 29 October 2012.
Council’s approach to
the issues in the Tukituki Catchment
3. The Council
has been working on a three pronged approach towards managing the land and
water issues in the Tukituki Catchment.
4. Council’s
first priority has been finding ways to improve summer flows.
5. One way is
to increase the river flow at which consent holders would be required to stop
taking water. This ‘minimum’ flow can be set for different levels of habitat
protection and it is proposed that the Tukituki River warrants a high level of
protection for both longfin eel and trout. This does have economic impacts on
existing irrigators and a contested process and a long transition time is
likely to this approach.
6. Another way
is to enable and facilitate the collection of high river flows into storage
with the migration of some, if not all, existing irrigation from surface and
groundwater supplies to stored water. This would result in more natural flow
conditions particularly over the low flow period, over and above the flow that
would occur even if the minimum flow cutoff is increased.
7. The second
priority has been to reduce phosphorus (P) inputs to the river as the most
practical way to achieve a reduction in algae growth in the river. The
Waipukurau and Waipawa wastewater discharges contain high levels of phosphorus,
and during summer low flows, it makes up 50-70% of the phosphorus input in the
catchment. HBRC has known the river was P limited for a number of years and
the consent it issued for the wastewater discharges requires a significant
reduction in the P levels by September 2014. While HBRC has actively sought to
assist the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council to find a technically feasible
and financially acceptable land based solution for its municipal wastewater
discharges, and even purchased and planted land for that purpose, CHBDC is
proposing to reduce the phosphorus in the wastewater through chemical treatment
in order to meet the effluent quality limits on the consent.
8. Meeting the new effluent standards will make a significant
difference to P concentrations and algal growth in the river.
9. Another source of P is sediment. Stock exclusion from
water ways is proposed to minimise the amount of sediment getting into the
water. This will improve the water quality for
swimming and fishing. Water quality limits will be set for phosphorus and the
Council’s land management team will target sub-catchments with high phosphorus
levels to minimise sediment discharges and other sources of phosphorus
discharges.
10. Thirdly,
nitrate concentration in the rivers will be managed to protect aquatic species
from nitrate toxicity effects and nitrogen load limits will be set for the
catchment. HBRC initiated new research on nitrate toxicity for native fish
(inanga) and mayfly which found that these species are more tolerant to nitrate
concentrations than rainbow trout and the even more sensitive lake trout. The
proposed levels provide good protection for trout species and given the higher
tolerance of inanga, an even higher protection to other species.
11. Fourthly,
the exclusion of stock from waterways, riparian planting and nutrient
management plans required as part of the mitigation measures for the storage
scheme will allow stream banks and rivers to recover to provide improved
habitat for aquatic species including long fin eel and other native fish
species. The contractual arrangement between irrigator and scheme owner would
enable access to water to be withheld if these practices as conditions of
supply are not met.
Consultation Process
12. The purpose of the
consultation was to integrate the Ruataniwha Water Storage project into the
options for the future management of land and water in the Tukituki
Catchment. It provided four choices to consider, two without storage (A and
B) and two with storage (C and D). The choices considered different minimum
flow regimes and different water quality limits for nitrate.
13. The consultation on the
Tukituki Choices discussion document is an ‘informal’ non-statutory process.
Council is not required to do it but it is considered to be good planning
practice. Policies and rules for land and water management in the Tukituki
River Catchment are to be contained in the Regional Resource Management Plan.
This will be done by way of a ‘Plan Change’ which follows a formal statutory
process.
14. While Council has been
actively engaging with key stakeholders over the last two years specifically
around the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project, the Tukituki Choices process has
provided stakeholders who are directly affected by decisions around land and
water management, and the wider regional community, with an opportunity to
comment on possible land and water management options, the role of storage, and
to indicate what is important to them.
15. The community was
advised of this opportunity in a number of ways:
15.1. Direct mail-out of the
Tukituki Choices Discussion Document to stakeholders
15.2. Public notices in the
community newspapers across the region
15.3. Special edition of
‘Our Place’ delivered to all households (55,000) in the region
15.4. Presentations at three
public meetings and two breakfast meetings
16. It was also the topic of
discussion at an EIT led public meeting.
17. The community has
therefore been well informed of the opportunity to comment on Tukituki Choices.
Number of Responses Received and
Analysis of Responders
18. A total of 163 responses
have been received. The table below shows an analysis of responders. It
provides an understanding of which sectors of the community have responded and
an understanding of their key drivers. Decisions around water allocation,
minimum flows and water quality limits can have financial impacts on people who
are currently taking water for their business operations and who are farming
the land.
19. If storage proceeds,
irrigators will face very significant financial decisions in the future in
return for water security and the local community will also face changes.
|
Responder
Category
|
Number
of Comments Received
|
|
Irrigators /
Landowners in the catchment
|
44
|
|
Iwi
organisations (included Marae)
|
4
|
|
Industry
Sector
|
18
|
|
Statutory
Organisations (eg TAs, Department of Conservation, Conservation Board,
HBF&G)
|
6
|
|
Non-statutory
Environmental / Recreational Groups
|
8
|
|
Individuals
outside the catchment
|
127
|
|
Total
|
163
|
20. A summary of the key
issues raised will be presented at the meeting.
Where to from here?
21. These responses will
also be considered by the Regional Planning Committee at its meeting on 7
November 2012. The Regional Planning Committee will consider draft objectives,
policies, methods and rules for the Tukituki Plan Change in a workshop
session. It is anticipated that an additional Regional Planning Committee
meeting will need to be scheduled to formally consider the plan change and make
recommendations to the Council to adopt the plan change for public
notification.
22. Decision
Making Process
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 report on the Tukituki Choices responses.
|
|
Helen Codlin
Group
Manager Strategic Development
|
|
Attachment/s
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Maori
Committee
Tuesday 30 October 2012
SUBJECT: Update on Winter Air Quality Results
& Heat Smart Update
Reason for Report
1. This report is for
information only and presents the results of air quality monitoring,
specifically PM10 monitoring, in the Napier and Hastings airsheds
during the winter of 2012, including a comparison to previous years.
2. Also provided is a
summary of findings from the air quality modelling project undertaken by Golder
Associates in 2011/12. The purpose of the modelling was to estimate the
reduction in emissions needed to meet the National Environmental Standard (NES)
for PM10 and to investigate the transport of PM10 between
and within airsheds.
3. In tandem with the
modelling project was work undertaken by Environet Ltd which aimed to put the
modelling projections into the context of measures already in place to manage
PM10 emissions from domestic heating and whether these are likely to
be sufficient to achieve the NES.
4. Finally, a brief
mention is made of the results from the recently completed PM10
screening monitoring campaign in Waipukurau that was conducted for a period of
one year.
Background
5. Prior to this year, the
NES for PM10 (50µgm-3 averaged over 24 hours) has been exceeded every
winter in the Napier and Hastings airsheds since continuous PM10 monitoring
was established in both cities in 2006.
6. The NES regulations
require that by September 2016 the Napier airshed must not exceed the standard
more than once per year and the Hastings airshed no more than three times. By
September 2020 both airsheds must not exceed the standard more than once per
year. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is responsible for ensuring the standard is
met.
7. Investigations into the
sources of PM10 within these airsheds identified that fires used for
domestic heating are the primary contributor to measured concentrations.
Council put in place a number of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to
reduce emissions from this source. These include a ban on open fires and the
gradual phase-out of older wood burners as well as providing funding assistance
for conversions to clean forms of heating through the Heatsmart scheme.
8. The effectiveness of
those measures should, over time, be evident in the concentrations of PM10
being measured and it is anticipated that concentrations will progressively
decrease as the dates for NES compliance draw near.
PM10 monitoring 2006-2012
9. The measured PM10
concentrations (24 hour averages) for Napier from 2006 to September 2012 are
shown in Figure 1. Typically the NES has been exceeded 3-5 times each year but
for the first time since continuous monitoring began, no measurements exceeded
the standard during the 2012 winter, with the highest concentration being 49.4 µgm-3.
Figure 1: Daily PM10 (µgm-3) concentrations at Marewa
Park Napier from 2006 to September 2012.
10. The measured PM10
concentrations (24 hour averages) for Hastings from 2006 to September 2012 are
shown in Figure 2. Prior to this year the NES has been exceeded 12-28 times
each year but only 10 occasions were observed during the 2012 winter. The
highest concentration recorded was 59 µgm-3 (which is the
lowest winter maximum since continuous monitoring began at the St John’s site).
Figure 2: Daily PM10 (µgm-3) concentrations at St
John’s College, Hastings, from 2006 to September 2012.
11. Air quality and
meteorology are closely linked due to the role weather has in dispersing
pollutants and providing the conditions which lead to the need for home
heating. It is important to consider differences in winter weather when trying
to assess any variations of PM10 concentrations from year to year.
This is done by taking the average of PM10 concentrations only on
days when the NES is most likely to be exceeded, otherwise known as
“normalised” concentrations. Normalising concentrations to account for varying
weather conditions is a widely accepted practice amongst Regional Councils and
typically involves performing a regression tree analysis to identify the
meteorological conditions associated with high pollution days. Such an analysis
was undertaken by Environet Ltd for the Napier and Hastings airsheds.
12. In both Napier and
Hastings the normalised winter PM10 concentration in 2012 was lower
than the previous 6 years (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Normalised winter PM10
concentrations (µgm-3) for the Napier and Hastings airsheds
from 2006-2012.
13. It is important to note
that the PM10 standard must not be breached for five years before an
airshed can be deemed non-polluting for the purpose of determining whether
significant new discharges from industry require offsets.
Airshed modelling
14. In 2011 Golder
Associates started a project modelling PM10 concentrations in the
Napier and Hastings airsheds based on monitoring data up to 2010. The purpose
was to provide an estimate of the spatial distribution of PM10, to
quantify transport of the pollutant between and within airsheds and to update
projected reductions in emissions required to meet the NES. The main findings
from this exercise were:
14.1. The peak modelled PM10
(24 hour average) was relatively high in Marewa (the site of monitoring) but
the concentration is potentially higher in Pirimai.
14.2. The St John’s site in
Hastings is relatively well placed, being within a ring of peak PM10
levels around central Hastings.
14.3. Very little of the PM10
in Napier’s Airzone 1 originates in Hastings and vice versa. Nearly all exceedances
of the NES in Napier would still occur if there were no emissions in Hastings
and vice versa.
14.4. Dispersion within
airsheds is significant. Approximately 30-40% of modelled PM10 at
Marewa Park originates within the Marewa Census Area Unit (CAU) with the
largest contributions from other CAUs coming from those lying to the west and
south. Approximately 30-60% of modelled PM10 at St John’s College
originates from the Mayfair CAU, with the largest contribution from other CAUs
coming from Parkvale to the south.
14.5. The overall reduction
in emissions, from 2010 levels, required to meet the NES is 44% in Napier and
48% in Hastings. This includes an “unmanageable” contribution from natural
sources so the estimated reduction in emissions from domestic heating is 47%
and 50% for Napier and Hastings respectively.
PM10 Management
15. Environet Ltd compared
the modelling projections with the reductions that are anticipated from
implementing the regulatory and non-regulatory measures adopted by Council. The
initial aim of those measures was for Napier and Hastings to reach compliance
with the NES in 2020.
16. Management plans
produced for Napier and Hastings by Environet are appended. The main conclusion
is that the rules and incentives (provided by HeatSmart) currently in place
should be sufficient to achieve the NES.
17. The main focus of HBRC’s
HeatSmart programme is the phasing out and replacement of domestic fires that
do not meet current national emission standards. In order to meet exceedance
targets for PM10 it has been estimated that HBRC would need to
financially support the replacement of 10,000 domestic fires by 2020. The fire
replacement target for HeatSmart up to 30 September 2012 was 1094. The actual
number of replacements taking up HBRC grants/loans has been 1515, and
the number accessing EECA subsidies has been 2637.
18. Home insulation
incentives and the Dry Wood Scheme also contribute to the reduction of PM10.
Since 2009 766 homes have taken up HBRC financial assistance for insulation.
Compared to national trends for insulation and clean heat take up through EECA
schemes Hawke’s Bay continues to perform well, with 23% of houses in the Napier
and Hastings airsheds accessing funding compared to a national average of 13%.
PM10 Monitoring in Waipukurau
19. Screening monitoring for
PM10 was undertaken in Waipukurau from June 2011 to June 2012 with
samples being taken every three days and 24 hour averages calculated. The
purpose of screening monitoring is to collect data where no information about
PM10 concentrations currently exist and to determine whether high
concentrations are observed. This type of monitoring utilises instruments that
do not comply with the NES regulations so the results can provide an indication
only of whether the NES for PM10 might be exceeded.
20. Figure 4 shows a pie
chart of results from PM10 monitoring in Waipukurau. The standard of
50 µgm-3 was not exceeded on any of the sample days. The
highest concentration recorded was 41 µgm-3 and for the
most part air quality was good or excellent (less than 16.6 µgm-3). It is quite possible that sampling every three
days could miss an occurrence of high concentrations however it is noted that
on two days when samples were taken the NES was exceeded in Hastings and on one
of those days the NES was also exceeded in Napier.
Figure 4: Pie chart showing the percentage of samples from PM10
monitoring in Waipukurau that fall within categories of NES Exceedance (>50µgm-3), Alert (33.3-50 µgm3), Acceptable (16.6-33.3 µgm-3), Good (5-16.6 µgm-3) and Excellent (<5 µgm-3).
Decision Making
Process
21. 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 report.
|
|
Kathleen Kozyniak
Senior
Scientist Climate & Air
|
Mark Heaney
Heat
Smart Programme Coordinator
|
|
Iain Maxwell
Group
Manager Resource Management
|
Liz Lambert
Group
Manager External Relations
|
Attachment/s
|
1View
|
Airshed
Action Plan for Hastings
|
|
|
|
2View
|
Airshed
Action Plan for Napier
|
|
|
