I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

9.30am

Reception Lounge Level 2
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

 

 

Cr Ross Clow

 

 

Cr Chris Darby

 

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

Member Liane Ngamane

 

 

Cr John Watson

 

 

Member Karen Wilson

 

 

 

 

Ex-officio:

Mayor Len Brown, JP

 

 

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Crispian Franklin

Democracy Advisor

 

23 May 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6205

Email: crispian.franklin@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

Areas of Activity

 

·         Management and monitoring of Auckland’s bio-diversity and eco-systems including natural hazards

·         Sustainability frameworks for natural resource management

·         Projects and programmes to deliver on energy management and climate change targets

·         Environmental initiatives including coastal and freshwater management

·         Environmental and climate change impacts of waste management

·         Facilitating partnerships and collaborative funding models to support environmental initiatives

 

Responsibilities

 

Within the specified area of activity the Committee is responsible for:

 

·         In accordance with the work programme agreed with the parent committee, developing strategy and policy, including any agreed community consultation, to recommend to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

·         Acting as a community interface for consultation on policies and as a forum for raising community concerns, while ensuring community engagement is complementary to that undertaken by local boards

·         Making decisions within delegated powers

 

Powers

 

All powers necessary to perform the Committee’s responsibilities

 

Except:

 

(a)     powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b)     where the Committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only

(c)     where a matter is the responsibility of another committee or a local board

(d)     the approval of expenditure that is not contained within approved budgets

(e)     the approval of expenditure of more than $2 million

(f)      the approval of final policy

(g)     deciding significant matters for which there is high public interest and which are controversial

(h)     the commissioning of reports on new policy where that policy programme of work has not been approved by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

 

 

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

5.1     Sea Cleaners - Hayden Smith                                                                             7

5.2     Personal Exposure and Noise and Air Pollution in the City Centre (PENAP) - Greg McKeown                                                                                                              8

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          8

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          9

9          Climate Risk Management – Insights from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

This report was not available at the time of print and will be available under a separate cover.

 

10        Low Carbon Auckland: A proposed action plan and governance options          11

11        CBD air quality: Personal Exposure to Noise and Air Pollution study.                73

12        Update on the ‘Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari’ (Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan) Project                                                                                                                         127

13        Update on Environment Strategic Action Plan                                                      133

14        LED Road Lighting Conference                                                                               137

15        Mana Whenua and Maori Engagement in the Implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan                                                                                               145

16        Species Prioritisation Framework                                                                           149

17        Otara Lake and Waterways - reconnecting: The possibilities and the challenges 159  

18        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 5 March 2014, as a true and correct record.

 

4          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

5.1       Sea Cleaners - Hayden

Purpose

Hayden Smith, from Sea Cleaners wish to speak to the Committee regarding the removal of litter from the waterways of Auckland and to raise awareness on the issues and implications of marine debris in Auckland Waterways and harbours.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      thank Hayden Smith, from Sea Cleaners for his presentation regarding the work of Sea Cleaners.

 

5.2       Personal Exposure and Noise and Air Pollution in the City Centre (PENAP) - Greg McKeown

Purpose

Greg McKeown, from Heart of the City wish to speak to the Committee regarding the Personal Exposure and Noise and Air Pollution (PENAP) in the city centre. 

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      Thank Greg McKeown, from Heart of the City for his presentation regarding the Personal Exposure and Noise and Air Pollution (PENAP) in the city centre. 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

8          Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

Low Carbon Auckland: A proposed action plan and governance options

 

File No.: CP2014/08973

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report outlines public feedback received on the draft Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. The report seeks endorsement of a finalised Action Plan and consideration of governance arrangements to support effective implementation.

Executive summary

2.       The draft Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan (LCAAP or Action Plan) was released on 7 April for the purpose of informal public feedback.  Feedback was received from 178 respondents.  Overall 74 per cent of respondents broadly supported the aims and aspirations of the plan.  A report summarising the key points of feedback and proposed revisions to the Action Plan is presented in Attachment A. Overall four key issues were raised:

·      Widespread support for the overall vision, but concern that the targets were too low and unambitious.

·      Concern that several actions pre-empted the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and the use of mandatory language in a non-statutory document was inappropriate.

·      Consideration that the introduction of sustainable building standards, point of sale requirements and streamlining of consent processes for buildings that demonstrate best practice sustainable design is inappropriate, unworkable and would pose potentially perverse impacts on economic growth.

·      Opposition to the promotion of electricity over the direct use of natural gas for specified residential and commercial uses on the basis that electricity is less carbon intensive. Some respondents argued that the underpinning analysis is erroneous and limited in the scope of factors it considers.

3.       The changes we are proposing in response to these key issues and other feedback are shown in the revised Action Plan as Attachment B. These changes are supported and recommended by members of the Low Carbon Auckland Steering Group.

4.       The multi-faceted nature and sheer breadth and scale of the Action Plan and the complex issues it addresses requires new ideas, a systems thinking approach and collaborative action. Collaborative action should involve multiple partners operating in a dynamic environment where new technologies and opportunities will arise at pace. This in turn demands an innovative approach to the governance architecture for implementation.

5.       Attachment C presents analysis of three governance options to support Auckland’s low carbon, energy resilient transformation. We consider that collective action facilitated through a ‘self-organising network’ of partners via action-focused teams (Option 2b) will enable the greatest capacity for innovation while leveraging skills and revenue generation from those best placed and incentivised to provide them. The self-organising network of partners would be unified by a common agenda (set and overseen by a ‘partnership’ governance group) and supported by an independent, third party backbone organisation.  A phased process is outlined whereby the model would be self-financing within 12 months.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      endorse the proposed Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan (Attachment B), as recommended by members of the Low Carbon Auckland Steering Group.

b)      recommend that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan (Attachment B).

c)      endorse the self-organising network (Option 2b) as the ideal end state governance arrangement for effective implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan, and the establishment of a cross-sector stewardship group (Option 2a) as a transition step.

d)      recommend that the current Low Carbon Auckland Steering Group is reconvened to oversee the process for establishing a cross-sector stewardship group (Option 2a).

e)      delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer and the Committee Chair to make any final editorial changes to the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan prior to reporting to Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

 

Feedback on the Draft Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan

6.       LCAAP was released for informal public feedback on 7 April.  Feedback was received from 178 respondents.  Overall 74 per cent of respondents supported the aims and aspirations of the plan. 

7.       A summary table of the feedback and our response to that feedback is outlined in Attachment A. Recommended revisions to LCAAP are shown as tracked changes in Attachment B.

8.       Overall four key issues were raised by respondents:

Targets are too low and unambitious

9.       Despite widespread support for the overall aims and aspirations of the Action Plan, there was some concern that the headline target and key policy-specific targets were too low and unambitious.

10.     There was strong support for more aspirational targets in the following areas:

·        Public transport, cycling and reduction in transport-related fossil fuel consumption;

·        Energy efficiency and renewable energy generation;

·        Wider application of Greenstar ratings to include all new houses;

·        Waste to energy generation from sewage and landfill gas.

 

Our response:

Support minor enhancements to targets related to the uptake of solar photovoltaics by 2020 and removal of the lower range of targets relating to the reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled.

Targets will be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure they remain relevant and drive continuous improvement.

See Attachment B for revised narrative text page 71 and revised energy and transport targets on pages 74 and 75.

Pre-empting the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

11.     There was concern from a number of corporate submitters that some actions, notably sustainable building design standards, may pre-empt the outcomes of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) process. Several respondents regarded the use of mandatory language in a non-statutory document as inappropriate and should be amended accordingly.

 

Our response:

Reword key actions and narratives in Section 6 (‘Transforming our built environment and greening infrastructure’) to remove mandatory language or the pre-empting of the outcomes of the PAUP.

See Attachment B for revised narrative and Actions 1, 6 and 7 on pages 46 to 47.

Opposition to buildings standards, streamlining the consent processes and point of sale requirements

12.     A small group of corporate-sector respondents were opposed to:

·        The introduction of buildings standards for commercial and industrial buildings, stating that such provisions were impractical and unreasonable, and should be voluntary.

·        The introduction of an obligation on developers and/or landlords to disclose the energy and water performance and design standards of commercial and industrial buildings at the point of sale, rent or lease. These respondents believed such provisions would impose an unreasonable burden on developers, with no economic justification.

·        Streamlining the consent process for buildings that demonstrate best practice sustainable design. This was considered inappropriate and unworkable and to have a negative impact on other desired outcomes such as economic development.

 

Our response:

The narrative notes that provisions in relation to buildings standards and disclosure at the point of sale, rent or lease are dependent on the PAUP outcomes.

Revise provisions that streamline the consent process for buildings that demonstrate best practice sustainable design to place focus on the removal of barriers.

See Attachment B for changes to the narrative and to Actions 6, 7 and 11 on pages 46 to 47.

Opposition to promoting electricity over the direct use of gas

13.     Several submitters from the energy sector were opposed to proposed provisions to promote electricity over the direct use of natural gas for specified residential and commercial uses. These provisions were included on the basis of independent analysis that concluded that electricity is less carbon intensive.

14.     This analysis was undertaken on behalf of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). Several submitters believed it oversimplified some assumptions and calculations that relate for example to ‘time of use’ and the carbon intensity of the associated electricity generation. They also believed that the analysis did not adequately consider broader issues of energy resilience and affordability.  These submitters cite an alternative report commissioned by the Gas Industry Company[1] that presents the direct use of natural gas as the most GHG efficient option based on a different set of assumptions.

Our response:

Revise narrative  (pages 36 to 37) and Action 5.5 to read:

Investigate and promote the most appropriate, GHG-efficient energy options for heating water, heating and cooling living spaces and for cooking in Auckland.

Delete Action 5.7:

Promote the use of renewable electricity for heating and cooking at residential and commercial premises.

Carry out a peer review of analysis by end of 2014.

Governance Options

15.     As discussed with the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee at its meeting in February 2014 this report seeks consideration of governance arrangements to support the effective implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan.

16.     LCAAP sets out a 30-year pathway and a 10-year plan that will guide the first stage of the city’s transformation.  The multi-faceted nature and breadth and scale of Low Carbon Auckland and the complex issues it seeks to address requires new thinking and collaborative action by multiple actors operating in a highly dynamic environment. This in turn demands an innovative approach to the governance architecture for implementation. 

17.     We have taken a ‘first principles’ approach to determine appropriate governance models to implement and catalyse a low carbon, energy resilient Auckland. The model needs to:

·        oversee the implementation of the LCAAP

·        mobilise social change

·        enable innovation

18.     Attachment B presents detailed analysis of three governance options. A summary of findings and recommendations are presented below.

Option 1: Auckland Council ‘Goes it Alone’

19.     In this option the current Steering Group would be reconfigured to lead the implementation of the LCAAP. This group would meet on a regular basis as ambassadors with responsibility to champion the effective implementation of LCAAP. This option would involve Auckland Council staff providing project management of LCAAP implementation and secretariat support to the Steering Group. There would also be some costs in relation to communications, marketing and general administration.

20.     Auckland Council would remain largely responsible for setting the agenda and strategic direction of the Steering Group. Membership of the Steering Group would be voluntary.

21.     While this option would provide council with clear line of sight across actions, the LCAAP would be perceived as a Council initiative and its reach and impact would be limited in scope to overseeing LCAAP implementation.

 

Figure 1: Auckland Council ‘Goes it Alone’ (Option 1)

 

Option 2a: A Partnership Approach (Recommended as a transition step to Option 2b)

22.     In this option Auckland Council would be one partner in a collective approach governed by a ‘Stewardship Group’ of senior leaders from different sectors. The group would commit to a common agenda to ensure the effective implementation of LCAAP.

23.     In addition to implementation of the 112 actions in LCAAP, the Stewardship Group would actively look for innovative flagship projects to support and invest in. Leaders would therefore be selected with regard to their ability to enable innovation and mobilise social change. 

24.     The Stewardship Group would make governance decisions together and all members would share the cost of resourcing the stewardship group and flagship projects.   This approach is in line with the collaborative governance approaches Auckland Council has adopted in implementing key strategies including Thriving Communities and the Economic Development Strategy’s shared agenda.

25.     In this option, Auckland Council would provide the same level of commitment as option 1. However its role and mandate would be modified in line with the expanded role and strategic oversight capability of the Stewardship Group and the flagship projects it chooses to implement. The Stewardship Group would drive the development of business cases and identify sources of funding for these projects.   

26.     This model is a slightly more mature and ambitious approach than Option 1 as it offers greater scope and influence for transformation through the delivery of flagship projects. However budgets and potential leverage of the flagship projects would be restricted by the resource within the Stewardship Group, and could therefore be limited in numbers and reflect the interests of the Stewardship Group members.

27.     This option is therefore viewed as a vital but interim step for the first 6 – 12 months. The Stewardship Group could play a key role in overseeing the transition process to the most effective long-term governance structure. 

 

Figure 2: A Partnership Approach (Option 2a)

 

 

 

 

 

Option 2b: Self-Organising Network (Recommended as the ideal end state)

28.     In this option, Auckland Council is one partner of a much broader network of partners working collaboratively in self-organising, action-focused teams, participating in (or leading) action teams that match its interest, skills and expertise. 

29.     The broader network of partners is unified by a common agenda set and overseen by a ‘Partnership’ Governance Group.  This group is supported by an independent, third party Backbone Organisation.

30.     The true value of this ‘collective action’ approach is enabled by the leadership, expertise, innovation and energy generated through multi-organisation partnerships and networks. Some of these ‘teams’ are already in existence. Importantly, the network builds on the momentum, leadership, collaborative partnerships and action.  For example it supports and provides the opportunity to recognise the growing social enterprise sector and the work of organisations such as Generation Zero, Association for the Promotion of Electric Vehicles (APEV), Sustainable Business Network and the Sustainable Business Council. 

Third Party Coordination

31.     In Option 2b oversight and coordination of the collaborative network, its partners and initiatives resides outside Auckland Council.  These functions are provided through the establishment of an intermediary backbone organisation.  The organisation would also have responsibility for supporting new action-focused teams, fundraising for joint projects mediating conflict, helping information to flow and building the overall capacity to work towards its desired outcomes.

32.     The Backbone organisation would work in partnership with the Partnership Governance Group to prioritise projects and identify themes.

Self-financing

33.     As a network partner, Auckland Council would commit to co-funding the Backbone Organisation. The Backbone Organisation would pull in additional investment to support the action–focused teams.

34.     This option should not require any additional resourcing beyond either Options 1 or 2a. However, by committing to co-fund a third-party backbone organisation, this resource and the coordination and secretariat functions would reside outside of Council. 

35.     Importantly, this option is designed to be self-financing within 12 months, generating its own revenue streams by leveraging external funding (accessed and managed via the Backbone Organisation).  

36.     While coordination and secretariat functions would reside outside of Council thereby reducing line of sight, this option would empower greater influence and coordination across a much broader range of activities.

Figure 3: Self-Organising Network (Option 2b)

 

A Recommended Process of Transition

37.     Given the need to take truly transformative actions to catalyse a low carbon, energy resilient Auckland it is considered that collective action through a self-organising network of action-focused teams (option 2b) will allow the greatest capacity for innovation while leveraging skills and revenue generation from those best placed and incentivised to provide them. Option 1 and Option 2a are unlikely to result in the required level of transformation or the required level of collective buy-in from other organisations.

38.     It is recommended that the Committee endorses Option 2b via option 2a as a ‘transition step’ to be completed within 6 months (see figure 4). Taken together Options 2a and 2b present an innovation road map that can evolve as the project builds in complexity and as more diverse partners get involved. This will ensure the effective implementation of LCAAP, provide for mobilisation within Auckland of wide social change and drive innovation while being self-financing within 12 months.

Figure 4: Transition of Governance Functions

 

Next Steps

39.     It is proposed that the current Low Carbon Auckland Steering Group is reconvened to oversee the process for establishing a cross-sector stewardship group (Option 2a) within three months.  A key task of the new Stewardship Group will be to develop the process by which the collaborative partnership model develops into a self-organising network.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

40.     Local boards have been engaged at all key stages in the development of LCAAP and officers have worked to identify the levels of interest and involvement sought by each local board. A copy of the proposed work programme was sent to all local boards in early 2012, and a copy of the discussion document and briefings were provided to all interested local boards in July 2012. An initial draft Action Plan was workshopped with councillors and local board representatives on 19 June 2013 and an update was provided on 12 December 2013. 

41.     In 2014 a series of briefings on the draft Action Plan were held for interested local boards. This was taken up by Pukatāpapa, Franklin and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki. These local boards plus Waitematā, Waiheke and Hibiscus and Bays provided feedback which was supportive of the LCAAP. Pukatāpapa, Waitematā and Waiheke local boards also stated their interest in participating in pilot projects. Waitematā Local Board has also developed a Low Carbon Local Action Plan.

Māori impact statement

42.     A Māori Working Group was established to assist Council to:

·     Identify issues and opportunity areas for Māori in relation to energy efficiency, resilience and security and climate change mitigation.

·     Identify priority actions for the draft Action Plan.

·     Review recommended actions arising from all technical working groups.

·     Provide advice to the Steering Group on the working groups’ recommendations.

43.     The Māori Working Group has developed a stand-alone Māori Action Plan in response to these objectives. Based on the guidance of the Māori Working Group, the issues, actions and opportunities of importance to Māori have been woven into the parent draft Action Plan.  The standalone document will form the basis for on-going recommendations into LCAAP. The Māori Action Plan was reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 February 2014.

44.     At a project governance level, the Independent Māori Statutory Board was represented on the Steering Group and the Māori Working Group is represented at Steering Group meetings.

45.     Some Māori organisations have already indicated a strong interest in being involved in the implementation of LCAAP. Officers are currently working with a representative of the Māori Working Group and Te Waka Angamua in seeking to engage interested iwi on the LCAAP and the Māori Action Plan by holding a series of face to face workshops during the next two to three months.  The aim of this engagement will be to seek feedback on the Māori Action Plan and to provide opportunity for broader active Māori involvement and leadership in the implementation of actions of particular interest and importance to Māori.  

Implementation

46.     Resourcing and budget requirements associated with the implementation of the LCAAP and proposed governance arrangements as set out in this report will be subject to the 2015-2025 Long Term Planning process. LCAAP will be reflected in the 2014-2017 Statements of Intent of all CCOs.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan - a summary report on public feedback.

21

b

Proposed Low Carbon Auckland Action plan with track changes  (Under Separate Cover)

 

cView

Low Carbon Innovation Roadmap: Governance options for implementation

47

      

Signatories

Authors

Robert Perry - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

Draft Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan – A summary report on of public feedback

 

1.0          Purpose Statement

To update the Committee on the key issues arising from the public/ stakeholder feedback on the draft Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan (LCAAP). 

2.0          Synopsis

The LCAAP was open for public/ stakeholder feedback from Monday 10 March 2014 to Monday 7 April 2014. It was a non-statutory process and the main feedback mechanism was a survey questionnaire on Council’s website. The link was sent to all stakeholders who had been involved in the process, distributed to the People’s Panel, highlighted on the Council’s website and mentioned in articles in the March edition of Our Auckland and in the New Zealand Herald’s Element Magazine. 132 survey responses were received as well as 46 written submissions.

3.0          Analysis

Attachment A outlines the key questions and a summary of responses to the questionnaire.     

Overall, 74% of survey submitters supported the aims and aspirations of the LCAAP and 26% did not support it. However, within those figures there was clear polarity of views, with 60% strongly supporting the aims and aspirations of the LCAAP and 20% strongly disagreeing. Although LCAAP is a plan for Auckland, many submitters viewed the plan purely as a plan for Council. Overall, there were three high level viewpoints taken by submitters when considering the reasonableness of the LCAAP’s overall targets and these broadly followed the survey results. These were: 

 

I.     Those who were highly supportive of the reasons why we had produced an action plan and the need to do things now. Many of these respondents thought that the LCAAP lacked urgency and had unambitious targets considering the extent of potential climate change challenges. These responses want greater urgency, more challenging targets and much tighter deadlines.

 

II.    Those who thought we had pitched the targets about right, noting the resources and opportunities available currently.

 

III.    Those who disagreed with the aims and objectives of the LCAAP.  They wanted Council to do nothing and to stop spending any money on this strategy. Those who held this position thought that the actions were outside local government’s area of responsibility, and/or questioned the climate change science. Some responses stated that the targets and actions need to be removed since they will destroy the economy and our way of life and make Auckland an unaffordable city, therefore an ‘unliveable city’.

 

The individual points of feedback have been analysed and the significant themes arising from this analysis summarised in Attachment B. These points have been reviewed by the LCAAP subject matter experts and we have included in those tables our proposed response.  

 

 

Key themes identified:

a)    Support the vision, but the overall target is seen as too low and unambitious

This was especially so for the 2020 GHG reduction target which was considered too low compared to comparative international cities. It was also suggested that achieving this short term target was more important than achieving long term targets, so it was therefore important that the actions in the LCAAP actually achieve the 2020 target, whereas the LCAAP data suggests we wouldn’t.

 

b)    Individual targets are seen by many as too low

Many submitters thought we needed more ambition/ aspiration for most areas within the LCAAP. For example, there was strong support for more aspirational targets in the following areas; Transportcycling, public transport and fossil fuel reductions; Energy - energy efficiency targets and uptake of solar photovoltaics; Buildings – Greenstar ratings should be increased to ‘all’ new houses; Waste - sewage to energy and energy from landfills.

 

c)    LCAAP is seen by some as pre-empting the Unitary plan

There is a concern from a number of corporate submitters over policies in the LCAAP that also relate to the draft  Unitary Plan (e.g. actions on sustainable building design standards, Greenstar ratings and the Auckland Design Manual) and these are seen to pre-empt the proposed Unitary Plan process which is at an early stage. They question the use of mandatory language (e.g. 'require', 'apply', 'issue') in the LCAAP actions for these items, especially since the LCAAP is a non-statutory document. They suggest that either the LCAAP is put on hold until the Unitary Plan is made operative or alternatively, they suggest the language is changed so that it does not, in any way, pre-empt the Unitary Plan process and the LCAAP makes it totally clear that a number of the outcomes in the LCAAP are dependent on the outcome of the Unitary Plan.   

 

d)    There is opposition to introducing buildings standards for commercial and industrial buildings, streamlining the consent processes and point of sale requirements

                Corporate submitters also questioned the value of the following three actions:

 

·    Requiring commercial and industrial development to meet New Zealand Green Building Council Greenstar 4 star standard or equivalent.  This was considered impractical and unreasonable, and they suggested it should only be voluntary.

 

·    Introducing an obligation on developers and/or landlords to disclose the energy and water performance and design standards of commercial and industrial buildings at the point of sale, rent or lease. For these submitters, the method of implementation is unclear, imposes another unreasonable burden on developers, with no economic justification and they suggested it be deleted.

 

·    Streamlining the consent process for buildings that demonstrate best practice sustainable design was considered inappropriate and unworkable. Submitters suggested that there was no reason why buildings that demonstrate best practice sustainable design should be consented faster than other developments (a process usually reserved for large, complex developments and/ or projects of national significance). They believed buildings demonstrating best practice sustainable design will not necessarily achieve other desired outcomes such as economic growth and development.

 

e)    Questioning the LCAAP’s stance of promoting electricity over the direct use of gas

The LCAAP proposal to promote electricity over gas was challenged by a number of submitters who questioned the validity of the EECA analysis on which LCAAP was based. These submitters believed that the underpinning assumptions were factually incorrect/ unproven e.g. analysis confuses average with marginal sources of energy. Submitters cite a report commissioned for Gas Industry Co (2012) that presents an alternative view that is also questioned by some other parts of the industry. It is generally agreed that the issue is complex and the answer always 'situation-specific' as to the “right” fuel choice for consumers. This issue has yet to be resolved.

 

f)    The green growth actions need further explanation

A submitter thought the green growth actions appear to be after-thoughts and suggested these be linked together by adding a section that lists the numbered green growth actions. This section would explain the reason why the actions have been scattered through the document, and would explain that the green growth actions will be adopted and implemented just as all of the actions listed within the five transformation areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment A - Survey questionnaire responses

 

The survey opened to the general public on Monday 10 March 2014 and closed on Monday 7 April 2014, a total of 132 questionnaire responses were received during that time.   

 

1.      Overall results

 

Question

 

Yes

No

Don’t Know

 

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Are you familiar with the Auckland Low Carbon Strategic Action Plan? (i.e. have you read the draft Action Plan and/or the summary document on the Auckland Council website?)

113

88

15

12

-

-

4

Do these areas of transformation identify the key issues?

79

67

34

29

5

4

4a

Do you agree with and support the aims and aspirations of this plan?

90

74

32

26

-

-

6A

Do you think we have identified appropriate targets?

58

49

54

46

6

5

8A

Do you believe we have identified the right actions?

70

61

38

33

7

6

8F

Will you take action to help us reach the targets set out in the plan?

84

72

26

22

7

6

 

2.      Question 4a: Do you agree with and support the aims and aspirations of this plan? (N =122)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

I agree and support the aims and aspirations of this plan

25

20

7

6

30

25

60

49

 

3.      Number of responses per question

 

Question

 

No of responses to this question

 

Total responses to the survey

132

 

1

Are you familiar with the Auckland Low Carbon Strategic Action Plan? (i.e. have you read the draft Action Plan and/or the summary document on the Auckland Council website?)

128

4

Do these areas of transformation identify the key issues?

118

4a

Do you agree with and support the aims and aspirations of this plan?

122

4b

We have identified five areas of Transformation to give Aucklanders’ access to clean, affordable energy and reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs). Of the following five areas of Transformation, which is most important to you? Please rank them on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being most important to you, 5 being least important to you

116

6A

Do you think we have identified appropriate targets?

118

7A

You have indicated that you don't think we have identified appropriate targets. What targets do you believe we should set?

53

8A

Do you believe we have identified the right actions?

115

8B

What else do you think that we could be doing?

103

8C

How should these actions in this plan be funded?

103

8D

There are many examples of individuals, communities and businesses already leading positive change. Do you know of any individuals or organisations that are leading the way? If so, please provide details.

70

8E

Who do you think should be involved in delivering the actions proposed in the plan?

91

8F

Will you take action to help us reach the targets set out in the plan?

117

9A

You have indicated that you will take action to help us reach the targets set out by the plan. What actions will you take? What support do you think you need?

110

9B

Do you have any further comments or feedback on this action plan?

81

 

4.      Question 4b:   We have identified five areas of Transformation to give Aucklanders’ access to clean, affordable energy and reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs). Of the following five areas of Transformation, which is most important to you? Please rank them on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being most important to you, 5 being least important to you          (N =116)

 

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

i - Transport

48

41

22

19

15

13

10

9

21

18

ii - Energy

21

18

30

26

29

25

22

19

14

12

iii - Built environment

7

6

30

26

35

30

32

28

12

10

iv - Waste management

14

12

21

18

23

20

32

28

26

22

v - Forestry

26

22

13

11

14

12

20

17

43

37

 


5. Question 8c -
How should these actions in this plan be funded?

 

Essentially there were three broad responses to this question, being;

 

I.     Those that clearly supported the action plan. Their response was to suggest approaches like taxing or levying companies and businesses, especially those who caused the carbon emissions. There were a wide variety of suggestions for potential sources of funding that were mostly about different types of levies or taxes that could be imposed.

 

II.    This viewpoint suggested sponsorship and funding from the willing, which could include businesses, local government, central government, and from not for profit organisations. This approach suggested caution for spending too much ratepayer money on the project.  Some suggested a public / private partnership model should be explored between innovative organisations. A variation to this viewpoint was to fund the projects from savings.

 

III.  Those opposed to the action plan believed no ratepayer money should be spent on implementing LCAAP. Some suggested it was a central government function and local government should stick to core functions, whilst others thought that it wasn’t the role of central government either based on the premise that climate science is unproven. Those who held this viewpoint were strongly of the view that it is a diversion from the real problems facing Council.

 

6.            Question 8e - Who do you think should be involved in delivering the actions proposed in the plan?

 

A wide variety of people and organisations were suggested. For example:

 

·    Central Government and its agencies – NZTA, EECA.

·    Council Controlled and Council Organisations – with particular focus on the role of Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Transport.

·    Transport and Freight Companies.

·    Community Organisations and NGOs – e.g. Transition Towns, Cycle Action Auckland.

·    Auckland Chamber of Commerce.

·    Tertiary sector – AUT, University of Auckland

·    Wider education sector – Eco Schools

·    Iwi – e.g. Ngati Whatua O Orakei

·    The Business Sector – including technology companies.

·    Infrastructure Providers – including Vector, TransPower, Waste Companies, Refining NZ Auckland Airport, POAL.

·    Interest groups - Association for Promotion of Electric Vehicles (APEV), the sustainable business network, the Kaipatiki project, SLC & PTS & Ecomatters, transition towns groups, the Bioenergy Association,

·    The community in general.

·    Refining NZ

·    Both Puketāpapa and Waiheke Local Boards were keen to be part of any opportunity to develop/ showcase pilots in their areas.

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

Attachment B - Survey feedback

Introduction sections

 

Feedback area where response is required

Proposed  response

 

Recommend the transparent detailing of how an amalgamation of proposed actions listed in the current iteration of the Plan will accumulate and influence proposed targets.  Cites Figure 3 from Sustainable Sydney 2013 as a desirable inclusion in the Plan.

 

LCAAP currently has the overall abatement ‘wedge’ chart on page 21 showing the abatement contribution from each transformation. LCAAP also has a supporting technical document - TR2014/005 Assessing the carbon abatement reduction potential in Auckland’s energy resilience and low carbon action plan, on Council’s website that explains how the figures in the page 21 chart are built up.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

The Council is moving beyond its remit provided under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, as the Act does not mention the words energy or climate at any point. Furthermore, we believe that an emissions scheme is best located at a central government level. This will allow for a consistent approach by all territorial and unitary authorities.

 

The Auckland Plan required an energy and climate change mitigation strategy to be prepared, the LCAAP. LCAAP is complementary supplementary to the Government’s emission trading scheme and is a regional approach to achieve the national targets. Many of the LCAAP actions cover core Council functions such as infrastructure and regulatory services.

Recommend no further action.

 

There is a lack of detail about HOW you will encourage a change of behaviours amongst the population.

 

Agree. Address through the implementation of LCAAP. Relevant actions include Action 17, page 30 (Transport) – public awareness campaign and Action 2, page 70 that requires an interactive communications and engagement programme.

Recommend no further action.

 

Concerned with the validity of the projections based on the population projections that are unlikely to eventuate.

 

Comment noted. Acknowledge the importance of scenario based planning going forward and the importance of regular reviews to ensure that the assumptions are built on the best data available.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

Low Carbon Auckland does not state whether it is using gross or net emissions.

 

Figures are all gross. The difference between net/ gross depends on the context, for example Figure 3.3 on page 21 shows gross figures as it includes EST contribution and forestry carbon sequestration.

Recommend no further action.

 

The LCAAP does not indicate what Auckland’s current level of emissions are compared to 1990. This makes it very difficult to judge the feasibility of achieving a 10-20% reduction by 2020 compared to 1990.

 

Page 21 - Figure 3.3 Auckland’s proposed pathway to reducing GHG emissions starts at our base year 2009. This shows the 1990 emission levels and the various targets involving the 1990 levels, i.e. 20% of 1990 emissions, 40% and 50%.

Recommend no change.

 

Council's own report (Arup pages 4 & 11) shows that LCA fails to meet its own 2020 target. The plan needs to be revised to ensure that the 2020 target is reached. Achieving the short term targets are more important than achieving distant targets. Costs for delayed action are at least triple if action is delayed by decades.

 

Noted. The programme of actions includes behavioural change and the need for collective action which will take time to achieve.  The LCAAP process is dynamic, and as new data is received, this changes different assumptions and targets. For example, the target for solar photovoltaics to 2020 is now considered understated and is currently being revised upwards.  This and other changes will all help reduce that gap. 

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

Page 12 - Section on “Our daily decisions”: Air travel - Because the purpose of the LCAAP is to encourage personal choices that reduce GHG emissions, Figure 2.2 would be best to show the global emissions of flights taken by Aucklanders, and figure 3.1 should include a component from air travel. Air NZ and other stakeholders can be asked to offer options for Aucklanders to make reductions in their flight emissions – they may be considering a “green fuel” program for some flights to attract travellers who are keen on leading the way on green choices."

 

Noted. Air travel has intentionally been left out of the scope of the LCAAP, due to it being largely governed by international drivers.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

Pages 13- 14 intercity emissions comparison charts – A number of submitters thought Auckland’s  2020 target is too low compared to the cities we are comparing ourselves with, for example Melbourne, Vancouver, Copenhagen and Sydney. Most have targets of 20% reductions by 2020. If Auckland truly aspires to be the world’s most liveable city Council must increase the target for GHG emissions reductions by 2020 to at least 20% and make plans to achieve that target.

 

Noted.  The LCAAP target sets a direction and additional actions can be taken if we reach the target sooner. The target was based on the national target.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

Page 14 - The bubble showing 7 tonnes per person for Auckland is doubtful. The national figure is 17.9 tonnes and although we don’t produce many agriculture emissions, I find it hard to believe that we only produce 40% of the national average per person.

 

No action. LCAAP’s data was supported by independent analysis.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

Page 16 - Add an image to show cycles of future reviews of progress and updates of the LCAAP that will be done and how they will connect with 6-yealy updates to the Auckland Plan.

 

Agree – this would be useful. Section 1 to be amended.

Recommend changes to page 10.

 

Council needs to focus on the big things that will make a significant difference. For example, the table on page 18 shows 40% of personal emissions come from commuting by car and only 1 % from household waste. Surely we should forget about waste and send it all to landfill. An equivalent reduction could come from an easily achieved 2.5% reduction in car commuting, which the new electric trains will probably achieve.

 

Noted. Different transformational areas do have different levels of significance but we need to progress all actions to achieve the overall aspirational targets. 

Recommend no change.

 

Transforming the way we travel

 

Feedback area where response is required

Proposed  response

 

Technical – overview, targets and 30 year pathway

 

 

There is a strong alignment with the Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport Funding which states that NZ's per capita energy use for transport is high compared to many other OECD countries and this offers major opportunities for improvement.

 

Supporting commented noted.

Recommend no further action.

The transport initiatives don’t reflect the constraints and lack of choice for rural Auckland.

 

Noted. A number of the transport actions help indirect, for example, the fuel efficiency measures and alternative fuel development.

Recommend no further action.

 

Suggestion that the Council bases its initiatives on the net present value of the cost per tonne of carbon removal. Using this approach is cost effective and allows the Council to remove the most amount of carbon for the least expenditure.

 

This methodology may have merit in the implementation planning phase when comparing different projects.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

Need to increase the detail pertaining to time bound actions in the proposed Plan.

 

Noted. Will be done in the LCAAP implementation plan.

Recommend no further action.

 

Emissions from international shipping and aviation sectors is missing from the footprint analysis and we urge they are accounted for and to advocate for climate change mitigation in these sectors.

 

Noted. The idea has merit but air travel and international shipping have intentionally been left out of the scope of the LCAAP, since they are largely governed by international drivers. 

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

 

 

Reducing the demand for travel and increasing the use of public transport, walking and cycling

 

 

Strong support for reducing the demand for travel, but concerns expressed by a few corporate submitters that these actions are interfering in the free market by manipulating access to car parking and that any reprioritising of expenditure to provide greater transport choice or reduce private motor vehicle dependency may result in a net reduction in road safety funding.

 

Not supported by the approach taken in LCAAP. Removing parking minimums is less regulation and enables parking to respond to market forces.

Recommend no further action.

 

 

Need to include a target of a quarter or a half of all trips made, are either by bike, walking or public transport.

 

The Auckland Plan has a 45% PT/walking/ cycling target in morning peak by 2041. Council/ Auckland Transport are working to that figure. It is not considered necessary to include in LCAAP at this stage.

Recommend no further action.

 

Higher targets are needed and additional charges for parking, fuel taxation are needed.

 

Noted. Need a balanced approach.

Recommend no further action.

 

The Action Plan does not include any measures about solving the current low occupancy rates of vehicles in Auckland. While existing registered numbers of those who carpool is low in Auckland, carpooling is a cheaply run, effective and efficient means to help alleviate congestion.

 

Mentioned in the plan in action section of Transport - Beach Haven Community Transport. This is a likely candidate along with air travel for behavioural change/community engagement/education efforts that are part of the implementation plan that is yet to be developed.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

TDM goals measured only by numbers of PT trips per person per year. More frequent bus services is key and accompanying baseline/ milestones/ KPIs are needed to report progress.

 

Being addressed through the Letter of Expectation and Statement of Intent of Auckland Transport. It is also being addressed through the ITP development.

Recommend no further action.

 

There was strong support for increased funding for cycling infrastructure so that the network is completed much earlier than scheduled.  Most submitters pointed out that at current funding levels the cycling targets were unlikely to be achieved , for example completing 60% of the cycle network by 2020 and 100% by 2030 or a mode shift to 10% cycle travel.

 

Part of LTP process. This issue is addressed by the Mayor’s Cycle Advisory Group.

Recommend no further action.

 

A number of submitters thought the goals for cycling were too low and that if Council was determined to make cycling a serious mode of transport then a mode share of 20 or 25% by 2040 would be more ambitious.

 

Current cycling mode share is under 1%, so the targets are a radical change. Future Auckland Plans will review these figures and amend if necessary.

Recommend no further action.

 

A small number thought that we already had an excellent cycling network called "roads", but the problem is that people are too afraid to cycle on them due to motorist behaviour.

 

Response not required. International evidence shows good infrastructure is needed to boost cycling.

Recommend no further action.

 

There is a need to provide greater clarity regarding the outcomes sought from each action identified. For example, Action 10 (Complete key public transport projects) could be reframed to capture the important impact that many more modest projects will have on contributing to the desired outcomes. Further explanation on how Council intends to use Low Carbon Auckland regarding prioritising transport interventions would be helpful.

 

Covered by the LTP process rather than an LCAAP action.

Recommend no further action.

 

There was strong support for bus priority measures and public transport (rail, ferry and bus) projects. There was a push for more ambitious targets, examples include:

 

·      aiming for much greater public transport use than the 100 trips per person per year planned by 2040. Without increased targets, the plan fails to capitalise on its considerable potential for low cost emissions reduction and health co-benefit creation.

·      completing a bus network with high coverage on all-day bus lanes on all frequent bus routes by 2020, having an ambitious target for streets with walkable designs e.g. 100% of urban streets by 2020, making public transport, cycling and walking the transport mode of choice by 2020 etc.

·      a near term target for zero emission public transport.

 

New network development captures much of this and is under Action 9. Targets will be reviewed over time.

Recommend no further action.

 

Improving transport efficiency to reduce the consumption of fuel and moving away from the use of fossil fuels

 

 

‘Peak Oil’ as a rationale for reducing reliance on conventional fuels is not a universally accepted concept. Assumptions about future fuel prices need to account for the new price benchmark set by shale oil which has the potential to reduce oil prices.

 

Point noted.  While LCAAP does not refer to ‘peak oil’, price volatility and resource scarcity are critical for ensuring energy resilience.  

Recommend no further action.

 

The LCA target of reducing fossil fuel use by 49% by 2030 is not as ambitious as it could be noting the potential improvements in EV's and fossil fuel vehicles. Suggest 80-90% reduction by 2040.

 

The target is based on current data. LCAAP will be reviewed every 6 years in parallel with the Auckland Plan when there will be an opportunity to review targets using the latest data. 

Recommend no further action at this time.

 

Action 14 - The Council should broaden the targeted trials by investigating introducing an in-service emissions monitoring programme, especially for diesel commercial vehicles.

 

May have merit, but this is the next level of detail. Suggest retaining this idea for consideration during implementation.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

LCAAP over-emphasises the role of emissions from private transport (half of transport emissions, but from a very large fleet pool; whereas, a small percentage of heavy vehicles contribute the other half). A small percentage of vehicles (trucks and buses) are travelling very high annual mileages and emitting a lot of CO2 and these are the vehicles that Council should target.

 

Disagree. LCAAP considers all vehicle types. For example, LCAAP has fuel efficiency targets for both light and heavy fleet vehicles based on projections of current technologies. Refer item above for comment on emission testing. 

Recommend no further action.

 

There is a lack of synergy between the emphasis on inter-regional freight rail in the text and the subsequent action points, none of which touch upon mode shift. If increasing inter-regional freight rail is the goal of this element then suggests rewording these action points.

Refer above. Action 13 is an investigation to search for viable options. LCAAP assumes that future freight hubs are near rail freight stations. More transport planning needs to occur around freight and this will benefit LCAAP.

 Recommend no change.

 

Vehicle emission reduction targets need to be increased, in particular the target of the vehicle km travelled (vkt) should be increased from 20-40%

 

Agree. Suggest that instead of the targets having a range, that the target is the set at the upper level of the range. There is a need to change some ambiguous wording in the text.

 Recommend the VKT targets are modified to remove the range and to keep the upper limits as the new targets. This changes figures on page 24 – Infographics, page 26 – Pathway table and page 73 - Targets Summary. 

 

Whilst updating VKT targets, remove the target on page 73, ‘Freight VKT per $GRP – TBC’.

 

Len Brown in his Herald press release said “get people out of their cars and into electric buses and trains.” Nowhere in the plan does it mention electric buses!

 

Action 19 says start converting the public transport fleet to alternative fuels. This could mean electric, hydrogen, hybrid etc. The bus and ferry fleet is privately owned and therefore market driven.  

Recommend no further action.

 

P26 – Pathways - The item “Widespread opportunities to test drive EVs” is important, but there is no corresponding item in the Actions listed. Action 18 could be re-worded to explicitly include “widespread opportunities to test drive EVs” as a part of the “public awareness campaign”. Alternately a new Action can be added for “widespread opportunities to test drive EVs”.

 

This is covered by Action 17 which is the public awareness campaign.

Recommend no further action.

 

The potential of electric vehicles is underemphasized.

 

LCAAP targets are based on current data which will be periodically updated as new trends emerge.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

Action 16 - As a fleet operator itself, the Council could provide a market incentive for biodiesel and electric vehicle alternatives or through stricter emission standards in its contractors to bus service providers. The use of such technologies would provide a degree of leadership and a demonstration the Council “walks its talk”.

 

The Regional PT Plan already outlines requirements for Auckland that are higher than NZ standards, but Council always pushing for improvements that produce value for money transport outcomes.

Recommend no further action required at this stage.

 

A viable future for biofuels rests with the “drop in” second generation. For the immediate future transport will require a mix of fuels & oil to play a substantial part, therefore we advise caution about overestimating the reduced use of conventional fuels.

 

Noted. Covered by Action 17 – public awareness campaign.

Recommend no change to LCAAP.

 

 

Transforming the way we use and generate energy

 

Feedback area where response is required

Proposed  response

 

Narratives and targets

 

 

 ‘Only 35% of Auckland’s electricity is supplied from renewable sources’:

Statement is misleading & implies Auckland is aiming to become self-sufficient.

 

Agree. To keep the message simple, the LCAAP will use only the national profile figures. The LCAAP text needs to be amended to follow this approach. 

Recommend relevant text on page 33 – ‘Auckland now’ be deleted and changed to take into account Auckland is part of the National grid. The infographics on page 32 also needs to be amended.

 

Increased the target for renewable electricity supply within Auckland to 100% by 2030.

 

Point noted. The LCAAP target is based on the national target of 90% renewable electricity by 2025.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

Define ‘energy’ in the introduction.

 

Agree. Use the Unitary Plan definition.

Recommend add energy to the glossary, page 82 of LCAAP.

 

Assertion of a substantial increase in total energy consumption with the growing population and affluence - is unrealistic given expected resource pressures and flow-on effects of climate change mitigation. The plan should consider other energy paradigms including energy descent planning, i.e. planning for reducing energy use over several decades.

 

Already considered by LCAAP. Already factored in are the complex trends and the different trends for total energy versus per capita energy use.

Recommend no further action.

 

Element 1

 

 

The way to make energy usage more efficient is not to make it more affordable, but dearer so people use less!

 

Noted, but not the approach adopted in LCAAP.

Recommend no change.

 

As well as shifting to cleaner generation we need to reduce demand from about 120 gj/capita to about 40.

 

This is consistent with LCAAP’s approach, which includes per capita reductions for residential, commercial and industrial sectors. Refer targets for energy savings on page 75 under Built Environment and Green Infrastructure.

Recommend no change.

 

Transformations do not identify interventions needed to reduce GHGs from large industries (energy consumption and industrial processes).  Recommend a work stream/ transformation targets industries instead of mainstreaming these actions into the other areas.

 

Both EECA and LCAAP focus on large industries.

Recommend no further action.

 

Without detail difficult to support large scale wind generation for Auckland as location to support the size and scale to power 238,909 homes would be massive and contradictory to the PAUP Rural Coastal zones.

 

Concerns noted but the controls for this are through other mechanism such as the Unitary Plan and not LCAAP.

Recommend no further action.

 

Support installing wind and solar generation in the Auckland region, but from a national perspective, hydro, particularly in the South Island, is not operating at full capacity and therefore can produce excess electricity that will not be used locally. This will become more widespread throughout the country as energy intensive industries change. The capital cost of installing the solar and wind generation in Auckland would be better invested in storage systems (electrical or thermal) which would allow for energy reserves to ensure security of supply from the South Island being transferred into Auckland.

 

Auckland is part of a networked system, so LCAAP supports all of these actions, at all levels when appropriate, i.e. solar, wind and storage. LCAAP supports the best mix of all renewable energy sources and ways to minimise usage and energy peaks.

Recommend no change.

 

Why no mention of marine or geothermal power? Auckland is in the perfect position to benefit from wave and tidal flow technology – we should be supportive of the Kaipara Harbour Trial which Crest believes could power Albany to Cape Reinga.

 

Considered by LCAAP but considered too expensive. LCAAP believe neither of these power types will be utilised by anyone in Auckland in the immediate future due to cheaper alternatives. LCAAP has a watching brief; but wind and solar are more proven and immediate technologies.

Recommend no change.

 

Wood pellets

 

 

Removing or reducing the number of people relying on wood burners has to be high on the list of quick wins. Ban new and existing open wood burning fires, both inside and outside. Use Eco Heating wood briquettes for existing domestic wood burners, for public school, Hospitals, Rest homes, small prisons etc, with wood/coal burning boilers.

 

Biomass is a limited fuel source and this is addressed in the Unitary Plan.

Recommend no further action.

 

Element 2: Developing Auckland’s low carbon energy options

 

 

Proposal to promote electricity over gas (Paragraph 3 (page 36) & Action 7) should be deleted as underpinning analysis is incorrect/ unproven e.g. analysis confuses average with marginal sources of energy.

 

This is based on the “Consumer Energy Options” report. This report considered all the costs and benefits of the different options, including analysing in detail the relative carbon intensities of the different options.    The data is more complex than a black and white answer, for example one consumer may be best to use gas for water heating but electricity for space heating. The 'situation-specific' nature of the “right” fuel choice for consumers’ makes it unwise to use blank statements.

 

In the short-term, at least, is it likely that a marked increase in electricity demand would be met from thermal sources. The plan suggests that electricity should be favoured over direct use of gas. This will drive up costs and carbon emissions. Promote the direct use of gas. This will provide low carbon outcomes at affordable costs

 

Reviewed by the energy workstream which included representatives from the gas and electricity sectors. For the immediate future out to at least 2025, gas will/ could supply up to 10% of New Zealand’s energy.  The relative benefit of direct renewable electricity over gas is unclear and not universally supported, but this will clarify over time and is very situation specific. Some industries are dependent on gas for industrial processes. Whilst it is desirable from a low carbon viewpoint to favour electricity, gas needs to remain part of the mix for wider reasons of energy choice (for customer/ suppliers) as well as good for energy resilience. The critical issue is to give customers the information and let them decide. 

Recommend changes to the text of LCAAP. Refer page 36 to 37 – changes to the narrative, Action 5, deletion of Action 7 and consequential renumbering of all subsequent actions. The underpinning analysis will be peer reviewed.

 

 

 

Gas should be viewed as ‘transitional fuels’, particularly meeting peak energy demand. The likely costs associated with moving away from the current position need to be carefully assessed.

 

The energy sector is divided as to the phrase ‘gas is a transitional fuel’. Overseas that would be true if we were migrating from coal to gas, but NZ is migrating from very high levels of renewable energy to even higher. Refer item immediately above.

LCA needs to state: Without sufficient thermal generation we could face constraints in a dry hydro year. Diversity in electricity supply is needed and will be achieved via a mix of renewables with continued reliance on thermal generation during periods of unfavourable climatic conditions.

 

Refer to the two items immediately above.

Targets for distributed solar panels are too low. 3,400 households by 2020 is too low. Need higher targets especially in use of solar to generate power.

 

A review of the latest industry data up to 2020 confirms that the target is slightly understated, with an increase from 3,641 household equivalents to 4,000 household equivalents. This increases distributed solar voltaics from 20MWp to 22MWP.

Recommend that these two solar photo voltaic figures for 2020 are changed in the Pathway chart (page 43) and in the Energy targets table on page 74.

 

Remove mandatory language ('require', 'apply', 'issue') as LCAAP is non-statutory; so as not to pre-empt the Unitary Plan process.  Make it clear that outcomes are dependent on the outcome of the Unitary Plan.

 

Not relevant to the actions in the energy section. Action 4 says ‘Develop an enabling regulatory via the Unitary Plan to support energy generation, efficiency, transmission and distribution and in particular renewable energy.’ There is no mandatory language.

 Recommend no further action.

 

Action 11: Will this investigation include potential feed-in tariffs to support rooftop solar PV development?

 

Not at this stage. NZ is unique within the OECD for having no subsidies for renewable energy simply because most future sources of electricity will be renewable as they are the least cost.

Recommend no further action.

 

Action 13 could be extended to Truck Stop Electrification, if it is appropriate to Auckland – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorepower

 

This action will be considered in the implementation phase, as Action 13 is to ‘investigate’ the potential of using electricity instead of diesel.

Recommend no further action.

 

Action 13 - switch from on-board diesel generation to local clean electricity generation is unrealistic.  Shipping should be excluded (as per air travel) as it is largely being governed by international drivers.

 

Point noted. Action 13 is to investigate the opportunities and constraints. Some US cities require ships to switch power sources whilst in port. This is also an air quality issue.

Recommend no change.

 

 

 

Transforming our built environment and greening infrastructure

 

Feedback area where response is required

Proposed  response

 

Overall there was strong support for Council demonstrating leadership (walking the talk) and the need for quality exemplars and documents such as the Auckland Design Manual being mandatory, but concerns  were expressed by a group of corporate submitters about the link between LCAAP to the draft Unitary Plan.

 

Noted.

 

Support

 

 

There was support for strengthening Action 6. For example: ‘All new housing developments to meet Homestar 6 star standard or equivalent’, and ‘All new commercial and industrial development to meet NZBC Greenstar 4 star standard or equivalent’.

 

Points noted but these need to be balanced with the concerns raised about the reference to the PAUP.

Recommend no change.

 

There was also strong support for a trial landlord WOF program as it is important not only for landlords but as a point-of-sale program for property sellers, and using a trial is a good way to start. Many submitters suggested that the LCAAP assumes success of this WOF scheme and propose that the LCAAP includes WOF implementation targets across the time periods of 2020, 2030, and 2040.

 

Difficult to place targets on this project as too much uncertainty. For example, If taken up nationally through central government there will be very large numbers.

Recommend no change at this stage.

 

A number of submitters thought the targets (pages 43 and 75) were unambitious and proposed improved targets. These included the following:

o    To consider 75 percent of new housing design standards equivalent to a 6 star rating as the new target for 2020. Corresponding targets for intervals 2030 and 2040 should be adjusted accordingly.

o    % of new buildings with Sustainable Building Standard - 75% (2020), 85% (2030), 95% (2040),

o    % of Auckland’s new housing stock built to sustainable standard - 95%  (2020),

o    % of Council Retrofit 40% (2020), 80% (2030), 100% (2040).

o    More ambitious targets in improving housing standards and insulation

o    Retrofitting more of Council’s property by 2020 (80%)

o    Requiring all new homes to reach HomeStar 6 by 2020. 

o    Enforcing warrant of fitness for rental homes by 2020

o    Introduce a tool of assessing health and safety of homes that is available for renters and buyers.

 

Understand the sentiment, but what is suggested is not achievable. For all these short term targets, we are starting from a very low level, so it is unrealistic that in the short term Auckland could achieve such ambitious targets, for example, 75% by 2020. Some targets would require significant costs.

Recommend no change at this stage.

 

Concerns

 

 

However, a number of corporate submitters had concerns over policies relating to accreditation, Greenstar buildings (Action 6) and the Auckland Design Manual (Action 7) and they suggest these actions are removed as these policies are subject to the Unitary Plan process.

 

For example:

(a)     the LCAAP pre-empts the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan process, which is likely to lead to inconsistent outcomes, given that the Unitary Plan is at a very early stage;

(b)     the use of mandatory language ('require', 'apply', 'issue'), throughout the LCAAP is inappropriate, given its status as a non-statutory guidance document. For example "apply" the ADM;

(c)     requiring commercial and industrial development to meet New Zealand Green Building Council (NZGBC) Greenstar 4 star standard or equivalent is impractical and unreasonable, given the non-statutory nature of the LCAAP Carbon Plan (Action 6). They suggest that NZGBC accreditation be voluntary only; and

d)      Proposals to streamline the consent process (Action 11) for buildings that demonstrate best practice sustainable design are inappropriate and unworkable. There is no reason why buildings that demonstrate best practice sustainable design should be consented faster than other developments (a process usually reserved for large, complex developments and/ or projects of national significance). Buildings demonstrating best practice sustainable design will not necessarily achieve other desired outcomes such as economic growth and development.

 

Given that there is significant overlap between provisions in the LCAAP and the Unitary Plan (which is yet to enter the further submission stage), they suggest that the most appropriate way to ensure consistency, transparency and workability among the Council's statutory and non-statutory planning documents is for the Council to put the Draft Carbon Plan on hold until the Unitary Plan is made operative. Alternatively, they seek that the language in the LCAAP is amended so that it does not, in any way, pre-empt the Unitary Plan process and makes totally clear that a number of the outcomes in the LCAAP are made dependent on the outcome of the Unitary Plan. 

 

 

Agree – Actions to be reworded to allow for the unitary plan process to run its course.

Item (b) - Disagree. The ADM is already being applied by Council. ‘Apply’ is not a statutory term, but change to “use” to avoid confusion.

(c) Disagree – LCAAP does not ‘require’.

(d)  Agree – current wording is too vague. More specificity needs to be put into the LCAAP text and we should refer to removal of barriers rather than streamlining.

As noted above. A rewording of Action 6 should satisfy this concern.

Recommend changes to the narrative and to Actions 6, 7 and 11 on pages 46 to 47.

 

 

 

 

Action 9 raised concerns with the corporate submitters who oppose (and seek deletion) of the introduction of an obligation on developers and/or landlords to disclose the energy and water performance and design standards of commercial and industrial buildings at the point of sale, rent or lease - method of implementation is unclear, imposes another unreasonable burden on developers, with no justification and likely to stagnate economic growth, and commercial and business development.

 

Disagree – research identifies significant commercial advantage in disclosure of a building performance for rental/lease value and sale price.

Recommend no change at this stage.

 

Other comments

 

 

It is identified in the plan that the urban sprawl, particularly for individual housing, is an inefficient use of space as well as operating energy for space heating and water use. There is little connection or emphasis on district scale systems that can address these issues to a whole community/neighbourhood while maintaining the desirable individual housing arrangements.

 

Agree – Benefits gained at a neighbourhood scale than a building scale – clarify this in the text.

Recommend adding to Action 14, page 47, ‘support sustainable community led development which achieves high standard of sustainable design’ and Action 6, page 46, ‘holistic assessment of new and existing neighbourhoods to provide clear benchmarking and maximise opportunities to improve their sustainability’.

 

Pathway, page 43 - Comment on, 'By 2040, 95% of the council properties to have a Life Cycle Analysis and retrofitted'. Retrofitting, especially for older buildings, is encouraged to improve performance. The LCA assessment however does not contribute to the on-going improvement of a building’s performance, as LCA is most beneficial at a pre-construction design phase.

 

Point noted. Action 2 refers to performance monitoring through NABERSNZ as well as whole of life value assessment.

Recommend no change.

 

Need to correct inconsistent figures, e.g. Retrofitting 80% of Council-owned buildings and facilities by 2040 in the Infographics (page 40) versus 95% on page 43 (Pathway) - which is it? 80% should be reached by 2030. 

 

Agree. The infographics page (page 40) and the pathway table (page 43) need to match the targets on page 75. 80 per cent is correct for 2040, so the pathway table needs amending.

Recommend amending the pathway table on page 43 to ‘80’ per cent of Council’s property retrofitted by 2040.

 

Page 12 - From your pie graph I notice that residential energy is a small proportion, 7.7%, less than a third of manufacturing and commercial combined, yet the bulk of your plan seems to be aimed at households, not at businesses which emit more. Industrial and manufacturing emissions account for 34.1% of emissions. This needs to be rebalanced.

 

The energy targets on page 75 cover residential, commercial and industrial processes. Each of these is based on known or probable methodologies.

Recommend no change at this stage.

 

Should include reference to heating of homes through efficient wood burning fireplaces where applicable as opposed to predominantly relying on electricity.

 

Too detailed for this type of document. Also need to be cognisant of air quality issues.

Recommend no change at this stage.

 

 

Transforming to Zero Waste

 

Feedback area where response is required

Proposed  response

 

The majority of submitters supported the waste targets and actions. For example:

 

·        Many supported greater urgency. For example: the time frames need to be shortened and there needs to be real action, not just talking.   

·        There is strong support for a resource recovery network (action 10) that will recycle household and commercial waste (including construction and demolition waste) to become economically viable and self-sufficient.

·        There was support for growing product design and responsibility, but it needed to move beyond planning and advocacy to be effective. 

·        Action 11 - zero waste on marae is strongly supported. Comments included the fact that the Waikato Region has a similar programme Pare Kore (50 marae) and it has resulted in significant waste minimisation. One submitter asked if it good enough for Maori to have zero waste practices, why not all of us within the region? 

 

Points noted.

Recommend no further action.

 

Since LCAAP has been prepared, further discussions have occurred with stakeholders and Action 1 needs to be worded to reflect what industry has decided. 

Recommend amending Action 1 on page 54 to focus on ‘the design, construction and deconstruction of buildings in order to reduce, reuse and recover waste in these processes.’

There was mixed support for Action 5 (page 54) for no new landfill consents. Waikato Regional Council supported the action and wanted to be included as a ‘contributor’ as Hampton Downs is in their area. Others thought it unlikely to succeed and could add additional costs. One submitter opposed this action as they thought it was inconsistent with, unlawful and inappropriate with existing and proposed RMA planning documents.

 

The package of actions in the LCAAP should mean that we have little need for new landfills in the future, so Action 5 has been modified to take account of the submissions.

Recommend amending the pathway chart on page 53 and Action 5 on page 54.

Action 12 is supported with comments like leverage/ support government to raise levy charged on landfill waste – from $10/tonne to $30/tonne immediately. As money raised from the levy is used to fund programmes to reduce waste, this will make it easier to implement the other actions n to raise the levy.

 

Within both the WMMP and LCAAP there is strong support for increasing the levy, but it is a decision for Government and they are currently signalling no change in the landfill levy.

Recommend that the renumbered Action 13 on page 55 has the additional wording, ‘and that industry has the same waste minimisation obligations as local authorities’.

 

Suggestions, solutions and ideas

 

 

Submitter believes the LCAAP overstates the GHG emissions from Waste being 6% of the total, when based on their data it should be the much lower figure of 0.96%. They suggested that the LCAAP figures need to be corrected.

 

Professional disagreement about the figures.

Recommend no further action.

Page 18 states that 52% of each person's carbon contribution is as a result of food consumption. Further details could be included in the action plan about how we could reduce the greenhouse gas impact of food consumption. This would include outlining actions and targets.

 

Actions around food are considered in the Forestry, agriculture and natural carbon assets section as well as in the Waste section.

Recommend adding an additional action to the Transforming to Zero Waste section, page 54, new Action 8 - ‘Support effective ways of reducing carbon emissions by reducing waste in the planning, production, consumption and disposal of food’. This causes a consequential renumbering of the waste actions.

 

Also recommend adding into Action 7, page 54, ‘particularly targeting food waste’.

 

How you calculated food consumption as 50% is a mystery to me and looks enormous. Could you reveal the methodology behind this?

 

Further work will be done to check this figure. Refer also to the proposed new action above.

Recommend no further action at this stage.

 

The sewage to energy target of 4.6MW to 7.7MW (page 76) is very modest and they propose an additional target for installed landfill gas to energy generation capacity. From current levels of 18-20MW, to 20-22MW by 2020 and to 25-27MW by 2030.

 

a). Watercare reconfirmed as correct the sewage to energy figures but acknowledged that future expansions for which the planning has not even started for will increase the figures.

No change is recommended at this stage for these figures.

 

b). Captured landfill gas is important but the suggested approach is not consistent with the waste minimisation approach adopted by LCAAP.

Recommend no further action.

 

The primary focus of the LCAAP seems to be on household waste rather than commercial waste which is the greater share of the overall waste stream. What is being proposed for commercial waste needs to be explained.

 

Agree that commercial waste is important and that is why Actions 1 and 14 focuses on construction and demolition waste and Actions 15 to 19 focus on product stewardship where the focus is primarily on commercial and industrial waste. 

Recommend no further action.

 

Support actions on advocacy to central government to improve product stewardship and account for the true cost of resources. They suggest that for Actions 12, 15 and 18; add into the LCAAP neighbouring regional councils as contributors.

 

Agree.

Recommend changes to the renumbered Action 13, 16 and 19 on pages 55 to 57, by adding in neighbouring regional Councils.

Oppose product stewardship for cycled glass, as they believe this has a low probability of addressing the critical issues of Auckland's commingled recycling system. A well-functioning voluntary stewardship scheme is more successful globally than Container Deposit Legislation. Within Auckland’s current recycling system, several barriers exist that severely impact the implementation of best practice as seen in other New Zealand regions, impacting recovery yields, cost, supply chain efficacy and all sustainability efforts.

Council remains open to separate collections as long as the costs do not land unfairly on ratepayers and Council has undertaken to research and further discuss with industry the issue of consumer deposit legislation before any advocacy action is taken.

Recommend no further action.

 

 

The proposed Plan needs to detail whether the regulations will operate as other stewardship schemes do under the WM Act 2008.

 

All product stewardship schemes will sit under the WM Act 2008, but since none currently exist, the WMMP/ LCAAP has an action of advocacy to Government.

Recommend no further action.

 

Want to draw attention to making and use of biochar wherever we have burnable waste as it can be incorporated in compost and improve our soils.

 

Biochar is seen to have some benefits but there is still a lot of professional debate as to how vigorously it should be pursued. Council is keeping a watching brief.

Recommend no further action.

 

Explanation is needed of the individual's carbon footprint 40 or 50% was food, yet you don't talk about food at all. (Page18).

 

Council is addressing this through the domestic organic collection and industry is already exploring opportunities to deal with commercial organic waste. There is also an industry association initiative to look at the whole of the food chain.

Recommend no further action.

 

 

 

Transforming forestry, agriculture and natural carbon assets

 

Feedback area where response is required

Proposed  response

 

Recent data produced by the Ministry for the Environment indicates that, due to the impact of the harvesting of the forests planted in the early 1990s between 2007 and 2013, NZ is now likely to have far higher net emissions in 2020 than had been assumed. Has this been accounted for?

 

Points noted. This is more of a concern nationally than for Auckland, especially if the harvested forests are converted into farm land. LCAAP assumes that Auckland forests will be replanted, but Action 7 addresses the issue of liaising with iwi/hapu on their future aspirations for forested land from post treaty settlements.

Recommend no further action.

 

There was strong support for:

·      local projects to restore riparian vegetation, increased biodiversity and engaging with the local community in tree planting. 

·      the establishment of a pilot plant using forestry and other organic residues, and

·      Enhancing local food production.

 

Points noted.

Recommend no further action.

Action 1 - Need to see detail of ‘network of tree-based ecological corridors’ to understand what does this mean and how will it be implemented. What are the targets for planting trees? How are you going to do this?

 

These are valid issues and will be addressed in the LCAAP implementation plan where the project will be scoped and targets set.

Recommend no further action..

Action 12 - It is unclear whether this means that new forests will be planted near industrial areas, or whether industrial areas would be planned in rural areas. The first outcome would be better.

 

It was referring to the latter, industrial areas would be planned near forested areas. Planting forests near existing industrial areas is unlikely to happen given that most land conversion as already occurred and the cost and feasibility of this type of replanting. The planning for this will occur in the implementation phase.

Recommend no further action.

 

 

 

Green Growth

 

Feedback area where response is required

Proposed  response

 

Green growth actions appear to be after-thoughts. Suggest adding a section that lists numbered green growth actions. Explain the reason they have been scattered through the document, and explain that the green growth actions will be adopted and implemented just as all of the actions listed within elements of the 5 areas.

 

Points acknowledged. Make some changes to the text on page 17 to explain why Green growth is a cross cutting theme and that the actions will be adopted and implemented with the same priority as other actions. 

Recommend changes to page 17 – Green growth.

 

Chapter 2 “Delivering on our Commitments” needs emphasis on green jobs. Add other material from the Auckland Plan to chapter 2 that relates to green jobs and economic growth targets. It could be a link to the section in chapter 3 on “Green growth – opportunities for Auckland”. In the comparison to other cities it could be pointed out that those cities are using low carbon plans to shape their economies around green job growth.

 

Green growth is explained on page 17. Of all the transformational area in LCAAP, green growth is the least developed. Further development needs to happen later in the implementation stage when the results of the green growth action on page 25 is completed, i.e. undertake research to determine Auckland’s green growth capabilities and to provide a performance baseline and targets. Since we don’t know the opportunities for green growth right now, the current level of detail is appropriate.

Recommend no change at this stage.

 

Page 10 - Submitter is not happy with the expression “Green Growth”. Most of the growth in Auckland is not green and needs to be stopped. Green Growth is an oxymoron.

 

Point noted. That is the challenge for Auckland and the Auckland Plan.

Recommend no further action.

 

AUT encourages utilisation of AUT’s Research and Innovation Office for research-related actions e.g. 7.16, 7.19, 8.16, 8.21, 8.22. It is noted that these actions relate to areas where AUT has significant research expertise – e.g. product design, marine science, smart technologies, sustainable engineering. AUT also is involved in education and training for sustainability and is keen to work with Council on LCAAP.

 

Implementation opportunities.

Recommend no change at this stage.

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOW CARBON ACTION PLAN (LCAAP) AUCKLAND

Low Carbon Innovation Roadmap

 

GOVERNANCE OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Presented by: Rebecca Mills

May 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.0       Executive Summary

 

2.0       Governance for a Low Carbon Future
2.1       Catalysing Large Scale Change in Complex Systems

2.2       Building Governance to Support Innovation

2.3       Methodology for Developing Governance Architecture

 

3.0       The Governance Options in Detail

3.1       Option 1 – Auckland Council ‘Goes it Alone’

3.2       Option 2a – A Partnership Approach

3.3       Option 2b – Self Organising Network

 

4.0       Analysis and Recommendation

 




1.0 Executive Summary

 

The Auckland Plan lays the foundation for Auckland’s transformation into a highly energy resilient, low carbon city through a focus on green growth.  Low Carbon Auckland envisions Auckland to be a model of ‘sustainable resource use, generating a prosperous eco-economy powered by efficient affordable clean energy’.  Creating a low carbon future is arguably a precondition for realising the vision of becoming the worlds ‘most liveable city’. 

 

Low Carbon Auckland sets out a 30-year pathway and a 10-year plan that will guide the first stage of the city’s transformation.  The multi-faceted nature and sheer breadth and scale of Low Carbon Auckland and the complex issues it addresses requires new thinking and collaborative action by multiple actors operating in a highly dynamic environment.    This in turn demands an innovative approach to the governance architecture for implementation. 

 

As we approach formal adoption of the Low Carbon Action Plan (LCAAP) we have returned to first principles to determine appropriate governance models to implement and catalyse a low carbon, energy resilient Auckland through an approach that fulfils three key requirements:

 

•             overseeing the implementation of the LCAAP

•             mobilizing large scale social change

•             enabling innovation

 

The Options

This report presents three options for the governance architecture to implement and catalyse a low carbon, energy resilient Auckland:

 

Option 1: Auckland Council ‘Goes it Alone’

Option 1 represents a modified ‘business as usual’ scenario.  A reconfigured Steering Group supports Auckland Council through an ambassadorial role and overseeing the effective implementation of LCAAP.  Auckland Council would remain largely responsible for setting the agenda and strategic direction of the voluntary Steering Group.   While Option 1 provides Council with greater control and a clear line of sight across the actions, a significant risk is that its scope, influence and potential for collective impact are constrained.

 

This option would require council staff to undertake project management and secretariat support of LCAAP implementation.  There would also be some costs in relation to communications, marketing and general administration. 

 

Option 2a: A Partnership Approach

In Option 2a, Auckland Council is one partner in a collective approach governed by a ‘Stewardship Group’ of senior leaders. The group makes governance decisions together and members share in the cost of resourcing the initiative.   This group is not just committed to the implementation of the 112 actions in LCAAP, it is actively looking for innovative flagship project to support and invest in. Our analysis of this option is that it represents a more ambitious approach which affords greater scope and influence for transformation. However, participation and therefore impact is limited to actions led by a defined membership.   Flagship projects will be limited in numbers and will reflect the interests of the stewardship group members.

 

In this option, Auckland Council provides the same level of commitment as Option 1. However its role and mandate is modified in line the expanded role and strategic oversight capability of the Stewardship Group and the flagship projects in chooses to implement.  The Stewardship Group would drive the development of business cases and identify sources of funding for these flagship projects.

 

A key weakness in Option 2a is that the budgets and potential leverage of the flagship projects is restricted by the resource and self-interest drivers within the Stewardship Group.

 

Option 2b: Self-Organising Network

In Option 2b, Auckland Council is one partner of a much broader network of partners working collaboratively in self-organising, action-focussed teams, participating in (or leading) action teams that match its interest, skills and expertise.  Our analysis is that this is the only option that is likely to realise the transformational intent of the LCAAP via a collaborative approach which provides a much greater scale, reach and impact.

This group is supported by an independent, highly skilled, third party Backbone Organisation.

 

This option should not require any additional resourcing beyond Options 1 and 2a. However, by committing to co-fund a third-party backbone organisation, coordination and secretariat functions will reside outside of Council. 

 

Option 2b is designed to be self- financing within 12 months and generate its own revenue streams by leveraging external funding (accessed and managed via the Backbone Organisation).   As a network partner, Auckland Council would commit to co-funding the Backbone Organisation to up to 2.0 FTE. The Backbone Organisation will pull in additional investment to support the action –focussed teams.

 

Recommendation

Given the need to take truly transformative actions to catalyse a low carbon, energy resilient Auckland it is considered that collective action through action focussed teams will allow the greatest capacity for innovation while leveraging skills and revenue generation from those best placed and incentivised to provide them.

 

This recommendation acknowledges that Options 1 or 2a are unlikely to result in the level of transformation that a truly Low Carbon Auckland requires, or the level of collective buy in from other organisations.

 

This report recommends that Auckland Council endorse Option 2b via Option 2a as a transitionary step (completed within 6 months). The new Stewardship Group in Option 2a would play a key role in overseeing the transition process.  

 

This option will ensure effective implementation of LCAAP and be self-financing within 12 months while mobilsing social change and driving innovation.

 

 


2.0    Governance for a Low Carbon Future

 

In order to become of the world’s most liveable city, Auckland must transform from a fossil fuel dependent, high energy using, high waste society to a highly mobile, quality, compact city – a city typified by sustainable resource use and a prosperous economy, and powered by efficient, affordable clean energy. The Auckland Plan identifies the opportunity for Auckland to be a model of ‘sustainable resource use, generating a prosperous eco-economy powered by efficient affordable energy’.

 

The multi-faceted nature and sheer breadth and scale of the recently drafted Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan (LCAAP)suggests that innovation may be necessary when thinking about how best to govern the project in its implementation.  This report captures best practice thinking on how multi stakeholder groups are working together to bring about change in large complex systems.

 

This report then considers how these catalytic approaches might be used together to support a long term strategy for transforming Auckland.

 

2.1 Catalysing Large Scale Change in Complex Systems

 

Today we can come together and self-organise at speed and scale unimaginable only a few years ago. New communications technologies and a significantly more sophisticated understanding of human social systems are making it possible to mobilise large numbers of people around shared aspirations and agendas.

 

There is a growing evidence base that achieving large scale change at pace requires more organic and non-linear approaches than large hierarchical organisations are used to employing.  Many of the interventions and implementation pathways required to take advantage of these social movements may fall outside both the experience and skillset of Auckland Council.   

 

Successful strategies for social change involve bringing people together who may have never before worked with each other or have thought of each other as having a common cause.

 

The models presented in this report, are leading examples of how government agencies, corporate and community leaders are bringing groups of actors from different sectors together with a common agenda to solve complex social problems.

 

2.2 Building Governance to support Innovation

One of the challenges facing organisations interested in creating transformational change is how to design governance, administrative support and leadership in ways that don’t stifle innovation and creativity. Governance has traditionally been a powerful tool that people have used to manage risk. Usually a group of trusted, prudent individuals are appointed to endorse or veto decisions that involve unknown outcomes that might lead to ‘failure’ or expensive mistakes. A consequence of this approach is to inhibit innovation.

 

 

 

While this report focuses on Governance options for the Low Carbon Auckland initiative, it is useful to review what successful implementation may require, as this has implications for the kind of governance needed.  Experience in other countries suggests that new ventures and new ideas are important components in the successful implemention of social change initiatives.  Kick starting new ventures and the transformation of existing ones will be powerful elements to creating a Low Carbon Auckland.

 

Fostering low carbon innovation is a core element of this approach and can provide a competitive advantage both for companies and the public sector. The ability to innovate towards a low carbon energy future will be a key differentiator between those that thrive and those that fall behind. Innovation pathways will take many forms but critical in this context is business model innovation (the ability of large organizations to identify, source and deploy disruptive new technologies and ideas in an effective manner, to transform markets).

 

Ideally the governance structure for a Low Carbon Auckland will be capable of catalysing new ventures. This may involve working with people who have the ability to source new ideas, pilot them and integrate them, rapidly and efficiently. One example of incentivising pathways for innovation may include brokerage between venture capital investors, non-profits and ‘early adopter’ entrepreneurs.

 

2.3 Methodology for Developing Governance Architecture

 

A review of the strategic approach to the LCAAP confirmed the need to build on existing assets by prioritising actions within the plan for maximum leverage.  In addition to prioritising the actions within the plan, successful transformation to a Low Carbon Auckland will require mobilising social change and enabling pathways for innovation. A four-step process (as illustrated in the diagram below) has been followed in developing options for governance architecture in a way that is fit for purpose (where ‘form‘ meets ‘function’).

 

Process for developing Governance Architecture

 

Prioritising for Maximum System Leverage

Much of the most exciting work in building low carbon, resilient cities has focused on systems change – sometimes within an industry and sometimes across industries and scales.  Finding the most powerful pathways for Auckland Council to develop; together with key industries, communities and partners, an approach for transitioning Auckland to a liveable, low carbon future is a challenge best approached using a systems thinking lens.

 

In order to find points of maximum leverage (or ‘strategic pathways’) within the existing plan a bespoke filtering methodology was designed and then applied to each of the 112 actions within the draft LCAAP.  This filtering methodology is outlined in the table below.

 

The prioritisation of actions by using a ‘sifting methodology’ is a powerful strategic tool that has been utilised in a number of comparable contexts such as filtering actions of initiatives such as The Carbon War Room[2], The X Prize[3] and The B Team[4].  The filtering process was undertaken by a core team (Robert Perry and Rebecca Mills) who consulted with key officers as technical experts across the five transformational themes of LCAAP.

 

PRIORITISING FOR MAXIMUM LEVERAGE – A FILTERING METHODOLOGY

Scoring: Each separate gate given a total collective score (across all three questions) out of potential 10 points.  Results are totaled to give a total possible score of each action of 30.

GATE 1: PACE/SPEED OF IMPLEMENTATION

1.   Is there existing work and partners that we can leverage/accelerate to cause greater impact at a faster rate without duplication?

2.   Will this action remove a critical roadblock or create enabling conditions to ensure a Low Carbon Auckland?

3.   Is the action readily scalable?

GATE 2: IMPACT

4.   Does the action have the potential for significant climate change mitigation (assessed in alignment with priority abatement levels)?

5.   Does the action contribute significantly to the energy resilience of Auckland?

6.   Does the action have the potential for co-benefits?

GATE 3: INNOVATION/TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITY

7.   Does the action provide the ability for whole system transformation/new models- behaviour change?

8.   Will the action lead to an entirely new expectation, model, ideology or system?

9.   Does the action have the ability to catalyse innovation capacity?

Undertaking the filtering process outlined in the table above identified that the following strategic pathways should be prioritized (as they hold the greatest ability to leverage a low carbon, energy resilient Auckland):

-STRATEGIC PATHWAY 1 -TRANSPORT

Reducing the demand for travel through completion of ‘first decade’ public transport projects, pricing tools and unlocking investment in low carbon transport by ensuring alignment between investment and the action plan.

- STRATEGIC PATHWAY 2 - SMART CITY INFRASTRUCTURE

Deployment of smart technologies such as time of use metering and other demand/efficiency integrated technologies to manage demand, improve efficiency and enable electric vehicles to be optimized.

- STRATEGIC PATHWAY 3 -ENERGY SUPPLY

Consideration of long-term market based power purchase agreements to support large-scale renewable energy projects.

Evaluation of fuel cell generation technologies and other emerging technologies

- STRATEGIC PATHWAY 4 -SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND GREEN INFRASTRUTURE

Ensuring principles of sustainable design are embedded in council’s planning and developing a green infrastructure plan.

- STRATEGIC PATHWAY 5 –PRICE AND REGULATORY TOOLS

Utilising price and regulatory tools such as the issue of no new landfill consents in Auckland.

- STRATEGIC PATHWAY 6 –CARBON SEQUESTRATION

Driving the establishment of significant local eco-sourced nurseries and mechanisms to improve the management of land and marine ecosystems to sequester carbon.  Employing strategies to turn forest and organic residue into energy and enhance local food production.

The strategic pathways listed above and the existing actions in LCAAP do not capture the full extent of the entrepreneurial, creative, or community levers which if catalysed could move the region at pace towards a low carbon resilient future. 

Further work needs to be undertaken to capture the full extent of the opportunities to unlock large-scale social change and enable pathways for innovation.  


3.0 THE OPTIONS IN DETAIL

 

 

Option 1: Auckland Council ‘Goes it Alone’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Transforming our built environment and green infrastructure

 

Transforming forestry, agriculture and natural assets

 
 

Transforming the way we use and generate
energy

 

Transforming the way we travel

 

Transforming
to Zero
Waste

 

         

Option 1 – Auckland Council ‘Goes it Alone’

 

Low Carbon Auckland sets out a 30-year pathway to 2040 and 112 specific actions to be completed within the first 10 years. It is structured around five areas which seek to:

 

•             Transform the way we travel.

•             Transform the way we use and generate energy

•             Transform our built environment and green infrastructure

•             Transform to Zero Waste

•             Transform forestry, agriculture and natural assets

 

Low Carbon Auckland is an important commitment from Auckland Council on behalf of the people of Auckland to address climate change and provide for an energy resilient future.

 

In this option the current Steering Group is reconfigured (for maximum leverage) to lead the implementation of the LCAAP. This group would meet on a regular basis as ambassadors with the responsibility to champion the effective implementation of LCAAP. This option involves mostly isolated actions being undertaken by individual stakeholders in response to a combination of market signals and government regulation, facilitated by Auckland Council. 

 

This option would be resourced internally though internal staff time (2 FTE) to provide overall project management and secretariat support.  There would also be some costs in relation to communications, marketing and general administration. Auckland Council would remain largely responsible for setting the agenda and strategic direction of the Steering Group. The Steering Group itself would be voluntary.

 

Governance and Leadership

In this option, governance would sit within a reconfigured cross-sector steering group. Auckland Council would be providing leadership through its role as convener and as secretariat support. However this would be largely limited to implementation of the LCAAP and specific strategies within its existing sphere of influence.

 

Role of Auckland Council

The role of Auckland Council is limited to project management of LCAAP within its immediate sphere of influence and as convenor and the provision of secretariat support to the Group. The council will have the opportunity to act immediately to start implementing the 112 Actions within the plan.   As Auckland Council can influence/or has the ability to influence 85 actions immediate traction can be made in these areas

 

Successful Implementation

Option 1 will be most powerfully implemented if Auckland Council staff form agile teams around refined ‘strategic pathways’. Council staff will then have the ability to facilitate projects and implement actions with the wide range of existing stakeholders they currently have a relationship with.

 

Benefits

·    High level of control and accountability

·    Clear lines of sight established through the five transformation areas

·    Allows immediate implementation

·    Ability to utilise existing project management structures  

·    Secretariat funding requirements are relatively straightforward through existing council resources (staff, budget lines, and programmes)

 

Risks

·    Cost of implementation is likely to cost the same or more than option 2 or option 3

·    LCAAP is perceived as a Council initiative and its reach and impact is limited in scope to overseeing LCAAP implementation.

·    Unlikely to harness skills, knowledge and resources that don’t exist within the steering group

·    Unlikely to connect with existing collaborative efforts already underway outside the steering group, the Low Carbon Auckland initiative or Council’s wider sphere of influence

·    Missed opportunity to leverage the creativity, skills, knowledge, networks, and investment from the full landscape of key players

·    Limited opportunity to involve systems thinking to drive catalytic transformative shifts

·    Unlikely to result in large scale community/social impact

·    Unlikely to support significant innovation or truly transformational impact.


 

Option 2a: A Partnership Approach

 

 

 

 


Text Box: LCAAP and Flagship Projects driving innovation and social change via PartnersText Box: Secretariat and project management
(Auckland Council)
Text Box: LCAP and FLAGSHIP PROJECS
Option 2a – A Partnership Approach

 


In order to create lasting Low Carbon solutions on a large-scale, organizations  including those in government, civil society, and the business sector need to coordinate their efforts and work together around a clearly defined goal. Option 2 seeks to coordinate efforts and builds on the insights first published as the ‘Collective Impact model’ which was developed by the Future Strategy Group (FSG), and published in an influential paper in the Stanford Social Innovation Review called ‘Collective Impact’.

 

The paper contrasts traditional approaches to solving tough social and environmental issues with a methodology based on the innovative approaches which define the opportunities of collective impact approaches(as opposed to those with isolated impact). The model identifies three conditions which must be in place before launching a collective impact initiative: an influential champion, adequate financial resources, and a sense of urgency for change. Together, these preconditions create the opportunity and motivation necessary to bring people who have never before worked together into a collective impact initiative and hold them in place until the initiative’s own momentum takes over.

In this option Auckland Council works alongside key partners to form a new ‘stewardship group’ of senior leaders (selected via an agreed criteria focussed on leverage points) from different sectors to commit to a common agenda to ensure the effective implementation of LCAAP. This model is a slightly more mature approach than Option 1 and would have a slightly greater reach and impact by maximising leverage points through the delivery of flagship projects. 

 

Leaders would be selected to enhance leverage within the LCAAP with regard to enabling innovation and mobilising large scale social change.  Flagship projects may go beyond the actions already identified within the action plan however they would be driven forward via the members of the Stewardship Group.

 

In this option, Auckland Council provides the same level of commitment (Budget/FTE) as option 1 to being one actor within the defined Stewardship Group.   However its role and mandate is modified in line with the expanded role and strategic oversight capability of the Stewardship Group and the flagship projects it chooses to implement. 

 

Governance and Leadership

·    Governance sits with a Stewardship Group made up of Partner Organisations.

·    Leadership is provided by Auckland Council in their project management role.

·    Additional leadership is provided by partnership organisations in implementing those actions in LCAAP and flagship projects.

 

Role of Auckland Council

·    Auckland Council is jointly responsible for initiating the Collective Impact ‘Stewardship Group’.

·    Auckland Council would also commit to delivering its own programme of work that aligns with the initiative.

 

Benefits

·    A simple Governance structure which can been rallied rapidly.

 

 

Risks

·    Failure due to inability to find an influential champion (or small group of champions) who commands the respect necessary to bring CEO-level cross-sector partners or leaders together and keep their active engagement over time.

·    The budgets and potential leverage of the flagship projects is restricted by the resource and self-interest drivers within the Stewardship Group.

·    Council staff unable to keep the delicate balance between the strong leadership needed to keep all parties together and the invisible “behind the scenes” role that lets the other partners own the initiative’s success.


Option 2b: Self-Organising Network

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Text Box: Backbone 
Organisation

 



Option 2b – Collective Action through a ‘Self-Organising Network’

Option 2b extracts the key learnings first developed (since built on by many others) by a group of agencies in Canada who came together to try and address the complex issue of environmental impacts on the health of children. None of the organisations had the mandate, the budget, or the influence to solve the problem on their own, so they decided that the only way forward was to work together. 

Since the project started in 2000 the group has developed a model based on the following three elements that support innovation and action:

1.    Light weight governance

2.    Action focused teams (termed constellations)

3.    Third party coordination (partners don’t run the secretariat)

 

After eight years the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and the Environment had attracted over $2.5M in investment, built up a network of over 1000 thought leaders and service providers and trained over 1500 health and day-care workers to protect children from toxic exposure.

 

In this option collective action is driven by a network of self-organising, action-focussed teams.  This broader network of partners are unified by a common agenda (set and overseen by a ‘partnership’ governance group).  This group is supported by an independent, third party Backbone Organisation.

 

The true value of this ‘collective action’ approach is inspired by the leadership, expertise, innovation and energy generated through multi-organisation partnerships and networks. In this option Auckland Council would be a partner organisation in the network, participating in (or leading) action teams that match its interest, skills and expertise. 

 

Option 2b is designed to be self- financing within 12 months and generate its own revenue streams by leveraging external funding (accessed and managed via the Backbone Organisation).   As a network partner, Auckland Council would commit to co-funding the Backbone Organisation (up to 2FTE).  The Backbone Organisation to pull in additional investment to support the action–focussed teams.

 

Action Focused Teams

At is core of Option 2b is the principle of organisational independence. What this means is that members that want to work together can get on with it, in the knowledge that their particular initiative is now in line with the larger vision established by the stewardship group. Importantly, Option 2b builds on already existing momentum and appetite to catalyse a Low Carbon Auckland.  For example it supports and provides the opportunity to recognise the growing social enterprise sector and the work of groups such as Generation Zero, Electric Vehicle Association of New Zealand and the Sustainable Business Network.  Option 2b intentionally benefits members who take the initiative. Money and resources are spread across the whole initiative but leadership goes to those who step up and move ahead.

 

Light Weight Governance

Once a group forms around an urgent need or a significant opportunity the project forms a ‘partnership group’ whose purpose is to serve the group’s broader vision and agree on basic protocols and expectations (such as a Common Agenda). Unlike many joint ventures and partnerships these agreements are kept ‘light weight’ and short so that the majority of the authority and decision making is left with the members and the action teams or ‘constellations’ that they form.

 

Conditions of Collective Impact

 

The Self Organising Network model seeks to establish a rigorous and specific methodology for high impact collaboration rather than ad-hoc collaboration among various organisations. It has been recognised that there are five conditions that when used together, lead to large permanent change in complex social and environmental systems:

 

Conditions of Collective Impact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Third Party Coordination via Backbone Organisation

 

In Option 2b the backbone organisation sits outside Auckland Council and provides management oversight of the wider initiative, its projects and working groups.  The backbone organisation is responsible for assessing current assets, successes, gaps and needs in the ecosystem (informing the decisions of partners who are part of the collaboration).   It provides the opportunity to pull in necessary marketing/branding and communication expertise.  The backbone organisation is critical as is responsible for foundational agreements – including partnership agreements, the way the members work together, roles and responsibilities.  It will also be responsible for handling funds entry and exit strategy for partners (including conflict resolution procedures).

 

The Backbone organisation  will prioritise projects and identify themes.  Auckland Council will be one partner within the action focussed teams.

 

In summary the ‘Self Organising Network’ allows:

 

1.    The development of a set of shared principles and a shared understanding of assumptions behind the opportunity.

2.    Collective agreement on system boundary and opportunity (the force that defines scope of ecosystem).

3.    Distributed decision making on when to create and disband constellations/action groups.

4.    Partners to be action-focused.

5.    The model to flexibly respond to the energy of the partners and emergent opportunities.

 

Governance and Leadership

·    Light weight governance sits with the backbone organisation and supporting stewardship group.

 

Role of Auckland Council

·    Participating actively in the stewardship group.

·    Promoting membership of the initiative and investment in the initiative from strategic partners.

·    Leadership role in implementing  its own internal targets and objectives.

·    Supporting managers and staff to participate in action teams with partner organisations on projects and initiatives that they are aligned with (‘coalitions of the willing’).

 

Benefits

·    Builds on the full spectrum of what already exists and does not honour current efforts and engaging established organizations.

·    Group is financially self- sustaining as backbone organization responsible for leveraging 3rd party funding .

·    Opportunity  to mobilise Auckland via large scale social change.

·    Opportunity to bring people who have never before worked together into a collective impact initiative and hold them in place until the initiative’s own momentum takes over.

·    Cultivate collective (or shared) leadership and coordination as the process by which multiple actors align their efforts to take action.

·    Empowered people/teams working on common goals, interests and ideologies.

·    Gets things done in a nimble, high impact manner by letting people get on with what they do best.

·    Catalyses positive change through a coordinated set of high impact mutually reinforcing activities.

·    Enhanced International competiveness.

·    Commercialisation of new sectors .

·    Activating citizenship.

 

 

Risks

·    Potential destabilisation by member groups who are not fully aligned to shared vision.

·    Potential for failure if the backbone organization is not led by people possessing strong adaptive leadership skills (the ability to mobilize people without imposing a predetermined agenda or taking credit for success).

·    Potential for overlap of initiatives and duplication due to lack of strong central governing body.

·    Potential for missed opportunities for shared measurement and reporting.


 

 

4.0 Analysis and Recommendation

In this report we presented three options for the implementation and governance of Low Carbon Auckland through an approach that fulfils three key requirements:

 

•             overseeing the implementation of the LCAAP

•             mobilizing large scale social change

•             enabling innovation

 

There is a growing and strong evidence base that achieving large-scale change at pace requires a ‘collective impact’ approach.  There is also the need to capture entrepreneurial, creative, and community levers to move the region towards a low carbon resilient future and to be successful, we need to provide the opportunity and motivation necessary to bring people together into partnership that delivers results and rewards participation.

 

Option 1 represents a modified ‘business as usual’ scenario.  A reconfigured Steering Group supports Auckland Council through an ambassadorial role and overseeing the effective implementation of LCAAP.   Our analysis of this option is that while it provides Council with greater control and a clear line of sight across the actions, a significant risk is that its scope, influence and potential for collective impact are significantly constrained.

 

In Option 2a, Auckland Council is one partner in a collective approach governed by a ‘Stewardship Group’ of senior leaders. The group makes governance decisions together and all members share in the cost of resourcing the initiative.   This group is not just committed to the implementation of the 112 actions in LCAAP, it is actively looking for innovative flagship project to support and invest in. Our analysis of this option is that it represents a more ambitious approach which affords greater scope and influence for transformation. However, participation and therefore impact is limited to actions led by a defined membership.   Flagship projects will be limited in numbers and will reflect the interests of the stewardship group members.

 

In Option 2b, Auckland Council is one partner of a much broader network of partners working collaboratively in self-organising, action-focussed teams, participating in (or leading) action teams that match its interest, skills and expertise.  Our analysis is that this is the only option that is likely to realise the transformation intent of the LCAAP via a collaborative approach which provides a much greater scale, reach and impact.

 

This option should not require any additional resourcing beyond BAU. By committing to co-fund a third-party backbone organisation, coordination and secretariat functions will reside outside of Council.  This risk to Auckland Council is that it has less control, but empowers greater influence and coordination across a much broader range of activities.

 

Option 2b is designed to be self- financing within 12 months and generate its own revenue streams by leveraging external funding (accessed and managed via the Backbone Organisation) additional investment to support the action–focussed teams.

 

Given the need to take truly transformative actions to catalyse a low carbon, energy resilient Auckland it is considered that collective action through action focussed teams will allow the greatest capacity for innovation while leveraging skills and revenue generation from those best placed and incentivised to provide them.

 

Recommendation and Transition between Options

 

This report recommends that Auckland Council endorse Option 2b via Option 2a as a transitionary but vital step to be completed within 6 months).   Taken together Options 2a and 2b present an innovation road map that can evolve as the project builds in complexity and as more diverse partners get involved.

 

This recommendation acknowledges that Options 1 or 2a are unlikely to result in the level of transformation that a truly Low Carbon Auckland requires, or the level of collective buy in from other organisations.

 

This recommendation will ensure the effective implementation of LCAAP, provide for mobilisation of Auckland wide social change and drive innovation while being self-financing within 12 months.

 

Transitioning between stages should be relatively straightforward.

 

 

Transition of Governance Functions

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Transition 1: Current Steering Group to Option 2a Interim Stewardship Group

 

The current Steering Group is reconvened to review the following:

 

·    Criteria and process for selecting Option 2a Stewardship Group Members

·    Value proposition to be developed and a recruitment/communication strategy developed to commence with Launch on July

·    Identify an interim chair or convenor (either current member or new)

 

Tasks to be completed by Option 2a Stewardship Group

·    Define the nature of how and why the Stewardship Group should work together.

·    Process for determining Option 2a strategic leverage points

·    Assess the current assets, successes, gaps and needs in the ecosystem.

·    Criteria for acceptance of flagship projects by the Option 2a Stewardship Group Members

·    Development of options for funding the Option 2a Stewardship Group and Option 2b Backbone Organisation.

·    Partnership Agreements (the way the members work together, roles and responsibilities.) and accompanying Terms of Reference

·    Development of guiding principles-shared understanding of assumptions behind the opportunity

 

 

Transition 2: Option 2a Interim Stewardship Group to Option 2b Self Organising Network

 

The in house secretariat function passes from Auckland Council to an independent Backbone Organisation. This new backbone organisation would be jointly funded by Auckland Council and a number of strategic partners. The existing steering group disbands and are invited to join the Self Organising Network.

 

Key questions that will need to be answered to move between Options 2a and Option 2b

 

·    How might we define self-interest and converging interests (Suggestion to undertake ecosystem mapping/partners asset mapping)?

·    How might we assess gaps and progress of the collaboration?

·    How might we develop measurement and monitoring procedures?

·    How might we make decisions on when to creatively destroy constellation?

·    What is the defined opportunity for potential network Partners to participate? Develop a terms of reference for partnership.

·    What is the Opportunity or Common Agenda?

·    What is the process by which the governance functions of council be externalised in a Backbone organisation?

·    How do we secure sufficient financial resources for years 1-3?

·    What are the roles and responsibilities of network partners?

The following tasks will also need to be undertaken during transition 2.

·    Criteria for selecting Option 2b Partnership Group Members

·    Define the nature of how and why the Partnership Group should work together.

·    Create the Backbone Organisation and make key founding appointments.

·    Provide funding for years 1-3.

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

CBD air quality: Personal Exposure to Noise and Air Pollution study.

 

File No.: CP2014/09648

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to present the findings of research into CBD air quality found by the Personal Exposure to Noise and Air Pollution study.

Executive summary

2.       The Personal Exposure to Noise and Air Pollution (PENAP) study PENAP is a collaborative study between Heart of the City, Auckland Council, NIWA, University of Auckland and Auckland University of Technology. PENAP was funded by the CBD Targeted Rate, through the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board. PENAP used expertise from a range of fields and high resolution monitoring techniques, measuring nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ultrafine particulates, carbon monoxide (CO) and noise levels.

3.       Preliminary results from the study indicate that air quality varies around the Central Business District.  Some streets with higher traffic volumes (e.g. Albert St and Customs St) have up to twice the level of air pollutants as other streets (e.g. the shared spaces of Elliot St and Lorne St).

4.       Data captured by the study, while not directly comparable to standards and guidelines, suggests that annual mean concentrations of NO2 are close to the MfE Ambient Air Quality Guideline and Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standard in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

5.       Further analysis of these data and additional research is required to confirm the sources of air pollutants and their relative contributions.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      receive the PENAP report

b)      agree that the PENAP study has demonstrated a potential air quality issue in the CBD that would benefit from further research

c)      direct officers to investigate options for further funding.

 

 

Comments

6.       The PENAP study was designed to intensively describe CBD air quality, in winter and spring of 2013. 62 NO2 samplers were deployed over 6 weeks. 22 intensive pedestrian surveys of ultrafine particles, CO and noise were conducted over 6 weeks, morning and afternoon in 7 streets. These high resolution data have yielded several key results, described below:

7.       There are no standards or guidelines against which to compare the levels of ultrafine particles observed in this study. However, the concentrations recorded are consistent with those found in other international cities.

8.       There were significant differences in air quality observed between streets in the CBD, even adjacent streets. Amongst built up streets, the most polluted streets had ~35 % higher concentrations than the least polluted. Results broadly indicate that more heavily trafficked streets have worse air quality.

9.       Air quality was generally found to be worse at intersections than in mid-block sections.

10.     Air quality was relatively poor at the southern end of Lower Queen Street considering that cars are not permitted to use it.

11.     Concentrations of NO2 were substantially lower in the shared spaces of Elliott Street, Lorne Street, and in semi-exposed Kitchener Street compared to street canyons with more traffic. Concentrations in Customs Street were double those in Elliott Street. However, there was less difference observed for ultrafine particles. This may be due to NO2 being measured continuously (24-hrs-a-day) but ultrafine particles being measured during morning peak and mid-day periods only. It may also relate to buildings at either end of Elliott Street sheltering it from the dispersive effect of the wind. This means that any potential gain in air quality from reducing or removing traffic may be dependent upon how “porous” the surrounding built environment is to dispersive air flow. This deserves further investigation.

12.     Analysis to date indicates that Auckland Council’s long-term air quality monitoring site in Queen Street is broadly representative of the CBD as a whole.

13.     Shifts in wind direction appeared to have substantial differential impacts on air quality across the CBD. During parts of the study, concentrations of particles were higher in Elliott Street than in Customs Street. It is hypothesised that this was due to the occurrence of north-easterly winds during Customs Street sampling (as opposed to the more common south-westerly winds) leading to improved ventilation of the Britomart area. This is partially supported by relatively low concentrations of NO2 being observed at three sites close to Quay Street. This has implications for the use of a single monitoring site (e.g. Queen Street) to represent hourly and daily variation in air quality in the CBD due to potential meteorologically-driven biases on this timescale.

14.     Elliot Street was perceived to have the least stress-inducing soundscape.

15.     As a lasting legacy of the PENAP study, an ultrafine particle counter was installed at the existing Queen St air quality monitoring site. It is intended that these data will be available in real time online in the near future.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16.     Officers are engaging with the Waitemata Local Board regarding PENAP and CBD air quality. A meeting is scheduled for the 19th of June to discuss the results of this study.

17.     Officers intend to engage with the Waitemata Local Board to assist in delivering the Board’s plan target on improving CBD air quality, through the meeting scheduled for the 19th of June.

Māori impact statement

18.     The results discussed in this report can enable Māori and Kaitiakitanga by enhancing Mauri and contributing to Matauranga Māori. This report will also be of value to inform the Māori Plan and pertinent environmental indicators.

Implementation

19.     Further analysis of existing data and further research are required to meaningfully understand the drivers of CBD air quality.

20.     Further work will require additional funding, which is currently being sought by officers through the RIMU Contestable Fund. Alternative funding sources are also being sought in the event that this application is unsuccessful. A modeling study using the PENAP dataset is proposed, allowing a range of potential scenarios to be investigated.

PENAP has built a foundation for CBD air quality research which needs to be built on.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Personal Exposure to Noise and Air Pollution (PENAP) - Draft final report

77

     

Signatories

Authors

Nick Reid - Scientist

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 



















































Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

Update on the ‘Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari’ (Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan) Project

 

File No.: CP2014/09387

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee with an update on the current status and future direction of the Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari (Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan) project.

Executive summary

2.       Marine spatial planning was identified as international best practice to address the difficult and complex issues of continued environmental decline within the Hauraki Gulf identified by the Hauraki Gulf Forum in 2011.  A directive to carry out marine spatial planning for Auckland’s entire coastal marine area was included in the Auckland Plan.

3.       Planning for a Hauraki Gulf Marine Park marine spatial planning project occurred during 2011 and 2012, involving mana whenua representatives and multiple local and central government agencies.  A project design was endorsed by the Hauraki Gulf Forum in late 2012 and by Auckland Council and Waikato Regional Council in early 2013.  The project was officially launched in September 2013 and will run for two years.

4.       The project will produce a non-statutory plan that will then be implemented, as appropriate, by relevant agencies through their statutory processes.  Non-statutory and voluntary implementation will also occur.

5.       A ‘political level’ Project Steering Group (PSG), made up of eight mana whenua and eight agency representatives with mana whenua and agency co-chairs, has been established to provide high level guidance to the project.  The PSG will also sign off on the final plan and endorse it to their parent organisations for implementation.

6.       A Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) has been formed that will develop the plan through a consensus directed collaborative process.  An Independent Chair and a Facilitator have been appointed to assist the SWG that is made up of 14 members from mana whenua and interested groups.  Parallel selection processes for mana whenua and non-mana whenua members were run in late 2013.

7.       The SWG is currently in a ‘listening and learning’ phase and has identified six main topic areas it will focus on.  It is establishing ‘round table’ groups for each topic where several SWG members will work with other informed interested parties to make progress on the topics and report back to the whole SWG.

8.       The project is supported by a multi-agency Project Team which, amongst other matters, includes a multi-agency and mana whenua Project Board that makes operational decisions; work-streams that provide SWG support; engagement and communication programmes; and mechanisms and teams that coordinate provision of technical advice (including mātauranga Māori and geospatial decision support tools (Sea Sketch)).

9.       Awareness raising, information collection and progressive community engagement is occurring through a number of initiatives that also feed the information obtained back into the SWG process.

10.     Overall assessment of the robustness of plan development will be periodically provided by a small ‘Independent Review Panel’.

11.     A series of future steps to deliver the final marine spatial plan by September 2015 is broadly outlined.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      receive the Update on the Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari (Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan) Project report.

 

Comments

 

 

Background

12.     The findings of the Hauraki Gulf Forum’s 2011 State of our Gulf (SOG) report were a significant driver for the marine spatial planning initiative.  The SOG report found that most environmental indicators either showed negative trends or remained at levels indicating poor environmental condition.  The Hauraki Gulf is likely the most highly valued and used coastal area in the country.  The Gulf’s current and future condition is of great social, cultural, economic and environmental importance.  The causes of deterioration and the various remedial responses are complex and effective solutions require integration amongst numerous statutory agencies, mana whenua and the wider community.  Marine spatial planning was identified as international best practice to address such complex and difficult issues, capable of providing active stakeholder participation in the planning process and ultimate ‘ownership’ of the integrated outcomes delivered.

13.     Directive 7.13 of the Auckland Plan states: “Ensure integrated and sustainable management of marine areas through marine spatial planning for the Hauraki Gulf, Kaipara Harbour, Manukau Harbour and west coast”.  Preparation for implementation of this directive for the Hauraki Gulf occurred during 2011/12, primarily involving mana whenua representatives, Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).  The project structure for a Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan was endorsed by the Hauraki Gulf Forum in December 2012 and was approved by the Auckland Plan Committee in February 2013 (resolution APC/2013/3), and by the Waikato Regional Council in the same month. 

14.     The project was approved to run for two years.  The approved project structure identified the central role of a Stakeholder Working Group, with members from interested sectors of the whole community and mana whenua, which develops the plan through a collaborative process.  Leadership, ultimate approval of the plan and endorsement of its implementation is provided by a Project Steering Group with ‘political level’ representation from various agencies and mana whenua.  The project is supported by a multi-agency Project Team which, amongst other matters, includes a multi-agency and mana whenua Project Board that makes operational decisions, work-streams that provide SWG support, engagement and communication programmes, and mechanisms and teams that coordinate provision of technical advice (including mātauranga Māori) to the planning process.

15.     The spatial scope of the project includes the marine space of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park (Tikapa Moana, Te Moananui ā Toi), along with its contributing catchments (Fig 1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.seachange.org.nz/PageFiles/29/Hauraki-Gulf-Marine-Park_Basemap-Version_WEB.jpg

 
 

 


Figure 1. Spatial scope of the project. The white dashed line shows the boundary of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park (Auckland Council and Waikato Regional Council combined east-coast coastal marine area boundary). The Shaded land portion shows the catchments draining into the Hauraki Gulf.

16.     The project will produce a non-statutory plan that the relevant agencies and interested parties will implement.  Amongst other agencies, statutory implementation under the Resource Management Act (RMA) could include the Auckland Council making changes to its Unitary Plan to incorporate new or revised provisions identified in the marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf and its contributing catchments in the region.  The plan is also likely to provide advice and guidance to other non-statutory strategies, plans and actions of the agencies involved and to promote voluntary actions and initiatives by mana whenua, industry and the wider community.

Current Status

17.     More information on the project, regular updates and opportunities to participate can be obtained from the project website www.seachange.org.nz.

18.     The PSG was formally established in August 2013, has subsequently met three times and will normally meet quarterly during the project term.  The PSG reflects a partnership model and has 16 members, including eight mana whenua representatives (from the ~26 iwi with interests in the study area) and eight agency representatives (Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Territorial Authorities in the Waikato catchment, Hauraki Gulf Forum, DOC, MPI).  Auckland Council is represented by Councillors Penny Webster and Mike Lee.  The PSG has two co-chairs - Paul Majurey as mana whenua co-chair and Councillor Penny Webster as agency co-chair.

19.     The Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan project has been branded as Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari and a logo has been developed (Fig 2).

 
 

 

 

 


Figure 2: Project Logo (copied from the project website www.seachange.org.nz)

20.     The project was officially launched at a public event in September 2013.  This set the two-year term of the project as running until September 2015.

21.     The Stakeholder Working Group was formed through a series of forums held between October and December 2013.  An Independent Chair (Nick Main) and an Executive Facilitator (Kaaren Goodall) were employed by the project in November 2013 to run the SWG collaborative process and assist with community engagement.  The SWG has 14 members, four mana whenua and ten from interested groups.  Membership was finalised in December 2013.  The composition of the group was decided by more than 130 people from a range of groups - from industry bodies to conservationists.  The mana whenua representatives were selected using a different process.  More information on SWG members can be found on the project website (www.seachange.org.nz).

22.     The terms of reference of the SWG identify the purpose as follows: “The Sea Change project aims to develop a spatial plan that will achieve sustainable management of the Hauraki Gulf, including a Hauraki Gulf that is vibrant with life and healthy mauri, is increasingly productive and supports thriving communities.  It aims to provide increased certainty for the economic, cultural and social goals of our community and ensure the ecosystem functions that make those goals possible are sustained.  The spatial plan will provide guidance and vision for the sustainable management of the Hauraki Gulf, including locations set aside for various human related activities and areas for protection of the natural environment.  It will do this using an integrated multi-agency approach through the formation of a collaborative stakeholder forum who will work together to plan for the Gulf’s future.”

23.     The SWG has met five times to date and will normally meet monthly during the term of the project.  The process the SWG will undertake to develop the marine spatial plan can be carried out in phases of listening/learning, identification of issues and options, analysis of options and drafting of the plan, then finalising the plan.  Currently the SWG is in the listening/ gathering knowledge phase where the members are obtaining briefings and information on the matters relevant to the Gulf, including that obtained from early public engagement processes (see more on ‘engagement’ below).  Knowledge encompasses three threads - science and technical information, community and local knowledge, and mātauranga Māori.

24.     The SWG has identified six broad topic areas to address and has formed ‘round tables’ for each that involve several SWG members along with a group of further relevant interested parties.  The SWG round tables are co-chaired by SWG members and draw widely from stakeholder groups.  The process is supported by facilitation and specialist technical advice.  The ‘round tables’ meet between SWG meetings and report back at monthly SWG sessions.  Round table topics are: Water quality and catchments; Hauraki Gulf fish stocks; Biodiversity and biosecurity; Gulf Infrastructure; Aquaculture; and Accessible gulf.  Their process is guided by the SWG, who also ensure that healthy ecology, economy and mauri are well integrated when all topics come together around the SWG table and in the spatial plan.

25.     Awareness raising, information collection and progressive community engagement is occurring through a number of initiatives that also feed the information obtained back into the SWG process.  A project website (www.seachange.org.nz) established for the project launch was recently updated to coincide with this year’s ‘Sea Week’ events and the release of a public use and value survey.  The well publicised public survey, developed by Auckland University of Technology, was accessed via the website portal and used the geospatial decision support tool ‘SeaSketch’ as its platform.  In the order of 1600 surveys were completed by the end of the survey in mid-April.  The website ‘portal’ also provides a mechanism for interested parties to sign up and receive regular newsletters and e-mailed updates, access to an events calendar, information about upcoming opportunities to be involved, access to background material, minutes of SWG meetings, and other material.

26.     SeaSketch, operated in New Zealand by the DOC and developed by ESRI and University of California Santa Barbara, has been tailored to the project’s needs through joint-funding support.  Geospatial datasets for a large suite of factors has been constructed and collated by the project’s partner agencies.

27.     The engagement process has also involved outreach and awareness raising at popular events (e.g. Pasifika, Polyfest, Sea Week).  In addition, around 24 ‘Listening Posts’ will capture the voice of the Gulf.  These are small groups within coastal and island communities that are distributed widely across the Gulf, many of whom are rarely consulted or involved in council processes.  They bring their significant local knowledge, provide their insight into the state of the Gulf in the past, on how things have changed through time and their observations of today, and aspirations for the gulf in 20-30 years.  Amongst other objectives, preliminary feedback from the ‘listening posts’, the on-line ‘use and value’ survey, and other sources has been helping to confirm the SWG’s selection of round table topics and to inform the round table participants.

28.     The SWG is being provided with specialist technical advice to inform the scope and nature of the identified topics.  Information flow is coordinated through a ‘Technical Support Group’ with links into specialists within the partner agencies and to external sources.  Overall assessment of the robustness of plan development will be periodically provided by a small ‘Independent Review Panel’ including international marine spatial planning expertise.

29.     Technical officer support of the mana whenua representatives on the PSG and SWG is in the process of being organised, as are mechanisms aimed at supporting development of geospatial data sets of mana whenua uses and values, and contribution of mātauranga Māori to the SWG process.

Future Direction

30.     Community involvement, best possible knowledge and information availability, and provision of increasing opportunities for participation will be an ongoing feature of the project.

31.     Periodic assessment by the Independent Review Panel will improve the quality of the final plan. 

32.     The steps to deliver the final marine spatial plan by September 2015 are still developing and evolving as the SWG collaborative process firms up.  However, the following sets out the current broad expectation.

33.     Over the next few months (to July 2014) the SWG will progressively move from listening and learning about the main topics to crystallising their thoughts on the critical issues to be addressed in the plan.

34.     Solutions or options for responding to the critical issues will be identified and analysed by the SWG and its’ ‘round tables’ over the following six months (to December 2014) and preferred options shortlisted.  An implementation plan will also be developed during this period to ensure that relevant agencies and interested parties will be well placed to put the final plan into practice.

35.     Solutions which leverage off each other and deliver optimal benefits for ecology, economy and mauri as well as being broadly acceptable to stakeholders and implementable by agencies and others will be explored, trade-offs considered and consensus-based solutions progressively determined over the next six months (to June 2015).  Opportunities for public input, consultation and SWG response will be provided.

36.     The final three months of the project will involve finalising of the plan, its’ approval by the PSG and release of the final marine spatial plan endorsed by the PSG for implementation by their parent organisations.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

37.     Local Boards, in particular Great Barrier Island and Waiheke Island, are well informed about Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari developments.  The significant capability of Local Boards to reflect the views of the community is respected and opportunities to contribute to the SWG process are being provided.  The island perspective is being actively sought.

38.     Increasing opportunities are expected to develop as the SWG moves from its current listening phase into the options identification and analysis phase.

Māori impact statement

39.     Development of a marine spatial plan is of great interest to mana whenua.  The project structure has been carefully designed to provide for active participation throughout by mana whenua.  Suitability of the Maori participation aspects of the design, along with selection of representatives and members, has been provided and confirmed by mana whenua.

40.     The equal ‘mana whenua to agency’ representation design of the PSG reflects a partnership model, as does its co-chair arrangement.  PSG mana whenua representatives were chosen by mana whenua.

41.     The collaborative SWG process seeks consensus decisions amongst a membership that broadly reflects the perspectives and interests of all the interested parties.  Voting is not used and membership is not a ‘numbers game’.  The number of mana whenua SWG members and the members themselves were chosen by mana whenua processes.

42.     Technical officers, who would effectively be part of the Project Team, are being identified to help support the activities of the PSG representatives and SWG members.  Approaches are also being explored to ensure that mātauranga Māori knowledge, including geospatial information is made available and fed into the SWG process as appropriate.

43.     Mana whenua have representation on the Project Board that directs the Project Team and its Project Manager on operational matters.

44.     Mana whenua engagement approaches have been developed.

Implementation

45.     The project will deliver a non-statutory marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf and contributing catchments that is available for immediate voluntary implementation by interested parties.  However, aspects of the plan are expected to also require statutory implementation to give them ‘teeth’.

46.     Statutory agencies, including Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, the DOC and MPI, are expected to have aspects of the plan that they will implement through their respective statutory processes.  Under the RMA for example, Auckland Council is expected to implement various matters via plan changes to its Unitary Plan, while Waikato Regional Council would instigate changes to its coastal plan.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Dominic McCarthy, Team Leader Coastal Management.

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

Update on Environment Strategic Action Plan

 

File No.: CP2014/09390

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To update the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee on the progress made on the Environment Strategic Action Plan (ESAP) and to present several recommendations on the future direction of the project.

Executive summary

2.       The scope of the project was endorsed by the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee on 11 December 2013 (ES/2013/45).  This is a second progress report.

3.       Work has progressed to better articulate the case for establishing a green growth agenda. Green growth is supported by organisations such as the World Bank, OECD, and UNEP and, as an emerging international competitive city, it is important for Auckland Council to be an active participant in this movement.

4.       The project is in an exciting discovery phase.  We are gathering information about current priorities and ideas for game-changing actions from across the organisation and CCOs.

5.       Since the last update we have:  (1) identified and aligned environmental actions and initiatives proposed across the Auckland Plan and other plans and strategies;  (2) synthesised feedback received from other engagement processes over the last three years;  (3) received an interim report on the present perceived need for an Environment Forum and recommendations on how to progress;  (4) identified internal processes as leverage points for better decisions that have environmental impact/ implications; and  (5) submitted a position paper on the development of an environmental asset management class, tabled separately to this Committee.  We are currently building the case for a green growth agenda for Auckland.

6.       We have assessed if the present organisational and external conditions are right for establishing an Environment Forum to enable collaborative governance (internally and externally).  The initial report-back concludes with noting the paradox that “to establish an effective collaborative process as quickly as possible, given the current context, it would be better to move slowly towards this goal”.

7.       Acting on these recommendations we propose the next step is to establish an oversight group to support the development of Auckland’s green growth agenda.  The group will contribute to the development of a shared ownership and become its own “identity” required for the eventual governance structure.  The group will provide direction for implementation of strategically aligned, coordinated and prioritised actions for Auckland Council, the CCOs and partners.  This will enable Auckland to shift towards green growth.

8.       The completed strategic action plan will make recommendations for steps required to record and communicate the state of Auckland’s environment to decision-makers and communities.  Developing the proposed environmental asset class and management framework is the first step on the way to transforming the way we think about and use our many significant environmental assets.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      endorse the development of the green growth agenda to complement and support the work done to date on strategic environmental actions.

b)      endorse the convening of an interim oversight group to support the development of Auckland’s green growth agenda.

 

Comments

 

9.       A project concept was presented to the Environment and Sustainability Forum in August 2013.  The Forum resolved to (ES/2013/45):

a)      endorse the work completed to date, the expected deliverables and the general approach being taken by the Environment Strategic Action Plan.

b)      request that officers report back to the relevant committee on scenarios for how internal and external engagement will be approached and proposal for the planning horizon of Environment Strategic Action Plan.

10.     The scope of the project was presented to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee in December 2013.  The Committee resolved to (ENV/2013/3):

a)      endorse the proposed benefits and scope of the Environment Strategic Action Plan.

b)      receive a progress update on approach to internal and external engagement.

11.     ESAP represents a unique opportunity for Auckland Council to give focus to Transformational Shift 2 - Strongly commit to environmental action and green growth.  It provides a “line of sight” between Transformational Shift 2, the other transformational shifts and the Auckland Plan outcomesA strong commitment to green growth and environmental outcomes is considered a prerequisite to achieving all transformation shifts and will support the successful delivery of a wide range of social, environmental, economic and cultural outcomes.  In the longer term, Transformational Shift 2 will involve reframing and integrating approaches to caring for the environment and growing the economy, a concept understood as green growth.

12.     Auckland Plan defines green growth at one level; ESAP will develop this further by building a shared understanding and vision through Auckland’s green growth agenda.

13.     As the green growth agenda is gaining momentum across the world, cities are increasingly competing on their environmental credentials.  The private sector is investing in clean technology because it makes economic sense as well as being the right thing to do.  New approaches and practices such as full cost accounting are now common in many mainstream organisations and businesses.  Auckland Council needs to take the lead and “walk the talk” in relation to green growth.

14.     A green growth agenda represents a significant opportunity for Auckland Council to support industries and technologies that deliver innovative and environmentally responsible goods and services through new approaches to our asset management and through sustainable procurement decisions.

15.     One interpretation of green growth suggests a repositioning of the environment to the centre of the economy.  This is built on the understanding that tracking GDP is an insufficient measure of progress, as much GDP growth in the last 30 years has come from a drawdown on natural capital.  If Auckland chose this direction we would be investing in the kind of development where environmental gains contribute to economic growth and economic progress does not come at an environmental cost.  Auckland Council would need to ensure that investment in infrastructure, housing and transport development also achieves environmental outcomes.

16.     Auckland’s long term economic development is dependent on a healthy natural environment.  The tourism, fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture sectors all require clean water, clean air and fertile, non-contaminated land.  Our environmental reputation has been a point of difference in the global context.  This reputation is now at risk.  Aucklanders need to maximise the benefits that the environment provides and pay attention to where these benefits are at risk.  The development of an environmental asset class provides an opportunity to manage the things we value better.

17.     The project is mapping internal processes for potential points of leverage in decision-making.  The key areas identified include the Long Term Plan process, the asset management framework, procurement planning and reporting, bylaws, codes of practice, standards, statement of intent, the Auckland Design Manual and organisational restructures.  Further opportunities to change the way we work across council and with the COOs to embed environmental principles and accounting standards are being interrogated.

18.     The action plan will provide a roadmap of prioritised strategic actions.  It will provide the building blocks required to achieve the Auckland Plan aspirational environmental outcomes.  It will be an “active” plan, its first iteration to be signed off in September 2014.  Over the next 5 years ESAP will continue to evolve in form and content through engagement with both internal and external stakeholders.

Engagement

19.     ESAP is being prepared by a team of subject matter, policy, project management and change management experts from across council departments.  The approach to both internal and external engagement is broad and multi-modal.  Our internal customers are generating ideas, including communicating ESAP and the green growth agenda using creative interactive sessions run by community-based groups and video clips starring influential figures speaking about ESAP/Transformational Shift 2.

20.     Internal engagement started in January 2014 and will continue through the development phase.  Initial engagement with CCOs and some strategic external stakeholders is currently underway.

21.     The project team has engaged Martin Jenkins & Associates Ltd to provide independent advice on future collaborative governance structures and implementation framework, including establishing an Environment Forum.

22.     There are a range of antecedents that need to be in place before collaborative governance for environmental and green growth outcomes can work.  Both the literature reviewed and contractors’ experience with collaborative structures, such as the Land and Water Forum, confirm that collaborative processes require a clear focus, a clear mandate and defined deliverables.  Further, they need a broad base of support which only comes from having power and purpose.  Also, people need to be committed and incentivised to stay committed.  The analysis so far suggests these antecedents are not yet present or formed to the degree required for success.

23.     There are risks associated with jumping into collaboration without doing the necessary ground work.  In particular, pressing ahead without a common purpose could create resistance, damage relationships and get in the way of effective collaboration in the future.

24.     Work to date concludes with noting the paradox that to establish an effective collaborative process as quickly as possible, given the current context, it would be better to move slowly towards this goal.  The recommended approach is to keep building the conversations required with our target external audience through the establishment of an interim advisory group.  The aim is to build consensus and the other antecedents mentioned above as soon as practicable.

25.     Through this interim body, council staff will work with external stakeholders.  Key external groups include: 

·    Mana whenua and Mataawaka

·    Sector groups and thought leaders

·    NGOs

·    Community groups

·    Central government

·    Strategic partnerships, including international organisations such as ICLEI.

26.     Council’s Communications and Public Affairs team are working with the project team to develop an appropriate approach to communication and engagement.  This is likely to include a focus on environment groups and industries, online engagement, as well as activities to target communities.

27.     Engagement modes and methods used include interviews, presentation briefings, workshops and roadshows, and using digital media through Shape Auckland and People’s Panel survey.

28.     The Governing Body will be involved in key decisions relating to the plan development.  Local Boards are being approached via Communications and Public Affairs to determine how and when they will input to the plan.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

29.     Local Boards are responsible for local environmental programmes.  A number of Local Boards have expressed a commitment to the environment in their Local Board plans.  Local Boards are currently being contacted to organise workshops in June and July to allow their input into ESAP and ensure place-based community values, aspirations and projects relating to the natural environment are expressed in this Auckland-wide strategy.  This will be followed by an opportunity for Local Boards to provide formal feedback on the draft plan.

Maori impact statement

30.     This project is of significant interest to mana whenua, as evidenced by recent negotiations around environmental governance and management in the Treaty claims settlement processes.

31.     Mātauranga Māori provides an integrating world view that aligns well with the central strategic direction of Chapter 7 of the Auckland Plan: Acknowledge that nature and people are inseparable.  ESAP will seek opportunities for Mātauranga Māori to inform actions, methods, and monitoring and measurement of environmental actions over time.

32.     ESAP will ensure Auckland Plan Māori Chapter Priority 2 is communicated and inform the implementation framework.

33.     ESAP will work with Te Waka Angamua and the newly formed internal working group on co-governance and co-management to determine how best to engage with mana whenua.

Implementation

34.     Development and implementation of ESAP will require ongoing resource and staff commitment and need to be addressed.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Karen Creagh, Specialist Water Management.

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

LED Road Lighting Conference

 

File No.: CP2014/07143

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To inform the committee on the Light Emitting Diodes (LED) Road Lighting Conference held in Auckland 11th – 12th March 2014.

Executive Summary

2.       The Auckland Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan (the ‘Action Plan’) is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder plan that will guide Auckland’s transformation towards an energy resilient future and deliver on the Auckland Plan’s aspirational target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40% by 2040.

3.       The draft Action Plan is structured around five areas of transformation including, transforming the way we use and generate energy – Element 1: Managing the energy demand, includes Action 1: Establish a plan to deploy modern energy efficient technology for street lighting to improve energy efficiency outcomes by 2015.

4.       Street lighting for Auckland consumes 58 GW (Giga Watts) hours per annum, 20 percent of Auckland Council Group electricity usage, equivalent to 8,700 tonnes of CO2

5.       Many of the energy efficiency technologies available for street lighting can also be utilised for park and outdoor lighting.  Council park lighting includes car park, walkway, reserve and training lights and consumes 1,140,804 kilowatt hours per annum, 0.4 percent of Auckland Council Group electricity usage.  Some dedicated training lights are paid for by sport groups and not included in the council park consumption.

6.       This report provides a summary on the international adoption of LED technology for road and outdoor lighting as presented at the LED Road Lighting Conference and outlines council’s progress in utilising LED lighting and intelligent lighting technologies.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      receive the report

b)      agree that the report be forwarded to all local boards for their information.

 

 

Discussion

7.       The LED Road Lighting Conference was held in Auckland during 11 – 12 March 2014 and was opened by Mayor Len Brown and Lawrence Yule, President of Local Government New Zealand and Mayor of Hastings.

8.       The technology development of Light Emitting Diodes (LED) has evolved at a rapid pace from standby lights for televisions to lighting luminaires for street lighting, outdoor lighting (car park, walkway and park lighting) and office lighting. 

9.       Thirty speakers presented information and case studies at the LED Road Lighting Conference from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.  Presentations included small – significant LED installations, central management systems, road safety, procurement, funding, consortiums and smart grid networks.

10.     As part of his research, Graham Mawer, Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) identified the 15 largest committed LED street lighting deployment programmes as:

 

Location

Country

Total Luminaries

1

New York

USA

250,000

2

Los Angeles

USA

141,000

3

Chennai

India

110,000

4

Birmingham

UK

95,000

5

Buenos Aires

Argentina

91,000

6

Nova Scotia Power

Canada

85,000

7

New Brunswick Power

Canada

72,000

8

Boston

USA

64,000

9

Sheffield

UK

58,000

10

Guang Dong

China

48,000

11

Los Vegas

USA

42,000

12

Californian Department of Transport

USA

42,000

13

Seattle

USA

41,000

14

Austin

USA

35,000

15

Leicester

UK

33,000

 

City of Los Angeles

11.     The Los Angeles Bureau of Lighting converted 140,000 street lights to LED and installed a Tele-Management System (TMS) over four years, costing $USD 57 million and borrowed $USD 40 million to assist with funding.  Installation was completed in-house using the in-house maintenance crews and seven rental trucks. Testing was undertaken every six months with specifications modified where necessary or taking technology developments into account, and lighting, electrical and mechanical evaluations were undertaken.  A public outreach programme called ‘Doing our part for the environment … LED street lighting energy efficiency program’ was undertaken with the community. Job creation included 227 positions for the manufacturer and 15 positions for the City of Los Angeles.

12.     The TMS controls were installed in 54,027 luminaires to date to provide street light diagnostics, control on/off ability and are integrated with photocells.  The TMS installation was paused for two years as the mayor wanted to prioritise LED installation, and now they are going back to continue control installation.  The Bureau of Lighting informed suppliers what their future needs would be for control technology to prepare them to respond.

13.     Final installation included 147,700 LED lights resulting in savings over six year of 63.3% energy reduction, $USD 7.7 million savings, 51,200 tonnes of CO2 reduction, equivalent to 10,667 cars being taken off the road and 7,045 homes worth of energy.  Maintenance savings included single street light repairs dropping from 23,500 (2009) to 13,000 (2013) and total street light repairs dropping from 70,000 (2010) to 43,800 (2013).  The programme payback was seven years.  Outcomes also included a 12.71% reduction in theft from vehicles and an 8.91%% reduction in burglary/robbery/theft for crime statistics. The next step for the City of Los Angeles is to convert 50,000 decorative lights to LED.  Ed Ebrahimian, City of Los Angeles Director Bureau of Street Lighting, and conference speaker recommended for New Zealand to install TMS controls at the same time as LED installation.

New York City

14.     New York City has a vision of ‘A greener, greater New York’ and a target of a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.  A policy decision was made on street lighting assets in a document called ‘Green Light – Sustainable Street Lighting for NYC’.  The most significant constraint for the City of New York is the extensive underground infrastructure and any changes in street lighting pole locations is a major process, so much of their LED upgrade is on existing poles.

15.     LED trial projects have included Central Park lantern replacement (55-83% energy savings), FDR Drive underpass lighting of 5,000 fixtures (29-50% savings) and replacement of 24,389 High Pressure Sodium (HPS) street lights with LED street lights along all major arterial roadways, such as Belt Parkway, Grand Central Parkway, Cross Bronx Expressway and other.  Post Hurricane Sandy, significant quantities of street lighting infrastructure was damaged and New York City will replace them with LEDs using the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding for emergency repairs.

16.     On the 24th October 2013, New York City announced largest LED retrofit for USA for 250,000 fixtures.  Estimated savings are $USD 14 million per annum, including $USD 6 million in energy and $USD 8 million in maintenance.

17.     The first three phases to replace the standard cobra-head HPS street lights will upgrade 80,000 in Brooklyn and Queens by 2015.  It is expected that programme completion will be in 2017 for all 250,000 across the five boroughs.  Replacement with LEDs in New York City’s business and commercial districts will be completed following roadway lighting.

United Kingdom

18.     A sample of LED and TMS projects in the United Kingdom include:

City

Initiative

Birmingham City Council

2012 - 2015

41,000 LED luminaires

Green Investment Bank funding

Saving 5,171 tonnes of carbon a year and up to £3million per annum

Peterborough City Council

2011 – 2013

7,000 LED luminaires

Future dimming proposal (8 pm> midnight 65%, midnight > dawn 50%)

Energy saving LED 45%

With dimming 60%

Leicester City Council

2013 – 2016

33,000 lights to be upgraded to LED

Dimmed 50% at 8 pm

Estimated savings 57%

Actual 75%

Swansea City Council

2012 – ongoing

Dimmed 70% at 8 pm 

Estimated energy savings 60%

Payback 4 years

Northumberland County Council

29,814 luminaires to be upgraded to LED

Staged over 3 years, starting June 2014

Estimated savings 50% for energy and maintenance

Joint venture with the private sector

 

19.     Northumberland County Council has supported the Northumberland International Dark Sky Park (NDSP) bid and together with Northumberland National Park Authority has endorsed a Lighting Management Plan. A £25 million ‘Invest to Save’ project is set to replace up to 16,000 street lighting columns and replace all the existing sodium lanterns with eco-friendly and fully controlled LED units, with the capability to vary the lighting levels, while maintaining public safety. This will significantly reduce light pollution, slash energy and maintenance costs and cut carbon emissions.  A major catalyst for the Northumberland Dark Sky Park initiative has been the phenomenal success of the Kielder Observatory, perched 1200 feet above forest and moorland in Kielder Water & Forest Park. Since the £510,000 facility opened in 2008 it has welcome over 50,000 visitors, eager to experience celestial wonders above this ultra-dark location.

Europe

20.     The European Union has set itself the ambitious target of increasing energy efficiency by 20% by 2020.  Lighting accounts for about 50% of electricity consumption in cities.  European cities can therefore play a major role in the reduction of the carbon footprint by large-scale deployment of LED lighting solutions.  The European Commission has published ‘Lighting the Cities – Accelerating the Deployment of Innovative Lighting in European Cities’.

Safety and Lighting Standards

21.     Discussion at the conference took place about lighting standards that were designed with current and older yellow light technologies to meet safety standards.  Mesopic vision is a combination of photopic vision and scotopic vision in low but not quite dark lighting situations. Most night-time outdoor and road lighting scenarios are in the mesopic range.  White light is interpreted by the eye differently to yellow light and pedestrians or road users can see more clearly and distinguish background colours more clearly.

22.     Points were also made about the importance of contrast to enable pedestrians or road users to distinguish what they see up ahead so that the foreground does not blend and become undistinguishable.  A balance needs to be achieved between under-lighting and over-lighting.

23.     In 2003 the United Kingdom were the first country in the world to change national codes to allow a drop in lighting levels of one lighting class on subsidiary roads (access roads, residential roads and pedestrian or cycle paths) if a light source with a colour rendering of 60 or more is used in the residential roads, which is the case with white light.

Tels-Management Systems (TMS)

24.     Alistair Scott, British Lighting Standards Committee summarised intelligent management of public lighting as “the right light in the right place at the right time consuming the minimal amount of electrical energy.”  TMS assist street lighting authorities save energy and reduces operating and maintenance costs while improving both the quality and reliability of lighting.

25.     The TMS system enables individual light points to be switched on/off at any given time, or to be dimmed to any level (100%, 75%, 50%), or dimmed for instance depending on traffic volumes. This provides considerable energy savings, thus helping to reduce CO2 emissions in compliance with national and international environmental regulations and directives. 

26.     The age and condition of each lamp can also be monitored, and any failures are reported by exact location. This offers the opportunity to significantly reduce maintenance costs through extended lamp life and accurate scheduling of service calls.

Slide 92

27.     Case studies presented at the conference ranged from swapping existing luminaire for LED luminaire only, to installing TMS (or Central Management System) technology with each LED luminaire, to retrofitting TMS technology to upgraded LED luminaire.  Part of the reasoning was improving light levels and reducing energy and maintenance costs by replacing luminaires as quickly as possible and the other was that while TMS provided initial good control, the technological developments with TMS technology over the last 3 – 4 years has improved significantly and is now more worthwhile to install, even retrofitting.

Municipal Solid State Street Lighting Consortium (MSSLC)

28.     In 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States Department of Energy administered programme distributed $2.7 billion in grants directly to cities with populations 35,000 or more.  A large percentage of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) recipients indicated they would use the fund to toward installing LED street lighting.  The MSSLC has 439 member councils, government agencies and utilities across the United States.

29.     The MSSLC is intended to be an educational resource on solid-state street lighting and associated technology for those involved in lighting streets and other outdoor public areas.  The Mayors Conference on 16th June 2012 voted to supporting the Consortium and the nation-wide use of LEDs.  In the United States the average luminaire age is 15-20 years old, lighting types include 80% High Pressure Sodium:10% Metal Halide:5% Mercury Vapour: and 5% Other.  This technology is very dated and inefficient. Today, over 600 US cities have either installed or are plan to install LED street lights in the USA. 

30.     The MSSLC provides guidance through providing LED specifications, financial analysis tools and financial guidance.  Financial guidance can include self-funding, utility finance (municipally owned), grants and/or rebates or third-party funding.  Challenges cities face to upgrade to LED lighting include: first costs (ie CAPEX costs), utility company opposition, political priorities and education at executive level.

Other Consortiums

31.     There are similar consortiums to MSSLC in Canada, Sydney and the United Kingdom providing education on LED and TMS technology, developing product and service specifications, arranging procurement process/pricing and supporting the upgrade energy efficient street lighting.

32.     TALQ is Tele-Management System (TMS) consortium working with TMS suppliers to enable open-communication of different technology and platforms (called “inter-operability”) products and communications to develop agreed standards to facilitate common operation.  This is important for customers to ensure they are not locked into one technology and supplier and that a competitive market thrives.

Funding Mechanisms

33.     Presentations covered a range of funding mechanism including energy performance contracting, Energy Services Company (ESCO) contracts, central government grants/investment funds, and Private Public Partnerships (PPP).

34.     Energy performance contracting - is a contract between an energy service provider and a consumer to improve energy performance over a set period of time (eg street lighting).  It provides a transparent way to manage technical and commercial risks, while guaranteeing outcomes and results.  Energy performance contracts also provide scope for capital raising against energy savings annuities.  They are long term (5-10 years and sometimes longer), reduce operating costs through guaranteed performance outcomes, energy savings cash flow pays for capital investment of the upgrade and finances for any capital investment are linked to operational savings. The Energy Management Association of New Zealand (EMANZ) is working with project partners including councils, government agencies, and a major bank to develop a specification for energy performance contracts for New Zealand.

35.     A contract with an Energy Services Company (ESCO) - is where energy savings are achieved (e.g. street lighting LED upgrade) by selling lighting as a service. This model guarantees savings for a set period of time in exchange for payment from the energy cost savings.   The upgrade is paid by the financier and they share a percentage of savings with the council for term of project and financier pays maintenance costs.

36.     Benefits include no upper limitations on project size for some of the larger ESCOs, which are multinational corporations with third-party capital funding their activities; there is little upfront cost for the owner and generally, the ESCO takes on performance risk: if no energy is saved, the ESCO does not profit.

37.     Green Investment Bank - the United Kingdom has initiated the Green Investment Bank.  It is the first bank of its kind in the world, with £3.8 billion of funding from the United Kingdom Government to invest in sustainable projects.  Its mission is: "to accelerate the UK's transition to a green economy and to create an enduring Institution, operating independently of Government."  They invest in United Kingdom projects which are both green and commercial, where their capital is "additional" to available private sector finance.  Birmingham was the first major roll out of 41,000 LED luminaires in residential areas with a further 18 cities following.

38.     Public Private Partnerships (PPP) cover a range of options from maintenance, operation and management contracts through to design and delivery and/or including finance.  The private sector is asked to form a mixed skills consortium, including internationally, to deliver all stages of a project and take or share the risk on the outputs.  It is a procurement technique, not solely a funding technique.  Finance is in the system so that the payment for the asset matches the use of that asset.  Finance provides a stick to drive better performance because the deferred payment can be contingent on performance. PPPs can increase the speed of adoption and consortiums take risk on ‘untried’ technologies, provide councils with a long term (project life) guarantee that is not otherwise available, brings new skills (international), companies and people into the market, asset maintenance is locked in and assets are not neglected, delivers better value through greater transparency about the whole-of-life costs of public assets and incentives for more effective management of them.

Challenges and Opportunities Identified

39.     A number of challenges and opportunities for councils/projects were presented throughout the conference including:

40.     Having a central organisation for information gathering, education, developing product and service specifications, arranging procurement process/pricing funding advice, and supporting the upgrade energy efficient street lighting;

41.     Decision on whether to replace light-for-light in the same pole positions with LED luminaire for improved lighting outcomes or to redesign the whole city for lighting standards compliance  at significant additional cost;

42.     Inter-relationship between asset management, maintenance contracts, product suppliers, funding arrangements and sharing of savings (strategic framework of project and associated contracts);

43.     Whole of life value of projects, associated savings split between energy and maintenance, budget split between CAPEX and OPEX and funding mechanism balance between internal and external funding;

44.     Effective lighting has an impact on improving road safety and reducing crime, it is important to ensure the right light level is at the right place;

45.     Limiting upward light spill to manage light pollution in cities.  Cities support dark sky outcomes;

46.     Community engagement/information on street lighting upgrade to improve lighting levels, improve safety, and reduce crime, energy usage and cost to councils; and

47.     Interaction of an intelligent street lighting network (using a TMS) within the local smart grid.

Auckland Council Group Uptake of LED Lighting

48.     Auckland Transport has developed specifications for LED products, installed a number of LED luminaires including, 1,500 street lights on ‘P’ (pedestrian) classified roads and at Albany park and ride carpark extension and Silverdale park and ride carpark.  Auckland Transport is planning to install 40,000 LED lights over the next two years on ‘P’ category roads. 

49.     Over the last 24 months Auckland Transport has been researching and holding discussions with international suppliers of TMS technology, including non-proprietary control gear for luminaires and the web-based platform for control of the luminaires for on/off, group/individual control, energy, maintenance and fault reporting and so forth.

50.     Auckland Council has a range of LED lit installations including 214 for Project Twin Streams, 175 for Te Ara Tahuna Estuary Cycleway, 154 for Orewa Cycle and Walkway, installed in 45 buildings as part of the community facilities security lighting project, installing 2,460 LEDs as per new lighting layout design in 135 Albert St retrofit, installing 1,015 LED office lights in Bledisloe House retrofit, and replacing downlights with LEDs in a range of facilities.

51.     The Local Sports Park team is examining the opportunity of following Auckland Transport’s lead for controlling park lighting (car parks, walkways, reserves, training lights) with the TMS adopted by Auckland Transport later this year.  The Parks Asset Management team is reviewing future opportunities for LED lighting in new projects being installed (car parks, walkways, reserves) and monitoring the suitability of future developments of LED lights for training lights.

Consideration

Local Board Views

52.     This report will be provided to the Local Boards for their information.

Maori Impact Statement

53.     The knowledge gained with this work will be shared through integrated communication strategies and engagement with iwi on the Low Carbon Auckland action plan.

General

54.     As Auckland Transport and Auckland Council implement initiatives around LED lighting and TMS, they will share information with other Council Controlled Organisations to support their emission reduction and asset management programmes.

Implementation Issues

55.     The Local Sports and Parks Asset Management teams are reviewing the suitability of TMS technology to replace the current paging system for users to turn training lights on/off, understand the staff resource implications for managing their part of the TMS, develop a plan to roll out into new and existing lighting and evaluate the budget implications (CAPEX, OPEX electricity and maintenance).

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Dawson - Energy Manager

Authorisers

Ian Wheeler - Manager Property

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

Mana Whenua and Maori Engagement in the Implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

 

File No.: CP2014/09967

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To update the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee on engagement with Mana Whenua and Maori in the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Executive summary

2.       This report details the engagement with Mana Whenua and Maori in the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.  It outlines the development of the Para Kore ki Tamaki Project (Zero Waste Marae) led by Ngati Whatua o Orakei and the kaitiakitanga in action project with Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust Board.  It also highlights the  opportunities for Maori residents and communities in the south and east to engage and lead projects that reduce, reuse, and recover waste.

3.       The work to date is the beginning of a journey towards building collaborations and capacity that create a mind-set and behaviour change to seeing waste as a resource and minimising our waste to landfill. 

4.       This work is also contributing to Maori outcome areas, in particular Kaitiakitanga, Mana Tangata/Oritetanga, Mauri and Matauranga Maori.

5.       This report is for information only and no decision-making is required.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      Receive this report.

 

 

Comments

6.       Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) recognises the special status of Mana Whenua and Maori and the contribution that tangata whenua ethics and values can provide to the aspirational goal of zero waste within that plan.

7.       One of the key principles guiding the plan is being open to developing partnerships with Tangata Whenua. This will support the sustainable development of Maori outcomes, leadership, and community and enable Tangata Whenua to co-manage natural resources in a way that supports their wellbeing.

8.       The WMMP also recognises that there will need to be specific strategies to support communities who are likely to experience the greatest challenges in preparing for disposer pay charges under the plan.

9.       To achieve the aspirations of the WMMP and in response to the direction of the Governing Body a special project has been established to implement tailored engagement and development approaches to working with Mana Whenua and Maori, the Hauraki Gulf Islands and with communities in the south and east where disposer pays is likely to have a more significant impact. 

10.     There are four key components to this tailored engagement approach which focus specifically on working alongside Mana Whenua and Maori to contribute to strong Maori communities. The areas detailed in this report include:

·        Ngati Whatua led Para Kore ki Tamaki (Zero Waste) marae project

·        A Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust initiative on a  Kaitiakitanga in Action project on Aotea Great Barrier Island

·        Targeted community engagement in the south (Otara Papatoetoe, Mangere Otahuhu, Manurewa)  and Maungakiekie Tamaki.  The focus is to prepare residents for the changes to waste collections and catalyse community-driven initiatives to reduce, reuse and recycle in ways that also achieve wider social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes. 

·        Capacity and capability building

Para Kore ki Tamaki (Zero Waste) Marae Project

11.     This project works closely and partners with Ngati Whatua o Orakei, whose experience and expertise in waste minimisation and zero waste events has been built up over the past 10-15 years. 

12.     An initial hui was held in February 2013, at Orakei Marae, to engage with other marae and Maori educators to share knowledge, resources and expertise on waste minimisation initiatives for marae. Following this hui, each of the 6 marae present identified the need for specific assistance and mentoring to support them on the journey to becoming zero waste.

13.     Ngati Whatua are now leading the Para Kore ki Tamaki (Zero Waste) Project working with marae across the Auckland region. The Para Kore project aims to help marae reduce waste through sharing knowledge and skills about reducing, reusing, recycling, composting and purchasing so that marae can create waste minimisation systems that suit their marae.  This is an adapted version of the Waikato based Para Kore project. 

14.     In their first year the Para Kore team have been invited to work with 10 marae across the Auckland region.  These are Orakei, Hoani Waititi, Haranui, Rewiti, Ruapotaka, Peritahi, Te Mahurehure, Te Puea, Owairoa,  Makaurau and Waipapa Marae.  This project is being funded through Council investment and via a successful application to Auckland Council’s  Waste Management and Innovation Fund.

Kaitiakitanga in Action project on Aotea Great Barrier Island

15.     Council is  also working with Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust on a Kaitiakitanga in Action project on Aotea Great Barrier Island. The focus, initially on waste, is about inspiring everyone on Aotea Great Barrier to be Kaitiaki.  This project is also building the knowledge and expertise of young people to understand, lead and demonstrate their role as Kaitiaki. It includes building awareness and knowledge through art competitions, composing a song that reflects kaitiakitanga values and principles and community workshops.

Community Engagement in the South and East

16.     Through community engagement in the southern local board areas and in the Maungakiekie Tamaki local board area, Maori residents are actively engaging in community projects, taking part in training programmes to become waste and composting champions and leading initiatives in their own neighbourhoods and communities. 

17.     Council is investing in the equivalent of one full time community waste engagement roles for each of the Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe and Mangere-Otahuhu and Maungakiekie-Tamaki local board areas.  These positions are hosted by local community organisations.   The focus is to engage their local communities in getting on board with the changes to waste collection and disposer pays, committed to in the WMMP, and to catalyse community driven reduce, reuse and recover initiatives.  All the organisations that council is partnering with have strong relationships with local marae, Maori organisations and residents.

18.     Council is  also working collaboratively with the Roots Creative Entrepreneurs, initially in Otara Papatoetoe, who, through creativity, are building the capacity of youth – in particular Maori and Pacifica young people, to re-think their approach to waste and experience opportunities for waste as a resource. It is planned to extend this creative engagement to other southern communities in the next financial year.

Capacity and capability building

19.     Every six weeks council officers facilitate a ‘Skill Share’ session for community champions from across the communities we are working with to come together and share ways of working and learn new skills.  There is usually a group of 30-35 people who attend.  The last three skills shares have been hosted on marae – Ruapotaka, Orakei and a two day skill share at Piritahi Marae (Waiheke).  The next skill share is being hosted by Papatuanuku Marae in Mangere. These Skill Shares are opportunities to not only build capacity around waste minimisation but also to build, strengthen and increase understanding and knowledge of Te Ao Maori, Maori protocols and build new relationships.

20.     These targeted programmes also compliment and work closely with council’s existing waste minimisation programmes such as the Cloth Nappy programme for example. In the south we know that disposable nappies make up to 19% of waste to landfill in the average domestic rubbish bag, so this work is especially important in this context. There are two kohanga reo in the south who are interested in trialling the use of cloth nappies in their centres.  They will be actively supported in this desire. 

Conclusion and Next Steps

21.     The work to date with Mana Whenua and Maori is the beginning of a journey towards building collaborations and capacity that create a mind-set and behaviour change to seeing waste as a resource and minimising our waste to landfill.  A strong foundation has been developed that we will continue to be built on as we work towards full implementation of the WMMP and a zero waste future.

22.     Over the next three years all marae in the Auckland region will be invited to take up the offerings of the Para Kore ki Tamaki Project. There will be close evaluations that measures  the reduction of waste to landfill for marae as well as the wider social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes that may be achieved.

23.     The Kaitiakitanga Project with Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust Board will continue to develop and could extend to embrace all aspects of kaitiakitanga.  The principal focus at present is on waste minimisation.

24.     In the southern and Maungakiekie-Tamaki local board areas engagement will continue to build awareness and prepare residents for the changes to waste collections and disposer pays.   Capacity and capability will continue to be developed to lead community initiatives that have a waste focus but also achieve wider community aspirations such as pride of place; safer neighbourhoods, local community food initiatives, social enterprise and Kaitiakitanga. 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25.     Reporting on this work is included in the Infrastructure & Environmental Services quarterly update reports to all Local Boards and through topic specific workshops to relevant boards.

Maori impact statement

26.     This engagement and investment is actively supporting Mana Whenua to give practical application to their role as Kaitiaki.  Resources for engagement have also been targeted to communities that have a high Maori population.

Implementation

27.     For the next three financial years planned for budget will support Ngati Whatua in to continue implementation of the Para Kore ki Tamaki Project with marae in the Auckland region and the Kaitiakitanga in Action Project with Ngati Rehua Ngati Wai ki Aotea Trust. 

28.     Mana Whenua and Maori will continue to be engaged in the design and development of projects that strengthen their role as kaitiaki and provide opportunities for creative community-led projects on waste reduction and minimisation. 

29.     An emerging focus is capacity and capability building for economic development and social enterprise opportunities for Maori around resource recovery or waste as a resource. This is being considered as part of the development of the Resource Recovery Network under the WMMP and also in collaboration with other council departments such as Community Development Arts and Culture.

30.     As well as council investment, the Waste Management and Minimisation Innovation Fund provides a potential funding source for projects.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Jenny Chilcott, Project Manager Special Community Projects, Solid Waste

Parul Sood, Waste Planning Manager

Ian Stupple, Manager Solid Waste

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

Species Prioritisation Framework

 

File No.: CP2014/10130

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee (the Committee) with information on the species prioritisation framework used to prioritise regional biodiversity programmes and projects.

Executive summary

2.       One of the targets for Auckland’s environment included in the Auckland Plan is to ‘ensure no regional extinctions of indigenous species and a reduction in the number of “threatened” or “at risk” species from 2010 levels by 50% by 2040’.

3.       There are over 400 species of plants and animals found within Auckland that are identified to be ‘threatened’ or ‘at risk’. These include over 230 vascular plants, 41 birds, 14 lizards, 9 freshwater fish, 3 frogs, 2 bats, and numerous non-vascular plants, invertebrates, marine fish and marine mammals. (A list of key threatened species is appended in Attachment A).

4.       With the high number of threatened or at risk species requiring management in the Auckland region, it is important to ensure available resources are targeted towards actions that support this Auckland Plan objective.

5.       This report informs the Committee on the prioritisation methodology used by council to identify programmes and projects for regional funding and effort.

 

Recommendation

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      receive the Species Prioritisation Framework report.

 

Comments

 

6.       The development and implementation of the species prioritisation framework supports the following Auckland Plan target:

·     Ensure no regional extinctions of indigenous species and a reduction in the number of “threatened” or “at risk” species from 2010 levels by 2040

7.       The Auckland Council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy echoes that Auckland Plan target by including ‘achieve long-term recovery of the greatest number of threatened species whose range includes the Auckland Region’ as one of eight key objectives for managing region’s biodiversity.

Species prioritisation

8.       The term “greatest number” recognises the limitations of funding and resources available to manage biodiversity in Auckland. With over 400 species of plants and animals found within Auckland being threatened or at risk, current resources ($115,000 allocated for species management in 2013/14) dictate that not all of these species can be actively managed to guarantee their long-term survival.

9.       In previous years, the value, and therefore priority, of species projects in the region was often determined by community benefit, visibility of a species and perceived urgency of actions needed to conserve a species.  This process led to resources being focused on a select group of 14 publically recognised species, while less recognised species were sometimes overlooked.

10.     The application of a species prioritisation model to funding (see Attachment B for further detail) allows for the limited resources to be targeted towards securing the viability of the greatest number of species possible.

11.     The model weighs the costs of delivering actions against the likelihood of success in order to rank the species according to management cost efficiency. As a result, 39 species are currently supported with regional funding.

12.     Managing species following the species prioritisation model has its limitations. In order to spread resource across as many species as possible, a commitment has been made to deliver a minimum set of actions to secure each species regionally at sites where the species are already known to occur.

13.     Due to limited resources, only some species are being actively managed and others are not (see Attachment B). Implementation of management actions defined under this framework began mid-way through the 2013/2014 financial year.

What about ecosystems?

14.     In addition, there is currently a programme of work in place to map both potential ecosystems (what would have been present in the absence of humans) and remaining indigenous ecosystems. This work supports objective 1 of the Auckland Council Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy:

·     Conserve the greatest number and most diverse range of Auckland’s indigenous ecosystems and sequences.

15.     Once complete, this information will be used to determine which of those ecosystems are threatened and therefore require active management. A prioritisation exercise will be run to determine which of these ecosystems we can effectively manage with our available resources, selecting a collection of management units that represent the full suite of threatened ecosystems found across the region. As ecosystem management units will be overlaid with information on species distribution, this will provide the evidence base for selecting sites for active management that allow for best biodiversity gains. 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16.     A number of local boards are funding the conservation of threatened species as part of their environment work programmes. For example, the Great Barrier Local Board is supporting the conservation of Leptinella tenella (button daisy) and the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board is funding protection of māwhai (native cucumber) at the Otuataua Stonefields.

17.     As regional funding is insufficient to target all threatened species in Auckland, local board funding for conservation projects provides a significant opportunity to complement work being undertaken with regional funding. This includes funding actions that would enhance and expand species populations beyond their minimum viable size. Alternatively, boards may wish to support the management of species for which regional funding is unavailable. There may also be cases where new information is gathered on a species that concludes that greater costs are required to manage a species than is possible with regional funding alone. In such cases, it is hoped that where management of those species populations is locally relevant, that local boards could assist with some aspects of management to ensure the long-term viability of those species is secured.

18.     Local board funding can also be used to enhance or restore sites that are known to be rare and at risk in the region (such as wetlands or dune systems), or that have significant ecological benefits locally.

Māori impact statement

19.     No consultation with Māori was undertaken as part of this report. However, engagement with iwi takes place as part of the implementation of specific biodiversity projects and mana whenua participation in kaitiaki projects is supported where possible. For example, a representative of Makaurau Marae in Mangere participated in recent surveys to determine presence of native lizards at the Otuataua Stonefields.

Implementation

20.     Current regional funding of $115,000 per year for species management is insufficient to achieve the Auckland Plan target of a 50% reduction in the number of ‘threatened’ or ‘at risk’ species.

21.     A better understanding of the level of funding required to meet this target will be developed once the programme of work to map ecosystems is complete. A report will then be provided to the Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee to describe how ecosystems and species will be managed under this framework and what the funding needs are to meet the Auckland Plan target.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

List of threatened species

153

bView

The Species Prioritisation Model

157

     

Signatories

Authors

Briony Senior – Regional Advisor (Ecology)

Rachel Kelleher – Biodiversity Manager

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 




Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

Otara Lake and Waterways - reconnecting: The possibilities and the challenges

 

File No.: CP2014/09077

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board considered the attached report at its meeting on 28 April 2014.  The Board resolved:

Resolution number OP/2014/1

MOVED by Member JR McCracken, seconded by Deputy Chairperson HVR Robertson:  

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a)      Adopts the vision document “Otara Lake and waterways. Re-connecting: The possibilities and the challenges”.

b)      Supports the interim steering group in its development of a long term strategic action plan to achieve the vision and remediate the Otara Lake and waterway.

c)      Confirms the Chair Efeso Collins and members Stephen Grey and Mary Gush as its representatives on the interim steering group.

d)      Allocates $20,000 funded from reprioritized underspent budgets for 2013/14, for consultancy services in assisting the interim steering group in the development of its action plan.

e)      Forwards this report and the Board’s resolutions to the Environment, Climate and Natural Heritage Committee for its support of the Board’s aspirations.

2.       Resolution e) requests the Environment, Climate and Natural Heritage Committee receive a copy of the report and attachments, so that they consider supporting the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board’s aspirations for the Otara Lake and waterways.  The full report and attachments are attached to this report.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a)      Supports the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board’s aspirations for the development of a long term strategic action plan to achieve the vision and remediate the Otara Lake and waterway.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Otara Lake and Waterways.  Reconnecting: The possibilites and the challenges report.

161

bView

Appendix A Otara Lake & Waterways_260314

167

cView

Appendix D_Otara - Streams and POS areas 2014-03-13

181

     

Signatories

Authors

Carol McGarry - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 







Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 


Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

28 May 2014

 

    

    



[1] Consumer Energy Options: An evaluation of the different fuels and technologies for providing water, space and process heat. (Consultants report) Concept 

[2] http://www.carbonwarroom.com

[3] http://www.xprize.org

[4] http://bteam.org