I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 9 October 2014

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

George Wood, CNZM

 

Deputy Chairperson

Anae Arthur Anae

 

Members

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Mike Lee

 

Mayor Len Brown, JP

Kris MacDonald

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Penny Hulse

Glenn Wilcox

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

 

Barbara Watson

Democracy Advisor

 

2 October 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7629

Email: barbara.watson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee will deal with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body i.e. strategies and policies associated with environmental, social, economic and cultural activities. Key responsibilities will include:

 

·         Final approval of strategies and policies not the responsibility of other committees or the Governing Body

·         Setting/ approving the policy work programme for Reporting Committees

·         Overviewing strategic projects, for example, the Southern Initiative (except those that are the responsibility of the Auckland Development Committee)

·         Implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

·         Operational matters including:

o   Acquisition and disposal of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities

o   Stopping of roads

o   Public Works Act matters

 

 

Powers

 

(i)      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

(ii)      Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii)     Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iv)    Power to establish subcommittees.

 

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    5

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          5

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

9          Pest Management Options for the Hunua Ranges Regional Parklands                 7

10        Resource Recovery Network Strategic Direction, Budget Endorsement and Site Selection Criteria for Community Recycling Centres                                                              25

11        Waste Management & Minimisation Plan Update                                                    47

12        Local Approved Product Policy for psychoactive substances - Draft policy for public consultation                                                                                                                  51

13        Global Engagement Update                                                                                       81

14        Tripartite Economic Alliance Memorandum of Understanding between Guangzhou, Los Angeles and Auckland                                                                                                89

15        Demographic Panels - Approval of Work Programmes 2014/2015 - Youth Advisory Panel                                                                                                                                     103

16        Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Six Month Report                                             107

17        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

18        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               125

C1       Acquisition of land for open space - Scott Point                                                   125

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies from Mayor LCM Brown and Cr D Quax have 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 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 4 September 2014, including the confidential section, 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.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

Malcolm Bell, Franklin Local Board member, will be in attendance.

 

 


 

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.

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Pest Management Options for the Hunua Ranges Regional Parklands

 

File No.: CP2014/21307

 

Purpose

1.       To approve changing the pest control methodology in the Hūnua Ranges Regional parklands to address the increase in pest numbers and the risk to endangered flora and fauna and indigenous species.

Executive summary

2.       The purpose of this report is to consider changing the pest control methodology in the Hūnua Ranges regional parklands (Hūnua, Whakatiwai and Waharau, referred to as Hūnua Ranges in this report).

3.       The Hūnua Ranges is characterised by rugged terrain and low population densities, and is the habitat for a number of rare and endangered fauna and flora and indigenous species.  It is home to the only naturally occurring population of kōkako in mainland Auckland.

4.       Monitoring in the Hūnua Ranges is showing extremely high rat and possum populations this year. This increase in pest numbers in the Hūnua Ranges is placing great pressure on the unique wildlife habitat and high ecological values of the park.

5.       The current methodology of brodifacoum (targeting rats) and cyanide (targeting possums) in bait stations is most effective at managing pests at low to moderate pest densities.

6.       Without a change in methodology the ecological values of the park will be put at risk and council will not be able to meet its performance and management targets for pest management.

7.       In the current context it is appropriate to consider the available options for pest control in the Hūnua Ranges, to ensure its natural values and unique forest are enhanced and maintained.

8.       After careful consideration of the issue, options available, and taking into account the specifics of the Hūnua Ranges, it is recommended that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approve a change in pest management methodology, from brodifacoum and cyanide in bait stations to the aerial application of sodium fluoroacetate (1080), commencing in mid-2015.

9.       Best practice guidelines for this activity will be followed including the National Pest Control Agencies’ Aerial 1080 Pest Control Industry Guidelines and the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s Communications Guideline for Aerial 1080 Operations.

10.     This decision is specific to the Hūnua Ranges.  Use of this methodology in other areas would need to be considered on a case by case basis specific to each site.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve a change in pest management methodology for the Hūnua Ranges regional parklands, to the aerial application of sodium-fluoroacetate (1080), to commence in mid-2015

b)      note that best practice guidelines for this activity will be followed including the National Pest Control Agencies’ Aerial 1080 Pest Control Industry Guidelines and the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s Communications Guideline for Aerial 1080 Operations

c)      note that this decision is specific to the Hūnua Ranges regional parklands.  Use of this methodology in other areas would need to be considered on a case by case basis specific to each site.

Comments

Background

11.     The indigenous plants and animals in New Zealand are unique because we have no native ground dwelling mammals. Plants, birds, snails, lizards, insects and all other native species have evolved in almost total isolation from the rest of the world.  This makes them particularly vulnerable to predators such as possums, rats and stoats because they have not developed natural defences against them.  Possums, stoats and rats, for example, eat nesting adults, eggs and chicks. As a result the breeding success of native birds is threatened.  Possums also pose a significant threat to forest canopy health.

12.     An increase in pest numbers across the country is putting New Zealand’s already endangered native wildlife at greater risk.  High levels of seed production in forests (called a mast event) as a result of extreme weather such as hotter summers, is currently triggering a significant increase in animal predators. 

13.     When seed supplies run out, these pests then prey on indigenous birds such as kōkako and kākā, along with other at-risk species like bats, frogs and land snails.  When predator levels rise, this also puts our native trees and plants at risk, through significantly increased browsing damage.

14.     Climate change and global warming make it highly likely that climatic conditions triggering these mast events will become more frequent.

15.     In response to these threats, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has initiated its ‘Battle for our Birds’ programme.  This is a predator control response to protect native wildlife from predators. It involves 22 predator control operations of aerially applied 1080 bait over about 600,000ha of public conservation land.

Hūnua Ranges Regional Parkland

16.     The Hūnua Ranges is the largest forest in mainland Auckland, characterised by rugged terrain, low population densities, outstanding wildlife habitat and high ecological values.

17.     The Hūnua Ranges has four reservoirs which supply approximately 65% of Auckland’s potable water supply.   The majority of the Hūnua Ranges sits within the Waikato Regional Council jurisdiction.  The regional park, however, is owned by Auckland Council who has responsibility for the management and pest control of this asset. 

18.     The Hūnua Ranges is home to the only naturally occurring population of kōkako in mainland Auckland. It is also the habitat for a number of rare and endangered fauna and flora including the long-tailed bat, hochstetter’s frog, and kākā.  In addition, it is home to a number of other indigenous species including kereru, bellbird, tomtit, tui and piwakawaka (fantail). 

19.     The Hūnua Ranges is home to 59 regionally threatened plants (including NZ toropapa and Kirk’s daisy), sixteen of which are also nationally threatened.  The park contains the largest areas of kauri-hard beech forest in the Auckland region; this forest type is significant in the context of the North Island’s flora.  Importantly, the Hūnua Ranges is currently free of kauri dieback disease.

20.     As a result of predation by animal pests, kōkako numbers dropped to only one breeding pair in the 1990s. In response to this challenge a Kōkako Management Area (KMA) was established in 1994 to protect the pair through intensive pest control. It has expanded to cover 1,100ha of the Hūnua Ranges, about 6.5 per cent of the total park area.  This control programme specifically manages pest numbers in this conservation area.  The success of this pest controlled area has led to there now being 55 kōkako breeding pairs within the managed areas. Four pairs have been found close to the pest control special management areas.

21.     In addition to the council funded KMA, two smaller satellite projects (Piggott’s and Hūnua Falls) are delivered through the significant efforts of volunteers supported by council staff.  Volunteer investment in supporting kōkako protection in the Hūnua Ranges exceeds 1,600 hours per year.

22.     The specific management focus for the park is toprotect and enhance this outstanding wildlife habitat with high ecological values, and to cultivate an ethic of stewardship’.[1]  Included in these management policies are specific detail on pest control:

continue to undertake comprehensive pest animal control programmes, irrespective of regional boundary changes, to maintain and enhance the habitat for indigenous flora and fauna, with particular focus on:

a)    lowering the threshold for possum control to a maximum five per cent residual trap catch to reduce possum abundance over the whole park to improve forest health

b)    intensifying goat control, with a target of local eradication in the Hūnua Ranges and the maintenance of a buffer zone on all adjoining properties

c)    liaising with Department of Conservation to prevent the incursion of deer into the Hūnua Ranges

d)    continuing integrated pest animal control at selected sites within the Ranges, including the Kōkako Management and the Hūnua Falls Pest Control Project Areas… to allow for complete ecosystem recovery and reintroductions of rare and threatened species

e)    investigating opportunities to further expand integrated pest animal control in the Hūnua ranges, and

f)     continuing the integrated pest animal eradication and management programmes in the Hūnua Ranges onto neighbouring reserve land and adjoining private property.’

23.     In line with the management guidelines detailed above council’s current pest control work in the Hūnua Ranges includes rat, possum, stoat, feral deer, pig, goat and pest plant control.

24.     Council currently spends $473,000 per annum on rat and possum pest management in the Hūnua Ranges. $75,000 of this is to deliver rat control in KMA using brodifacoum in bait stations and trapping for stoats. Possum control is undertaken in areas of the park where monitoring shows densities exceed the target residual trap catch (RTC)[2] at an annual cost of $40,000 for monitoring and $358,000 for control.  Possum control is completed using cyanide in bait stations with application by contractors holding a controlled substance licence.

Challenge

25.     Reflecting the national trend, pest numbers have significantly risen in the Hūnua Ranges,   placing great pressure on the unique wildlife habitat and high ecological values of the park.  For example, rat numbers in managed areas are seven times higher than the current target of 5 per cent. Rat numbers in unmanaged areas are 14 times higher than the current targets. In addition, possum numbers are also higher than the management target and stoat numbers are seen as an increasing threat as well.

26.     The current methodology of brodifacoum (targeting rats) and cyanide (targeting possums) in bait stations is most effective at managing pests at low to moderate pest densities, i.e. lower than the densities currently present.

27.     Whilst current kōkako monitoring has shown increases in the numbers of breeding pairs, rat monitoring data shows that achieving and maintaining the pest management target is becoming much more difficult.  Pest numbers above 5 per cent are known to affect the breeding success of native birds and cause forest canopy decline.

28.     In the current context it is appropriate to consider the available options for pest control in the Hūnua Ranges to ensure its natural values and unique forest are enhanced and maintained, as detailed below.

 

Options for pest control

29.     A number of different methods are available to deal with the increased threat.  Different available methods of pest control have been reviewed using the following criteria:

·     Must be effective at killing all of the target species

·     Must be done with minimal disturbance and impact to the natural environment

·     Adverse effects on species of non-target wildlife must be known to be minor and, or can be avoided, remedied or mitigated

·     Any risks to human health and community well-being can be avoided, remedied or mitigated; and

·     Must be cost effective.

 

30.     The options for the Hūnua Ranges are:

·     Continue with the status quo – brodifacoum and cyanide in bait stations in targeted areas

·     Increase ground based brodifacoum and cyanide bait station network

·     Change to an alternative toxin in ground based bait stations

·     Wait for the development of alternative methodologies such as bio-controls; or

·     Change methodology of toxin application to aerial application of either brodifacoum or sodium fluoroacetate (1080) bait pellets.

31.     A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the available toxins, which informed this options analysis, is appended as Attachment A to this report.

Continue status quo – brodifacoum and cyanide bait stations in targeted areas

32.     Brodifacoum and cyanide are best at dealing with low to moderate numbers of rodents and possums respectively.  Given the current significant increase in pest numbers it is highly unlikely that this methodology will continue to adequately address pest management requirements.  This method will also not enable expansion of biodiversity values outside the 6.5 per cent of the currently managed area of the park.

33.     This option is no longer considered appropriate for the Hunua Ranges as it will not achieve the desired pest management objectives for the park, specifically to ‘lower the threshold for possum control to a maximum five per cent residual trap catch to reduce possum abundance over the whole park to improve forest health’ and to ‘allow for complete ecosystem recovery and reintroductions of rare and threatened species’. It is likely that this methodology will not allow delivery of the Auckland Plan and Long-term Plan measures of ‘proportion of the region where possum populations are maintained under 5 per cent residual trap count index.’

34.     Predation by rats and possums was almost wholly attributed to the decline of kokako in the Hūnua Ranges in the 1990s. Research carried out to identify the requirements for successful kōkako recovery have shown that the reduction of these pests to very low levels results in significant increases in chick output and adult survival and that management of vulnerable kōkako populations should aim to reduce possums and rats to very low levels (below 5 per cent trapping/tracking index) particularly at the onset of breeding over consecutive years. Continued failure to meet and sustain these targets for pests will result in a reduction in breeding success and over time put the kokako population at risk.  An inability to meet possum targets is currently resulting in forest canopy damage.

Increase the ground-based brodifacoum and cyanide bait station network

35.     Due to the size and rugged nature of the Hūnua Ranges, ground-based control is not a practical management option for pest control of this scale.  Bait station networks are highly unlikely to sufficiently knock down pest numbers at the level currently being displayed.  To attempt to target all rats, for example, would require a significant increase of bait stations from two per hectare to nine per hectare.  This increase would result in approximately 153,000 bait stations and 612,000 traps to cover all of the Hūnua Ranges.

36.     This extensive network of trap tracks would be costly to establish and maintain, and damaging to the environment. More tracks would have to be cut increasing the risk of Phytophthora taxon Agathis (PTA) (kauri dieback) being introduced to the park.  The rugged terrain in some areas would pose a risk to staff and or contractors and may mean that bait stations cannot be installed in some areas, posing a risk of reinvasion.

37.     Bearing in mind the potential impact on the environment, the cost and the number of bait stations required, this option is not considered appropriate for the Hūnua Ranges.

Change the toxin used in-ground-based bait stations

38.     A number of toxins have been considered for use in the existing bait station to assess whether a change in toxin might better address the current challenge. These toxins were cholecalciferol, cyanide, pindone, phosphorous, and sodium fluoroacetate (1080).

39.     Cholecalciferol causes calcification of body tissues and organs with death occurring between three and seven days from ingestion.  It is considered very inhumane and while effective against possums and rats, secondary poisoning and persistence in the environment of cholecalciferol is not well understood.   It is relatively expensive, often difficult to source and not registered for aerial application. For these reasons it is not recommended as a viable solution to the current problem.

40.     Cyanide is relatively inexpensive compared to other ground based methods.  It achieves a quick knockdown, has low environmental persistence, has a low secondary poison risk and is quick acting. However, it is hazardous to non-target species, including humans and requires applicators to be licensed in its use.  Because of the risk to human health and damage caused to the environment (mentioned above), the increased use of this toxin is not recommended for wider use in the park.

41.     Pindone, an anticoagulant similar to brodifacoum, requires large amounts of toxin to be used and is not effective at killing possums. Therefore it has limited effectiveness to address the current issue.

42.     Phosphorous was first used for killing rabbits in the 1920s but was deregistered on the grounds of inhumanness and is not supported for use by the SPCA.  As there is limited research on its environmental impact and persistence it was not considered an appropriate option.

43.     Sodium fluoroacetate (1080) is most effective when applied aerially over large areas of rugged terrain and is discussed in more detail later in this report. All other toxins have been assessed as inappropriate for the current challenge as detailed above.

Wait for the development of alternative methodologies such as bio-controls and self-resetting traps

44.     Pest control methodology is constantly evolving and council works closely with developers, research entities and ministries to support the development of these new technologies.  For example Auckland Council has invested, with other regional councils, in the development of various self-resetting traps and is currently exploring field trials for a rodent trap to commence in 2015. 

45.     Although research and development is on-going, each trap is target specific and not yet designed to target possums, rats and stoats.  No emerging technology to support more effective management of predators at the scale currently seen in the Hūnua Ranges is available or anticipated to materialise in the short to medium term. 

46.     Identifying a safe and effective biocontrol agent is a long and potentially risky process to ensure that any potential agent does not itself become a pest species.  Waiting for a safe biocontrol agent is not considered a suitable option at this time.


Change methodology of toxin application to aerial application of either brodifacoum or sodium fluoroacetate (1080)

47.     In addition to its unique natural heritage values the Hūnua Ranges is characterised by steep difficult terrain. Aerial application of pest control offers the most effective and efficient method of environmental protection and support for the Hūnua Ranges. Two main toxins have been assessed for suitability for aerial application; brodifacoum and sodium fluoroacetate (1080).

48.     Brodifacoum is not currently licensed for aerial applications although an exemption may be applied for.  Applying brodifacoum aerially would target a greater area however brodifacoum is persistent in the food chain for longer and therefore there would be a high chance of secondary poisoning when applied aerially. 

49.     Brodifacoum has, on occasion, been applied aerially on a one-off basis for the purpose of eradication in sites where there is little chance of re-invasion (i.e. islands or fenced sanctuaries, and the ability to close or impose high access restrictions).  The risk of secondary poisoning outweighs the advantages of aerial application of brodifacoum in sites which need on-going management. Given the specifics of the Hūnua Ranges, aerial application of brodifacoum is not recommended.

50.     The recommended methodology for pest management in the Hūnua Ranges is to change to an aerial application of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and the reasons for this recommendation are detailed below.

Proposed Change of Pest Control Method

51.     As noted previously the key driver for change is the need to best protect the Hūnua Ranges, its unique forest, threatened species and the conservation and recreational values of the park.

52.     After careful consideration of the issue, options available, and taking into account the specifics of the Hūnua Ranges, it is recommended that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approve a change in pest management methodology, from brodifacoum and cyanide in bait stations to the aerial application of sodium fluoroacetate (1080), commencing in mid-2015.

53.     Sodium fluoroacetate (1080) is biodegradable, dilutes quickly in water and does not build up in the food chain. It can be safely applied by air and is the most cost-effective method of providing large forest-scale pest control over rugged terrain.

54.     Using sodium fluoroacetate (1080) will have a number of benefits for the Hūnua Ranges:

·    Targets all three predators (possums, rats and stoats) allowing an increase in native species and forest regeneration.

·    Provides the greatest environmental protection for the entire Hūnua Ranges ecosystem by leaving the rugged more remote areas of the forest undisturbed.

·    Is proven to be successful in the management of kōkako, and other native fauna, when under heavy predation.

·    Increases the future potential of the site as a protected habitat (possible to reintroduce kiwi and other species which are no longer living in the forest.)

·    Is biodegradable, dilutes quickly in water with significant reduction in human health risks in comparison with current or alternative methods.

·    Can be easily applied to rugged terrain of the Hūnua Ranges.

·    If aerially applied, would enable the total Hūnua Ranges (17,000ha) to be treated for the same budget that is currently used for possum and rat control over a much smaller area.

·    The larger the area pest control is applied to, the longer it will take for pest numbers to build back up.

·    The use of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) aerially would mean a reduction in the frequency of toxin application (most likely every two-three years as opposed to current method which requires on ongoing commitment to annual control).

·    Cost effective (aerial sodium fluoroacetate (1080) operation costs on average $17 per hectare, targeting 3 pest species whereas a ground based programme is estimated to cost up to three times as much per hectare).

55.     The proposed change in methodology represents both a long-term cost saving and more effective environmental outcomes for the Hūnua Ranges and Auckland.

56.     The total cost of a three year pest control programme targeting rats, possums and stoats using the current methodology within 6.5 per cent of the Hūnua Ranges is $1,419,000.

57.     The total cost of a three year pest control programme over the whole Hūnua Ranges, using aerial application of sodium fluoroacetate (1080), would be $529,000.

58.     In summary this proposed change can be delivered from within existing budgets and, over a three year cycle, affords a 77 per cent saving for pest management in the Hūnua Ranges, and increases the managed area from 1,100ha to 17,000ha.

Recent scientific analysis

59.     The use of aerial application of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) for pest management has been subject to a number of national reviews and public consultation processes and is guided by a number of specific documents as listed in Attachment B to this report. In the last decade there have been four peer reviewed scientific reports by:

·      The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA)

·      The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

·      The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (two reports).

60.     All of these agencies indicated that they regarded sodium fluoroacetate (1080) as effective and appropriate to combat significantly increased pest numbers for the protection of forests and their native birds and rare species.

61.     Specifically ERMA 2008 concluded that there are no practical alternatives to 1080 for the preservation of native bush and protection of agriculture.  It concluded that 1080 should continue to be used, but with a tighter management regime designed to improve 1080 use.

62.     In 2013 the EPA published its report “Five-year review of the aerial use of 1080 2008-2012” which concluded that the tighter management regime is working and that there is no indication that a further reassessment of 1080 is required.

63.     The use of 1080 for protecting native wildlife was also highlighted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in reports published in 2011 and 2013. In her 2011 report the Commissioner concluded:

     “It is my view based on careful analysis of the evidence that not only should the use of 1080 continue (including in aerial operations) to protect our forests, but that we should use more of it.

Concerns

64.     There is a long and well documented history of public concerns expressed over the use of 1080. These concerns commonly centre around the perceived effect of 1080 on by-kill, water catchments, animals (dogs), human health and soil.

65.     These concerns have been thoroughly canvassed in national level consultations and well researched over the 60 years 1080 has been used in New Zealand. They have led to significant improvements in the way 1080 operations are carried out.  For example average sowing rates have reduced from 30kg per hectare in the 1950s to around 2kgs per hectare today (i.e. four-six baits on the size of a double tennis court, of which only 15 per cent is 1080).


66.     In addition baits are now dyed green and impregnated with lures that are attractive to pests but repel birds, resulting in the significant reduction of non-target kill.  Scientific evidence also supports that while it is possible that a small number of individual birds and other fauna may die as a result of an operation, overall species populations dramatically increase. There has been scientific research carried out on the impacts of 1080 on aquatic biodiversity which has concluded that 1080 is unlikely to affect aquatic organisms as the toxin concentrations required to have an impact are most unlikely to ever occur in streams. In studies carried out in both the United States and New Zealand fish (juvenile and adult trout) were fed 1080 baits and of all fish tested 100% survived and none showed ill effects.

67.     1080 naturally breaks down in the environment and does not leave permanent residues in water, soil, plants or animals.  The rate at which 1080 breaks down depends on the temperature, level of bacteria and other micro-organisms. 

68.     While 1080 is designed to kill pests in our forest it can be dangerous for dogs if they are allowed in pest control areas. This risk is mitigated through close adherence to the guidelines for the use of 1080 and through responsible dog owners taking proactive approaches. These include paying close attention to signs, staying out of areas where signage is present, and keeping dogs on a leash, well fed and hydrated.  Muzzling is an additional precaution dog owners can take to prevent dogs from scavenging.

69.     During the 2011 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment reassessment of 1080, submitters raised concerns about baits getting into water during operations and potential impacts on native aquatic species or drinking water. The risk to human health from using 1080 as a pest control methodology are minimal and subject to a number of operational guidelines and independent checks and controls to ensure its use poses no risk to human health.

70.     Whilst measures are always taken to minimise human contamination the human health risk from 1080 in water supplies is negligible. Laboratory analysis can detect 1080 in water at concentrations as low as 0.1 parts per billion (ppb).The maximum amount of 1080 residue allowed in drinking water by the Ministry of Health is 2.0 ppb. This has never been breached as water is routinely monitored after aerial application of 1080 in New Zealand. Specifically in the past five years over 500 water samples have been taken from reticulated drinking water supplies across NZ following 1080 operations.  No traces of 1080 were detected in any of these samples.

71.     As noted below Auckland Council and Watercare services will work together to develop and implement strict management controls to minimise any risks to the Hūnua catchment.

Watercare & Water Supply

72.     The Hūnua Ranges provides 65% of Auckland’s potable water supply.  Safety of this supply is paramount.  It is possible (although highly unlikely) that 1080 could enter waterways during an operation.  To minimise any risks to waterways the national operational guidelines for this activity have strict protocols regarding aerial operations using 1080.  With best management practices this supply can be assured.

73.     Auckland Council and Watercare Services will work collaboratively to develop management protocols. These may include setbacks from any water take, no fly zones over water reservoirs and stringent water monitoring regimes as determined necessary by the Auckland Regional Public Health Service.

74.     Water cannot be taken from a supply until monitoring results fall within the required Ministry of Health level of 2.0 ppb.  With current management practices the risk of people becoming sick from drinking water or eating food containing 1080 is extremely unlikely.  This is because 1080 is highly soluble in water and dilutes quickly into non-toxic compounds naturally found in the environment as per the previous section of this report.


Engagement and communications

75.     Using toxic chemicals in any situation often worries people and 1080 is no exception. There are many groups that oppose its use and other citizens understandably have concerns about the effects of the toxin, even if they acknowledge the challenges associated with pest control.

76.     Of particular concern in the application of aerial 1080 is the effect on water catchments, adverse effects on flora and fauna and dogs or pigs accidently coming into contact with bait.  These concerns need to be considered in an open, honest and transparent engagement process with stakeholders, guided by the prescriptive and comprehensive Environmental Risk Management Authority’s Communications Guideline for Aerial 1080 Operations.

77.     People managing 1080 operations must meet minimum standards for communication set out in the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) 2007 decision on the reassessment of 1080 and the conditions on permissions from the Ministry of Health.  The guidelines state “There is an expectation for operators to consult with people likely to be affected by an operation and engage with others in the community, to an extent that is reasonable, about the direct and indirect effects that the operation may have on the community…and that this is an area that ERMA are monitoring”.

78.     In acknowledging the importance of communication and engagement during aerial 1080 operations the Environmental Risk Management Authority developed best practise guidelines: Communications Guideline for Aerial 1080 Operations in March 2009.  The proposed aerial application of 1080 in the Hūnua Ranges would follow the guidelines.

79.     Furthermore, an operational plan would be required to be submitted to the Auckland Regional Public Health Service as part of the process of obtaining permission for an aerial 1080 operation.  The operational plan assesses, amongst other criteria, communication and states, “communication must be undertaken in accordance with the Communications Guideline for Aerial 1080 Operations”.

80.     The above mentioned themes and requirements would be covered in a communications plan that would support the operational plan and a plan for engaging with stakeholders. The communications and engagement plans would be developed in three phases:

81.     Planning for phase one and two stakeholder engagement is underway and key stakeholders for engagement include:

·     Iwi

·     Franklin Local Board, Waikato Regional Council and Waikato District Council

·     Those that live and work in the ranges, including neighbouring properties, and forestry licensees

·     Park users like hunters, trampers and tramping groups and general visitors

·     Environmental groups, friends groups and organisations

·     Local businesses, veterinary clinics, nearby schools and childcare facilities

·     Government departments such as the Department of Conservation and Ministry of Health.

82.     Phase one and two engagement with stakeholders would include direct communication and information on the proposed operation, including the decision-making process covered by this report.

83.     Once planning begins for the operational phase (phase three), widespread communication would begin – including (but not limited to) public notices in newspapers, signage across the parkland and public information on noticeboards and websites.

84.     Iwi engagement is of paramount importance in this process as both Mana Whenua and kaitiaki and is further detailed in the Māori impact section of this report.

Regulatory Framework & Permissions

85.     Aerial application of 1080 in the Hūnua Ranges can be undertaken as a Permitted activity. Provided there is compliance with pre-set conditions, it is a permitted activity under the:

·     Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air Land and Water)

·     Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin, Manukau and Papakura sections) and the

·     Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

86.     To note, the majority of the Hūnua Ranges is within the administrative boundary of the Waikato Regional Council and Waikato District Council. The Waikato Regional Council has not undertaken a plan change since the 2010 boundary change. Therefore the rules that apply to this part of the Waikato region are those rules that applied prior to amalgamation, as listed above.

87.     Permission is required from the Ministry of Health for an aerial 1080 operation.  1080 is an approved vertebrate toxic agent (VTA) and provided a thorough application is submitted the permission should be granted. The Ministry of Health must grant approval of any aerial application of 1080.

88.     The application is assessed by a Health Protection Officer (HPO) who is also warranted under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO). The agreement for approval is made with the assessing HPO and the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) (approval is valid for 12 months).

89.     In principle, as 1080 is an approved vertebrate toxic agent (VTA), the application permission should be issued with a series of conditions to ensure best practice management of the activity.

Timeframes

90.     The most effective time for a fast tactical knockdown of possums, rats and stoats is in the winter months.  This is when pests are most hungry and most likely to eat the baits.

91.     Before an aerial operation can begin, there are a number of essential steps that must occur first, including engagement, iwi engagement, operational planning, Ministry of Health permission and bait procurement.

92.     This means that, if the operation is to commence in the winter of 2015, a decision on this proposal needs to be made in October 2014. The approximate timings from today are as follows

·     On-going engagement with iwi

·     Stakeholder and community engagement

·     Secure Certificates of Compliance (RMA)

·     Pre-operation monitoring

·     Calibration of operational methodology

·     June 2015 – Obtain Ministry of Health permission

·     July-August 2015 – Operations would begin.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

93.     A workshop with was held with members of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee and a number of local board members on 23 September 2014. This session was to enable a preliminary discussion on this challenge, the current methodology used and alternatives as background for this decision item.

94.     Two members of the Franklin Local Board, including the Deputy Chair, attended this workshop and provided feedback to staff. A further workshop was held with the Franklin Local Board on 30 September to further discuss this issue.

95.     The Franklin Local Board has confirmed general support for the proposed change. The local board noted that the health of the Hunua Ranges across a wide spectrum is incredibly important to not only the local board, but the local and wider community. Furthermore the board highlighted the significance of this environment and the potential in the future to add to it, is something they are acutely aware of and see as a priority.

96.     Specifically from the information provided to the board, the board have indicated that they are comfortable supporting the proposed pest management change for the Hūnua Ranges with the key areas of interest for the board being:

·    The need to make sure this is the best way to deal with the pest / predator problem in terms of best practice as well as best investment from a ratepayer funding perspective

·    The need to ensure risk to those things we are trying to protect is mitigated – including to our water supply and other indigenous species (bats / frogs)

·    The need to not threaten the kauri dieback programme through having to increase access to the ranges for alternative methods of control

·    The need for a comprehensive public and local community engagement / education plan to ensure people are able to have all the information possibly available and to take in as wide a local footprint with that engagement.

Significance

97.     The recommended option contained within this report has been reviewed in terms of Auckland Council’s Significance Policy. In summary, the proposed decision does not reach the threshold for significance under this policy. Specifically the potential decision:

·    Will not involve change of ownership of a strategic asset

·    Will not create or cease a group of activity

·    Will not involve an increase of 33 per cent or decrease by 20 per cent in the nature of the group of activity.

 

98.     In regards to the general criteria the proposed decision is of low significance. Specifically the proposed decision:

·    Will impact positively on the governing body’s ability to deliver on the environmental well-being of the region

·    Will not change the indicators of intended level of service

·    The number of residents and ratepayers affected by the decision is low

·    The extent to which residents and ratepayers are effected by the decision is low

·    The likely impacts or consequences of the decision from the perspective of those affected is low

·    The extent of public interest within the local board area / Auckland region or New Zealand generally (for a governing body decision) has historically been medium

·    The extent to which the decision or proposal is reversible is low.

Māori impact statement

99.     The Hūnua Ranges are of historical, customary, cultural and spiritual significance to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Koheriki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Pāoa, and Ngaati Whanaunga. Three tribal authorities also have kaitiakitanga status; Ngati Maru Runanga, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua and Tainui – Waikato.


100.   The maunga Kohukohunui, the highest peak within the Hūnua Ranges, is a Tūpuna Maunga and an important boundary marker. Kokako are a highly valued taonga species and mana whenua have been active partners in enabling kōkako recovery in the park. To increase the kōkako population the area under effective pest management must increase. Such an increase will offer the long term potential of returning other valued species, such as kiwi, to the park.

101.   The Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 recognises the relationship of mana whenua in the Hūnua Ranges and includes consultation on the planning, protection, development and management of the park and Māori values they contain - Policy: 17.5.4 20 (a).

102.   Officers have begun work with Te Waka Angamua who have offered tautoko/support for engagement with iwi. A key priority is to ensure appropriate tikanga and matauranga is practised, acknowledged, and woven through this work.

103.   There has been preliminary contact with five iwi: Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Paoa, Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata. Broadly, mana whenua do not support the use of toxins in the environment but tolerate its use to achieve improved environmental outcomes. A future vision proposed by one kaumātua is for knowledgeable iwi rangers to assist with pest management of the Hūnua Ranges Regional Park.

104.   The timeframes for engagement need to be negotiated with each iwi and engagement will be adapted as required, pending the outcome of this decision.

Implementation

105.   If the council decided to change its pest eradication methods in the Hunua Ranges, best practice application and stringent operational methods would be employed which would closely follow the extensive operational guidelines available in order to ensure the safe delivery of the operation.

106.   The impacts of the new methodology (increased bird and insect populations, receiving water quality, and any other effects) would be carefully monitored and reported regularly to council, affected local boards, stakeholders and the community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Analysis of Toxins

19

bView

Key Documents

23

      

Signatories

Authors

Mace Ward - Acting Manager - Parks, Sports and Recreation

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Authoriser

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Attachment A – Advantages and Disadvantages of toxins analysis

Brodifacoum

Mode of action: Second-generation anticoagulant – works by increasing the clotting time of blood leading to death from haemorrhaging.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Is highly effective against possums and rats – generally used to maintain low possum numbers following use of fast-acting poisons such as 1080

·      Vitamin K an effective antidote for accidental poisoning

·      Less toxic to invertebrates than to birds and mammals

·      Readily accessible, able to be used by volunteers and general public, perceived as being safer than other toxins

·      Can be used aerially for eradication on off-shore islands and inside fenced sanctuaries, otherwise can only be used in bait stations. Does not require prefeeding.

·      Persistent after sublethal exposure (> 36 months) in liver of vertebrates (can enter food chain)

·      High risk of secondary poisoning of some non-target species

·      Has been found throughout the food chain in NZ and implicated in deaths of predators overseas

·      Because it is slower acting possums and rats often consume far in excess of a lethal amount (more bait used than necessary with potential higher environmental residue burdens).  For example possums can take 2-4 weeks to die

·      Expensive compared with 1080 or cyanide

·      Not currently licenced / registered for aerial application. Exemptions for aerial application may be applied for (e.g. Shakespear)


 

Cholecalciferol

Mode of Action: Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) causes calcification of soft tissues. Death occurs within about 3-7 days from heart and renal failure

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Is effective against possums and rats and is able to achieve a fast reduction in pest numbers

·      Readily accessible, Does not require specific licence to use

·      Lower toxicity to birds than mammals which reduces primary poisoning risk to birds

·      Residues in sub-lethally poisoned animals do not have prolonged persistence.

·      Treatment for accidental poisoning is

·      available, but is complex and treatment must occur quickly after ingestion

·      Fate and persistence in the environment not as well understood as other toxins

·      Not registered for aerial application

·      Relatively expensive and at times can be difficult to source in a timely fashion at quantities required

·      High risk to dogs if bait is consumed but relatively low risk through secondary poisoning as dogs would typically need to consume more than one carcass to receive a lethal dose

·      Requires prefeeding to ensure a good kill.

Cyanide

Mode of action: inhibits mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase and  blocks electron transport, resulting in decreased oxidative metabolism and oxygen utilisation

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Cheap compared to other ground based methods (can use as a paste and not rely on bait stations for delivery)

·      Achieves a quick knockdown of possums

·      low environmental persistence

·      low secondary poisoning risk

·      Quick acting and considered relatively humane - target species are killed within minutes (rather than days/weeks).  This also makes it a suitable method for fur recovery.

·      Hazardous in paste format to non-target species including humans if they come into contact – requires cautious approach in high visitation areas

·      Requires a licence to use

·      Bait shyness can become an issue with repeated use (not as prominent with the use of pellet formulations)

 

·      Broad-spectrum toxicity = high primary risk to non-target species. Antidote available but must be consumed immediately

·      Not suitable for rodent control

·      Does not always achieve a high kill of possums (to a level that achieved biodiversity gains).

Sodium Fluoroacetate (1080)

Mode of action: 1080 breaks the respiration process or energy pathway of living cells, causing possums to die of heart or respiratory failure

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Highly effective at rapid reduction in possum and rodent numbers

·      Registered for aerial broadcast

·      Biodegradable in the environment (soil, water)

·      Residues in sub-lethally exposed animals do not have prolonged persistence

·      Proven track record in possum control Quality efficacy data exists to support both aerial and ground-baiting techniques, with on-going potential to reduce application rates

·      Cost effective

·      Its use (particularly aerially) is controversial

·      Dogs are particularly susceptible to 1080 both through eating bait and poisoned carcasses.)

·      No effective antidote – although medication to induce vomiting in dogs is reasonably effective if delivered in a timely fashion. However, dog owners often don’t realise the dog has been exposed until symptoms become visible, by then it’s too late for effective treatment.

·      Generates bait shyness if target animal gets sub-lethal dose (more of an issue for ground-based operations

·      Requires pre-feeding.

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Attachment B – Key Documents in regards 1080 use in NZ

 

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment:

http://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/all-publications/evaluating-the-use-of-1080-predators-poisons-and-silent-forests 

 

Department of Conservation:

http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/threats-and-impacts/animal-pests/the-useof-1080-for-pest-control/5-outcomes-of-1080-use/5_1-outcomes-for-bird-populations/

 

Federated Farmers/Forest & Bird:

http://www.1080facts.co.nz/

 

Environment Protection Agency

http://www.epa.govt.nz/publications/1080-decision-document-with- amendments.pdf

http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/Five_year_review_1080.pdf

 

A study by Eason et al (2010) identified few suitable 1080 alternatives and showed that 1080 has many advantages compared with other poisons. Advantages were seen as being very effective, relative humaneness in the target species, little environmental persistence or potential to bio-accumulate and less costly.

 

The evidence of Dr Penny Fisher (Landcare Research) at the Waitangi Tribunal Hearing (the Whanganui Inquiry) 2008:

http://www.1080facts.co.nz/upload/download_files/Waitangi%20hearing%20-%20(1080%20Brief).pdf

 

National Pest Control Agencies’ Aerial 1080 Pest Control Industry Guidelines

http://www.npca.org.nz/images/stories/NPCA/PDF/b9_aerial_1080_guidelines_201104_web.pdf

Environmental Risk Management Authority’s Communications Guideline for Aerial 1080 Operations

http://www.epa.govt.nz/publications/ERMA-1080-guidelines.pdf

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Resource Recovery Network Strategic Direction, Budget Endorsement and Site Selection Criteria for Community Recycling Centres

 

File No.: CP2014/18778

 

Purpose

1.       To seek endorsement for the strategic direction, budgets (subject to the 2015-2025 LTP) and site selection criteria for community recycling centres to enable the continued delivery of the Resource Recovery Network (RRN).

Executive summary

2.       The Resource Recovery Network (RRN) is a key initiative of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and an essential tool for achieving the council’s waste minimisation targets. It is a long term transformational project that will involve the commercial, community and charitable sectors as well as council.  Once established it will bring multiple social and environmental outcomes in addition to its main purpose of reducing waste to landfill.

3.       The proposal is for council to establish twelve Community Recycling facilities over a ten year period as the core of the network, and to develop operational and management systems.

4.       It is proposed that operational expenditure for the twelve facilities will come from within existing Solid Waste budgets and capital expenditure from the Central Government’s waste levy.

5.       To deliver the RRN and the aspirations of the WMMP, suitable locations for community recycling centres need to be identified.  A set of site selection criteria for community recycling centres has been jointly developed by Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) and the Solid Waste Unit, to enable a review of potential sites and their suitability in helping to deliver the WMMP. 

6.       The site selection criteria have been developed to ensure a strategic fit with the Auckland Plan, and take a holistic look at the needs of Auckland including the priority of land for transport, housing and a low carbon future.

7.       Specific requirements such as planning rules, environmental considerations and surrounding land uses have also been considered in the development of the site selection criteria. 

8.       The value of the land for community use, with associated economic, social and environmental benefits will need to be considered when assessing potential sites, alongside the capital value of the land, any holding costs, and the potential purchase cost of an alternative site if a council owned site is not retained.

9.       It is recommended that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee agree the Resource Recovery Network strategic direction, the site selection criteria for community recycling centres and agree, in principle, the budgets for these activities, subject to the prioritisation of council activity within the 2015-25 Long-term Plan process.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      agree the Resource Recovery Network strategic direction as per Attachment A

b)      agree the site selection criteria for community recycling centres as per Attachment B

c)      agree, in principle, the budgets set out in the Resource Recovery Network strategic direction and budget document (Attachment A), subject to the prioritisation of council activity within the 2015-25 Long-term Plan process.

 

Comments

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP)

10.     In June 2012 the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) was adopted, guided by the vision for Auckland ‘to aim for the long term, aspirational goal of Zero Waste by 2040, turning its waste into resources’.

11.     The Resource Recovery Network (RRN) is a key initiative of the WMMP and an essential tool for achieving the council’s waste diversion targets as well as its obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act (2008). It is likely to take ten to twenty years to establish fully and will, to a large extent, develop organically from within the Auckland business and community sectors. However council has a strong leadership role to play to ensure the RRN achieves its full potential, which is: to maximise the diversion of reusable and recyclable materials from landfill and, in the process, generate multiple environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits for Auckland. 

12.     These multiple benefits include local job creation, training opportunities, community engagement, environmental education, expansion of the recycling sector, reduced carbon emissions and redistribution of low cost goods and materials throughout the region. Consequently the RRN also supports the objectives of the Auckland Low Carbon Action Plan, the ‘Thriving Communities’ Community and Social Development Action Plan and the Auckland Economic Development Strategy

Resource Recovery Network roll-out plan

13.     Planning for the roll-out of the RRN has taken into account the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, and has been split in two phases. An initial phase where council takes the lead, re-developing a small number of its own facilities as best practice models and establishing the operational and support systems for the RRN.  Followed by a second phase where council consolidates its involvement and other stakeholders play a stronger role. 

14.     The first phase covers the five year period from 2013 to 2018 which is the lifespan of the current WMMP. Over this time it is proposed that council will support the establishment of six council-owned facilities:

·     four community recycling centres at Waiuku, Helensville, Devonport, and the central area,

·     an enhanced recycling facility at Whangaparoa and

·     one commercially-focused resource recovery park including a community recycling centre at Waitakere.

15.     The proposed second phase involves supporting the establishment of six additional facilities (council owned or third party owned).  Some of these sites have yet to be identified.

16.     Potential areas for consideration include Panmure or Mt Wellington, Manukau or Papakura, Howick or Pakuranga, Warkworth or Wellsford, Great Barrier Island and Waiheke Island. These sites will be determined using the site selection criteria jointly developed by ACPL and the Solid Waste Unit, as detailed in attachment B

Key benefits

17.     Community recycling centres will be part of Auckland’s infrastructure. As well as reducing waste to landfill their focus will be on creating local jobs, training and volunteer opportunities.  Low cost goods and materials will be redistributed within communities and innovation encouraged by developing new markets and uses for wasted resources.

18.     The Resource Recovery Network is key to delivering the objectives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. In particular significant progress towards the plan’s target of reducing total waste to landfill by 30 percent by 2027 cannot be made without the network.  Achievement of the key targets of the Low Carbon Action Plan (2014) also relies on the formation of the Resource Recovery Network as a key building block of a more resilient Auckland.

19.     It is estimated that council’s investment will enable the twelve sites to divert around 8,700 tonnes of waste from landfill annually and create around 85 full time equivalent jobs, many volunteer positions and numerous other jobs created through associated businesses and resource recovery initiatives.

20.     Developing infrastructure for resource recovery with the ability to receive and process a range of household materials also creates opportunities for maximizing the diversion of waste currently sent to landfill.

Financial implications

21.     Detailed financial modelling of community recycling facilities across New Zealand and in other parts of the world indicate that start-up funding is required to establish sites but with the right contractual and technical support they can become financially self-sustaining from years 3-6.  After this period the sites can return a surplus which can be returned to council or reinvested to create further employment and training opportunities and enhance local service provision as well as substantial social, environmental, cultural and economic benefits for Auckland.

22.     The Solid Waste Procurement Plan approved by the Tenders and Procurement Committee in September 2013 identified $1 million per year of capital expenditure from 2014-2018 as an indicative budget to develop these facilities.

23.     The operational and capital expenditure requirements to support this roll out are detailed in the tables below and are within planned for budgets, subject to prioritization of council activity within the 2015-20125 Long-term Plan process.

24.     The current net operating cost of transfer stations and sites suitable for community recycling centres is $780k per annum.  It is proposed that capital expenditure be funded from the Central Government waste levy.

25.     Capital budgets include the cost of developing the site including planning, design, and building works but do not include funding for site acquisitions.  Accordingly sites identified for phase one will need to be existing council owned sites.

26.     Not all sites have been identified for the second phase of the RRN development and it is possible some of these will be acquired on the open market.  Any site acquisition or use of a council-owned site will require a robust financial analysis that takes land values into account to ensure prudent financial outcomes for the council.

27.     Operational Expenditure requirements

 

14/15

15/16

16/17

17/18

18/19

19/20

20/21

21/22

22/23

23/24

24/25

Net operating cost ($m)

 

0.78

 

0.65

 

0.85

 

0.68

 

0.63

 

0.48

 

0.43

 

0.23

 

0.13

 

(0.02)

 

(0.32)

 

28.     Capital Expenditure requirements

 

15/16

16/17

17/18

18/19

19/20

20/21

21/22

22/23

23/24

24/25

Total

Total capital ($m)

 

0.65

 

1.4

 

1.6

 

1.15

 

0.65

 

0.65

 

0.65

 

0.65

 

0.65

 

0.65

 

8.7


Site assessment criteria

29.     Council needs to identify suitable locations for community recycling centres to deliver the Resource Recovery Network and the aspirations of the WMMP.  A set of financial and non-financial site selection criteria have been developed between ACPL and the Solid Waste Unit to enable a review of available sites and their suitability in helping to deliver the WMMP and other council objectives.  The full community recycling centre site selection criteria are provided in Attachment B.

30.     Council may have a number of competing strategies for the use of available council owned sites which will need to be identified and assessed throughout the site selection criteria.  These include financial values and costs and the potential to deliver on non-financial objectives as detailed in council strategies and plans.

Financial criteria for site assessment

31.     Financial values and costs that need to be taken into consideration include:

a)   the capital value of the land and any associated holding costs calculated on a per annum basis.  This reflects that the site will not be sold and subsequently sale proceeds will not be available to council

b)   the current lease income if any. The existing commercial return will be addressed when considering the transfer of a non-service property to the service portfolio

c)   the capital cost of developing the site such as consenting, planning, design and establishment of the activity

d)   the cost of operating and maintaining the site as a community recycling centre

e)   the cost of purchasing a similar site, should council wish to realise sale proceeds from the site being assessed by the Solid Waste Unit and ACPL.

32.     A financial analysis template which calculates the land value, holding costs, other site-related expenses and income has been created.  This financial analysis template can be used to review the estimated financial costs of different sites over a five to 10 year period. This template will be used when assessing potential sites for selection against approved budgets and is included as Attachment B.

Non-financial criteria for site assessment

33.     A key criterion when looking at the use of any council-owned land is to achieve the objectives of the Auckland Plan.  The Auckland Plan contains transformational shifts to achieve a liveable city including a low carbon future, major transport changes and ensuring there is affordable housing for Aucklanders.

34.     Non-financial criteria as described in Attachment B include planning and environmental constraints, as well as compatibility with surrounding land uses.

35.     When assessing a site the value of benefits such as community strengthening, building social capital and creation of jobs and training opportunities for Auckland communities, all need to be taken into account and considered alongside financial values.

36.     The suitability of a site will also be considered in line with rules outlined in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. It should be noted that community recycling centres are not the same as traditional refuse transfer stations and need to be easily accessible to local communities.  They are much lower impact and are likely to have, depending on the range of activities they can accommodate on site, fewer environmental impacts as well as the ability to deliver multiple social benefits.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

37.     Local boards were supportive of the Resource Recovery Network in their submissions on the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan in 2012.  Six local boards have to date committed funds to undertake scoping studies, business cases and trials.  Twelve local boards have included resource recovery centres in their 2014/15 draft local board plans.

Maori impact statement

38.     Engagement has been undertaken with interested Mana Whenua and Maori groups in the Auckland Region and there are ongoing conversations, not only regarding the WMMP but also the implementation of the Low Carbon Action Plan.

39.     It is recognised that the tangata whenua world view reflects the WMMP’s emphasis on an integrated life cycle approach to the management of natural resources and the concepts of zero waste, waste recovery and waste minimisation.

40.     Some mana whenua and other Maori organisations have already indicated a strong interest in being involved in achieving the WMMP’s objectives, through engagement on projects such as the RRN. Moving forward, it is envisioned that many WMMP projects will provide opportunity for active Maori involvement as council moves towards the more holistic management of natural resources.

Implementation

41.     No implementation issues are foreseen.  Operational expenditure will be covered by rates funded solid waste budgets.  Capital expenditure will be covered by Central Government waste levy funding.

42.     This report seeks in principle endorsement to allocate the budgeted amount on the activities described in Attachment A subject to the prioritisation of council activity within the 2015-25 Long-term Plan process.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Resource Recovery Network Strategic Direction

31

bView

Resource Recovery Network Site Selection Criteria

41

     

Signatories

Authors

Ian Stupple – Manager, Solid Waste

Parul Sood – Waste Planning Manager

Letitia McColl - Senior Engagement Advisor, ACPL

David Rankin – Chief Executive Officer, ACPL

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Waste Management & Minimisation Plan Update

 

File No.: CP2014/20917

 

Purpose

1.       To update the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on specific implementation aspects of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP).

2.       The presentation supporting this report will cover a timeline of key WMMP milestones in the next 12-18 months, proposed transition options (to inform Long-term Plan 2015-2025 considerations), WMMP communications campaign and the special community engagement project supporting the implementation of the WMMP.

Executive summary

3.       A report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in September 2014 summarised the annual achievements and progress on the projects in the Auckland Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan to date.

4.       As part of ongoing Long-term Plan (LTP 15-25) discussions, councillors requested further information on WMMP implementation and consultation.

5.       This report and a presentation will provide a further update on key implementation aspects of the WMMP:  key milestones in the next 12-18 months, proposed transition options (to inform Long-term Plan 2015-2025 considerations), communications campaign and the special community engagement project supporting the rollout of the WMMP.

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

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      receive the ‘Auckland Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update report October 2014’ and presentation.

Comments

7.       Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) was approved by the governing body in June 2012, after extensive consultation with the public, key stakeholders and local boards.

8.       The vision of the plan is: “to become the most liveable city in the world, Auckland will aim for the long-term, aspirational goal of ‘Zero Waste’ by 2040, turning its waste into resources.”

9.       Key projects involved in implementing the WMMP, include:

·     The establishment of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund

·     The adoption of the Solid Waste Bylaw and development of related waste controls

·     The development and implementation of a comprehensive procurement process to support major changes to kerbside collection services that were approved in the WMMP

·     The development of a Resource Recovery Network (RRN) throughout the region

·     The move to a consistent, booked, on-property, annual, rates-funded residential inorganic collection service across Auckland

·     The implementation of communication strategies and engagement activities to both prepare communities for change and achieve our waste minimisation outcomes as defined in the WMMP.

 

 

10.     A report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in September 2014 summarised the progress that has been made on these projects to date.  Some of these projects, such as establishing the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund (WMIF), have already been successfully implemented.  For other projects, such as the procurement of new waste collection services, there is still a significant amount of work underway.

11.     As part of ongoing Long-term Plan (LTP 15-25) discussions, councillors requested further information on WMMP implementation and consultation.

12.     The supporting presentation will provide the committee with details around

·     timeline of key WMMP milestones and reports to be presented to the relevant committees in the next 12-18 months

·     proposed transition options for the kerbside services, noting this work is subject to the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 considerations

·     communication campaigns  and the special community engagement project supporting the implementation of the WMMP.

13.     The timeline provided to the committee will highlight key decision making points and milestones.

14.     The proposed transition options for the kerbside services  considers three options for the delivery of refuse, recycling and organic services to the region. It considers variables in terms of introduction timing and container for collection for the different areas.

15.     An integrated communications plan has been developed for the next three years to support and communicate the service changes and prepare the community for the new services.  An evaluation process has also been developed, to ensure that communications programmes and plans are monitored for effectiveness and modified accordingly to ensure maximum uptake of message.

16.     Specific projects are being undertaken with communities in the South and East to support and prepare them for the changes to the waste and recycling services.  Further detail on some of these projects will be discussed in the presentation. 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17.     Local boards receive regular reports on council’s progress towards implementing the WMMP through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services update reports to the local boards. Solid Waste staff also present to local boards at relevant workshops and meetings about projects.

18.     Local boards have been consulted and provided feedback relating to the multi-unit development waste services project, and where the boundary should be between urban and rural areas as it affects the type of waste services to be provided to each and the WMIF fund.

19.     Local Board views have not been sought on the proposed transition options for the kerbside services as yet, but will be discussed with the boards once direction and more detail is available.

Maori impact statement

20.     As noted in the WMMP, the tangata whenua world view reflects the WMMP’s emphasis on an integrated life cycle approach to the management of natural resources and the concepts of Zero Waste, waste recovery and waste minimisation.

 

21.     The work to date with Mana Whenua and Maori is the beginning of a journey towards building collaboration and capacity that create a mind-set and behaviour change to seeing waste as a resource and minimising waste to landfill.  Tailored engagement and development approaches to working with Mana Whenua and Maori have been developed.

Implementation

22.     There are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report and the presentation.

23.     The delivery of this transformational programme is planned for from within existing and proposed budgets, although it is noted that all projects are subject to the prioritisation of council activity within the 2015-25 Long-term Plan process.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Ian Stupple - Manager Solid Waste

Parul Sood - Manager Waste Planning

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Local Approved Product Policy for psychoactive substances - Draft policy for public consultation

 

File No.: CP2014/18179

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee’s approval of the draft Local Approved Product Policy (Attachment A) and for the commencement of the special consultative procedure for the policy.

Executive summary

2.       The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act) sets a regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of psychoactive substances.  Sections 66 to 69 of the Act provide the authority for a territorial authority to create a Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP) setting out where licences to sell these substances can be located.

3.       On 6 March 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a work plan for the development of Auckland Council’s Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP) (Item 9; REG/2014/34).  On 3 July the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee endorsed a preferred option for the LAPP (REG/2014/86).

4.       The preferred option was then discussed with Local Boards and stakeholders.  As a result of the feedback it is proposed to increase the buffer zones around schools and treatment centres as well as have a different set of rules for the city centre.  These changes are incorporated in the draft LAPP (Attachment A).

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve for public consultation the attached draft Local Approved Product Policy (Attachment A) that will prevent the sale of approved psychoactive substances in the following areas in Auckland except for the central city:

·     high deprivation areas as defined by the Ministry of Health’s Deprivation Index score of 8, 9 or 10 indicating areas that fall in the bottom 30% of deprivation scores

·     neighbourhood centres as defined by the draft Unitary Plan

·     within 500m of a school with year seven and older pupils

·     within 200m of a school with pupils between years one and six inclusive

·     within 500m of a residential mental health or addiction treatment centre

·     within 500m of an existing psychoactive substance retail licence

·     small areas identified as restricted areas due to only being partially covered by the census high deprivation areas and being in a high deprivation area

b)      approve for public consultation the attached draft Local Approved Product Policy (appendix 1) that will prevent the sale of approved psychoactive substances in the following areas in the central city:

·     areas of residential high deprivation set out in the attached map (Attachment B)

·     within 100m of an existing psychoactive substance retail licence

c)      agree that the attached draft LAPP (Attachment A) will be reviewed after two years

d)      agree that the Research, Evaluation and Monitoring Unit of Auckland Council will lead the evaluation of the attached draft LAPP (Attachment A)

e)      agree that minor editorial changes can be approved by the chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee prior to its release for public consultation.

 

Comments

Background

The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

5.       The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act) sets a regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of psychoactive substances.  The Act’s purpose is to protect the health of, and minimise the harm to, individuals who use psychoactive substances and regulate the availability of psychoactive products.  The Act created interim licences to allow the sale and supply of a small number of products until the regulations under the Act had been made.

6.       Sections 66 to 69 of the Act let Auckland Council develop a Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP).  The LAPP can only make rules about:

·        The location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to broad areas. 

·        The location from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to other premises from which approved products are sold.

·        The location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to premises or facilities of a particular kind or kinds.

The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014

7.       The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014 came into effect on the 6th of May 2014.  This Act ended all interim approvals and licences previously granted under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.  The amendment did not change the intent of the Act to allow the sale of approved low risk psychoactive substances. 

Regulations

8.       The government has introduced the first set of regulations under the act.  These set out the testing regime for a product to become approved as well as all licences apart from retail licences.  These regulations also make it illegal to sell psychoactive substances from residential premise, vending machines and places that are by their nature likely to be frequented by minors.  Retail licences will not be available until the Ministry of Health have made the next set of regulations, they have indicted these will be made around June 2015.

Previous Council decisions

9.       On 6 March 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a work plan for the development of Auckland Council’s LAPP (Item 9; REG/2014/34).

10.     On the 14 May council staff presented a number of options for a LAPP to the Community Development and Safety Committee.  The committee endorsed the option to limit the sale of substances to specified areas that were evidence based (item 12, COM/2014/10).

11.     On 3 July the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee endorsed a preferred option for the LAPP (REG/2014/86).  The preferred option for the LAPP would prevent licences being granted in areas of high deprivation, near schools and near addiction and mental health treatment centres.  It would also limit how close to an existing shop a new shop could open.  This option would reduce the availability of these substances in areas where their presence is likely to have the greatest potential for harm.

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12.     Workshops on the proposed draft LAPP were held with 17 local boards.  Great Barrier, Waiheke, Orakei Upper Harbour local boards chose to consider the proposal at a business meeting without a workshop.  All local boards except for Great Barrier discussed the proposal at a business meeting and provided feedback (see attachment 2 for a summary).  Great Barrier chose not to provide any feedback on the proposal as they did not feel it was an issue of concern to their area.

13.     In general the Local boards supported the approach of the policy.  Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, and Waiheke declined to comment on the specific proposals instead supporting a total ban.

Use of the deprivation index

14.     All of the 17 boards who provided comment, with the exception of Franklin, supported the use of deprivation to create bans.  Whau, Henderson-Massey and Waitakere Ranges all asked for the high deprivation range to be increased by adding in areas with a deprivation index score of 7.  Franklin expressed a concern that this proposal would move the problem into other low deprivation areas.

School buffer zones

15.     All 17 of the local boards who commented supported the use of buffer zones around schools.  11 of these boards requested an increase in the buffer zones around schools.  The boards also requested a clarification on the definition of ‘”high school” and “primary school” in relation to the age of the students.

Neighbourhood centre ban

16.     There was full support for the ban in neighbourhood centres.

Density control

17.     There was full support for the 500m density control.

Residential mental health and addiction treatment centre buffer zones

18.     The buffer zone around mental health and addiction treatment centres was strongly supported with only two local boards asking for an increased buffer and none not supporting the measure.

Additional sensitive sites

19.     There were also a number of other types of sensitive sites that the local boards asked for inclusion.  The only consistent theme was early childhood education centres with six boards asking for these to be included.  Various local boards asked for skate parks, playgrounds, places of worship, transport hubs, bus stops, youth facilities and libraries to be included as sensitive sites.

Total ban requests

20.     A number of local boards expressed that these substances should be totally banned and that this sentiment should be recorded in their feedback.  This is noted in attachment 2.  The Waiheke local board asked for a ban on the island as they felt given their limited infrastructure it would be difficult for them to cope with adverse outcomes from the use of psychoactives.  They also felt that with the limited boundaries of the island it would be difficult for vulnerable people to avoid contact with the substances and those using and selling them.


City centre

21.     Waitemata Local Board requested there be a different consideration for the city centre.  While they supported the principles of the policy they did not feel applying the same rules to the city centre as the rest of Auckland achieved the desired outcome.  This view was supported by Heart of the City and a number of treatment providers including Auckland City Mission.

Additional comment

22.     A number of local boards provided feedback on areas that are outside of the authority of the LAPP.  These included opening hours and requirements for the licence holder to be of good character. 

Maori impact statement

23.     Māori are over represented amongst the groups of vulnerable people likely to be affected by using approved psychoactive substances.  This over representation has two effects.  Firstly getting the right option for the LAPP to maximize harm reduction will be more effective for Māori.  Secondly, any solutions need to be designed in close collaboration with Māori to ensure they are workable and support wider initiatives aimed at improving Māori outcomes.  Both of these goals are consistent with outcomes set out by Auckland Council to improve social outcomes for Māori in Auckland.

24.     It is considered that the development and outcomes of the LAPP will support two fundamental principles important to Māori.  Firstly the outcomes of the LAPP will fulfil the principle of Manaakitanga through providing a successful policy that protects vulnerable people of Auckland.  This outcome is of particular note for Māori as they make up a larger proportion of communities that have been identified as vulnerable due to high deprivation.  In addition Māori make up a high proportion of mental health users, another population that is vulnerable to the effects of psychoactive substances and will be protected by a successful LAPP.  Secondly the proposed draft LAPP process supports the principle of Whanaungatanga through ensuring good relationships are established with iwi and maata waka through effective provision of information and conducting discussions in a way that is meaningful to Māori. 

25.     The consultation process with Māori is has been developed in partnership with Māori agencies.  A workshop has been undertaken with representatives from Hapai Te Hauora Tapui, an agency representing Māori health providers in the Auckland region, to provide initial feedback.  Council staff are working with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, Te Waka Angamua and Hapai Te Hauora Tapui to ensure effective engagement with Māori.  The initial work has centred on ensuring information is available to iwi and maata waka.  The first hui of this process is planned for early October.

General

Wider engagement - internal

26.     Internal discussions were held with Community Development and Safety, Bylaws and Compliance, Regional and Local Planning, Economic Development, Auckland Strategy and Research, and Legal Services.  Internal feedback supported the proposed approach.  There was a view that the buffer zones around schools may be too small and should be reviewed.

Wider engagement – Advisory Panels

27.     The proposal has been presented to the Youth Advisory Panel and the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel.  Both groups were supportive of the proposal.  The Youth Advisory Panel requested an increase in the buffer zone around schools.  They also suggested developing priority overlay areas where there could be increased buffer zones.


Wider engagement - External

28.     A number of workshops with external stakeholders have been conducted.  These workshops have involved representatives and feedback from the following agencies: NZ Police, Auckland Regional Public Health Services, Hapai Te Hauora Tapui, Child Youth and Family, Salvation Army, Auckland City Mission, Community Alcohol and Drug Services, Odessey House, Higher ground, NZ Drug Foundation, Ministry of Health and the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority.  A workshop was also held with representatives from the industry including STAR trust which represents interests in both the retail and manufacturing sector. 

29.     Workshops were also held with the Business Improvement District (BID) associations throughout Auckland.  These groups generally supported the proposal although there were some concerns about the hours of operation especially in industrial areas.

30.     The New Zealand Police and Auckland Regional Public Health Service generally supported the proposal.  There was a concern that the buffer zones might be too small but this was tempered by the acknowledgement that if they were too large they might contribute to the LAPP being considered a de facto ban.

31.     The Ministry of Health, the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority and the New Zealand Drug Foundation all fully supported the proposed policy.

32.     The treatment agencies were supportive of the proposed policy with a number of them asking about increasing the buffer zones around schools and treatment facilities

Proposed changes as a result of engagement and further work

33.     Two changes have been proposed as a result of consultation.  These changes are a different set of rules for the city centre and an increase in the size of the buffer zones.

34.     The city centre changes are as a direct result of consultation with the Waitemata Local Board and Heart of the City.  The new rules are a 100m restriction between a new licence and any existing licences and a ban in an area of residential high deprivation.  These would be the only two restrictions in the city centre.

35.     The second change is to increase the 300m buffer zones around schools with year seven and older students and residential mental health and addiction treatment centres to 500m and increase the 100m zone around schools with year one to six students to 200m.  The increase in buffer zones is as a result of the volume of feedback that the proposed settings were too small.  This feedback was consistent for local boards and stakeholders.

36.     In addition to these major changes there are two small changes to extend restrictions to commercial areas in mainly high deprivation areas that are only partially covered by the high deprivation census areas.  These areas are Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe, and the Manurewa commercial area.  In both cases a significant portion of the commercial area is in a very high deprivation area.  These are also areas where the local boards have reported high levels of harm related to the sale of psychoactive substances in the past.  It is considered that leaving small parts of these commercial areas, where a licence could be granted, would be contrary to the stated purpose of the LAPP.  These areas are indicated on maps 1a and 1b in appendix 1.

Changes suggested but not implemented

37.     No new sensitive sites have been added.  All of the proposed additions were considered in the policy development and ruled out as they did not meet the criteria of providing a significant harm reduction to vulnerable people.  For example it is difficult to determine what harm would be minimised from adding a buffer to early childhood education centres – it would not protect the students as they are far too young to obtain the substances, they would not be viewing shops as the centres are enclosed and even if they were to view a shop it is considered unlikely that preschool children would experience any normalising as a result.

38.     A buffer zone around places of worship was also strongly considered.  It was argued by a number of stakeholders that these places provide services to vulnerable populations and thus should be protected.  However these services tend to be of a short duration such as a support meeting and are not conducted equally at every place of worship.  Additionally these services may only be offered for a portion of the year rather than as a core part of their everyday work.  This lack of consistency and short duration of service provision make it impossible to determine which places, if any, provide a sufficient level of service to warrant being included in the LAPP. 

Implementation

Evaluation and review

39.     It is proposed to review the policy after two years from the date of adoption.  The main consideration in setting this review period is gaining information to allow Auckland Council to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy and the impact of these substances on the people of Auckland.  This review period is necessary as there is very little information available to predict what will happen once psychoactive substances are once again legally being sold in Auckland. 

40.     The proposed policy review period and accompanying evaluation will also allow the LAPP to be assessed and any necessary changes made before all of the initial retail licences come up for review from three years after they are granted.  This is an important point as if the LAPP changes the new licence will have to comply with the new LAPP. 

41.     It is proposed that the Research Investigation and Monitoring Unit (RIMU) will design and undertake the evaluation programme alongside the implementation of the LAPP.  This work will allow Auckland Council to understand the impact these substances are having on Auckland as well as evaluate how effective the LAPP has been in reducing that harm.

Next steps

42.     If the draft policy is approved the special consultative procedure will begin on 28 October.

Step

Estimated timeframe

1. Special consultative procedure

Officers will follow the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of Local Government Act 2002. This will include public submissions and hearings.

28 Oct – 28 Nov 2014

2. Hearings

Hearing of submissions received during the special consultative procedure

Feb 2014

3. Adopt final policy

Following the hearings the draft will be finalised and presented to RSP Committee for consideration and adoption.

March 2015

4. Implementation and review

A copy will be sent to Ministry of Health after it has been completed. The LAPP will then be reviewed every three years.

Ongoing

 


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Attachment 1 Draft Local Approved Product Policy

59

bView

Attachment 1a Draft LAPP Maps

69

cView

Attachment 2 Feedback summary

77

     

Signatories

Authors

Callum Thorpe - Principal Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Team Leader, Regionwide Social Policy

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Why we need a Local Approved Product Policy

 

Why are there approved psychoactive substances?

The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act) sets a regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of psychoactive substances.  By allowing low risk products to be sold the government wanted to reduce harm from to users of the products and prevent a black market in selling unapproved products.  The government felt that with a black market there would be no control on what was being sold, how it was made or who was buying it.  Without these controls there would be increased harm to people’s health and well-being. 

The Act’s stated purpose is to protect the health of, and minimise the harm to, individuals who use psychoactive substances and regulate the availability of psychoactive products.  It banned psychoactive substances from being sold in dairies, service stations, supermarkets, convenience stores and places where alcohol is sold.  It also restricted the advertising of products and the sale to those under 18. 

The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014

The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014 ended all of the interim approvals and licences previously granted under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.  This reversal meant that until regulations are developed there would be no psychoactive substances that were legal to sell and no businesses that could legally sell them.  The amendment did not change the intent of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 to allow the sale of low risk psychoactive substances. 

 

What gives the council the authority to have a Local Approved Product Policy?

Sections 66 to 69 of the Act let Auckland Council develop a Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP).  The LAPP can only make rules about:

·    The location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to broad areas. 

·    The location from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to other premises from which approved products are sold.

·    The location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to premises or facilities of a particular kind or kinds.


How does the Local Approved Product Policy fit into Auckland Council’s vision for the future?

Auckland Council has a number of priorities to grow Auckland into the world’s most liveable city.  One of key outcomes is a fair safe and healthy Auckland.  The LAPP will contribute to this priority by reducing the risk of harm that vulnerable people will experience from legal psychoactive substances.  This harm reduction will be achieved by reducing the availability of these substances to vulnerable populations such as high deprivation areas, youth and people with mental health concerns.

As part of Auckland Council’s vision for Auckland, six transformational shifts were identified to help create the world’s most liveable city.  The LAPP contributes to two of these – dramatically accelerate the prospects of Auckland’s young people and significantly lift Māori social and economic well-being.  The LAPP contributes improved prospects for young people through reducing the exposure to these substances to those still at school and in the most socially deprived communities.

In terms of Māori well-being in Auckland there is a higher proportion of Māori in high deprivation communities compared with low deprivation communities.  The goal of the LAPP to stop licences in these high deprivation areas will mean that these communities should experience less harm and consequently Māori should experience less harm. 

In line with the Mayors vision for Auckland Council to deliver value for money the LAPP needs to be practical to implement and cost effective.


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

The Draft Local Approved Product Policy

Definitions

Term

Definition

Distance restriction

Distance restrictions will be measured from the two nearest points on the properties boundaries – that is, the boundary of the property not just the building.

City centre

As defined in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Neighbourhood centre

As defined by the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Mental health treatment centre

A residential facility where people are treated for mental health issues and has been identified by Auckland Regional Public Health Services as at risk of their clients experiencing harm if they were to have easy access to psychoactive substances.

Addiction treatment centre

A residential facility where people are treated for addiction issues and has been identified by Auckland Regional Public Health Services as at risk of their clients experiencing harm if they were to have easy access to psychoactive substances.

High Deprivation

Census Area Units that have a score on the New Zealand Deprivation Index of 8, 9 or 10.  This indicates the area is in the most deprived 30% of New Zealand.

Residential deprivation

An area which has a high proportion of people living in social housing.

 

For Auckland except for the city centre (See attached maps)

1.   For all areas of Auckland apart from the city centre it is proposed that licences to retail legal psychoactive substances will not be granted in:

a)      areas of high deprivation

b)      neighbourhood centers

c)      within 500m of a school teaching students year seven and above

d)      within 200m of a school teaching students between years one and six inclusive

e)      within 500m of the mental health or addiction treatment center

f)       within 500m of an existing psychoactive substances retail licence

g)      areas identified as restricted areas on map 1a and 1b.

 

For the city centre – see map 2

2.   For the city centre it is proposed that licences to retail legal psychoactive substances will not be granted in:

a)      areas of residential deprivation

b)      within 100m of an existing psychoactive substances retail licence.

 

When will the policy be reviewed?

3.   The LAPP will be reviewed in two years from the date it is adopted.  This relatively short review period will allow Auckland Council to assess how effective the policy has been in its intent to reduce harm and to recommend any changes in a timely manner.  At the first review a decision will be made on future review periods.

 

Maps

Map 1a Identified restricted area – Otara Papatoetoe

 


 

Map 1b Identified restricted area – Manurewa

 

Map 2 – City centre and restricted area

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Why were these rules chosen?

Why restrict where they can be sold?

Because psychoactive substances are new and continue to change composition there is almost no information on their impact on communities or groups of people.  In lieu of this information the proposed approach is to use the available data concerning the effects of similar substances.  The best comparisons concern the effect of alcohol, smoking and other substance use.  One of the ideas to reduce harm from substances that a lot of people support is that decreasing the availability of a substance will tend to reduce its use.

Why high deprivation?

One impact that stands out from the research is that areas with high levels of deprivation experience more harm from substance use than areas with low levels of deprivation.  When this finding is combined with the idea that decreasing the availability of a substance will tend to reduce its use, there is a strong case that preventing the sale of psychoactive substances in high deprivation areas will prevent harm to those who are more vulnerable to harm.

Why schools?

The youth council representatives and a number of treatment providers advised that the use of these substances in high school aged youth was a considerable problem.  Similar to the high deprivation restriction a reduction in availability is proposed to reduce harm.

To reduce the availability of these substances to youth, a control on the location of where they can be sold is needed.  To achieve this control over access it is proposed that a 500m zone around schools with year 7 and older students and a 200m buffer zone around schools with year six and younger students.

The 200m buffer zone around schools with year six and younger students is considered to be appropriate as these children are less likely to be able to purchase substances due to their age.  This has been demonstrated by the low numbers of youth in this age bracket being treated for substance use or coming to the attention of the Police.

Why treatment centres?

As with schools and high deprivation areas; limiting the availability of these substances to vulnerable people is likely to be the most practical approach to minimising harm.  Both mental health treatment centres and addiction treatment centres serve people who would be considered particularly vulnerable to the effects of these substances.  Many of the treatment providers expressed a strong preference that they should not be for sale close to any mental health treatment centre.  To reduce the availability of these substances to this group of people a 500m buffer around treatment centres is proposed.

Why Neighbourhood centres?

It is proposed to not allow psychoactive substances to be sold in neighbourhood centres.  These centres are the small groups of shops within residential areas.  People who don’t tend to travel large distances like youth and people struggling with addictions or mental health issues find these locations convenient.  By removing the sale of these products out of neighbourhood centres there is an increased probability of reducing harm to those most at risk of harm from using psychoactive substances.

 

Why restrictions on how close a shop can be to another shop?

Research in New Zealand and overseas has established a link between the density of alcohol outlets and the alcohol related harm experienced by the local communities.  It is considered reasonable to assume that there is a high likelihood of a similar link for psychoactive substances.  It follows then that a density control mechanism will help the other measures to minimise the harm experienced by users of psychoactive substances.  To achieve this control it is proposed to not allow a new licence to sell psychoactive substances within 500m of an existing licence.

 

Why have other identified areas?

Two small areas have been identified that are commercial areas in mainly high deprivation areas and are only partially covered by the high deprivation census areas.  These areas are Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe, and the Manurewa commercial area.  In both cases a significant portion of the commercial area is in a very high deprivation area.  These are also areas where the local boards have advised that the areas experienced high levels of harm related to the sale of psychoactive substances in the past.  It is considered that leaving small areas within these commercial zones where a licence could be granted would be contrary to the stated purpose of the LAPP.  These areas are indicated on map1a and 1b.

 

Why not have other types of sensitive sites?

For each area considered for inclusion as a sensitive site there is a trade-off between the restriction that is imposed and the benefit of reduced harm gained from the decision.  There were a number of areas considered as possible sensitive sites where it was difficult to match the potential with the restriction required to achieve it.  Potential sites that did not meet the criteria for inclusion were early childhood education centres, churches, playgrounds, public spaces, libraries and community centres.

For example it is difficult to determine what harm would be minimised from adding a buffer to early childhood education centres.  The restriction would not protect the students as they are far too young to buy the substances and they would not be exposed to the trade occurring in local shops as the centres tend to be enclosed.  .

A buffer zone around places of worship was also strongly considered.  A number of stakeholders argued that these places provide services to vulnerable populations and thus should be protected.  However the services they provide tend to be of a short duration such as a support meeting and are not conducted equally at every place of worship.  Also these places may only offer such services for a portion of the year.  This lack of consistency makes it impossible for a general restriction to apply to all places of worship.  The alternative option of having a different restriction for each place of worship based on the work they do is not practical to develop or maintain.


 

Why have separate rules for the city centre?

The city centre of Auckland has been clearly set out as a separate and very different urban landscape from the rest of Auckland.  Planning and policy documents such as the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and the Local Alcohol Policy make this distinction very clear.  This uniqueness means the rules that work well for the rest of Auckland will not work so well for its centre. 

 

Why not use the deprivation index?

The New Zealand Deprivation Index is calculated by scoring nine items.  These items are effective and providing a measure that closely matching social deprivation in New Zealand.  However, when the city centre population is considered it is not so effective.  The high number of students who share factors with high deprivation households such as low personal income, no access to a car and no home ownership lead to a high deprivation index that is not a good measure of overall social deprivation in the residential population.

 

Why are there restrictions on areas of high density social housing?

These broad areas replace the deprivation zones used in the other areas of Auckland.  These zones more effectively capture the intent of the deprivation restriction.  They represent areas of the city centre where the residents with the highest social deprivation live.  By targeting these areas it is considered this restriction will have the same effect as the deprivation restrictions outside the city centre.

 

Why not have buffer zones around schools?

After discussion with the schools and other city centre stakeholders it was decided that the buffer zone around city centre schools did not provide the same level of protection as it does in a suburban environment.  This lack of protection is due to the nature and the density of businesses in the city centre.  It was also felt that due to the commercial density in the city the buffer zones would be more restrictive than those in other zones.  This mix of reduced effectiveness and increased restriction led to the removal of the buffer zones.

 

Why is there a smaller exclusion zone around retailers

The smaller buffer zone is due to the significantly greater commercial density in the city centre.  This reduction has been supported by the Waitemata Local Board, Heart of the City and Auckland City Mission.

 

Why is there no mention of neighbourhood centres?

There are no neighbourhood centres in the city centre.

 

How will the LAPP decide between two licence applications close to each other?

The LAPP is not able to make any provision to distinguish between two licences apart from where they are located.  Due to the proposed density rules there may be a situation where two people apply for a licence close to each other.  In this case both licences cannot be granted because they would be too close to each other.  Deciding which licence should be granted is the job of the Psychoactive Substance Regulatory Authority who makes all of the licensing decisions.

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Attachment 1a – Maps detailing the impact of the proposed draft LAPP

 

Map Key


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                          


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

 

Local Boards

Ban in high deprivation - NZDep index 8,9,10

School with year 7 or older students - 300m buffer

School with year 6 or younger students - 100m buffer

Residential mental health/addiction treatment centre - 300m buffer

Ban in neighbourhood centres

Licence density control - 500m

Albert-Eden

S

1000m

S

1000m

S

S

Devonport-Takapuna

S

S

300m

S

S

S

Franklin

DS

S

300m

NC

NC

NC

Great Barrier

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

Henderson-Massey

7,8,9,10

500m

500m

500m

S

S

Hibiscus and Bays

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

Howick

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

Kaipātiki

S

500m

500m

500m

S

S

Mangere-Otahuhu

S

S

300m

S

S

S

Manurewa

S

S

300m

S

S

S

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

S

NC

NC

NC

S

NC

Orākei

S

S

S

S

S

S

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

S

S

300m

S

S

S

Papakura

NC

S

300m

NC

NC

NC

Puketāpapa

S

500m

200m

S

S

S

Rodney

S

S

S

S

S

S

Upper Harbour

S

600m

300m

600m

S

S

Waiheke

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

Waitākere Ranges

7,8,9,10

500m

500m

500m

S

S

Waitematā

S

S

S

S

S

S

Whau

7,8,9,10

500m

500m

500m

S

S

PANELS

Youth Advisory Panel

S

500m

200m

S

S

S

Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel

S

S

S

S

S

s

S

Support the proposed rule

1000m

Support the proposed rule with a change in scope

NC

No comment on the proposed rule

DS

Do not support the proposed rule

Appendix 2 – Summary of Local board and advisory panel feedback

General feedback

 Local Board

Note

Action

Albert-Eden

Want a total ban

Noted

Devonport-Takapuna

Nil

No action

Franklin

Include ECE, and open spaces as sensitive sites

Not added as no evidence for harm reduction from this addition

Great Barrier

Not considered an issue

No action

Henderson-Massey

Want a total ban

Noted

 

Place of worship added to sensitive sites

Not added due to high degree of variation to the social services offered

 

Kindergartens/play centres added to sensitive sites

Not added as no evidence for harm reduction from this addition

Hibiscus and Bays

No feedback on the policy as they want a total ban

Noted

Howick

No feedback on the policy as they want a total ban

Noted

Kaipātiki

Addition of local centres and town centres

Not added as it was considered too great a restriction for the benefit it may accrue

 

Investigation in the addition of skate parks, youth facilities and shopping malls as sensitive sites

Not added as no evidence for harm reduction from this addition

Mangere-Otahuhu

Nil

No action

Manurewa

Addition of all areas of Manurewa town centre in high dep ban and north side of browns road b/w Ross common rd and countdown

Manurewa town centre added - Browns road included in the increased school buffer zone

 

Early childhood education centres and libraries added to sensitive sites

Not added as no evidence for harm reduction from this addition

 

Places of worship added to sensitive sites

Not added due to high degree of variation to the social services offered

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Concern with substances being sold in industrial areas where there is no passive surveillance

Noted - feedback provided that the policy will not limit the sale to industrial locations

Orākei

Nil

No action

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

Request that note be taken of the position paper they commissioned for Ministry of Health

Noted

 

Buffer of 100m from places of worship,

Not added due to high degree of variation to the social services offered

 

Buffer of 100m from transport hubs and bus stops - 300m from Early childhood education centres

Not added as no evidence for harm reduction from this addition

Papakura

Noted that Drury Christian School was missing from the maps

Information passed onto the GIS team for inclusion

Puketāpapa

Nil

No action

Rodney

Inclusion of dementia and Traumatic Brain Injury treatment centres in Mental Health centres

Discussed with Auckland Regional Public Health Service who are providing the facility list

 

Ask for addition of organisations that work with high risk youth be added including "grandparents raising grandchildren"

Noted and under consideration

Upper Harbour

Oppose internet sales

Noted

Waiheke

Want total ban on the island

Not added due to ban area being focused on harm reduction principles not area based bans

 

Feel that CAU too coarse for the island and mesh blocks should be used instead

Noted - CAU used for consistency with the rest of Auckland and to avoid an overly granular restrictions

Waitākere Ranges

Want a total ban

Noted

 

Place of worship added to sensitive sites

Not added due to high degree of variation to the social services offered

 

Kindergartens/play centres added to sensitive sites

Not added as no evidence for harm reduction from this addition

Waitematā

Separate rules for city centre

Separate rules developed

Whau

Want a total ban

Noted

 

Place of worship added to sensitive sites

Not added due to high degree of variation to the social services offered

 

Kindergartens/play centres added to sensitive sites

Not added as no evidence for harm reduction from this addition

Advisory Panel

Youth Advisory Panel

Consideration of priority overlays similar to LAP to determine where to have larger buffers

Not added due to the additional complexity with limited if any benefits

Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel

Want to provide assistance during the consultation phase

EPAP to be involved in developing the consultation process

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Global Engagement Update

 

File No.: CP2014/22057

 

Purpose

1.       To update and seek approval from the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on the:

·     refreshed strategic direction for council’s global engagement to be delivered within existing budgets

·     proposed outbound global engagement programme for FY2014-15

·     intended review of Auckland Council’s 19 formal international partnerships requested by the Mayor

·     development of a council-wide framework to guide cross-council collaboration in global engagement activities.

Executive summary

2.       To achieve the Auckland Plan and Auckland Economic Development Strategy (AEDS) goals of becoming a vibrant, creative, internationally connected and export driven city, it is important that council’s international engagement effort is strategically placed and implemented.  We need to ensure that opportunities to increase Auckland’s global reach and relevance are not being missed, and that this activity is fully aligned across the council family.  To ensure Auckland is leveraging strategic international and growth market opportunities, council will benefit from engaging in global partnerships beyond and in addition to those of our traditional sister city partners.

3.       The Mayor’s 2013 manifesto – “What Matters to Auckland” heralded a refreshed approach to Auckland’s international engagement.  It included a commitment to refocus and resource an economic and investment-driven approach to council’s international relations efforts, including increased links and promotional activity with Auckland’s major trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region.  A refreshed strategic direction for council’s international activity is proposed that will focus on raising the profile of Auckland through a global partnership and global visibility approach. 

4.       The refreshed approach is consistent with the Economic Development Committee’s February 2014 endorsement of the shared economic development agenda for Auckland for 2014-2017, which includes a specific priority action to increase Auckland’s visibility.  The new direction was supported by the Economic Development Committee at their 20 August 2014 meeting.

5.       The Global Partnerships and Strategy unit[3] will oversee and facilitate council’s global engagement activity by providing leadership, oversight, and advice in relation to the whole-of-Council’s global engagement activities.  The unit will work across the council family to complement respective work in positioning Auckland in the global economy, attracting business and FDI to Auckland, and in promoting Auckland’s trade and investment proposition offshore. Work aligning to the new strategic direction has already begun, and includes, for example, developing a tripartite economic alliance with Los Angeles and Guangzhou, and a Global Visibility Strategy for Auckland.


6.       Initiatives for an outbound programme in FY2014-15 have been aligned with the refreshed strategic direction for council’s global engagement.  A short visit to China is being planned for November 2014 for the signing of the tripartite economic alliance with Los Angeles and Guangzhou.  A number of business leaders will attend this and they will also advance commercial opportunities while in China.  Attendance at the World Cities Summit Mayors Forum in New York (June 2015) aligning with a potential trade mission to Los Angeles and San Francisco is also under consideration. 

7.       The Mayor has also requested that work be undertaken around the prioritisation of Auckland Council’s 19 formal sister-city partnerships. Identifying a smaller number of formal partnerships that are of economic/investment importance for Auckland would free up limited resources to focus on strategically relevant global partnerships and networks.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve the refreshed strategic direction for council’s global engagement

b)      note the proposed outbound global engagement programme for FY2014-15

c)      note the intended review of Auckland Council’s 19 formal international partnerships requested by the Mayor

d)      note the development of a council-wide framework to guide cross-council collaboration in global engagement activities.

Comments

Council’s current global engagement activity

8.       Following the amalgamation of Auckland Council in 2010, council inherited 30 formal international relationships encompassing a range of sister cities, friendship relationships, strategic alliances, and memorandums of understanding or cooperation.   In 2011, the Regional Development and Operations Committee endorsed retaining 19 formal international relationships (Table 2).

9.       To date council has adopted a traditional sister-city/civic relationship model.  This has included civic courtesy calls, student/education exchanges, cultural initiatives, study visits, business engagement and trade missions.  This has raised awareness about the existence and aspirations of the relationship and the partner city.  These civic relationships have helped to ‘open doors’ for business, share best practice, and explore cultural opportunities between cities.  It is timely to ensure council’s international engagement activity is aligned to strategic opportunities for Auckland. 

Refocus of Auckland’s international relations efforts

10.     Given Auckland Council’s objectives to pursue economic development outcomes through its international activity, council would benefit from broadening its global activity to focus on key strategic partnerships and growth markets for Auckland.  We need to reconsider which international relationships to invest in to increase Auckland’s international exports and raise global awareness of Auckland as an investment and employment destination. 

11.     A refreshed strategic direction for international activity has been developed and proposed by the Global Partnerships and Strategy unit in consultation with key stakeholders.  The new direction focuses on raising the profile and relevance of Auckland in the global economy through a global partnership and global visibility approach, in addition to business-as-usual activity with our traditional sister city partners.


12.     The refreshed approach is consistent with the Economic Development Committee’s February 2014 endorsement of the shared economic development agenda for Auckland for 2014-2017, which includes a specific priority action to increase Auckland’s visibility.  That agenda includes the following nine priorities:

i)        establish a new Auckland Leadership Team

ii)       raise youth/rangatahi employability

iii)      build, retain and attract talent

iv)      build the Auckland business proposition for a business-friendly city

v)      boost the investment rate into Auckland’s economy and infrastructure

vi)      motivate greater investment in products, services and markets

vii)     increase Auckland’s visibility

viii)    optimise Auckland’s platforms for growth: housing, transport and availability of employment land

ix)      support growth and improved performance of Māori businesses.

Refreshed strategic direction for Council’s global engagement

13.     Maintaining relationships and effectively engaging in international markets is essential to doing business and to competing internationally with other comparable and successful middle-weight cities[4]

14.     Council’s global engagement activity will be prioritised in line with the Mayor’s directive for an economic and investment-driven approach to Auckland’s international relations, with a focus on increasing links and promotional activity in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as city building and strategic partnerships with cities in growth markets.  This will see council’s global engagement concentrated on the priorities shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Priority areas and actions for global engagement activity

Priority area

Key Actions

Outcomes for Auckland

Global partnerships

Build partnerships for Auckland in strategically-relevant markets to facilitate trade and investment opportunities for Auckland, for example:

·      Tripartite economic alliance with Guangzhou and Los Angeles

·      Develop strategic partnerships in ASEAN markets

·      Develop an Auckland China Strategy (aligned to NZ Inc China Strategy)

Business-as-usual management of economic, civic, and cultural engagement with council’s formal partner cities

·      Increase in Auckland’s global reach and access to business, investment and city building opportunities

·      Deepen economic, civic and cultural linkages for Auckland

Global networks

Identify and manage Auckland’s participation in key global and city networks, for example:

·      C40 Climate Leaders Group (under investigation)

·      World Cities Summit and World Cities Network

·      Innovation and research hubs

·      Increase in Auckland’s global profile and reach through participation in strategic global networks and activity in international networks

Global Visibility / Reach

Work with relevant Council groups to, for example:

·      Develop and promote Auckland’s brand internationally.

·      Identify and participate in global awards to promote Auckland and increase Auckland’s global visibility.

·      Protect and improve Auckland’s favourable position in targeted global rankings through individual promotional campaigns

·      Identify and target strategic global forums/initiatives for Auckland participation (e.g. inter-governmental summits and forums)

·      Increase in Auckland’s global visibility and reach helps promote business, FDI, events, student and visitor attraction

·      Increase in learning, benchmarking and sharing of best practice

 

City building / best practice exchange

Work with relevant Council groups to initiate city building and best practice exchanges with city experts globally to aid best practice learning for Auckland, for example in areas of:

·      urban planning

·      transport

·      waterfront regeneration

·      key business players/entrepreneurs

·      Increase in Auckland businesses and city experts learning from international best practice exchanges or ‘in residence’ international entrepreneurs/experts

Outbound programme to priority markets (partner with business and NZ Inc agencies e.g. MFAT, NZTE)

Create an annual calendar of trade, investment or city building focused contact with strategically identified markets.  Leverage the role of the Mayor and elected representatives to ‘open doors’ in strategic markets, particularly Asia-Pacific.

·      Promote and position Auckland as a globally competitive city

·      ‘Open doors’ for Auckland businesses to trade and investment opportunities

Improve cross-council collaboration in global engagement activities

Development of a council-wide framework/guidelines to guide councils global engagement, and ensure cross-council collaboration in global engagement space

·      Greater cohesion across the Council family in Auckland’s global engagement activities


Implementation and Cross-Council Collaboration

15.     The Global Partnerships and Strategy unit will oversee and facilitate activity given their role to provide leadership and advice in relation to the whole-of-council’s global engagement activities.  This will include development of a council-wide framework to guide council’s global engagement.  By having oversight of the whole-of-council’s global engagement activities, the Global Partnerships and Strategy unit will ensure there is a cohesive-joined-up approach to Auckland Council’s global engagement, aligned to the shared economic agenda for Auckland. 

16.     The unit will work across the council family to complement workstreams aimed at positioning Auckland in the global economy, attract business, skills, and FDI to Auckland, and promote exports, delivered within the unit’s existing budget.  Work aligning to the refreshed strategic direction has already begun, for example:

·        Tripartite Economic Alliance Los Angeles, Guangzhou and Auckland: The development of a tripartite economic alliance with Auckland’s sister-cities of Guangzhou and Los Angeles (who are also mutual sister-cities).  This is a targeted and significant opportunity that will develop trade and investment opportunities with two key strategic trading partners.  The objective of the alliance is to expand potential trade, investment and economic activity.

Several proposals are under active consideration by all three parties including air quality solutions, waterfront regeneration, a strategic ports alliance, Chambers of Commerce cooperation, film distribution, retail and fashion promotion, and sports event cooperation.  Further initiatives will be developed as part of the tripartite’s work programme or launched when the three Mayors sign/endorse the tripartite alliance in Guangzhou on 16 November 2014.

This will be the first time all three cities have been involved in a tripartite alliance and it is seen as setting a new benchmark for how cities can leverage specific targeted economic outcomes for mutual benefit.  Support has been received from the Auckland business community and central government for developing the tripartite alliance.

·        Global Visibility Strategy:  A strategy aimed at increasing Auckland’s visibility in the global economy is in development.  Auckland Council attendance from across the council family at the World Cities Summit in Singapore in June 2014 commenced the strategic programme to raise Auckland’s global visibility.  The World Cities Summit is a global platform where government leaders and industry experts address liveable and sustainable city challenges, share urban innovation projects and forge new partnerships.

The World Cities Summit provided an opportunity to promote Auckland, create connections and discuss best practice with over 120 Mayors and city leaders from 250 cities and engage with Singapore-based investors to encourage further investment in Auckland. 

17.     The refreshed strategic direction for council’s global engagement has been developed in collaboration with a range of stakeholders, including Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs).  Activity under the new approach will be implemented in collaboration with relevant council units and CCOs to ensure work programme alignment.


Outbound global engagement activity during FY2014-15

18.     A programme of key outbound activity has been developed for the 2014-15 financial year.   The initiatives for the programme are currently in planning stage (China) or are under consideration (USA).  The programme will include opportunities for elected member participation and will be undertaken in conjunction with key stakeholders, including Auckland businesses and NZ Inc partners.  Initiatives include:

·        a short Mayoral-led visit to China (November 2014) accompanied by a targeted delegation to leverage specific opportunities including signing the tripartite economic alliance with the Mayors of Guangzhou and Los Angeles. 

·        attendance at the World Cities Summit Mayors Forum in New York (2015), aligning with a potential trade mission to Los Angeles and San Francisco as part of the agreed activity under the tripartite economic alliance with Guangzhou and Los Angeles.  This visit is under consideration.

19.     In addition to the above, the Global Partnerships and Strategy unit are investigating further opportunities for elected representatives to contribute to Auckland’s global engagement activity.  This may include elected member participation on private sector or central government-led trade missions, for example to the markets of ASEAN and India where council has no strategic partnerships at present.  This will involve partnerships with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Export New Zealand and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to leverage their planned trade missions to these markets for Auckland. 

20.     Attendance of an elected representative on private sector or central government-led trade missions would enable council to widen and deepen its relationships with the Auckland business delegates on the missions; ‘open doors’ for businesses; connect with relevant local government counterparts in-market; establish new strategic partnerships and connections for council in the market; promote Auckland and its key sectors of opportunity; gain a deeper knowledge of the business opportunities that the market presents for Auckland; and add an official status to the mission.  Further benefits are a heightened level of collaboration with central government and the private sector, and a significant reduction in associated resource and costs for council in organising a trade mission.

21.     Additional strategic global engagement opportunities may arise during the year.  International travel by elected members will be subject to business case approval under the Elected Members' Expense Policy.

Review of Auckland Council’s formal international partnerships

22.     Auckland Council inherited 30 formal international relationships at the time of amalgamation in 2010.  The review of Auckland Councils international partnerships in 2011 saw the Regional Development and Operations Committee reduce and reprioritise the number of actively managed relationships.  Of the 30 relationships inherited by council, the committee endorsed 19 being retained by council (Table 2).


Table 2: Auckland Council international partnerships following 2011 review

Country

City

Type

Year

Former council

Australia

Brisbane

Sister City

1988

Auckland

China

Guangzhou

Sister City

1989

Auckland

China

Ningbo

Sister City

1998

Waitakere

China

Qingdao

Sister City

2008

North Shore

Germany

Hamburg

Strategic Alliance

2007

Auckland

Ireland

Galway

Friendship City

2002

Waitakere

Korea

Busan

Sister City

1996

Auckland

Korea

Pohang

Friendship City

2008

North Shore

Japan

Fukuoka

Sister City

1986

Auckland

Japan

Kakogawa

Sister City

1992

Waitakere

Japan

Shinagawa

Friendship City

1993

Auckland

Japan

Tomioka

Friendship City

1983

Auckland

Japan

Utsunomiya

Sister City

1982

Manukau

Pacific

Cook Islands

MOC

2000

Manukau

Pacific

Nadi, Fiji (Inactive)

MOU

2006

North Shore

Pacific

Samoa

MOC

2005

Manukau

Pacific

Tonga

MOU

 

Manukau

Taiwan

Taichung

Sister City

1996

North Shore

USA

Los Angeles

Sister City

1971

Auckland

 

23.     The Mayor has requested that further work be undertaken around the prioritisation of council’s 19 international partnerships around those that are of a high economic/investment importance for Auckland.  Managing a smaller number of formal partnerships would free up limited resources to focus on strategically relevant global partnerships and networks for Auckland.  Remaining partnerships would continue to be managed by council on a ‘non-activation’ basis and alternative management options such as by community groups may be considered.

24.     This work is planned to be completed by the end of the financial year.  The project will include opportunities for input and feedback from the Governing Body and wider council stakeholders.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25.     The Governing body is responsible for international relationships under the Council’s economic development activity (reflecting the national and regional significance of the relationships).  Local Boards can support international relations at the local level, specifically where FDI directly concerns a local board area and in supporting community-led international relationships, as appropriate.  The refreshed strategic direction for council’s global engagement will include participation of local boards where opportunities arise.

Māori impact statement

26.     The proposed refresh of the strategic direction for council’s global engagement aligns with the shared economic agenda for Auckland.  Māori participation and outcomes are integral to a number of the nine priorities of the shared agenda, in particular relating to brand, visibility, skills, investment and business.


27.     The Independent Māori Statutory Board Work has been consulted in the preparation of the refreshed strategic direction for global engagement.  Work will be undertaken with Māori business, cultural and iwi representatives on various aspects of council’s global engagement programme, including outbound trade missions, potential membership of city networks (for example the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group), and on Auckland’s application for the Lee Kuan Yew World Cities Prize 2016.

Stakeholder consultation

28.     The refreshed strategic direction for council’s global engagement has been developed by the Global Partnerships and Strategy unit in consultation with the Mayor’s Office, Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED), Waterfront Auckland (WA) and Auckland Transport (AT).  Key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), Greg Clark (Global Cities Expert), The Ice House, the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, and the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA), have been consulted in the development of this strategy.

29.     Further stakeholder consultation will be undertaken as appropriate in relation to specific priority actions in the global engagement programme.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Sanchia Jacobs - Acting Manager, Global Partnerships and Strategy Manager

Authorisers

Harvey Brookes - Manager Economic Development

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Tripartite Economic Alliance Memorandum of Understanding between Guangzhou, Los Angeles and Auckland

 

File No.: CP2014/22302

 

Purpose

1.       To inform the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee of the Tripartite Economic Alliance which has been developed between the sister cities of Auckland, Guangzhou and Los Angeles, and seek approval for Auckland to formalise its participation in the Tripartite Economic Alliance by entering into the Memorandum of Understanding that will be jointly signed by the three Mayors on 16 November 2014 in Guangzhou.

Executive summary

2.       The report informs this committee of the positive progress made to advance the development of the Tripartite economic alliance.

3.       The Tripartite Economic Alliance (Tripartite) is a strategic alliance and an innovative opportunity to set a new benchmark for how cities can engage and collaborate in the 21st Century. The main objective of the Tripartite is to help deepen trade and economic engagement between the three cities. Specific initiatives and work programmes will be launched under the Tripartite to meet this objective. For Auckland, the Tripartite creates a ‘platform’ and opens doors to meaningful and substantive economic, trade and investment opportunities for businesses, entrepreneurs and investors with two key dynamic and vibrant powerhouses in the Asia-Pacific region.

4.       The Tripartite will enhance Auckland’s visibility with two of its most substantive sister cities; and allows the three cities to leverage the existing sister city relationships with each other.  This is the first time all three cities have engaged in a regional agreement of this nature, and as far as we understand, the only known global ‘tri-city’ initiative of its kind.

5.       An important part of ‘formalising’ the Tripartite is for the cities to jointly sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which outlines the various areas of cooperation covering: economic development, trade, innovation and investment (see Attachment One). The MoU endorses the commitment to enhance trade and economic relations, and showcase how forward-looking, innovative and vibrant cities can engage and collaborate. It will be signed for an initial period of three-years. This reflects a commitment by the Mayors to have a time-bound agreement which - from the start and over the period of the agreement - delivers and deepens tangible trade and economic outcomes. There is the option for the Tripartite to be extended for a further period of time by mutual agreement (see Attachment Two).

6.       The MoU confirms a high-level political and strategic commitment for the cities to deepen trade and economic engagement, and is not intended to create binding legal or funding obligations on the cities.  Auckland Council’s Legal Services has been consulted on the MoU and have confirmed that it is appropriate for Auckland to sign the MoU. Guangzhou and Los Angeles have confirmed that the MoU’s high-level strategic focus and content satisfies their respective stakeholders and processes, and advise that their Mayors are happy to jointly sign the MoU as it is presented to this committee.

7.       Auckland’s Tripartite Project Team - Auckland Council’s Global Partnership and Strategy Unit[1] and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) - has actively engaged with key Auckland stakeholders in the education; screen and digital; innovation and tourism sectors to identify and develop trade and economic focused initiatives.  These sectors were chosen because of their mutual interest to all three cities. For Auckland, these sectors are directly aligned with existing priorities under the Auckland Plan and the shared economic agenda.  Also, key New Zealand Inc. partners (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) including their offices in Guangzhou and Los Angeles) are supportive of the Tripartite and welcome Auckland’s efforts to deepen its trade and economic engagement with the other two cities

8.       Planning is currently underway for the MoU to be signed by all three Mayors on 16 November 2014 in Guangzhou.  Various trade and economic initiatives under the sectors listed above (as well as other sector-specific initiatives) will also be launched at this time.

9.       This report follows on from the update on the Tripartite which was provided to the Economic Development Committee as part of the ‘Auckland’s Global Engagement Update’ report on 20 August 2014.  At that time, that committee supported the implementation of the Tripartite (Resolution number ECO/2014/46).

10.     The Tripartite supports the refreshed strategic direction as outlined in the ‘Global Engagement Update’ report currently under consideration by this committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      acknowledge that the Tripartite is a significant opportunity to enhance Auckland’s economic and trade relationship with two of Auckland’s most dynamic, vibrant and strategically relevant sister cities (Guangzhou and Los Angeles)

b)      approve Auckland formalising its participation and engagement in the Tripartite by signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

c)      note that the MoU confirms a high-level political and strategic commitment for the three sister cities to deepen their trade and economic engagement, and is not intended to create binding legal or funding obligations on the cities. Auckland’s on-going engagement will be supported by current resources and funding

d)      note the council’s Legal Services has been consulted on the MoU and confirms that it is appropriate for Auckland to sign the MoU.

Discussion

Why this particular trio of cities?

11.     Guangzhou and Los Angeles (LA) are two of Auckland’s oldest and most substantive sister city partners.[5]  Deepening the trade and economic connections complements the extensive people-to-people and cultural links which already exist between the three cities. The benefit of a trilateral over a bilateral approach is that it creates a platform that spans both sides of the Pacific and supports Auckland’s position as a gateway into Asia and North America.

12.     Guangzhou is the capital and largest city in Guangdong Province.  It is one of China’s top four ‘first-tier’ cities (alongside Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen); and one of China’s leading manufacturing and commercial hubs. Guangzhou is at the centre of South China’s most important trade zone which includes Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta – known as China’s Southern Gateway to the World.  Enhancing Auckland’s trade and economic relationship with one of China’s most dynamic cities is a key priority, especially in the areas of screen and digital, tourism, international education and infrastructure and environmental services (clean technologies and water/wastewater services). The Tripartite will help to support New Zealand’s overall trade goal to grow New Zealand’s two-way trade with China to NZ$30 billion by 2020.


13.     LA is the second largest city and number one import/export port in the United States. It is well-known for its entertainment and cultural industries.  LA is a key gateway into both the US and to the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand’s relationship with LA is long-standing and multi-dimensional. It is the main US gateway for New Zealand businesses and tourists. The Tripartite is an opportunity for Auckland to sharpen its trade and economic connectivity with LA around key complementary sectors of mutual interest e.g. seaport links and screen and digital opportunities. 

What is in it for Auckland?

14.     The Tripartite supports the vision for Auckland to become the world’s most liveable city.  Auckland’s participation and engagement in the Tripartite directly supports the Council’s refreshed global engagement strategy, as outlined in the Global Engagement Update Paper currently under consideration by the committee.  In addition to this, the Tripartite is aligned with the vision and objectives outlined in the Auckland Plan and Auckland’s Economic Development Strategy to make Auckland a vibrant, creative, internationally connected and export driven city.

15.     An integral part of the Tripartite is the political commitment by the three Mayors to ensure that the MoU, specific initiatives and work programmes that fall under the Tripartite both deliver and deepen tangible trade and economic outcomes for Auckland.

16.     Auckland’s Tripartite Project Team are actively consulting and engaged with relevant stakeholders in the education (e.g. tertiary institutions); screen and digital (e.g. Film Auckland); innovation (e.g. GridAKL and The Foodbowl) and tourism sectors (e.g. Tourism Auckland and the Auckland International Airport) as well as, Auckland’s industry and business representatives (e.g. Auckland Chamber of Commerce, Employers and Manufacturers Association, NZ China Trade Association and the American Chamber of Commerce) to identify how they can leverage and profile their respective activities, and facilitate connections with prospective partners in Guangzhou and LA through the Tripartite.

17.     While the Tripartite will be endorsed by Auckland Council, the specific initiatives which fall under it will be owned by relevant Auckland stakeholders. The Auckland Council family will support and facilitate these initiatives e.g. council (the Global Partnerships and Strategy Unit which is tasked with managing Auckland’s strategic global engagement activity) and ATEED (as the lead economic delivery agency).

18.     Several proposals for initiatives have been developed in consultation with Auckland’s stakeholders, and the proposals are now under consideration by all three cities. These include, for example: air quality solutions, waterfront regeneration, port-to-port alliance, chambers of commerce cooperation, film distribution, retail and fashion promotion, as well as, Asia-Pacific Masters Games cooperation. Other trade and economic initiatives will be developed as part of the Tripartite’s work programme or launched in their own right when the three Mayors sign the Tripartite MoU in Guangzhou.  Two examples of potential initiatives under consideration are attached for the committee’s reference (see Attachment Three).

19.     The Alliance is an innovative way to enhance the way Auckland can engage and collaborate with two of its most significant sister cities.  It is a purposeful move beyond the traditional (culturally focused) sister-city work programme, to one which is firmly focused on ensuring our existing city-city relationship efforts are better aligned with the Auckland Plan and Auckland’s Economic Development Strategy targets. The Alliance also complements New Zealand’s Business Growth Agenda goal of lifting the ratio of exports to gross domestic product to 40% by 2025.

Next steps

20.     The three cities will continue to actively consult with their relevant stakeholders to identify and develop further trade and economic initiatives that can be operationalised under the Tripartite.


21.     A work programme will be developed to implement Tripartite-related initiatives over the initial period of the MoU (3 years) with the key objective to deepen the trade and economic connections between the three cities.  Future work under the Alliance will include looking at how New Zealand’s existing trade preferences e.g. under the NZ-China Free Trade Agreement (FTA) could potentially facilitate LA-based companies partnering with Auckland-based companies to utilise the preferences under the FTA.

22.     Planning is underway for the Tripartite to be signed and launched by all three Mayors on
16 November in Guangzhou – this coincides with Mayor Len Brown’s visit to China in November 2014.

23.     Los Angeles is scheduled to host the inaugural Tripartite Economic Alliance Summit in mid-June 2015; the Summits will be held on an annual and rotational basis e.g. Auckland (2016) and Guangzhou (2017).  The purpose of the Summits is for elected members and attending business leaders to develop and secure new business opportunities, review progress and renew the collective commitment for the three partner cities to collaborate with each other on trade and economic initiatives.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

24.     The Governing body is responsible for international partnerships under the council’s economic development activity (reflecting the national and regional significance of these initiatives to Auckland).  Local boards can assist in supporting Auckland’s partnerships with existing sister cities.  The Tripartite has been developed in consultation with relevant Auckland stakeholders, and specific trade and economic initiatives which fall under the Tripartite will be implemented in consultation with local boards where opportunities arise.

Māori impact statement

25.     The Independent Māori Statutory Board has been consulted about the Tripartite. We have an on-going commitment to engage with Māori business, cultural and iwi representatives in order to identify ways to enhance and deepen Auckland’s engagement in the Tripartite e.g. a proposed initiative is being considered to profile Māori contemporary art in both Guangzhou and LA.

26.     The Global Partnerships and Strategy Unit is confident there will be other opportunities to engage in the Tripartite e.g. developing Maori economic development initiatives that are of mutual interest to the three cities, participation in the annual Tripartite Summits and specific business opportunities.

Stakeholder consultation

27.     As noted above, Auckland’s Alliance Project Team has proactively consulted on the MoU and developed specific trade and economic initiatives in consultation with the Mayors Office, the Auckland Council family including: ATEED, Waterfront Auckland, Auckland Transport, Ports of Auckland and Auckland International Airport.  Key Auckland Inc. stakeholders across the education, innovation, screen and digital and tourism sectors, as well as, industry and business representatives such as the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the Employers and Manufacturers Association. Key NZ Inc. partners include: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE).

28.     Further stakeholder consultation will be undertaken as appropriate in relation to specific initiatives and work programmes that fall under the Tripartite.


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Tripartite's areas of cooperation

95

bView

Draft Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

97

cView

Tripartite proposed initiatives: port cooperation and waterfront cooperation

99

     

Signatories

Authors

Sanchia Jacobs - Acting Manager, Global Partnerships and Strategy Manager

Authorisers

Harvey Brookes - Manager Economic Development

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

ATTACHMENT ONE

 

 

 

AREAS OF COOPERATON

 

The Parties are committed to pursuing joint and coordinated initiatives in the following areas:

i.    Economic Development - support companies to identify opportunities in the other Parties’ markets to create economic outcomes.

ii.   Foreign Trade - foster goods and services trade in a manner which is compliant with international trade rules and all other applicable laws.

iii.  Innovation - facilitate the connections between our innovation communities, and create the platforms so they can grow, export and thrive.

iv.  Investment - support companies and investors that are actively exploring new and additional investments in the other Parties’ markets.

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Tripartite Economic Alliance between Auckland, Guangzhou and Los Angeles: Port Cooperation Proposal

Purpose: enhance the strategic relationship between the respective authorities responsible for container port management and operations in order to share best practice and expertise on container logistics, distribution services and intermodal supply chain solutions. Collaboration is undertaken in a manner that delivers value for the relevant partners and leads to world leading ports hubs/gateways. 

How: to be leveraged and launched through the Tripartite Economic Alliance. 

What: as discussed with the Ports of Auckland there are a number of practical ways to enhance the strategic relationship between the three ports:

1.    Utilise best practice and expertise

The three cities seek to maximise the potential of their respective ports to ensure they contribute to their economies. Enhanced collaboration between the relevant port authorities will foster the sharing of best practice and expertise on:

a.    innovative technologies and solutions which help achieve productivity gains

b.    seamless intermodal supply chain, transport corridor and cross-docking solutions

c.     environmental and community engagement initiatives.

 

2.    Staff secondments (exchanges/placements)

Enhance the relationship between the three ports and build staff capabilities and expertise.  Host ports share and gain expertise in areas of business priority.  Sending ports gain valuable insights and returning staff implement their learnings in a manner that generates value for their organisation.

 

3.    Trade Facilitation

Share solutions that help maximise the efficiencies of the container logistics channels for importers, exporters, shipping companies and other stakeholders in a manner which supports trade (between the parties), minimises environmental impacts and boosts productivity.

 

4.    Preferential arrangements: investigate opportunities that will encourage importers, exporters and shipping companies (based in one party) to transport their exports/imports using the supply chains to the other two ports.

Follow-up required

1.    Auckland Council to provide concept note to Guangzhou and LA counterparts for initial feedback

2.    Ports of Auckland to work with Council to frame-up the concept note into a business case that can be formally discussed with Guangzhou and LA

3.    Auckland Council to finalise business case (into deliverable) - in consultation with Ports of Auckland and Guangzhou and LA counterparts

4.    Deliverable to be launched on 16 November 2014.

 

Timeframes

Early September-late October

Frame-up this initiative in consultation with key partners and stakeholders in all three cities.

24 September-8 October

Internal Council process underway to secure Governing Body approval for Auckland to sign-up to the Tripartite and signal the types of deliverables/tangibles that will be generated and developed under the Agreement.

16 November

This initiative (and other relevant deliverables) will be launched when the three Mayors meet in Guangzhou to sign and endorse the Tripartite Economic Alliance.

Mid-November to mid-June 2015

Implement this initiative and foster collaboration.  Report to the three Mayors at the Tripartite Summit (and associated trade mission) in June 2015.

 


Tripartite Economic Alliance between Auckland, Guangzhou and Los Angeles: Waterfront Cooperation Proposal

Purpose: enhance the strategic relationship between the respective authorities responsible for waterfront development and regeneration in order to share best practice and expertise on urban design, planning and infrastructure. Collaboration is undertaken in a manner that delivers value for the relevant partners and leads to the development of vibrant waterfronts in all three cities.

How: to be leveraged and launched through the Tripartite Economic Alliance.

What: as discussed with Waterfront Auckland there are a couple of practical ways to enhance the strategic relationship between the relevant authorities across the three cities.

1.      Utilise best practice and expertise

The three cities seek to maximise the potential of their waterfronts to ensure they contribute to their respective economies.  Enhanced collaboration between the relevant waterfront authorities will foster the sharing of knowledge and learnings that will support the development of world-leading waterfront infrastructure, plans and projects.

 

2.      Facilitate innovation and technology exchange

The parties will seek to use innovative design and technology in the development of their respective waterfronts.  One party may have access to capabilities and technologies that would be of benefit to the other parties i.e. identifying opportunities to showcase the capabilities of businesses based in one party which can be utilised in waterfront initiatives in the other parties.

Follow-up required

1.      Auckland Waterfront to:

a.    Comment on this business case/proposal

b.    Work with council to frame-up the concept into a business case/proposal that can be discussed with Tripartite counterparts in Guangzhou and LA

c.     Identify relevant Waterfront counterparts in Guangzhou and LA both cities that our counterparts should engage with to socialise and secure support for this initiative.

2.       Auckland Council to finalise business case proposal and send to Tripartite counterparts in Guangzhou and LA proposal for consideration.

Timeframes

Early September-late October

Frame-up this initiative in consultation with key partners and stakeholders in all three cities.

24 September-8 October

Internal Council process underway to secure Governing Body approval for Auckland to sign-up to the Tripartite and signal the types of deliverables/tangibles that will be generated and developed under the Agreement.

16 November

This initiative (and other relevant deliverables) will be launched when the three Mayors meet in Guangzhou to sign and endorse the Tripartite Economic Alliance.

Mid-November to mid-June 2015

Implement this initiative and foster collaboration.  Report to the three Mayors at the Tripartite Summit (and associated trade mission) in June 2015.

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Demographic Panels - Approval of Work Programmes 2014/2015 - Youth Advisory Panel

 

File No.: CP2014/22413

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the Youth Advisory Panel’s work programme for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Executive summary

2.       In December 2013 the Governing Body considered a report on the role and functioning of council’s demographic panels and resolved to continue with a Youth Advisory Panel.

3.       As required by the terms of reference, the Youth Advisory Panel has adopted its work programme, which is now presented to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for approval.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve the Youth Advisory Panel’s work programme for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Comments

4.       In December 2013, when the Governing Body considered a report on the role and function of the council’s demographic panels, it resolved to re-establish the Ethnic Peoples and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels and to establish a Seniors Advisory Panel. The Governing Body also resolved to continue with a Youth Advisory Panel. The Youth Advisory Panel has continued to meet on a monthly basis since the start of this council term, with some new members replacing outgoing members in August 2014.

5.       The terms of reference for the council’s demographic panels require that the panels prepare and adopt an annual work programme.  These work programmes should be integrated, wherever possible, with the other panels’ work programmes.  The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel’s work programme in August 2014, and the Seniors Advisory and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels work programmes in September 2014.

6.       The panel’s work programme also needs to align with the council’s forward programme for policy development and engagement, which was presented to the panel together with relevant statistics and demographics from the 2013 census.

7.       The Youth Advisory Panel adopted its work programme on Monday, 8 September (Resolution no. YOU/2014/48).  The key priorities for the panel for the 2014/2015 financial year are:

-     Youth Voice

-     Hauora Tāmaki Makaurau

-     Connecting Auckland

-     Youth Employment

-     Rangatahi

-     Auckland Environment.


8.       The panel will focus its work on its chosen priorities and provide input into the development of council policies. It will also focus on engagement or implementation of the programmes and policies, depending on the project stage.  As all the demographic panels implement their programmes, synergies and overlaps will be identified and their work programmes will be further refined.

9.       The panel’s work programme will drive many of the reports that the panel considers.  There will be a limited capacity for the panel to address emerging issues or deal with other issues that the council, including council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and local boards, refer to the panel.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10.     Several aspects of the Youth Panel’s work programme relate to local board activities and the local boards will be involved as appropriate.  The panel has received a report and briefing on the Local Board Plan process.

Māori impact statement

11.     Some of the Youth Panel’s work programme overlaps with work programmes already underway in respect of Māori outcomes.  Overlaps will be identified for the panels’ consideration.

Implementation

12.     Upon approval by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, the work programmes will be implemented.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Youth Advisory Panel - Work Programme

105

 

Signatories

Authors

Bruce Thomas - Principal Advisor Panels

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Six Month Report

 

File No.: CP2014/21724

 

Purpose

1.       This report is for information purposes and provides an update on activities in progress across council which are contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

Executive summary

2.       The implementation of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (‘the Act’) is being undertaken by a variety of council units across the suite of objectives set out in the Act. These objectives are summarized in Attachment A.  This report follows the resolution of the March 2012 meeting of the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) that recognised the importance of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme being undertaken to implement the Act.  At that time RDOC requested that six monthly updates be prepared for the Waitākere Ranges Local Board (‘the board’) and RDOC (now the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee).  This report is also provided to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee and will be provided to the Whau Local Board, as a small part of that local board’s area is also within the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area.

3.       The background to the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme and a general summary of progress is provided in the main body of the report.  Attachment B describes the work completed in the last financial year (2013/2014), and actions for this financial year across the range of activities and projects identified.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      note the progress made on the activities undertaken by council that contribute to the implementation of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme

b)      note the comments made by the Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee and the Waitākere Ranges Local Board in relation to matters raised in this report.

Comments

4.       The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA) covers an area of approximately 27,770 hectares, and which encompasses the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.  The Act was passed in 2008 and recognises the national, regional and local significance of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area, and promotes the protection and enhancement of its natural, cultural and historic heritage features for present and future generations.

5.       The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme (“the Programme”) comprises all council-wide activities that contribute to the purpose of the Act, including ‘business as usual’ activities and other projects specifically established under the Act. At its March 2012 meeting, the Regional Development and Operations Committee endorsed the Programme as a key initiative, and resolved that officers should report on overall progress on a six-monthly basis.

6.       A staff-level Programme Co-ordination Group (WRPCG) has been established to provide for the exchange of information and discussion amongst council units and Council-controlled Organisations involved in implementing the Act.  It seeks to ensure that the relevant work streams and activities are co-ordinated and aligned.  The WRPCG also provides a mechanism for prioritisation, monitoring and reporting progress that contributes to achieving the purpose and objectives of the Act.  There is further potential to develop the WRPCG as a means of improving co-ordination of specific work streams and activities in the WRHA.

7.       The attached summary table (Attachment B) provides a synopsis of progress on projects and activities for the 2013/2014 financial year and looks ahead to the opportunities and challenges and intended progress through the 2014/2015 financial year. Projects and activities have been grouped under topic headings that align with the WRHA’s heritage features and management objectives. These are:

·    Planning and Communication – planning for, communicating about and implementation of the Act as a whole

·    Landscape - activities aimed at protecting and enhancing the characteristic landscape of the foothills, rural and forested areas and coast

·    Development and Consent Activity – management of subdivision and development within the context of the Resource Management Act and the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act, which requires unitary, regional and district plans to give effect to it

·    Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services – protection, restoration and enhancement of ecosystems by both Council and community

·    Cultural and Built Heritage – this relates to both pre-and post-European settlement, including the relationships between tangata whenua and the WRHA, and the history of kauri milling, horticulture and viticulture

·    Recreation Opportunities and Visitor Management - provision of facilities and services for enjoyment and appreciation of the heritage features, and the management of visitor pressures and impacts.

8.       The information provided in Attachment B is primarily project-based and does not generally cover maintenance or routine management of physical assets, staff costs or fixed overheads.  Information on the 2013/2014 operating and capital expenditure, and forecasts for 2014/2015 is also provided where readily available, along with an indication of whether the expenditure is allocated through regional or local board budget.

Key points and highlights

9.       The following are the key points and highlights from the 2013/2014 year:

·        Kauri Die-back continues to be a significant threat in the WRHA and management initiatives to limit its spread are being extended, with regional initiatives supplemented by Local Board funding

·       Weed infestation is also a significant and increasing threat to WRHA ecosystems and weed management is being given greater prominence by the local board. The board is seeking to promote increased and more co-ordinated actions on the ground to address the problem

·       Community environmental initiatives have continued to grow and are supported both regionally and by the board. The outcomes of the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme review and development of a regional heritage incentives policy, both due within the next year, are likely to influence these initiatives in the future

·       The primary knowledge gap identified in the first five year monitoring report – inadequacy of information about current extent and condition of historic heritage resources – is being addressed.  A monitoring programme for this is being established, with support for initial work from the board

·       A programme of work to meet the requirements for the next five year monitoring report is under discussion, along with associated regional and local board funding implications

·       Through the Draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP), Auckland Transport has indicated a commitment to managing the road corridor of the WRHA in a manner which acknowledges the special requirements of the Act.  However only limited progress has been made in addressing the issues raised in the first five year monitoring report and in submissions on the ATCOP

·       The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan incorporates specific provisions which give effect to the Act

·       Community initiatives to protect and restore native ecosystems continue to grow and are providing biodiversity, social and amenity benefits.  Resourcing issues will need to be addressed if the council is to support the demand for continued growth. Initiatives are also being developed to improve integration across council-supported programmes

·       Preparation of a visitor management plan is continuing.  The board is currently reviewing the scope and objectives of this plan

·       Development of the Foothills Walkway continues to progress as opportunities arise through sub-division and land purchase

·       The Local Area Plan (LAP) for the Muddy Creeks area (Parau, Laingholm, Woodland Park and Waimā) was approved by council in February 2014. The quality of its community engagement process was given special recognition at the November 2013 Auckland Council Consultation and Engagement Awards ceremony

·       The need to promote greater recognition of the Act, its purposes, progress being made to implement it, and assistance available to landowners and communities is being increasingly recognised.  A variety of proposals ranging from website development, community forums and gateway signage are under consideration

·       Work has commenced to develop improved partnerships and engagement with tangata whenua in the WRHA.  However progress is dependent on consistency with regional engagement frameworks which are currently under development.

Consideration

Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee and Waitakere Ranges Local Board views and implications

10.     This report was considered by the Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee on 9 September 2014.  The committee passed the following resolutions (PAR/2014/69) in relation to the report.

a)       convey any comments on the report or its contents to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for its consideration.

b)       request the draft visitor management plan be reported to the Parks, Recreation and Sport committee for information.

11.     This report was also considered by the Waitākere Ranges Local Board at its meeting on 14 August 2014.  The Board passed the following resolutions (WTK/2014/108) in relation to the report.

a)      Receives the report and expresses its satisfaction with the progress that has been made on the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area programme

b)      Supports the current level of funding for monitoring in the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area as it is critical to inform the implementation of operational activity throughout the area

c)      Directs officers to report back to the local board on the future of the West Coast Plan and the West Coast Plan Liaison Group.


 

Maori impact statement

12.     Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Whātua Nga Rima o Kaipara and Ngāti Whātua o Orakei have not been consulted specifically on this report. Regular consultation and engagement does however take place on a range of individual projects and activities described in this report, and on matters of mutual interest in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.  Development of processes that support stronger engagement with tangata whenua in decision-making in the WRHA is identified as a key work stream.  Progress on this is dependent upon decisions on co-governance/co-management arrangements across the council, which are currently under discussion at regional level.

Implementation

13.     The report is part of a continuing process to implement the Act and to evaluate progress being made to achieve its objectives.  It is consistent with the priorities of the Board (as expressed through the Local Board Plan), and does not trigger the Significance Policy. This report is for council reporting purposes and has not therefore been subject to a wider consultation process.

14.     There are no immediate financial or reporting implications.  Any legislative or legal implications are considered and managed separately through the individual activities and projects concerned.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Waitakere Ranges - Heritage Area Objectives - Waitakere Ranges

111

bView

Summary of Progress on Workstreams

113

     

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Area Planning & Policy West

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

ATTACHMENT A: Summary of WRHA objectives (WRHA Act, 2008)

 

Section of the Act

Topic/theme

 

general

8(a)

8(b)

8(c)

8(d)

8(g)

-      To protect, restore and enhance the heritage features ;

-      To ensure that impacts on the area as a whole are considered when decisions are made affecting any part of the area ;

-      To adopt a risk management approach and endeavour to protect the heritage feature when considering decisions that threaten serious or irreversible harm to a heritage feature ;

-      To recognise and avoid adverse potential, or adverse cumulative, effects of activities on the environment (including its amenity) or its heritage features ;

-      To maintain the quality and diversity of landscapes in the area by protecting landscapes of significance, restoring and enhancing degraded landscapes, and through the integrated management of change within a landscape.

                                Landscape

 

7.2(i)

 

7.2(i)(i)

7.2(i) (ii)

7.2(i) (iii)

 

7.2(l)

7.2(c)

7.2(h)

7.2(f)

7.2(e)

-     To protect, restore and enhance  all of the following:

·    The subservience of the built environment to the natural and rural landscape, reflected in

i) the individual identity and character of the coastal villages and their distinctive scale, containment, intensity and amenity ;

ii) the distinctive harmony, pleasantness, and coherence of the low-density residential and urban areas that are located in regenerating (and increasingly dominant) forest settings;

iii) the rural character of the foothills to the  east and north and their intricate pattern of farmland, orchards, vineyards, uncultivated areas, indigenous vegetation, and dispersed low-density settlement with few urban-scale activities ;

·    The distinctive local communities;

·    The coastal areas – their dynamic/natural character, contribution to vistas, and significant their differences;

·    The eastern foothills as a buffer to, and transition from, metropolitan Auckland;

·    The Ranges and foothills as the visual backdrop to metropolitan Auckland ;

·    The quietness and darkness of the Ranges and the coast.

 

Development and Consenting Activity

8(e)

8(f)

-      To recognise that the area has little capacity to absorb further subdivision ;

-      To avoid adverse effects, including cumulative effects, of subdivision or development in the area, not to contribute to urban sprawl;

8(j)

-   To provide for future uses of rural land in order to retain a rural character in the area;

                                Ecosystems and ecosystem services 

7 .2(a), (b),(d)

 

8(h)

-   To protect, restore and enhance the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, natural landforms and landscapes and the natural functioning of streams;

-   To manage aquatic and terrestrial systems in the area to protect and enhance indigenous habitat values, landscape values and amenity values.

7.2(n)

 

8(h)

-       To protect, restore and enhance the operation, maintenance and development of the public water catchment and supply system;

-       To protect those features of the area that relate to its water catchment and supply functions .

                                Cultural & built heritage

7.2(k)

-       To protect, restore and enhance evidence of part human activities.

                                Recreation & visitor management

7.2(g)

-       To protect, restore and enhance the opportunities that the area provides for wilderness experiences, recreation, and relaxation.

                                People and Communities

8(i)

7.2(k)

-       To recognise that people live and work in the area in distinct communities and enabling those people to provide for their social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being.

-       To protect, restore and enhance the historic, traditional and cultural relationships of people, communities and tangata whenua with the area and their exercise of kaitiakitanga and stewardship.

                                waitākere ranges regional park (included within all topics)

7.2(m)

 

8(l)

-       To protect, restore and enhance the values of the Waitākere Ranges regional park, and its accessibility;

-    To protect in perpetuity, the natural and historic resources of the Waitākere Ranges regional park for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the people and communities of the Auckland region and New Zealand.

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

PDF Creator       


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

09 October 2014

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1       Acquisition of land for open space - Scott Point

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report identifies land council seeks to acquire for open space purposes.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 



[1] Section 17.5.4, Auckland Regional Council, Regional Parks Management Plan (RPMP)

1.          [2] The residual trap-catch (RTC) index is a simple method of determining relative possum abundance. A < 5% RTC means a result of less than 5 possums caught for every 100 trap-nights. Auckland Plan and Long-term plan measures of ‘proportion of the region where possum populations are maintained under 5% residual trap count index.

[3] Formerly known as the International Relations unit.

[4] Cities with populations from 150,000 to 10 million.

[1] Formerly known as the International Relations Unit

[5] Auckland and Guangzhou have been sister cities for 25 years (established in 1989). Auckland and LA have been sister cites for 43 years (established in 1971)