Agenda of Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

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

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

9.30am

Rooms 1 and 2

Level 26
135 Albert Street
Auckland

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr Wayne Walker
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Members	Cr Dr Cathy Casey
	Cr Ross Clow
	Cr Chris Darby
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
	Cr Mike Lee
	Member Liane Ngamane
	Cr John Watson
	Member Karen Wilson
Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

(Quorum 5 members)

Maureen Koch

Democracy Advisor

6 March 2015

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8140

Email: maureen.koch@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Areas of Activity

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

· Sustainability frameworks for natural resource management

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

· Environmental initiatives including coastal and freshwater management

· Environmental and climate change impacts of waste management

· Facilitating partnerships and collaborative funding models to support environmental initiatives

Responsibilities

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

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

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

· Making decisions within delegated powers

Powers

All powers necessary to perform the Committee’s responsibilities

Except:

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

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

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

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

(f) the approval of final policy

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

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

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

IMSB

· Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.

· Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

CCOs

Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

11 March 2015

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Petitions 7

5 Public Input 7

5.1 Input from SeaChange – Tai Timu Tai Pari project 7

5.2 Input from King Tides Initiative 8

6 Local Board Input 8

6.1 Input from Waitakere Local Board 8

6.2 Input from Waiheke Local Board 9

7 Extraordinary Business 9

8 Notices of Motion 10

9 Single use plastic bags - review of bylaw making powers and consideration of options for minimisation in the Auckland region 11

10 Species Prioritisation - Report Back 25

11 Update on Environment Strategic Action Plan (ESAP) 29

12 Progress Report on action items arising from minutes of previous meetings 33

13 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Apologies

An apology from Deputy Mayor PA Hulse has been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 3 December 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.

5.1 Input from SeaChange – Tai Timu Tai Pari project

Purpose

1. To provide members of the public, an opportunity to address the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee.

Executive summary

2. Nick Main, Independent Chair of the Stakeholder Working Group, will provide the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee with an update on the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan project.

Recommendation

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) receive the PowerPoint presentation from Nick Main, Independent Chair of the Stakeholder Working Group.

b) thank Nick Main for his PowerPoint presentation to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee.

5.2 Input from King Tides Initiative

Purpose

1. To provide members of the public, an opportunity to address the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee.

Executive summary

2. Ben Sheeran, King Tides Initiative, will provide the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee with an update on the the future impacts of sea level rise on Auckland’s coastline.

Recommendation

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Ben Sheeran, King Tides Initiative.

b) thank Ben Sheeran for his presentation to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee.

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.

6.1 Input from Waitakere Local Board

Purpose

1. To provide opportunity for Local Boards to share information with the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee.

Executive summary

2. Saffron Toms, Waitakere Local Board member, will speak to the Environment, Climate change and Natural Heritage Committee regarding weed control on swales, water quality (especially storm water) and biodiversity in the Waitakere Local Board area.

Recommendation

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) receive the verbal presentation from Saffron Toms, Waitakere Local Board member regarding weed control on swales, water quality (especially storm water) and biodiversity in the Waitakere Local Board area.

6.2 Input from Waiheke Local Board

Purpose

1. To provide opportunity for Local Boards to share information with the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee.

Executive summary

2. A Waiheke Local Board member, will speak to the Environment, Climate change and Natural Heritage Committee regarding weed control on swales, water quality (especially storm water) and biodiversity in the Waiheke Local Board area.

Recommendation

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) receive the verbal presentation from Waiheke Local Board regarding weed control on swales, water quality (especially storm water) and biodiversity in the Waiheke Local Board area.

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

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

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

11 March 2015

Single use plastic bags - review of bylaw making powers and consideration of options for minimisation in the Auckland region

File No.: CP2014/18485

Purpose

1. To report back to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee (the committee) on options to encourage the minimisation of single use plastic bag use in Auckland.

Executive summary

2. At its August 2014 meeting, the committee requested a report investigating how the council could support the minimisation of single use plastic bags (resolution number ENV/2014/35).

3. This report details the regulatory, and high-level non regulatory options available to support the minimisation of plastic bag use in Auckland, including whether a bylaw could be enacted for this activity. The report notes that restricting or prohibiting retailer’s use of plastic bags is outside the ambit of the bylaw making powers of the council and would require new legislation.

4. The report recommends supporting non-regulatory options, including establishing a packaging working group to look at options to better manage packaging waste.

Recommendations

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) note that a bylaw restricting or prohibiting retailer’s use of plastic bags is outside the ambit of the bylaw making powers of local authorities and would require central government to pass new legislation.

b) support the establishment of a packaging workgroup to develop an accord on how to minimise packaging waste (including plastic bags).

c) request officers undertake further work on the non-regulatory actions to minimise the use of single use plastic bags, such as integrating messaging into planned campaigns and council walking the talk.

Discussion

Background

5. Auckland Council adopted the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) in June 2012 with a long-term aspirational goal of zero waste to landfill by 2040. Section 3 of the WMMP sets out actions that have been developed to ensure that waste management and minimisation is effective and efficient, and reduces potential public harm, as required by the Waste Minimisation Act.

6. Single use plastic bags (predominantly made of low-density polyethylene) are a recognised source of environmental pollution, and represent a poor use of resources due to their temporary and frequent use.

7. While inappropriate disposal of plastic bags is low in volume and risk compared to some other waste streams, there is a heightened public perception of the problems they pose, possibly due to their visibility in public places and in waterways.

8. Single use plastic bags specifically are not identified as a priority area for waste minimisation initiatives in the WMMP. (Priority areas for action include, for example, addressing food waste, construction and demolition waste, e-waste, illegal dumping etc). However, a number of actions have been undertaken by council to address the issue of packaging materials, such as plastic bags, entering the waste stream.

9. In August 2014, council submitted to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) on the proposed priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention. Council’s submission recommended that packaging (including plastic bags) should be included as a priority product. The minister has not yet made a decision on priority status for any waste streams. Advocacy to central government for better regulation of priority waste streams is ongoing.

10. A petition was presented to the governing body in July 2014 asking council to ban single use plastic bags in Auckland. The petition noted that plastic bags have significant adverse effects on the environment, including energy production costs, limited lifespan, increasing landfill content and the inability to biodegrade. It was also suggested that plastic bags are symbolic evidence of Auckland’s current ‘throwaway’ consumer culture and are a significant barrier to sustainable consumption in the city. The governing body received the petition and forwarded it to the committee for consideration (resolution number GB/2014/64).

11. At its August 2014, the committee, as part of a public input submission, received a PowerPoint presentation and report calling on the council to make Auckland free of single use plastic bags. This public forum presentation noted that banning single use plastic bags in Auckland aligns with the WMMP’s vision and is a way to translate its sustainability concepts into actions.

12. The committee requested council staff to evaluate options and recommend actions for the minimisation of single use plastic bag use in Auckland and report back to the committee (resolution number ENV/2014/35). This report responds to that resolution.

Options

Regulatory interventions

13. A report investigating the bylaw making powers to restrict retailers' use of single use plastic bags, and providing an evaluation of high-level options for the minimisation of single use plastic bags in Auckland is appended as Attachment A to this report. The report determines that restricting or prohibiting retailer’s use of plastic bags is outside the ambit of the bylaw-making powers of the council and would require new legislation.

14. The Minister for the Environment has the power to ban single use plastic bags from sale or from disposal to landfill; or to name them as a priority product for product stewardship. This would enable regulatory interventions, such as a bylaw banning plastic bags. The council is already advocating to the Minister for the Environment for priority product stewardship status for packaging materials (as well as a number of other waste types).

Non-regulatory interventions

15. Non-regulatory intervention mechanisms have been investigated to minimise the use and inappropriate disposal of single use plastic bags. These include retailers charging for plastic bags and community and council programmes to encourage the use of re-usable bags.

16. Additional non-regulatory interventions and initiatives identified as supporting the reduction and reuse of single use plastic bags are detailed below;

· Supporting the establishment of a Packaging Workgroup – including representatives from retailer, environment and consumer groups, to develop an accord on how to minimise packaging waste (including plastic bags) similar to the Shopping Trolley Accord or the Household Battery Workgroup.

The workgroup could consider public engagement activity to encourage and support retailers and the community to change their behavior regarding plastic bags, and if necessary, could apply to the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund for funding of such engagement initiatives.

· Integrating messaging around plastic bags to the existing suite of waste minimisation programmes and initiatives, and continue to education the community on alternatives through marketing and communication materials.

· Walking the talk; investigate the implication of an organisation – wide (Auckland Council) ban on the use of single use plastic bags by July 2015. This includes working with other council departments who currently use single use plastic bags and to encourage the use of bags that are compostable or otherwise avoid landfill as their end of life disposal option.

17. Single use plastic bags are commonly provided by retailers to carry goods. They are a contributor to litter and there is evidence to suggest they are a contributor to adverse impacts on marine animals. A number of retailers are supporting programmes to reduce single use plastic bags, with some examples noted below:

· retailers charging for plastic bags;

· retailers promoting their re-usable bags;

· retailers offering biodegradable or paper bags; or making cardboard boxes available; and

· trialling in-store bag collection schemes.

18. In summary, the council is not empowered to pass a bylaw banning single use plastic bags. However, it will continue to work with central government on regulatory options to reducing packaging waste. In addition, the council will continue to support non-regulatory, voluntary initiatives investigating the minimisation of packaging waste.

19. This report recommends that the committee endorse the establishment of a packaging workgroup, and asks that further work be undertaken to investigate non-regulatory mechanisms for reducing packaging waste.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. Local boards have not been consulted specifically on this report, or the issue of banning single use plastic bags, at this point in time.

21. The Waiheke Local Board passed a Notice of Motion (resolution number WHK/2014/231) requesting that the governing body recommend to the Minister for the Environment that a regulation should be introduced under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 for plastic bags to be treated as a priority stewardship product under that act, or for new legislation to be introduced that would allow council to introduce bylaws that empower local boards to ban single use plastic bags. A copy of this report to the committee and associated resolutions, with an explanatory covering memo, will be made available to the board.

Maori impact statement

22. 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. The proposed projects follow similar principles and further work is required to understand the impacts on Māori.

Implementation

23. The proposed actions in this report, including the formation of a retailer packaging working group, investigations of the implication of the council walking the talk, scoping engagement studies and identification of funding can be delivered within current budget and resources.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Options for the control and minimisation of adverse effects associated with single use plastic bags in the Auckland region	3

Signatories

Authors

Daniel Pouwels - Principal Policy Analyst

Sandra Murray - Waste Project Manager

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

11 March 2015

Species Prioritisation - Report Back

File No.: CP2015/02526

Purpose

1. To provide a report back to the Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee (the committee) addressing any additional actions and associated costs to increase the number of threatened species under active management.

Executive Summary

2. One of the objectives in the Auckland Plan is to ‘achieve long-term recovery of the greatest number of threatened species whose range includes the Auckland region’. As there are over 400 threatened species in the Auckland region identified as requiring active management, a species prioritisation framework was developed to ensure available resources are targeted towards actions that support that Auckland Plan objective.

3. In receiving a report on the species management framework at its May 2014 meeting, the committee requested ‘officers to further investigate additional actions and associated costs to expand the existing management of priority species and to report back with an investment proposal’ (resolution number ENV/2014/25). This report actions that request.

4. The current regional species management budget of $115,480 provides for the active protection of 39 species by Auckland Council. A further three threatened species are protected as a result of additional management activity carried out on regional parks. Other agencies, such as the Department of Conservation, also undertake species management elsewhere in the region.

5. This report provides the committee with an outline of different investment options for extending the number of species currently being actively managed in Auckland. It also highlights the benefit of deferring the development of any consideration of further investment until the completion of ecosystem prioritisation.

Recommendation

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) receive the Species Prioritisation – Report Back report.

Discussion

Background

6. There are over 400 species of plants and animals found within Auckland that are identified as being nationally or regionally threatened. There are approximately 117 species for which management actions are known, or are being actively managed by other agencies such as the Department of Conservation.

7. The prioritisation and investment in protection of indigenous species is supported by both the Auckland Plan and council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy (the Strategy). The Auckland Plan target is to “ensure no regional extinctions of indigenous species and a reduction in the number of ‘threatened’ or ‘at risk’ species from 2010 levels by 50% by 2040. The objective in the Strategy is to “achieve long-term recovery of the greatest number of threatened species whose range includes the Auckland Region”.

8. A species prioritisation model has been developed that allows for resources to be targeted towards securing the viability of the greatest number of threatened indigenous species possible. The model weighs up the costs of delivering actions against the likelihood of success in order to rank the species according to management cost efficiency. The current regional investment by Auckland Council ($115,480) in species management is providing active protection for 39 species.

9. Detailed management prescriptions have been scoped and costed for a further 39 species. Actions range from pest plant and animal control and fencing through to raising public awareness. A report on species prioritisation was received by the committee in May 2014. The committee requested further information on options to expand the number of species under active management, and a possible investment proposal (ENV/2014/25).

10. Further information is required to inform management actions. Therefore, it is not possible to develop management prescriptions for all threatened species within the region at this time. However, work is underway to classify the different ecosystems throughout the region. Ecosystem classification supports objective 1 of the Strategy: ‘conserve the greatest number and most diverse range of Auckland’s indigenous ecosystems and sequences’.

11. Information from the ecosystem classification process will determine which ecosystems are threatened, and therefore require active management. Where possible, species protection and ecosystem management will be integrated as the actions required to protect an ecosystem are often similar to the actions required to protect a threatened species.

12. The integration of species and ecosystem prioritisation in the Hunua Ranges illustrates how a single intervention can have a positive outcome for multiple species. As noted in Table 1 below, it is anticipated that the expansion of pest control in the Hunua Ranges will support the protection of additional species, without the requirement for further investment.

	Without change in pest control methodology		With change in pest control methodology
Additional number of species	Annual cost (cumulative) Year 1-10	Annual Cost (cumulative) Year 11 onwards	Annual cost (cumulative) Year 1-10	Annual Cost (cumulative) Year 11 onwards
25	$114,458	$80,032	$39,259	$59,086
33	$364,521	$160,837	$89,090	$169,961
39	$1,012,602	$529,502	$334,942	$818,042

Table 1: Summary of additional cost for increasing the number of threatened species actively managed in Auckland

13. Table 1 demonstrates the difference in cost of managing species independently versus undertaking management actions across an ecosystem where more than one species are present. As demonstrated in the Hunua example above, the integration of the species and ecosystem prioritisation programmes will identify future resource requirements and interventions that enable more effective allocation of existing resources.

14. The current ecosystem prioritization work will analyse management options for other ecosystems across Auckland. Management options could include pest control, fencing, or advocacy and education. As it is anticipated efficiencies will result from integrating species and ecosystem prioritisation programmes elsewhere in Auckland, no consideration of further investment has been given at this time.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

Implementation Issues

17. There are no implementation issues arising from this report

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Briony Senior – Regional Advisor (Ecology)

Rachel Kelleher – Biodiversity Manager

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – Environmental Services Manager

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

11 March 2015

Update on Environment Strategic Action Plan (ESAP)

File No.: CP2015/02494

Purpose

1. To update the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee (ECCNH) on the progress made on the Environment Strategic Action Plan (ESAP) since our last report to the Committee on 28 May 2014 and the proposed process for completion of the draft and final plan document.

Executive Summary

2. The draft Environment Strategic Action Plan (the scope of which was endorsed by the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee on 11 December 2013, resolution number ENV/2013/3) will be publicised in May 2015 in conjunction with the next Auckland State of Environment report. The draft plan will reiterate the Auckland Plan environmental vision, describe current and proposed Auckland Council actions to deliver on this vision and propose a set of principles required to address the challenges ahead.

3. Internal and external engagement activities have been undertaken as has political engagement. Mana Whenua have been engaged through an initial presentation to the Kaitiaki Information Hui in September 2014, followed by an ESAP specific hui and ongoing working group meetings.

4. Key activities to be completed before the completion of the draft plan in May 2015 include a workshop for Councillors, Local Board Chairs and environment portfolio holders and members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board on 27 March 2015, and an advisory group meeting of Auckland Council and CCO managers.

Recommendation

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) receive the update on the Environment Strategic Action Plan (ESAP) report.

Discussion

5. The scope of ESAP was endorsed by the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee on 11 December 2013 (ENV/2013/3), and a progress update was provided to the ECCNH Committee on 28 May 2014 (ENV/2014/21).

6. The ESAP is a “line of sight” between environmental actions and the Auckland Plan via the lens of Transformational Shift 2 - strongly commit to environmental action and green growth. Actions from this plan will contribute to multiple Auckland Plan outcomes, including “a green Auckland”, “a beautiful Auckland that is loved by its people”, “a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world” and “a prosperous Auckland”.

7. A decision was made in September 2014 to align publicising the ESAP with the next State of Environment (SOE) report to focus attention on both current state and the council’s current and proposed activities that will address issues identified in the SOE.

8. Internal engagement activities to date have included interviews with key stakeholders (within Auckland Council and CCOs), workshops, and advisory group meetings. External engagement activities have included focus groups with young Auckland Maori, business and research communities and the completion of a People’s Panel survey in August 2014.

9. Political engagement included a workshop for elected members (Governing Body, Local Board Chairs and environment portfolio holders and members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board) in June 2014; and meetings with each local board on the proposed framework between May and August 2014.

10. Mana Whenua have been engaged through an initial presentation to the Kaitiaki Information Hui in September 2014, followed by an ESAP specific hui in December 2014. Mana Whenua are currently involved in the shaping of the document through a dedicated working group.

11. The ESAP will articulate Auckland’s environment story, the challenges posed by continued growth and the implications for the region’s environmental performance. Both incremental change to the way we do business and some step change will be required to achieve the vision and outcomes articulated in the Auckland Plan. Some actions will be proposed in the draft and gaps identified where actions are best developed in partnership with others.

12. The ESAP will deliver the following key messages:

· The environment is highly valued by Aucklanders and Auckland Council is committed to delivering on the environmental outcomes enunciated in the Auckland Plan as a core component of delivering on our “world’s most liveable city” aspirations.

· Although a wide range of current and proposed Auckland Council projects contribute to improved environmental outcomes, the State of Environment Report indicates some localised improvements against a backdrop of regional decline; and there is a significant risk that this general decline will accelerate as a result of our proposed growth plans.

· A transformational shift - strongly committed to environmental action and green growth - is required to grow our population and economy in a way that enhances rather than further degrades our natural environment.

· ESAP provides a vehicle for further developing and implementing the transformative actions required – both internally, with Mana Whenua and with external stakeholders.

13. The ESAP will deliver the following benefits:

· A clear ‘statement of intent’ on the environment.

· Interpretation of the environmental outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan to the level required to implement action.

· Articulation of the environmental challenges faced by Auckland as a baseline for strategic action, and improved monitoring, evaluations and reporting processes.

· Greater efficiency and effectiveness through well governed, co-ordinated and strategically prioritised action to deliver positive environmental outcomes for Auckland.

· Strong commitment to environmental action and green growth through improved environmental asset management, including partnerships and memberships to leading national and international organisations.

14. The ESAP reiterates the Auckland Plan environmental vision, describes current and proposed Auckland Council actions to deliver on this vision and proposes potential operating principles, which will contribute to the transformational shift required to grow Auckland’s population and economy while improving our natural environment. The ESAP will also enable Mana Whenua involvement in the stewardship and kaitiakitanga of natural resources. In particular, the intent is to ensure co-governance structures are established at relevant scales, establishing opportunities for co-management and through the integration of cultural wellbeing indicators with performance measures and environmental monitoring frameworks.

15. Once the draft plan is completed, strategic partners and stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide further input, particularly around establishing processes for collaboration and implementation. The final ESAP will be an “active” plan that continues to evolve in form and content through its implementation as more partners and new initiatives are discovered, tested and developed.

Local Board Views and Implications

16. Local boards are responsible for local environmental programmes. A number of local boards have expressed a commitment to the environment in their local board plans. Local boards have had input into the initial development of the ESAP though meetings with each board to ensure place-based community values, aspirations and projects relating to the natural environment are expressed and supported through the ESAP. Following the release of the draft plan, local boards will have the opportunity to provide formal feedback and to establish preferred process for continued collaboration.

17. The draft ESAP will be workshopped by Councillors, Local Board Chairs and environment portfolio holders and members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board on Friday 27 March 2015. Changes to the draft as a result of the workshop will be made before the plan is considered by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for adoption on 13 May 2015.

18. The 27 March workshop will also cover the State of Environment key findings and messages, prior to consideration at the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 13 May.

Maori Impact Statement

19. This project is of significant interest to Mana Whenua, as evidenced by recent negotiations around environmental governance and management in the Treaty claims settlement processes. Council is committed to develop the ESAP in partnership with Mana Whenua through a process of co-design.

20. Te Waka Angamua has informed and supported the process of our Mana Whenua engagement.

21. Te Ao Māori provides an integrating world view central to the strategic direction of Chapter 7 of the Auckland Plan: Acknowledge that nature and people are inseparable. ESAP will identify opportunities to contribute to Auckland Plan Māori Chapter Priority 2 “Enable [Mana Whenua] to participate in the Co-Management of Natural Resources”.

22. Further development of the proposed ESAP operating principles and next steps are to be shaped with a Mana Whenua working group. The members of the working group are self-selected kaitiaki representatives. The key role of this working group is to shape the strategic intent and high level actions that will enable Mana Whenua in the stewardship and kaitiakitanga of natural resources.

23. Key priorities are to articulate Mana Whenua roles as kaitiaki, and the design and implementation of cultural wellbeing indicators specific to iwi/ hapu.

24. Specifically, the ESAP will seek to further develop and integrate cultural wellbeing indicators with the environmental monitoring programme and communicate these measures in a meaningful way.

General

25. There are no other known issues requiring consideration at this stage of the project.

Implementation Issues

26. There are no known implementation issues at this stage of the project.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Karen Creagh, Principal specialist Environmental Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services