Agenda of Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities and key projects

The Committee is responsible for regional environment, climate change and natural heritage by:

· Developing (and monitoring) strategy, policy and action plans, including any agreed community consultation, to recommend to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, as set out in the Schedule of Key Projects for Reporting Committees, attached to these Terms of Reference*

· 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, including

§ Allocation of the Environmental Initiatives Fund

§ Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund (REG/2013/4)

Powers

All powers necessary to perform the Committee’s responsibilities

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

(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

(i) the power to establish sub-committees

*Schedule of key projects for the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

Regional pest management strategy

Environmental strategic action plan

NPS –Freshwater management programme

Natural hazards risk management action plan

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.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

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

· Other 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.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

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, 2 December 2015, 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 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day 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 6.2 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 one (1) day’s 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 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

6.1 Waiheke Local Board - Auckland Transport's Notice of Requirement

Purpose

1. Paul Walden, Waiheke Local Board Chair will speak to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee regarding Auckland Transport’s Notice of Requirement.

Executive Summary

2. Paul Walden, Waiheke Local Board Chair will speak to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee regarding Auckland Transport’s Notice of Requirement.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) Receive the presentation from Paul Walden, Waiheke Local Board Chair regarding Auckland Transport’s Notice of Requirement and thank him for his 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.

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

15 March 2016

Paris COP21 trip

File No.: CP2016/00817

Purpose

1. To inform the Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee of the Mayor’s attendance at the 21^st United Nations Conference of the Parties and associated events in Paris, 1-6 December 2015. This report follows the verbal report back given by Mayor Brown to the Governing Body on 17 December 2015.

Executive Summary

2. Mayor Brown and two officers attended events at the twenty-first Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21), from 1-5 December 2015. Mayor Brown was personally invited to attend the Climate Summit for Local Leaders, hosted by Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He was also accredited to the intergovernmental process as part of the official New Zealand delegation.

3. After many years of difficult negotiations, COP21 agreed the historic Paris Agreement, which secures the commitment of 195 countries to limit climate change to well below two degrees Celsius, and makes provisions to prepare for the effects of climate change. The agreement will take some time to be detailed and implemented, but in the meantime offers improved business certainty and predictability as to the intention to move towards a low-carbon future.

4. Cities were highly active and visible in the COP21 process. The Climate Summit for Local Leaders was the largest ever gathering of its kind, with 635 Mayors and regional leaders coming together to highlight the critical role of cities in climate action. Mayor Brown was the only New Zealand Mayor present.

5. Whilst in Paris, Auckland Council’s membership of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group was approved, and the ICLEI Global Lead City Network on Sustainable Procurement (of which Auckland is a founding member) was launched. COP21 was an excellent opportunity to promote Auckland as a city that is actively addressing climate change, and to make connections and learn from the experiences of other cities.

6. The Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan sets the programme for Auckland Council’s work on climate change. Both the C40 membership and the sustainable procurement network are good opportunities to internationally promote work that is already underway in Auckland. They will also offer expertise to help overcome barriers and identify further opportunities for Auckland.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) receive the report.

Comments

7. The twenty-first Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (‘COP21’) was a significant milestone in international climate negotiations. Approximately 50,000 people attended COP21 and associated events in Paris from 30 November to 12 December 2015.

8. The role of cities was given profile at COP21 through the ICLEI Cities and Regions Pavilion, and the Climate Summit for Local Leaders, hosted by Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

9. Mayor Brown was personally invited to attend the Climate Summit for Local Leaders by Michael Bloomberg and Anne Hidalgo. Bloomberg Philanthropies covered the cost of Mayor Brown’s flights.

10. Mayor Brown was also one of a small number of non-governmental and parliamentary delegates on the official New Zealand delegation. Allowing non-government parties on delegation is not a common practice. It reflects the significance of the negotiations and the need for long-term cross-party and multi-sectoral commitment to the outcomes.

11. Two staff members accompanied Mayor Brown: Dr. Megan Howell, Portfolio Manager, Officer of the Mayor, and John Mauro, Chief Sustainability Officer. Councillor Wayne Walker and Sir Bob Harvey were also in attendance at COP21 events, in a personal and privately funded capacity.

12. This report provides an overview of the meetings, and considers the implications for Auckland.

Milestone achievement in negotiations

13. With the Paris Agreement, COP21 secured the commitment of 195 countries to curb emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change. This was an historic milestone – the first binding climate change agreement to include all nations.

14. The Paris Agreement aims to keep global temperature rises this century well below 2 degrees Celsius, with an aspiration to make further savings to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

15. The key features of the agreement are described by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as:

· Mitigation – reducing emissions fast enough to achieve the temperature goal

· A transparency system and global stock-take – accounting for climate action

· Adaptation – strengthening ability of countries to deal with climate impacts

· Loss and damage – strengthening ability to recover from climate impacts

· Support – including finance, for nations to build clean, resilient futures.

16. The main mechanism for mitigation will be through voluntary savings achieved by each country, known as ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs). This is a significant shift from the Kyoto model, in that there is no binding level of contribution set for each country, but an expectation that countries will cooperate and contribute to the best of their ability.

17. By the conclusion of COP21, 188 countries had submitted their NDCs. NDCs will be re-submitted every five years, and there is an expectation that they will demonstrate increasingly ambitious targets. This will be critical, as the current NDCs signaled by countries – if achieved – will most likely lead to a three degree temperature increase.

18. New Zealand communicated its intended NDC (INDC) in July 2015, as follows:

New Zealand commits to reduce GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. New Zealand’s INDC will remain provisional pending confirmation of the approaches to be taken in accounting for the land sector, and confirmation of access to carbon markets. New Zealand will participate actively in discussions on the land sector with our negotiating partners, both in the lead-up to and after COP 21, and will confirm details of the accounting approach we will take prior to or upon ratification of the Paris agreement. In order to achieve domestic reductions and to do so at an affordable cost, we have identified a need for cost effective mitigation technology, and in particular that our continuing investment in agricultural research delivers results that can be commercialised within the time period covered by this contribution. New Zealand will communicate its final NDC following agreement on the rules to apply in the above areas.^{^[1]}

19. Of note in this statement, the target of 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 equates to 11% below 1990 levels (the Kyoto Protocol baseline year). A target of reducing emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 remains gazetted in New Zealand. Central government anticipates ‘accelerated emission reductions post 2030 once agricultural mitigation technology becomes more widely applied and uptake of low-emission transport technology increases’.

20. Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade have indicated that they expect New Zealand to sign the Paris Agreement at the pledge ceremony at UN Headquarters on 22 April 2016. New Zealand’s ratification may take several more years to formalise. The Agreement will enter into force after being ratified by 55 countries, representing at least 55 per cent of global emissions.

21. Through the Paris Agreement, the framework is now in place to enable countries to make progress, offering business certainty and predictability as to the intention to move towards a low-carbon future. A great deal of work is yet to be done at the more detailed level, particularly in determining transparent reporting mechanisms to hold countries to account on their NDCs and to establish sound frameworks for the use of international carbon markets (e.g. to avoid double counting savings).

The significance of cities

22. Cities were highly active and visible in the COP21 process, as were many other sectors of civil society and business.

23. Of note, research published by the Global Commission on Economy and Climate in the lead up to COP21 found that putting the effort into cities – better public transport, green buildings, better waste management – could save 22 trillion US dollars by 2050. And, it would avoid the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of India every year.

24. C40 has calculated that there are 27,000 actions cities could take to address climate change. On the basis of commitments made, city action could make up a third of the shortfall between the Paris Agreement’s ambitions and country commitments. That equates to seven gigatons of urban greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

25. The Climate Summit for Local Leaders (‘the Summit’) was hosted by Paris Mayor Ann Hidalgo and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at Paris City Hall (Hotel de Ville). The Summit was the largest ever gathering of Mayors and regional leaders to address climate change, with 635 Mayors and regional leaders from all parts of the world. Mayor Brown was the only New Zealand Mayor present.

26. The Summit put forward the following case for city and regional level action on climate change:

· The action is happening in cities – Cities account for 70 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases and 70 per cent of the world’s population are projected to live in urban areas by mid-century. Cities are where investment, innovation and action on climate change occur, and where communities can become more resilient and socially inclusive when facing this issue.

· Cities get the job done – Local governments can take faster and more decisive action to strengthen climate policies than their national counterparts.

· Cities try new approaches – Cities can test new, innovative and sustainable measures on a local level, which if successful, can be rolled out at the state level.

· Cities have the solutions – Local governments control a wide range of services – transport, infrastructure, water use and waste management – in which investment can significantly reduce emissions.

· Cities see the benefits – Tackling climate change is a growth opportunity for cities as it helps raise the standard of living for citizens and helps attract business.

· Cities are sharing ideas – Cities are working together more than ever before; sharing ideas, best practices and pooling resources. Today, cities are building strong partnerships to advance climate solutions around the world with public and private actors.

27. The Paris City Hall Declaration, adopted by acclamation at the end of the Summit, is provided as Attachment A.

28. Other venues for city engagement in COP21 were at the Cities and Regions Pavilion, hosted by International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the City of Paris and the City of Bristol, and within ‘side events’ held in the intergovernmental negotiating space.

29. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres stated that ‘the recognition of actions by businesses, investors, cities and regions is one of the key outcomes of COP21.’

30. The decision text that prefaces the Paris Agreement agrees ‘to uphold and promote regional and international cooperation in order to mobilize stronger and more ambitious climate action by all Parties and non-Party stakeholders, including… cities.’

Auckland Activity in Paris

31. Whilst in Paris, the board of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group met and unanimously approved Auckland’s application to become the 83^rd member city. Mayor Brown’s attendance at the C40 Awards Ceremony and the other cities events was an opportunity to make contact with leaders from C40 cities. The feedback from these discussions was consistently positive about the benefit of being a C40 city, and welcoming of Auckland joining. Members of the C40 Executive Team are visiting Auckland on 14 and 15 March 2016 to agree a joint work programme with Auckland Council.

32. COP21 was the venue for the launch of ICLEI’s Global Lead City Network on Sustainable Procurement, at the Cities and Regions Pavilion. Auckland is one of 10 founding cities in the network, at the invitation of Mayor Park Won Soon of Seoul (current President of ICLEI). The network will be working to accelerate the implementation of sustainable public procurement (SPP). Cities have committed to set ambitious, measurable targets on SPP and are currently working to establish what those might be. Mayor Brown spoke at the opening event, along with Mayors and leaders from Seoul, Cape Town, Helsinki, Oslo, Rotterdam, Warsaw, the Korean Environmental Industry and Technology Institute, and the United Nations Environment Programme’s Division of Technology, Industry and Economics.

33. Mayor Brown was officially accredited to the New Zealand government delegation, and attended regular briefings with negotiating officials. He also met with Minister Tim Groser to discuss Auckland’s perspective on the need for local level action on transport, housing and environment to achieve national climate change goals. Discussions were also had with participating MPs from the NZ Green Party (James Shaw, Julie Anne Genter) and Labour Party (Megan Woods).

Other meetings

34. COP21 was an opportunity to meet with cities and organisations, both to promote Auckland as a climate-active city, and to hear what others are doing. Mayor Brown and officers met with many other organisations at COP21, including:

· ICLEI

· C40

· City staff and/or elected leadership of: Adelaide, Melbourne, Byron Bay, Capetown, Johannesburg, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Boston, Seattle, Washington D.C., Portland, Bristol, Quezon, Toronto, Milan, Taichung, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Cape Town, Oslo, Helsinki, and many others

· Climate KIC

· The Institute for Sustainable Communities (USA)

· Business NZ, the NZ Youth delegation and Generation Zero (these meetings built on previous discussions in Auckland)

· Bill McKibben, Author and Founder 350.org

· The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance

35. The Auckland delegation also attended numerous presentations on wide ranging topics including fossil fuel divestment, community energy, food security, bikeshare schemes, and precinct development. Officers will be feeding that information into relevant council programmes.

36. There was a high level of media coverage during COP21. Both the Mayor and the Chief Sustainability Officer made frequent posts to their social media channels. Two pieces were published in Our Auckland. The announcement of Auckland Council’s C40 membership garnered op-ed pieces in the New Zealand Herald, and, internationally, on the Huffington Post and National Geographic websites.

Implications for Auckland

37. The intergovernmental processes and mechanisms of the Paris Agreement will take some time to be fully detailed and implemented. In the meantime, the text of the Agreement offers clarity around the framework and general direction, allowing other sectors to make more informed, anticipatory, choices.

38. New Zealand has one of the highest per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions profiles in the world, and Auckland is a significant contributor. Auckland’s GHG emissions profile has been updated to incorporate 2013 data.^{^[2]} It highlights that overall annual gross emissions^{^[3]} have grown slightly, by 0.6 per cent to 11,997 kilotonnes of CO₂ equivalent. On a per capita basis, with population growing by 5 per cent in the same period, emissions have decreased from 7.6 to 7.3 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per person per year. The emissions intensity of Auckland’s GDP is also decreasing, from 175 to 163 tonnes per million dollars.

39. The Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan sets out a pathway for Auckland to 2040, with emphasis on the five sectors of transport, energy, built environment and green infrastructure, zero waste, and forestry, agriculture and natural carbon assets. The Paris events have confirmed the need to focus in these areas, particularly transport and the urban form that it enables.

40. Major projects such as the City Rail Link, Auckland Transport Alignment Project, investment in the cycleways network, completion of the Unitary Plan with its 70-40 urban-rural development split, and the flagship work of Panuku Development Auckland will all be essential elements in enabling the city to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets by creating a city where it is possible to live a low-carbon urban lifestyle. The pressures of growth make this challenge all the more significant, but also open up opportunities for critical mass and transformation.

41. Auckland Council’s membership in C40 and the ICLEI Global Lead City Network on Sustainable Procurement are complementary opportunities to be part of this international progress, and are well aligned with Council’s existing work programmes. Together, they offer Auckland Council an opportunity to promote the good work already happening here as part of the world’s leading cities. They also offer Auckland the expertise to help overcome barriers and identify further opportunities.

42. As noted above, members of the C40 Executive will be in Auckland in March to agree a shared work programme with Auckland Council. This membership gives new impetus to Low Carbon Auckland and offers both third party knowledge and scrutiny for Auckland’s programmes.

43. The Global Lead Cities Network on Sustainable Procurement requires cities to announce targets later in 2016. Auckland Council’s Procurement Policy and Strategy are helpful foundation documents for this work, which aligns with officers’ focus and existing work on improving Council procurement practices to deliver cost and carbon savings and other benefits.

Travel costs

44. The following table provides a summary of costs for Mayor Brown and the two staff members, covering the period 30 November 2016 to 8 December 2016. Expenses were in line with Auckland Council travel policies and were covered within existing budgets of the Office of the Mayor and the Chief Planning Office.

Flights	$14,106.58
Mayor Len Brown Portfolio Manager Chief Sustainability Officer		($8,152.62)* $8,152.12 $5,954.46	Reimbursed by Bloomberg Philanthropies
Accommodation	$10,919.00**
Mayor Len Brown Portfolio Manager Chief Sustainability Officer		$4,008 $4,008 $2903
Incidentals	$2,250.95
Mayor Len Brown Portfolio Manager Chief Sustainability Officer		$553.50 $828.49 $439.85
Total	$27,276.53		Subject to final processing of account

*Note that the cost of Mayor Brown’s flights was covered by Bloomberg Philanthropies and so is not included in the total.

**Note that the price of hotel rooms was above what would normally be expected in Paris. This was due to the demand for accommodation for COP21. Mayor Brown and staff stayed at the Marriott Roissy, near Charles de Gaulle airport, to be close to the COP21 venue and enable participation in NZ government delegation morning briefings at the neighbouring Relais Spa hotel. At the time of booking, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had issued a travel warning for France due to the recent Paris terrorist attacks, advising essential travel only. This was also a factor in selecting a hotel closer to the venue.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

45. Local Boards were not consulted on this travel or this report. Of note, Waitemata Local Board has developed and launched its own Low Carbon Action Plan with a number of innovative pilot programmes getting underway in 2016. Officers are ensuring integration between the Local Board plan and the Auckland-wide plan.

Māori impact statement

46. A considerable body of research identifies that Māori are at greater risk of adverse impacts from climate change, along with Pacific and low-income groups. This is due to a range of factors such as:

· the higher prevalence of health conditions that are affected by the impacts of climate change such as higher temperatures, increased risk of insect-borne disease, and more frequent extreme weather events;

· a higher number of Māori living in deprived circumstances and thus less able to adapt to climate change;

· greater exposure to heat due to higher proportion of Māori engaging in outdoor work; and

· the impacts on cultural practices such as harvesting kaimoana.^{^[4]}

Also of note, the Māori economy is concentrated in climate-sensitive primary industries and thus vulnerable to change.^{^[5]}

Implementation

47. As noted above, both the C40 membership and the Global Lead Cities Network on Sustainable Public Procurement will entail reporting of work from Auckland Council into global processes. This will be managed within existing budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Paris City Hall Declaration	4

Signatories

Authors

John Mauro - Chief Sustainability Officer

Megan Howell - Manager - Mayoral Programmes

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

15 March 2016

Action Plan for Cleaning up the West Coast Lagoons

File No.: CP2015/08465

Purpose

1. To seek endorsement of the West Coast Lagoons Draft Action Plan from the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee.

Executive Summary

2. The lagoons on the west coast of Auckland at Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Bethells often test as being unsafe for swimming due to faecal contamination. This is a problem for residents and visitors whose children often swim in the lagoons. A number of sources of contamination to the lagoons have been identified, including poorly maintained septic systems, dogs, birds and livestock.

3. To address this issue nine departments across council have been developing an action plan to improve water quality in the west coast lagoons. The draft plan was approved by a cross-council steering group in May 2015.

4. The plan outlines a wide range of activities to reduce faecal contamination at its source. These include:

· incentives to upgrade septic systems

· awareness campaigns

· increased levels of compliance inspection for septic systems

· better management of dogs and birds near lagoons

· improved management of council-owned wastewater systems.

5. A number of departments are aligning their work programmes to achieve the plan’s objectives.

6. Other options for improving water quality will continue to be investigated in conjunction with the community, so the plan will evolve over coming years.

Recommendations

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) endorse the West Coast Lagoons Draft Action Plan.

Comments

7. The West Coast beaches at Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Te Henga in the Auckland region have excellent water quality. However, the West Coast lagoons at the same locations have had poor water quality since council monitoring began more than a decade ago. The cause of the poor water quality in these lagoons is faecal contamination. Not only does this contamination pose a public health risk, it degrades the natural environment and impacts on amenity and cultural values.

8. In September 2013 the Environment and Sustainability Forum resolved that an action plan should be created to improve water quality in the lagoons at Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Bethells (Res No. ES/2013/57) following an Infrastructure and Environmental Services report into the sources of contamination at those locations.

9. A cross-council working group was convened to develop the action plan. Because a number of different faecal sources affect the water quality, a number of different departments needed to be involved. The West Coast Lagoons Working Group includes representatives from three directorates, including Community Services, Regulatory Services and Infrastructure and Environmental Services.

10. A steering group was also set up to provide guidance to the different departments and make decisions on additional resources, if required. Seven departments are represented on the steering group and a representative from Te Kawerau a Maki also joined the steering group during discussions on the west coast lagoons project.

11. An updated version of the Action Plan is attached (Attachment A). The plan includes a wide range of activities designed to reduce the faecal contamination at its source. These include education, incentives and enforcement to improve septic system performance in the lagoon catchments. Where identified actions are not currently funded, business cases will be prepared by the relevant departments to address this.

12. A number of the actions are already underway. These include:

· EcoMatters Environmental Trust (a community organisation) has been contracted to raise awareness and educate the affected communities about good septic system management

· The Waitākere Ranges Local Board is providing a subsidy to those who replace their old septic tank with newer systems that meet council’s standards

· The consenting process has been streamlined and the fees reduced to encourage upgrades of septic systems

· Fencing subsidies have been made available to Bethells farmers, some of whom have completed fencing off their waterways

· The legacy Waitākere septic tank pump-out scheme has improved the standard of inspection required and is identifying more septic system faults, allowing better enforcement of sanitary standards

· A review of the management of council-owned wastewater systems in these areas has been commissioned and some improvements are being made.

13. A progress summary is attached as Attachment B.

14. A proposal to pilot a financial assistance scheme to encourage homeowners to upgrade their septic systems is being consulted on as part of the 2016-2017 Annual Plan process. The financial assistance, repaid via a targeted rate, will be available as a two year pilot in the catchments of the west coast lagoons and at Little Oneroa on Waiheke to further understand the level of assistance required, likely uptake and barriers to inform further work (modelling and options).

15. An adaptive management approach has been taken to the west coast lagoons project, so we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our actions and modify them if they are not effective enough. The plan will be reviewed annually and it is expected that the community will have input into future reviews.

16. The west coast lagoons project is referred to as a pilot, indicating the intention to roll out the programme in other parts of the region with similar issues. In developing the action plan though, it has also become apparent that there are improvements to council’s systems that could improve the performance of the 50,000 plus septic systems across the region. An options paper for better management of septic tanks regionally is be presented to this committee for its consideration.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has been regularly briefed on the progress of the action plan and has aligned some resourcing to support the actions within the plan.

18. High level briefing information on the proposal for an on-site wastewater financial assistance programme was communicated to all local boards with septic tanks in their area. Workshops were held with interested boards in September 2015. Feedback was received from Franklin, Great Barrier, Hibiscus and Bays, Waiheke and Waitākere Ranges Local Boards. All expressed support for the proposal.

Māori impact statement

19. Te Kawerau a Maki consider themselves mana whenua for the catchments around the lagoons. They have a seat on the steering group and endorsed the draft action plan in that forum.

20. Ngāti Whātua has expressed an interest, particularly in relation to actions in the Karekare catchment, but has not yet taken up the opportunity to meet to discuss these further.

Implementation

21. As detailed in the attached action plan, the annual cost of implementation of this plan is approximately $530,000 per annum. While the action plan estimates costs for the next five years, a similar programme will be required for as long as on-site wastewater systems remain in the catchments, or until superseded by a regional programme.

22. The cost is predominantly staff time and will be funded by existing regional budgets and local board allocation of locally driven initiatives funding.

23. The action plan will be reviewed annually to take into account the effectiveness of recent actions, any changes in context (such as a regional approach to on-site wastewater being instigated), changes in responsibilities for each department and the available budget.

24. While the joint steering group have oversight of the Action Plan, departments remain responsible for resourcing and delivering relevant parts of the plan. Each department’s business planning process will determine the level of resourcing available, while acknowledging their commitment to support the project to the agreed extent

25. Approval is required from Finance and Performance committee and the Governing Body for the financial assistance programme. This is currently being consulted on through the Annual Plan process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	West Coast Lagoons Action Plan	4
b View	West Coast Lagoons progress sheet	4

Signatories

Authors

Phil Brown - Land and Water Advisory Team Manager

Viv Sherwood - Catchments & Incentives Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

15 March 2016

Options for septic tank management

File No.: CP2015/08965

Purpose

1. To provide an update on plans to develop and implement an effective system for managing privately owned on-site wastewater systems to reduce existing poor performance problems.

Executive Summary

2. In receiving a report on council’s Safeswim programme for 2013/2014 at its 27 August 2014 meeting, the Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee requested that officers report back on Council’s plans for on-site wastewater management.

3. At the Governing Body meeting on 17 December 2015, Infrastructure and Environmental Services made a commitment to bring an initial concept paper on the options for region-wide management of on-site wastewater to the Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee.

4. The currently proposed draft options for Auckland Council to better manage privately owned on-site wastewater systems (OSW) in the Auckland region are to:

· provide a region-wide pump out service every three years;

· leave all responsibility for operations and maintenance in the hands of owners, but increase the level of compliance checking that council undertakes;

· set up an inspection and maintenance certification system and check compliance with this on a regular basis;

· set up an operating permit system which allows for renewals once the owners demonstrate the OSW is in compliance with terms and conditions of the permit;

· approve and licence a utility operator to take over the monitoring and maintenance of OSW, with costs charged to property owners;

· vest the OSW to a licensed utility owner who would manage them directly;

· retain the status quo and have no coordinated management of OSW.

5. For each of the first six options there will be a range of implementation and financial implications including administration costs and requirements such as keeping inventories of Auckland’s OSWs, inspections and environmental monitoring.

6. Further work is required to fully scope, investigate and evaluate the options identified. A cross-council group will be convened to undertake this analysis. The group will draw on skills and experience from Environmental Services, Stormwater, Engineering and Technical Services, Legal and Risk, Regulatory Services, Social Policy and Bylaws, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research, Watercare and any other appropriate teams. Consultation with other internal and external stakeholders will follow.

7. Evaluation of the options will be undertaken within existing budgets and the preferred option will be brought back to the appropriate committee in time for it to be considered for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Recommendation

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) Note that a cross-council group will further develop the currently proposed options to better manage privately-owned on-site wastewater systems, compare costs and benefits and recommend a preferred solution to be discussed further with the appropriate council committee and be ready for consideration as part of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process.

Comments

Background

8. In rural areas, poorly performing on-site wastewater systems (OSW) are a contributing factor to elevated bacterial levels in streams and beaches.

9. OSW can fail due to poor maintenance, poor design, old age and changes in household or site requirements. In some cases, baches are now used as family homes and the system is no longer appropriately sized for the permanent household. In other cases high seasonal usage (such as the summer holiday period) can overload a system. While not ‘failing’, other systems, for example long drops may no longer be considered appropriate for the homes they service. A recent survey in Piha showed that around 40 percent of systems tested were performing poorly and that both ‘high-tech’ and older systems were failing (Ecomatters Environment Trust Love Our Lagoons report, Sep 2015).

10. More than 50,000 rural properties in Auckland are not connected to wastewater treatment plants and have on-site systems. Auckland Council is responsible for ensuring these systems are not causing an environmental or human health risk, but has no coordinated system in place for doing this.

11. The development of an Auckland-wide programme to manage OSW to reduce faecal contamination of our beaches requires a whole-of-council approach, including Watercare who provide the reticulated wastewater network for Auckland.

Legislative, political and strategic drivers

12. Auckland Council has responsibilities for on-site wastewater management under the Health Act 1956, the Building Act 2004 and the Resource Management Act 1991. As a unitary authority, we are in a good position to manage all of these responsibilities in a coordinated way.

13. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management requires council to reduce faecal contamination of many of our waterways. This includes those that are currently failing the mandatory national bottom lines for boating and wading as well as those that the community chooses should be clean enough to swim in. As the NPSFM is progressively implemented, specific management objectives will need to be determined, for various water quality attributes, such as faecal contamination.

14. Growth in Auckland’s rural areas means that more properties will need to manage their own wastewater. Auckland Council and Watercare will work with communities to develop policy.

15. On 27 August 2014 a summary report on the 2013/2014 Safeswim programme was received by the Environment Climate and Natural Heritage Committee. In receiving that report, the committee requested that officers report back on Council’s plans for on-site wastewater management.

16. On 17 December 2015 the Governing Body approved (Resolution number GB/2015/128) the inclusion of a pilot programme to provide repayable financial assistance to encourage homeowners to upgrade or replace their on-site waste water systems in the west coast lagoons and Little Oneroa (Waiheke) catchments as part of the draft Annual Plan 2016-2017. Discussion of the pilot focused on the need for the development of a comprehensive region-wide approach and recognised that there was no ‘silver bullet’ to address this.

17. The Auckland Plan states that council will work with stakeholders to develop an appropriate implementation policy and mechanisms for on- and off-site [wastewater] solutions and notes that substantial, ongoing investment will be required (p. 299).

18. Growth in Auckland’s rural areas means that more properties will need to manage their own wastewater. Growth in rural settlements may however require reticulated systems. Auckland Council and Watercare will therefore ned to work with communities to develop policy regarding the future management of wastewater and how it is applied in various scenarios.

Options for managing on-site wastewater

19. In 2015 council commissioned a review of the OSW management models operating nationally and internationally. The review identified six options outside the ‘do nothing’ option. The options identified were as follows.

· Provide a region-wide pump out service every three years.

· Leave all responsibility for operations and maintenance in the hands of owners, but council develops an inventory of systems, carries out compliance inspections and provides information to owners and users on a regular basis.

· Set up an inspection and maintenance certification – a maintenance contract would be required for all OSW systems and a maintenance certificate would be required from the contractor. The council would keep records of all maintenance certificates and contract reports. Council would carry out compliance inspections and provide information to owners and users on a regular basis.

· Manage the OSW through operating permits. Limited-term operating permits would be issued to the owner and be renewable for another term if the owner demonstrates that the system is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. OSW would be designed, installed and maintained by approved service providers. Would also include inspection and maintenance certification as per option 3.

· Approve and licence a utility operator to take over the monitoring and maintenance, with costs charged to property owners. Council would approve and license the utility operator and carry out performance and environmental monitoring.

· Vest OSW in a utility operator, which manages them directly. Under this option, council would only license the operator and monitor the utility operator’s performance and the environment.

20. All six options above would include significant effort to ensure systems are meeting the standards set in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and the associated technical guidelines document TP58.

21. In addition, Watercare may wish to consider providing wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities at some high risk communities. Nevertheless, it is not realistic to expect that all communities in the region will be provided with a wastewater network, so there will still be a need for a regional approach to managing OSW.

22. OSW management will also need to be considered in the context of other legislative and strategic drivers, including the NPSFM.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

23. Local Board views on regional on-site wastewater management systems have not yet been sought. However, a number of local boards that have a large number of on-site systems have expressed their concern about faecal contamination coming from these systems.

24. Whichever option is developed there will be significant implications for boards with rural properties within their boundaries, particularly for Franklin, Waitākere Ranges, Rodney, Waiheke and Great Barrier. Assuming that the selected management option was effective, water quality in streams and at beaches would improve, reducing the health risk to those using those areas. There should also be a reduction in the contamination of groundwater, reducing the health risk that comes from taking bore water in areas with OSW.

25. Any option chosen for managing OSW will have an impact on rural ratepayers and for those whose systems are failing that may include resourcing significant upgrades or replacements of their systems.

Māori impact statement

26. Managing water resources and maintaining water quality are significant for Māori. The role of mana whenua as kaitiaki for the environment is identified in The Schedule of Issues of Significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau.

27. No consultation has yet been undertaken with Māori relating specifically to this region-wide on-site wastewater management concept. Some iwi have commented on on-site wastewater issues through other consultative processes, such as the Draft Unitary Plan. Ngāti Manuhiri for example wanted regular inspection of on-site wastewater systems regardless of whether they were close to bathing beaches or not.

28. Some insight into possible Māori views regarding water quality issues can be obtained from the recently completed consultation for the Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015. The bylaw is intended, among other things, to protect Auckland’s water resources and to minimise the impacts of the wastewater network on the water quality of receiving environments. During the bylaw review process, Watercare met twice with a Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. Watercare presented information on the 17 issues related to the water supply and wastewater system that have been considered as part of the bylaw review process. The Forum:

· supported the proposal to establish of a single regional approach and revoke the network-related provisions of the eight legacy bylaws;

· supported Watercare’s attempts to streamline the regulatory and business processes, reducing costs, while balancing risks.

29. Specific consultation with Māori will be undertaken once the cross-council group has convened to further develop the options.

Implementation

30. Further work is required to fully scope, investigate and evaluate the options identified. A cross-council group will be convened to undertake this analysis. The group will draw on skills and experience from Environmental Services, Stormwater, Engineering and Technical Services, Legal and Risk, Regulatory Services, Social Policy and Bylaws, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research, Watercare and any other appropriate teams. Consultation with other internal and external stakeholders will follow.

31. Evaluation of the options will be undertaken within existing budgets.

32. The working group will need to ensure that the proposed regional approach is developed in conjunction with the proposed new on-site wastewater bylaw and the review of TP58, and other relevant legislative and strategic drivers.

33. There will be a range of options for how the preferred option could be financed (such as via a targeted rate, as part of general rates or a combination of both) and these financial implications will be worked through as part of the options analysis.

34. The further development of the OSW management options will need to align with:

· new rules for on-site wastewater management that will come into full force under the Unitary Plan when it becomes operative;

· the new bylaw for on-site wastewater systems that will be developed once the existing bylaw expires in 2018;

· the technical guidance document for on-site wastewater systems (TP58) which is currently being reviewed .

35. The preferred option will need to be considered through the process for the Long Term Plan 2018-2028, which will include consideration by the relevant governing body meeting. It is likely that a bylaw, or plan, or plan change under the Resource Management Act 1991 will be required to implement whichever option is chosen.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Phil Brown – Land and Water Advisory Team Manager, Environmental Services

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services, Infrastructure & Environmental Services

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

[1] New Zealand submission to the ADC, New Zealand’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, 7 July 2015. http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/New%20Zealand/1/New%20Zealand%20INDC%202015.pdf

[2] Xie, S (2015). Auckland’s greenhouse gas inventory for 2013. Auckland Council technical report, TR2015/031

[3] Gross emissions does not take into account any offsets, e.g. from carbon sequestration of forestry.

[4] Bennett, H., Jones, R., Keating, G., Woodward, A., Hales, S., and S. Metcalfe, 2014. ‘Health and equity impacts of climate change in Aotearoa New Zealand, and health gains from climate action’ New Zealand Medical Journal 28 November 2014, Vol 127 No 1406

[5] King DN, Penny G, Severne S. The Climate Change Matrix Facing Māori society. In: Nottage RAC, Wratt DS, Bornman JF, Jones K (eds). Climate Change Adaption in New Zealand: Future Scenarios and Some Sectoral Perspectives. Wellington: New Zealand Climate Change Centre, 2010.

Chairperson	Wayne Walker
Deputy Chairperson
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