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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 12 March 2020

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Kōmiti Mō Te Hurihanga Āhuarangi me Te Taiao / Environment and Climate Change Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Richard Hills

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Pippa Coom

 

Members

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

IMSB Member Karen Wilson

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

 

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

Suad Allie

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua /

Senior Governance Advisor

 

9 March 2020

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 977 6953

Email: suad.allie@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee deals with the development and monitoring of strategy, policy and action plans associated with environmental and climate change activities.   The committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

 

·         climate change mitigation and adaptation policy, and implementation (with other committee chairs where cross over of responsibilities exists)

·         coastal renewals, slips and remediation

·         Auckland’s Climate Action Framework

·         natural heritage (including ecology, biodiversity and biosecurity matters, such as kauri dieback)

·         protection and restoration of Auckland’s ecological health

·         water, including Auckland’s Water Strategy

·         waste minimisation

·         acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and in accordance with the LTP

·         grants for regional environmental outcomes.

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)     approval of a submission to an external body

(b)     establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)      The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)     If a policy or project relates primarily to the responsibilities of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, but aspects require additional decisions by the Planning Committee and/or the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, then the Environment and Climate Change Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on behalf of those other committee(s). For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to more than one of these committees for decisions.

(iii)     The committee does not have:

(a)     the power to establish subcommittees

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

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.

 

 

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        9

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   9

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               9

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          9  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    9

5.1     Public Input - Grey Lyn Waste Minimisation Project 2030 - Brigitte Sistig   9

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          9

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                              10

8          Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework - Proposed changes                                                                                                                                        11

9          Establishment of the Weed Management Political Advisory Group                     19

10        Establishment of the Waste Political Advisory Group                                            29

11        Consultation on amendments to the Basel Convention: Submission development                                                                                                                                       39

12        Inter-regional marine pest pathway management: preferred option and next steps                                                                                                                                       41

13        Auckland Council Submission on Taumata Arowai - the Water Services Regulator Bill                                                                                                                                  55

14        Auckland Council submission on the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment's discussion document "Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency"                                                                                                                    69

15        Environment and Climate Change Committee Forward Work Programme          75

16        Summary of Environment and Climate Change Committee information memoranda and briefings - 12 March 2020                                                                                    83  

17        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr E Collins 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 and Climate Change Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 28 November 2019, 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 Governance 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.

 

5.1       Public Input - Grey Lyn Waste Minimisation Project 2030 - Brigitte Sistig

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Brigitte Sistig will speak to the committee about the Grey Lynn Waste minimisation project 2030.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)      receive and thank the public input from Brigitte Sistig regarding the Grey Lyn Waste minimisation project 2030.

 


 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework - Proposed changes

File No.: CP2020/00938

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To outline key amendments to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework for endorsement by the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In February 2018, the Environment and Community Committee resolved to develop an integrated climate action plan for the Auckland region (ENV/2018/11).

3.       To meet this requirement, Auckland Council led the development of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework, (ACAF) with extensive collaboration and engagement with mana whenua, public, private and voluntary sectors.

4.       In June 2019, the Environment and Community Committee approved a consultation draft of ACAF and associated materials.

5.       In February 2020, a memorandum was circulated to share key findings from the public consultation (Attachment A).

6.       To address the feedback from the consultation, this report outlines key structural changes proposed to the framework including:

·     introducing three pillars representing the core drivers to which all actions will align (i.e., A Tāmaki response; reducing our emissions; preparing for change),

·     moving from eleven key moves to eight priorities to streamline actions and address feedback.

7.       It is also proposed that the title of the document is changed from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. This change responds to feedback received on the urgency for climate action and the need for greater focus on how our climate goals will be delivered.

8.       In addition, the change allows for greater detail in the plan around its implementation, including certainty over roles and responsibilities. This will sit within a specific implementation section.

9.       The proposed changes meet the requirements of a climate action plan as defined by C40 Cities.

10.     As these changes are structural, we are seeking endorsement prior to making more detailed changes and finalising the document for committee’s subsequent consideration.

11.     To reflect consultation feedback on the need for greater urgency and a better articulation of our approach to adaptation planning, an interim target of halving Auckland’s emissions by 2030, and the establishment of a precautionary approach to climate change are proposed. 

12.     If endorsed, further text changes responding to feedback will be reported to committee for adoption in May 2020 and the digital plan completed for launch in July/August 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)   endorse the changes to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework in principle, subject to consideration of feedback from Local Boards, including:

·     introducing three pillars representing the core drivers for climate action (i.e., A Tāmaki response; reducing our emissions; preparing for change),

·     moving from eleven key moves to eight priorities,

·     changing the title from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

b)   reaffirm our commitment to a plan consistent with a 1.5 degree rise, an interim target of halving Auckland’s emissions by 2030, and a precautionary approach to planning for change.

 

Horopaki

Context

13.     In February 2018, the Environment and Community Committee resolved to develop an integrated climate action plan for the Auckland region, addressing both emissions reduction (i.e. mitigation) and preparing for the impacts of a changing climate (i.e. adaptation) (ENV/2018/11).

14.     To meet this requirement, Auckland Council led the development of ACAF with extensive collaboration and engagement with mana whenua, public, private and voluntary sectors, reaching hundreds of Aucklanders.

15.     In June 2019, the Environment and Community Committee approved the consultation draft of ACAF and associated materials and in February 2020, a memo was circulated to the Committee, IMSB and local boards to share key findings from the public consultation (Attachment A).

16.     This report provides an overview of key proposed changes to ACAF to address the feedback received through the consultation.  If endorsed, the changes will be reflected in the update of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, which will be reported to the Environment and Climate Change Committee in May 2020.

17.     More detailed changes reported in the consultation summary report are not repeated here but will be reflected in text changes for committee’s consideration in the final version of the document.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18.     The proposed changes to ACAF have been informed by consultation feedback received on the draft document.  The full report on the consultation was circulated in February 2020 but some key themes included:

·     Urgency and scale of action needs to be more clearly reflected with a strong direction for an interim 2030 emissions reduction target.  This is also consistent with C40 Cities requirements.

·     A need to better articulate our approach to adaptation planning and in particular how we address uncertainty.

·     A lack of clarity on how key moves work together and how they address our climate goals.  In addition it was felt that there are too many.

·     Need for clarity about roles and responsibilities with a request for more information on who is responsible for actions at each level.

·     Need for partnership working across sectors and with central government and mana whenua in particular.

·     Greater focus on equity across feedback points.

·     Need for a strong Māori voice with widespread support for working with Māori, using mātauranga Māori and Māori practices in designing and implementing climate action.

·     Need for system shift and better articulating the scale of change required with Aucklanders.

·     Need for communication and behaviour change and for campaigns to raise awareness across the region and enable action at an individual level.

·     Need for a significant shift in transport (cited the most across key moves) with the identified actions supported but a need for these to be delivered at pace and scale.

19.     To address consultation feedback a number of structural changes are proposed.

20.     The first of these is to establish three core drivers for action – our ‘pillars’ (Figure 1).  These provide greater clarity on the goals of the framework and all actions will be assessed and updated to align with how they deliver against these goals.

·     A Tāmaki response: This pillar reflects the uniqueness of Auckland and our place-based response to climate change.  It is informed by learning from Māori principles and practice, provides a greater focus on equity and a better definition of roles and responsibilities and collective action across governance and sectors.

·     Reducing our emissions: This pillar reflects the need to provide greater clarity on our emissions target and the need to halve emissions by 2030 and reach net zero emissions by 2050.  It improves alignment with the actions and how we will deliver and prioritise emissions reductions.

·     Preparing for climate change: This pillar enables a greater focus on how we will approach climate change adaptation and take a precautionary approach for the region, i.e., we will need to prepare for our current emissions pathway, which could lead to a 3.5 degree warmer region.  This pillar will introduce the need for dynamic adaptive policy pathway planning with examples of how this can be applied.

 

Figure 1: Proposed pillars and priorities

21.     The second structural change is that the eleven key moves are streamlined into eight priorities.  This proposed change is to address feedback on where areas cut across all key moves and where there is confusion and overlap.

·     It is proposed that Key Move 3: Make development and infrastructure climate compatible and Key Move 4: Transform existing buildings and places are combined into a single built environment priority area. 

·     It is proposed that Key Move 1: Lay the foundation is embedded into our three pillars in recognition of the cross-cutting nature of the actions.

·     Similarly, Key Move 9: Rangatahi (Youth & Inter-generational equity) is embedded into pillar 1 to reflect the need to consider actions across the framework.

22.     Actions contained within Key Moves 1 and 9 will still be maintained and reflected in the updated document.

23.     Actions contained within Key Moves 1-11 will be carried through into Priorities 1-8 and updated to:

·     clarify any ambiguities that were raised in consultation, 

·     remove repetition or overlapping actions,

·     make additions in response to consultation feedback,

·     strengthen alignment to delivery of the three pillars.

24.     Overall, the intent of the actions between the Key Moves 1-11 and Priority areas 1-8, remain the same. Attachment B briefly summarises how the actions have changed from the consultation document to the updated priority areas. 

25.     It is also proposed that the title of the document is changed from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. This change responds to feedback received on the urgency for climate action and the need for greater focus on how our climate goals will be delivered.

26.     In addition, the change allows for greater detail in the plan around its implementation, including certainty over roles and responsibilities. This will sit within a specific implementation section.

27.     The proposed changes meet the requirements of a climate action plan as defined by C40 Cities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28.     The changes identified in this report have been made to reflect feedback received and updated emissions modelling.  As such, they will further deliver and strengthen climate action already identified. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29.     Regular meetings and workshops took place across the council group for development of the framework.

30.     In addition, a working group was established from the outset to provide expertise from across the council group, central government and district health boards.

31.     This group has continued to provide input post consultation and have reviewed and provided input into the proposed changes.

32.     In addition, the team have been working closely across the council group in the development of costed actions for considerations in the Long-term Plan.  This process is running concurrently with the finalisation of the plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

33.     In June 2018 the Chief Sustainability Office visited 19 of the 21 local boards and obtained email feedback from the other two local boards to identify their main priorities related to climate change.  This was followed up in September with cluster workshops to assess and test a series of ‘must haves’, which were the precursors to the actions included in the draft framework.

34.     Key themes included:

·    coastal erosion and inundation concerns,

·    affordable and accessible transport,

·    long term infrastructure development to consider climate impacts,

·    better stormwater management,

·    climate related education and awareness,

·    building community resilience,

·    and for Auckland Council to lead by example.

35.     These continue to be addressed in the updated document through the eight priorities.

36.     Local board feedback on the proposed changes is being sought at meetings in March and this will be reflected in the final version of the document.  Local Boards will also be invited to attend the April workshop where final text will be reviewed prior to proposed adoption by the Environment and Climate Change Committee in May.

37.     Local boards will be key in taking climate action at a local level. Support will be provided for local board planning and alignment with outcomes.

38.     The Chief Sustainability Office and Quality Advice Unit will implement a programme of work for the whole council family, providing guidance and training on how to embed climate action in Local Board plans and what to expect from climate impact statements.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39.     Climate change impacts and associated policy and action will have significant impacts for Māori communities.

40.     A Tāmaki and climate change subject matter expert rōpū (group) was established in March 2019 which has been supporting and advising mana whenua and council on climate change issues for Māori and providing direct advice and narrative for the draft framework.

41.     A rangatahi Māori and Pasifika rōpū has also been working in partnership with council on this kaupapa to develop rangatahi focused actions for the framework.

42.     A joint mana whenua and Māori expert task group are finalising a Tāmaki and climate change position paper, Te ora ō Tāmaki, which will be used as the bridging document to weave key anchor points into the climate action framework. 

43.     Anchor points include:

·    weaving the narrative into the framework, specifically the following sections: Climate change and Māori, Impacts on Māori and Developing the Plan with Māori,

·    a section developed by rangatahi (the Youth and intergenerational equity key move),

·    a separate key move of Te puawaitanga o te tangata (Resilient Māori communities).

44.     Development of the pillars, priorities, actions and indicators will also continue to be informed by the Independent Māori Statutory Board Position on Climate Change. Actions identified within the position paper have been incorporated as appropriate and these will be further reviewed at the April committee workshop.  Direct input from mana whenua on the climate plan development is also being sought.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

45.     Actions within the framework will result in budgetary implications for organisations across the region and identifying and unlocking appropriate funding and financing streams in the future will be critical. 

46.     Taking climate action will require a range of finance and/or funding mechanisms. For instance, green bonds have been a useful tool for financing council-owned assets such as electric trains but investment in clean tech may require crowd-sourcing, grants or venture capital.

47.     To support this, a climate finance work package is underway to identify partnerships and broader funding mechanisms across actions such as bonds, grants, equity instruments and public/private partnerships.

48.     The final framework and specific Auckland Council actions being developed will need to inform on-going Long-term Plan discussions to support delivery and avoid costs associated with inaction, such as increased maintenance costs and infrastructure failures through to missed opportunities to Auckland’s economy in delivering the transition. 

49.     Not all actions within council’s remit will require additional budget. Some actions can result in long-term cost avoidance – for example electrifying fleets can reduce fuel and maintenance costs. Some actions could require existing funds to be redirected if priorities change.

50.     Also, not all actions will require funding, for example those related to advocacy to central government or expert input into actions led by other organisations.

51.     The costs associated with different council-specific actions will consider funding sources as described above.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

52.     No high or extreme risks have been identified in relation to the proposed structural changes to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri detailed within this report.

53.     The risk in relation to non-delivery of climate action is high as identified in council’s organisational risk register.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A: Consultation Summary  (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Attachment B: Summary of key move changes (Under Separate Cover)

 

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Anderson - Principal Specialist Sustainability and Climate Resilence

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

Establishment of the Weed Management Political Advisory Group

File No.: CP2020/00277

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the re-establishment of the Weed Management Political Advisory Group to advise staff on the implementation and delivery of the Weed Management Policy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council’s Weed Management Policy includes an action to establish a Weed Management Political Advisory Group comprised of representatives from the governing body, local boards, and mana whenua.

3.       The group’s objective is to oversee the implementation of the weed management policy (see draft Terms of Reference in Attachment A). Staff expect that the group will meet twice a year and provide an opportunity for the discussion of weed management by elected members and the public.

4.       Staff recommend that the Environment and Climate Change Committee approve re-establishing the group for the 2019-2021 electoral term.

5.       Staff have analysed various options for the composition of the group, including:

·    which committees and panels of the council should be represented on the group

·    levels of regional versus local representation.

6.       Staff recommend that the committee appoint six councillors to the group, including:

·    the Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, as the parent committee for the group

·    the Chair of the Parks, Art, Community and Events Committee, because weed management in local and regional parks falls within the remit of that committee

·    a councillor who is a member of the Rural Advisory Panel, to represent the unique interests of rural communities in weed management

·    three other interested councillors

7.       Staff also recommend that a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board be invited to join the group.

8.       Finally, staff recommend that six local board members be invited to join the group. This reflects the key role local boards play in representing their communities and governing implementation of the weed management policy in local parks and berms.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)      approve re-establishing the Weed Management Political Advisory Group comprising:

i)        the Chair of Environment and Climate Change Committee

ii)       the Chair of the Parks, Art, Community and Events Committee

iii)      a councillor who is member of the Rural Advisory Panel

iv)      three other interested councillors

v)      a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

vi)      six local board members.

b)      invite the Independent Māori Statutory Board to appoint a member to the Weed Management Political Advisory Group.

c)      invite the Local Board Chair’s Forum to select six local board members to join the Weed Management Political Advisory Group.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       Due to our temperate climate, Auckland is one of the weediest cities in the world and is particularly vulnerable to weeds and introduced pest plants. These can spread, displacing native plants and threatening biodiversity.

10.     Auckland Council uses a variety of weed control methods depending on the species of weed, site characteristics, infestation level and legislative requirements.

11.     Weed control methodologies include manual control, biological control, hot water, and herbicide.

Weed Management Policy

12.     Auckland Council adopted a Weed Management Policy for parks and open spaces in August 2013 (resolution number RDO/2013/137). This policy guides the management of weeds in Auckland’s parks, open spaces and the road corridor.

13.     The policy states that Auckland Council should consider eight objectives when determining options for weed management and vegetation control:

a)   take an integrated approach to weed management and vegetation control

b)   ensure best practice in weed management and vegetation control

c)   minimise agrichemical use

d)   minimise non-target effects of agrichemical use

e)   ensure public health and safety

f)    protect and enhance the environment

g)   empower the community to manage weeds in accordance with the policy

h)   deliver weed management and vegetation control which is value for money.

14.     The Weed Management Policy outlines a 42-point action plan to achieve these objectives. This includes forming a governance group to oversee the implementation and delivery of the Weed Management Policy.

15.     The policy states that the group should comprise representatives from the governing body, local boards and mana whenua. These members will engage with staff and relevant external parties to support robust decision-making, taking into account community and technical considerations.

Weed Management Political Advisory Group - Terms of Reference

16.     The Weed Management Political Advisory Group was first established in 2013. It was subsequently made open to the public in 2018.

17.     The political advisory group provides advice and feedback to staff and an opportunity for members of the public to provide feedback (see draft Terms of Reference in Attachment A).

18.     The group is not a decision-making entity. All decisions on matters relating to the implementation of the Weed Management Policy will be sought from the appropriate committee or local board.

19.     A staff Best Practice Reference Group to provide technical expertise on weed management for council operational activities will continue to meet over the new term.

Outcomes of the Weed Management Political Advisory Group in previous term

20.     In the 2016-2019 term, the Weed Management Political Advisory group was initially held only with elected members before the decision to open the meetings to the public in 2018.

21.     Staff consider that this change enabled valuable opportunities for discussion between staff, elected members and interested community groups.

22.     The group provided guidance and input on initiatives associated with the implementation of the eight objectives of the policy and best practice weed management by council. These included:

·       raising awareness of work underway by Community Facilities suppliers such as AIMS Services to reduce the use of agrichemicals in local parks

·       the transition through Project Streetscape of weed management in the road corridor moving from Auckland Transport to the Community Facilities contractors

·       awareness of the No Spray Register project which included a dedicated form on the council website for a better experience for residents applying to opt out of weed control on their berm and park boundary

·       supporting the activities of Pest Free Auckland and other volunteer programmes to empower the community to carry out landscape weed management

·       increased awareness of options for biocontrol, including the opportunity to reduce agrichemical usage.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Analysis of whether to re-establish the group

23.     Staff have considered whether or not the Weed Management Political Advisory Group should be re-established for the 2019-2022 term. Criteria considered include opportunity for public input, transparency and ability for elected members to provide guidance to staff.

24.     Staff recommend that the group be re-established, for the reasons outlined below.

25.     Opportunities for public input - Weed management, and particularly the use of herbicide by Auckland Council, generates a high level of community interest and feedback. Re-establishing the group provides a platform for the public and elected members to discuss the council’s weed management collaboratively. Having dedicated meetings will also reduce pressure on the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s decision-making agenda.

26.     Public transparency - Key outcomes from the Best Practice Reference Group meetings are reported to the political advisory group and published as part of their agenda. This provides public transparency on weed management approaches by council. 

27.     Guidance for staff - The group provides guidance to staff to inform any decisions that may be sought from the Environment and Climate Change Committee.


 

 

Options for composition of the political advisory group

Local and regional representation

28.     Staff recommend that six local board members be appointed to the group, along with six councillors and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

29.     The inclusion of six local board members is recommended as local boards have a key role to play in both representing their communities’ interests and overseeing implementation of the Weed Management Policy in local areas. For example, much of council’s weed management is delivered in areas such as local parks and berms that fall within local board delegations.

30.     The recommended number of six local members is slightly smaller than the eight local board members included on the group in the previous term. This reflects a learning from the previous term that a smaller group can enable more effective discussion and direction, while still ensuring local board representation across the region.

Representation of other committees and panels

31.     Staff recommend that the Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, Councillor Richard Hills, chairs the political advisory group.

32.     Staff recommend that the Chair of the Parks, Arts, Community, and Events Committee, Councillor Alf Filipaina, also participate in the group. This is because weed management is of high interest to Auckland’s communities and many of council’s weed control activities occur in local and regional parks. These areas fall within the remits of the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee.

33.     Staff also recommend that a councillor who is a member of the Rural Advisory Panel be included on the group as rural communities have a specific interest in weed management.

34.     Staff also recommend that a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board be invited to join the group, to provide input on issues of significance to Māori in Auckland.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35.     Climate change mitigation - Auckland Council uses different weed control methods depending on the species, site characteristics, and other factors such as legislative requirements. Staff have more recently researched the impact of some weed management control methods on carbon emissions.

36.     The Weed Management Political Advisory Group will provide guidance to staff about council priorities for climate change mitigation in relation to weed management.

37.     Climate change adaptation - changes in Auckland’s climate may alter the prevalence and spread of pest plants. The Weed Management Political Advisory Group will provide guidance on how staff should respond to these changes while implementing the Weed Management Policy.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38.     The Weed Management Political Advisory Group provides an opportunity for different departments of the council to provide integrated advice on weed management to elected members.

39.     Various parts of the council family, such as Watercare and Auckland Transport, play a role in implementing the Weed Management Policy. These organisations will participate in the political advisory group where relevant.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

40.     The political advisory group will include geographically diverse representatives, and six local board members will be included in its membership.

41.     Local boards support the implementation of the Weed Management Policy through funding projects to control the spread of weeds and work towards eradication of weeds. This includes supporting community-led conservation initiatives.

42.       Empowering the local community is an objective of the Weed Management Policy. The group provides an opportunity for the local board representatives to identify more localised opportunities for improvements in weed management. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

43.     Kaitiakitanga is at the core of the Weed Management Plan and several of the Weed Management Policy’s objectives are of high interest to mana whenua.

44.     These include minimising use of agrichemicals and protecting the natural environment, particularly indigenous biodiversity.

45.     Staff will ensure that mana whenua are consulted on any significant changes to council’s weed management approach or new initiatives developed while implementing the policy.

46.     Staff also recommend inclusion of a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board on the advisory group to provide input on issues of significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau and ensure council acts in accordance with our responsibilities under Te Tiriti.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

47.     The main costs associated with running the Weed Management Political Advisory Group are staff time to support the meetings. This will be funded through existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48.     Staff have identified few risks in relation to establishing the political advisory group.

49.     One potential risk is that it could have low participation from elected members due to the lack of decision-making authority. Staff will mitigate this risk through ensuring that the group is provided with meaningful updates and topics for discussion.

50.     If the political advisory group is not established there is a risk that there will be no dedicated forum for weed management discussions between the staff, public and elected members. This will lead to reduced opportunities for public input, political guidance and transparency.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51.     Meeting dates will be established following appointments from the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Local Board Chairs Forum.

52.     The group will meet at least twice a year. More frequent meetings may be scheduled as required. Group coordination will be provided by Democracy Services and Project Manager.

53.     The draft terms of reference will be presented at the first meeting of the political advisory group for approval.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Terms of Reference for Weed Management Political Advisory Group

25

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jenny Gargiulo - Principal Environmental Specialist, Contracts and Supplier Management

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie - General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 


 


 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

Establishment of the Waste Political Advisory Group

File No.: CP2020/00278

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the re-establishment of the Waste Political Advisory Group to advise staff on the implementation and delivery of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       To support implementation of Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, the council has previously established a Waste Political Advisory Group including representatives from the governing body and mana whenua.

3.       The group’s objective is to oversee the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (see Terms of Reference in Attachment A). It provides an opportunity for discussions and feedback on key regional and national issues relating to waste management and minimisation by elected members and staff.

4.       Staff have analysed various options for the composition of this group, including:

·        option one: no re-establishment of the advisory group

·        option two: re-establishment of the advisory group consisting of a Chair, four councillors and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board

·        option three: re-establishment of the advisory group consisting of a Chair, four councillors a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and four local board members.

5.       Staff recommend option three: re-establishment of the advisory group consisting of a Chair, four councillors, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and four local board members.

6.       Staff recommend that the Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee (as the parent committee) be the Chair of the political advisory group.

7.       Staff recommend that the group include councillors and local board members that can represent different geographical areas, including the north, central, west, urban south and rural interests.

8.       This broad geographical spread is recommended to best represent the broad range of communities and waste services that exist across Auckland. This will be useful as the alignment of waste services outlined in the waste plan, to make services more regionally consistent, will mean significant changes to waste collections across the region.

9.       These changes include the roll out of a kerbside food scraps collection and the introduction of pay-as-you-throw refuse collections for some areas.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)      approve re-establishing the Waste Political Advisory Group comprising of:

i)        the Chair of Environment and Climate Change Committee

ii)       four other councillors who will ensure the group includes representation of the north, central, urban south and west areas and rural interests

iii)      four local board members representing the north, central, south and west areas of Auckland and rural interests

iv)      a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

b)      invite the Independent Māori Statutory Board to appoint one of their members to the Waste Political Advisory Group.

c)      invite the Local Board Chair’s Forum to select four local board members to join the Waste Political Advisory Group.

 

Horopaki

Context

10.     The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires local authorities to undertake a waste assessment and adopt a waste management and minimisation plan. Auckland Council adopted its first waste management and minimisation plan in 2012 which has been regularly revised, most recently in 2018.

11.     The current Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 has an aspirational goal of zero waste by 2040. It commits the council to act to reduce waste. These actions include providing refuse, recycling, food scraps and inorganic services, advocacy to central government, and community engagement.

12.     Actions also involve partnering with the commercial sector, creating a network of community recycling centres, and delivering waste minimisation programmes.

13.     The Waste Political Advisory Group was initially established in 2012 as an informal political forum to guide and monitor the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (resolution number GB/2012/78). The group was established to recognise the impact of waste services on Aucklanders.

14.     The Waste Political Advisory Group was successful in providing advice and oversight during development of the first Waste Management and Minimisation Plan in 2012. The group was re-established in the 2013-2016 and 2016-2019 political terms.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Key Considerations

15.     The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is a regional strategy but has local impacts. Previous waste political advisory groups have generated informal political feedback on regional aspects of the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

16.     The proposed political advisory group will provide advice and feedback to staff and to the appropriate governing body committee – it is not a decision-making entity. In alignment with Auckland Council’s governance structure, all decisions on the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be sought from the governing body.

17.     The 2016-2019 Waste Political Advisory Group included the Chair of Environment and Community Committee, four councillors and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

18.     Proposed draft terms of reference for the Waste Political Advisory Group are attached. These will be adopted by the group at their first meeting.

Options considered and criteria for assessment

19.     Three potential options for the Waste Political Advisory Group have been considered:

·    option one: no re-establishment of the advisory group

·    option two: re-establishment of the advisory group consisting of a Chair, four councillors and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board only (status quo from previous term)

·    option three: re-establishment of the advisory group consisting of a Chair, four councillors, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and four local board representatives (preferred option).

20.     Each option has been assessed against a set of assessment criteria to help determine the preferred approach to the Waste Political Advisory Group. The assessment criteria includes:

·      Consistency - Is the membership of the group consistent with other political working groups?

·      Appropriate size for giving direction - Does the size of the group enable direction and feedback to be made effectively and efficiently?

Representation - Does the composition of the group provide sufficient representation of the Auckland region (governing body and local board members) to give effective feedback and direction?

Results of options assessment

21.     The options assessment is presented in table one below.

Table One: Waste Political Advisory Group Options Assessment

Criteria

Option one:

No Waste Political Advisory Group

Option two:

Chair, four councillors and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board

Option three:

Chair, four councillors, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and four local board representatives

Consistency with other groups

NA

X

üüü

Appropriate size to give direction

NA

üüü

üü

Representation

X

üü

üüü

Key:

Not Applicable

NA

No

X

Low

ü

Medium

üü

High

üüü

22.     Option one is not recommended because it scores poorly against all criteria. In practice, it will likely mean that staff either need to schedule a workshop with the full Environment and Climate Change Committee, or staff will default to seeking guidance from the Chair of the Committee. This approach does not enable effective feedback and guidance from elected members on waste issues.

23.     Option two is also not recommended. Although it was the model used in the previous term it is not consistent with other political advisory groups as no local board representatives are included. While this option would mean a smaller group, which can enable more efficient and effective decision-making, it is inconsistent with other political advisory groups and will not enable local board participation.

Preferred option three – Re-establish group including local board members

24.     Staff recommend that another Waste Political Advisory Group is established for the 2019-2022 electoral term comprised of a Chair, four councillors, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and four local board members.

25.     This option will continue the role of previous waste advisory groups, by providing a platform for in-depth discussion of regional and nationally significant waste-related issues prior to presentation to the governing body. It will also ensure that staff can easily access political input when making time-pressured decisions.

26.     Staff recognise that option three will involve almost twice as many elected members as previous Waste Political Advisory Groups. This may create some challenges in regards to scheduling of meetings and managing conflict of interest between local and regional policy perspectives. However, having a broad geographical representation of elected members will help to manage this risk.

27.     The input required from the Waste Political Advisory Group is regionally focused, but may be affected by differences in current service models across Auckland. The alignment of waste services, as outlined in the waste plan, will mean significant changes to waste collections across the region. These include the roll out of a kerbside food scraps collection and the introduction of pay-as-you-throw refuse collections for some areas like central and urban south.

28.     To best represent the broad range of communities and waste services that exist across Auckland it is important to have a Waste Political Advisory Group membership that also represents this diversity.   

29.     Therefore staff recommend that along with the Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, the four councillors that are appointed to the group can represent different geographical areas of Auckland including the north, central, west and urban south areas and rural interests.

30.     Staff also recommend that four local board members be appointed to the Waste Political Advisory Group that can represent the north, south, central and west areas of Auckland and rural interests.

31.     Staff also recommend that a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board be invited to join the group. This will enable them to provide input on issues of significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau at a governance level.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32.     The goal of zero waste by 2040 envisioned in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan has significant climate change implications. This goal signals a shift towards a circular, low emissions economy. The plan contains a number of actions that provide tangible ways for Aucklanders to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the introduction of a household food scraps collection.

33.     The Waste Political Advisory Group will support the implementation of these actions through providing oversight and advice, contributing to Auckland’s climate impact objectives.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34.     Addressing waste diversion from the in-house and operational activities of the council and council-controlled organisations is a priority action of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. This will involve collaborating with all parts of the council family to agree baseline waste levels and waste minimisation targets.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

35.     The recommendation to include four local board members on the Waste Political Advisory Group will ensure that they are able to provide feedback and guidance on implementation of the waste plan.

36.     Staff will also consult with local boards on any significant unplanned changes to regional waste policy or services and seek local board input into waste submissions.

37.     Some local boards fund local waste minimisation projects including scoping studies, pilot projects, and supporting locally delivered waste minimisation initiatives. This will continue alongside the newly established Waste Political Advisory Group.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38.     The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan emphasises an integrated life cycle approach to the management of natural resources. The concepts of zero waste reflect Māori tikanga and kaupapa.

39.     Through the development of the plan, Auckland Council engaged in extensive consultation with mana whenua and mataawaka on resource use and waste management. Based on this consultation Māori values are at the core of the plan.

40.     The plan highlights the council’s responsibility to recognise Māori priorities including rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, kotahitanga, manaakitanga, and whanaungatanga when implementing the actions outlined in the plan.

41.     Staff will ensure that mana whenua are consulted on any significant changes to council’s waste plan or major new waste initiatives.

42.     Staff also recommend inclusion of a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board on the advisory group to provide input on issues of significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau and ensure council acts in accordance with our responsibilities under Te Tiriti.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43.     The main costs associated with running the Waste Political Advisory Group are staff time to support the meetings. This will be funded through existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44.     Staff have identified few risks in relation to establishing the political advisory group.

45.     One potential risk is that it could have low participation from elected members due to the lack of decision-making authority. Staff will mitigate this risk through ensuring that the group is provided with meaningful updates and topics for discussion.

46.     If the political advisory group is not established there is a risk that there will be no dedicated forum for discussions on regional waste services between staff and elected members. This will lead to reduced opportunities for political guidance, particularly on time pressured issues.

47.     Establishing the group will also reduce the potential for escalation of pressing issues and ensure elected members are aware of potentially contentious issues at an early stage.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

48.     If approved, meeting dates will be established following local board member appointments, and the appointments from the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Group meetings will be scheduled bi-monthly but the group will meet on a needs-be basis.

49.     The draft terms of reference will be presented for approval at the first political advisory group meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Terms of Reference for Waste Political Advisory Group

35

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sophien Brockbank - Team Leader Strategic Planning

Authorisers

Parul Sood - General Manager Waste Solutions

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 


 


 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

Consultation on amendments to the Basel Convention: Submission development

File No.: CP2020/02237

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To delegate authority to the Chair, Deputy Chair and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee to approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s anticipated consultation on amendments to the Basel Convention.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       On 10 May 2019 New Zealand, along with approximately 180 other countries, agreed to amend the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.

3.       The agreed amendment sought to better regulate global trade in plastic waste to prevent environmental pollution. This means that exporters of contaminated or hard-to-recycle plastic waste will require consent from the governments of receiving countries before they can ship waste to those countries. The amendment comes into effect in January 2021.

4.       The Ministry for the Environment has signalled an intention to undertake consultation on the implementation of the amendment and what this means for Aotearoa New Zealand.

5.       As council collects plastics through domestic kerbside recycling collections the amendments are likely to have some impact on council’s operations. However, without comprehensive information and detail around the application of this global amendment to Aotearoa New Zealand’s legislation it is unclear how extensive this impact will be.

6.       Staff will be able to more fully analyse these impacts once the consultation document is released, but generally expect them to be quite limited.

7.       Staff expect the consultation document to be released in mid to late March 2020, with a standard six-week consultation timeframe. The provisional timeframes indicated fall between the scheduled Environment and Climate Change Committee dates.

8.       Staff recommend approval of the submission be delegated to the Chair and Deputy Chair of Environment and Climate Change Committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

9.       This will enable elected members to provide guidance and input into the submission, which is likely to be due before the next Environment and Climate Change Committee meeting in May 2020.

10.     If the anticipated timelines for the submission change, staff will present it for approval to the whole Environment and Climate Change Committee.

11.     Local boards will also be sent a memo outlining the process and content of the consultation document to support them to provide feedback.

12.     Through the development of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, Auckland Council engaged in extensive consultation with mana whenua and mataawaka. Based on this consultation, the plan highlights the council’s responsibility to recognise Māori values such as rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, kotahitanga, manaakitanga, and whanaungatanga.

13.     Staff will ensure these values are reflected in the submission. Staff will also seek guidance from Te Waka Angamua as to whether further consultation is needed.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)      delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to approve Auckland Council’s submission on the anticipated consultation on the amendments to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.

b)      note that the final submission will be provided to Environment and Climate Change Committee for their information.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sophien Brockbank - Team Leader Strategic Planning.

Authorisers

Parul Sood - General Manager Waste Solutions

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

Inter-regional marine pest pathway management: preferred option and next steps

File No.: CP2020/00509

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the development of a proposal for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993 that sets a minimum requirement for all craft to meet specified hull fouling standards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Top of the North Marine Biosecurity Partnership (Top of the North) was formed to increase collaboration and consistency between partners that have a statutory responsibility for managing marine pests within the top of the North Island region (Northland, Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty).

3.       Regional and unitary councils have statutory responsibilities to address the threat of marine pests arising from intra-regional movement of vessels, structures and equipment.

4.       Auckland Council’s current regulatory approaches operate only within the Auckland region, and do not adequately address movement of species between regions. Auckland Council has signalled future development of a marine pest pathway management plan in its Regional Pest Management Plan.

5.       Based on the assessment of available management tools, implications of implementation, and informal public consultation, members of the Top of the North collaborative working group have identified a preferred option for managing the introduction and spread of marine pests in the upper North Island.

6.       The identified preferred option is the development of an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan. This plan would set a minimum requirement for all craft to meet specified hull fouling standards.

7.       Auckland Council’s costs relating to the plan development can be covered by existing regional and natural environment targeted rate funding.

8.       If the preferred approach is endorsed by one or more Top of the North partners (regions), the relevant partners will collaboratively develop a plan proposal under the Biosecurity Act 1993.

9.       The proposed draft plan will be presented to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for approval for public consultation.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)      approve the development of a proposal for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993 that sets a minimum requirement for all craft to meet specified hull fouling standards.

 

Horopaki

Context

10.     Marine pest species generally arrive in New Zealand on the hulls of vessels (known as ‘bio-fouling’) and in ballast water[1]. Once they are here, they can spread further through a range of activities including shipping and recreational boating, marine farming and introduction or movement of human-made structures in marine and coastal areas.

11.     Marine pests can have a wide range of economic, ecological, recreational, social, cultural and human health impacts, including:

·    fouling of structures used in aquaculture practices, increasing time and costs of harvesting, transporting and factory processing. For example, the costs to the aquaculture industry in the Auckland and Waikato regions resulting from the presence of the clubbed sea squirt are estimated to range between $18.3 and $171.2 million over the period 2011 to 2020

·    competing with native species for food, space and other resources, for example, Asian paddle crabs outcompeting native New Zealand paddle crabs in the Waitematā Harbour

·    reducing local biodiversity and changing habitat structures influencing hydrological processes and coastal values. For example, Mediterranean fanworm is colonising many artificial and natural substrates in the Auckland region and Asian date mussels are forming dense beds in some of our harbours

·    the presence of non-indigenous species affecting the aesthetic and recreational value of coastal areas, for example, the presence of the Australian droplet tunicate, also called ‘sea snot’, on beaches.

Statutory responsibilities and management tools

12.     Central government, regional and unitary councils have statutory responsibilities under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and Resource Management Act 1991 to address the threat of marine pests (outlined in the Pest Management National Plan of Action 2011).

13.     Central government is responsible for the prevention of marine pests arriving in New Zealand and developing and implementing eradication programmes if a new species is detected.

14.     Regional and unitary councils are responsible for managing the marine biosecurity risks arising from intra-regional specific movement of vectors (objects which move an invasive species from one area to another, for example vessels, structures and equipment). They are also responsible for managing risks associated with the development and maintenance of structures in the coastal and marine environment, such as marinas, wharves, jetties, moorings, and structures used in marine farming practices.

15.     Examples of management tools available to regional and unitary councils include:

·    regional pest management plans, which include rules applying to the release or transfer of specified marine pest species, and regional and inter-regional pest pathway management plans, which include rules that manage activities that can introduce or spread marine pest species. Both types of plan are prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993

·    regional coastal plans prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991, which include rules that address marine biosecurity threats related to activities controlled by the Resource Management Act

·    small-scale management programs to control particular species

·    non-regulatory advocacy, education and engagement programs.

 

Auckland Council’s current management approach

16.     Auckland Council’s only current regulatory management tool for marine biosecurity is the provisions in Auckland’s Regional Coastal Plan. These provisions manage marine biosecurity risks related to discharges from bio-fouling and vessel hull cleaning (section F2.13 of the Auckland Unitary Plan). They link other biosecurity considerations to the provision and management of marine farming, marinas and other activities controlled by the Resource Management Act.

17.     Auckland Council has also agreed in principle to add nine species of marine pests to the Regional Pest Management Plan, as a result of an Environment Court appeal. The key new obligations to be introduced into the Regional Pest Management Plan are still subject to consultation with affected parties, and other Environment Court processes.

18.     As currently agreed, the key new provisions in the Regional Pest Management Plan would affect persons in charge of any ‘craft’[2] (vessel) within the Auckland region. Specifically, they would require:

·    that the level of fouling on the hull and in niches of any craft does not exceed ‘light fouling’

·    any craft entering any marine water body in the Auckland region from the land must be free of all ballast water, bilge water, holding tank water or sea water held in any other container. 

19.     As these regulatory approaches operate only within the Auckland region, they do not adequately address movement of species between regions. This is critical to preventing the establishment and spread of new marine pests not currently in the region.

20.     Auckland Council currently has no marine pest pathway management plan but has signalled future development of such a plan in its Regional Pest Management Plan. A pathway plan would complement existing marine biosecurity provisions in Auckland’s Regional Coastal Plan and proposed species-specific rules in Auckland’s Regional Pest Management Plan.

21.     Auckland Council’s marine biosecurity programme supports implementation of these regulatory approaches. This programme was established in 2016 and received increased funding in 2018 through the natural environment targeted rate. It covers a broad range of initiatives including:

·    a surveillance and monitoring programme

·    an engagement and behaviour change programme

·    a research and development programme

·    a programme for development of a pathway management plan.

Collaborative approach through the Top of the North partnership

22.     Auckland Council joined the Top of the North Marine Biosecurity Partnership (a group composed of councils from the upper North Island, Department of Conservation and Ministry for Primary Industries) in 2016.

23.     The purpose of the partnership is to increase collaboration and consistency between partners that have a statutory responsibility for managing marine pests within the top of the North Island region.

 

 

 

24.     As part of Top of the North’s operational framework, working group members agreed to assess the possibility of developing an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan in accordance with the Biosecurity Act 1993. The operational framework of Top of the North also includes other workstreams such as monitoring and surveillance, research and development related to eradication and control tools, and behaviour change.

Process to date

25.     Key milestones of this initiative are:

·    late 2017 – endorsement to prepare a discussion document for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan from the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA)

·    February 2019 – finalisation of the discussion document and approval for informal public consultation in Auckland, Northland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty (Auckland Council Environment and Community Committee resolution ENV/2019/9)

·    March to May 2019 – informal public consultation on options identified in the discussion document

·    July 2019 – results of informal consultation presented to councils, informing Top of the North partners to progress with identification of a preferred option with supporting evidence

·    March 2020 – presentation of preferred option and next steps.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Results of the informal public consultation

26.     Informal public consultation was undertaken in March to May 2019.

27.     The consultation attracted a total of 370 submissions from a wide range of interests across New Zealand with some submitters representing a considerable number of marine users.

28.     In summary, the consultation:

a)   requested feedback on four options for the overall direction to manage marine pests:

Option one: Status quo – continue our combined efforts and work towards a collaborative national pathway approach. In the meantime, each region keeps its own rules or policies for managing marine pests.

Option two: Lead the way with consistent rules for clean hulls – develop consistent rules on managing hull-fouling across the four biggest boating regions – Northland, Auckland, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty.

Option three: Go even further – make rules for other pathways too – along with rules for hull-fouling, develop rules for other pathways like ballast water, aquaculture, bilge water and marine equipment.

Option four: None of the above.

b)   feedback showed a preference among submitters for consistent rules for boat hull-fouling across the four regions along with rules for other pathways (option three; 37%), followed by option two (lead the way with consistent rules for clean hulls; 30%), option four (none of the above; 20%) and option one (status quo; 13%).


 

c)   the document also sought feedback on the following options for clean hull rules:

Option one: Clean hull required at all times – all vessel hulls required to have no more than a slime layer and/or barnacles at all times.[3]

Option two: Clean hull required only when moving – no more than a slime layer and/or barnacles permitted when moving from one harbour/place to another.

Option three: Clean hull required only when moving to specially identified places – no more than a slime layer and/or barnacles permitted when moving to specially identified high value places.

Option four: None of the above.

d)   feedback showed a preference among submitters for requiring clean hulls at all times (option one: 42%), followed by option two (clean hull required only when moving; 24%), option four (none of the above; 19%), and option three (clean hull required only when moving to specially identified places; 15%).

e)   identified nine key feedback themes with the top three being practicality and compliance issues, allocation and distribution of costs and the need for a national pathways plan:

practicality and compliance issues (32%)

the allocation and distribution of costs (for example international or commercial vessels and ballast water issues) (21%)

the need for a national pathways plan (12%)

the importance of protecting marine environments (9%)

managing other pathways is also important (for example ballast and bilge water in addition to vessel hull biofouling) (8%)

the practicality of current tools (for example the effectiveness of anti-fouling, a lack of haul-out facilities, and in-water cleaning rules) (8%)

pests having already established (6%)

regional differences require local management (4%)

exemptions are needed for stationary vessels (several comments provided in response to hull fouling rules).

Options analysis and supporting evidence

29.     Auckland Council staff analysed three options against eight criteria, as show in Table 1 below.

30.     Option three, the preferred option, is to authorise staff to develop a proposal for an inter-regional marine pest pathway plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993 that sets a minimum requirement for all craft to meet specified hull fouling standards.

Preferred option – develop an inter-regional marine pest pathway plan (option three)

31.     Top of the North working group members recommend developing a proposal for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993 that sets a minimum requirement for all craft to meet specified hull fouling standards.

32.     To identify the preferred option, Top of the North working group members assessed various available management tools, analysed results from the informal public consultation, and considered implications for implementing potential hull fouling rules. 

Table 1: Options for managing the introduction and spread of marine pests in the upper North Island

Options

Criteria

Option one

 

Do not continue with the development of an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan.

Option two

 

Request staff to collect more information or undertake further analysis before deciding on the next steps.

Option three

Recommended option

 

Authorise staff to develop a proposal for an inter-regional marine pest pathway plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993 that sets a minimum requirement for all craft to meet specified hull fouling standards.

Ability to address the threat of marine pest species resulting in a decreased risk of new introductions and further spread of marine pests

ü

ü

üü

Aligned with the signaled direction for marine biosecurity in Auckland Council’s Regional Pest Management Plan

û

ü

üü

Consistent approach across the upper North Island

û

û

üü

Prevent reputational damage within communities, mana whenua and inter-regional Top of the North partners which could occur if Auckland Council is seen as not doing enough

û

û

üü

Opportunity to collect more information prior to implementation

û

üü

üü

Alignment with public consultation

û

û

üü

Budget and resources required are available

ü

ü

ü

Timely implementation

-

û

ü

 

Rating scale

Rating definitions

üü

High alignment

ü

Low alignment

û

No alignment

-

Not applicable

 

33.     Key reasons for working group members to support option three are:

·    an inter-regional pathway management approach provides benefits over other management tools. This approach enables councils to:

proactively manage high risk activities rather than relying on the presence of pest species to drive an agency’s response[4]

create consistent rules between different regions providing greater clarity for owners of craft

avoid compliance issues with species-specific rules caused by difficulties with species identification. Some marine pest species can only be identified with confidence by using molecular techniques.

·    developing consistent hull-fouling rules between regions was supported by submitters through the informal public consultation

·    hull-fouled boats are the single biggest risk for marine pest transfer

·    risks of some of the other pathways such as aquaculture are being addressed through other management tools, including the proposed National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture and controls in Regional Coastal Plans prepared under the Resource Management Act.

Implementing potential hull fouling rules

34.     If the preferred option is approved by Top of the North partners, staff will prepare an implementation plan as part of the proposal for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan in line with requirements under the Biosecurity Act.

35.     Informed by existing implementation programmes for the Northland and Fiordland marine pest pathway management plans, Top of the North working group members identified that a successful implementation programme would include:

·    a monitoring and surveillance programme

·    an education and awareness raising programme

·    a programme to identify options for craft owners to maintain their craft to a specified standard

·    a compliance and enforcement programme.

36.     Working group members acknowledged that implementation efforts in each region will be at the discretion of each council and are influenced by factors including current levels of compliance, the number of vessels or craft in the region and available resources.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37.     The health of Auckland’s marine ecosystems is fundamental to the wellbeing of Auckland communities. Intact marine ecosystems provide a range of ecosystem services that we rely on every day, including marine water quality, climate regulation, oxygen production and the provision of mahinga kai. Healthy marine ecosystems are also likely to be more resilient and have higher adaptive capacity to climate change effects.

38.     While Auckland may have limited options to prevent global climate changes, local actions, such as reducing anthropocentric (human-caused) stressors and disturbance can increase the health of ecosystems (Foley and Carbines, 2019)[5].

39.     Marine pest problems are expected to get worse under climate change, increasing the need for proactive management. For example, warmer water temperatures will make Auckland more suitable for tropical and sub-tropical marine pests to thrive.

40.     Progressing with development of potential hull fouling rules through an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan will initiate local and inter-regional action to help to avoid or minimise the potential of human-caused impacts of marine pests on these ecosystems. This is in line with sub-action 2.7 of the draft Auckland Climate Action Framework to “Protect and enhance coastal and marine ecosystems to maximise carbon capture and resilience.”

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

41.     The proposed direction is consistent with the intent, set out in the Regional Pest Management Plan, to co-develop an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan.

42.     Auckland Council’s Marine Biosecurity team in the Environmental Services department and staff from the Natural Environment Strategy Unit in the Auckland Plan Strategy and Research Department support the preferred option.

43.     Staff will engage with the council group and key stakeholders as part of the plan consultation.

44.     Staff note that Auckland Council will have to assess consistency of potential new inter-regional hull fouling rules under the Biosecurity Act with marine rules agreed in principle through the Environment Court for addition to Auckland’s Regional Pest Management Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

45.     Local boards were informed about this initiative on 28 November 2018 through a memorandum which identified opportunities for local boards to provide feedback on the discussion document, including workshops on request and engagement activities as part of the consultation process.

46.     The following local boards expressed informal support for the development of an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan through workshops and emails between November 2018 and March 2019:

·    Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

·    Henderson-Massey Local Board

·    Rodney Local Board

·    Waitematā Local Board.

47.     Following public release of the consultation document in March 2019, information on the consultation process and channels for engagement were shared via email with all local boards (15 March 2019).

48.     Formal feedback from the Papakura Local Board on the consultation document was received on 18 July 2019. The Papakura Local Board supported option two leading towards option three and commented that ‘There should be regulations to manage the transfer of ballast water from one region to another’.

49.     A memorandum was sent to all local boards on 18 December 2019 to share results of the informal public consultation and to inform local boards on the next steps including opportunities to provide further input into this initiative.

50.     Workshops discussing the option analysis, identified preferred approach and recommended next steps by the Top of the North partners were held with Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board, Puketāpapa Local Board, Franklin Local Board and Waiheke Local Board in February 2020.

51.     All these local boards expressed their informal support for this initiative and identified preferred approach. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board wished to be kept informed about ongoing discussions that will particularly affect Aotea / Great Barrier such as implementation approaches, noting that the island is a “boating” area.

52.     Feedback from the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board was received on 2 March 2020, which expressed support for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan (see Attachment A). The feedback also noted the specific biosecurity risks for Aotea Great Barrier as a frequent gateway for craft travelling between regions. Suggestions for implementing the plan were also provided by the local board. This included investigating the introduction of an on-island hull cleaning facility.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

53.     Mana whenua feedback was received on Auckland’s proposed Regional Pest Management Plan from the following iwi, either through engagement in 2018 or through formal submissions to the Environment Court in February 2020:

·    Ngāti Paoa

·    Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

·    Ngāti Rehua

·    Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

·    Ngāti Manuhiri

·    Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

·    Te Uri o Hau.

54.     Representatives expressed support for additional provisions to improve environmental protection from marine pests, including support for adding marine pests to the Regional Pest Management Plan.

55.     Mana whenua feedback and input into the development of an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan was sought through hui in November 2017, and through workshops in March and June 2019. Representatives expressed general support for the development of a plan. Key feedback themes and factors for consideration in developing a plan included:

·    recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi in any regulatory framework

·    empowerment of mana whenua where possible, for instance the use of kaitiaki for surveillance

·    a national direction or pathway plan would be advantageous

·    a holistic approach be utilised that is cognisant of the relationship between different ecosystems (for example land use and its impact on the coastal marine area)

·    the impact of climate change

·    growing population and globalisation.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56.     Indicative costs for developing and adopting a project proposal under the Biosecurity Act are estimated to range between $660,000 and $954,000 (including twenty per cent contingency). Most of these costs are for internal staff hours ($380,000-$572,000) followed by external consultant and commissioner costs ($135,000-$188,000), materials ($20,000) and legal costs ($15,000). These costs would be shared between project partners.

57.     Existing budgets from regional funding and natural environment targeted rate funding can cover Auckland Council’s costs relating to the plan development process. Costs are expected to be split over two financial years.

58.     Top of the North working group members have started exploring costs and benefits (for example compliance, surveillance and education) of different potential hull fouling rules, but further work is required to identify costs and benefits from an Auckland perspective to meet requirements under the Biosecurity Act.

59.     The natural environment targeted rate provides for a level of marine pest management, currently based predominantly on education and voluntary compliance. The targeted rate would provide for some enforcement, but further analysis is required to determine whether existing budgets would allow Auckland Council to undertake a reasonable level of enforcement. This would comprise enforcement against a reasonable proportion of the Auckland boat fleet compared with expectations from other regions who are party to the inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

60.     Potential risks of the preferred option include:

·    lack of participation of Top of the North partners. If the preferred approach is not endorsed by all project partners (regions), then the collaborative Top of the North working group will assess opportunities to move forward. One option may be that remaining partners progress with development of a plan proposal under the Biosecurity Act 1993.

·    ability for regions to implement potential new rules. Top of the North partners identified components of a successful implementation programme and acknowledged that implementation efforts in each region will be at the discretion of each council depending on for example current levels of compliance, the number of vessels or craft in the region and available resources.

·    timeframe to complete an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan. If the plan takes a long time to be implemented, there is a risk that more marine pests will arrive and spread in New Zealand. Risk can be mitigated through adequate resourcing to plan preparation process, to ensure timely completion.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61.     If Auckland Council approves the recommended option, then the statutory process requirements under the Biosecurity Act 1993 need to be followed. These requirements are broadly similar to those followed in preparing Auckland’s Regional Pest Management Plan.

62.     If Auckland Council approves the recommended option, staff will present a proposed draft plan to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for approval for public consultation. At this stage, council will need to consider, and be satisfied of, a range of sections of the Biosecurity Act, including those relating to cost-benefit analysis, cost allocation analysis, and consultation processes.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Aotea Great Barrier inter-regional marine pest pathway feedback

53

     

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sietse Bouma – Team Leader Natural Environment Strategy

Samantha Happy – Senior Regional Advisor Marine Biosecurity

Imogen Bassett – Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Dave Allen – Manager Natural Environment Strategy

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

Auckland Council Submission on Taumata Arowai - the Water Services Regulator Bill

File No.: CP2020/00882

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve Auckland Council’s draft submission on central government’s Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       As part of central government’s wider Three Waters Review programme, Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Bill (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 17 December 2019.

3.       The Bill will establish a stand-alone regulatory body with responsibilities for drinking water safety, including administration of the drinking water regulatory system, as well as some responsibilities relating to the environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks.

4.       The draft Auckland Council submission (Attachment A) was developed with input from across the council group. Local Boards and mana whenua were also invited to provide input to inform the council submission.

5.       Auckland Council is broadly supportive of an independent regulatory body and a stand-alone regulatory framework to oversee the provision of safe drinking water for communities throughout New Zealand. However, the submission highlights several points for clarification and suggested changes within the Bill to fully achieve this desired outcome.

6.       The Water Services Regulator Bill is expected to be complemented by the release of the Water Services Bill in the coming months. The latter Bill is expected to provide more detail on the system-wide reforms to the drinking water regulatory system and is expected to have greater implications for the Auckland Council group. Auckland Council intends to submit on these more substantive reforms when the Water Services Bill is released.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)      endorse Auckland Council’s submission to central government’s Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Bill.

b)      delegate authority to the Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee to approve any minor changes necessary to the submission before the extended deadline of 17 March 2020.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Bill (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 17 December 2019, and while the official submission period for the Bill closed on 4 March 2020, the Health Select Committee Secretariat has permitted an extension for Auckland Council until 17 March 2020.

8.       The Bill implements the government’s decision to create a new regulatory body to oversee, administer and enforce the drinking water regulatory system, as well as make some improvements to the environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater systems.

9.       The Bill establishes Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator as a stand-alone Crown agent and provides for its objectives, functions, operating principles and governance arrangements.

10.     The Bill is part of a broader package of reforms to the regulatory and service delivery system of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater, known collectively as the Three Waters Review. The Three Waters Review was launched in mid-2017, in parallel to the latter stages of the Havelock North Inquiry into drinking water safety.

11.     Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Bill is expected to be complemented by a separate Bill (the Water Services Bill) in the coming months, which will give effect to decisions to implement system-wide reforms to drinking water regulation, and targeted reforms to improve the environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks.

Relationship to the Essential Freshwater Programme

12.     The Three Waters Review is a separate but related work programme to the Ministry for the Environment’s Essential Freshwater programme. The government released the Action for Healthy Waterways discussion document in September 2019, which outlined the proposals of the Essential Freshwater programme. This did not include information about the water services regulator, but it did note the government’s intent to amend the National Environmental Standards for Human Drinking Water and proposed a new National Environmental Standard for Wastewater Discharges and Overflows, along with additional requirements for risk management and environmental performance reporting for wastewater and stormwater networks.

13.     The council’s proposed submission on the Water Services Regulator Bill is aligned with the council’s October 2019 submission on the Action for Healthy Waterways discussion document. A memorandum outlining this earlier submission was provided to Planning Committee members on 25 November 2019 (Attachment B – covering memo only).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator

14.     Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Bill proposes the establishment of a new regulator, which will be a stand-alone Crown agent, with the objectives of:

·    protecting and promoting drinking water safety and public health outcomes

·    effectively administering the drinking water regulatory system

·    building and maintaining capability among drinking water suppliers and across the wider industry

·    giving effect to Te Mana o te Wai, to the extent that Te Mana o te Wai applies to the functions and duties of the regulator

·    providing oversight of, and advice on, the regulation, management and environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks

·    promoting public understanding of the environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks.

15.     While the regulator’s primary focus is drinking water, its functions include some national-level responsibilities for the environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks. However, regional councils (and unitary authorities) will remain the primary regulators of discharges from wastewater and stormwater networks.

16.     The regulator will be governed by a Board appointed by the Minister responsible for administration of the Act. A separate Māori Advisory Group, also appointed by the responsible minister, will support the drinking water regulator on how to uphold Te Mana o Te Wai, and how to enable mātauranga, tikanga Māori and kaitiakitanga to be exercised.

17.     The establishment of the regulator is anticipated to take around 18 months. An establishment unit, formed in the Department of Internal Affairs in October 2019 to lead this work, will be governed by a Transition Board that will be appointed in early 2020. The appointment of an interim Chief Executive was announced on 12 February 2020. Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Act is intended to come into force by 1 July 2021 at the latest.

Auckland Council’s submission on Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Bill

18.     Auckland Council staff have developed a draft submission on Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator Bill (Attachment A), which is generally in support of the proposed independent regulatory body (Taumata Arowai) and its mandate and responsibilities.

19.     To achieve the desired outcome of ensuring the continued provision of safe drinking water for New Zealand communities, Auckland Council suggests the following changes to the Bill:

·    amend the definition of drinking water supplier to include water carriers, to ensure safe drinking water is provided to the high number of consumers supplied with water from tankers

·    either amend the required collective experience and knowledge within the Board of Taumata Arowai, or introduce a separate advisory group, to ensure Taumata Arowai receives sufficient guidance from the water industry and those with knowledge of water infrastructure

·    acknowledge the regulator’s accountability to the public and the need for consideration of local community perspectives.

20.     Auckland Council also suggests the Bill is amended to include a stronger focus on managing the three waters as an integrated system, rather than focusing on managing each individual element separately. Further, we suggest Taumata Arowai should provide national-level guidance on integrated water management, and that this should be specifically referred to in its objectives and functions.

21.     In relation to integrated water management, Auckland Council seeks clarification on why the definition of stormwater network excludes all non-urban stormwater assets, such as flood-protection works and networks in private ownership, which are an important part of the three waters system.

22.     Auckland Council also seeks clarification on how the roles and responsibilities of Taumata Arowai and local authorities will overlap regarding wastewater and stormwater discharges and environmental protection. We see the regulation of environmental impacts being within council mandate under the Resource Management Act, and we believe this should remain the role of councils. We suggest any unnecessary duplication in reporting and enforcement relating to wastewater and stormwater networks is avoided in the implementation of Taumata Arowai.

23.     Auckland Council supports the requirement for Taumata Arowai to uphold Te Mana o te Wai. However, the council seeks clarification that localised expressions of Te Mana o te Wai also be considered, such as the Tāmaki Makaurau expression of Te Mauri o te Wai.

24.     Finally, the Bill does not cover the cost and funding mechanisms associated with establishing and operating Taumata Arowai. There are unanswered questions for Auckland Council on what the cost implications will be for the council group, including Watercare as a drinking water and wastewater provider, and for the people of Tāmaki Makaurau. We request that the upcoming Water Services Bill provides detail on these funding and financing elements.


 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25.     While the Bill does not directly reference it, climate change will have a significant impact on the three waters. For example, more frequent and longer dry periods will impact the availability of drinking water for large and small suppliers in the Auckland region. We note that this has the potential to increase reliance on water carriers to ensure continued provision of drinking water. Reflecting this, we have suggested in the submission that water carriers should be specifically included in the new drinking water regulatory system, to ensure this water is safe.

26.     The Auckland Council group will need to consider how it delivers and regulates the three waters in the complex and dynamic context of both central government reforms and a changing climate. Council group policies and strategies highlight the need to adjust how three waters services are delivered to reduce the associated emissions, and the need to prepare our water systems for the impacts of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27.     The proposed submission was prepared with input from council departments and council-controlled organisations.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

28.     Local Boards were invited to provide input to the council submission, and where they have provided feedback, this has been incorporated into the main body of the submission. The formation of the regulator is not expected to impact the role of Local Boards, but later stages of the Three Waters Review may impact local communities more significantly, such as how three waters services are received and how much they cost. Local Boards may provide more input when the Water Services Bill is released.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29.     Water is of critical importance to Māori, and mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau have identified the need to restore the mauri of the region’s waterways, and to maintain and preserve water for future generations.

30.     Mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau were invited to provide input to the council submission, and council staff will keep mana whenua updated as the Three Waters Review progresses.

31.     The proposed council submission recommends that Taumata Arowai and its Māori Advisory Group consider local mātauranga Māori and local interpretations of Te Mana o te Wai, including the focus of mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau on Te Mauri o te Wai.

32.     The drinking water reforms proposed in the Three Waters Review have the potential to impact marae and papakāinga, as these are examples of small suppliers that will be regulated by the new regulator. It will be important for Auckland Council to work with Māori, including mana whenua, to understand these implications, particularly when the upcoming Water Services Bill is released.

33.     Staff consulted with the Independent Māori Statutory Board and sought comment from mana whenua groups on the Bill. No comment was received from mana whenua.  It is the subsequent Bill that will likely be of more interest. IMSB staff confirmed that they had no additional points that they would like included in the council’s submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34.     There are no financial implications as a result of making a submission on the Bill.

35.     There are, however, long-term financial implications as a result of this Bill and the wider Three Waters Review. These are being explored at a national level as part of the review and should become clearer in the upcoming Water Services Bill.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     There are no risks arising from making the submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.     The approved Auckland Council submission will be submitted by the approved extension date of 17 March 2020.

38.     Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research staff will keep elected members informed on the release and submission period for the Water Services Bill, which is expected in the coming months. Council staff will continue to analyse the impacts of the Three Waters Review on the Auckland Council group as new information becomes available.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Auckland Council Submission - Taumata Arowai Water Services Regulator

61

b

Action for Healthy Waterways Memorandum November 2019

67

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Rebecca Forgesson - Analyst - Strategy

Ellie McNae - Senior Analyst- Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 


 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

Auckland Council submission on the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment's discussion document "Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency"

File No.: CP2020/02309

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve Auckland Council’s draft submission on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE’s) discussion document “Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency”

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       MBIE is consulting on options to accelerate renewable energy and energy efficiency through their discussion document “Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency”. The discussion document focusses on policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from stationary energy and builds on other government climate change workstreams.

3.       The proposed policy options are highly relevant for Auckland Council and CCO operations and the Auckland region. Stationary energy accounts for 26.6 per cent of Auckland’s regional emissions, and 52 per cent of Auckland Council’s operational GHG emissions. Reducing emissions from stationary energy is essential for meeting GHG emission reduction targets and successful implementation of Auckland’s Climate Action Framework (ENV/2018/11).

4.       Recent Auckland Council submissions on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill (ENV/2019/109), Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill support aspects of the discussion document. These include the need for complementary measures to the ETS for emissions reduction, requiring public disclosure of GHG emissions from large energy users, and support for the RMA to address climate change mitigation.

5.       The draft submission is therefore largely supportive of the discussion document and in addition to previous submissions, covers the following key themes; supporting policy options to address information failures, a regulated phase out of coal process heat and fossil fuel electricity generation, supporting financial incentives from government for renewable energy and energy efficiency and strengthening RMA direction on renewable energy.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)      approve Auckland Council’s draft submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on their Discussion Document “Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency”.

b)      authorise the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member to make minor revisions and approve the final submission before the deadline of 16 March 2020.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, which sets national greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets and creates a framework for achieving GHG emission reductions, was passed at the end of 2019. MBIE’s discussion document is part of central government’s work programme to transition New Zealand to a low carbon economy. It focuses on the role renewable energy and energy efficiency can play in lower GHG emissions from stationary energy.

7.       Stationary energy includes electricity and process heat fuels (e.g. natural gas) used by industry and in buildings. Stationary energy accounts for 26.6 per cent[6] of Auckland’s regional emissions, and 52 per cent[7] of Auckland Council’s operational GHG emissions. Reducing emissions from stationary energy is essential for meeting emission reduction targets.

8.       MBIE’s discussion document proposes a range of possible levers and policy options for accelerating renewable energy and energy efficiency. Auckland Council is responding to this discussion paper as the policies could have material impacts on operational and regional emissions.

9.       Auckland Council has made recent submissions on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, Resource Management Act (RMA) and the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) that support the discussion document. These include:

·     Agreement that measures complementary to the NZ ETS are required to achieve our GHG emission reduction targets

·     Agreement to public disclosure of GHG emissions from large energy users

·     Support for the RMA playing a role in addressing climate change mitigation and as a lever to improve energy efficiency and support low emissions technology

·     Support for developing National Environmental Standards (NES) and National Policy Statements (NPS) linked to national carbon budgets

10.     Consultation on MBIE’s Discussion Document closed on 28 February, however for Auckland Council this has been extended to 16 March to fit with Committee schedules.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.     The draft submission is summarised in the table below and was developed with input from Community Facilities, Waste Solutions, Environmental Services, the Chief Sustainability Office, Regulatory Services, Infrastructure Strategy and Watercare. Watercare’s input relates to section 10 only. The full submission using MBIE’s template is attached to this report

Section

Summary of submission

1.  Addressing Information Failures

·    Support disclosure of GHG emissions, energy efficiency actions and plans to reduce emissions from large energy users.

·    Support low-emission heating feasibility studies and information packages.

·    Support benchmarking in the food sector but suggest expanding this to areas relevant to Auckland Council and Local Government (e.g. water and wastewater treatment, aquatic centres and crematoriums).

2.  Developing markets for bioenergy and direct geothermal use

·    Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan is not a barrier to bioenergy.

·    Agree that a National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NESAQ) users guide would assist discharge consent applications.

·    Recommend the facilitation of anaerobic digestion (bio-gas) clusters rather than wood energy only.

·    Recommend facilitating markets through programmes similar to EECA’s Wood Energy and Wood Energy South programmes.

 

3.  Innovating and building capability

·    Agree that government should support de-risking and diffusing low-emission technology through direct financial support.

·    Recommend expanding the criteria for government investment in low-emission technology.

·    Agree that government should work directly with industry to build capability around novel energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

·    Agree to government support for low carbon roadmaps for heavy industry.

 

4.  Phasing out fossil fuels in process heat

·    Agree with regulations to ban new coal boilers and phase out coal-fired boilers for low – medium temperature requirements by 2030.

·    Recommend that government support for phasing out fossil fuels is expanded to natural gas as this is the Auckland Region’s primary process heat fuel.

·    Agree with government support for business to develop energy transition plans and recommend that this service is made available to small to medium heat users in addition to large energy users.

·    Agree with a timetabled phase out of fossil fuels given the need to provide certainty to industry. This can be enabled through changes to the RMA proposed in Auckland Council’s recent submission on the RMA.

 

5.  Boosting investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies

·    Agree that measures complementary to the ETS are needed to accelerate the transition to a low-emissions economy.

·    Recommend that this is delivered through financial incentives and regulation.

6.  Cost recovery mechanisms

·    Agree to a levy on coal similar to existing levies on electricity, natural gas and transport fuels.

·    Recommend that levy funds can be used for research and development funding for reducing GHG emissions in industry (e.g. coal in steelmaking).

7.  Enabling development of renewable energy under the RMA

·    Recommend further consultation is completed before including waste to energy in an amended National Policy Statement Renewable Energy Generation. Recognising that waste to energy may be an appropriate option for hard to manage single-source waste streams.

 

8.  Supporting renewable electricity generation

·    Support government to create a market for power purchase agreements and 100% renewable electricity using all of government procurement.

·    Agree that demand response markets are a priority for the energy market and recommend that government supports an integrated market for demand response.

·    Support a National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy generation (NPSREG) on waste to energy as it may be appropriate for hard to manage single stream waste sources. Albeit recommend retaining current resource consent requirement for waste to energy.

·    Support energy efficiency obligation for retailers with controls to make sure that the obligations are not socially regressive on customers.

 

9.  Facilitating local and community engagement in renewable energy and energy efficiency

·    Agree that community renewable energy projects should be supported recognising that there are resilience benefits to this.

·    Suggest that there are barriers to community energy not captured by the discussion document including lack of access to technical expertise, lack of a regulatory framework for community energy and lack of an integrated demand response market which would allow community renewable energy to capture more value.

·    Recommend government support community renewable energy through pilot projects and contestable funding.

 

10. Connecting to the National Grid

·    Improved reporting from MBIE on Electricity Demand and Generation Scenarios.

 

11. Local network connections and trading arrangements

·    Recommend that the roll-out of smart meters is leveraged to provide network pricing that encourages peak demand reduction which is predominantly fossil fueled.

Additional Comments

·    Recent Auckland Council submissions on the ETS, Zero Carbon Bill and RMA support aspects of the discussion document including

Agreement that measures complementary to the NZ ETS are required to achieve our GHG emission reduction targets

Agreement to public disclosure of GHG emissions from large energy users

Support for the RMA playing a role in addressing climate change mitigation and as a lever to improve energy efficiency and support low emissions technology

Support for developing National Environmental Standards (NES) and National Policy Statements (NPS) linked to national carbon budgets.

 

 


 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12.     Central Government policy and the options being consulted on are integral to accelerating deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency and thereby mitigating climate change. The recommendations and support for policy options, contained in the draft submission, will support GHG emission reductions from Auckland Council and Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) operations and the Auckland Region.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

13.     The recommendations and support for policy options, contained in the draft submission, will support GHG emission reductions from Auckland Council and CCO operations.

14.     Views from Auckland Council and Watercare, which are Auckland Council’s primary users of stationary energy, are included in the draft submission. Watercare’s input primarily relates to section 10 only.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

15.     A memo was sent to local boards on Thursday 27 February for their consultation. MBIE’s consultation timeframe has not enabled greater consultation. Local Board feedback will be presented at Committee and attached to the final submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

16.     Climate change will affect areas over which Māori have kaitiakitanga; impacting ecosystems, shaping community vulnerability and resilience, and will affect economic outcomes.  Increasing water scarcity and temperatures will impact Māori communities and businesses, including fisheries and forestry. Cultural sites may also be at risk from rising seas and coastal inundation.

17.     The recommendations contained in the draft submission will support mitigation of the effects of climate change through reducing regional and Auckland Council operational GHG emissions.

18.     In addition, the draft submission specifically recommends central government support for community renewable energy projects and support for Iwi to invest in distributed renewable energy.

19.     If adopted, this support will provide greater opportunity for Māori to develop geothermal and bioenergy assets and will lower the cost and improve resilience of electricity supply to communities.

20.     A memo was sent to the IMSB on Thursday 27 February for their consultation. MBIE’s consultation timeframe has not enabled greater consultation with the IMSB or engagement with Mana Whenua on the submission. The IMSB’s feedback will be included in the final submission.


 

 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21.     The draft submission recommends expanding central government financial support for renewable energy and energy efficiency. If this policy is adopted, it is anticipated that additional funding will be available for Auckland Council and CCO operations, industry across the Auckland region and community energy projects.

22.     Within the discussion document there are several policies that if implemented could increase energy costs. This includes increasing levies or requiring retailers to fund energy efficiency and renewable energy programmes. To mitigate cost-impacts, the draft submission recommends safeguards to ensure low-income and vulnerable customers and businesses already operating at best practice are not contributing to energy efficiency or renewable energy programmes that they don’t benefit from.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23.     Submitting on the discussion document will mitigate the risk that Central Government policy impacts Auckland Council’s and the region’s ability to meet GHG emission reduction targets.

24.     Auckland Council’s submission on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill discussed the importance of Central Government using all available levers to reduce GHG emissions. The discussion documents policy options relating to stationary energy are one of these levers.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25.     Following consultation, MBIE will be summarising the responses and providing a report on policy options to Cabinet.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

MBIE Discussion Document "Accelerating Renewable Energy" (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Auckland Council Draft Submission (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kirk Archibald - Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Manag

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

Environment and Climate Change Committee Forward Work Programme

File No.: CP2020/03126

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the committee’s forward work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This committee deals with the development and monitoring of strategy, policy and action plans associated with environmental and climate change activities.  The forward work programme has identified priority areas to focus the work of the committee. 

3.       The forward work programme identifies specific projects under eight headings:

·    Climate change mitigation and adaptation policy

·    Coastal renewals, slips and remediation

·    Protection and restoration of Auckland’s ecological health

·    Waste minimisation

·    Water

·    Natural Environment

·    Natural Heritage

·    Acquisitions

·    Other

4.       Projects are briefly described, noted as aligning to a specific priority of the committee and identified as requiring either decisions or directions from the Environment and Climate Change Committee.  Where possible, likely timeframes for the projects coming before the Environment and Climate Change Committee have also been identified.

5.       Staff will keep the forward work programme updated, the programme is subject to change and will be reviewed every six months

6.       The forward work programme will be appended as an information item on every committee agenda.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)      approve the Environment and Climate Change Committee forward work programme

b)      agree that the Environment and Climate Change Committees forward work programme be reported monthly for information and reviewed on a six-monthly basis.

 

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Environment and Climate Change Committee forward work programme

77

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Cr Richard Hills – Chair Environment and Climate Change Committee

Cr Pippa Coom – Deputy Chair Environment and Climate Change Committee

Authoriser

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

 

Kōmiti Mō Te Hurihanga Āhuarangi me Te Taiao / Environment and Climate Change] Committee
Forward Work Programme 2020

This committee deals with the development and monitoring of strategy, policy and action plans associated with environmental and climate change activities. The full terms of reference can be found here: [i Terms of reference].

This committee will meet bi-monthly commencing March 2020

 

Area of work and Lead Department

Reason for work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Expected timeframes

Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2020

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Climate change mitigation and adaptation policy

Strategic approach to Climate Change: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework

Chief Sustainability Office

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019] Link to decision

To provide a pathway to zero emissions by 2050 and ensure the region is prepared for the impacts of climate change.  This addresses Council’s commitments to develop a plan to keep within 1.5 degrees of warming and the Climate Emergency declaration.

 

Decision to approve Auckland Climate Action Framework

 

 

workshop

ACAF draft

workshop

 

Sign off

 

ACAF Launch

 

 

 

 

 

Climate lane for Long-term plan

Discuss an indicative Council climate action package

 

Decision to seek early input from the Committee on the indicative package, including:

·            priority areas

·            the scope, nature and scale of the package

·            gaps

·            key areas of focus for more detailed work

 

 

 

workshop

 

Workshop

 

workshop

workshop

 

 

 

Council Controlled Organisation’s Climate Change Update

 

To give elected member’s visibility of the work undertaken by CCOs to adapt & mitigate the impacts of climate change

For information: Currently providing CCO performance updates to the CCO Oversight Committee. The plan is for 1-2 CCOs to come present at this Committee meeting on their climate actions/programs

 

 

 

 

CCO Update

 

CCO Update

 

CCO Update

 

CCO Update

 

Coastal renewals, slips and remediation

Coastal Management Framework and delivery of individual coastal compartment management plans

Engineering and Technical Services

 

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

Coastal compartment management plans will apply a long term, sustainable approach to management of our coast over the next 100 years. Adaptive management plans will be developed in collaboration with mana whenua and communities. Plans will consider the experiences and values we place on the coast and how these may change over time due to coastal hazards and climate change.

Decision to be confirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whangaparāoa plan

 

 

 

Protection and restoration of Auckland’s ecological health

Urban Forest Strategy

Parks and Sustainability Office

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

Strategic approach to delivering on the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of a growing urban forest in the context of rapid population growth and intensification.

Decision to provide an update on the implementation of the strategy, and an update on the Lidar data and outcomes of the analysis of the urban forest canopy cover across the city.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Waste minimisation

Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund

Waste Solutions

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

Decision making over grants from the Fund in line with its adopted policy. Grants contribute towards council’s aspirational goal of zero waste to landfill by 2040.

Decision to approve allocation of grants for the 2020/2021 funding round.

 

Progress to date:

Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Establishment of the Waste Political Advisory Group

Waste Solutions

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

To provide feedback and guidance on implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

Decision to approve establishment of the group and appoint representatives from the committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation fund

Waste Solutions

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

Review the Fund, in line with the recommendations of the S17A Value for Money review.

Decision to approve any significant changes to the grant framework arising from the review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Update to the Resource Recovery Network Strategy

Waste Solutions

[From the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee 2013-2016]

To review strategy since it was adopted 5 years ago. This will support achievement of the council’s aspirational goal of zero waste to landfill by 2040.

Decision required: to approve the updated Resource Recovery Network Strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water

Auckland’s Water Strategy

Chief Planning Office

 

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

*ENV/2019/75

The health of Auckland’s waters is a critical issue. Both freshwater and marine environments in Auckland are under pressure from historic under-investment, climate change and rapid growth. The draft Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions.

Decision: Timing and decisions to be confirmed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality Targeted Rate Programme

 

Healthy waters and streams projects supported by the water quality targeted rate for projects that will ensure cleaner beaches, streams and harbours across the region

For information: Currently providing quarterly updates to the Finance and Performance Committee. End of year report will be provided to this Committee in September.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Healthy Waters Portfolio

Healthy Waters

 

 

There are several work programmes that require decisions from other committees but are relevant to the E&CC Committee.

 

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

Waitākere Ranges septic tank pump out scheme. Options are being consulted on as part of the Annual Budget. Decisions with the Finance and Performance Committee.

Rodney Drainage districts. Managing land drainage assets within Rodney and funding and responsibility for these assets. Decision making sits with Rodney Local Board and Finance and Performance Committee.

Clevedon wastewater. Possible opt-in targeted rate being proposed to the Governing Body as part of Annual Plan, decisions with the Finance and Performance Committee

For information: No decisions are required from Environment and Climate Change Committee at this stage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

End of year report

 

 

 

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM)

Natural Environment Strategy Healthy waters

 

 

 

 

 

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

The NPSFM being implemented, with periodic reporting to council committees on progress, and responding to ongoing central government refinement of the framework for achieving water outcomes. Decision making for this area of work will be split between the Planning Committee (for planning decisions such as Plan Changes) and Environment and Climate Change for non-statutory functions

The key non statutory function will be providing direction to watershed implementation plans. Development of council’s freshwater management tool will help inform decisions around interventions to improve water quality in Auckland.

Direction: To provide guidance on the council’s implementation of non-statutory functions under the National Policy Statement, such as development of watershed implementation plans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Environment

Natural Environment Targeted Rate Programme

Natural environment projects supported by the natural environment targeted rate will help protect the environment and tackle the pests, weeds and diseases that are threatening the native species

For information: Currently providing quarterly updates to the F&P Committee. End of year report will be provided to this Committee in September.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Environment Standards for human drinking water and wastewater discharges and overflows

 

Healthy Waters and Natural Environment Strategy

 

National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water

National Environmental Standard for Wastewater Discharges and Overflows.

The National Environmental Standards will have a significant impact on the council family and so the council will provide input into these. Further detailed opportunity to provide Auckland Council input on specific regulatory proposals awaiting advice from MFE.  Not linked to release of Water Services Bill.

Dates for the release of these NES are anticipated to be in the earlier part of 2020.

Note: Overlap with Planning Committee

Decision to provide feedback on the Water Services Bill which are expected to be released in 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Heritage

Regional Pest Management Plan

Environmental Services

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

Council has statutory obligations under the Biosecurity Act to control weeds and animal pests. The purpose of work in 2020 will be to resolve any remaining appeals against the plan and complete final steps required for it to become operative.

Decision to update the committee when the plan becomes operative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan

Environmental Services

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

To manage the spread of marine pests to avoid or minimise their negative impacts on the environment.

 

Decision to approve a preferred option for management of marine pests and development of a plan under the Biosecurity Act

Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appointment of the Weed Management Political Advisory Group

Community Facilities

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

Establishment of a political advisory group to provide feedback and guidance on implementation of the Weed Management Policy.

Decision to approve establishment of the group and appoint representatives from the committee.

To consider any decisions from the Political Advisory Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kauri dieback work programme update

Environmental Services

 

 

 

[From the Environment and Community Committee 2016-2019]

The natural environment targeted rate included a $100m package to improve the protection of kauri in Auckland.  The work programme includes a significant track upgrade package to reduce the spread of kauri dieback, as well as funding for education, enforcement, monitoring, treatment and research.

 

 

Decision to approve council’s ongoing implementation of our regional kauri dieback management work programme.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grants

Allocation of the Regional Natural Heritage Grant

Environmental Services

 

Decision-making over regional environment fund as per the grants funding policy and fund guidelines. Funds to contribute to council’s goals related to protecting our natural environment.

Decision to confirm allocation of grants for the 2020/2021 funding round.

Progress to date:

Link to decision

Report on progress to date expected November 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allocate grants

 

Review of the council’s natural environment grants

Environmental Services

To review the council’s various natural environment grant schemes and ensure that these are well aligned to regional priorities and grants from other external parties.

Decision to approve any recommended changes to the council’s natural environment grants arising from the review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acquisitions

Land acquisition for stormwater purposes

Healthy Waters

 

Delegated responsibility of the committee.

To acquire land for stormwater management purposes, to prevent flooding, support growth, renew existing assets or improve water quality as required.

Decision to acquire land. Reports will come to committee as required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 March 2020

 

Summary of Environment and Climate Change Committee information memoranda and briefings - 12 March 2020

File No.: CP2020/00467

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda or briefing papers that may have been held or been distributed to Environment and Climate Change Committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to the Environment and Climate Change Committee members via memoranda/briefings or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following memos were circulated to members of the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

Date

Memo

27/02/2020

Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

14/02/2020

State of our Gulf 2020 – Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana / Te Moana-nui-ā-Toi State of the Environment Report 2020.

10/02/2020

Auckland Council’s submission on the Waste Levy

22/01/2020

Preparing Auckland Council’s submissions on central government’s Taumata Arowai – Water Services Regulator Bill and Water Services Bill

19/12/2020

Proposed marine pest additions to the Regional Pest Management Plan arising from an Environment Court appeal

02/12/2019

Safeswim media release

27/11/2019

St Mary’s Bay water quality improvement project

 

4.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

Date

Workshop/Briefing

19/02/2020

Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum – Attachment H

26/02/2020

Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework – Attachment I

4/03/2020

Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework

 


 

5.       These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o   at the top left of the page, select meeting/ Kōmiti Mō Te Hurihanga Āhuarangi me Te Taiao “Environment and Climate Change” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

6.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Governing Body members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a)      receive the Summary of Environment and Climate Change Committee information memoranda and briefings – 12 March 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Memorandum - Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Memorandum State of our Gulf 2020 – Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana / Te Moana-nui-ā-Toi State of the Environment Report 2020  (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Memorandum - Waste Submission Levy (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Memorandum - Taumata Arowai submission, 20200122 (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Memorandum - Inclusion of marine pests in the Regional Pest Management Plan, 20191219 (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Memorandum Safeswim, 20191202 (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

Memorandum - St Mary's Bay water quality improvement project, November 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

h

19/02/2020 Environment and Climate Change Committee workshop - Kaitaiki Forum (Under Separate Cover)

 

i

26/02/2020 Environment and Climate Change Committee workshop -Auckland Climate Action Framework (Under Separate Cover)

 

j

4/03/2020 Environment and Climate Change Committee workshop -Auckland Climate Action Framework (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Suad Allie - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

          



[1] As defined in the Maritime Transport Act 1994: Ballast water means water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship to control the ship’s trim, list, draught, stability, or stresses.

[2] As defined in the Biosecurity Act 1993: Craft means an aircraft, ship, boat, or other machine or vessel used or able to be used for the transport of people or goods, or both, by air or sea; and includes (i) an oil rig; and (ii) a structure or installation that is imported by being towed through the sea.

[3] Clean hull rules Option One is equivalent to rules agreed in principle for addition to the Regional Pest Management Plan through Environment Court mediation.

[4] While regional pest management plans do not apply to as yet unknown future pests which are not named in the plan, in contrast a pathway plan is future proofed against new species by focussing on common ways in which pests are spread, which more effectively manages emerging marine pest risks in the mid to long-term.

[5] Foley, M.M. and M. Carbines (2019). Climate change risk assessment for Auckland’s marine and freshwater ecosystems. Auckland Council technical report, TR2019/015.

[6] https://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/media/1057/tr2019-002-aucklands-greenhouse-gas-inventory-to-2016.pdf

[7] Auckland Council Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2018 / 2019