Agenda of Environment and Climate Change Committee

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.

1 Apologies

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

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 10 September 2020, 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: Sustainable Business Council - Kate Ferguson

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Kate Ferguson, Manager Climate, Sustainable Business Council will be in attendance to address the meeting regarding their Briefing to Incoming Government on Climate Action priorities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Kate Ferguson, Climate Manager – Sustainable Business Council and thank her for attending.

5.2 Public Input: New draft National Toxicology Program systematic review - Kane Tichener

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Kane Tichener will provide an update to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on the new draft National Toxicology Program systematic review.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Kane Tichener and thank him for his attendance.

5.3 Public Input: New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects - Climate Change - Dr Matthew Bradbury

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Dr Matthew Bradbury - New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects, will address the committee on developing practical solutions to help Auckland build resilience to the effects of climate change.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Dr Matthew Bradbury, New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects and thank him for attending

5.4 Public Input: Weed Management Advisory - Hana Blackmore - Regional Review Weed Management Urban Corridor

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Hana Blackmore from the Weed Management Advisory will address the committee regarding Regional Review - Weed Management Urban Road Corridor.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Hana Blackmore, Weed Management Advisory and thank her for attending.

5.5 Public Input: For the Love of Bees -Sarah Smuts-Kennedy - Weed Management

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Sarah Smuts-Kennedy – For the Love of Bees, will address the committee regarding the harmonisation of weed control for Auckland city streets and its impact on the environment and climate change.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Sarah Smuts-Kennedy - For the Love of Bees and thank her for attending.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

6.1 Local Board Input: Waiheke Local Board - Consultation on hard-to-recycle plastics and single-use items: Submission approval

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Chair Cath Handley, Waiheke Local Board will be in attendance to address the meeting regarding the agenda item, Consultation on hard-to-recycle plastics and single-use items submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Cath Handley, Chair Waiheke Local Board regarding the consultation on hard-to-recycle plastics and single-use items submission and thank her for attending.

6.2 Local Board Input: Kāipatiki Local Board - Project Streetscapes - Weed Management

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Chair John Gillon and Deputy Chair Danielle Grant will be in attendance to address the committee regarding project streetscapes – weed management.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Kāipatiki Local Board regarding Project Streetscapes – weed management and thank Chair John Gillon and Deputy Chair Danielle Grant for attending.

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 November 2020

Project Streetscapes – Regional Review of Weed Management in the Road Corridor

File No.: CP2020/15386

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek an endorsement from the Environment and Climate Change Committee to standardise weed management methods on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel on urban roads in the Auckland region, from which variations can be funded locally.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council manages edges and weeds on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel of more than 5,055km of urban road corridor for statutory, asset protection, amenity and health and safety outcomes. The service level is the same across Auckland. However, the methodologies, either plant based, synthetic herbicides or thermal e.g. hot water/steam, differ between local board areas. This reflects the continuation of legacy council approaches.

3. The frequencies, method of delivery and volume of product differ by methodologies resulting in an inequality in the budget required to meet the same service level by location.

4. In April 2019, Auckland Transport transferred services and budget to the council’s Community Facilities department to manage weeds within the road corridor on their behalf. Auckland Transport retains responsibility for the road corridor as per the Local Government Act 1974 and the Land Transport Act 1998. The New Zealand Transport Authority partially funds maintenance of the road corridor.

5. The transfer was completed as part of Project Streetscapes, a variation to the Community Facilities outcome-based maintenance contracts. Project Streetscapes did not include the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

6. Part of the project included a review of the methodologies for a recommendation on a regionally consistent approach to address the inequality in funding. Rural roads are not included due to differences in population, roading infrastructure and land use in rural areas. The review also does not include pest plant control.

7. The evaluation criteria for the review include:

· environmental impacts

· community input

· mana whenua engagement

· the council’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan

· the objectives of the council weed management policy for effective, efficient, and sustainable outcomes.

8. The recommendation of the review is for the council to address inequality of weed management between local boards through standardising methodologies across the region. The recommended standard regional methodology is a combination of plant-based herbicide and glyphosate. A combination methodology is best practice in that it can control a wider range of weeds than one methodology alone. The recommended combination methodology is estimated to lead to a reduction in glyphosate, carbon emissions and water usage across the region while achieving effective control and minimising herbicide resistance. There would be an increase in plant-based herbicide. The approach is estimated to be achievable within existing region-wide operational budgets.

9. Detail on the different weed control methods, estimated environmental and budget impacts, as well as the recommendation for a standardised approach was reported to local boards in September 2020 (Attachment A). Feedback on the recommendations differed between local boards. Local board feedback is summarised in Attachment B.

10. Recommendations are to be presented at the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 12 November 2020 for endorsement, before being presented to Auckland Transport for a final decision.

11. If there was a decision to standardise, there would be no change in operational practice until all the options for local boards to fund a customised methodology have been provided and local decisions have been made. Options for funding could include local board discretionary funding or localised targeted rate funding.

12. Should new methodologies or technology become available that can maintain service levels at the same or lower costs and environmental impact, Community Facilities contractors will have the flexibility to adopt these with the approval of Auckland Transport.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) endorse the recommendation to achieve equitable weed management in the road corridor through standardising weed management methodologies across the region

b) endorse the recommended standardised regional methodology for edging and managing weeds on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel across more than 5,055km of urban roads, from which variations can be funded locally.

Horopaki

Context

13. Community Facilities carries out edging and weed management on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel across more than 5,000 kilometres of Auckland urban roads. This is done for asset protection and amenity, as well as health and safety outcomes, including:

· preventing root intrusion causing damage to the road surface, kerb and channel, footpaths and other road assets

· ensuring vegetation growing in the kerb and channel does not interfere with water flow

· ensuring the safety of pedestrians and road users by maintaining clear sight lines and minimising trip hazards

· maintaining the streetscape in a tidy and aesthetically pleasing condition.

14. Auckland’s moderate and wet climate makes the area particularly vulnerable to the detrimental effects of weeds. The climate causes vigorous growth, easy establishment and increased infestation of weeds. The road corridor provides a dynamic environment for the spread of weeds including through vehicle and water dispersal.^{^[1]}

15. Uncontrolled weeds on footpaths and the kerb and channel cause damage that can lead to increased repairs and renewals with a funding and environmental impact. This damage may create trip hazards, putting people at risk.

16. Agrichemicals are used for edging and weed control in the urban road corridor. Edging is required on both sides of the road, which is over 10,000km of footpaths and berms. The Auckland Council Weed Management Policy guides the use of herbicide by the council and supports best practice weed control.^{^[2]} All agrichemical use must follow the rules of the Unitary Plan, which ensures that - when used correctly - agrichemicals can make a positive contribution to sustainable land use.^{^[3]}

17. The outcome-based contract specifications for the road corridor do not permit herbicide application outside schools or early learning services on days that these institutions are in use. There are limitations on the time of spraying in urban areas and the contract specifications include instructions to not complete weed control where the berm is clearly being maintained by the adjacent property owner.^{^[4]}

18. All of Auckland is covered by a No-Spray Register for berms adjacent to private property. Any resident who agrees to manage weeds to a specified standard can apply to ‘opt out’ of weed management completed by the council, through recording their intent on the no-spray register. Residents can register through a dedicated form on the council website or through the council call centre.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Weed Management in the Road Corridor

19. The service level outcomes for edging and weed management on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel are the same across Auckland. However, the methodologies for their maintenance - either plant based, synthetic herbicides or thermal e.g. hot water/steam - differs between local board areas. In some cases, different methods are used within the same local board boundaries.

20. These differences reflect the weed control methods and herbicides that were used by the legacy councils of Auckland City Council, Manukau City Council, Waitākere City Council, North Shore City Council, Papakura District Council, Rodney District Council and Franklin District Council prior to amalgamation. The employment of these methods has different budget implications which is reflected in a current regional inequality.

Synthetic herbicide, e.g. glyphosate

Plant based herbicide e.g. Biosafe

Thermal e.g. hotwater/steam/hotfoam

(glyphosate is required on high volume roads and to address persistent weeds)

Combination of synthetic and plant-based herbicide

21. In April 2019, Auckland Transport transferred services and budget to the council’s Community Facilities unit to manage weeds within the road corridor. Auckland Transport retains responsibility for the road corridor as per the Local Government Act 1974 and the Land Transport Act 1998. Funding for weed management in the urban road corridor comes from Auckland Council and NZ Transport Agency (NZTA).

22. Edging and weed management on footpaths, berms and the kerb and channel are part of the outcome based Full Facilities contract for streetscapes. These also include pest plant control, mowing, town centre cleaning and waste removal completed on behalf of Auckland Transport and NZTA.

23. Community Facilities has continued with the legacy approach for edging and weed control on hard surfaces, while completing a review of the methodologies with recommendations to the Environment and Climate Change Committee and Auckland Transport. The review is for the urban road corridor, reflecting the differences in population, roading infrastructure and land use in rural areas. The scope of the review and recommendations does not include the Hauraki Gulf Islands or pest plant control.

24. The evaluation criteria for the review’s recommendations to address regional inequality includes environmental impacts, water efficiency strategy, community input, mana whenua input, the council’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan and the objectives of the council weed management policy for effective, efficient, and sustainable outcomes.

25. Table one below, outlines the current state and potential benefits of standardising the methodology across the region and how this informs the recommendation.

Table 1: Weed management in the road corridor current state to future state analysis

Current state	Options
Regional inequality	Equitable baseline across the region
Set budget	Options for funding could include local board discretionary funding or localised targeted rate funding
No local decision making	Localised decision making with community consultation
Prescribed legacy practices	Innovation with regular reviews

Auckland Council – People’s Panel

26. In October 2019, a People’s Panel survey was conducted as one mechanism to gauge how Aucklanders view management of weeds on footpaths and kerbs. The survey was sent to 39,789 members of the People’s Panel. They were provided with the information on the council website on the different methodologies.^{^[5]} However, at the time of the survey estimated emissions, volume of herbicide and cost were not available.

27. Of the 5,686 respondents, 66 per cent said that they ‘care’ about the weeds on footpaths and kerbs. The results showed that 43 per cent of respondents use synthetic herbicide (e.g. glyphosate) for weed management on their own property. Fifty-two per cent responded that synthetic herbicide (e.g. glyphosate) was the least preferred method of council weed management in the road corridor.

28. Nineteen per cent were willing to pay higher rates for the council to use alternatives to synthetic herbicide, 42 per cent were not willing to pay extra, and 36 per cent may be willing to pay more.^{^[6]}

29. There are members of the community that believe glyphosate should not be used by Auckland Council.

Regional Review Recommendation

30. For the review recommendation, analysis was completed to estimate quantities of water, herbicide and operational carbon emissions per methodology. Further detail on the methodologies and estimated impacts is provided in Attachment A.

Table 2: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the different weed management methodologies

Methodology	Advantages	Disadvantages
Synthetic herbicide – glyphosate	Particularly effective on broadleaf weeds and grasses. Low cost, low frequency of application as it kills weeds down to the root. Glyphosate is used by most road controlling authorities in New Zealand to control vegetation in the road corridor.	Risk of community objection to the use of glyphosate. Restricted weather conditions and locations for application. Herbicide resistance in some species.
Plant-based herbicide	Reduction in glyphosate used by council for weed control. Immediate effect on weeds.	Needs to be applied to young or small plants for acceptable weed control. Increased frequency, as they do not kill down to the root, and higher concentrations resulting in a greater volume of herbicide compared to glyphosate. Plant-based herbicide requires additional budget compared to glyphosate. The product is corrosive and has a strong odour. Restricted weather conditions and locations for application.
Thermal technology steam/hot water/hot water with a foam additive	Thermal technology does not use herbicide. Can be applied in any weather. Immediate effect on weeds.	The best time to treat weeds with thermal methodologies is soon after germination, which requires an increased frequency. Thermal technology requires additional budget compared to herbicide. High water usage, 10 to 12 litres per minute, and carbon emissions from the diesel boilers required to heat the water. Spot spraying with glyphosate is required on high volume roads and to address persistent weeds.
Combination of plant based and synthetic herbicide e.g. glyphosate – recommended option	An estimated region-wide reduction in the use of glyphosate, carbon emissions and water use. An integrated approach to weed management can control a wider range of weeds than one methodology alone. Reduction in risk of plants developing glyphosate resistance.	An increase in herbicide use in some local board areas.

31. The proposed recommendation for Auckland Transport and local boards to address the inequality with a standardised regional methodology to manage weeds. The recommended methodology is a combination of plant-based herbicide and glyphosate for spot spraying. The recommendation is expected to reduce glyphosate, water usage and carbon emissions region wide, with an increase in the use of plant-based herbicide. There are different impacts depending on the local board. The recommendation would:

· reduce glyphosate use in 10 local boards, with an increase in plant-based herbicide

· increase glyphosate use in 2.5 local boards by including it with plant-based herbicide (this would reduce the total volume of herbicide)

· replace thermal methods with plant-based herbicides in four local boards (partial for Upper Harbour and Hibiscus and Bays local boards)

· see no change in two local boards.

32. The recommendation is estimated to be cost neutral reflecting the additional investment required in some locations. There would be significant additional budget required to standardise to plant-based herbicide or thermal methodologies over 5,000km of road corridor. Standardising to glyphosate would result in cost savings.

33. Thermal methodologies, including hot foam, are not recommended for a region-wide approach, due to their high emissions, water usage and cost. Reducing the number of applications of thermal methodologies would reduce this impact (per year, it would lead to an increase per treatment). However, there would be an increase in the need for supplementary control, glyphosate, to achieve weed management service levels.

34. The exclusive use of plant-based herbicide is not recommended due to the additional volume of herbicide required and cost. This is because plant-based herbicides are not systemic, i.e. they do not kill down to the root, they have to be applied more frequently and at a higher concentration than glyphosate to meet service levels. Although plant-based herbicides can kill annuals, generally they will not kill longer lived mature perennial weeds.

Reducing environmental impacts and supporting innovation

35. If there is a decision to standardise methodologies across the road corridor, there will be no change in operational practice until all the options for local boards to fund a customised methodology have been investigated and local decisions have been made.

36. Regular reviews would be incorporated into the implementation of the weed management and localised arrangements. Community Facilities suppliers have environmental Key Performance Indicators within their contracts, including reduction of herbicide, water and carbon to support continual innovation to achieve effective, efficient, and sustainable outcomes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37. Climate change adaptation - changes in Auckland’s climate may alter the prevalence and spread of weeds within the road corridor. In the future, different methodologies and products may need to be considered depending on weed species.

38. Climate change mitigation - Auckland Council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan on 21 July 2020 which includes the reduction target for council to halve its carbon emissions by 2030 and reach zero net emissions by 2050.

39. The choice of weed management methodologies has an impact on the council’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that a regionwide adoption of thermal methodologies would lead to an increase in carbon emissions at an estimated 1,335 tons^[1] or approximately five per cent of the council’s operational emissions for 2018/2019.

40. This reflects the energy required to heat large volumes of water to 98 degrees with diesel boilers. The increase for the regional adoption of this methodology would impact on the council’s ability to meet the reduction targets of the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan, as our contractor’s operational emissions are included within our inventory.

41. A full lifecycle emissions assessment was not part of the scope of the Regional Review. Lifecycle emissions are all emissions related to the activity, including the manufacture of the equipment used (vehicles and water heaters) transport of the product, herbicide, or water and emissions related to manufacturing. However, an analysis from staff on available information, found that lifecycle emissions analysis was not likely to be material to the recommendation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. Community Facilities undertakes the maintenance of green spaces within the road corridor under contract to and on behalf of Auckland Transport. Auckland Transport “manages and controls” the Auckland transport system as per the Local Government Act 1974 and the Land Transport Act 1998.

43. Auckland Council adopted a Weed Management Policy for parks and open spaces in August 2013 (resolution number RDO/2013/137). The weed management policy is to guide the management of weeds in Auckland’s parks and open spaces, including the road corridor.

44. The recommendation for a standardised approach has been provided in consultation with Auckland Transport^{^[7]} and with consideration of the objectives of the weed management policy. The direction from the Environmental and Climate Change Committee will be taken to Auckland Transport for a final decision.

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

Local impacts and local board views

45. The recommendation is to address the funding inequality with a standardised methodology was presented to local boards in September 2020. Feedback on the recommendations differed between local boards, see table below. Local boards have been advised that they have the option to fund a different methodology.

46. If there was a decision to standardise There would be no change in operational practice until all the options and budget for local boards to fund a customised methodology have been provided and local decisions have been made.

Table 3: Summary of local board feedback on the recommended methodology

Current	Local Board	Impact	Feedback
Glyphosate	Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges and Whau	Reduce glyphosate and increase plant-based herbicide	All of these boards support an approach to weed management that reduces the use of glyphosate and takes into account wider environmental impacts such as water usage and carbon emissions.
Combination of synthetic and plant-based herbicide	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Ōrākei (except for Ellerslie which is only plant-based).	No change	Both of these boards support an approach to weed management that reduces the use of glyphosate and takes into account wider environmental impacts such as water usage and carbon emissions.
Plant-based	Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa and Waitematā (excluding the CBD).	Introduction of glyphosate to reduce levels of plant-based herbicide	Two of the three local boards do not support a regionalised approach and believe that the methodology for weed management should reflect local concerns and character. Puketāpapa Local Board note that public feedback is against synthetic herbicide, and that they would see this change as a reduction in service levels.
Thermal with spot spraying of glyphosate for persistent weeds	Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Hibiscus and Bays (except areas formerly covered by Rodney District Council) and Upper Harbour (except areas formerly covered by Waitākere City Council)	Introduce plant-based herbicide to replace thermal with glyphosate for difficult to manage weeds.	Most of these boards are against a standardised regional approach and believe that weed management should reflect local concerns and character.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

47. The recommendations of the review take into consideration the Weed Management Policy, with the objective to minimise agrichemicals, and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework which were developed in consultation with Mana Whenua.

48. An overview of the current methodologies and the priorities of the review were presented at the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua hui in 2019. In October 2020 the analysis and recommendations of the review was presented to Mana Whenua in at the Parks and Recreation - Mana Whenua Engagement Forum for feedback. Mana Whenua were supportive of the recommendations of the review to reduce carbon and glyphosate. They gave direction to council to continue to seek alternatives to glyphosate.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49. Weed management in the urban road corridor is delivered as part of the Community Facilities maintenance contracts, including mowing and vegetation control.

50. For the purpose of the Project Streetscapes review, supplier costings^{^[8]} for a regionally consistent approach were requested as an indication of differences by methodology. The difference in pricing for alternative methodologies compared to glyphosate was expected and is aligned with national and international examples. They reflect the difference in frequencies, method of delivery and volume of product required to meet service levels.

51. In October 2020 to support clarification for funding options further information was requested from suppliers. This resulted in a reduction in the estimated costing including herbicide application, reflecting reduced labour cost if the service was delivered by one operator rather than two. The cost of thermal can be reduced with different frequency of application and supplementary control as detailed in the 2015 comparison of methodologies completed by Auckland Transport (see Attachment C).

52. Final aggregated costings from Community Facilities suppliers can be confirmed once regional and local decisions and any variations are completed. This will include procurement to ensure costings reflect market rates and ensure that the overall cost of delivery for the region stays within existing budget. Rates will not be supplied by individual supplier reflecting the commercial sensitivity.

Table 4: Estimated cost of weed management methodologies per kilometre per annum^{^[9]}

Methodology	Estimated cost per km (p.a)	Estimated cost (p.a) across 5,055km
Synthetic herbicide e.g. glyphosate	$575	$2,906,625
Combination of plant based and synthetic herbicide	$1,050	$5,307,750
Plant-based herbicide e.g. biosafe	$1,500	$7,582,500
Thermal technology steam/hot water/hotfoam^{^[10]}	$3,200	$16,176,000

53. The recommended approach to Auckland Transport and local boards, is a combination of plant-based herbicide and spot spraying of glyphosate for difficult weeds, is estimated to be able to be delivered within the existing operational budgets from Auckland Transport and NZTA.

54. To standardise thermal and plant-based methodologies across the region would require an increase in budget to meet weed management service levels.

55. If there was a decision to standardise, there would be no change in operational practice until all the options for local boards to fund a customised methodology have been provided and local decisions have been made. Options include locally-driven initiatives (LDI) funding or a targeted rate to cover the cost difference between the agreed regional weed management method and their preferred alternative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

56. Risks and mitigations for this project are provided in Table 4.

Table 5: Risks and mitigations of the decision to standardise to regional weed management methodology

Options	Risk	Mitigation
Endorse no change	Continuing with legacy arrangements, with inconsistent funding.	Communication on the rationale for any decision to continue with legacy weed management methodologies.
Endorse standardising funding for weed management in the urban road corridor	Depending on the impact by local board, there would be different financial impacts	There would be no change in operational practice until all the options for local boards to fund a customised methodology have been provided and local decisions have been made
Endorse standardising weed management methodology in the urban road corridor (recommended option)	Depending on the impact by local board, there would be different environmental and social impacts, including community concern.	Local board decision-making enables the prioritisation of funding for local priorities and the services that their communities most value.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

57. Depending on the direction from the Environment and Climate Change Committee staff will seek approval from Auckland Transport on the recommendation to standardise for weed management methodologies in the urban road corridor, from which local variations can be funded.

58. Staff will update the Environmental and Climate Change Committee on the Auckland Transport decision and timeline for local board engagement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Comparison of weed management methodologies	21
b ⇩	Combined local board feedback	27
c ⇩	Weed Control Methodology Table	29

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jenny Gargiulo – Principal Environmental Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Ian Maxwell - Director Executive Programmes

Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 November 2020

Achieving Better Outcomes for the Manukau Harbour

File No.: CP2020/15126

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To report back on the evaluation of recommendations in the Manukau Harbour Forum Governance and Management Support Review report within the context of broader outcomes sought for the Manukau Harbour.

2. To support a council-wide approach to improving environmental outcomes for the Manukau Harbour.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Manukau Harbour is a taonga (a treasure) and provides many values to the communities around the harbour and to the wider Auckland region and beyond. Concerns have been raised for many years about the poor state of the harbour, in terms of water quality, ecological health, and cultural health/mauri.

4. The Manukau Harbour Forum (the forum) was established in 2010 by the nine local boards bordering the harbour to advocate for and collaborate on improved harbour outcomes.

5. In 2019, the forum commissioned a review of its governance and management support. The Manukau Harbour Forum Governance and Management Support Review provided a suite of recommendations addressing the forum’s continuity, structure and governance, visibility of work programmes in the harbour and its catchment, support from council staff, and engagement with mana whenua.

6. The review report was endorsed by the forum in August 2019 and presented to the Environment and Community Committee in September 2019. The committee resolved to refer the report to staff in the Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research (APSR) department for evaluation and workshopping with the appropriate committee.

7. Staff have evaluated the review report recommendations and a workshop was held with the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 2 September 2020. Staff evaluations have been presented to the forum at workshops in February, June and October 2020, and via a memorandum dated 9 April 2020.

8. In response to the review report and to improve outcomes for the Manukau Harbour, staff have suggested a number of initiatives to improve visibility, accountability and oversight of initiatives in the harbour and catchment within Auckland Council responsibilities. Specifically, it is recommended that Auckland Council better integrates its key outcomes, priorities and forward work programme.

9. Staff suggest a future next step is to begin building better relationships between Auckland Council and mana whenua around the Manukau Harbour.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) receive a staff evaluation of the 2019 report entitled Manukau Harbour Forum Governance and Management Support Review.

b) support:

i) continuation of the Manukau Harbour Forum

ii) increased visibility of Auckland Council initiatives in the harbour and catchment at local, regional and national levels

iii) a synthesis report of findings from the 2020 State of the Environment reporting relevant to the Manukau Harbour

iv) the Environment and Climate Change Committee receiving annual updates on work programmes affecting the harbour to provide greater oversight and accountability for those programmes

v) strengthened collaboration and engagement with mana whenua on projects and programmes affecting the harbour, building on existing relationships

vi) development of projects to improve environmental outcomes for the harbour (which may be eligible for central government funding, rather than funds acquired through council).

c) support building better relationships between Auckland Council and mana whenua around the Manukau Harbour.

Horopaki

Context

10. The Manukau Harbour is the second largest natural harbour in New Zealand (by area). The harbour’s productive intertidal flats, large number and diversity of coastal birds, coastal vegetation cover, and importance to fish contribute to its very high ecological value.

11. The Manukau Harbour is significant to Māori. The Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim (WAI-8), along with various Iwi Management Plans, outline the historic importance for the many villages and pā clustered around it. It provided for waka movements, including to the Waikato River. The harbour is important for mahinga kai, with snapper, flounder, mullet, scallop, cockle and pipi once available in plentiful amounts.

12. Despite its importance, the overall water quality and ecological health of the Manukau Harbour is not in a good state.

13. Water quality monitoring results indicate significant improvements since the 1950s, but nutrient levels remain a key concern. These arise predominantly from high intensity rural and urban land uses throughout the catchment and discharges of treated wastewater. Some water quality issues are a legacy of historic activities, but some issues are ongoing.

14. Results of ecological health monitoring show variability in the health of monitored sites both across the harbour and over time at individual sites, but the overall ecological index grade remains low. Enclosed harbour inlets or tidal arms, particularly adjacent to older urban and industrial areas, generally have lower ecological health than open, extensive intertidal flats.

15. Concerns about the state of the harbour are long-standing. WAI-8 raised concerns about water quality, ecological damage, and loss of fishing grounds in the harbour in 1985, and iwi have echoed these concerns in the years since (e.g. through Iwi Management Plans).

16. A range of agencies have statutory responsibilities to protect and enhance environmental values in the Manukau Harbour. Auckland Council is responsible for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in the harbour and its catchment under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Figure 1 outlines the various parties with responsibilities for, and influence over, outcomes for the Manukau Harbour.

Figure 1: Parties with responsibility for Manukau Harbour outcomes, and levels harbour initiatives are undertaken.

17. Harbour outcomes can be achieved through national, regional, and local initiatives, e.g.:

· central government directions, e.g. the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management and Te Mana o te Taiao – the Aotearoa NZ Biodiversity Strategy

· regional strategies and policies, such as the Auckland Plan 2050, Auckland’s Unitary Plan, Auckland’s Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy, and the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

· region-wide initiatives, such as those funded through the Water Quality and Natural Environment Targeted Rates, and initiatives on local and regional park land

· local initiatives and projects undertaken by local boards, communities, and mana whenua, such as indigenous plantings, litter clean-ups, and education and awareness.

The Manukau Harbour Forum

18. The Manukau Harbour Forum comprises representatives of the nine local boards bordering the harbour. It was established by these nine local boards in 2010 in response to concerns about the health of the harbour. The purpose of the forum is to provide for collective local board advocacy on issues affecting the harbour and foreshore, and to champion its sustainable management on behalf of their communities.

19. The forum does not have direct decision-making powers beyond initiatives driven by member local boards. It can influence regional/national decisions through its advocacy role.

20. The forum has a small annual budget to deliver on a work programme which funds a Manukau Harbour Forum Coordinator and a youth wānanga. This is managed and delivered by Infrastructure and Environmental Services. Historically this programme has also delivered a symposium and harbour litter clean ups.

The Manukau Harbour Forum Governance and Management Support Review

21. In 2019, the forum commissioned an external review of its performance, structure, governance and management to attempt to address concerns around continued poor outcomes for the harbour. The resulting report, the Manukau Harbour Forum Governance and Management Support Review (‘review report’), acknowledges that there have been some notable successes for the Manukau Harbour but notes several issues. It identifies 18 recommendations across the following six themes:

· continuity of the Manukau Harbour Forum

· mana whenua relationships

· stocktake of activities

· resourcing and operational support

· structure and governance

· state of the harbour.

22. The review report was received and endorsed by the forum at their meeting in August 2019 (MHFJC/2019/29). It was then presented to the Environment and Community Committee at its final meeting in September 2019. Committee members resolved to refer the review report and its recommendations to the relevant committee in the new term of council with evaluation and advice to be provided by the APSR department (ENV/2019/146).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. Staff have considered some underlying issues that lead to the review report. In 2019, the Manukau Harbour Forum:

· had poor visibility over the range of activities undertaken across the council group to improve Manukau Harbour outcomes

· noticed increasing publicity around initiatives in other Auckland coastal environments

· continued to observe poor outcomes in the Manukau Harbour, such as poor water quality for swimming, biodiversity loss, and sedimentation.

24. In evaluating the review report, staff acknowledged that environmental outcomes for the harbour are delivered by different agencies and at national, regional and local levels (see Figure 1). The focus of the evaluation was to identify how Auckland Council can help deliver better environmental outcomes for the harbour within its statutory responsibilities.

25. Staff workshopped initial recommendations with the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 2 September 2020, and feedback has been incorporated into this committee agenda report.

Response to the Manukau Harbour Forum Governance and Management Support Review

Continuity of the Manukau Harbour Forum

26. The review report recommends the Manukau Harbour Forum continue. Staff support this recommendation as the forum provides a useful basis for local board collaboration and advocacy. Only the Manukau Harbour Forum itself and its member local boards would have the ability to disestablish the forum.

Stocktake of Activities

27. The review report provided a high-level stocktake of activities within the Manukau Harbour and its catchment, while acknowledging limitations such as poor visibility across the council group. It recommended a more comprehensive stocktake with improved consideration of and reporting on Manukau Harbour outcomes in all council group work programmes.

28. In mid-2019, Natural Environment Strategy (NES) staff prepared a separate stocktake of council group activities in the Manukau Harbour and its catchment. This followed a similar exercise for the Hauraki Gulf, prepared for the Auckland Council Sea Change Political Reference Group.

29. Staff have now combined information from both stocktakes and added new activities initiated since August 2019. Further work has been done to identify local community, landowner, and stakeholder initiatives, and to assess key national and regional strategies and policies with relevance to environmental outcomes in the Manukau Harbour.

30. This stocktake is presented in Attachment A. Staff recommend keeping this stocktake updated and sharing it widely to increase the understanding of initiatives being undertaken at national, regional and local levels that contribute to Manukau Harbour outcomes.

State of the Harbour Reporting

31. The review report recommended that a State of the Harbour report be prepared to provide a baseline understanding of the harbour and its catchment, and to use the findings to develop a prioritised work programme. The review report also recommended using relevant tools developed by council departments and council-controlled organisations to inform priorities.

32. Staff in the Research and Evaluation Unit have confirmed that a synthesis of findings from long-term state and trend reporting on the Manukau Harbour will be completed in early 2021, following Auckland Council’s region-wide State of the Environment reporting released in February 2021. The synthesis of data on the state of the Manukau Harbour and catchment will focus on components of Auckland Council’s long-term State of the Environment reporting, including water quality and ecological health.

33. The council-focused state of the harbour information, along with the stocktake of activities, can inform Auckland Council’s forward work programme in the Manukau Harbour and its catchment.

Operational Support and Resourcing

34. The review report recommended a paid position be established as a forum coordinator. This has been actioned through the forum’s budget, which is managed by Infrastructure and Environmental Services. The coordinator, working with council staff, focuses on supporting the forum’s advocacy role and joint local board initiatives such as engaging with harbour community groups and their initiatives.

35. A cross-council working group has been established to progress work relating to the recommendations in this committee agenda report and will continue to work together.

Mana Whenua Relationships

36. The review report included recommendations to improve mana whenua engagement with the forum, and funding to support this.

37. In the short term, staff recommend all groups undertaking initiatives to improve outcomes for the Manukau Harbour, including local boards, council departments and the forum, engage and collaborate with local mana whenua entities on a project or programme basis. Existing mana whenua relationships should be recognised and leveraged. For example, the Improving Māori Input into Local Board Decision-Making project is looking into how four southern local boards can improve mana whenua influence of local board decision-making.

38. In the Environment and Climate Change Committee workshop on 2 September 2020, members discussed the likely benefit of developing a collaborative approach with mana whenua for the Manukau Harbour.

39. Mana whenua have expressed a desire for increased participation in council processes as both mana whenua and the council seek to improve the health and wellbeing of the Manukau Harbour.

Governance and Structure

40. The review report included recommendations to add councillor (Governing Body) representation to the Manukau Harbour Forum, and to explore options to increase the status and accountability of the forum through changes to its membership and/or structure.

41. In the 2 September workshop, Environment and Climate Change Committee members indicated a preference to explore a new approach to governance with mana whenua, rather than altering the membership and role of the Manukau Harbour Forum.

42. The 2012 deed of settlement between Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and the Crown records that cultural redress in relation to the Manukau Harbour (and also the Waitematā Harbour) will be developed in separate negotiations. It is anticipated Treaty settlement redress for the Manukau Harbour will involve the creation of a statutory co-governance body, with equal participation by mana whenua and council, and powers and responsibilities broadly consistent with Treaty settlement arrangements over natural resources elsewhere.

43. While timeframes for Treaty settlement negotiations over the Manukau Harbour are unknown, the potential for harbour-wide relationships between mana whenua and Auckland Council would be beneficial, in anticipation of any future Treaty settlement arrangement.

44. In the short- to medium-term, staff recommend that the Environment and Climate Change Committee take a greater role in overseeing and holding the council group accountable for Manukau Harbour outcomes.

45. Staff recommend that a report outlining Auckland Council initiatives and achieved outcomes for the harbour be developed on an annual basis for presentation to this committee or to any future governance arrangement focused on the Manukau Harbour. The report should identify activities of consequence to the harbour and encompass reporting on adverse environmental outcomes arising from some initiatives.

46. It is not proposed that formal councillor membership is added to the forum, but that the relationship between Environment and Climate Change Committee and the forum is strengthened (e.g. through informal councillor attendance at forum meetings).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47. Climate change will impact on the Manukau Harbour in various ways: storm surges, both increased and decreased flows into the harbour, biodiversity impacts etc. The proposed recommendations do not have any direct climate impacts and are of a nature that cannot be measured in terms of either emissions or adaptation.

48. The recommendations and next steps do however provide the opportunity to ensure greater focus on climate change action in terms of future decision-making, work programmes and better climate impact assessments of current and future projects and initiatives.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

49. Staff from across the council group have been involved in preparing this advice, including the Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research; Infrastructure and Environmental Services; and Governance departments. Staff will continue to work collaboratively to progress next steps.

50. Departments across the council group have a role to play in delivering better environmental outcomes for the Manukau Harbour. The stocktake in Attachment A demonstrates a broad range of existing initiatives, but new, accelerated or improved initiatives are likely needed in some areas to achieve desired outcomes for the harbour.

51. The stocktake provides better transparency across the council group, enabling more robust decision-making and clearer understanding of roles and accountabilities for all parties.

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

Local impacts and local board views

52. The review report was initiated and funded by the Manukau Harbour Forum, with support from its member local boards: Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waitākere Ranges and Whau.

53. Staff have provided updates to the forum on the evaluation of the review report, at their meetings on 14 February, 4 June, and 16 October 2020 and via a memorandum provided in April 2020. Feedback from the forum was invited throughout this process.

54. Forum members expressed their view that their priority is to improve outcomes for the harbour, and for it to be recognised as a taonga. The proposed changes to the Auckland Council approach to more explicitly consider harbour outcomes in a more integrated way across a range of functional disciplines contributes to this outcome.

55. The existing forum is expected to continue in its role as advocate for the harbour, and local boards will continue to contribute to local projects that improve environmental outcomes. Many local board funded initiatives are welcomed by the local communities they serve, and are much appreciated as part of a wider array of regional initiatives of relevance to the harbour. Greater transparency of all contributing activities will serve the overall aim of maintaining and improving harbour outcomes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

56. The Manukau Harbour is a taonga for many Māori, with at least twelve iwi having rohe that cover part or all of the harbour, and many Māori (both mana whenua and mataawaka) living around the harbour today.

57. Making available a council-wide stocktake of council activities of consequence to the harbour will assist in the dialogue that already occurs through more specific programmes of council work and their inter-relationship.

58. The potential to explore better relationships between Auckland Council and mana whenua responds to a long-stated desire by mana whenua groups for greater involvement in decision-making processes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

59. The recommendations largely involve consolidating, assessing and making more explicit the council’s work programmes, as delivered through a variety of avenues. The costs associated with this activity can be met from existing departmental budgets.

60. Projects to improve environmental outcomes for the harbour, as per recommendation b)(vi), will likely need additional funding, either via Long-term Plans, central government funding pools (e.g. Jobs for Nature, Freshwater Improvement Fund, etc.), or a combination of both. Such future programmes and projects require further development, evaluation and consideration across a range of disciplines before being integrated into a strategic approach.

61. Initial work required to explore improving mana whenua relationships with Auckland Council can be met within existing budgets. Some reprioritisation of work activities may be necessary to support such an initiative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62. The Manukau Harbour and Manukau Harbour Forum have received significant media attention over the past year. There is a reputational risk to Auckland Council if achieving Manukau Harbour outcomes are not progressed as required by resource management law and expected by communities. Greater transparency of the council’s broad work programme will help to improve clarity both internally and externally.

63. Mana whenua have long expressed their desire to see the health of the harbour improved. Exploring the potential for building better relationships between Auckland Council and mana whenua would be a positive recognition of the relationship mana whenua have to the harbour, and our approach to addressing improved harbour outcomes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

64. The Manukau Harbour Forum will continue in its current role.

65. Staff will continue to keep the stocktake (Attachment A) up to date, with updates being provided to both this committee and the Manukau Harbour Forum. The Environment and Climate Change Committee will provide greater oversight and accountability for work programmes affecting the Manukau Harbour.

66. The Auckland Council State of the Environment 2020 report is scheduled to be released in February 2021, with a further synthesis of findings for the Manukau Harbour expected to be completed by April 2021.

67. The stocktake and State of the Environment reporting can be used to assess gaps and opportunities in Auckland Council’s work programme for the Manukau Harbour.

68. The Long-Term Plan 2021-2031, through the climate, environmental management, regulatory, water, and ‘council services’ lanes, will consider funding council activities that benefit the harbour. In addition, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research staff can continue to evaluate and advocate to other departments the need to better integrate the range of environmental outcomes sought with other outcomes with a bearing on the harbour.

69. There is an opportunity to seek funding from central government through the large funding pools that have been made available at present (e.g. Jobs for Nature, Freshwater Improvement Fund) to expand activities that improve harbour environmental outcomes. There may be another opportunity to advocate for central government funding in 2021, as subsequent funding rounds become available, and council priorities are clearer.

70. Exploring improved harbour-wide relationships between Auckland Council and mana whenua could be progressed through a range of avenues with further consideration and dialogue. This would ensure that any subsequent proposed approach is fit for purpose.

71. Achieving outcomes for the Manukau Harbour requires thoughtful consideration going forward and will have to specifically consider:

· clarity on the outcomes sought (recognising different expectations)

· prioritising within these outcomes

· identification of all parties that need to be involved

· investigating potential funding sources and mechanisms to achieve the outcomes

· acknowledging mana whenua involvement throughout these steps.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Stocktake of strategies, policies, programmes and initiatives at national, regional and local level that impact environmental outcomes in the Manukau Harbour	45

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Rebecca Forgesson - Analyst - Strategy

Sietse Bouma - Team leader - NES

Authorisers

Dave Allen - Manager Natural Environment Strategy

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Ian Maxwell - Director Executive Programmes

Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 November 2020

Auckland Water Strategy Forward Work Programme 2020-2021

File No.: CP2020/15113

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Forward Work Programme for the Auckland Water Strategy including scope of work and options for approach.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Water Strategy is in the Terms of Reference for the Environment and Climate Change Committee. This report responds to the request from the September Committee meeting that a Forward Work Programme be prepared and presented to the Committee.

3. Staff propose taking a multi-stage approach to strategy development. This will enable the options and approaches in each outcome area to take account of related work programmes and drivers, and will enable elected members to provide direction on complex issues, and enable Mana Whenua involvement, in an ongoing manner.

4. Options in each outcome area would be developed in a series of workshops through 2021, prior to endorsement of any direction at a Committee meeting. Adoption of the final Strategy is targeted for October 2021.

5. While preliminary discussions have been had regarding mana whenua involvement, additional discussions are needed with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum and Iwi Chairs in late November. Officers will discuss the outcome of those meetings with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee, and work with them to finalise the Forward Work Programme to reflect any recommendations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) adopt the scope of the Auckland Water Strategy, including that the strategy will be directive, apply to the whole Council Group, and will establish measurable outcomes, targets and approaches out to 2050, with a robust monitoring and reporting framework

b) endorse a multi-stage approach to strategy development, which will include Environment and Climate Change Committee workshops throughout 2021 on specific outcome areas

c) note that preliminary discussions have been had with the co-chairs of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum and the Independent Māori Statutory Board regarding mana whenua involvement in the project but that details of an approach to mana whenua involvement is yet to be discussed with the full Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (meeting scheduled for 19 November) and the individual Iwi Chairs

d) note that council officers will update the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee of the outcome of discussions regarding Māori involvement in late November

e) agree that the Chair and Deputy Chair approve any changes to the project timeframes and approach for the Strategy project following receipt of that advice.

Horopaki

Context

6. The Auckland Plan 2050 includes some high-level approaches for how we can prioritise the health of water in Auckland / te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau: by adopting a te ao Māori approach to protecting our waters, adapting to a changing water future, developing Aucklanders’ stewardship, restoring our damaged environments, protecting our significant water bodies, and using Auckland’s growth to achieve better water outcomes.

7. Auckland's Climate Action Plan acknowledges that climate change will mean a changing water future. Integrated, adaptive planning approaches and water-sensitive design are identified as key enablers of a climate-ready Auckland.

8. Council Group does not have a Water Strategy. The Strategy is intended to direct investment and action across the Council Group in the water space. It will articulate a vision, targets and approaches required to achieve them.

9. The Auckland Water Strategy project began as a response to the 2017 Section 17A Value for Money review of three waters across the group. The s17A review observed that Auckland did not practice integrated three waters management and that a Three Waters strategy must provide ‘a definitive performance framework and agreed set of outcomes.’

10. A recommendation of that work was for Council to produce a Three Waters Strategy (drinking water, wastewater and stormwater). At the end of 2017, Auckland Council began the Auckland Waters Strategy and expanded its the scope from three waters infrastructure to include marine water, ground water and natural water bodies, as well as cultural health, hazards and access for recreation.

11. The initial project ran from 2017-2019 and resulted in a discussion document (Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei), which was publicly consulted on in early 2019. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum^{^[11]} proposed that ‘te Mauri o te Wai’ be at the centre of the strategy as the vision for Auckland’s waters. This was incorporated.

12. The Discussion Document established a high-level vision for Auckland’s Waters, key values, issues and principles. The discussion document did not discuss or establish targets, actions or a performance framework. Council’s Environment and Community Committee adopted the Discussion Document for the next phase of work: strategy development.

13. The Water Strategy is in the Terms of Reference of Council’s Environment and Climate Change Committee 2020/21. A noting report was presented to the Committee in September this year. That report provided a summary of the progression of the Strategy to date. The report also included a high-level timetable for the Water Strategy and water investment in the Long-Term Plan 2021/31.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. Staff note that, for an Auckland Water Strategy to be successful, it must provide clarity on issues, outcomes, targets, key actions, roles and responsibilities related to water. This must in turn be monitored, evaluated and reported on. In this way the Strategy will be able to direct resources towards measurable outcomes. This means that key actions are identified in the strategy for resource allocation. Potentially, existing resource allocation is challenged too. The Strategy must also create ways of feeding back an evaluation of progress and any changes in the operating environment into new strategy-making: this is adaptive strategy.

15. Acknowledging this, council expectations of the Auckland Water Strategy are that it should:

· be a ‘directive blueprint’ – establishing clear, directive policies and approaches for the Council Group for 2021-2050+ but allowing for adaptive approaches as they may arise

· direct future Long-Term Plans, Asset Management Plans, CCO Statement of Intents etc.

· benchmark the Auckland region where applicable against comparators in Aotearoa NZ and abroad 

· identify measurable outcomes and set targets

· identify priority actions for investment/resourcing

· identify effective implementation processes

· set clear monitoring, evaluation and reporting parameters and requirements.

16. This strategy approach reflects a newer way of working for council and responds to the requests for clear and directive strategy from CCOs and operational departments at council parent as well as the recommendations in the 2017 s17A review and 2020 CCO Review Panel report.

Scope of the Auckland Water Strategy

17. Water is a holistic, inter-connected issue. Because of the complex nature of the water space, council has described the Auckland Water Strategy as having six strategic areas. All areas are inter-connected and, while they are described separately, will be treated holistically when determining ultimate outcomes. A high-level description of these is below:

Area	Description
Supply & Demand	Access to water for use is essential to life, and critical for public health and the economy. This area will have a particular focus on municipal supply (Watercare), community supplies and non-potable supply (Watercare and Council) and will also consider broader issues of allocation by Council as the regulator.
Cultural Health	Water holds special significance to Māori. Mana whenua whakapapa to significant water bodies and have kaitiaki obligations to protect them. The degradation of the mauri of these water bodies has significant impacts on the ability of mana whenua to exercise these obligations.
Ecosystem Health	The protection and enhancement of the ecological health and mauri of waterways (freshwater streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands, and their coastal receiving environments) and the species within them will be addressed in this area. Improvement will require a systems approach that incorporates action on-the-ground and improved planning frameworks.
Recreation & Amenity	Public access to safe water bodies provides opportunities for recreation, wellbeing and tourism.
Evolving Hazards	Water-related hazards will affect communities and community assets. Climate change is likely to drive increasingly intense storm events, coastal erosion, and localised floods.
Governance	Strong, enduring governance will be key to ensuring the strategy’s successful implementation.

18. An indication of the key issues that the Strategy will provide direction on is included in Attachment A. It is likely that our understanding of key issues will evolve as work on the outcome areas progresses – there may be issues that are added, and some that drop off. This will reflect both the development of our evidence base, feedback from key parties and input from related work programmes. Elected members will be advised of the issues under consideration in each outcome area prior to workshops.

19. There are two broad approaches to strategy development that could be taken – a multi-stage or a single-stage approach. These are outlined below. In both cases Council Group staff will work collaboratively to develop options advice.

Option one: (recommended) Multi-Stage Approach

20. The Water Strategy will provide direction across a range of areas, many of which are also impacted by other programmes of work e.g. the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, Auckland Council’s Too Much Water Policy, Long-term Plan 2021-31 and central government’s work on the 3 Waters system. A staged approach to strategy development would allow elements to be progressed independently, and for the outputs of related work programmes to be reflected and/or influenced.

21. A staged approach to strategy development would also allow elected members to provide direction on complex issues, and allow for Mana Whenua involvement, in an ongoing manner.

22. In a multi-stage approach, the intention for each given element is for:

1. staff to complete evidence-based options analysis with recommendation.

2. staff workshop advice with Mana Whenua and with Environment and Climate Change Committee members. Staff would circulate a memo describing any recommendations for targets and approaches in advance of that workshop.

3. the recommended targets and approaches are subsequently taken to an Environment and Climate Change Committee meeting for endorsement.

23. In mid-2021 all areas will be combined with targets and approaches assessed holistically across the water space. Staff then intend to take a full Water Strategy – including the combined suite of targets and approaches – to an Environment and Climate Change Committee meeting in October 2021 for adoption. This is shown in green in the diagram. (The approach reflects that taken to date with discussions under the Supply and Demand outcome area).

Figure 1: Depiction of multi-stage approach to developing the Auckland Water Strategy

Timeframe

24. The first workshop with the Environment and Climate Change Committee will focus on the Supply and Demand outcome area. The order in which the other outcome areas will be brought before the Committee is yet to be determined (see table below). Some workshops will cover multiple outcome areas.

Table 2: Indicative timeframes for workshops and meetings on the Auckland Water Strategy

Topics	Committee Workshop	Meeting
Supply and Demand	February 2021	February 2021
TBC	March 2021	April 2021
TBC	May 2021	June 2021
TBC	July 2021	August 2021

25. Work over the November 2020 – January 2021 period will clarify the evidence base and level of additional work required to develop options for each outcome area, and consequently the order in which they are likely to be brought to the Committee. Staff intend to provide this refined workshop programme to elected members in January 2021.

Option two: Single-Stage Approach

26. Alternatively, staff could fully develop a strategy for committee to workshop and approve. This approach would reduce the number of workshops with elected members and Mana Whenua.

27. This would limit the opportunity to explore and provide direction on particular issues but may streamline the process and reduce the amount of staff time used in workshops over the life of the project.

28. This approach is not recommended as it would limit the opportunity for elements of the strategy to be reflected in other work programmes across council as they are developed. It is unlikely that the Committee would have a workshop on the Strategy until September 2021. This would likely limit the value of the Strategy.

29. Given the complexity of the issues involved, and the inter-relationships with several other work programmes, a single-stage approach is not recommended.

Figure 2: Depiction of single-stage approach to developing the Auckland Water Strategy

30. Issues and challenges regarding water were canvassed with the public through the Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei discussion document. The scope and timeline for the Water Strategy do not provide for additional public engagement at this stage.

31. The proposed Strategy scope describes technical analysis and option development. Council decisions made as a result of that analysis may or may not require further public engagement. If so, there may also be opportunities for the Strategy to leverage off any public engagement required for related programmes (e.g. NPS-FM). Whether to engage publicly on the Water Strategy can be decided later as council decisions become clearer. A decision is therefore not required at this stage.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. Water and climate change are intrinsically linked.

33. The physical impacts of climate change will lead to a broader range of implications both specifically for water management in Auckland, as well as for related issues such as energy supply, social welfare, food security and Māori land and water rights. The water infrastructure that is built in future may also include significant embodied emissions depending on its nature and form.

34. The projected impacts of climate change on Auckland’s aquatic environments, and the associated risks are detailed in two key report series: the Auckland Region Climate Change Projections and Impacts (http://www.knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publication/?mid=1747&DocumentType=1&) and the Climate Change Risk in Auckland technical report series (http://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publication/?mid=2807).

35. The decision to endorse the proposed forward work programme will not directly impact on emissions. However, an Auckland Water Strategy must be cognisant of the twin challenges of adapting to our changing water future as a result of climate change and mitigating further climate impacts through emissions reductions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36. The decisions in this paper will not have an immediate significant impact on the council group as they are limited to the scope and approach of the Auckland Water Strategy project. That said, the Auckland Water Strategy will direct action, including investment decisions, policies and approaches, across the Council Group. This includes those of the CCOs. Council Group staff will work collaboratively to develop options advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. Water is a significant issue at a national, regional and local scale. While the targets and approaches determined through the Auckland Water Strategy will sit at a regional level, their implementation is likely to have significant local impacts.

38. Council staff are exploring options to involve local boards in the process for workshopping elements of the Strategy. Staff will keep the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee informed of any developments and their potential impacts on timeframes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

Significance of Water to Māori

39. Every iwi and hapū has associations with particular waterbodies – streams, springs, rivers, lakes, wetlands, groundwater, estuaries, harbours – that are reflected in their whakapapa, waiata, and whaikorero tuku iho (stories of the past). Protecting the health and mauri of our freshwater ecosystems is also important for food, materials, customary practices, te reo Māori, and overall well-being.

40. The significance of water to Māori is recognised at a national level, for example through central government’s Essential Freshwater package and the establishment of Kāhui Wai Māori – the Māori Freshwater Forum. It is also recognised in key regional and iwi level strategic documents in Tāmaki Makaurau, for example through the IMSB Māori Plan, the Auckland Council Māori Outcome Framework and individual Iwi Management Plans.

41. Water is recognised as a significant issue in the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum’s 10-year Strategic Plan, particularly objectives relating to fulfillment of member iwi’s roles as kaitiaki, and that te mauri o te wai be improved and enhanced. Involvement in the Auckland Water Strategy also features in the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum’s Annual Plan for FY21.

42. Mana whenua priorities were incorporated into the Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei framework that now guides strategy development. In particular, the vision ‘te mauri o te wai’ which was gifted to this kaupapa by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum.

Māori and the Auckland Water Strategy Forward Work Programme

43. The Chief of Strategy was scheduled to discuss Māori involvement in the Auckland Water Strategy project with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on 22 October. That hui was cancelled due to a number of external factors and now that hui is scheduled with the Forum on 19 November.

44. Staff will contact Iwi Chairs regarding engagement at an iwi level.

45. Officers recommend that the Committee endorse the multi-stage approach described in this paper. This approach and indicative timeline could then be adjusted to reflect feedback from the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum and Iwi chairs. Staff will work with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee to finalise.

46. This would enable work on the Strategy to progress, while allowing the final process to incorporate Māori preferences for involvement.

47. It would also allow for an appropriate process to engage mataawaka.

48. Staff advise that Māori engagement progress as a priority.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49. The decisions in this paper do not have any direct immediate financial impact as the resources for the development of the Strategy will be drawn from existing budgets.

50. The Auckland Water Strategy will have implications for financial decision-making once adopted. These will be considered and elaborated on in any options advice provided to elected members at the proposed workshops and financial decisions will be made through the Finance and Performance Committee.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. Council faces significant risks (financial, environmental and reputational) due to the absence of a clear, directive Water Strategy. The recommendations in this report seek to establish a process to address those risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. Staff will speak with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on 19 November and contact Iwi Chairs regarding engagement at an Iwi level.

53. Staff will discuss the outcomes of these meetings with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee and work together to finalise any changes to the Forward Work Programme.

54. Staff will commence work developing options in each of the outcome areas, in preparation for workshops in early 2021. The first workshop will focus on Supply and Demand.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Overview of Water Strategy Outcome Areas	69

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Toby Shephard - Lead Strategist

Ellie McNae – Principal Analyst Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Ian Maxwell - Director Executive Programmes

Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 November 2020

Consultation on hard-to-recycle plastics and single-use items: Submission approval

File No.: CP2020/15028

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation on hard-to-recycle plastics and single-use items.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 12 August 2020, the Ministry for the Environment released a consultation document looking into options for reducing the environmental impacts of hard-to-recycle plastics and single-use items.

3. As the initial consultation period for this document was due to close on 4 November 2020, the Environment and Climate Change Committee considered this consultation and Auckland Council’s draft position at the September 2020 committee meeting. The committee delegated final approval of the submission to the Chair, Deputy Chair and Independent Māori Statutory Bord Member Glenn Wilcox (Resolution ECC/2020/41).

4. The Ministry for the Environment has subsequently extended the timeframe for submissions to 4 December 2020. The final draft submission is now presented to the committee for their consideration and approval.

5. The consultation document, Reducing the impact of plastic on our environment: Moving away from hard-to-recycle and single-use items, presents eight options to reduce the environmental impacts of plastic products (see Attachment A).

6. It identifies a preferred option of a mandatory phase-out (option six), similar to New Zealand’s recent plastic bag ban. This option would result in a legislated phase-out of PVC and polystyrene packaging (for example, biscuit, meat, yoghurt or sushi trays made from #3 or #6 plastics), oxo-degradable plastics, and up to seven single-use plastic items (including plastic straws, drink stirrers and fruit stickers). Oxo-degradable plastics degrade quickly when exposed to light or oxygen but remain in the environment as smaller pieces of plastic.

7. Auckland Council’s Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau - Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 supports moves to reduce environmental and human health harm caused by residual waste. Plastic waste is one of three priority waste streams identified in the plan.

8. Previous council submissions have supported using the legislative tool outlined in this consultation to phase out single-use plastic shopping bags, introducing mandatory product stewardship for plastic food and beverage packaging, and requiring permits for exporting plastic waste materials.

9. In summary the Auckland Council draft submission (Attachment B) supports the preferred option outlined by the Ministry for the Environment for a mandatory phase-out of hard-to-recycle plastic packaging and single-use plastic items. It also notes that a combination of the options considered could be utilised to best promote and implement these changes.

10. The submission also supports the mechanisms proposed to enable this mandatory phase-out but asks for quicker timelines for implementation wherever feasible.

11. Staff have consulted with the Waste Political Advisory Group, local boards, internal stakeholders, and Council-Controlled Organisations on the draft submission. The input of these groups is reflected in the text of this submission.

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. Staff have ensured the submission aligns with these values, and the schedule of issues of significance identified in the Māori Plan 2017.

13. Following feedback from members of Auckland Council’s Disability Advisory Panel the submission recommends excluding plastic straws from the list of single-use items for phase-out. The panel highlighted that there is not yet a reasonable alternative available that is approved by the disability community.

14. The submission also now advocates for the inclusion of wet wipes designed to be flushed down the toilet in the list of single-use items for phase-out. This is in response to feedback from Watercare about the significant impact these items have on our waterways, in terms of blockages and microplastics.

15. The submission acknowledges concerns with plastic bladders which are used for the export and import of goods. The recommendation is to include these items in the Ministry for the Environment’s future work programme, including investigating and supporting alternatives.

16. Staff have also worked with local boards who are providing their feedback on the council’s draft submission. Their submissions will be appended to the final council submission. Ten local boards provided feedback in support of the council’s draft submission that is included in a summary in Attachment C to this report and the full text of their resolutions will be appended to the council’s final submission.

17. At the time of writing this report some feedback from local boards and the Waste Political Advisory Group was not yet received, as the deadline was set around the closure date for submissions in early November rather than the report deadlines for November. Some feedback may still be received. These will be addressed in the final submission and appended. Staff do not anticipate substantial changes at this time.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Climate Change Committee:

a) approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation on hard-to-recycle plastics and single-use items

b) delegate authority to the Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee to approve any minor changes to Auckland Council’s final submission on the consultation on hard-to-recycle and single-use plastics.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Reducing the impact of plastic on our environment: Moving away from hard-to-recycle and single-use items: Ministry for Environment Consultation Document	77
b ⇩	Auckland Council submission on hard-to-recycle plastics and single-use items consultation	153
c ⇩	Summary of Local Board Feedback on Reducing the impact of plastic on our environment consultation document and council submission	171

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Briar Wyatt – Senior Waste Planning Advisor

Parul Sood – General Manager Waste Solutions

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Ian Maxwell - Director Executive Programmes

Environment and Climate Change Committee

12 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/16415

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

2. To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that have been held or been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. 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.

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

Date	Memo
8/07/2020	Proposed Government Response Strategy to Sea Change (the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan) – Auckland Council staff feedback – Attachment B
27/10/2020	Update on the 2019/2020 Safeswim programme – Attachment C
8/09/2020	Building for Climate Change: Transforming operational efficiency and reducing whole-of-life embodied carbon – Attachment D
2/11/2020	Update on the Auckland Pestival and Mayoral Conservation Awards in November 2020 – Attachment E
3/11/2020	Update on the Regional Pest Management Plan being made operative – Attachment F
6/11/2020	Auckland Supplementary Water Supply Action Plan – Attachment G

5. The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

Date	Workshop/Briefing
08/09/2020	Weed Management Political Advisory Group – Attachment H
22/09/2020	Environment and Climate Change Committee and Watercare: Water Strategy: Supply and Demand - Confidential
20/10/2020	Weed Management Political Advisory Group – Attachment I
3/11/2020	Weed Management Urban Road Corridor - Confidential

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

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

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”.

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

7. 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) note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report

b) receive the Summary of Environment and Climate Change Committee information items and briefings – 12 November 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward work programme	225
b ⇨	Proposed Government Response Strategy to Sea Change (the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan) – Auckland Council staff feedback (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Update on the 2019/2020 Safeswim programme (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Building for Climate Change: Transforming operational efficiency and reducing whole-of-life embodied carbon (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Update on the Auckland Pestival and Mayoral Conservation Awards in November 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Update on the Regional Pest Management Plan being made operative (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Auckland Supplementary Water Supply Action Plan (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Weed Management Political Advisory Group (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Weed Management Political Advisory Group (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Suad Allie - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Ian Maxwell - Director Executive Programmes

[1] Waitākere Ranges Strategic Weed Management Plan 2015

[3] E34 Agrichemicals and vertebrate toxic agents - Unitary Plan

[4] Streetscapes Specifications - 19 March 2019_

[5] https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/environment/plants-animals/pests-weeds/Documents/weedcontrolmethods.pdf

[7] WMP operational review report 21 December 2015 - final

[8] Includes experience from Christchurch road corridor weed management

[9] Costings should not be treated a final pricing.

^{^[10]}glyphosate is required on high volume roads and to address persistent weeds

[11] Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Submission on Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei 10 March 2019

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