Ranking NZ river values – application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS)

1. Ranking NZ river values – application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS) Ken Hughey and Mary-Anne Baker 2010 1

2. Acknowledgements A big thanks to: • FRST, for funding the Envirolink Project that led to development of this system; • The multiple participants who have worked together, and ‘separately’ on system development. 2

3. The challenge • Need a ‘prioritisation’ tool now, for multiple statutory and non statutory purposes. • A tool that works regionally but also has national level application potential. • A tool that will work with the best available information. • A tool that is user friendly. • A tool that, when applied, provides defensible (e.g., Environment Court) results. 3

4. The approach • In late 2008 we established a project steering group. • Initiated literature review. Some work, e.g., kayaking (but 20+ yrs ago); the Waters of National Importance project, but of limited value. • No one had developed a system to look objectively/ quantitatively or in a standardised, user friendly way across a range of values. • We developed a methodology, the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS). • RiVAS applied to range of values at selected councils … 4

5. The values tested • Salmonids – Tasman: done; subsequently, Marlborough; Hawkes Bay: in press • Irrigation – Canterbury; Tasman: done • Native Birdlife – Canterbury; Tasman: done • Native fish – Wellington and Tasman: in progress • Iwi – Southland: done • Natural character – Marlborough; Tasman: done • Swimming – Manawatu-Whanganui; Tasman: done • Kayaking – West Coast; Tasman: done; subsequently, Hawkes Bay: in press • Hydro – Bay of Plenty; Tasman: in progress 5

6. The method – multi-criteria driven, standardised numeric scale, and expert panel based approach • Very few ‘values’ have full or up-to-date, comparable or quantitative, data, either nationally or regionally – notable exception is F&G NZ’s salmonid angling surveys. • No contemporary data for some values, e.g., swimming or natural character, while others are mixed, e.g., native birdlife. • Used the best available information - filled the gaps with expert judgement: there is no other way! • Method built around key attributes of river values, populating where possible with real data, and then converting this information to numeric scales for ranking values = this is known as multi criteria analysis. • Ultimately this led to us using expert panels and best available information as the cornerstones of the project. 6

7. Using the Best Available Information • Mandated in Fisheries Act 1996 under the Information Principles (S10) • Supported by numerous Environment Court decisions • Bottom line: cannot wait forever for the collection of perfect data so we use the Best Available Information, in a precautionary way • We are absolutely explicit about the data we use – nothing is hidden

8. Why we use Expert panels • The most appropriate people to find, populate and interpret the Best Available Information are experts in the various values • Experts are also best placed for identifying the attributes, indicators and importance thresholds of the values • The choice and credibility of experts is vital – a credible panel tends to act cautiously because its members, by definition, have to remain credible • An independent facilitator can keep experts ‘honest’ • Independent peer reviewers are also an important moderating influence

9. The method – operationalising Assessment criteria • Step 1: define river value categories and river segments • Step 2: identify all of the value’s attributes – economic, social, environmental, cultural • Step 3: select and describe primary attributes – reduce to a list of <10 • Step 4: identify indicators – choose objective over subjective wherever possible Determining significance • Step 5: determine indicator thresholds – quantify these where possible and think nationally • Step 6: apply indicators and their thresholds – convert all to 1=low; 2=medium; 3= high • Step 7: weight the primary attributes – preferably equal weighting, but otherwise as needed • Step 8: determine river significance – sum total and determine overall importance, e.g., in relation to water conservation order criteria • Step 9: outline other factors relevant to the assessment of significance Method review • Step 10: review assessment process and identify future information needs, e.g., survey needs 9

10. So, what does the output look like at the end of the day? • The following two applications – for native birdlife and irrigation in Canterbury are examples showing: • the sorts of input data, • the integrating system, and • the final ranked outputs.

11. Demonstration 1: Birdlife - Canterbury

13. Demonstration 2: Irrigation – Canterbury

15. Some of the lessons/questions to date • Expert panel selection sometimes challenging – ultimately, credibility extremely important and willingness and ability to work within a collaborative. • People sometimes sceptical/hesitant until they have worked through the process – ‘working through’ removes this concern, mostly. • Need a preliminary scan to reduce the size of the task, i.e., based on the best available information remove rivers of no importance for this value. 15

16. Resource requirements • A ‘champion’ needed within council, and probably an external consultant to run the project(s); • A credible multi stakeholder group must be established; • For some values, e.g., tangata whenua, considerable time is needed for consultation and resource gathering; • Cost varies greatly – for first time national level development of attributes etc then cost is greater than subsequent regional level applications (for latter: estimate of $3-6,000 per value application). • Guidelines & reports available in the Hughey and Baker (2011) LEAP report 24 published by Lincoln University. 16