Improving Gisborne’s Fresh Water Planning

1. Improving Gisborne’s Fresh Water Planning Dr Terrence Loomis 10 October 2012

2. Who am I? • Tiniroto resident • Semi-retired community development & planning consultant (e.g. Wairoa business project) • MA (Auckland) and PhD (Adelaide) in Economic Anthropology • Certified Economic Development Finance Professional • Background of social research in NZ and the Pacific • Professor of Development Studies, Waikato U • 10 years as senior policy advisor in Wellington

3. My purpose for being here • Concerns over the pace and process of Water Planning • Best practice examples that should guide planning • Developments & science heightening the need for urgent action • Recommendations to the Committee about: (1) Revisions to the Progressive Implementation Programme (PIP) timeframe & priorities (2) Changes to the Water Plan Work Programme (3) Strengthening the FWAG and mobilising community ‘assets’ to help accelerate water planning.

4. Concerns over water planning to date 12 to 15 years is too slow! – (“Other councils are into their 2nd and in HB’s case 3rd regional plans” - GDC Irrigation workshop, August 2012) • Why not speed up planning to deal with urgent resource issues & new developments? (Transitional plans don’t meet NPS = risks) • Planning began in 2009 with a deadline of 2014 (Has mostly been data gathering and a Vision/Outcomes exercise). • Council officials note a 2-phase planning process was adopted in the 10-yr plan, with little public discussion (effectively a 8-10 year planning extension locked in; 4 priority catchments were identified). • GDC now can’t implement a water plan by 2014 (NPS) so Council has to approve a PIP by Nov 12th(and the only available Council meeting is Oct 25th) • The draft PIP runs until at least 2021. Presumably planning can’t be accelerated without revising the 10-year plan (scheduled for 2015).

5. Concerns over water planning (cont’d) • A few poor quality technical reports (e.g. Tangata Whenua priorities primarily descriptive; Irrigation Value report promotional) • Weak community engagement processes (c.f. the Community Engagement Plan). • A ‘thin’ Vision & Outcomes 2030 exercise - not systematically linked to technical reports and catchment issues; conflicting priorities glossed over; and the focus was on ‘current water uses’! • NIWA’s (2010) best practice framework was virtually ignored.

6. What does best practice look like? • NIWA’s (2010) planning framework (see Attachment A) • RMA Section 10 guidelines on community resource planning • MfE’s 1998 Flow Guidelines for establishing values & limits • Taranaki, Waikato, Horizons Regional Plans ** • Rotorua Lakes and Taupo non-point pollution plans. • Increasing use of evidence-based modelling, community involvementin planning & catchment management units (MfE’s 2012 report). ** None of these models is perfect. Taranaki’s Plan has significant flaws regarding Tangata Whenua engagement and how their values are recognised in new developments.

7. Barriers to better, faster water planning • Water planning a low GDC priority - making do with transitional plans, rule of thumb consenting, and informal chats to resolve conflicts (MfE 2012 report on Regional Council Practice). • Lack of Council expertise in resource planning & research and/or competing work priorities (c.f. MfE 2012 report). • Lack of funding for further technical data gathering, monitoring and in-depth community engagement. • Catchment management units can be difficult and expensive to implement. • FWAG limited to a consultative role rather than an active “partner” (staff & consultants doing most of the planning).

8. The need for urgent action Existing issues • Monitoring and reducing negative impacts of steep country agricultural practices on rivers and streams. • Modifying unsustainable logging practices. • Better managing irrigation, city and industrial water demands to protect river flows & declining aquifers. New developments • Adapting to new resource management and minerals legislation being fast-tracked for next year. • Preparing for an expanding petroleum industry (significant water demands and quality issues to be addressed...soon!)

9. An Expanding Petroleum Industry • Apache/TAG has 3 permits (one over the PBF). • At least 80 wells are projected on the E Coast over the next 5-10 years, with a potential of 20 wells on Waitangi Hill alone (TAG website). • Most wells expected to be ‘unconventional’ (fracked). • The average fracked well requires 5-25 million litres of water(Mountain Resources Advocates, 2011 report). • Apache/TAG is in a 3-phase development process. Final ‘production appraisal’ phase will be completed by 2015 (GDC briefing by Alex Fergusson, 2012).

10. So what can be done? A 3-5 year window of opportunity

11. Recommendation 1: Revisions to the PIP before Council signs off • Re-visit the choice of priority catchment areas due for early management plans in light of current issues & impending developments. • Aim to complete management plans for 4 priority catchments by no later than 2016 (How? By completing one ‘pilot’ by 2014, and then fast-track 3 parallel ‘projects’ in the next 2 years with the FWAG playing an active facilitation role). • The revised PIP has to be publically notified. In your report to Council Oct 25, note that when the Ten-year Plan is reviewed in 2015 the water planning schedule will need to be aligned with the PIP.

12. Recommendation 2: Revisions to the Water Plan Work Programme • Add “Monitoring new developments & revising the planning schedule as required” (e.g. resource consents) • Add a ‘Responsibility’ column specifying the roles of Council staff, FWAG and others for each piece of work. • FWAG help revise Vision & Outcomes 2030 by testing a stakeholder negotiation process usingtechnical data & public feedback on flow values, priorities, limits and measurable outcomes. • For each catchment plan, include a key stakeholder negotiation process on values, priorities, limits, etc.

13. Recommendation 3: Strengthen the FWAG & mobilise community ‘assets’ • Revise FWAG’s TOR to reflect real ‘partnership’ – A more active role in: progressing water planning, establishing catchment working groups, facilitating key stakeholder negotiations, and communicating with the public. • Review FWAG membership to ensure all key sectors and interests are represented (e.g. the petroleum industry). • Appoint an independent FWAG chair not associated with Council, sector groups or specific community organisations • FWAG help clarify sub-group roles and recruit additional local expertise & volunteer help (e.g. school environmental projects, retired professionals, iwi – access Lottery CSR funding?).