Council Members Chairman Nicol Horrell Cr Rowly Currie Cr Jeremy McPhail Cr Lloyd McCallum (Deputy) Cr Robert Guyton Cr Maurice Rodway Cr Ross Cockburn Cr Grant Hubber Cr Eric Roy Cr Neville Cook Cr Lyndal Ludlow Cr David Stevens
Ordinary Meeting of Council (Te Huinga Tu)
10.30 am 12 December 2018
A G E N D A (Rarangi Take)
1. Welcome (Haere mai)
2. Apologies (Nga Pa Pouri)
3. Declarations of Interest
4. Public Forum, Petitions and Deputations (He Huinga tuku korero)
5. Confirmation of Minutes (Whakau korero) (a) Ordinary Meeting of Council 7 November 2018
6. Adoption of Committee Resolutions (a) Organisational Performance and Audit Committee 27 November 2018 (b) Strategy and Policy Committee 28 November 2018
7. Notification of Extraordinary and Urgent Business (He Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi) 7.1 Supplementary Reports 7.2 Other NB: Councillors are reminded to advise the Chairman, at least a day prior to the meeting, of your intention to raise any matters.
8. Questions (Patai)
9. Chairman and Councillors’ Reports (Nga Purongo-a-Tumuaki me nga Kaunihera)
10. Staff Report - 18/C/92
Item 1 - Chief Executive’s Report ...... 39 Item 2 - Financial Report as at 31 October 2018 ...... 67
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Item 3 - People Water and Land Programme – Regional Forum Lead...... 75 Item 4 - Annual Consent Charges Complaint ...... 80 Item 5 - Final Hearing Panel Member for Proposed Southland Regional Pest ...... 87 Management Plan...... Item 6 - Final Swimmability Targets ...... 92 Item 7 - Fiordland Marine Regional Management Pathway Plan Annual Report 2017/18...... 101 Item 8 - Annual Review of the Operational Plan for the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan ...... 108 Item 9 - Councillors’ Meeting Schedule – October to Year End 2018 ...... 142 Item 10 - Draft 2019 Schedule for Annual Catchment Liaison and Regional Services Committee Meetings ...... 150 Item 11 - Update on Land and Water Services Activities ...... 154 Item 12 - 2018 Perceptions Survey ...... 158
11. Extraordinary and Urgent Business (Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi)
12. Public Excluded Business (He hui Pakihi e hara mo te iwi) Confirmation of Minutes Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018 . Southland Regional Development Agency – Formation Agreements
Adoption of Committee Resolutions Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018 . Bad Debts . Members’ Interest Register . Divisional Update . Overview Governance Level Risk Management
Staff Report - 18/C/92 Item 13 - Rule 52A – Manapōuri Hydro-electric Generation Scheme ...... 232
R A Phillips Chief Executive
RECOMMENDATIONS IN COUNCIL REPORTS ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS COUNCIL POLICY UNTIL ADOPTED BY COUNCIL
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 2 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Confirmation of Minutes
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 3 Meeting of Council.docx
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Southland Regional Council, held in Regional House, corner North Road and Price Street, Invercargill, on Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 10.30 am ______
Present: Chairman N Horrell (Chair) Cr NMA Cook Cr E R Currie Cr R Guyton Cr G Hubber Cr L Ludlow Cr L McCallum Cr J McPhail Cr M Rodway Cr E Roy Cr D Stevens
In Attendance: Mr R A Phillips (Chief Executive) Mr N Selman (Director, Corporate Services) Mr V Smith (Director, Policy Planning & Regulatory Services) Mr G Sevicke-Jones (Director, Science & Information) Mrs L Hicks (Policy & Planning Manager) Ms T Robb (Snr Policy Planner) Mr A Morgan (Team Leader, Policy & Planning) Ms A Meade (Biosecurity Manager) Mrs J Brown (Executive Assistant)
1 Welcome (Haere mai)
The Chairman welcomed members to the November meeting of Council.
2 Apologies (Nga Pa Pouri)
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr Hubber, that an apology for absence be recorded on behalf of Cr G R Cockburn.
Carried
3 Declarations of Interest
Cr Rodway noted in relation to the item 3, Draft Strategic Director for the Review of the Regional Coastal Plan for Southland, that there is reference to the Southland Conservation Board being involved in that work. He noted that he was a member of the Southland Conservation Board, but has deliberately not been part of any
Environment Southland is the brand name of Southland Regional Council
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
discussions on these matters in that forum, but acknowledged there could be a perception of a conflict of interest.
4 Public Forum, Petitions and Deputations (He Huinga tuku korero)
Mr Doug Fraser was welcomed to the meeting at this time. Mr Fraser spoke to his PowerPoint presentation (copy appended), expressing his concerns about increasing costs he is facing from Environment Southland, and asked for Council to consider whether this was fair and equitable.
Following the conclusion of his presentation and response to questions from the meeting, the Chairman indicated that he would seek a report on the issues raised, and the matter would be given further consideration at another meeting.
5 Confirmation of Minutes (Whakau korero)
(a) Ordinary Meeting of Council – 28 September 2018
Resolved:
Moved Cr Rodway, seconded Cr Ludlow, that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 28 September 2018 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and correct record.
Carried
(b) Ordinary Meeting of Council – 31 October 2018
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr Hubber, that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 31 October 2018 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and correct record.
Carried
6 Adoption of Committee Resolutions
(a) Otago Southland Regional Transport Committees – 12 October 2018
Cr McCallum suggested that the roles of both Crs Roy and McPhail needed to be clarified, as the way they were noted in the minutes suggested they were the Chair and Deputy Chair of Council, rather than the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Southland Regional Transport Committee.
Page 2 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
Resolved:
Moved Cr McPhail, seconded Cr Cook, that Council adopt the resolutions of the Otago Southland Regional Transport Committees meeting held on 12 October 2018.
Carried
(b) Strategy and Policy Committee – 17 October 2018
Cr Hubber spoke to the key items discussed at this meeting, which included the adoption of the revised PIP implementation programme, and the update on the science symposium
Resolved:
Moved Cr Hubber, seconded Cr Rodway, that Council adopt the resolutions of the Strategy & Policy Committee meeting held on 17 October 2018.
Carried
(c) Regulatory Committee – 17 October 2018
Cr Cook spoke to his report, noting the increasing activity in the consent processing area, and also in the associated consents requiring monitoring.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Cook, seconded Cr Ludlow, that Council adopt the resolutions of the Regulatory Committee meeting, held on 17 October 2018.
Carried
(d) Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 18 October 2018
Cr Rodway highlighted the key matters discussed at this meeting, and noted the attendance of auditor Mike Hawken and the discussions held around the Annual Report.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Rodway, seconded Cr McCallum, that Council adopt the resolutions of the Organisational Performance and Audit Committee meeting, held on 18 October 2018.
Carried
Page 3 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
(e) Regional Services Committee – 18 October 2018
Resolved:
Moved Cr Stevens, seconded Cr McCallum, that Council adopt the resolutions of the Regional Services Committee meeting, held on 18 October 2018.
Carried
7 Notification of Extraordinary and Urgent Business (He Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi)
7.1 Supplementary Reports
There were no supplementary reports tabled for inclusion in the agenda.
7.2 Other
There were no other items of business raised by Councillors for inclusion in the agenda.
8 Questions (Patai)
There were no questions asked by the meeting.
9 Chairman and Councillors’ Reports (Nga Purongo-a-Tumuaki me nga Kaunhihera)
Chairman’s Report
The Chairman’s report set out items he had been involved in on the Council’s behalf since the last meeting. In particular, it included a report on the Regional Sector Study Tour to the Murray Darling region in Australia.
Cr Guyton noted in the report there was a statement where the Chairman appeared to be musing to himself, and was ultimately expressing a personal opinion. The point was noted, and Cr Horrell also advised that it was intended to have a workshop session with Council on this matter, where more detail of the tour and the learnings would be provided.
Councillors’ Reports
The joint report by attendees at the LGNZ Zone 5-6 meeting on Stewart Island was noted, and Councillors responded to questions of clarification.
Page 4 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
Cr McCallum noted the comment from Mayor Cull in relation to the need to upskill local government and asked what form this might take, as he was concerned there was a perception in Wellington that there is not a good level of governance sitting at the regional level. The meeting discussed opportunities for training by Councillors, noting questions around whether there is enough training, is it appropriate, and at what cost does it come. It was also felt that there was a broad range of experience within this building and many could learn from each other. It was also important to know the specific criticisms that might be levelled, to identify where the gaps/failings are and deal to them.
Cr Ludlow reported on her attendance at a Welcoming Communities meeting, hosted by Venture Southland, which encompassed refugee settlement and the need for the community to make adjustments as well as the migrants. A strategy had been developed which was available on-line and she encouraged all to provide feedback to her for the next meeting.
Cr McPhail reported on his attendance at the Waikaka catchment meeting, which was engaging with Council staff around wintering and good management practices. The group also has an Otago University student undertaking water quality testing, monitoring 16 sites on the Waikaka Stream, as part of his thesis, which would be valuable for the community.
10 Staff Report – 18/C/83
Item 1 – Chief Executive’s Report
This item provided Council with a governance overview of pan organisational current matters, and included updates on Minister Parker’s recent announcements with regard to water. The Chief Executive highlighted this aspect of his report as well as:
. the One Billion Trees project . concerns about Three Waters Review, the impacts of which are are likely to be largely focused on the TAs, and . the Biodiversity Strategy – there is a draft National Policy Statement being released.
Cr Guyton referred to the One Billion Trees project and asked if there was nursery capability in Southland to assist these efforts? Mr Phillips noted there are nurseries here, but there was a need to build riparian nursery capacity. Having funding available will help shape up a plan for the nurseries to invest in either Southland or Otago. From there the infrastructure needed to be put in place. It was also noted that there is a focus that some of those trees are to be natives and to ensure the right tree is put in the right place.
With regard to the At Risk catchment work, Cr Stevens asked if there would be impacts on Council’s limit setting process. Staff noted that there was a need to make improvements faster in the At Risk Catchments – it is not just about rules, but behaviour change, transitioning farming systems into more sustainable systems – which will require investment in people and not just regulation.
Page 5 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
The meeting also discussed:
. water allocation - LAWF could not land it, therefore some decisions would be made, with opportunity for input. It was agreed it was important that the regional sector was involved at the early stages in these discussions.
[Cr McCallum left the meeting at this time 11.30 am]
. Council’s at risk catchments have been submitted because of the estuaries at the bottom, and it was hoped there would be some science funding available to assist work required in this area; . “better protection for wetlands” is a link to biodiversity and the NPS for biodiversity might provide some teeth. . the national recognition received for the Fiordland Marine Pathways Management Plan.
[Cr McCallum left the meeting at this time 11.35 am]
Resolved:
Moved Cr Cook, seconded Cr McCallum, that Council note the report, and note the exercise of the delegation of the role of Chief Executive to Neil Selman from 22 September to 29 September 2018 inclusive.
Carried
Item 2 – Financial Report as at 30 September 2018
This item provided Council with an update on the financial situation as at 30 September 2018. Mr Selman noted that the variations that were evident were largely timing in nature, given it was the early part of the year.
It was noted that work had commenced on drafting the 2019-20 Annual Plan; and given it was clear there were additional programmes required to be undertaken, a focus on priorities was the first step.
The recent investment market instability was noted, and this has resulted in Council’s investment returns being ($320,000) as at 6 November 2018.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Rodway, seconded Cr McPhail, that Council note the financial report.
Carried
Item 3 – Draft Strategic Direction for the Review of the Regional Coastal Plan for Southland
The purpose of this item was to present a draft Strategic Direction for the Review of the Regional Coastal Plan for Southland, for consideration by Council. This document
Page 6 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
will inform the development of a new Coastal Plan in relation to significant issues facing the coastal marine area.
Cr Rodway reminded the meeting of his Declaration of a potential conflict of interest made at the outset of the meeting. He then went on to comment that he felt the document was very thorough, set out the issues very well and clearly, and would set the Council up very well for the work to come.
Cr Hubber noted the link to the National Planning Standards around this matter also. Bearing in mind the changes that were to occur in this area, he felt this would be a lengthy process, and it was clear that good management of those situations and the alignment with the limit setting process was required.
Chairman Horrell noted the pressure on Milford Sound, which included pollution from tourist ships, numbers of people going into the area, and the central government’s view on aquaculture issues – would all feed into the plan.
Cr McCallum felt there were some “pretty ugly numbers” in the report and hoped that people whilst they might want change, would bring forward some suggestions on how to do things better, rather than focusing solely on negative impacts. Ms Robb noted that some focused questions would be issued to try and illicit feedback to the document.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Hubber, seconded Cr Ludlow, that Council:
(1) approve the draft Strategic Direction for the review of the Coastal Plan;
(2) approve the draft Strategic Direction being released for public feedback from 12 November to 7 December 2018;
(3) note that staff will summarise feedback, revise the draft Strategic Direction in light of feedback received, and submit a feedback report and final Strategic Direction for Council approval early in 2019.
Carried
Item 4 – People Water and Land Programme Update
This item had been prepared for Council to note the next steps for the People Water and Land Programme – in particular the community engagement on freshwater values and objectives, and to seek approval for the establishment of a Regional Forum to advise Council on the methods (including limits) to achieve the community’s values and objectives. Bonny Lawrence (Programme Manager) attended the meeting at this time, and spoke to the detailed report that had been provided.
Page 7 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
Lucy Hicks (Policy & Planning Manager) also spoke to the proposed Regional Forum, noting its goal and purpose was more than about setting limits and regulations – it encompassed the wider, positive work that would be discussed at the forum as well.
Questions were posed over what voting/weighting process the forum would use, and Ms Hicks noted the Forum would develop a recommendation for confirmation by the Council. The communication and interaction that was to occur with the various communities, however, would need to be flexible – one size would not fit all in this situation. The way communities interact with water means they are not always on the same page with their views.
The meeting noted there had been significant discussion in-house on the Forum process, and that there was some challenges still around ensuring all interests are covered, but the proposals to date were based on learnings from both elsewhere as well as in-house.
An Expressions of Interest approach will be taken; job descriptions have been drafted; supporting material is being prepared around roles and responsibilities, terms of reference; and it is intended to be clear that no particular talent/skill is being sought, nor numbers not settled on.
Mrs Lawrence noted that staff were keeping in close contact with MfE and others re the Government’s changes with regard to water and the programme would need to be agile enough to adapt to the changes that will come through the NPSFM, NES and the RMA amendments.
Feedback from the meetings held to date was then summarised for the meeting.
TAMI have indicated they are happy with the progress being made, but have raised concerns regarding engagement with Rakiura. They also wish to see the partnership reflected in the paper in terms of the decision-making role; to see urban/rural representation reflected; quality representatives as opposed to quantity; and for the plan change timeframe to be 2021 as opposed to 2022.
District Health Board; Ballance; Beef & Lamb NZ; Territorial Authorities; Venture Southland; Catchment Group Leaders; Federated Farmers; Silver Fern Farms; MfE; Rayonier; DairyNZ – are all generally supportive of the council’s approach and how it has considered evidence from elsewhere. They believe:
. it is important to have both non-regulatory and regulatory options. . farmers are fearful of what is being proposed and the potential outcomes. . There is a need to build a team to ensure good functioning . Concerned about consultation fatigue/burn-out of community members . Need to work together with the TAs etc . Key principal of kaitiakitanga was a good way forward . Need to build trust in the teams . Concerned about central government changes and the impact of potential changes to the ES approach . Regional representation is important . Transitioning to this change of approach and how that is supported
Page 8 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
. Wish to be kept informed, support the programme/forum/with technical advice/see the reports that sit behind the programme/advocate for people who could sit on the forum.
Chairman Horrell congratulated staff on the report and supporting documentation that had been provided.
Cr McCallum felt the Chair of the Forum would be a critical role – particularly given the length of time the Forum continued. He noted that with the political overarching intentions coming from Wellington, the body may need to be somewhat political, push back or have debate on behalf of the region – thus it needed to be agile and be able to have the right conversations for the region.
With regard to advocating to central government – there will need to be consideration given to this, given Council’s role, and the fact the group is here to provide advice to Council. Cr McCallum felt it could act in partnership with the Council in its advocacy processes, thus it was a role that could be kept quite wide.
Cr Hubber noted key to the success of the Forum was that people felt they were listened to. The communication process would be critical. Mrs Lawrence noted that the reporting of the Forum would be through the Strategy & Policy Committee, through the Chair of the Forum. Council will be kept separate from the Forum (given its decision-making role), but to ensure there is openness and transparency, there will be an opportunity to attend and be part of the meetings as observers.
Cr Rodway supported the recommendations, and in doing so noted that, like the previous report on the Coastal Plan, this was a thorough, high quality and useful report, which provided a good understanding of what was required. There was a need to focus on the values that all held together to achieve the outcomes sought. It is the empathy held with other people and focusing on the areas of agreement, where success would come.
Cr McPhail felt identifying potential candidates for this role would be a huge challenge. Cr Ludlow agreed, but felt that and early training could be provided where there were potential candidates that did not necessarily have the skill-set currently. She urged not restricting the thinking to known people but potentially spreading the capacity and capability across the community. It was agreed the community focus and how people interact together would be important.
The Chairman supported the Expressions of Interest approach; that trust and confidence of the community would also be a key in the process.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Rodway, seconded Cr Hubber, that Council:
(1) note the People Water and Land Programme development and next steps, in particular the Values and Objectives community engagement;
Page 9 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
(2) approve the establishment of a Regional Forum to advise Council on the options available to achieve the community’s objectives for freshwater by considering the impacts, timing, targets, limits (water quality and quantity), methods and policy context. Carried
The meeting departed from its agenda at this time to recognise the retirement of two long- serving staff members – Noel Hinton (Catchment Manager), who had worked for Council for 39 years and 2 months; and Kevin Marshall (Catchment Engineer) who had worked for Council for 45 years. The Chairman, in thanking both men for their contribution to the organisation, spoke of the dedication and loyalty they had shown to the organisation, and acknowledged the depth of knowledge that would be leaving the organisation with their departure. Councillors also expressed their appreciation of the contribution made. A small presentation to each of the men was made, before they were invited, with their wives, to joint Councillors for lunch.
[Meeting adjourned from 12.34 pm to 1.16 pm.]
Item 5 – Appointment of Hearing Panel for Proposed Southland Regional Pest Management Plan
Council was asked to appoint a hearing panel for the Proposal for a Southland Regional Pest Management Plan (the Proposal) and make recommendations on submissions on the Proposal and progress the necessary plan making steps under the Biosecurity Act 1993; and to delegate the necessary powers, functions and duties under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to the panel. Alex Morgan (Policy & Planning) and Ali Meade (Biosecurity Manager) attended to speak to this item.
The meeting spent some time discussing whether or not to appoint an independent Commissioner, discussing the pros and cons of doing so, and the various experience around the Council table at being involved in these sorts of hearings.
Both Crs McPhail and Rodway spoke in favour of not involving an independent hearing commissioner because of the expense involved, and also because of the relative experience of Councillors who have undertaken the necessary training, and had been involved in a number of similar hearings in recent years.
The Chief Executive declared a conflict of interest by advising the meeting that he knew both of the people who had been suggested as independent commissioners, and one of them was a personal friend (and that he had advised this to the Chairman at an early stage). The Chairman advised that because of that acknowledgement by the Chief Executive, he had undertaken some independent enquiries himself into both nominees, and supported the appointment of Mr Simmons, particularly given the potential for him to be appointed as the Chair.
Ultimately it was proposed that an Independent Commissioner be appointed, and to act as the Chair of the hearing, because of the advantages gained from having experienced people in those roles. It was also felt that with the cross-border issues, John Simmons involvement would assist.
Page 10 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
Cr Ludlow noted the discussions around perception recently, and because parts of the proposal had been more controversial than expected, she felt having an independent Chair would show Council is being circumspect, and not looking at matters only from within the Council’s “bubble”.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Cook, seconded Cr McCallum, that Council, acting under clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, appoint John Simmons as an independent member of the hearing panel on the Proposal for the Southland Regional Pest Management Plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Carried [Cr Rodway voted against]
Cr Stevens advised that he would not be available for consideration. It was noted that Crs Guyton, Hubber, Ludlow and Rodway had expressed an interest in being involved, but following these discussions, Cr Rodway advised he would withdraw from the process.
Resolved:
Moved Chairman Horrell, seconded Cr McPhail that Council, acting under clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, appoint Councillors Guyton, Hubber, and Ludlow as members of the hearing panel on the Proposal for the Southland Regional Pest Management Plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993;
Carried
Staff noted that training would be provided for Councillors around this process, and in the event that there was a need for a Councillor to withdraw, it was suggested that other Councillors who were interested in being involved in the process should also attend the training, in the event there is a need for a panel replacement at some stage.
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr Cook, that John Simmons be appointed as the Chairperson of the hearing panel.
Carried
Resolved:
Moved Cr Cook, seconded Cr Stevens that Council:
(1) delegate to the persons appointed as members of the hearing panel on the Proposal for the Southland Regional Pest Management Plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993, all the
Page 11 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
powers, functions and duties of the Council set out in Sections 72 to 74 (excluding Section 72(5)) and Sections 100D(6)(b) of the Biosecurity Act 1993, in respect of the Proposal for the Southland Regional pest Management Plan.
(2) direct that the persons appointed to the hearing panel provide recommendations to Council as to Council’s decision on the Plan;
(3) authorise the Chairperson acting alone to exercise any powers, functions and duties delegated in respect of the conduct of the hearing;
(4) authorise the Chairperson to have a casting vote when there is an equality of votes when exercising any of the powers, functions and duties delegated;
(5) note that an additional hearing panel member/s may be appointed before the hearing of submissions on the Proposal for the Southland Regional Pest Management Plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Carried
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr Cook, that Council:
(1) agrees to the request of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and appoint an iwi representative to the hearing panel and approve staff formally inviting Ngai Tahu to nominate a representative to be appointed by Council at a subsequent meeting.
(2) note the estimations regarding timeframes, workload and cost involved in the proposed Southland Regional Pest Management Plan hearings.
Carried
Item 6 – 2019 Meeting Calendar
Council was asked to consider and then adopt the 2019 meeting calendar.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr McPhail, that Council adopt the 2019 meeting calendar.
Carried
Page 12 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
Item 7 – Councillors’ Meeting Schedule – October to Year End 2018
Council was asked to approve the meeting schedule that had been circulated with the agenda. The following additions/changes were made to that schedule before it was adopted:
. Cr Ludlow will attend the Destination Strategy Advisory Group meeting on 13 November 2018 in the Chairman’s absence. . Cr McCallum has a Waituna Liaison Committee meeting on 7 November 2018 . Property Working Party tour being arranged for 27 and 28 November 2018 . A date is to be identified for the Murray Darling workshop . Bluff Maritime Museum Trust Board meeting on 11 October 2018 – Cr Cook . Fonterra Open Gates day – 11 November 2018 – Chairman Horrell, Cr McCallum . Federated Farmers PW&L Programme meeting – Crs Hubber, and McPhail to be added to the attendees . Welcoming Communities Meeting on 31 October 2018 and 5 December 2018 – Cr Ludlow
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr Hubber, that Council note the planned meetings and:
(1) appoint members to represent Council at the meetings marked on the schedule;
(2) pay meeting fees and/or allowances in accordance with its policy and detailed on the schedule.
Carried
Item 8 – Common Seal
This item reported on the documents to which the Common Seal had been applied under approved authorisation.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Currie, seconded Cr Hubbr, that Council note the list of documents to which the Common Seal has been affixed under approved authorisation.
Carried
11 Extraordinary and Urgent Business (Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi)
There was no extraordinary or urgent business considered by the meeting.
Page 13 Ordinary Meeting of Council – 7 November 2018
12 Public Excluded Business (He hui Pakihi e haram o te iwi)
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr McPhail, that the public be excluded from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of the matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to the matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of the resolution are as follows:
Grounds General Subject Matter Reason for Passing the under Resolution S. 48(1)
Confirmation of Minutes – To prevent the disclosure S.7(2)(k) Ordinary Meeting of or use of information for Council – 28 September improper gain or 2018 advantage. S.7(2)(i) Confirmation of Minutes – To allow council to carry Ordinary Meeting of out commercial activities Council – 31 October 2018 without prejudice or disadvantage S.7(2)(j) Adoption of Committee Resolutions – To prevent the disclosure or Organisational use of information for Performance & Audit improper gain or advantage. Committee – 18 October S.7(2)(i) 2018 To allow Council to carry on Item 9 – Southland negotiations, including Regional Development commercial and industrial, Agency – Formation without prejudice or Agreements disadvantage. S.7(2)(j)
To prevent the use of information for improper gain or advantage.
It is further moved that staff present be permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded.
Carried
Termination
There being no further business, the meeting closed at 2.10 pm.
Page 14
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Adoption of Committee Resolutions
Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018 Strategy and Policy Committee – 28 November 2018
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 18 Meeting of Council.docx
Minutes of the Organisational Performance and Audit Committee (Arataki Mahi me Tätaki Kauta) Meeting of the Southland Regional Council, held in Regional House, corner North Road and Price Street, Invercargill, on Wednesday, 27 November 2018 at 1.30 p.m. ______
Present: Cr M Rodway (Chair) Cr NMG Cook Chairman N Horrell Cr G Hubber Cr L McCallum Cr J McPhail
Also Present: Cr L Ludlow
In Attendance: Mr N Selman (Director, Corporate Services) Mr G Sevicke-Jones (Director, Science & Information) Mr K Swinney (Strategy & Corporate Planning Manager) Mrs A Henderson (Senior Communications Coordinator) Mr P Haynes (Catchment Operations Manager) Mrs J Carroll (Information Systems Manager) Mrs F Durand (Snr Policy Planner) Mrs J M Brown (Executive Assistant)
1 Welcome (Haere mai)
The Chairman welcomed members to the Organisational Performance and Audit Committee meeting for November
2 Apologies (Nga Pa Pouri)
Resolved:
Moved Cr McPhail, seconded Cr McCallum, that an apology for absence be recorded on behalf of Mr B Robertson.
Carried
3 Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interests raised at the meeting.
Environment Southland is the brand name of Southland Regional Council Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018
4 Public Forum, Petitions and Deputations (He Huinga tuku korero)
There were no public forum, petitions or deputations presented at the meeting.
5 Confirmation of Minutes (Whakau korero) – 18 October 2018
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr Cook, that minutes of the Organisational Performance and Audit Committee meeting held on 18 October 2018 be confirmed as a true and correct record.
Carried
6 Notification of Extraordinary and Urgent Business (He Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi)
6.1 Supplementary Reports
There were no supplementary reports tabled for inclusion in the agenda.
6.2 Other
There were no other items raised by Councillors for inclusion in the agenda.
7 Questions (Patai)
There were no questions asked by the meeting.
8 Chairman and Councillors’ Reports (Nga Purongo-a-Tumuaki me nga Kaunihera)
Neither the Chairman nor any Councillors presented reports to the meeting.
9 Director of Corporate Services Report – 18/OPAC/87
Item 1 – Update to Delegations Manual - RMA
This item had been presented to Council seeking approval to change the delegation for issuing water shortage directions under S.329 Resource Management Act 1991, from the Compliance Manager to the Director of Science & Information.
In speaking to this item, Mrs Durand noted that staff were preparing for another dry year, and in doing so, had been reviewing the operating procedures relating to water shortages. They wished to ensure that the issues identified last summer were addressed, to minimise any problems that may occur – hence the proposed change to the delegations.
Cr Cook supported the proposed change in the delegated authority, noting that the Director was the appropriate level, and would have the knowledge of the situation at the time. In response to further questions from the meeting, staff advised that they were
Page 2 Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018
keeping a close watch on the monitoring information that was being received. Further, the Standard Operating Procedures have trigger points in them as to when activity escalates up.
Resolved:
Moved Chairman Horrell, seconded Cr Cook, that Council, acting under Clause 32 of Schedule 7 Local Government Act 2002:
(1) approve the delegated authority to issue water shortage direction under S.329 Resource Management Act 1991 being changed from the Compliance Manager to the Director of Science & Information;
(2) note that the Delegations Manual and Council’s Water Shortage Standard Operating Procedures will be amended to reflect the changed delegation.
Carried
Item 2 – Update to Delegations Manual - Financial
Council approval was sought to make a further amendment to the Delegations Manual to reflect the appointment to a new role within the Science & Information directorate. The meeting noted that this was a standard delegation for the level the role was set at.
Resolved:
Moved Chairman Horrell, seconded Cr Hubber, that Council approve the proposed change to the Delegations Manual, as outlined in Schedule 1, effective immediately.
Carried
Item 3 – Financial Report to 30 September 2018
This item provided Council with financial information as at 30 September 2018. In addition, staff tabled the financial information for the period ended 31 October 2018, which had not been available at the time the agenda was prepared.
Mr Selman also responded to a point raised at the last meeting with regard to the SPNZ Share Buyback Reserve. This reserve had been established in January 2002, from funds received as a result of the company buying back shares. It had been treated as a general reserve at the time, with no specific purpose allocated to it. In 2011/12 financial year that reserve had contained $2.9M and there was also a South Port Special Dividend Reserve in place which held $3.6M – thus Council had at that time held approximately $6.5M in special reserves from South Port activity.
Since that time, those general reserves had been eroded – used largely to fund the science programme, and at the end of the 18/19 year were forecast to be reduced to approximately $3M. Ultimately the approach being taken with those reserves was that they would be used to support programmes until they were spent.
Page 3 Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018
In speaking to the financial report for September, it was noted this was the same information that had been provided to the Council meeting. The October report provided the more up-to-date information. This report has highlighted the change in the investment portfolio - $1M loss in the month of October, which means Council was showing a loss YTD of $100,000 compared to budgeted return of approximately $500,000. It was noted that most of the other differences shown in the report were anticipated to be timing issues.
The exceptions appeared to be those related to income received under the Cruise Ship Deed of Agreement, which was currently budgeted for $2.7M income but, subject to favourable weather conditions, was forecast to do better than that. There were also some anticipated permanent savings in the HR area relating to salaries for roles that had not been recruited for, although some of that was being off-set by spending on consultants in the meantime.
The meeting noted that Mr Robertson had raised some questions via email, with regard to forecasting. It was noted that a detailed forecast was planned for the month of December, but in the meantime Councillors had been given an indication of the likely outcome for the year during a recent Annual Plan workshop, which indicated a deficit of $1.5M compared to that budgeted of -$500,000. It was also noted that the impact on Council’s investment portfolio of the recent stock market fluctuations was still not known.
The meeting discussed whether there was a need to keep the SPNZ reserve funds separate, and Mr Selman noted that, in future such funds would not be separated out in such a way, rather they would be held in a general reserve. However in the meantime, the funds were to continue to be utilised, until the current reserve did not exist.
In discussing the Council’s current trading position, Mr Selman noted the areas where there are favourable permanent differences were in the cruise ship area and also unfilled vacancies, but reminded the meeting that what was not factored in were some of the costs that have come in since the budget, i.e. $600,000 of carried forward projects.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Cook, seconded Cr Hubber, that Council note the financial report to 30 September 2018.
Carried Resolved:
Moved Chairman Horrell, seconded Cr McPhail, that Council note the tabled financial report to 31 October 2018.
Carried
Page 4 Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018
Item 4 – Investment Report to 30 September 2018
This item provided Council with information on its investments as at 30 September 2018.
Resolved:
Moved Cr McPhail, seconded Cr Cook, that Council note the investment report.
Carried
Item 5 – Investment Report to 31 October 2018
This item provided Council with information on its investments as at 31 October 2018. It was noted that the report also incorporated commentary from Council’s investment advisors as to what they saw happening in the market place.
There was brief discussion on when Council should activate a response to the current situation, whilst recognising it was in the investment market “for the long game”. Mr Selman noted the volatility that can occur within the markets by referring members to the month of October the previous year, where it had made a $1M gain, compared to this year when it had made a $1M loss. He also noted that Council was scheduled to undertake a review of its SIPO shortly, and JBWere would be involved in that process, and those matters were appropriately discussed at that time.
The meeting tended to support the optimistic view expressed by its investment advisors, and anticipated some recovery in returns over the next few months, and that the situation could have been much worse, given the “hit” that the markets had taken.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Hubber, seconded Cr McCallum, that Council note the investment report.
Carried
Item 6 – Information Management Steering Group Update
This item reported on progress with the Information Management Steering Group’s programme of work.
In speaking to this item, Mr Sevicke-Jones noted that a Consultant had been engaged to assist Council with the implementation plan that was being developed to address the seven areas of information management that had been discussed at the previous meeting. This had involved a recent site visit.
The PowerPoint presentation that was to have been provided at the last meeting had been included in the appendices for this meeting, and was referred to at this time. In speaking to that information, he noted that although this whole area was somewhat confusing for many, it was an extremely important aspect of the organisation’s work – data management and information architecture being critical to the day-to-day business
Page 5 Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018
of Council. He noted that training was being put in place to ensure that the best use of Council’s systems was being made, and that they were being utilised to their fullest extent.
Projects were also being put in place to address data quality and management in some particular areas, where it was anticipated quick gains would be made. Initial benchmarking indicated that Council was on the right path, and in a similar situation to other councils.
Cr McCallum noted that the community would be seeking a significant amount of information, and needing quality information, under the People Water & Land Programme of work, and asked if the organisation was ready for this. Mr Sevicke-Jones felt that it was, but agreed some data was not in a robust format. It was those areas that were being focused on. The right tools were in place, but data quality was an issue in some areas and was being worked on. It was also hoped to be able to provide data on- line, so that people can explore information themselves. The meeting also discussed the need for the data to be given in a neutral position, so that the conversations were about what is done with the data and the trends that it was showing, rather than potentially “fighting the data”.
The meeting also discussed the interpretation of data that has been gathered for one purpose, but used for another. It was stressed that it was important to be clear in conversations about data that has been gathered for a purpose and how it can be used – that the community was aware of the value of the data and its use.
The meeting then turned to the results shown around the data architecture baseline, and the intention of Council over the next 12 months, which he felt was somewhat ambitious. Mr Sevicke-Jones noted that Council has a robust workplace, and had marked itself down in some areas because it realised it had not reached the mark. However, it was a relatively quick task to map out the information architecture and demonstrate it, and this would place the organisation in a good place.
Mr Sevicke-Jones felt that the review was an honest assessment of Council’s situation, and the steering group now had a very good understanding of the seven areas of focus. It was also noted that staff were reviewing the reporting to this committee, how it could simplifying the information from a communications perspective, and reviewing how the information is shown/colours used in graphs/etc would all be taken into account.
Cr Rodway referred to questions posed by Mr Robertson, including if Council had the right aspirations for business alignment. Mr Sevicke-Jones advised this was part of the Effectus work, to identify where Council needs to be on the graphs. The differences in a score of 4 and 5 was discussed, and whether the costs of moving from a 4 to a 5 were justified, would need to be considered in each instance. It may well be that attaining a score of 4 was sufficient for the organisation to be effective, for example.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Cook, seconded Cr Hubber, that Council note progress on the Information Management Steering Group’s approach and Information Management progress.
Carried
Page 6 Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018
Item 7 – Long-term Plan Progress Report
This item provided Council with a quarterly report on progress against the Long-term Plan. In speaking to this item, Mr Swinney tabled an additional three pages, which updated the information provided within the report – these related to pages 10 and 14, which had previously been listed as “off target” because of a lack of information provided.
There was some confusion around the information that was provided, and staff clarified that the column headed % achievement of targets related to the column to the immediate left, titled “Total number of targets for this activity”. The detail column provided the specifics on the area that was off target.
Questions were raised as to why the consents division was behind its targets when it was hiring consultants/professionals to support the process that would be fully aware of the requirements. It was agreed that this was a matter for further investigation at the next Regulatory Committee. It was also noted that the reporting provided to the meeting was a summary of the situation, and did not contain all the performance metrics that may be required to have a complete understanding of the situation.
Cr McPhail was concerned to note that IRIS was once again being blamed for the late reporting. Mr Selman advised he was not aware of whether IRIS was the actual reason, but noted that as a result of the work being undertaken in the Information Management project, greater accountability for the quality of the data contained within IRIS was being placed with the responsible divisions. The IRIS system, although at times “clunky” and could have some improvements made to the overall user experience, was still doing a good job for the organisation.
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr McPhail, that Council note the three monthly Long-term Plan activity progress report for the 2018/19 year.
Carried
Item 8 – Annual Activity Plan
This item reported on the annual plan of projects to be delivered on by the Committee, and to obtain ongoing input to that proposed plan. In speaking to the item, Mr Selman provided updates on the following:
. Audit letter action item – this item is intended to cover the process improvements recommended in the Audit letter. Largely these related to how rates are handled within the Authority system and there is to be an upgrade completed by March 2019 which will address two main items. . Reconciliations with the Ministry of Justice re prosecution fines – Council does reconcile this information, but at present does not use Court information as to the “collectability” of those funds. . Annual Leave – this is an ongoing matter that is being addressed. . Consents process billing – being developed – conversations have commenced, but not the work programme.
Page 7 Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018
. Financial Statement compilation process – significant advancements have been made and more will continue with the upgrade of Authority. . Debtor Review – the ill health of staff has impacted this area – hoped to have a report on this for the next meeting. . SIPO – the review will commence start of next year. . South Port report – have had difficulty in obtaining someone to speak to Council about this because of potential conflicts of interest. Is being worked on. . Noted the work programmes listed in the column headed “In future/to be developed. . Procurement review has commenced. . Fleet Management review and tracking systems has commenced.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Cook, seconded Cr Hubber, that Council, having reviewed the Annual Activity Plan, note it.
Carried
10 Extraordinary and Urgent Business (Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi)
There were no items of extraordinary or urgent business considered by the meeting.
11 Public Excluded Business (He hui Pakihi e hara mo te iwi)
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Chairman Horrell, that the public be excluded from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of the matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to the matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the Passing of the resolution are as follows:
Grounds General Subject Matter Reason for Passing the under Resolution S. 48(1)
Confirmation of To prevent the disclosure or S.7(2)(j) minutes – 18 October use of information for 2018 improper gain or advantage.
Item 9 – Bad Debts To protect the privacy of S.7(2)(a) natural persons
. Item 10 – Members’ Interest Register
Page 8 Organisational Performance and Audit Committee – 27 November 2018
. Item 11 – Divisional Update
It is further moved that staff present be permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded.
Carried
Resumed in Open Meeting
Termination
There being no further business, the meeting closed at 3.35 pm
Page 9 Minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee (Rautaki me Mahere) Meeting of the Southland Regional Council, held in Regional House, corner North Road and Price Street, Invercargill, on Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 9.00 am
______
Present: Cr G Hubber (Chair) Cr R Guyton Chairman N Horrell Cr L McCallum Cr J McPhail Cr M Rodway Cr E Roy (until 11.30) Cr D Stevens
In Attendance: Mr V Smith (Director of Policy, Planning and Regulatory Services) Mr G Sevicke-Jones (Director of Science & Information) Mr J Prince (Informatics and Operations Manager) Mr S Mapp (Compliance Manager) Mrs L Hicks (Policy & Planning Manager) Mr R Hawkes (Lead Transport Planner) Mrs B Lawrence (Programme Manager – People, Water & Land) Mrs R Millar (Strategy and Partnerships Advisor) Mrs F Durand (Senior Policy Planner) Mrs A Henderson (Senior Communications Co-ordinator) Ms T Brosnan (Communications Co-ordinator) Ms K Harper (PA/Executive Support)
1 Welcome (Haere mai)
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting for November 2018.
2 Apologies (Nga Pa Pouri)
Resolved:
Moved Cr McPhail seconded Chairman Horrell that an apologies for absence be recorded for Cr Rowly Currie and Cr Lyndal Ludlow.
Carried
Environment Southland is the brand name of Southland Regional Council
Strategy & Policy Committee – 28 November 2018
3 Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest made to the meeting.
4 Public Forum, Petitions and Deputations (e Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi)
There were no public forum, petitions or deputations presented to the meeting.
5 Confirmation of Minutes (Whakau korero) – 17 October 2018
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr Stevens that the minutes of the Strategy & Policy Committee meeting, held on 17 October 2018, be taken as read and confirmed as a true and correct record.
Carried
6 Notification of Extraordinary and Urgent Business (He Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi)
6.1 Supplementary Reports
There were no supplementary reports tabled for inclusion in the agenda.
6.2 Other
No other items were raised for discussion.
7 Questions (Patai)
No questions were asked at this time.
8 Chairman and Councillors’ Reports (Nga Purongo-a-Tumuaki me nga Kaunihera)
Cr Hubber reported he had attended a meeting with Southland fly fishermen. Eva Hendriks of TAMI and Bonny Lawrence had presented at the meeting around the Water and Land Plan. Cr Hubber thanked Eva and Bonny for their excellent presentations.
Chairman Horrell reported that he and Cr Stevens attended a meeting with a new Land care Group near Lumsden. The meeting was well attended and enthusiastic.
Discussion was held regarding the realistic level of understanding the public had around the Water and Land Plan. It was felt that perhaps the community were not as informed as Council would like in understanding complex issues. It was noted that,
Page 2 Strategy & Policy Committee – 28 November 2018
going forward and in conjunction with Comms, every effort would be made to deliver information to the community in a way that was easily interpreted and understood. Mr Smith suggested a work shop be held in early 2019 to explore how Council was communicating to the public and the way forward. Mr Smith asked that Councillors submit matters of concern and questions from the public to work through at the workshop.
9 Director of Policy, Planning & Regulatory Services Report – 18/S&P/88
Item 1 – Annual Compliance Monitoring Report
The purpose of this item was for Council to approve the 2017/18 Compliance Monitoring Report. The Report was taken as read.
Mr Mapp highlighted the following:
there were 801compliant farms, 104 moderate non-compliance and 17 significant non-compliance, resulting in only 2% significant non-compliance 16 shed talks, 25 letters of direction, 24 formal warnings, 80 abatement notices, 36 infringements, 3 diversions and 19 prosecutions over the last 12 months there had been a 34% increase in calls for service for the compliance team of the 961 incidents that were investigated 346 were air investigations, 125 were coastal, 205 land and 285 water Mr Mapp asked for feedback from councillors on whether it would be useful to list every infringement notice and abatement notice in the Monitoring Report next year
In response to a question around the 34% increase, Mr Mapp advised that there had been a rise in abatement notices due to expired consents which accounted for some of the increase, and the new Air Plan had become more widely known resulting in a greater number of smoke and odour complaints over the past year.
Regarding monitoring stormwater discharges from urban areas and in response to a question, Mr Mapp explained that new consents had recently been issued for stormwater networks that required both dry and wet weather monitoring (first flush and heavy metal levels). There were 54 monitoring locations in the Invercargill City Council consent and these locations were monitored regularly by ICC staff/contractors. The results of monitoring samples were supplied to Environment Southland. Results supplied dictated how ES compliance staff reacted.
Councillors commended the Report.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Cockburn, seconded Cr McCallum, that Council note the report.
Carried
Page 3 Strategy & Policy Committee – 28 November 2018
Item 2 – Regional Transport Committee Update
This item was for Council to receive an update on the activities of the Combined Otago and Southland Regional Transport Committees, in the four months since 1 July 2018.
The recently released Government Policy Statement put emphasis on funding for public transport, walking and cycling approaches and improvement projects on local roads/state highways. Ellis Road/SH 1 was to receive funding for a major upgrade.
Cr Roy noted the Transport Committee was concerned about congestion around Queenstown and poor performance of public transport in and around Dunedin. These and other issues were being pursued, including the Ellis Road/SH 1 upgrade. Rutting between Invercargill and Winton, and north of Winton was also of concern particularly in winter when water froze in the ruts. There had been some success in this area with roadworks due to take place over the summer.
Mr Hawkes advised that Road Safety programmes in Southland were run through Road Safety Southland. $1,400,000-$1,500,000 in funding had been applied for through Invercargill City Council. The funding would cover road safety promotion and employ a co-ordinator to encourage cycle use.
Discussion was held around driving safety and education for foreign drivers. Cr Roy advised there was an ongoing piece of work called the “Visiting Drivers Programme”.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Roy, seconded Cr McPhail, that Council note the report.
Carried
Item 3 – Essential Freshwater Work Programme
The Government had released a report outlining its freshwater improvement work programme on 8 October 2018.
Since the release of the report there had been a further announcement around amendments to the RMA. Regarding the at risk catchments work programme, Mrs Hicks noted that MfE were in the process of culling a large list, down to a manageable number of about 20 catchments, that met certain criteria and could be dealt with within a certain timeframe.
Mrs Hicks advised that one particular area of MfE’s criteria was the ability to monitor improvement in a catchment. Discussion was held. It was agreed that as the Freshwater Work Programme was ongoing, an update to Council would be provided at each Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr Roy, that Council note the report.
Carried Morning tea adjournment 10.00m – 10.25am.
Page 4 Strategy & Policy Committee – 28 November 2018
Item 4 – Fonterra Presentation
Mark Robinson and James Caygill of Fonterra presented an overview of Fonterra and its operations in Southland, and an update on sustainability initiatives (Living Water, 50 catchments and on-farm sustainability) to the Strategy and Policy Committee. The full presentation was available on Nessie.
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr McPhail, that Council note the report and hear from the presenters.
Carried
Item 5 – The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research Policy Advice Quality Review 2018
The purpose of this report was to inform Council on the outcome of the New Zealand Institute of Economic research (NZIER) 2018 review of the Policy and Planning Team’s policy advice.
Mrs Hicks reported that NZIER had scored the Policy and Planning Team an average of 7.35 on the quality of its papers. This placed the team amongst the top group of local authorities. NZIER were to publish a benchmarking report in December 2018 which would show where the team is ranked amongst other local authorities.
Mrs Hicks further noted that the score was an improvement on the 2017 review score of 7.15. NZIER had provided recommendations to enable them to further improve the quality of advice.
Councillors commended the Policy and Planning team for the great result.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Rodway, seconded Chairman Horrell, that Council:
1. note that NZIER has given the Policy and Planning Team’s policy advice an overall score of 7.35 for 2018;
2. note that NZIER will publish a benchmarking report in December 2018, which will show where the Policy and Planning Team rank compared to other local authorities;
3. note that the team will implement NZIER’s recommendations to ensure the quality of policy advice continues to improve.
Carried
Page 5 Strategy & Policy Committee – 28 November 2018
Item 6 – Update on the Proposed southland Water and Land Plan Appeals
The purpose of this item was to inform Council of the current status of the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan appeals.
Council had received 25 appeals since the closing of the appeals period on the Plan. There had also been 41 parties joining those appeals under s274 of the RMA. Management of the appeals process was now with the Environment Court Case Manager.
Mrs Hicks advised that an approved timetable had been received from the Court, and would be circulated to Councillors.
Resolved:
Moved Cr McCallum, seconded Cr Cockburn, that Council note the progress of the appeals on the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan
Carried
Item 7 – People Water and Land Programme Update (Te Mana o te Tangata, te Wai, te Whenua)
This item provided an update to Council on the People, Water and Land Programme, in particular the community engagement on freshwater values. A list of community events being held around Southland over December 2018, January and February 2019, where People Water and Land Programme representatives would be present was circulated at the meeting.
The following was noted:
some feedback from stakeholder engagement requested that the consultation period be extended beyond January 2019 three key parts of the community to engage with had been identified; o community groups and structures o general public o stakeholders place-based activities would be used to consult people on community values and objectives since the endorsement of the Regional Forum at the Council meeting on 7 November 2018 further planning had occurred to engage with communities around freshwater values and objectives
Discussion was held around the timing for the community engagement process.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Stevens, seconded Cr Rodway, that Council note the People Water and Land Programme Update.
Carried
Page 6 Strategy & Policy Committee – 28 November 2018
Item 8 – Science Update
Mr Prince provided an update to Council on recent workstreams involving the Science Strategy and Investigations Division and the Science Informatics and Operations Division.
Dr Elaine Moriarty had been appointed as the new Science Strategy and Investigations Manager and was due to start in February 2019 a Coastal Scientist had also been appointed, starting in February 2019, and the Science Co-ordinator – Citizen Science position had been filled with the new person starting in December a workshop providing an overview for Councillors on the recently held Science Symposium was to be held on 5 December science staff had released a new report assessing the state of Periphyton in Southland streams and rivers
Resolved:
Moved Cr Rodway, seconded Cr Cockburn, that Council note the Science Update.
Carried
Item 9 – Policy and Planning Division Work Programme including External Agency Reports
For Council to note the Policy and Planning Division work programme.
The following was highlighted:
final drafts for the three studies undertaken for the Regional Planning Projects had been received. Staff were to meet on 10 December to discuss next steps. All three reports would need bespoke Comms plans. A workshop was planned for February with TA’s and Councillors to discuss the identified next steps National Planning Standards – still on track for April 2019 preliminary discussions were underway around E-Planning requirements
In response to a question posed by Cr Rodway around biodiversity advice, it was explained that Environment Southland was in a position to provide initial advice however conversations with Southland District Council and Environment Southland staff highlighted that some work needed to be done to scope out the appropriate actions forward to lead this back to SDC. Discussion at the Combined Mayoral Forum in February 2019 may be appropriate.
Resolved:
Moved Cr Cockburn, seconded Cr McPhail, that Council note the Policy and Planning Division Work Programme including External Agency Reports.
Carried
Page 7 Strategy & Policy Committee – 28 November 2018
10 Extraordinary and Urgent Business (Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi)
There were no items of extraordinary or urgent business considered by the meeting at this time.
11 Public Excluded Business (He hui Pakihi e hara mo te iwi)
Resolved:
Moved Chairman Horrell, seconded Cr McCallum, that the public be excluded from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of the matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to the matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of the resolution are as follows:
Grounds General Subject Matter Reason for Passing the under Resolution S. 48(1) Confirmation of Minutes – Item 1 To prevent the disclosure or S7 (2)(j) – Confirmation of the Strategy use of information for and Policy Committee Public improper gain or advantage. Excluded Minutes - 17 October 2018.
It is further moved that staff present be permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded.
Carried
Termination
There being no further business, the meeting closed at 12.30 pm.
Page 8
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Chairman and Councillors’ Reports
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 36 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Chairman’s Report Activities undertaken by the Chairman since the last meeting
November 2018 5 Venture Southland Joint Committee meeting 7 Ordinary meeting of Council 11 Armistice Day Commemorations @ Te Rau Aroha Marae, Bluff 12 People Water & Land Programme meeting with S Dowie MP 13 People Water & Land Programme meeting with Liz Craig MP NZ River Awards Event 20 Te Ropu Taiao hui @ Murihiku Marae 22 Livestrands Meeting @ Winton Whakamana te Waituna Trust Meeting “The Life” magazine launch Meeting with Catchment Group Leaders & Hon. D O’Connor Waituna Community meeting 26 Oyster Meeting @ Balclutha 27 Tour for Property Working Party members Hand-over of Vehicle to Stewart Island/Rakiura Environment Trust Organisational Performance & Audit Committee 28 Strategy & Policy Committee Whakamana te Waituna Teleconference Property Working Party tour – Part II 29 Pre-Regional Sector Group meeting Tour @ Taranaki 30 Regional Sector Group meeting
December 2018 1 Southland Santa Parade 3 “Saving New River” meeting 4 Meeting with Livestock Improvement representatives Southland Regional Development Agency Joint Shareholders Committee meeting 5 Council/Iwi Governance Workshop Council Workshop – Science Symposium & RSG Murray Darling Tour debrief 6 Line 4 Back in Business Celebration – Tiwai Official Opening of Alliance Lorneville Venison Processing Plant 11 Council Workshop re swimmability Council/TAMI Annual Plan Workshop #2 ACE Launch - Riverton
Regional Sector Group Meeting and Tour Taranaki 29-30 November 2018
I attended the Regional Sector Group meeting in New Plymouth on 30 November 2018. The day before the meeting we travelled by bus around Taranaki, visiting the gas conversion to Methanol plant at Motanui, and received a briefing on the key role gas plays in the North Island as an alternative energy source, which can be
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 37 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
stored to supplement base load electricity if the lakes are low and the wind isn’t blowing.
It was also interesting to hear that Taranaki has 1,800 dairy farms compared with Southland at about 960, but overall dairy cow numbers are higher here.
We also looked at examples of Taranaki’s very successful riparian plating and fencing programme. Essentially regional council staff take orders from farmers and the community for delivery two years ahead, then put out tenders to nurseries to provide large numbers of plants. There is no subsidy, just leveraging the benefits of economies of scale. I recommend that staff bring a report back to Council on the merits of developing a similar scheme in Southland.
The Government’s launch of its $240 million tree planting initiative on the same day as the Regional Sector meeting, offering $4,000 a hectare for planting natives and $1,500 a hectare for exotic plantings, plus fencing costs. This creates a short-term opportunity to make some real gains in Southland if we are proactive.
I believe we need to act with some urgency on this to ensure our region secures a reasonable share of what is likely to be a one-off opportunity.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 38 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Financial and Performance Review (Putea Tatari Whakakitea)
Item 1 Chief Executive’s Report
MORF ID: - Strategic Direction: Governance Report by: Rob Phillips, Chief Executive Approved by: - Executive Approval: -
Purpose
To provide Council with a governance overview of pan organisational current matters.
Summary
This is the Chief Executive’s report for the month of November 2018. It provides an update from all direct reports to the Chief Executive, on topical matters.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council resolve to note the report.
Report
National/Regional Events and Issues
On the local front, I have recently undertaken a period of Annual Leave, and also a period of training, as previously agreed by Council. During this period, I delegated the role of Chief Executive as follows:
(a) to Graham Sevicke-Jones (Director of Science & Information) for the period from 2.00 pm on Friday, 9 November 2018 through until 5.00 pm on Friday, 16 November 2018; and (b) to Jonathan Streat (Director of Operations) for the period from 5.00 pm on Friday, 16 November 2018 through until 8.00 am on Monday, 3 December 2018.
Nationally
The Billion Trees Programme was discussed at the recent Regional Sector Group (RSG) meeting in New Plymouth, which received a presentation on the Government’s programme. Key items covered included the role of a Forestry Ministry Advisory Group, which role includes providing independent advice on the Government’s One Billion Trees programme.
The vision of the Billion Trees Programme is to drive a transformation of New Zealand forestry that will deliver improved social, environmental and economic outcomes. The objectives include the intention to plant a mix of native and exotic trees to:
deliver sustainable regional economic growth and jobs; provide opportunities for Maori to use their land and resources; support tourism and infrastructure development;
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 39 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
help meet the country’s international climate change commitments; increase indigenous biodiversity and beautify landscapes; protect and improve soil, water and other natural resources.
The programme is not just about numbers. The intention is to make sure that the right tree is planted in the right landscape. The “right trees” includes both permanent forest and plantation forest that can be harvested in the future. There will be a mix of exotic and native tree species, and at least a fifth of the One Billion Trees (i.e. the non-business as usual planting) is to be native species. The “right landscape” will see matching the species to the land, and the objectives of the landowner, and will take into account other social, environmental, cultural and economic factors. There will be alignment with wider land-use and planting strategies, and variables that determine commercial viability.
Funding the Billion Trees Programme will include grant schemes as a tool to kick-start and have accelerated planting in the first three years of the programme. It is also intended to provide more geographically and outcome specific funding – e.g. erosion control planting at East Cape.
The new grant scheme is intended to be flexible, and will fund planting that delivers reduced erosion; improved water quality; regional development; enhanced biodiversity; development of Maori-owned land; and diversification of productive land uses. There will also be an emphasis on integrated land management, and a strengthened focus on native and alternative exotic planting, with two-thirds to be native forest plantings. This will help meet targets of 60 m trees being planted in the ground over the next three years; setting the foundation for 125 million trees in the ground over the next 10 years. Grants will be based on targeted rates of $1,500 per hectare for exotics and $4,000 per hectare for natives.
It is intended that there be a simple eligibility criteria developed for the grant scheme – designed to avoid planting with negative impacts. The focus will be on a simple, practical approach, and consistent with best practice. The eligibility criteria and assessment process will vary by planting objective (e.g. indigenous landscape restoration v timber plantation) and application type (e.g. direct grant to landowner v scale partnership). The scheme will likely be delivered via a combination of:
direct grants to landowners or organisations undertaking planting; delivery through/in partnership with regional councils; multi-stakeholder projects at a catchment or landscape scale e.g. with freshwater or biodiversity objectives; co-investment with other third parties.
The role of regional councils in this process has been will be in:
the “right tree, right place for the right purpose”; land-use transition is to net zero by 2050 (+1.7-2.8 m ha); forecast climate change, with anticipated increases in fire and wind risk; sensitive catchments/essential freshwater; interface with Predator Free 2050; spatial planning tools – Scion Forest Investment Framework.
A power-point presentation is attached.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 40 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Council’s People, Water and Land Programme
Work has continued to implement the People Water and Land Programme following the Council meeting on 7 November 2018, where the establishment of a Regional Forum was endorsed and an update was provided on the values and objectives community engagement. In summary, the focus of work has been:
to continue to explore governance options, as part of the partnership with Te Ao Marama Inc. A joint workshop with the TAMI Board is scheduled for 5 December 2018;
to support and facilitate the “on the ground” action, which is critical to improving Southland’s water and land. Of interest, the Aparima Community Environment (ACE) project launch is on 11 December 2018 and is supported by Environment Southland and the agencies. The first meeting of the River Liaison Committee chairs to progress the Capacity Building Project is scheduled for 13 December 2018. Work also continues to establish evaluation and reporting through the People Water and Land Programme to ensure learnings from the projects are shared;
to implement the engagement plan and undertake the pilot for the values and objectives engagement. Conversations with our communities started in December 2018 and will continue through to mid-2019. A significant goal of the engagement is to raise Southlanders’ awareness of their waterways and the regional forum process;
to start establishing a Regional Forum, which will consider regulatory and non-regulatory methods to achieve the community’s values, objectives and targets including the setting of limits. Development has focused on raising awareness of the Regional Forum, advertising for expressions of interest in mid-December 2018, selection of Forum members and the work programme focus on team building in the first period from March-June 2019. The concept was socialised with key stakeholders through October and November 2018 and feedback has been supportive of the approach. Interviews are scheduled for the “Regional Forum Lead” position (applications closed 21 November 2018). The programme is on track to establish the Regional Forum in March 2019.
A proposed resource package (which includes the Regional Forum Lead) was prepared for the programme and includes the establishment and operation of the Regional Forum. This is currently being considered by the Directors and will in due course come before Council.
Strategy and Corporate Planning
Work on the preparation of the 2019/20 Annual Plan has commenced with a timeline adopted by the Executive Team. The first tasks are underway in considering what is “significant or materially different” from year 2 in the LTP after being considered at the first Council workshop.
The Representation Review process is now in the hands of the Local Government Commission, with all documentation having been sent to the Commission. It is expected the Final Determination will be available early in the New Year.
The application to the Provincial Growth Fund looking at further aquaculture opportunities in the south was expected to be decided on by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment by the
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 41 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
end of October 2018. The outcome will be relayed to Council if the decision is publicly available by the meeting date.
Council involvement in an upgrade of the Bluff boat ramp and construction of an associated vessel haul-out area (which is related to the Regional Fiordland Pathways Management Plan clean vessel requirements), having been considered by the Council on 31 October 2018, is continuing to progress, with discussion on the multi-use options for the site, development of high level concept plans, and subsequent discussions with various interested parties.
At the recent Te Roopu Taiao hui on 20 November 2018, it was realised that the current Charter of Understanding arrangement with tangata whenua has been in place for 25 years - a milestone worth celebrating. Discussions are underway with Te Ao Marama Inc and the other local authorities as to the most appropriate way to celebrate that enduring relationship.
Report – Policy, Planning & Regulatory Services Directorate
Policy and Planning
The proposed Southland Water and Land Plan appeals process has entered the next phase, as the Council’s evidence is currently being compiled in preparation for Topic A hearing in May 2019. The deadline for this is 14 December 2018, and of specific note is the huge amount of work that has been completed by members of the Science team who have personally contributed their supporting expert evidence within the incredibly tight timeframes.
The Essential Freshwater package announced by the Minister earlier in October 2018 has continued to create work for teams across Council. There will be much more heard about this in the coming weeks, months and years.
There have been a number of public consultations underway over the last few months - identifying where, when and why people swim in certain places across the region; Values and Objectives as part of the preparatory work for the Regional Forum; and one step closer to setting limits, as per the NPSFM requirements.
Consents
There are 91 applications in progress at the time of this report. This number remains high relative to the long-term average.
Resource consent applications have been publicly notified recently from the Woldwide group of farms, Miraka Farms Limited and Hillview Dairying Limited. These applications all seek land use consents for farming, and are triggered by proposed expansions of existing dairy farms. Submissions on these applications will close in the New Year and the need for hearings will be determined after that.
A hearing for Alliance Group Limited’s application to divert and use water for hydro-electric power generation at Mataura occurred on 3 December 2018 and a decision from independent commissioner, Dr Rob Lieffering, will be expected before the end of the year.
A hearing of Sanford Limited’s application for fin fish farming in Big Glory Bay has been delayed and is expected to be rescheduled to February or March 2019.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 42 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Council made a joint request with Marlborough District Council for applications from New Zealand King Salmon (NZKS) to be “called in” by the Minister for Conservation, for a determination by a Board of Inquiry. A decision has yet to be received from the Minister. Since making the request staff understand that NZKS has lodged a further application of the same nature in Marlborough and two applications in Otago. NZKS’s proposals are to acquire exclusive or preferential use of coastal space of at least eight sites in Marlborough, Canterbury, Otago and Southland covering at least 10,000 hectares.
Compliance with statutory processing timeframes is 99% for the period 29 September to 29 November 2018.
Compliance
Compliance is sending effluent emergency posters to every consented dairy farm in Southland. This project, in part, has been paid for, by a donation received as a restorative justice agreement.
A project reporting on the over-abstraction of water for small water takes has been progressed. Reminder letters are being sent to consent holders that have over-abstracted by small to medium amounts.
Monitoring for industry and farming is progressing well.
Harbour Management Activity
Cruise ship update – there have been 17 cruise ship visits to Fiordland and one cancellation since the cruise ship season began on 30 September 2018. Visits will increase during the month of December, with 24 cruise ships scheduled during that period. Monitoring trips to check on environmental obligations will be conducted during the season by the maritime team. The final Fiordland Cruise Ship Risk Assessment report is due before Christmas.
Preparation for the recreational boating season has commenced, with a targeted advertising campaign aimed at boating safety, in particular, carriage of at least two forms of communications and vessel speed. Funding from Maritime New Zealand has allowed Council to employ a maritime assistant over the Christmas and New Year period.
Report – Operations Directorate
Catchment Operations
A consent application for gravel management on the Lower Upukerora has been granted. Work is still ongoing for obtaining a concession from the Department of Conservation, due to the application being publicly notified. This should be completed by January 2019.
The river and land drainage programmes are underway and progress will be governed by weather.
Flooding in the Mataura River in the week of 19 November 2018 caused extensive erosion in certain areas. An inspection of Environment Southland’s infrastructure is currently being carried out by staff, with no issues identified so far.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 43 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Land and Water Services
A key project being advanced through the division is the Aparima Community Environment (ACE) project. A Terms of Reference has been finalised and an independent chair has been appointed, who will work with both the Leaders’ Group and the Working Group. There are a number of actions underway at the moment – a launch of the project is to be held at three locations on 11 December 2018, a wintering project is being developed between the three main agencies, and a plan for delivery of farm plans to the deer farmers has been agreed on. Staff expect to hear soon about the outcome of the Sustainable Farming Fund application.
Community science remains an important topic of discussion with individual landowners and catchment groups. To support catchment group endeavours in this area, two field days have been held where ES staff (LAWS and Science representatives) presented the Rapid Habitat Assessment tool. This tool can be used to assess ecological health of a waterway, but also be repeated over time (at least one year duration) to show change in the health of the waterway as a result of implementing improved practices.
In the hazardous substances area, staff have been uploading dangerous goods licences to the database and updating records. They are also working with the Department of Conservation to complete its registration of HAIL sites, most recently attending a site visit with staff in the Te Anau area. There are a number of report reviews being undertaken for Z Energy and Mobil Oil, as part of Council’s regulatory responsibilities.
Biosecurity & Biodiversity Operations
The Fiordland Marine Pathways Plan has won the Supreme Award and Local and Central Government Award at the National Biosecurity Awards hosted by the Ministry for Primary Industries.
The Wilding Conifer volunteer working bee had to be cancelled due to heavy rainfall, which made the access track impassable.
Over 20 people braved bad weather to attend the Broom Gall Mite field day.
Annual rook inspections of high risk sites produced encouraging results, with no rooks found.
Operations staff have planted 340 trees in the Lower Mataura O’Neill’s “A” covenant. The planting will help protect the remnant bush block from wind.
Emergency Management Southland
Community response planning continues to be rolled out across Southland with the Te Anau plan now in its final stages and new meetings are being held in Wyndham. EMS is on track to meet its commitment of developing eight community plans this year and will be using a fixed term position (back-filling for the current commitment to the MPI Mycoplasma Bovis response) to develop the Invercargill City plans. EMS continues to lead a national community engagement project funded by the Ministry’s resilience fund.
In the response workstream EMS has carried out an induction meeting for the new seasonal staff in Milford Sound and ran a CIMS4 (the national incident management system) training course for the Community Response Group on Stewart Island. Training for Council’s Emergency Co-ordination Centre staff was delivered prior to holding Exercise Maku, a flood exercise concentrating on the
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 44 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Mataura River catchment. There was a great turnout, with the exercise being held twice in one day with two different shifts participating. The exercise debrief process is underway to identify what further improvements can be made to the systems and processes.
As part of EMS’ work on preparing for recovery, a Business Continuity Planning (BCP) workshop was facilitated for Southland District Council (SDC) - a draft BCP plan and templates are being developed for SDC’s use. EMS intends to roll this out to Invercargill City Council, Gore District Council and Environment Southland in the next six months.
Report – Science & Information Directorate
Communications
The current focus is on planning and executing the engagement plan for People, Water and Land. There is also work underway supporting the hearing process for the Regional Pest Management Plan, plus campaigns for summer low water level preparation, boating safety, summer swim programme, LAWA (Land, Air and Water Aotearoa) updates and internal communications. Publications include the Compliance Monitoring Report, Enviroteach magazine and Envirosouth, which is delivered to letterboxes this month. A review of the Environment Awards is underway and some one-on-one media engagement has been undertaken.
Science Informatics & Operations
Various routine State of the Environment environmental monitoring/data collections and data handling/management activities that inform the science programmes are ongoing. Examples include river flow and rainfall (hydrological response), river, lakes and groundwater quality (nutrient and sediment loads), aquatic ecology (aquatic macroinvertebrates, fish species diversity/abundance and periphyton) and groundwater levels and quality (allocation availability).
High-flow water sampling was undertaken during two separate floodwarning events in November 2018 – high rainfall results in an increase in the transportation of sediment and nutrients through the river systems. To help capture water quality information there are a series of automatic water samplers at key sites around the region. The automatic samplers can be set-off remotely to take samples across the time of high flows. This can be done at times when it may be unsafe for staff to be out collecting samples themselves – such as at night or when high water levels make conditions dangerous. Once conditions make it safe to access the automatic samplers, staff collect the samples then send them to the laboratory for analysis.
An initiative associated from developing relationships with stakeholders linked to the Southland Science Strategy development work has been held with Meridian Energy, where an agreement/contract is being progressed. This will involve Environment Southland providing services (sampling, analysis and data management) for monthly monitoring at an additional six river water quality sites, three river water sites for periphyton assessment and two river sites annually for macroinvertebrates/sediment, as well as an element of continuous water quality data handling from a nitrate sensor placed at Tuatapere. Environment Southland and Meridian Energy will benefit from enhanced monitoring and sharing the same data.
Air Quality: The winter monitoring period has now ended. There have been 13 exceedances of the
PM10 standard in Invercargill (one of these being outside the winter period) and two exceedances in Gore. The National Environmental Standards for Air Quality are being reviewed and staff are
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 45 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
engaging with the Ministry for the Environment on this process. A joint project is also underway with ESR to develop a platform for community engagement on air quality issues, with a report due towards the end of the calendar year. The Gore air quality monitoring site now has PM2.5 monitoring capability.
Science Strategy & Investigations
A workshop will be held on 5 December 2018 to present an overview of the content relating to Environment Southland’s Science Symposium (held in September 2018) for those Councillors that were not able to attend on the day.
The symposium showcased the work done over the last four years, as part of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management Science Programme and Southland Economic Project, as well as in the air quality and biodiversity domains. The work provides a platform for a science resource that will be used by generations to come. It will be used in the near future to inform community conversations through the People, Water and Land Programme.
A continuous profiling monitoring buoy has been re-installed at the Lake Manapouri, Stony Point site. The monitoring buoy was originally deployed in December 2016 but had to be removed in May 2017 due to operational problems. The equipment has been repaired and the Lake Manapouri monitoring buoy is now collecting continuous water quality data to a depth of 30 metres.
The team is currently preparing for a busy summer where field work increases in intensity. This includes estuaries, recreational programmes, river ecological monitoring and investigation work in a number of different areas.
Various reports have been finalised, or are in the final stages. As these become available they are being added to the new website, which was created during the lead-up to the symposium. One recent report that has been published “Assessing the State of Periphyton in Southland Streams & Rivers” (Hodson R & De Silva N) provides a revised assessment of the state of benthic periphyton commonly referred to as slime algae in the Southland region.
In addition, staff have been busy assisting other divisions, including undertaking reviews of consent applications, providing information for the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan appeals, supporting the People Water and Land Programme and assisting the Land and Water Services Division with catchment group requests for information.
Report – Corporate Services Directorate
Over the past six weeks the Corporate Services Directorate has been working on the following key items:
IT Division
Server, storage and infrastructure upgrade – staff are currently working with infrastructure experts, CCL, to determine the optimal configuration for computer and storage requirements. To date: . detailed diagnostics have been completed on the utilisation of Council’s current needs; . staff are meeting with a range of vendors and evaluating their proposed solutions, including reviewing Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), i.e. cloud computing.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 46 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
This research will inform a business case which will be prepared and presented to Executive for approval. CCL has completed the network review, and a draft document has been received, with the following recommendations: . replace the core and backbone switches that are at the end of their life. This is being taken into consideration as part of the above server and infrastructure upgrade; . review the current Wi-Fi system, with the aim of gaining increased performance by replacing the current access points to newer ones. Council‘s current Wi-Fi system is having performance issues when there are numerous people accessing the Wi-Fi at the same time e.g. Council meetings, Emergency Management Southland; . update the firewall - this is currently underway. Work continues with suppliers to upgrade Council’s core applications to the latest versions. These include Authority, Objective and GIS. Timelines for implementation are currently being developed. Authority is seen as the highest priority, as this supports the ES Way Performance Management Framework Project. To date: . Civica (Authority) visited recently and demonstrated Authority 7.1 to key staff; . Authority – following on from the workshop a Statement of Work has been signed and the upgrade into the test environment will start in late January 2019. This will enable the finance staff to have enough time for testing the new system prior to it being released into production; . GIS – a workshop has been held to ensure that Council’s set-up has been optimised, and to make sure that there is a solid foundation to enable best performance. An implementation plan is to be delivered in January 2019; . Objective – a Statement of Work is currently under consideration, and, once signed, an implementation plan will be developed. There is reliance on the server, storage and infrastructure upgrade, as Council does not currently have the capacity to run this new environment alongside its existing Objective environment. IT Shared services has been involved in planning meetings with the local councils - this has included GIS, planning teams and IT; Initial conversations are being held with the RSHL Advisory Group members around what the IRIS V2 roadmap will look like. Subject matter experts from within Council will be brought into these conversations in due course.
Records
The File Plan Review project continues. The project team has received feedback from the end users around proposed changes to document types. Work has commenced on changing/ updating main document types to make them more usable. The change will improve document searchability, which will increase efficiency of both records staff and end users. Staff are currently focusing on workflows in Objective and considering current manual processes that could be automated. Below is a list of some of the workflows currently being worked on: . the new staff set-up process – this process is time-consuming and currently a manual process. Automation will be beneficial; . moving of documents – this will allow end users to effectively move a document from one file to another if it has been retained in the incorrect area of the file plan; . LGOIMA request response – automation will help manage the process to ensure tasks are assigned and enable transparency with regard to the completion of tasks. This will enable staff to track the progress of the response to ensure legislative timeframes are met.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 47 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
The Corporate Clothing Committee has met to review the implementation of the new range of clothing and discussed if any other items need to be added. The Committee did an on-site visit to UniformNZ to consider new items to be added to the summer range. There has been a good uptake of corporate clothing from staff. Reception is managing through the last week of rates. The number of incoming calls has already increased with ratepayers making enquiries. The reception and finance teams are working well together to manage the increased demand. Good support processes have been implemented to ensure excellent customer service is maintained during this time.
HR Division
The level of recruitment activity is now at a steady level, as the bulk of the post Long-term Plan and internal reorganisation recruitment has been completed. Policy roles remain difficult to fill, so the focus will be to continue the recruitment activity overseas, emphasising Council’s offering as a council and as a region. Support is being given to the industry-wide regional council activity on exploring solutions to skills shortages across the sector, with the focus being on catchment and engineering roles. Staff are also supporting ongoing activity to inform sector policy and approach to remuneration (living wage, equal pay). The working party (of which ES is a part) has done some preliminary desk-based research and will meet to discuss and formalise recommendations to the sector in January 2019. Policy development is ongoing and work is being done on the Harassment Policy, in line with the recent employee survey activity. The health, safety and wellness framework continues to be developed, alongside articulating what the wellbeing offering/activity is. Another series of directorate days, to further communicate to staff about progress against the strategy and to provide feedback on delving-deeper questions, has been completed. An unconscious bias training session has been organised to support fairness in all decision-making across Council and in support of a commitment to the Union to improve confidence in Council’s performance development programme process. Grief awareness training is also being organised to support staff generally, specifically in the lead-up to Christmas. Preparations are underway to develop a request for proposal for a leadership development programme for Council, which will be implemented next year. Council and Union relationships continue to be good, with another constructive meeting. There are no pressing issues at the current time, and staff are awaiting Union feedback on a policy concerning the payment of professional memberships.
Secretarial
The team’s major focus this past period has been on elected members, executive and organisational support in the following areas:
Council, Committee and hearing agendas; Envirolink funding application support; Bio-Managers SIG support; Mid Dome Wilding Trees Charitable Trust support; Whakamana te Waituna Trust and other associated support meeting arrangements; Road Safety Influencing Group; Southland Heritage & Building Preservation Trust support;
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 48 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Southland Shared Services; Air Quality Workshop – cross-organisation group support; Water shortage meetings; Information Management Steering Group; Compliance Monitoring Report preparation; People Water & Land Programme communication/engagement support; Health & Safety; LGOIMA responses; ACE Group meeting arrangements; Te Roopu Taiao; communications with water permit-holders.
Finance
A consultant has been contracted to cover some of the regular monthly processing to provide staff capacity to support the Authority upgrade and other organisational change initiatives. New management reporting prototypes have been developed and are being socialised with a number of budget holders. Feedback is both positive and constructive as development continues. The team remains very busy with the collection of rates. Work is underway with the preparation of the 2019/20 Annual Plan. A review of the “procure to pay” process has commenced, with the objective of providing greater efficiency and risk mitigation. The review is timed to coincide with the Authority upgrade so that financial system efficiencies can be incorporated into the upgrade.
Property
The Working Party has toured a number of Council’s leasehold properties and has a good appreciation of the nature of the leased land operations. The Working Party is in good stead for reviewing and resetting the policy and procedures relating to operating this aspect of Council’s business. A letter has been sent to all leaseholders advising them of the establishment of the Working Party and its intentions.
Attachments
1. Power-point presentation.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 49 Meeting of Council.docx
The Forestry Ministerial Advisory Group And The One Billion Tree Programme
Warren Parker Chair FMAG Overview
• The FMAG – our purpose, membership and work to date • The One Billion Tree Programme (1BTP) – 30 Nov launch update • Regional Councils and trees • Sensitive catchments • Essential freshwater • Planning Tools e.g. Scion’s Forest Investment Finder • Methyl bromide – log exports (recapture 99.9% 28 Oct 2020) FMAG Membership
• James Palmer – CEO HBRC • David Rhodes – CEO Forest Owners Association (FOA) • Neil Cullen – President Farm Forestry Association • Robert Green - CEO of Timberlands Ltd • Gina Solomon (Ngāi Tahu / Ngāti Kuri) – Director QEII Trust, Chair Nelson- Marlborough Conservation Board • Bryan Stanley – Chair Wood Processors Manufacturers Association • Henare Walker – GM Summit Forests NZ Ltd. • Fiona Kingsford - CEO of Competenz • Charlotte Severne (resigned, now Chief Trustee, Te Tumu Paeroa) FMAG Purpose
• To provide the Minister with industry perspective and independent advice on matters agreed between the Minister and the Chair of the Advisory Group. This includes: • identifying opportunities to improve the performance of the forestry system; • advising on the Government’s One Billion Trees programme and associated policies; and • advising on future trends, risks and issues that may impact on the performance of the forestry system. FMAG Work to Date
• Tolaga Bay – social license • Science & Innovation • Labour supply & skills (T&D) • Policy – ETS, 1 BTP Forthcoming • Future forestry vision/narrative • Wood processing • Alternative exotic species • Tax (Tax Working Group) • Future workforce FMAG Communications-Engagement
• Liaison letter to key stakeholders
• Website https://www.teururakau.govt.nz/about-us/our-structure/government-advisory-groups/forestry-ministerial-advisory-group/ • Hosting FMAG dinners/lunch with key stakeholders • Meeting in regions –Rotorua, Christchurch • Attend industry/other events e.g. FICA Conference “To drive a transformation of New Zealand forestry that will deliver improved social, environmental and economic outcomes”
Planting a mix of native and exotic trees to: Billion Trees • Deliver sustainable regional economic growth and jobs Programme: • Provide opportunities for Maori to use their land Vision & and resources • Support tourism and infrastructure development objectives • Help meet our international climate change commitments • Increase indigenous biodiversity and beautify landscapes • Protect and improve soil, water and other natural resources Source: Te Uru Rakau 1BT Suitable 1BT is not just about numbers. We want to make sure Land & Trees that the right tree is planted in the right landscape
The right landscape The right trees • Both permanent forest Matching the species to the and plantation forest that land and the objective of the can be harvested in the land owner and will take future. into account: • Mix of exotic and native • other social, tree species environmental, cultural, and economic factors • At least 1/5 of 1BT (i.e. non BAU planting) is to be • Alignment with wider land- native species use and planting strategies; • Variables that determine commercial viability One Billion Tree Programme Grants & Co-Funding Grant schemes as a tool to kick-start planting
Direct Partnerships Investments The New Grants Scheme Pre 1BT Grant Schemes
Designed to help kick- Provide more geographically & start accelerated outcome specific funding e.g. erosion control planting East Cape planting under 1BT in the first 3 years of the Grant Regulatory Schemes 1BT programme Changes
Consists of new and pre-existing schemes The New Grant Scheme
Targeted Will help us get Sets foundations for This flexible scheme will fund planting that delivers: $118m 60m 125m Fund Trees in the ground Trees in the ground over the next 3 years over the next 10 years Reduced erosion Direct Partnerships Strengthen Investments Improved water quality focus On native and Regional development alternative exotic Grants based on planting targeted rates per $1,500 Enhanced biodiversity hectare – e.g: Per hectare for exotics Development of Māori owned land $4,000 Diversification of productive land uses (approx) per hectare for natives
Emphasis on integrated 2/3rds land management Native Forests The New Grant Scheme (Cont’d)
Simple eligibility criteria Direct grants to landowners or organisations undertaking Designed to avoid planting with planting negative impact. Delivery through/in Simple, practical and consistent with Strengthen New Grant partnership with regional best practice focus Scheme will councils On native and likely be alternative exotic delivered via a Multi-stakeholder projects Eligibility criteria, and at a catchment or landscape planting combination of: assessment process vary by: scale e.g. with freshwater or biodiversity objectives Planting objective e.g. indigenous landscape restoration vs. timber Co-investment with other plantation third parties Application type e.g. direct grant to landowner vs. scale partnership Grants & the ETS Top-up available/ha
Erosion prone land OR land in areas that Ecological restoration Type of planting Size Base rate/ha support regional Fencing partnership projects development goals Indigenous mix (e.g. mix of native trees & 1ha – 300ha $4000 $500 Up to $500 Up to $2000 shrubs) Mānuka/kānuka (particularly for erosion control or nurse crop for indigenous 5ha – 300ha $1800 $500 NA NA forest)
Indigenous natural regeneration (e.g. retiring land & managing 5ha – 300ha $1000 $500 Up to $500 NA natural return to trees)
Exotic (e.g. planting eucalypts, redwoods or pinus radiata to 5ha – 300ha $1500 $500 NA NA stabilise erosion-prone land) Grants & the ETS
Grant eligibility does not If your trees are eligible for ETS guarantee your trees will be registration then you may do so eligible for ETS registration immediately if you wish (unless you are planting pinus radiata).
Specify your interest in ETS registration in your application, and we can provide the specific eligibility criteria you must If planting Pinus radiata you can’t meet. You can also access this register your forest in the ETS for information at six years from, and including, the www.mpi.govt.nz/ets year of planting. Regional Councils and Trees
• “Right tree, right place, right purpose” • Land use transition to net zero 2050 (+1.7-2.8m ha) • Forecast climate change - ↑fire, wind risk • Sensitive catchments/Essential freshwater • Interface with Predator Free 2050 • Spatial planning tools – Scion FIF Spatial planning - Forest Investment Framework (FIF) ▪ FIF is a spatial economic tool for assessing forestry values at a regional scale ▪ Used by government agencies, iwi and forest industry for: • afforestation potential of land • demonstrating forestry’s multiple values • policy discussions ▪ Incorporates: timber, carbon, avoided erosion, biodiversity, • N leaching, water regulation and recreation in development
Yao, Richard T., Duncan R. Harrison, Sandra J. Velarde, and Luke E. Barry. 2016. 'Validation and enhancement of a spatial economic tool for assessing ecosystem services provided by planted forests', Forest Policy and Economics, 72: 122-31. Yao, Richard T., Duncan R. Harrison, and Michelle Harnett. 2017. 'The broader benefits provided by New Zealand's planted forests', New Zealand Journal of Forestry, 61: 7-15. Contact: [email protected]
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Item 2 Financial Report as at 31 October 2018
MORF ID: A438072 Strategic Direction: Report by: Tanea Hawkins, Finance Manager, Jody Approved by: Neil Selman, Director of Corporate Lloyd, Financial Accountant Services Executive Approval: Neil Selman, Director of Corporate Services
Purpose
For Council to note the financial report to 31 October 2018.
Summary
The overall result for the period ended 31 October 2018 is a surplus of $821,346. This result is a favourable variance of $1,319,839 ahead of the year-to-date budgeted deficit of $498,493. Total operating revenue for the month is favourable to budget by $550,879. Total operating expenditure for the month is $342,171 unfavourable (overspent) to budget. Investment income is unfavourable to budget by $1,117,239, due to a revaluation in the managed fund for the month.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council resolve to note the financial report.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 67 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 68 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 69 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 70 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Financial results
Operating Revenue – Key variances for the month ended 31 October 2018
Investment income is unfavourable to budget by $1,117,239, due to a revaluation in the JBWere fund of $1,001,165 for the month and unfavourable to budget for the year-to-date by $571,501.
Other income is above budget for the month by $597,864.
External recoveries of $121,648 is favourable to budget for the month, due to a timing difference in harbour management receiving some cruise ship income earlier than budgeted.
Local contributions of $478,854 is favourable to budget, due to a timing difference as land drainage and river works local contributions from Meridian Energy for the Waiau rating district having been invoiced a month earlier than budgeted.
Operating Expenditure – Key variances for the month ended 31 October 2018
People expenses are favourable to budget for the month by $156,616 and for the year-to-date by $623,215. This relates to salaries and superannuation, due to a number of vacancies across several divisions yet to be filled and staff on ACC.
Operational expenses are unfavourable to budget for the month by $522,161, which is a timing difference, as these are favourable to budget for the year-to-date by $46,865.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 71 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Investments and Bank Accounts as at 31 October 2018
JBWere Funds
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 72 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Debtors as at 31 October 2018
Fit with Strategic Framework
This report is consistent with reporting financial results against Council’s Long-term Plan for the 2018/19 year.
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
There are no issues within this report, which trigger matters in this policy.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 73 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Considerations
Financial Implications
Current budget This financial report for Council covers the four month period from 1 July to 31 October 2018.
The overall result to the period ended 31 October 2018 is a surplus of $821,346. This result is a favourable variance of $1,319,839 ahead of the year-to-date budgeted deficit of $498,493.
Total operating revenue for the month is favourable to budget by $550,879. Total operating expenditure for the month is $342,171 unfavourable (overspent) to budget. Investment income is unfavourable to budget by $1,117,239, due to revaluation in the managed fund for the month.
Legal Implications
This report is prepared taking into account the prudential requirements of Part 6 of the Local Government Act.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 74 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Policy Issues and Decisions (Kaupapa Whakaputa Whakatau)
Item 3 People Water and Land Programme – Regional Forum Lead
Report to: Council Meeting Date: 12 December 2018 MORF ID: A439879 Strategic Direction: Managed access to quality natural resources and communities empowered and resilient Report by: Bonny Lawrence, Programme Manager, Approved by: Rob Phillips, Chief Executive Land and Water Executive Approval: Rob Phillips, Chief Executive
Purpose
To approve the appointment of an additional staff position (Regional Forum Lead) to manage and oversee the operation of the Regional Forum. The Regional Forum is an integral part of People Water and Land Programme, which aims to inspire change to improve Southland’s water and land.
Summary
As part of managing freshwater in Southland and meeting the regulatory requirements of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM), Council has identified that an integrated approach is needed covering both processes and structures to support on-the-ground actions and the regulatory framework to set limits. This is the People Water and Land Programme. Working in partnership with Ngai Tahu ki Murihiku though its environmental arm (Te Ao Marama Inc), a framework for the programme has been developed, with a vision of “inspiring change to improve Southland’s water and land”. The key workstreams are “on-the-ground action”, understanding the community’s values and objectives for freshwater and setting up a Regional Forum to consider what methods should be utilised to meet these objectives. These workstreams work towards identifying and implementing regulatory and non-regulatory methods to achieve the community’s values and objectives by 2021/22, at the end of which a plan change will be notified in advance of meeting the NPSFM requirement of setting limits by 2025.
At the Council meeting on 7 November 2018, the establishment of the Regional Forum to advise Council on the methods (including limits) to achieve the community’s values and objectives was endorsed and the need for a Regional Forum Lead identified. However, this role was not formally approved. This paper seeks approval for the appointment of a Regional Forum Lead to manage and oversee the operation of the forum which will be critical to the forum’s success. The position can be funded within existing budgets.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council resolve to:
1. approve the appointment of a Regional Forum Lead, which is an additional FTE to the number set out in the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan;
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 75 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
2. note that additional resources for the People Water and Land Programme, principally to establish and operate the forum, will be required and will be raised with Council in due course.
Report
Background
2018-2028 Long-term Plan
In the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan, Environment Southland identified that managing Southland’s freshwater resource (both maintaining and improving water quality and managing water quantity) as its first priority work programme. People Water and Land is the programme charged with its delivery and is a partnership with Te Ao Marama Inc, as the environmental arm of Ngai Tahu ki Murihiku. It is an integrated programme of regulation and on-the-ground action that will support people, businesses and organisations to change activities that adversely affect land and water. The programme’s vision is to inspire change to improve Southland’s water and land.
At the time the Long-term Plan was developed and approved, there was limited understanding of the resources required. Consequent to that, Council has done additional work to identify the workstreams and resources required to implement. This paper addresses part of that resource requirement.
Development of the programme has identified three key workstreams:
Action on the Ground (projects that support, facilitate and lead integrated catchment management activities that improve land use); Values and Objectives (sharing knowledge with communities and determining their values and objectives); and a Regional Forum (to consider regulatory and non-regulatory methods to achieve the community’s values, objectives and targets including the setting of limits).
Regional Forum
The purpose of the Regional Forum (Southland Forum) is to consider and advise Council on the options available to achieve the community’s objectives for freshwater by considering the impacts, timing, targets, limits (water quality and quantity), methods and policy context. As noted above, an important part of this process will be sense-checking back with the community on the targets and methods being considered. The advice will form the basis of a plan change that will capture, where appropriate, the limits to improve our region’s freshwater. Where improvements in freshwater are better achieved by non-regulatory methods then the Regional Forum’s outcomes will inform the Action on the Ground workstream.
At the Council meeting on 7 November 2018, the concept of the Regional Forum was endorsed. The Regional Forum will be a forum that is regional, and therefore needs to reflect the region. A community-based group of Southlanders will be established and operate in as equitable, open and transparent manner as possible. There are opportunities for community “involvement” on numerous levels. The Regional Forum will run from 2019-2022, as shown in Figure 1.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 76 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
It is intended that expressions of interest will be sought over the Christmas period, with appointments made in February 2019. The Regional Forum will then come together in March 2019 and spend the period through to July 2019 getting “up to speed” with the task at hand and building trust within the team. From this point the Regional Forum turns its attention to sense-checking the draft objectives and considering the limits, methods and implementation to achieve the community’s objectives for freshwater.
The Regional Forum will be established over the coming months with expressions of interest sought over the Christmas period from the community. Documentation and processes to support the establishment and operation of the forum will be finalised including the terms of reference, roles and responsibilities, job descriptions, selection process, programme of work and communications material. A work plan for the initial phase of the forum from March to June 2019 will also be confirmed and will focus on team building and knowledge building.
Introduction sessions March 2019
Phase 1: Knowledge Building
Phase 2: Objectives and Limits Phase 3: Methods and Implementation
Proposal Confirmation Forum's Proposal recommended to Council
Plan change by 2022
Figure 1: The Regional Forum Work Programme
Regional Forum Lead
To ensure the management and oversight of the Regional Forum, a new role is proposed within Council. The Regional Forum Lead will manage and oversee the Regional Forum and its development of methods (both regulatory and non-regulatory) to achieve the community’s values and objectives for freshwater. The forum will provide advice to Council on these methods and a preferred option by 2021. For clarity, the Regional Forum is the main mechanism with which Council has identified that
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 77 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
will meet the requirement of the NPSFM, to have limits set by 2025, with meaningful engagement with the community.
As discussed previously with Council and TAMI Board members, given the timeframes and the work required to establish and operate the Regional Forum, it has been identified that a person should be appointed with urgency to lead the Regional Forum.
The benefit of having a dedicated person leading the Regional Forum is that there is likely to be a much higher likelihood of the forum achieving its objective with community “buy in”. If the forum is not well resourced and supported then then there is less likelihood of a successful outcome. The time and resource to support such a forum should not be underestimated, as has been identified in other similar processes around New Zealand.
Next steps
Interviews are being held for the Regional Forum Lead role in the week of 10 December 2018. In parallel, the documentation and processes to support the establishment and operation of the forum are being developed and finalised, including the terms of reference, roles and responsibilities, job descriptions, selection process, programme of work and communications material. A work plan for the initial phase of the forum from March to June 2019 will also be confirmed focused on team building and knowledge building
Fit with strategic framework
Outcome Contributes Detracts Not applicable Managed access to quality natural resources x Diverse opportunities to make a living x Communities empowered and resilient x Communities expressing their diversity x
In the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan, Environment Southland identified that managing Southland’s freshwater resource (both maintaining and improving water quality and managing water quantity) as its first priority work programme. People Water and Land is the programme charged with its delivery. This paper focuses on the Regional Forum Lead role, which is a component of the resource package required to implement the programme.
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
There are no issues within this report which trigger matters in this policy.
Considerations
Financial implications The People Water and Land Programme is a key component of the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan. The Regional Forum Lead is an additional staff position that is required to enable the operation of the forum. The role is part of a resource package for the programme that is being prepared, which will come before Council in due course.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 78 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Legal implications Commencing stakeholder discussions and the establishment of a Regional Forum to develop methods (including limits) to achieve the communities objectives for freshwater is one of the many steps towards meeting Council’s statutory obligations.
Attachments
None
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 79 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Approvals Required (Whakaengia)
Item 4 Annual Consent Charges Complaint
MORF ID: A429536 Strategic Direction: Managed access to quality natural resources Report by: Tanith Robb, Senior Policy Planner Approved by: Lucy Hicks, Policy and Planning Manager Executive Approval: Vin Smith, Director of Policy, Planning & Regulatory Services
Purpose
1. To report to Council on the outcome of the review of Mr Doug Fraser’s complaint about his annual consent charges.
Summary
2. Mr Doug Fraser has complained to Council about the annual consent charges ($992) he received for a dairy conversion consent (and associated discharge and water take) for his sheep and dairy support farm at Pahia. Mr Fraser contends that he should not have to pay annual consent charges because the resource consent is unexercised. Mr Fraser believes this results in no administrative costs for Council, as there is no natural resource use, over and above a typical sheep and dairy support farm.
3. Staff have reviewed the charges and disagree with Mr Fraser’s position. Administration costs for consents are incurred regardless of whether a consent is exercised. In terms of resource use, although Mr Fraser has not converted his farm to dairying, and is not discharging effluent or taking groundwater, he has acquired permission to do so. This is a direct benefit to Mr Fraser and, because Southland has limited resources, Mr Fraser’s consent precludes the ability of others to use the resources he has reserved. All consented uses of Southland resources need to be accounted for, to limit the risk of over-allocation.
4. The review of Mr Fraser’s consent has highlighted some ways in which Council can improve its processes and staff have made recommendations (paragraph 27) to improve communication of Council’s annual consent charges.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Council resolve to:
1. agree that Mr Fraser’s annual consent charges are appropriate, legal, in line with Council’s charging policy, and fair and reasonable;
2. note that staff will prepare a response to Mr Fraser for the Chairman’s consideration, outlining the outcome of the review;
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 80 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
3. agree that staff implement the improvements to the communication of consents annual charges as identified in this agenda item.
Report
Background
5. D W and G J Fraser for Braeland Partnership (represented by Mr Doug Fraser) was granted resource consent from 4 February 2016 to establish a dairying operation, discharge dairy shed effluent to land from up to 780 cows, and to take 78,000 litres of groundwater per day for stock and shed purposes, at 260 Ruahine Road and 250 Pahia Roundhill Road.
6. The resource consent, which is made up of a discharge permit, a water permit, and a land use consent, is currently unexercised.
7. On 21 August 2018, Mr Fraser was invoiced annual consent charges totalling $992 for:
Description Consent/permit Cost ($) Land use consent 190 Consent administration charges Water permit 50 Discharge permit 190 Groundwater take (minimum charge) 162 Water research and management charge Discharge to land 250 Receipt and processing of small to medium Groundwater take 150 volume irrigation/water take data
8. Mr Fraser has objected to the charges, labelling them unfair and unreasonable. At the Council meeting on 7 November 2018, Mr Fraser argued that because his resource consent is unexercised, there should be no annual consent charges payable. Specifically, Mr Fraser contends that:
there are no administration costs incurred by Council for his resource consent, because it has not been exercised; there is no effluent discharge to land, as there is no dairy shed or effluent pond on the farm, and therefore there should be no monitoring charge; and there is no groundwater take, therefore Council is not receiving or processing water take data from the property.
9. Overall, Mr Fraser considers that his property has no more impact on the environment than any other sheep and dairy support farm, therefore he should not be required to pay annual charges associated with a dairying operation.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 81 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Current situation
Administrative charges under the Resource Management Act 1991
10. Under Section 36 of Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), Council may fix a range of charges, including:
(1)(c) charges payable by holders of resource consents, for the carrying out by the local authority of its functions in relation to the administration, monitoring, and supervision of resource consents (including certificates of compliance and existing use certificates), and for the carrying out of its resource management functions under section 35.
11. When the charges are fixed, they must meet the criteria in Section 36AAA of the RMA, including that the sole purpose is to recover the reasonable costs of Council’s involvement in the activity to which the charge relates. Specifically, a person should be required to pay a charge only:
(a) to the extent that the benefit of the local authority’s actions to which the charge relates is obtained by those persons as distinct from the community of the local authority as a whole; or (b) where the need for the local authority’s actions to which the charge relates results from the actions of those persons; or (c) in a case where the charge is in respect of the local authority’s monitoring functions under Section 35(2)(a) (which relates to monitoring the state of the whole or part of the environment),— (i) to the extent that the monitoring relates to the likely effects on the environment of those persons’ activities; or (ii) to the extent that the likely benefit to those persons of the monitoring exceeds the likely benefit of the monitoring to the community of the local authority as a whole.
12. Council’s resource management charges have been fixed in accordance with Section 36 of the RMA.
Council’s Fees and Charges
13. A review of Council’s fees and charges was undertaken as part of the Long-term Plan process for 2018-2028. The community was able to have their say on the fees and charges proposal, alongside the Long-term Plan consultation earlier this year. The Fees and Charges Schedule 2018-2021, setting out Council’s charging policy, was adopted on 29 June 2018.
14. Council’s financial strategy takes a user pays approach; where the users and beneficiaries of natural resource use can be identified, it is appropriate that they pay the costs rather than the general ratepayer.
15. The Fees and Charges Schedule sets out the annual charges associated with resource consents, including:
resource consent monitoring and annual administration charges (fixed charges that are set depending on the amount of administration a particular type of consent may require);
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 82 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
annual consent compliance monitoring charges (fixed charges for various compliance monitoring activities inspections/monitoring); and annual water research and management charges (these charges are scalable depending on the nature and scale of the activity, and the level of stress a particular catchment or groundwater zone is under).
16. The Fees and Charges Schedule does not differentiate between exercised and unexercised consents, rather the charges are payable by consent holders. Council’s website and the covering note accompanying Mr Fraser’s invoices state that “All consent holders are required to pay an annual charge that covers the costs of administration and monitoring of consents. Annual charges apply to all current resource consents granted on or prior to 1 July this year, whether or not the consents have been exercised”.
17. The covering note also explains why annual consent charges apply to unexercised consents, “This is because you reserve the right to use a resource or carry out an activity, in turn limiting the chances for others to hold similar consents”.
18. Historically, Council’s consent documentation required consent holders to pay annual consent charges as a condition of the consent. Mr Fraser’s discharge permit and water permit requires payment of administration and monitoring charges.
19. However, as annual consents charges are required to be paid by the consent holder under Section 36 of the RMA, it is not necessary to include it as a condition of consent. The consent documentation has been updated and the following note is now included at the end of all consents:
“The consent holder shall pay an annual administration and monitoring charge to the Consent Authority, collected in accordance with Section 36 of the Resource Management Act, 1991. This charge may include the costs of inspecting the site up to X times each year (or otherwise as set by the Consent Authority’s Annual Plan).”
20. Holders of unexercised consents who do not wish to pay annual consent charges have the option of surrendering the consent.
Analysis
21. Mr Fraser’s annual consent charges have been reviewed in light of the following questions:
are the charges legal? are the charges in line with Council policy? are the charges appropriate? are the charges fair and reasonable?
Are the charges legal?
22. Council’s counsel considered the wording of Section 36(1)(c) (copied in paragraph 10. above), and determined that a person is a “holder of a resource consent”, even if that consent has not been exercised. Accordingly, the legal advice is, that Council can charge fixed fees in respect of a resource consent, even where that resource consent is not being exercised.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 83 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Are the charges in line with Council policy?
23. The charges Mr Fraser has been invoiced for are in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges Schedule. The requirement for holders of unexercised resource consents to pay annual charges is clearly expressed on Council’s website and repeated in the covering note for the invoices. It is also a condition of Mr Fraser’s resource consents.
Are the charges appropriate?
24. Staff consider the charges are appropriate. While Mr Fraser is not currently using the land and water for dairy farming, he has acquired permission to do so, which precludes the use of those resources for other activities. The resources needed to support Mr Fraser’s dairy conversion need to be accounted for, so as not to over-allocate them. Although the consent is unexercised, reserving the right to a resource is a direct benefit to Mr Fraser. All consent holders enjoy a benefit which non-consent holders do not, and the annual consent charges are part of Council’s policy of “user pays”, directing the costs of a resource use/reservation to those who directly benefit.
Are the charges fair and reasonable?
25. Mr Fraser has questioned whether the charges are fair and reasonable. The three charges are considered separately below:
(a) Resource consent monitoring and annual administration charges – the administration charges recover Council costs associated with providing a consents processing service and which cannot be charged to an individual user. These costs are incurred through activities such as maintenance of a consents database, provision of expiry notices, responding to requests for information on consents generally, and meeting with consent holders to discuss matters relating to their consents. All resource consents managed by the team incur costs, regardless of whether the consent is exercised or not, therefore the administration costs are fair and reasonable.
(b) Annual water research and management charges – staff consider it is fair and reasonable that Mr Fraser be required to pay these charges. As a consent holder, Mr Fraser contributes to the cost of Council’s science monitoring programme. Even though his consent is unexercised, the science team needs to take his groundwater take and discharge allowance into consideration, in order to effectively model the current and future state of the region’s land and water resources. The monitoring also determines how much water is available for allocation and helps Council manage the reliability of supply for users.
(c) Annual consent compliance monitoring charges – in terms of the charge for receipt and processing of small to medium water take data, staff consider it is fair and reasonable for Mr Fraser to pay this charge. While Mr Fraser does not need to submit water take data, he does need to provide a NIL return, which is recorded on the Consents database. This information is important to monitor actual water use across catchments. Although a NIL return may take less staff time to record than logging data (depending on whether consent holders who have not provided information require follow-up), it still requires administrative resource, and imposing a fixed charge is the most efficient way of recouping costs.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 84 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
26. Based on analysis, staff consider Mr Fraser’s annual consent charges are legal, in line with Council policy, appropriate, and fair and reasonable.
Improvements to process
27. During the course of the investigation, the following matters have been identified that could improve the communication of annual consents charges:
ensure consent holders are sent invoices with a covering note that is signed; update the Fees and Charges Schedule so it is clear that consent holders are required to pay annual consent charges whether the consent is exercised or not, and the rationale for this (as explained in the covering note); and update the invoice covering note and Schedule so that it is clear to holders of resource consents that unexercised consents incur administrative and monitoring costs.
Implications/Risks
28. The review of Mr Fraser’s complaint has not found any issues with his annual consent charges but has identified opportunities to improve the consent charge process. If Mr Fraser is unhappy with the outcome of the review, the options for taking his complaint further are limited. Fixed charges under Section 36(3) of the RMA are not open to objection or appeal. A fixed charge can only be challenged by way of judicial review in relation to the adoption of the relevant administrative charging policy.
29. Council has absolute discretion to remit the whole or any part, of any charge, of a kind referred to in section 36, that would otherwise be payable. This could be appropriate in certain circumstances where fixed fees are out of proportion (or unreasonable) in the particular circumstances of an unexercised consent.
30. Based on the review of the annual consent charges payable by Mr Fraser, which are in line with Council’s financial policy, staff do not consider that a remission of Mr Fraser’s charges is appropriate.
Next steps
31. Subject to Council agreement, staff will draft a letter to Mr Fraser for the Chairman’s consideration outlining the outcome of the review into his complaint.
Fit with strategic framework
Outcome Contributes Detracts Not applicable Managed access to quality natural resources X Diverse opportunities to make a living X Communities empowered and resilient X Communities expressing their diversity X
Views of affected parties
Mr Fraser presented his complaint to Council about the annual consent charges on 7 November 2018.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 85 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
There are no issues within this report which trigger matters in this policy.
Considerations
Financial implications There are no financial implications associated with this report.
Legal implications There are no legal implications associated with this report.
Attachments
None
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 86 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Item 5 Final Hearing Panel Member for Proposed Southland Regional Pest Management Plan
MORF ID: A438300 Strategic Direction: Managed access to quality natural resources Communities empowered and resilient Report by: Alex Morgan, Team Leader Policy & Approved by: Ali Meade, Biosecurity & Biodiversity Planning Operations Manager Executive Approval: Jonathan Streat, Director of Operations
Purpose
For Council to:
appoint the final member of the hearing panel for the Proposal for a Southland Regional Pest Management Plan (the Proposal) and delegate the necessary powers, functions and duties under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to the final panel member; note the delay in the hearings schedule.
Summary
The Proposal was publicly notified alongside the proposed Biosecurity Strategy, which was released for consultation on 28 August 2018. The submissions period was open for eight weeks until 23 October 2018. Approximately 150 submissions were received. Scheduling issues with hearing panel members mean that hearings for the Proposal are likely to commence in early 2019 rather than late 2018 as originally indicated.
When preparing a Regional Pest Management Plan, Section 72 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires Council to consult with the affected persons and parties until the Council is satisfied that sufficient consultation has occurred. Section 72 recommends public notification of the Proposal and the receipt of submissions.
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has nominated Muriel Johnstone to be the Iwi representative and final member of the hearing panel. Appointing an Iwi representative to the hearing panel is consistent with previous recommendations that the panel meets Council’s partnership agreement with Ngai Tahu and is made up of a mix of Councillors, an independent member with relevant skills and expertise, and an Iwi representative.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council, acting under clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, resolve to:
1. appoint Muriel Johnstone as a member of the hearing panel on the Proposal for the Southland Regional Pest Management Plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993;
2. further to its resolutions on 7 November 2018, delegate to Muriel Johnstone jointly with Councillors Lyndall Ludlow, Grant Hubber and Robert Guyton and independent hearing panel chair John Simmons:
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 87 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
(a) all the powers, functions and duties of the Council set out in Sections 72 to 74 (excluding Section 72(5)) and Sections 100D (6)(b) of the Biosecurity Act 1993, in respect of the Proposal for the Southland Regional Pest Management Plan; (b) the powers, functions and duties of the Council set out in Sections 75(1) and (2) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 to prepare a written report on the Plan.
3. direct that the persons named in recommendation 2. above provide recommendations to Council as to Council's decision on the Plan.
Report
Overview
This report provides advice on appointing the final member to the hearing panel for the Proposal hearing and provides an update on timeframes.
The Proposal was notified on 28 August 2018. A hearing panel is required to hear submissions on the Proposal, which will require a delegation of Biosecurity Act 1993 powers. Council appointed four members of the hearing panel on 7 November 2018 and approved for staff to invite Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to nominate a panel member. The Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu nomination has now been received and if Council is happy with the nomination, the candidate needs to be formally appointed as the final member of the hearing panel.
Estimated timeframes and time commitments
Timeframes
Availability of hearing panel members and the short timeframe between now and Christmas has pushed the timings for hearings into the New Year. While it is not currently possible to determine the exact timeframes for the hearing process for the Proposal, the following timeframe is suggested:
23 October 2018 - Submissions close Late 2018 - Summary of submissions Early 2019 - Hearings period Early 2019 - Preparation of final plan Mid 2019 - Recommendations to Council and Council decision on plan.
Time commitments
Approximately 150 submissions have been received on the Proposal, with analysis of those submissions commencing from 24 October 2018. A preliminary assessment of submissions and those wishing to be heard in support of their submission indicates a likely hearing period of 3-4 days.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 88 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Composition of the hearing panel
It was previously recommended and adopted by Council that the hearing panel is comprised of Councillors, at least one independent member and an Iwi representative. An independent chair was appointed on the understanding that they would provide relevant experience (both in process and technical content) and support to Councillors, especially when contentious and complex matters are being considered.
Incorporating an Iwi representative on the panel will help ensure Iwi values as tangata whenua are considered throughout the process, while fulfilling agreements under the Charter of Understanding.
A panel consisting of the following is recommended:
independent chair with relevant skills and expertise (John Simmons - appointed); three Councillors (Councillors Lyndall Ludlow, Grant Hubber and Robert Guyton - appointed); Iwi representative (Muriel Johnstone - recommended to be appointed).
Iwi Representative
The Charter of Understanding requires Ngāi Tahu to contribute to Council’s decision-making process where appropriate. Ngāi Tahu has been consulted during the development and statutory consultation phase of the proposal. Ngāi Tahu has expressed its interest in including an Iwi representative on the hearing panel. Given Council’s commitment to the Charter, it is considered appropriate for the panel to include an Iwi representative.
At its meeting on 7 November 2018 Council wished to seek a nomination from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu for a final hearing panel member. An offer to nominate a candidate was made and a candidate, Muriel Johnstone, has been put forward. A copy of Ms Johnstone’s CV is included for Council’s information (Attachment 1). Ms Johnstone is a Kaumātua (Māori elder) from Oraka Aparima and is a qualified Resource Management Act 1991 hearing commissioner, who will bring specialist iwi and tikanga knowledge to the panel.
Appointing an Iwi representative to the hearing panel is consistent with previous Council decisions that the panel meets its partnership agreement with Ngai Tahu and is made up of mix of Councillors, an independent member with relevant skills and expertise and an Iwi representative.
Implications/Risks
Failure to appoint a fifth member to the hearing panel could stall the process and delay the release of a final Regional Pest Management Plan. Failure to accept the nominated candidate of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu would be inconsistent with Council’s partnership agreement and could pose a political risk to relations between Environment Southland and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.
Failure to have a plan in place, or delaying the plan making process, will reduce certainty in the organisation and community and is likely to have consequences on work programmes and budgets of the Biosecurity and Biodiversity and Policy and Planning Divisions. The existing Regional Pest Management Strategy has already been extended beyond its intended timeframe and further extensions would require the continued input into outdated programmes resulting in a reputational risk for Council.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 89 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Options Analysis
Options for hearing panel composition were considered by Council at its meeting on 7 November 2018. The recommendations in this report are consistent with Council’s previous decisions.
Fit with strategic framework
Outcome Contributes Detracts Not applicable Managed access to quality natural resources X Diverse opportunities to make a living X Communities empowered and resilient X Communities expressing their diversity X
Views of affected parties
There are no matters in this report which require consideration under this heading.
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
Under the Significance and Engagement Policy, the Proposal is considered a significant activity because it affects the whole region and thus all members of the community. Appointing a hearing panel for the Proposal is therefore consistent with the Significance and Engagement Policy.
Considerations
Financial implications There are financial implications as a result of appointing panel members. Ms Johnstone’s rates are included in Attachment 1.
It is not possible to estimate the final costs without a clearer picture of the likely hearing schedule, as that will be the main driver of additional costs.
Legal implications This report and the associated recommendations are consistent with the consultation requirements of Section 72 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and enable Council to undertake community engagement by notifying a proposed plan.
Conclusion
With notification and the submission period being in the second half of 2018, it is recommended that the hearings commence in early 2019. This timeframe would avoid the summer holiday period and ensure that the hearing progresses in a timely manner. Due to the summer holiday period, it is important that Council appoints a hearing panel early so that availability can be ascertained and a hearing date organised.
Once the hearing panel is established and availability is ascertained, staff will notify submitters on the Proposal of the hearing dates.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 90 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Attachments
For Councillors’ information only 1. Muriel Johnstone’s CV
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 91 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Item 6 Final Swimmability Targets
MORF ID: A431993 Strategic Direction: Managed access to quality natural resources Report by: Felicity Durand, Senior Policy Planner Approved by: Lucy Hicks, Policy and Planning Manager Executive Approval: Vin Smith, Director of Policy, Planning and Regulatory Services
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to seek Council’s approval of the final targets for swimmability under Policy A6 of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (amended 2017) (NPSFM).
Summary
It is recommended that Council approve final swimmability targets for 2030 and 2040, as outlined in this paper. They can then be made publicly available, ensuring Council complies with the requirement in the NPSFM, to make final targets available by 31 December 2018. Staff recommend retaining the 2030 target, as agreed by Council in March 2018, and have presented three options for Council to consider in relation to the 2040 target, ranging from conservative to aspirational. Although these are “final” targets in accordance with the NPSFM, the targets form part of the broader People, Water and Land Programme and will be reviewed and tested as that programme progresses.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council resolve to:
1. approve the final target for 2030 as 65.7% of rivers and 98% of lakes suitable for primary contact recreation;
2. approve the final target for 2040 as either:
(a) 65.7% of rivers and 98% of lakes suitable for primary contact recreation (same as the 2030 target); or (b) 70% of rivers and 98% of lakes suitable for primary contact recreation (mid-range trajectory); or (c) 80% of rivers and 98% of lake suitable for primary contact recreation (highly aspirational);
3. note that the People, Water and Land programme will allow for ongoing community engagement and an opportunity to review these targets;
4. note that once final targets are set, the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan (at the next plan change) must state what improvements will be made that will contribute to achieving the regional target.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 92 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Report
Background
Swimmability targets
In August 2017, changes to the NPSFM were gazetted. This required regional councils to identify and develop regional targets that contribute to national targets, for increasing the proportion of certain rivers and lakes (80% swimmable lakes and rivers by 2030, and 90% by 2040) that are suitable for primary contact (e.g. swimmable). As well as setting draft targets by 31 March 2018, regional councils must make final regional targets, available to the public, by 31 December 2018.
Information released by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) shows that in Southland currently, 62% of rivers and 98% of lakes are swimmable. Based on modelling of existing interventions to improve water quality, in March 2018, Council adopted draft regional targets of 65.7% of rivers and 98% of lakes swimmable by 2030.
Process for setting targets
In July 2018, Council approved a process for setting final targets and making them available to the public by 31 December 2018. This is set out in Table 1 below, which has been updated to reflect progress since July. A more detailed explanation of steps 2-4 is provided in the next section.
Table 2: Path towards notifying final swimmability targets
Work Description Status NPS-FM Using MfE modelling, draft targets for 2030 were notified in Done Policy A6 Draft targets March 2018 (a) 1 - 65.7% of rivers - 98% of lakes Undertaking meaningful community conversations that will Done Policy A5 allow us to protect human health for recreation (a) Community - Identifying where and when Southlanders swim to allow engagement for effective surveillance, monitoring and mapping. Policy CA2 2 - Discussing the draft and aspirational targets. - Signalling work to come, that will allow for targets to be revised and be subject to community involvement – specifically the PW&L programme – See step 5. Revisit MfE modelling Done Policy A5 In-house - Determine likely interventions that contribute towards (b) 3 work a revised target. - Determine practical surveillance monitoring regime that will have the greatest benefit for human health values. Notifying ‘final’ targets Underway Policy A6 - Targets are notified prior to 31 Dec 2018. (b) - Targets will notified in accordance with the agreed national template. Notification 4 - Targets notified prior to December are likely to be
conservative, however will be subject to review through the PW&L process – See step 5.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 93 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Work Description Status NPS-FM Swimmability is only one piece of the puzzle Ongoing Policies A5 - ES is well positioned to be able to give effect to (a), (b) and swimmability targets as part of the limit setting plan (c) change. - All of Southland’s freshwater values, objectives and Policy A6 Post targets will be investigated as part of the PW&L (b) 5 notification programme, this includes swimmability. - How the region’s values, and the methods undertaken to achieve those values, interact and contribute will all be examined. - The limit setting process will both directly and indirectly improve swimmability, allowing for a revision of targets as PW&L progresses.
Current situation
Step 2: Community engagement
Consultation with the community was required due to the impacts of setting swimmability targets and the direction in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. As discussed at the 25 July 2018 Strategy and Policy Committee meeting, consultation on the specific numbers for the targets was not considered to be an effective engagement approach, due to the lack of context for those numbers. For example, “x” percentage does not give people information about where water quality is suitable for swimming or what times of year. In Southland particularly, temporal and spatial aspects of swimming are important – it is not practical to assume that people swim in every water body all year round.
Currently the Council monitors specific bathing sites around Southland, which are listed in the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan (pSWLP). These were largely rolled over from the Regional Water Plan and may not be a complete picture of Southlanders’ aspirations when it comes to swimming spots. Although the Council is required to set “final” targets in accordance with the NPSFM, swimmability targets are only one part of Council’s broader People, Water and Land Programme. In order to understand more about swimming in Southland and contribute to ongoing work on swimmability through this Programme, the community engagement process for the targets focused on:
gathering information about community swimming habits including: . people’s favourite swimming spots (why they love those spots and times of year they swim there); and . where people would like to swim in the future (what stops them from swimming there now, what they love about that spot and the times of year they would swim there); gathering information that helps to review Environment Southland’s monitoring network (including whether additional locations should be monitored and additional attributes to measure); informing the community about the requirement to set targets for lakes and rivers by 31 December 2018; piloting the online engagement platform intended to be used throughout the People, Water and Land Programme.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 94 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Feedback was gathered from the community through:
an online platform allowing people to drop “pins” onto a map and include information about those pins; forms in local newspapers and brochures which could be filled out and returned; advertising the campaign online, on the radio and in print media; staff in the field talking to the community about the process and encouraging feedback.
The hard copy feedback has been transferred onto the online platform, allowing a map (see examples at Attachment 1) to be produced showing two types of pins - favourite swimming spots (blue) and places people would like to be able to swim (green). Over 180 pins were dropped on the portal with information gained from hard copy forms still to be added. The next step will be to compare this information with the sites listed in the pSWLP and Council’s monitoring network, to identify any gaps. This information will also be factored into the Values and Objectives and Regional Forum work streams of the People, Water and Land Programme and will be used to inform the future plan change to the pSWLP to set limits.
Step 3: In-house work on MfE’s modelling
Staff undertook an assessment of the MfE model in two stages. Firstly, staff assessed the internal capacity to apply a method, other than the model, to predict swimmability improvements in the region. No suitable methods capable of providing reduced uncertainty were identified.
Secondly, staff contacted the authors of the initial model to evaluate options to refine the model by including more Southland specific information and address its limitations. The scope of this enquiry was limited by the time constraints, caused by the requirement to notify final targets by 31 December 2018. The modellers provided options for calibrating the model, however, none that would have significantly reduced uncertainty. Several options were considered that could be utilised in future work, particularly to inform the Regional Forum. For example, the modellers indicated it would be possible to run an assessment of likely improvements to swimmability if particular methods (such as stock exclusion) to improve water quality were adopted at different scales.
Staff assessed that the cost involved in calibrating the model, in the constrained timeframe available, would not result in a significant reduction in uncertainty. The decision not to proceed with this work also has broader impacts for the national swimmability programme, as recalibrating the model would move Southland away from a nationally consistent approach to examining swimmability improvements.
Step 4: Notifying final targets
In order to meet the 31 December 2018 deadline, Council must now approve and make public its final targets for 2030 and 2040. The options for these targets are provided below.
Options Analysis
2030 targets
The draft 2030 targets for rivers and lakes approved in March were based on scientific and economic modelling of interventions to maintain or improve water quality already agreed and in progress as of 2017. For the Council, this was predominantly the new land use rules introduced through the
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 95 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
pSWLP. Without introducing any additional policy, the modelling showed these interventions would increase the proportion of rivers suitable for swimming from 62% to 65.7% by 2030.
The Council’s work programme for improving water quality will go far beyond the measures included in the current pSWLP, however with the People, Water and Land Programme still in its early stages, it is not possible (or desirable) to predict the types of interventions (especially limits) and “on the ground” action, which may be put in place in the coming years.
On this basis, staff recommend retaining the draft 2030 target of 65.7% of rivers and 98% of lakes in Southland suitable for primary contact by 2030 as the “final” target, noting that it will be revisited as the People, Water and Land Programme advances.
2040 targets
The NPSFM requires the Council to also identify final targets for 2040. The modelling undertaken to develop the 2030 targets only considered the effect of interventions until 2030. In the absence of greater clarity on future interventions (such as the outputs from the People, Water and Land programme) and the ability to model the effect of those interventions, there is limited information on which to base a decision about the 2040 targets. On this basis, we consider there are three options for 2040 targets for the Council to consider. These are outlined below:
Option A: Conservative
The most conservative option is to base the 2040 targets on the information and modelling available (i.e. the basis for the 2030 targets). This would assume no further intervention beyond that which is already underway, resulting in a target of 65.7% of rivers and 98% of lakes suitable for primary contact recreation by 2040.
While this target would be based on information which is certain and has been modelled, it is not aspirational. As it does not account for future work programmes, it may signal to the community that the Council does not intend to improve water quality beyond the improvements expected to be achieved through existing work programmes (i.e. the pSWLP). There are reputational and perception risks with adopting this target.
Option B: Informed prediction
If planned interventions are likely to deliver an approximately 4% improvement in swimmability by 2030, some broad predictions can be made about the level of improvement expected from future work programmes. The People Water and Land Programme will see improvements to “on the ground” land use practices and introduce limits. Collectively, this package of intervention is likely to deliver greater improvements than the current package (the pSWLP). On this basis, a target could be set of 70% of rivers and 98% of lakes swimmable by 2040. This target could forecast an achievable level of improvement while also including a “stretch” element by expecting more improvement than the current intervention package.
Option C: Aspirational
Council may want to use the 2040 target to reflect an aspirational goal for water quality. An aspirational target may become a “push” for Council’s work programmes over the coming decades to strive for significant improvements in order to reach the stated target. The
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 96 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
downside of this approach is that it cannot be based on an assessment of the future interventions as these are not currently known. Given the limitations with the swimmability targets (for example, their lack of regard for practical matters such as when and where people choose to swim), an aspirational target may drive work programmes to over-emphasise swimmability within the wider context of water quality improvement. There is also a reputational risk of setting a high target without a clearly articulated work programme to achieve it.
If Council prefers to take an aspirational approach, the 2040 targets could be set at 80% of rivers and 98% of lakes suitable for primary contact by 2040.
Implications/Risks
Choosing targets
The publication of Council’s draft targets in March 2018 attracted criticism from some of the community for not being aspirational enough. If the Council chooses to adopt the draft 2030 targets as its final 2030 targets, there is likely to be similar criticism. The implications and risks of the options available to Council in setting the targets for 2040 are discussed above.
It will be important that communication about the targets emphasises that they form part of a broader work programme to improve water quality and that work is already underway to improve understanding of swimming behaviour in Southland.
Implementing the targets
Policy A5 of the NPSFM requires the Council to change its regional plans to:
identify specified rivers and lakes, and primary contact sites; and state what improvements will be made, and over what timeframes, to specified rivers and lakes, and primary contact sites, so they are suitable for primary contact more often; or state how specified rivers and lakes, and primary contact sites, will be maintained if regional targets have been achieved.
The feedback received during the community engagement on swimming provides a foundation for developing content for a future plan change to the pSWLP. This will form part of the future limit- setting plan change, setting the issue of swimmability within the wider context of improving water quality and implementing the NPSFM. As primary contact standards are already included in the NPSFM, this is not additional work – it has already been factored into the People, Water and Land Programme.
Next steps
The MfE has provided regional councils with a template for notifying regional targets. Staff have populated most of this template (Attachment 2) and will complete it once Council has agreed its final targets. This will then be made publicly available by 31 December 2018, complying with the NPSFM requirements.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 97 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Fit with strategic framework
Outcome Contributes Detracts Not applicable Managed access to quality natural resources x Diverse opportunities to make a living x Communities empowered and resilient x Communities expressing their diversity x
Views of affected parties
The views of affected parties have been sought through the community engagement described earlier in this paper. There will be future opportunities for the views of affected parties to be heard through the People, Water and Land Programme and through the statutory consultation period on a future plan change to the pSWLP, to introduce limits and implement the swimmability targets.
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
The potential impacts of setting swimmability targets was considered to trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy, leading to the community consultation undertaken as described above.
Considerations
Financial implications Current budget There are no implications for the current budget.
Future implications Meeting the requirements of Policy A5 to implement the swimmability targets through the pSWLP will require resourcing in the future, however, this will be integrated into the larger plan change to introduce limits.
Legal implications There are no immediate legal implications but the targets will have legal implications when they are incorporated into the pSWLP in the future.
Attachments
1. Map examples 2. Targets
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 98 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Attachment 1
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 99 Meeting of Council.docx
Attachment 2: Final targets
Introduction The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (as amended in August 2017) directs all regional councils (including unitary authorities) to set regional targets to improve the quality of fresh water so they are suitable for primary contact more often. “Primary contact” includes swimming, and means people’s contact with fresh water that involves immersion in the water. Being suitable for primary contact more often includes improvements in water quality from one state to another (for example, you could use a colour code where moving from poorest to best quality is represented by orange to yellow, yellow to green, or green to blue).
All regional councils have worked together to use the best information available to identify: The improvements that will be made to water quality in rivers and lakes in the Southland region under programmes that are planned or underway When the anticipated water quality improvements will be achieved The likely costs of all interventions, and where these costs will fall
A report on these theoretical improvements and costs, presented region by region, is available here. The assumptions and limitations of the modelling approaches taken are described in the report. Regional context and focus The overall state of the Southland region’s rivers and lakes is 62% and 98% swimmable (respectively). The regional priorities for Southland are to improve land and water management through the Southland Water and Land Plan and then to work closely with our communities to integrate action on the ground with development of limits through the Council’s People, Water and Land Programme.
Regional targets The primary contact targets for [the region], based on the modelling of programmes underway, are [insert intended primary contact states with timeframes].
Regional process from here The first step for Southland will be to resolve the appeals on and implement the Southland Water and Land Plan. This will improve land and water management in the region and contribute to ‘holding the line’ on water quality. The next steps will come through Council’s People, Water and Land programme. This programme will take a people-focused approach to integrating action on the ground with regulation (including limit-setting). Council intends to work in partnership to support an implementation first approach to support a thriving Southland.
1
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Item 7 Fiordland Marine Regional Management Pathway Plan Annual Report 2017/18
MORF ID: A438451 Strategic Direction: Managed access to quality natural resources Report by: Shaun Cunningham, Biosecurity Officer - Approved by: Ali Meade, Biosecurity and Biodiversity Marine Operations Manager Executive Approval: Jonathan Streat, Director of Operations
Purpose
To provide Council with a report on the Fiordland Marine Regional Management Pathway Plan (Pathway Plan) operations for the 2017/18 year.
Summary
Under Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993 for any pest management or pathway management plan it is a requirement to prepare a report on the work programme, and provide the report to Council. This report is the Annual Report for the Pathway Plan.
The Pathway Plan was approved in April 2017 and the 2017/18 Operational Plan was adopted in February 2018.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council resolve to note the Fiordland Marine Regional Management Pathway Plan operational activities that have taken place in the 2017/18 financial year.
Report
Background
In April 2017 Council resolved to implement the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan (Pathway Plan). The aim of the Pathway Plan is to reduce the risk of marine pests being transported to Fiordland on vessels. The plan has the following three rules:
1. the owner or person in charge of a vessel entering or located within the Fiordland Marine Area (FMA) must hold a current Fiordland Clean Vessel Pass that applies to that vessel; 2. the owner or person in charge of a vessel entering the FMA must ensure the vessel complies with the following clean vessel standards: (a) clean hull standard: the hull and niche areas have no more than a slime layer and goose barnacles; (b) clean gear standard: all marine gear and equipment on the vessel is visibly clean, free of fouling, free of sediment and preferably dry; (c) residual seawater standard: all on-board residual seawater has been treated or is clean and free of sediment; 3. the owner or person in charge of a vessel entering the FMA must keep records of the actions taken to meet the clean vessel standards.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 101 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires an Annual Report on the operational activities to be provided to the Council for each financial year.
2017/18 Key activities
Communications
Clean Vessel Pass online system The Clean Vessel Pass (CVP) is the main tool for communicating Fiordland’s marine biosecurity requirements to vessel operators. A current CVP is a requirement of the Pathway Plan, and the application requires the applicant to provide certain information to evaluate risk and maintain a database of the target audience in which important information can be quickly communicated to.
The CVP system has been tested and developed by Council’s IT team and implemented through the online services platform. To date, this is working well, and the majority of applications are now made online.
Standard channels To publicise the Pathway Plan and encourage voluntary compliance with the rules usual communication channels have been used including radio, print and web advertisements both locally and nationally.
Marine pest ID workshop In December 2017 a marine pest ID workshop was held at Environment Southland for operators. The workshop was held in conjunction with experts from NIWA and Biosecurity New Zealand. There are plans to hold more of these in the future.
Boatshows Both Boatshow Southland and the Wellington Boatshow were attended by ES staff with the Pathway Plan being the main focal point of communications. Additionally, the Pathway Plan was promoted by Northland and Auckland Regional Councils, and Biosecurity New Zealand staff at the Auckland On-water Boatshow.
Monitoring and compliance
Clean Vessel Pass information Between 1 April 2017 and 30 June 2018 a total of 290 CVPs were issued for vessels visiting Fiordland. Those included fishing, charter, research, service, person carrier and recreational vessels, and also super yachts and kayaks. Many vessels were based in Fiordland, however, origins also included many regions in both the North and South Islands, and also internationally. The peak period of vessels visiting Fiordland indicated by the CVPs is February to April, which is consistent with observational information. More detailed information on CVP data is in the attached “Clean Vessel Pass 2017/18 summary data” document.
Compliance and surveillance patrols In December 2017 and April 2018 compliance patrols took place in the financial year. A small number of vessels were inspected, however, a number of mooring areas were surveyed for marine pest presence. The April 2018 patrol was near the peak roar period with many more
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 102 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
vessel interactions and inspections. Patrols took place in the southern Fiords from the Doubtful Sound complex south to Preservation Inlet.
A total of 32 hulls were inspected on these patrols (14 in December 2017 and 18 in April 2018) by divers with no marine pests detected, or hulls considered to breach the clean vessel standard. An additional 15 vessels were intercepted in April 2018, however, these vessels were rather trailer boats or the circumstances were not suitable for hull inspections to take place. Of the 33 vessels intercepted in April 2018, 14 failed to produce a clean vessel pass. Three of these vessels did have a CVP, but the skippers at the time of inspection were not aware of this, and an additional 10 vessels have since applied for a CVP upon follow-up. In addition to hull inspections, a total of 30 high risk sites (mooring lines, barges, wharfs, and surrounding habitat) were surveyed by divers.
From these patrols, very high compliance with the clean hull standard has been observed and no marine pests were detected on these vessels. However, these trips only give a small sample of the vessel traffic in Fiordland. In regards to holding a CVP, there are still a number of vessels failing to produce these. More effective communications and stronger compliance penalties will be in place now that the plan has been in effect for one year which should address the non-compliance issue. Cost-recovery of inspections will be the penalty for all vessels failing to produce a CVP for this coming surveillance period.
Moving forward
Moving forward there will be a focus on increased and improved communication, engagement with stakeholders and compliance, cost-recovery of inspections from all those not holding a current clean vessel pass, further monitoring of high-risk sites within Fiordland for marine pest establishment utilising new methods such as eDNA, and engagement with the super yacht sector leading up to the America’s Cup.
Implications/Risks
In general, the Pathway Plan has been widely accepted and compliance levels have been high. However enforcing rules more strictly may result in negative feedback and publicity associated with enforcement.
Fit with strategic framework
Outcome Contributes Detracts Not applicable Managed access to quality natural resources x Diverse opportunities to make a living x Communities empowered and resilient x Communities expressing their diversity x
Views of affected parties
The Operational Plan was drafted and reviewed with the support and guidance from representatives of Ministry for Primary Industries, Department of Conservation and the Fiordland Marine Guardians.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 103 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
There are no issues within this report which trigger matters in this policy.
Considerations
Financial and legal implications All implications have been considered during the development of the Pathway Plan.
Attachments
1. Clean Vessel Pass summary data 2017/18
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 104 Meeting of Council.docx
Clean Vessel Pass summary data 2017-18
The majority of vessels with Clean Vessel Passes (CVPs) identified Southland (including Stewart Island), Fiordland or no home port as their home port. Approximately 25% of all CVPs were for vessels from outside of Southland/Fiordland with a small number including international vessels. A number of vessels did not identify with a home port (62 vessels), and 82% of these were recreational, and likely trailer boats.
Recreational vessels (including powerboats and yachts) made up 52% of all clean vessel pass holders. Fishing vessels 20%, Charter vessels 11% and a small number of vessels made up other types including research, service and kayaks etc. Excluding ‘no home port’ vessels, those originating from outside of Southland (including Fiordland and Stewart Island) 65% identified as recreational vessels. Whereas, those based in Southland; 33% were recreational, 36% were fishing and 19% were charter vessels.
Vessel lengths were; 46% 1-10m consisting of mostly recreational vessels, 20% 10-15m and 34% 15- 40m. No vessels identified with 40+ m, but please note that cruise ships are only required to meet the clean vessel standards and not hold a clean vessel pass (this is achieved through the Deed of Agreement or the resource consenting process).
Table 1: Port of origin of Clean Vessel Pass applicants.
Port Percentage International 2.41% North Island Northland 1.38 Auckland 2.76 Waikato 0.69 Bay of Plenty 0.34 Gisborne 0.34 Wellington 1.38 Total 6.9% South Island Top of South 8.28 Westland 1.03 Canterbury 2.41 Otago 7.24 Fiordland 22.76 Southland 24.83 Stewart Island 2.76 Total 69.31% No home port 21.38%
Vessel residence in Fiordland in place and time
The majority of vessels intended to reside in Milford or the Doubtful Sound area, or spend time throughout Fiordland. Peak times of year for vessel numbers appears to be February through to April, however at all times of the year a significant number of vessels are present.
Table 2: Vessel residence in Fiordland areas.
Area of Fiordland Number of vessels Percentage Martins Bay 2 <1% Milford Sound 74 26% George Sound 1 <1% Thompson Sound 2 <1% Doubtful Sound 55 19% Breaksea Sound 4 1% Dusky Sound 9 3% Chalky Inlet 2 <1% Preservation Inlet 2 <1% Northern Fiords 9 3% Southern Fiords 34 12% Multiple locations throughout 95 33%
240
220
200
180
160
Numberofvessels 140
120
100
Month
Figure 1: Intended period of time vessels will reside in Fiordland. Data obtained from Clean Vessel Pass applications 2017-18 n=290. Red line is the number of vessels indicating that they will be present in Fiordland all months of the year.
Additional information regarding general biosecurity practice
Table 3: Method of hull clean by Clean Vessel Pass applicants.
Method of hull clean* Haul out 39 In water with divers 9 Other 5 *Question included from April 2018
Table 4: Frequency of antifoul or survey by clean vessel pass applicants.
Frequency of antifoul/survey Annually 98 Two years 54 Three years 5 As required 59 Never 66 NA 8
Table 5: Gear and residual seawater standard question.
Clean vessel standards related Vessel gear in seawater outside of Fiordland 164 Vessel with compartments retaining residual seawater 45
Table 6: Applicants opting into mail list, waterproof copy of their CVP and to receive a Fiordland User Guide with their CVP.
General information Mail list 204/290 Waterproof copy 164/290 Fiordland User Guide 38/70* *User guides only made available from April 2018 with Clean Vessel Passes
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Item 8 Annual Review of the Operational Plan for the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan
MORF ID: A435391 Strategic Direction: To maintain and enhance indigenous biodiversity Report by: Shaun Cunningham, Biosecurity Officer, Approved by: Ali Meade, Biosecurity and Biodiversity Marine Operations Manager Executive Approval: Jonathan Streat, Director of Operations
Purpose
For Council to note the changes made during the annual review and adopt the 2018/19 Operational Plan for the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan (Pathway Plan).
Summary
Under Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993 for any pest management or pathway management plan it is a requirement to prepare an operational plan that is reviewed annually, and provide the plan and any amendments to the Council. The 2018/19 Operational Plan is attached.
The Pathway Plan was approved in April 2017 and the 2017/18 Operational Plan was adopted in February 2018. Activities are currently following the Operational Plan. Pathway plans are a new tool, and it is expected that operational activities will continue to change into the future. The work plan and budget are consistent with those presented to Council when approving the Pathway Plan.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council note the changes made during the annual review and resolve to:
1. adopt the 2018/19 Operational Plan for the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan;
2. note that Biosecurity and Compliance staff will start carrying out enforcement, as outlined in the Operational Plan.
Report
Background
In April 2017 Council resolved to implement the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan (Pathway Plan). The aim of the Pathway Plan is to reduce the risk of marine pests being transported to Fiordland on vessels. The Pathway Plan has the following three rules:
1. the owner or person in charge of a vessel entering or located within the Fiordland Marine Area (FMA) must hold a current Fiordland Clean Vessel Pass that applies to that vessel;
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 108 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
2. the owner or person in charge of a vessel entering the FMA must ensure the vessel complies with the following clean vessel standards: (a) clean hull standard: the hull and niche areas have no more than a slime layer and goose barnacles; (b) clean gear standard: all marine gear and equipment on the vessel is visibly clean, free of fouling, free of sediment and preferably dry; (c) residual seawater standard: all on-board residual seawater has been treated or is clean and free of sediment; 3. the owner or person in charge of a vessel entering the FMA must keep records of the actions taken to meet the clean vessel standards.
The Pathway Plan is complex to implement, and the operational plan describes, at a finer scale, how Environment Southland, the Department of Conservation, Ministry for Primary Industries and Fiordland Marine Guardians will carry out the core tasks. There are a number of components to this including communications, compliance and also surveillance and monitoring. The Operational Plan details how these tasks will be carried out.
Further requirements of the Biosecurity Act are that the Operational Plan is reviewed annually, and that a report on the plan is provided to Council no later than five months after the end of each financial year. The report can be a stand-alone document, or as an extract of the Council’s Annual Report. It is intended that staff provide an annual report on marine biosecurity activities across both the Regional Pest Management and Pathway Management Plans.
Current situation
The Operational Plan was formally adopted by Council in February 2018, with the intention of carrying out the annual review in line with the financial year. This plan was reviewed in July 2018, but the report to Council has been delayed until now to ensure compliance procedures were fit for purpose, in particular cost recovery for minor infringements such as the failure to produce a clean vessel pass.
The Operational Plan has been reviewed by the ES Biosecurity team, in conjunction with partners in Biosecurity New Zealand (Ministry for Primary Industries) and the Department of Conservation. Overall, the Operational Plan is working well and is still fit for purpose. Some minor changes to the document were made as part of the review. Changes include:
updating relevant references to Ministry for Primary Industries to Biosecurity New Zealand to reflect the changes to central government departments; updating the links to resources and websites; minor grammatical changes.
It should be noted that during the first 18 months of the Pathway Plan operational programmes have focused on education and inspections rather than compliance. Education will remain the main focus, however, now that the plan is moving into its second summer, enforcement may be required. Compliance and enforcement will be carried out using the cost recovery scenarios set out in the compliance section, pages 16–20, of the Operational Plan.
The next review is scheduled for June 2019.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 109 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Implications/Risks
In general, the Pathway Plan has been widely accepted and compliance levels have been high. However, enforcing rules for the first time can cause disharmony to users. There is a risk of negative feedback and publicity associated with enforcement.
Fit with strategic framework
Outcome Contributes Detracts Not applicable Managed access to quality natural resources x Diverse opportunities to make a living x Communities empowered and resilient x Communities expressing their diversity x
Views of affected parties
The Operational Plan was drafted and reviewed with the support and guidance from representatives of Ministry for Primary Industries, Department of Conservation and the Fiordland Marine Guardians.
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
There are no issues within this report which trigger matters in this policy.
Considerations
Financial and legal implications All implications have been considered during the development of the Pathway Plan.
Attachments
1. 2018/19 Operational Plan for the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 110 Meeting of Council.docx
Operational Plan: Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan
2018-19
Document Control: Biosecurity Officer (Marine and Biodiversity), Environment Southland
Document History:
Review date Amendments made* Contributions October 2017 Developed ES, BNZ, DOC and FMG April 2018 Addition to compliance procedure ES regarding Clean Vessel Pass and multiple instances of non- compliance July 2018 Minor changes and BNZ logo ES, BNZ, DOC update and links to resources and websites added July 2019 *This version is current. All previous versions are held on Environment Southland’s electronic database and available on request.
Distribution list:
Shaun Cunningham, Biosecurity Officer (Marine and Biodiversity), Environment Southland Ali Meade, Biosecurity and Biodiversity Operations Manager, Environment Southland Jen Brunton, Senior Adviser, Biosecurity New Zealand, Ministry for Primary Industries Richard Kinsey, Senior Biodiversity Ranger, Department of Conservation Rebecca McLeod, Chair, Fiordland Marine Guardians Publicly available on ES website
Page 2
Document sign off:
Signatories
Signed by Jonathan Streat, Director of Operations, Environment Southland
Date
Signed by Ali Meade, Biosecurity and Biodiversity Operations Manager, Environment Southland
Date
Page 3
Table of Contents
Document sign off: ...... 3 Signatories...... 3 Introduction ...... 6 Document scope ...... 8 Document review ...... 8 Document preparation ...... 8 Fiordland marine biosecurity objectives, measures, reporting and review framework ...... 8 Current Fiordland marine biosecurity management approach & supporting frameworks ...... 10 Co-ordination ...... 10 Pathway and vector control ...... 10 Surveillance ...... 10 Response to marine pests detected within Fiordland ...... 11 Management of established pests ...... 11 Social marketing ...... 11 How does the Fiordland Pathway Plan fit into the Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan? ...... 11 Biosecurity Act 1993 & Regional Pest Management Plan ...... 13 Vector management outside of Fiordland ...... 13 Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan ...... 13 Pathway Plan Rules ...... 13 Regional Pathway Operational Plan ...... 15 Implementing the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan ...... 15 Communications & engagement ...... 15 Communications plan ...... 15 Threat of marine pests to Fiordland ...... 15 Clean vessel pass (CVP) ...... 15 Antifouling, cleaning and best practice to meet the clean vessel standards ...... 16 Hull inspections ...... 16 Promote to stakeholders and Iwi ...... 17 Compliance ...... 17 If users do not hold a current CVP ...... 18 If vessels do not meet the Pathway Plan rules ...... 18 Training and authorisation ...... 21 Reporting...... 23 Surveillance & monitoring ...... 23 Monitoring compliance with the Pathway Plan ...... 23 Surveillance for marine pests...... 24
Page 4
Training ...... 24 Assisting the Fiordland Pathway Plan ...... 24 Clean Vessel Pass database ...... 25 Reporting...... 25 Challenges and risks ...... 25 Transport and spread of Undaria...... 25 Incursion of new to region pest or another Undaria incursion ...... 25 Increase in the costs to implement the Pathway Plan ...... 26 Low compliance with Pathway Plan rules ...... 26 Responsibilities ...... 26 Calendar of events ...... 29 Budget/funding ...... 30 References ...... 31
Page 5
Introduction
In 2012 an amendment to the Biosecurity Act 1993 introduced national and regional pathway management plans as a legislative tool to control the spread of pests in New Zealand. Regional pathway management plans may apply to areas other than entire regions, for example the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area (FMA). The aim of pathway management plans is to prevent pests reaching new areas rather than responding to a pest once it has established. Pathways are considered to be human activities that have the potential to transport a pest from one place to another such as a vessel with biofouling on its hull.
The FMA is a unique area with outstanding marine biodiversity and valuable marine resources. There are a number of marine species found only in the FMA, as well as iconic species such as black and red corals. These corals are usually found at very deep depths in other parts of the world, but in Fiordland they occur at depths shallow enough to be viewed by divers. These attributes make the fiords highly important to New Zealanders, attract large numbers of tourists annually, and support commercial and recreational fisheries.
Marine pests are considered one of the major threats to Fiordland’s marine values (Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy 2003; Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005). The Fiordland Marine Guardians (FMG), Environment Southland (ES), the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and Department of Conservation (DOC) have developed a “pathways” focused approach to marine biosecurity which involves promoting preventative actions to stop marine pests arriving into the FMA.
Following the amendment to Biosecurity Act 1993 in 2012, ES, MPI, DOC, FMG and Ngāi Tahu have worked together to develop a Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan (Pathway Plan) which aims to reduce the likelihood of marine pests being transported to the FMA.
Implementation of the Pathway Plan will help to prevent significant adverse effects on the unique marine ecosystems in Fiordland and the associated impacts on economic wellbeing, the environment, enjoyment of the natural environment, and the relationship between Māori, their culture, and their traditions and ancestral lands, waters, wāhi tapu, and taonga.
The Pathway Plan is now in effect and vessel users operating in the FMA are required to adhere to the rules set out in the plan (Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan, 2017).
In addition to the Pathway Plan there are other related legislation and education/advocacy strategies to further manage marine pests: The Southland Regional Pest Management Strategy is a pest-led management plan with transport and propagation rules specific to individual species such as Undaria pinnatifida and Sabella spallanzanii. Controlled Area in Breaksea Sound - In December 2017, under the Regional Pest Management Strategy, ES declared a Controlled Area in Breaksea Sound, Fiordland for the management of U. pinnatifida. The Controlled Area places restrictions on mooring duration, anchoring and the movement of marine equipment out of the area. Craft risk management strategy (CRMS) sets biofouling standards for all vessels arriving into the country. The Pathway Plan clean hull standard is consistent with the long-stay clean hull threshold of the CRMS. Education and advocacy are key tools for managing marine biosecurity in New Zealand. National-led programmes by BNZ, and intra and inter-regional programmes run by local councils
Page 6
and stakeholders provide a number of avenues to deliver relevant information, guidance and training.
Page 7
Document scope
This document is the Regional Pathway Operational Plan (RPOP) for the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan (Pathway Plan). It has been prepared by ES, as the acting management agency, with support from MPI, DOC and FMG under Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Environment Southland is the management agency for the Pathway Plan pursuant to Section 100 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Document review
Pursuant to Sections 100B (1)(b) and (c) of the Biosecurity Act 1993, the Regional Operational Plan is subject to annual review by the management agency and any necessary amendments required as a result of such review. This review will allow for further development and refinement of operational measures and policies towards effective achievement of Pathway Plan objectives. This document will be reviewed by ES with support from MPI, DOC and FMG.
Document preparation
This document was prepared by ES acting as the management agency for the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan, with contributions from MPI, DOC and FMG pursuant to Section 100 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Fiordland marine biosecurity objectives, measures, reporting and review framework
The outcome of the Fiordland’s marine biosecurity programme is to largely achieve the vision of the Fiordland Marine Guardians:
“That the quality of Fiordland’s marine environment and fisheries, including the wider fishery experience, be maintained or improved for future generations to use and enjoy”.
Table 1: Fiordland marine biosecurity objectives, measures, and reporting and review framework
Objectives Measure Targets Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan Condition of marine environment Maintained or improved objectives and fisheries Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan Implementation of operational and An efficient and effective supporting objectives management tools to reduce the joint-agency approach to likelihood of marine pest marine biosecurity establishment and the impact of A focussed effort on pathway established pests management Active and passive surveillance implemented Ability to respond to detected marine pests Manage established pests Fiordland users educated and proactive about marine
Page 8
Objectives Measure Targets biosecurity Regional Pest Management Plan Presence of Undaria pinnatifida in U. pinnatifida eradicated or objectives Fiordland controlled in Fiordland Presence of other marine pests Marine pests established in and harmful organisms in other parts of New Zealand Southland continue to be excluded from Southland Regional Pathway Plan objectives Presence of other marine pests in Marine pests established in Fiordland other parts of New Zealand Boat cleanliness standard that continue to be excluded from minimises the risk of transfer of Fiordland marine pests to Fiordland Systems in place for early detection and appropriate management Regional Pathway Operational Users holding a Fiordland Clean 100% of vessels entering Plan objectives Vessel Pass (CVP) Fiordland carry a current clean vessel pass Biofouling and contamination of 100% of vessels entering vessel hulls, gear and residual Fiordland meet and maintain seawater the clean vessel standards Fiordland users behaviour towards Users actively carry out marine biosecurity marine biosecurity best practice prior to entering the FMA Southland based Fiordland bound Vessel operators and vessels biofouling enforcement agency made aware of any marine pests identified on hulls Vessel fouling proactively managed to ensure transport to Fiordland does not occur Encourage compliance with the Pathway Plan rules, e.g. hold CVP, meet clean vessel standards and maintain records to provide evidence of meeting clean vessel standards Presence of other marine pests in Marine pests established in Fiordland other parts of New Zealand continue to be excluded from Fiordland Systems in place for early detection and appropriate management
Page 9
Current Fiordland marine biosecurity management approach & supporting frameworks
For more detail refer to the Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan 2015/16 – 2020/21 (2015).
Co-ordination
Partner agencies (ES, DOC, MPI, MfE and FMG) work together to implement the Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan 2015/16 – 2020/21. The Pathway Plan is also a joint-agency initiative, with all agencies and the FMG expected to contribute towards implementation. ES will lead the implementation with DOC and MPI as the main supporting agencies for planning and operational activities.
Pathway and vector control
Biofouling on vessel hulls (and niche areas) and marine equipment, and contamination of residual seawater held within vessels are vectors enabling introduction and the spread of marine pests. To minimise spread of marine pests, these vectors need to be managed. The Pathway Plan sets clean vessel standards that vessels must meet on entry to and while within the FMA. Currently, voluntary compliance with the standards are monitored and encouraged through hull inspections in Bluff Harbour, Halfmoon Bay and Paterson Inlet monthly, and Fiordland annually or biannually. Fiordland inspections are targeted at expected peak periods and involve DOC, ES Biosecurity & Compliance, and MPI Fisheries & Biosecurity.
There is a need to increase future compliance and this is set out in the implementation section of this document. It is not feasible to inspect 100% of vessels entering the area, and therefore a supplementary goal of the plan is to promote voluntary compliance with the clean vessel standards and biosecurity best practice.
Surveillance
The principal tool for marine pest surveillance is the routine inspection of vessel hulls, structures and high use areas (e.g. mooring and berthing areas) for marine pests using SCUBA and snorkelling detection methods (see Table 2). Surveillance is crucial for early detection, which allows for effective management.
As with compliance, there is a need to increase surveillance for marine pests in Fiordland and this is set out in the implementation section of this document. Additionally, there is a need to accommodate new science and technological developments to assist traditional surveillance methods e.g. genetic and environmental DNA sampling.
Table 2: Current marine pest surveillance activities
Surveillance type Location Method Frequency Joint-agency compliance Fiordland (generally Hull inspections 1-2 times annually trips and opportunistic Doubtful Sound Artificial structure and marine biosecurity surveys complex to natural habitat surveys Preservation Inlet) Snorkel/SCUBA MPI hull inspection Bluff Hull inspections Monthly and on request programme Stewart Island Snorkel November to April and only on request May to October
Page 10
Surveillance type Location Method Frequency MPI Port Surveillance Bluff Structure surveys Biannual (Summer and Habitat surveys Winter) Trapping Dredging SCUBA Shore surveys
MPI provides a number of guides and services for the public to promote passive/general surveillance and to raise public awareness of the impact of marine pests. Further, coastal permit holders operating within the FMA have biosecurity conditions that they are expected to meet to continue commercial activities in Fiordland.
Response to marine pests detected within Fiordland
Government agencies may take on a joint response role with regional agencies and industry covering all “new to Fiordland” pests. This means that a new detection would initiate an investigation and a decision on whether to respond or not would be made on a case-by-case basis using the best available information at hand.
Refer to Appendix 5 in the Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan 2015/16 – 2020/21 for the Joint-agency response agreement signed by DOC, ES and MPI. The response agreement details who leads depending on the circumstances of the incursion. A general marine biosecurity response manual is also being developed.
Management of established pests
Responses may be transitioned into long-term management if eradication is not feasible. These may be managed within a pest management programme with a variety of lead or partner agencies.
Social marketing
The aims of Fiordland’s social marketing programme led by MPI are to:
educate marine users regarding identification of marine pests; encourage the use of MPI’s biosecurity hotline 0800 80 99 66; ensure vessel hulls including niche areas and gear are clean prior to entering Fiordland; ensure all on-board residual seawater has been treated and is free of sediment; reduce the risk of untreated ballast water being released near Fiordland.
How does the Fiordland Pathway Plan fit into the Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan?
Implementation of the Pathway Plan requires a number of steps that fit within the Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan 2015/16 – 2020/21. A number of different agencies and divisions among these agencies can fulfil the components required to implement the Pathway Plan.
Key components of the Pathway Plan are:
communications and engagement; voluntary and regulatory compliance; surveillance and monitoring.
Page 11
Page 12
Biosecurity Act 1993 & Regional Pest Management Plan
The Biosecurity Act 1993 and Regional Pest Management Plan are legislative tools that allow for the prevention and management of marine pests. In particular Southland’s Regional Pest Management Strategy and Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan set out rules for “containment” and “exclusion” marine pests that, when complied with, prevent the transport of specified marine pests to Southland or within Southland (see proposed RPMP operational plan).
Vector management outside of Fiordland
The prevention of domestic spread of marine pests will further support the Fiordland programme and reduce the chance of pests establishing within the FMA. Primarily this is accomplished through education of marine users and this is addressed in the implementation section of this document (page 13), however, implementation and enforcement of regional and national legislative tools such as regional/domestic pest and pathway management plans work well in conjunction with advocacy to reduce the spread of marine pests. Additionally, partnerships among agencies such as the Top of the North, Top of the South and the Fiordland marine biosecurity partnership promote coordinated approaches and consistent use of tools and messaging on vector management to marine users. Environment Southland and its partners will continue to push for greater national and inter-regional legislation to manage marine biosecurity within New Zealand.
Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan
The objective of the Pathway Plan is to reduce the likelihood of marine pests being transported to (and within) the iconic FMA by addressing the threat of them being transported into the area by vessels and marine equipment.
Progress towards the achievement of the objective will be monitored through the administration of the CVP, compliance and advocacy activities, biological monitoring and public education.
Pathway Plan Rules
Refer to Section 21-23 of the Pathway Plan for the rules of the Pathway Plan (Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Plan 2017).
Rule 1: All vessels must hold a Fiordland Clean Vessel Pass (excluding those signed up to the Environment Southland Cruise Ship Deed of Agreement)
The Clean Vessel Pass (CVP) is a tool under the Pathway Plan that requires vessel owners to declare that they understand how to meet and will comply with the rules set out in Sections 21-23 of the Pathway Plan. A CVP is compulsory for all vessels operating in Fiordland. In addition, vessel owners or operators will need to answer a series of vessel and marine biosecurity specific questions prior to them being issued a pass (Appendix A, Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan 2017). The pass will be administered by ES and applications are made through their online platform.
Monitoring and upkeep of the CVP information will be carried out by ES’ IT department and the biosecurity officer dedicated to marine biosecurity. Key information to be obtained and analysed as follows:
Page 13
number of vessels visiting Fiordland; times of year vessels are visiting; types and sizes of vessels visiting; reason for visiting; where vessels are spending their time; where vessels are coming from; longest duration at a port since last antifoul or haul out; last port before entering FMA; marine biosecurity-specific questions, such as: . whether or not the vessel requires antifoul coating, and if so when it was applied; . when the vessel was last hauled out or dry docked; . whether or not the vessel carries a biofouling management plan and log book; . previous incident with biofouling or marine pests; . hull maintenance or cleaning procedures; . gear cleaning procedures and maintenance; . questions cover clean vessel standards (hull, gear and water treatment).
Additional to the above:
proportion of vessels holding a valid CVP; proportion of vessels compliant with clean vessel standards; proportion of vessels holding records to meet clean vessel standards.
Rule 2: All vessels must meet the Clean Vessel Standards
The owner or person in charge must ensure the vessel meets and maintains the clean hull, gear and residual seawater standards:
Clean hull standard: the hull and niche areas have no more than a slime layer and goose barnacles. Clean gear standard: all marine gear and equipment on the vessel (including any equipment to establish new moorings) is visibly clean, free of fouling, free of sediment, and preferably dry. Residual seawater standard: all on-board residual seawater has been treated and or is visibly clean and free of sediment.
Rule 3: Records of actions taken to meet Clean Vessel Standards must be kept
The owner or person in charge of a vessel entering Fiordland must keep records of the actions taken to meet the clean hull, clean gear and residual seawater standards, and must provide those records to an authorised person on request.
Example of evidence of actions taken (available on ES website):
hull inspection reports; record of cleaning actions taken place e.g. haul out, gear cleaned or dried, residual seawater management, biofouling management plan; record of antifouling systems.
Page 14
Please note certain types of evidence will not be suitable to all vessel types. For example, trailered vessels or kayaks do not require antifouling paints, and if stored for long periods of time in between use (e.g. weeks to months resulting in complete drying) will likely not require cleaning – maintaining a simple record of use that includes location of activity would be enough (see appendix). However, if a trailered vessel was used in Dunedin one day, and then transported to Milford Sound the following day, it is recommended that the vessel is washed down with freshwater and any visible marine fouling, debris or sediment is removed prior to leaving Dunedin.
Regional Pathway Operational Plan
The Regional Pathway Operational Plan describes the objectives and targets of the Pathway Plan at a detailed level and provides measures of progress towards the achievement of these objectives.
Implementing the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan
Communications & engagement
Regular and effective communications and engagement with Fiordland’s marine users is highly important for the successful implementation of the Pathway Plan. Fiordland users must “buy in” to the Plan, as without this, the Plan will not be effective.
Communications plan
ES with support from MPI, DOC and FMG will implement the Communications Plan. This document sets out the target audiences, key messages, communications tools, key personnel, risks to success, and what success looks like. The aim of the communications plan is to encourage voluntary compliance with the Pathway Plan rules and to keep main audiences updated with relevant information.
Threat of marine pests to Fiordland
General messaging is available from all parties involved in the Fiordland Marine Biosecurity programme which is in a variety of media. This includes websites, print, guides, and in person, such as workshops, boat shows and on-water activities. Environment Southland, Ministry for Primary Industries, Fiordland Marine Guardians and the Marine Biosecurity Porthole websites contain this guidance and key contact details for further information can be found here too.
Clean vessel pass (CVP)
ES has designed and will implement the Fiordland CVP. The pass itself is valid for one year, however, vessels and associated gear need to meet the clean vessel standards on every entry to the FMA. ES has developed online and manual application forms, and a procedure within the Council to process the applications and deliver the CVPs including a renewal option. Excluding initial set up and trialling costs, the tasks involved in processing applications, and managing the database are estimated to require 0.2 FTE.
Page 15
Through IRIS (software designed for regional councils to carry out core functions e.g. consents, compliance and biosecurity), data gathered from the applications can be summarised and then communicated.
Encouraging Fiordland marine users to apply for a CVP will be done a number of ways (see Table 3).
Table 3: Tools available to encourage applying for a Clean Vessel Pass
Stage Tools available Who can deliver message? New applicants Advertising, direction to website, ES, MPI, DOC and FMG word of mouth, targeted Regional Councils communications to specific groups, in Marinas person, newsletters and social media Ports Marine outlets (e.g. Hunting and Fishing outlets) Stakeholders General public Commercial fishing industry organisations Renewal of CVP Email or post at ≥2 weeks prior to ES, MPI, DOC and FMG expiry and general advertising, in person, biannual newsletter
Antifouling, cleaning and best practice to meet the clean vessel standards
To reduce the likelihood of marine pests establishing in Fiordland, the most important aspect of the Pathway Plan is that vessel owners and operators meet the clean vessel standards.
MPI provides a number of guides and services for “experts” and “non-experts” promoting marine biosecurity best practice (including antifouling, hull and gear cleaning), and ways to identify marine pests. These are available as waterproof guides and electronic versions can be downloaded from MPI and ES websites. Additionally, through the CVP application process applicants must declare that they will meet the standards on every entry to within (and while within) 1 NM of the landward boundary of the FMA, and the standards are presented to them numerous times including on their vessel specific CVP. There is also a vessel cleaning and treatment guide developed by MPI on the ES website.
Vessel owners need to know where they can antifoul, and clean their hulls and gear. A detailed register of haul out and dive services will be updated regularly and available on the ES website (and other locations where deemed appropriate).
One of the main behaviour changes the Pathway Plan sets out to achieve is that owners and operators of vessels will check that their vessel is compliant with the clean vessel standards prior to arrival into the FMA. However, as advocates for marine biosecurity in NZ the partnering agencies and FMG need to encourage marine biosecurity best practice with vessels moving between regions, for example, the clean before you leave approach should always be applied.
Hull inspections
Biofouling on hulls is one of the main vectors by which marine pests reach new locations, and therefore it is very important vessel owners meet the clean hull standard. To meet the clean hull
Page 16
standard vessel owners may require a hull inspection and potentially a clean of their vessel prior to departure for Fiordland. Clear messaging needs to be given on where this can be done, timing (i.e. how many days prior to departure can hull inspection be undertaken), how to carry out a hull inspection, and why it is important to have a hull inspection carried out prior to departure for Fiordland.
Vessel owners will be encouraged to use a combination of the following methods to comply with the clean hull standard:
self-assessment by snorkelling or diving on hull - . MPI to provide images of what “no more than a slime layer and goose barnacles” looks like including niche areas of vessels; qualified and trained divers to assess biofouling status; haul out and clean, or haul out and antifoul to meet the clean hull standard.
Guidance and training for suitably qualified or experienced persons needs to be available on how to carry out hull inspections for the purpose of determining level of fouling and the identification of marine pest species. MPI provides a detailed marine pest identification guide, and is in the process of providing marine pest ID workshops which, depending on the audience, should be combined with information regarding the Pathway Plan.
Additionally, vessel owners and operators can contact dive service providers to undertake hull inspections, which will generally be at the operators cost. For vessels that do not meet the clean hull standard, haul out or in-water treatment will be required to minimise the risk of marine pests being transported to Fiordland. The ES website will have a database of haul out and dive services, and guidance on carrying out a hull inspection.
Promote to stakeholders and Iwi
Continual promotion and updates of the Pathway Plan and the Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan to stakeholders and iwi is crucial to its success. Communications targeting stakeholders and iwi will be managed within the Pathway Plan communications plan.
Compliance Any major biosecurity compliance actions under the Pathway Plan are to carried out by ES warranted biosecurity or compliance officers. However, assistance from supporting agencies will be useful. Delegation of Pathway Plan specific Biosecurity Act 1993 powers to appropriate personnel will be necessary. Compliance activities will take into regard the Pathway Plan rules, whereas detection of an unwanted organism will be dealt with under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and/or Southland’s Regional Pest Management Plan.
Joint-agency compliance patrols will take place at least biannually targeting the peak periods when vessels visit Fiordland (October through to April). Additionally, small operations will take place in easily accessible fiords, and MPI fisheries also operate in Doubtful Sound and Milford Sound during peak times of the year with scope to include marine biosecurity compliance and advocacy.
Page 17
If users do not hold a current CVP
If a vessel operator cannot produce a current CVP, the vessel will be subject to a hull inspection. The costs of the inspection will be recovered from the operator and will include diver, skipper and crew costs. The minimum cost of recovery is set at the Council’s minimum compliance administration rate $150.00. Cost exceeding this amount may be recovered depending on the type and level of work e.g. cleaning, treatment, sample collection/identification and the size of the vessel.
Work above the minimum cost will be charged at $150.00 per hour for each Council employee involved (including administration time), plus contractor hourly rates and the use of any specialist equipment.
If vessels do not meet the Pathway Plan rules
During marine biosecurity compliance activities, the agencies aim to visually inspect compliance with the clean vessel standards of every vessel that is intercepted. On occasion, it is not possible to inspect every vessel due to timing constraints, volume of vessels in the area, or environmental conditions. Under these circumstances, vessels will be risk assessed on whether or not they can produce a CVP, and the nature of the vessel, e.g. a trailer boat is considered lower biosecurity risk than a permanently moored vessel. The below table describes the action taken following an inspection for compliance with the Pathway Plan. The cost-recovery and direction powers of the Biosecurity Act will be used where necessary for instances where vessels do not meet the clean vessel standards.
Table 4: Enforcement action scenarios under the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan, the Southland Regional Pest Management Strategy and the Resource Management Act 1991
Scenario CVP Meets Carries evidence No marine Action standards of meeting pest on standards vessel 1. N/A 2. Positive communication, assist with CVP application Potential for cost recovery of clean vessel standards inspection Multiple instances of failing to produce a CVP will incur cost recovery and there is potential for stronger penalties. 3. Positive communication, advice on proactive cleaning /antifoul methods Reinforcement of clean vessel standards Issue NOD to provide records on next re-entry/direct to leave FMA if seriously fouled Potential for cost recovery – use discretion e.g. Fiordland-based vessel, minimal fouling etc Certain cases (e.g. multiple instances of non-compliance) may require prosecution and penalties
Page 18
Scenario CVP Meets Carries evidence No marine Action standards of meeting pest on standards vessel for breaching a rule without reasonable excuse can reach $5,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation
4. Positive communication Encourage record keeping 5. Cost recovery of hull inspection/sample collection Issue NOD to provide records for next re-entry/direct to leave FMA if seriously fouled Reinforce Pathway Plan messaging encouraging biosecurity best practice and application for CVP Certain cases may require prosecution and penalties for breaching a rule without reasonable excuse can reach $5,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation 6. Potential for cost recovery of hull inspection Reinforce Pathway Plan messaging encouraging biosecurity best practice and record keeping, and application for CVP Multiple instances of non- compliance will incur stronger penalties 7. Potential for cost recovery of hull inspection Issue NOD to provide records upon next re-entry/direct to leave FMA if seriously fouled Reinforce Pathway Plan messaging encouraging biosecurity best practice and record keeping Certain cases may require prosecution and penalties for breaching a rule without reasonable excuse can reach $5,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation Multiple instances of non- compliance will incur stronger penalties 8. Cost recovery of hull inspection/sample collection Issue NOD to provide records prior to re-entry/direct to leave FMA if
Page 19
Scenario CVP Meets Carries evidence No marine Action standards of meeting pest on standards vessel serious Reinforce Pathway Plan messaging encouraging biosecurity best practice and application for CVP Certain cases may require prosecution and penalties for breaching a rule without reasonable excuse can reach $5,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation Multiple instances of non- compliance will incur stronger penalties 9. Falls under Regional Pest Management Plan and Resource Management Act 1991 – Notice of Direction (NOD) to leave Fiordland, NOD to clean/remove pest, Infringement notice and fine of $500 Certain cases may require prosecution and penalties for breaching a rule without reasonable excuse can reach $5,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation Cost-recovery of inspection Potential for minor action if owner/operator can show best practice was followed Multiple instances of non- compliance will incur stronger penalties 10. Falls under Regional Pest Management Plan and Resource Management Act 1991 – Notice of Direction (NOD) to leave Fiordland, NOD to clean/remove pest, Infringement notice and fine of $500 Cost-recovery of inspection Certain cases may require prosecution and penalties for breaching a rule without reasonable excuse can reach $5,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation Multiple instances of non- compliance will incur stronger penalties 11. Falls under Regional Pest Management Plan and Resource Management Act 1991 – Notice of
Page 20
Scenario CVP Meets Carries evidence No marine Action standards of meeting pest on standards vessel Direction (NOD) to leave Fiordland, NOD to clean/remove pest, Infringement notice and fine of $500 (RMA). Cost recovery of inspection Certain cases may require prosecution and penalties for breaching a rule without reasonable excuse can reach $5,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation Multiple instances of non- compliance will incur stronger penalties
Training and authorisation
Representatives from the agencies that operate directly in the FMA require certain powers of the Biosecurity Act 1993 delegated to them to be able to implement the Pathway Plan effectively. Recommended personnel are shown in
Page 21
Table 5.
Other marine biosecurity operational activities may take place in Fiordland, which may require all agencies to exercise similar powers of the Biosecurity Act 1993. Examples include responding to new incursions of marine pest species to Fiordland which will require a joint-agency response. However, it is recommended that any major biosecurity compliance actions under the Pathway Plan are carried out by Environment Southland warranted biosecurity or compliance officers.
Page 22
Table 5: Authorised personnel to implement the Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan
Agency Job title Environment Southland Biosecurity Officer – Marine & Biodiversity Biosecurity Officer x 2 Compliance Officer x 2
Department of Conservation Senior Biodiversity Ranger – Marine
Ministry for Primary Industries Authorised MPI staff including Fisheries Officers x 2
Reporting
Reporting on compliance with the Pathway Plan rules will occur annually and made available on the ES website. This includes the proportion of vessels intercepted that carry a CVP and meet the clean vessel standards. No personal information will be available, e.g. vessel names and operators will not be referred to in any annual reporting. Under the Biosecurity Act 1993, it is required that an annual report on the operational plan be presented to the council and publically available not later than 5 months after the end of the financial year i.e. by 1 December each year.
Surveillance & monitoring
To measure the success of the Pathway Plan, ES and associated agencies must monitor compliance with the rules and instances of marine pest incursions. In addition to monitoring within Fiordland, MPI contracts a dive company to inspect the hulls of Fiordland-bound vessels based in Bluff and Stewart Island every month, which is crucial to reduce the likelihood of the marine pest entry and establishment in Fiordland. Vessel owners/operators can also get an on-request inspection prior to their travel to the FMA. Currently, this service or a variation of this service is in place to continue into the future.
Monitoring compliance with the Pathway Plan
Compliance and monitoring of compliance is primarily achieved through joint-agency compliance-targeted operations. Biosecurity, fisheries, compliance with the Resource Management Act 1991, and DOC compliance is the focus of each trip. Generally, all vessels intercepted during daylight hours will be inspected, and times of year the trips take place will not be public.
To successfully implement the Pathway Plan, the agencies will undertake at least two compliance-targeted trips per year, and push for an additional two dedicated biosecurity surveillance-targeted trips per year where funding allows.
Table 6: Compliance indicators
Compliance Indicator Measure Fiordland Clean Vessel Pass Proportion of vessels intercepted within one nautical mile of the landward boundary of the FMA that are not in possession of a current Fiordland CVP Clean vessel standards Proportion of vessels intercepted within 1 NM of the landward boundary of the FMA that following a visual inspection do not meet the clean gear
Page 23
Compliance Indicator Measure and/or residual seawater standards Clean hull standard Proportion of hull inspections that do not meet the clean hull standards
Surveillance for marine pests
Surveillance is very important to assess the effectiveness of Pathway Plan. Under the Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan (2015/16 – 2020/21) ES, MPI and DOC will develop and implement a surveillance plan for early detection of new to the FMA marine pests, and early detection of established pests in new areas of the FMA.
Currently, active surveillance for marine pests is undertaken opportunistically on Fiordland operations such as via the Undaria eradication programme, joint-agency compliance trips, and marine monitoring trips. This surveillance utilises SCUBA or snorkel detection surveys and focuses on high-use areas such as barges, moorings and anchorage areas.
Passive surveillance is also undertaken by coastal permit holders, however, more guidance and training is needed to increase the ability to detect pest species. Additionally, surveillance will make the most of novel tools as they become available such as settlement plates, genetic tools and the use of environmental DNA to detect range expansions of marine pests or new to Fiordland marine pests.
A surveillance guidance document is currently being developed for Southland’s coastal marine area, and from this, a Fiordland specific marine biosecurity surveillance plan will be finalised.
Under the Pathway Plan, at least two marine biosecurity surveillance and compliance trips will be carried out each year.
Training
Marine pest ID training for agency staff, contract divers and marine operators (e.g. coastal permit holders, mooring owners, recreational/commercial divers) is needed and will help to provide a greater ability to detect marine pest species. MPI is currently providing a limited number of workshops and increasing the availability of them is important for the successful identification of marine pests.
For Fiordland biosecurity purposes it is proposed that MPI run at least one Marine pest ID workshop every two years in Southland/Otago catering for agency staff, divers, universities and other marine operators.
Assisting the Fiordland Pathway Plan
Surveillance for new to Southland marine pests and the monitoring of established marine pests within the wider Southland area and New Zealand will assist implementation and the success of the Pathway Plan. Current initiatives include:
MPI’s hull inspection programme in Bluff and Stewart Island; MPI’s marine high risk site surveillance programme; regional surveillance and monitoring.
Page 24
Clean Vessel Pass database
Information gathered from Fiordland CVP applications will be compiled into a database. Quantitative data will be analysed and reported on annually, and the information will be used to review implementation of the Fiordland Marine Pathway Plan programme. Currently, ES is aiming to make this information publically available on the ES website in a broad context, e.g. numbers of vessels entering Fiordland, numbers of recreational and commercial users, where vessels are originating from, compliance percentages for all vessels and vessel types to encourage social licence.
Reporting
Reporting will be made annually on surveillance results and the data collated from the CVP database. The reports will be made publically available on the ES website, and summaries will be communicated through newsletters.
Challenges and risks
There are a number challenges, risks and issues that may impact on the achievement of the Pathway Plan objectives.
Transport and spread of Undaria
If vessels do not meet the rules of the Pathway Plan, there is a strong risk that U. pinnatifida will be spread from existing populations such as Bluff and Breaksea Sound to and within Fiordland. This risk can be mitigated by:
vessels complying with the Pathway Plan and Regional Pest Management Strategy rules; increased emphasis on monitoring, compliance and education; continually reminding owners of the methods vessel and structure owners can use to mitigate risks; area specific controls on vessels and structures.
Incursion of new to region pest or another Undaria incursion
The Regional Pest Management Plan and the Pathway Plan rules greatly reduce the chance of a marine pest incursion, however, incursions are still possible through: non-compliance with rules Pathway Plan rules not being sufficient to mitigate the risk of spread Via means not directly related to the maintenance of hull and gear fouling such as derelict vessels, flotsam and transport of marine pests in ocean currents. Additionally, if a marine pest breaches New Zealand’s border and establishes, there is a risk these could spread to other areas of New Zealand.
This risk can be mitigated by:
vessels complying with the Fiordland Pathway Plan rules; vessels entering the Southland region complying with Environment Southland’s Regional Pest Management Plan;
Page 25
increased emphasis on monitoring for early detection marine pest populations (both within and outside of Fiordland); increased emphasis on response to incursions; increased emphasis on compliance and education including raising awareness throughout New Zealand and internationally on the biosecurity requirements for Fiordland; co-ordination among ES, MPI, DOC, stakeholders, marine operators and other regional councils and marine biosecurity partnerships.
Increase in the costs to implement the Pathway Plan
The costs to implement the communications plan should not increase in the future, and if anything will likely decrease due to the reliance and increased uptake of online media. However, to carry out the compliance, monitoring and surveillance aspects of the Pathway Plan is costly and relies heavily on the availability and affordability of appropriate vessels and commercial divers experienced in biosecurity practices such as hull inspections. In the short to medium term, the costs to implement these operations can be reduced by training of agency staff to undertake or support compliance and monitoring activities, utilising other vessels and operations, such as, the DOC vessel “Southern Winds” or MPI fishery compliance in Milford and Doubtful Sound.
There is also a need to develop more tools for cleaning, assessing antifoul condition, and finding new ways to effectively risk assess vessels.
Low compliance with Pathway Plan rules
Vessel owners may fail to comply with Pathway Plan rules. This risk can be mitigated by:
reinforcing key messages in communications plan; increasing emphasis on compliance and education/advocacy.
Responsibilities
The roles and responsibilities of implementing the Pathway plan overlap with many of the roles and responsibilities in Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan priorities e.g. social marketing, compliance and surveillance. The roles of the agencies are outlined below.
Table 7: Roles and responsibilities of agencies and stakeholders. (*) indicates not directly responsible but will have a role in delivering the programme
Programme Task Who’s responsible? Deliverables Communications and CVP ES and all* Promote application consultation for and renewal of CVP Meeting Pathway ES and all* Promote voluntary Plan rules compliance with the 3 rules Threat of marine All Raise awareness of pests to FMA marine biosecurity issues Best practice MPI and all* Encourage best
Page 26
Programme Task Who’s responsible? Deliverables cleaning and hull practice hull cleaning, maintenance antifouling etc Develop and maintain guides Hull cleaning and ES/MPI and all* Advise on haul out checking services and dive services Workshops, public ES, MPI and FMG Promote and inform meetings Pathway Plan to stakeholders and Iwi Reporting ES Update council, FMG, stakeholders and wider marine community Compliance Develop SOP ES and MPI On-water ES, MPI and DOC At least 2 x annual compliance and joint-agency enforcement compliance trips Additional trips possible as part of surveillance programme. Navy, Harbourmaster and MPI fisheries patrols are other opportunities Operations DOC, ES and MPI Provide vessel, skipper, crew, divers, staff and provisions for at least 2x joint- agency compliance trips Costs shared Training and ES and MPI Provide warranted authorisation and trained biosecurity/complian ce officers Delegate powers, and Biosecurity Act 1993 and general compliance training Monitoring and CVP ES, MPI*, DOC* Target surveillance Surveillance and communications on information gathered from CVP system Compliance ES Reporting, adjust monitoring programme if low levels of compliance Develop surveillance ES, MPI and DOC Produce annual plan Fiordland surveillance programme utilising resources from Envirolink and MPI
Page 27
Programme Task Who’s responsible? Deliverables
Implement ES, MPI and DOC Reporting and early Surveillance for detection marine pests Operations DOC, ES and MPI At least 2 x annual joint-agency marine biosecurity surveillance trips (as above under Compliance) Additional trips possible as part of compliance programme - Navy, Harbourmaster and MPI fisheries patrols Review Review operational ES with all* Annual plan Review Fiordland ES with all* 5 years Pathway Plan
Page 28
Calendar of events
Table 8: Red communications, green compliance, blue surveillance and black general activity
Event January February March April May June July August September October November December Apply for CVP* Renew CVP* Stakeholder newsletter Report to FMG meetings and annual report (x3) Meetings/Boatshows/ Workshops Print media FMG annual report Joint-agency compliance (x4 at any time) Surveillance trips (x2 at any time) MPI hull inspection programme Operational Plan review Reporting on Operational Plan commences (due Nov each year) *Applications and renewals of CVPs can be made at any time of the year. However, communications encouraging CVP applications will be focussed at certain times of the year e.g. in spring and throughout summer and leading up to the roar period.
Page 29
Budget/funding
Table 9: Cost estimates for ongoing operating costs
What Cost Lead* ES contribution MPI contribution DOC contribution Component total cost Publicity $5,000 ES $5,000 CVP collateral $1,000 ES $1,000 Public awareness $10,500 Workshops $4,000 ES $3,000 $1,000 Website upkeep $500 ES $500 Administer $7,500 ES $7,500 Clean vessel pass Manage database $500 ES $500 $9,000 Reporting $1,000 ES $1,000 Maintain SOPs $500 ES $500 Training $1,500 ES $1,500 Compliance trips** $35,000 DOC $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Vessel costs $12,800 Operations Diver costs $15,000 $120,000 Food $2,200 Milford/Doubtful only $5,000 $5,000 Bluff vessel surveys $80,000 MPI $80,000 Reporting $3,000 ES $3,000 Annual costs by $38,500 $91,000 $10,000 agency Total annual costs $139,500
*Lead indicates that this agency primarily organises this component of the Pathway Plan. There may be additional costs such as employee time contributed that are not accounted for e.g. the resources required to organise a compliance trip. **Compliance costs are based on 2 separate Fiordland trips on the DOC vessel the Southern Winds or an appropriate alternative vessel. Vessel costs include skipper and crew time but does not account for other agency time. Diver costs are estimated on 3 divers at $500 per day over 10 days – likely to be lower if agencies providing dive support.
Page 30
References
1. Biosecurity Act (1993). 2. Fiordland Marine Biosecurity Plan 2015/16 – 2020/21 (2015). Ministry for Primary Industries. 3. Fiordland Marine Regional Pathway Management Plan (2017). Environment Southland. 4. Regional Pest Management Strategy (2013). Environment Southland.
Page 31
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Item 9 Councillors’ Meeting Schedule – October to Year End 2018
MORF ID: Strategic Direction: Council Policy Report by: Jan Brown, Executive Assistant Approved by: Neil Selman, Director of Corporate Services Executive Approval: Rob Phillips, Chief Executive
Purpose
For Council to approve the meeting schedule, as shown on the following pages.
The schedule has been prepared in accordance with current Council policy under the Remuneration provisions contained in Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council note the planned meetings and resolve to:
1. appoint members to represent Council at the meetings marked on the schedule;
2. pay meeting fees and/or allowances in accordance with its policy and detailed on the schedule.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 142 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Councillors Meeting Schedule - October to Year End 2018
Leave of Absence Requests (dates inclusive): - Fees/ Allowances Meeting Venue Date Time Council Meeting Mileage Other Representation Fee Allowance Retrospective Southland Heritage Building & Preservation Monday Trust Annual General Meeting @ ES 29 October 2018 1.00 pm Cr Ludlow - Monday Venture Southland Joint Committee @ VS 5 November 10.00 am Chairman Horrell - 2018 Monday Crs Cockburn & Venture Southland Advisory Subcommittee @ VS 5 November 1.00 pm Guyton - 2018 @ Mainland Wednesday Waituna Liaison Committee meeting Property 7 November 4.00 pm Cr McCallum - 2018 Monday People Water & Land Programme meeting with @ ES 12 November 12.00 noon Chairman Horrell - S Dowie MP 2018 & Cr McCallum @ Wednesday Dairy Leaders Meeting Winton 14 November 6.45 pm Cr McCallum - 2018 @ Saturday Mid Dome Wilding Tree Volunteer Day Mid Dome 17 November All day Interested - 2018 Councillors
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 143 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Leave of Absence Requests (dates inclusive): - Fees/ Allowances Meeting Venue Date Time Council Meeting Mileage Other Representation Fee Allowance Monday Whakamana te Waituna Charitable Trust Co- @ ES 19 November 2.00 pm Cr McCallum - Chairs Briefing Meeting 2018 Thursday Livestrands Meeting @ Winton 22 November 12.00 noon Chairman Horrell - 2018
Thursday Southland Heritage Building & Preservation @ ES 22 November 1.00 pm Cr Ludlow - Trust 2018 Thursday The Life Magazine Launch @ Invercargill 22 November 5.00 pm Chairman Horrell - 2018 Thursday Meeting with Catchment Group Leaders @ ES 22 November 6.00 pm Crs Rodway and - 2018 Ludlow Departing from Tuesday Chairman Horrell, Property Working Party lease land tour ES 27 November 8.30 am Crs Hubber, - 2018 McPhail, Rodway & Stevens Tuesday Official gifting of vehicle to Stewart Island @ ES 27 November 1.00 pm Chairman Horrell - Rakiura Environment Trust 2018
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 144 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Leave of Absence Requests (dates inclusive): - Fees/ Allowances Meeting Venue Date Time Council Meeting Mileage Other Representation Fee Allowance Departing from Wednesday Chairman Horrell, Property Working Party lease land tour ES 28 November 1.30 pm Crs Hubber, - 2018 McPhail, Rodway & Stevens @ Lindisfarne Chairman Horrell, Dr Liz Craig’s “Saving New River” meeting Community Monday 10.00 am Crs Guyton, - Centre 3 December Ludlow, McCallum 2018 & Rodway Meeting with Livestock Improvement reps @ ES Tuesday Chairman Horrell, Staff @ ES 4 December 8.00 am Cr McCallum - 2018 Southland Regional Development Agency Joint Tuesday Shareholders Committee meeting @ ICC 4 December 1.00 pm Chairman Horrell - 2018 Tuesday Waituna Landward Buffer Meeting @ ES 4 December 2.00 pm Cr McCallum - 2018 @ Civic Theatre Tuesday Southern Institute of Technology Awards Night Invercargill 4 December 7.30 pm Cr Cook - 2018 Council Workshop – Science Symposium & RSG Wednesday All Murray Darling Tour debrief @ ES 5 December 1.30 pm Councillors - 2018 Wednesday Welcoming Communities Meeting @ As Advised 5 December As Advised Cr Ludlow - 2018
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 145 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Leave of Absence Requests (dates inclusive): - Fees/ Allowances Meeting Venue Date Time Council Meeting Mileage Other Representation Fee Allowance
December 2018
Thursday Line 4 Back in Business Celebration @ Tiwai Point 6 December 10.00 am Chairman Horrell - 2018 Official Opening of Alliance Lorneville Venison @ The Plant Thursday Processing Plant Lorneville 6 December 1.30 pm to 3.00 pm Chairman Horrell - 2018 Council Workshop re Swimmability @ ES Tuesday 12.30 pm All Council/TAMI Workshop – Annual Plan #2 11 December 1.00 pm Councillors - 2018 Tuesday Chairman ACE Community Project Launch @ Riverton 11 December 4.00 pm Horrell - 2018 Ordinary Meeting of Council @ ES Wednesday 10.30 am - A Council Workshop – Systems Thinking 12 December To follow All Councillors Councillors Christmas function @ Ascot Park 2018 6.00 pm Hotel Thursday Chairman Horrell - River Liaison Committee Chairs Session @ ES 13 December 10.00 am to 12.30 & Cr Cockburn 2018 pm Friday 10.00 am cuppa Chairman Horrell, - Southland Shared Services Forum @ ICC 14 December 10.30 am meeting Crs Currie, Ludlow, 2018 McPhail
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 146 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Leave of Absence Requests (dates inclusive): - Fees/ Allowances Meeting Venue Date Time Council Meeting Mileage Other Representation Fee Allowance Friday Southland Mayoral Forum @ ICC 14 December 12.00 noon Chairman Horrell - 2018 Cr McCallum Southland Murihiku Destination Strategy @ VS Monday Workshop with Stafford 17 December 9.00 am Chairman Horrell - 2018 Wednesday Venture Southland Joint Committee @ VS 19 December 9.30 am Chairman Horrell - 2018 Thursday Visit to Runanga re Whakamana te Waituna @ As Arranged 20 December 10.00 am Cr McCallum - 2018 Friday Interested ES Staff BBQ @ ES 21 December 1.00 pm Councillors - 2018 [Need to RSVP]
January 2019
Thursday All Councillors - Council Workshop – Annual Plan #3 @ ES 24 January 2019 9.00 am & TAMI Board Monday Whakamana te Waituna Co Chairs Briefing @ ES 28 January 2019 2.00 pm Cr McCallum -
Organisational Performance & Audit Committee Tuesday 9.00 am All Councillors - Regulatory Committee @ ES 29 January 2019 1.30 pm
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 147 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Leave of Absence Requests (dates inclusive): - Fees/ Allowances Meeting Venue Date Time Council Meeting Mileage Other Representation Fee Allowance Wednesday 9.00 am All - Strategy & Policy Committee @ ES 30 January 2019 1.30 pm Councillors Regional Services Committee
February 2019
Friday Chairman Horrell - Whakamana te Waituna Charitable Trust @ ES 1 February 2019 9.00 am Cr McCallum Combined Mayoral Forum, and @ Queenstown Wednesday 9.00 am Chairman Horrell - Te Roopu Taiao 5 February 2019 2.00 pm Cr McCallum & CE Oreti and Mataura River Liaison Committee @ TBA Friday As Interested - meetings 8 February 2019 Advised Councillors Aparima and Waimatuku River Liaison @ Otautau Monday 10.30 am Interested - Committee meetings and Waimatuku 11 February 1.15 pm Councillors 2019 Waiau River Liaison Committee Meeting @ Tuatapere Tuesday Interested - 12 February As Advised Councillors 2019 Makarewa River Liaison Committee Meeting @ Hedgehope Friday Interested - 15 February As Advised Councillors 2019 Waituna Catchment Liaison Committee meeting @ Waituna Monday Interested - 18 February As Advised Councillors 2019
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 148 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Leave of Absence Requests (dates inclusive): - Fees/ Allowances Meeting Venue Date Time Council Meeting Mileage Other Representation Fee Allowance Te Anau Basin Liaison Committee meeting @ Te Anau Tuesday Interested - 19 February 10.30 am Councillors 2019 Council caucus opportunity 9.00 am Councillors meet with Executive 9.30 am Morning tea break @ ES Wednesday 10.15 am Ordinary meeting of Council 20 February 10.30 am All Councillors - Lunch 2019 12.00 noon Council Workshop - Council Workshop – 1.30 pm Landcare Rural Decision-makers Survey and Behavioural Economics
Please note, those items with shading or with strikethrough text – indicate changes that have occurred since the last meeting schedule was approved by Council *T = Transport (mileage/air fares/etc) *A = Accommodation costs *R = Course/Conference registration costs E = Expenses incurred in association with visit
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 149 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Matters for Information/Noting (Kaupapa Whakamohiotanga/Tuhingia)
Item 10 Draft 2019 Schedule for Annual Catchment Liaison and Regional Services Committee Meetings
MORF ID: A438114 Strategic Direction: Governance Report by: Paddy Haynes, Catchment Operations Approved by: - Manager Executive Approval: Jonathan Streat, Director of Operations
Purpose
For Council to note the draft 2019 schedule for the Annual Catchment Liaison and Regional Services Committee meetings.
Summary
Set out below is the draft 2019 schedule of annual meetings of Catchment Liaison Committees and Regional Services Committee. This schedule may be subject to change.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council resolve to note the report.
Report
The annual meetings of Catchment Liaison Committees and Regional Services Committee play an important part in the Long-term Plan/Annual Plan process and have been timed accordingly.
Friday, 8 February 2019
Oreti Catchment Liaison Committee Annual General Meeting
Timetable: 9.30 am - morning tea 10.00 am - meeting start 12.00 pm - light lunch Venue: Dipton Golf Club, Dipton Chairman: Hamish English
Mataura Catchment Consultative Group Annual General Meeting
Timetable: 1.15 pm - meeting start 3.00 pm - afternoon tea Venue: Riversdale Hotel, Main Street, Riversdale Chairman: Bevin Watt
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 150 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Monday, 11 February 2019
Aparima Catchment Liaison Committee Annual General Meeting
Timetable: 10.00 am - morning tea 10.30 am - meeting start 12.15 pm - light lunch Venue: Otautau Railway Hotel, King Street, Otautau Chairman: Grant McGregor
Waimatuku Catchment Liaison Committee Annual General Meeting
Timetable: 1.15 pm - meeting start 3.00 pm - afternoon tea Venue: Waimatuku Hall, Waimatuku, Invercargill-Riverton Highway Chairman: Tony Strang
Tuesday, 12 February 2019
Waiau Catchment Liaison Committee Annual General Meeting
Timetable: 1.15 pm - meeting start 3.00 pm - afternoon tea Venue: Waiau Hotel, 49 Main Street, Tuatapere Chairman: Peter Horrell
Friday, 15 February 2019
Makarewa Catchment Liaison Committee Annual General Meeting
Timetable: 10.00 am - morning tea 10.30 am - meeting start Venue: Hedgehope Community Hall, Hedgehope Chairman: Warren McPherson
Monday, 18 February 2019
Waituna Liaison Committee Annual General Meeting
Timetable: 10.30 am - morning tea 11.00 am - meeting start
Venue: Oteramika Hall, Cnr Waituna Road and Kapuka North Road Chairman: Ewen Pirie
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 151 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Tuesday, 19 February 2019
Te Anau Basin Liaison Committee Annual General Meeting
Timetable: 10.00 am - morning tea 10.30 am - meeting start Venue: Te Anau Golf Club, Waiau Road, Te Anau Chairman: Grant Cockburn
Regional Services Committee and Catchment Liaison Committees – 6 March 2019
The annual meeting of Council’s Regional Services Committee with the various Catchment Liaison Committees will be held on Wednesday, 6 March 2019 in the Council Chambers, Environment Southland. The meeting schedule is as follows:
Time Morning tea 10.00 am – 10.30 am Meeting commences 10.30 am – 12.15 pm Lunch 12.15 pm – 1.00 pm Meeting resumes 1.00 pm Afternoon tea at conclusion of meeting
Views of Affected Parties
There are no matters in this report which require consideration under this heading.
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
There are no issues within this report which trigger matters in this policy.
Fit with strategic framework
Outcome Contributes Detracts Not applicable Managed access to quality natural resources Diverse opportunities to make a living Communities empowered and resilient x Communities expressing their diversity
Considerations
Financial Implications There are no financial implications associated with this report.
Legal Implications This report and the associated recommendations comply with the appropriate statutory requirements placed upon the Council.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 152 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Consistency with Council’s LTP/Annual Plan/Policy/Strategy
This is consistent with Council’s Long-term Plan/Annual Plan strategic direction.
Attachments
None
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 153 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Item 11 Update on Land and Water Services Activities
MORF ID: A439063 Strategic Direction: Communities empowered and resilient Report by: Fiona Young, Land & Water Services Approved by: Jonathan Streat, Director of Operations Manager, Anastazia Raymond, Land Sustainability Officer and Pat Hoffmann, Environmental Education Officer Executive Approval: Jonathan Streat, Director of Operations
Purpose
To update Council on the contribution of the Land and Water Services Division to meet the strategic outcomes identified in the Council’s Long-term Plan.
Summary
The Land and Water Services Division has a programme of work that sees engagement and action across the Southland community. The following report provides information on two recent initiatives, and an update on a key project (Aparima).
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council resolve to note the report.
Report
Background
Within the Land and Water Services Division there are a number of core programmes that Council is updated on through the Long-term Plan/Annual Plan process. These include the work done as part of community partnerships, the Enviroschools programme, and a number of catchment projects that are now underway.
Current situation
A number of events have been either organised or attended by the division over the past three months. These events contribute directly to the division’s performance measures, as set out below:
1. Enviroschools – Stormwater Workshop for Teachers
On 16 November 2018, teachers from kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools across Southland attended a workshop “Plastic in our oceans: how can schools make a difference”. The workshop was presented jointly by staff from Environment Southland, Wastenet Southland and the Invercargill City Council.
The purpose of the workshop was for teachers to learn more about where stormwater comes from, how plastic and other pollutants get into it, and how it gets carried down to rivers and
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 154 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
the sea. Teachers gained information about these topics and plenty of ideas that they will be able to use in their classrooms and as part of environmental action projects. Key concepts covered included sources of waste, stormwater as a pathway for waste, effects of waste on receiving environments, and effective action. Each school received a copy of an aerial photograph of their school, showing the stormwater network maintained by their respective district/city council.
The workshop was planned and delivered jointly by a team from Environment Southland, Wastenet Southland and the Invercargill City Council. The decision to collaborate in this way added tremendous value to the quality of information shared with the teachers, and the overall effectiveness of the workshop. Staff would like to create more opportunities for the respective councils to work together in this way to support each other to achieve objectives.
Funding for the workshop was provided through the Enviroschools programme, which is delivered by Environment Southland, in partnership with the Invercargill City Council, Southland District Council, Gore District Council and Kindergartens South. The Enviroschools kaupapa is about creating a healthy, peaceful and sustainable world, and the aim of the programme is to foster a generation of people who instinctively think and act sustainably. Every year, the Enviroschools programme offers professional development opportunities for teachers in Southland to share information and resources, and to encourage teachers to build education for sustainability processes into their teaching programmes.
2. Rapid Habitat Assessment Tool workshops for Catchment Groups
Citizen science is community participatory science where non-scientists volunteer to collect or analyse data as part of a research study. Catchment groups across Southland have been seeking to gather credible data that can be used to understand the state and trends in Southland’s environment, in particular, water quality. LAWS staff continue to have numerous requests on this topic and often act to connect representatives from catchment groups to staff and resources from the Science Division.
The Rapid Habitat Assessment Tool has been promoted by Council and offers communities the opportunity to participate in information gathering, widen understanding of the stream environment and collect meaningful and comparative data. This tool has been developed by Cawthron Institute and is intended to be used in the field by community members following relatively minimal training. A score sheet guides the user through a set of questions, evaluating each one individually and assigning a grade. These grades are totalled to represent the overall ecological health for the stretch of river in question. The grades can be reassessed on a 1-2 yearly basis, and are useful for measuring change as a result of implementing new practices.
LAWS staff attended a training day run by Roger Hodson, Environmental Scientist, Surface Water Quality, to familiarise themselves with the tool. In the previous month staff have responded to requests to demonstrate the tool to catchment groups and as a result have co-ordinated field days for the Hedgehope and Between the Domes catchment groups. These field days were attended by land sustainability staff and representatives from the catchment groups, with presentations given by Roger Hodson.
The training day consists of an indoor presentation and discussion followed by practice in the field. The presentation described the assessment tool methods and discussed photos of representative waterways that illustrated the range of scores possible on the habitat
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 155 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
assessment score sheet. After the presentation attendees practised their scoring at a couple of nearby diverse sites, ranging from a relatively pristine environment to a highly modified one. When using the tool it is important to “calibrate the eye” so that everyone is carrying out the assessment with a similar picture in mind. There was plenty of robust discussion both during the presentation and out in the field. Many of the participants found themselves open to a new appreciation of waterway habitat rather than just water quality and drainage. For example, categories in the rapid habitat assessment score sheet, such as sediment deposits and bank erosion, can build a longer term picture of a stream’s health rather than the “hit and miss” snapshot results of a water sample.
A number of initiatives have either taken place or are in progress to develop a methodology for applying this tool with community groups in Southland so that meaningful data can be collated and compared. An Envirolink application has been lodged, which seeks to build a teaching resource that can be used in a community setting.
3. Aparima Community Environment (ACE) Project
Land manager representatives from six catchment groups have come together with a range of agencies, including Environment Southland, Ministry for Environment, DairyNZ, Beef and Lamb NZ, Fonterra, NZ Deer Farmers Association and Foundation of Arable Research, to work on a whole-of-catchment approach to addressing the issue. The collective expertise in the group offers a unique opportunity to link water quality and ecosystem health science with knowledge of farm systems and practices (from current and previous research), and land management innovation, to apply an integrated catchment management approach targeting adoption of appropriate land management practices most likely to make a difference in downstream water quality and ecosystem health at pace and scale.
An application to the MPI through the Sustainable Farming Fund was lodged earlier this year, on behalf of the land managers, to seek funding support for the project. Staff are expecting to hear from the Ministry, about the success or otherwise of that application but in the meantime work is proceeding on the project. A project structure has now been established for the project, which sees an ACE Leaders’ Group comprised of the representatives from the six catchment groups. The ACE Working Group has the catchment group representatives as well as agency representatives. Both groups are to be chaired by an independent chair (one person), with the contract arrangements yet to be finalised.
To launch the project, and to promote it more widely, a series of events are being held in the project area on 11 December 2019. There will be three meetings, in Mossburn, Otautau and Riverton, with the same programme for each. The ACE Leaders Group will open the meeting and talk about the genesis and vision for the project, and agency representatives will speak briefly on project structure. Stu Muir, a farmer from the North Island, will provide a talk on what he has seen and done on environmental projects on his own farm and in the community.
Alongside the launch, we are working together to plan the work programme through to June 2019. There is a particular focus on intensive winter grazing, on developing an approach to delivering farm plans, and on identifying what mitigations are most important for locations throughout the catchment. A wider issue, not just unique to this project, is the ability to record and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of good management practices. Work is underway in conjunction with other projects on this challenge.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 156 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Fit with strategic framework
Outcome Contributes Detracts Not applicable Managed access to quality natural resources Diverse opportunities to make a living Communities empowered and resilient X Communities expressing their diversity
Views of affected parties
There are no issues within this report which trigger consideration of the views of affected parties.
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
There are no issues within this report which trigger matters in this policy.
Considerations
Financial implications There are no matters at present that trigger consideration of financial implications. However, if the Sustainable Farming Fund application does not succeed, it will be necessary to review how the project is implemented.
Legal implications There are no issues within this report which triggers consideration of legal implications.
Attachments
None
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 157 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Item 12 2018 Perceptions Survey
MORF ID: A351227 Strategic Direction: Community Representation Report by: Gail Jefferies, Communications and Approved by: Graham Sevicke-Jones, Director of Engagement Manager Science & Information Executive Approval: Graham Sevicke-Jones, Director of Science & Information
Purpose
To inform the Council of the key results in Environment Southland’s 2018 Perceptions Survey (attached).
Summary
The Environment Southland Perceptions Survey of residents and farmers is conducted annually to meet the requirements of Council’s current Long-term Plan, which relate to three specific questions. In addition, other information is sought in relation to the effectiveness of the Council’s communications and people’s preferences for different media channels, which informs communications and engagement planning.
Many 2018 survey results remained on a par with results from 2017 while some showed significant changes. Overall, results show that residents and farmers think the information provided by Environment Southland is valuable, credible and trusted. Residents’ awareness of, and use of, information from Environment Southland has increased. The survey identifies some opportunities to consider, such as people’s changing preferences of communications channels.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council resolve to note the report on the 2018 Perceptions Survey.
Report
Background
The survey is conducted annually to meet the requirements in Council’s current Long-term Plan, which relate to three specific questions. Additional information is also sought to help Council plan ahead, including information about the effectiveness of Council’s communications, and people’s preferences for different media channels.
Current situation
The survey was conducted by Versus Research in July and August 2018 using a mixed-method approach, including telephone and online interviews. The sample totalled 650 residents and 200 farmers. Environment Southland’s consent database was used to ensure dairy farmers were represented (as it was in 2017). The sample is geographically representative of the Southland region. Gender and age weightings were applied to the residents’ data. The margin of error is +/- 3.84% for residents and +/- 6.98% for farmers.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 158 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Responses to LTP Questions
1. In total, 86% of residents and 92% of farmers are aware that Environment Southland is the authority responsible for managing the region’s natural resources, at an unprompted level. This is a further significant increase in awareness for residents (2018, 86%; 2017, 82%; 2016, 71%). The results for farmers remain on a par with 2017 (92%). Awareness continues to be high at a prompted level (99%). The LTP baseline target is 90%.
2. Results for Environment Southland effectively managing pressing environmental issues remains on par with last year: farmers (2018, 62%; 2017, 60%); residents (2018 and 2017, 44%). The LTP baseline target is 60%.
3. Results for Environment Southland protecting and managing the quality of water in Southland’s rivers, lakes and streams is on par with last year: farmers (2018, 63%; 2017, 62%); residents (2018, 42%; 2017, 41%). The LTP baseline target is 35%.
Priorities
Although water/water quality/water pollution is the priority most-often mentioned by residents and farmers (farmers 59%, residents 61%), both mention it less frequently than they did last year (2017, 67% residents and farmers). Farmers are more likely than residents to mention urban pollution (farmers, 4%; residents 0%). Both mentioned rubbish, plastic and recycling more often than last year: (farmers, 2018, 11%; 2017, 5%; residents, 2018, 13%; 2017,6%). Residents are also more likely than last year to mention dairy farming or dairy run-off as a priority (2018, 12%; 2017, 7%).
A reason for the increase in farmers mentioning recycling could be due to the promotion about the rules disallowing the burning of baleage wrap and the publicity around the difficulties with recycling it this year.
Farmers are much more likely to think Environment Southland has responded well to these priorities (2018, farmers, 54%; residents, 30%). This is a decrease from 2017’s results (farmers, 59%; residents, 39%).
On a par with last year’s results, 21% of residents and 40% of farmers think Environment Southland is doing a better job than last year.
Farmers’ positive ratings for this relate to good communication (2018, 32%; 2017, 21%), Environment Southland generally doing a good job (2018, 22%; 2017, 9%), generally improving (2018, 16%; 2017, 9%), and being proactive (2018, 11%; 2017, 1%). However, farmers were less likely to mention collaborating/listening (2018, 5%; 2017, 16%). Residents’ positive ratings relate to Environment Southland generally improving (2018, 19%; 2017, 11%), being proactive (2018, 17%; 2017, 5%), increased awareness of issues in the region (2018, 14%; 2017, 10%) and generally doing a good job (2018, 12%; 2017, 8%). Residents were less likely to say they did not know or were not sure (2018, 4%; 2017, 11%).
Some 39% of residents and 34% of farmers mentioned that Environment Southland is not doing a better job than last year as nothing has changed. Some farmers say this relates to Environment Southland doing a poor job generally (2018, 14%; 2017, 4%), and things not improving (2018, 14%;
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 159 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
2017, 0%). Some reasons for residents include water quality still being an issue (2018, 22%; 2017, 30%), and things not improving (2018, 8%; 2017, 3%).
Farmers are less likely to mention that water quality is still an issue (farmers, 3%).
Communication
The overall results for information provided by Environment Southland being valuable, credible and trustworthy are similar to 2017: 70% of residents (2017, 67%) and 76% of farmers (2017, 75%). With regard to having the opportunity to be involved in decision-making processes: farmers 51%, which is lower than last year (55%); residents 36% (2017, 34%).
Interestingly, this survey shows a trend away from conventional media and an increase in the take up of digital media. However, farmers remain strong consumers of both, and there have been significant increases for residents sourcing information across most channels.
Overall, there is a significant increase in residents’ positive ratings in relation to Environment Southland keeping them well-informed about the management of Southland’s natural resources (2018, 49%; 2017, 43%). Ratings for farmers were the same as last year (59%).
Our Envirosouth magazine is delivered to Southland mailboxes three times a year. Residents’ recall of seeing Envirosouth (2018, 65%; 2017, 73%) remains high, but has decreased. However, readership is on a par with last year (2018, 75%; 2017, 77%). Farmers recall of seeing Envirosouth remains significantly higher (2018, farmers, 80%). Some 86% of farmers have read Envirosouth, which is significantly more than last year (2017, 78%).
There has been a significant increase in residents who agree that the information in Envirosouth is valuable to the community (2018, 81%; 2017, 76%). Residents who agree the information is credible (2018, 77%; 2017, 73%). Farmers results are the same as last year: (valuable to the community, 83%; credible, 85%).
Enviroweek is our half-page weekly ad/content in The Southland Express and The Ensign newspapers. More farmers than residents recall seeing Enviroweek (farmers, 55%; residents, 43%). In total, 64% of residents and 71% of farmers have read it. Farmers and residents’ perceptions of Enviroweek remain on a par with last year, with 83% of people in both groups saying the information in it is valuable to the community. In total, 86% of farmers and 76% of residents agree that Enviroweek provides credible information.
Envirofarm is a half-page ad/content run in Southern Rural Life each month. As in 2017, a quarter (28%) of farmers recall seeing Envirofarm. In total, 71% of farmers have read Envirofarm, continuing an upward trend (2017, 63%; 2016, 30%), and 75% are aware that it is produced by Environment Southland. The percentage of positive perceptions remain high, but have decreased this year with fewer farmers agreeing that the information is valuable to them (2018, 80%; 2017, 89%) and credible (2018, 78%; 2017, 86%).
The Muster lunchtime radio farming show on Hokonui Gold is utilised for both regular advertising and regular paid and unpaid chats with Environment Southland subject experts. Some 43% of farmers listen to the show. Of those who listen, 75% have heard information from Environment Southland. A total of 90% agree that the show’s information is valuable; 91% agree it is credible, which is significantly more than last year (2017, 79%). More FM, The Edge and The Rock are the most popular radio stations amongst residents.
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 160 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
Compared to 2017 results, readership of most newspapers has declined amongst farmers and residents. The Southland Times remains the most popular newspaper amongst residents (55%) and farmers (59%).
Also popular with farmers are: Southern Rural Life (42%), Otago Southland Farmer, which has now been discontinued (37%), the Southland Express (32%), The Ensign (31%) and The Advocate (26%). Another 46% read the Southland Express.
The use of online sources to obtain information continues to increase: 84% of residents and 77% of farmers say they go online regularly.
Some 75% of residents and 71% of farmers use Environment Southland’s Facebook page to source information, and the number of people who have a Facebook profile is increasing: (residents 2018, 87%; 2017, 83%; farmers 2018, 84%; 2017, 74%). Use of Council’s website by residents has increased (2018, 33%; 2017, 26%). Farmers use of our website remains on a par with last year (2018, 65%; 2017, 66%).
Residents say their primary sources of information about Environment Southland are newspapers (59%), flyers (46%), other people (36%) and Envirosouth (35%), rates account (2018, 27%; 2017, 4%). Farmers’ primary sources are newspapers (42%) and flyers (31%). They are also more likely to source information from the internet (farmers, 28%; residents, 15%) and meetings (farmers, 9%; residents, 1%). There is a significant increase in farmers using flyers (2018, 31%; 2017, 16%) and the internet (2018, 28%; 2017 17%) compared with last year.
When asked how Environment Southland could improve its communication, residents think it could use Facebook and social media more (2018, 14%; 2017, 11%). Compared with 2017, residents are more likely to mention that Environment Southland should hold more public or community meetings (2018, 7%; 2017, 3%) and have more information online (2018, 7%; 2017, 3%).
Farmers want Environment Southland to engage more with them (2018, 14%; 2017, 1%). Compared with 2017, they would like more community or public meetings (2018, 10%; 2017, 3%) and more use of Facebook and social media more (2018, 7%; 2017, 2%).
In a further decrease from 2017, 11% of residents (2017, 16%) and 14% of farmers (2017, 22%) say they had heard Environment Southland’s flood warnings on the radio. This may be because there were few broadcasts in the past year.
Options Analysis
Versus Research outlined some points to consider for future planning:
1. capitalise on residents’ significantly increased awareness and greater use of information from Environment Southland over the past 12 months, including encouraging opportunities for residents to engage with Environment Southland-produced publications;
2. as readership of newspapers continues to decline, explore further opportunities to communicate with residents and farmers through channels alongside newspapers;
3. farmers’ positive perceptions of Environment Southland are on a par with last year, but a shift has been noted from “strongly agree to agree” to “very well to well” ratings. While this is not
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 161 Meeting of Council.docx
Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2018
a concern, it will be important to continue fostering a positive view of Environment Southland’s work.
Next steps
The information in the survey will be used to inform the communications and engagement strategies and planning for the future, as well as to enhance existing programmes where appropriate.
With regard to point 2 in the options analysis, communications have always been delivered via a range of channels including digital, which has included increasing Council’s Facebook activity and more recently, launching an online engagement tool.
The full 2018 Perceptions Survey is available on Environment Southland’s website from today.
Fit with strategic framework
Outcome Contributes Detracts Not applicable Managed access to quality natural resources Diverse opportunities to make a living Communities empowered and resilient x Communities expressing their diversity
Compliance with Significance and Engagement Policy
There are no issues within this report which trigger matters in this policy.
Considerations
Financial implications There are no immediate budget considerations.
Legal implications There are no legal implications associated with this report.
Attachments
1. 2018 Perceptions Survey
2018 December 12 - Ordinary Page 162 Meeting of Council.docx
Page Title
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey
August 2018
Conducted by Versus Research
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 1 SummaryPage Title of Findings
AWARENESS AND IMPRESSIONS OF SOUTHLAND’S PRIORITIES ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND Water, water quality and water pollution is the Overall, 86% of residents and 92% of farmers are biggest environmental issue facing Southland that aware of Environment Southland at an unprompted was mentioned most by residents (61%) and farmers level. Unprompted awareness amongst residents has (59%). Notably, farmers are also more likely to mention increased significantly again this year (86% cf. 2017, urban pollution (4% cf. residents, 0%) and long-term 82%), while unprompted awareness amongst farmers sustainability (3% cf. residents, 1%) are issues facing remains on a par with last year’s results. As with Southland. Compared to last year’s results, residents previous years, farmers are more likely to be aware are less likely to mention water, water quality and of Environment Southland unprompted (92% cf. water pollution as an issue in the region (61% cf. 2017, residents, 86%). Total awareness remains high, with 67%) and more likely to mention rubbish, plastic, and almost all residents (98%) and farmers (100%) aware recycling (13% cf. 2017, 6%), dairy farming and run of Environment Southland at a prompted level. off (12% cf. 2017, 7%), clean air and air pollution (6% cf. 2017, 3%), general pollution (4% cf. 2017, 2%), and On a par with last year’s results, 49% of residents 1080 (4% cf. 2017, 1%) as issues facing Southland’s agree Environment Southland is a leader in the environment. This year farmers are also more likely to development of an environmentally friendly mention rubbish, plastic and recycling as issues facing Southland. A further 45% agree Environment Southland (11% cf. 2017, 5%). Southland enables prosperity in Southland and 44% agree it effectively manages pressing environmental When asked about Environment Southland’s issues. response to environmental issues, 30% of residents rate Environment Southland’s response positively. When looking at results for farmers, 61% agree Comparatively, 54% of farmers rate Environment Environment Southland is a leader in the Southland’s response to these issues positively, development of an environmentally friendly significantly higher than the residents’ results (54% cf. Southland. Just over half (51%) of farmers agree residents, 30%). Environment Southland enables prosperity in Southland and 62% agree it effectively manages Twenty-one percent of residents think Environment pressing environmental issues. This year’s results for Southland is doing a better job than last year. This farmers are on a par with last year’s results. is on a par with last year’s results. Forty percent of farmers agree Environment Southland is doing a better In terms of ratings of Environment Southland job than last year, which is significantly higher than the amongst residents, 49% perceive that Environment residents’ results (40% cf. residents, 21%). Southland informs them well about its management of Southland’s natural resources; this is a significant Both residents (23%) and farmers (32%) mention that increase from last year’s result (49% cf. 2017, 43%). A their rating for Environment Southland doing a better further 42% perceive Environment Southland is doing job than last year relates to good communication well at protecting and managing the quality of water and Environment Southland being more active in in Southland’s rivers, lakes and streams, and around the community. Farmers are more likely to mention one third (36%) of residents rate their opportunity that their positive ratings are based on collaboration to participate in Environment Southland’s decision- and listening (5% cf. residents, 1%). Compared to last making processes positively. year’s results, residents are more likely to mention that their reason for Environment Southland doing a better Similar to last year’s results, 63% of farmers perceive job than last year relates to Environment Southland that Environment Southland is protecting and generally improving (19% cf. 2017, 11%), being proactive managing the quality of water in Southland’s rivers, (17% cf. 2017, 5%), its increased awareness of issues lakes, and streams ‘well’. A further 59% perceive they in the region (14% cf. 2017, 10%), and Environment are informed about the management of Southland’s Southland generally doing a good job (12% cf. 2017, natural resources and 51% rate their opportunity to 8%). This year, farmers are also more likely to mention participate in decision making processes ‘well’. that their rating is based on good communication (32%
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 2 Summary of Findings
cf. 2017, 21%), Environment Southland generally doing farmers, 76% agree the information is valuable, 72% a good job (22% cf. 2017, 9%), generally improving (16% agree the information is credible, and 69% agree cf. 2017, 9%), and being proactive (11% cf. 2017, 1%). that they trust the information from Environment Southland. Reasons for residents (39%) and farmers (34%) mentioning that Environment Southland is not doing ENVIROWEEK a better job than last year relate to Environment This year, 43% of residents recall seeing Enviroweek, Southland not making any changes or doing things 64% read Enviroweek, and 65% are aware it is different. Notably, farmers are less likely to mention produced by Environment Southland. Although not that water quality is still an issue (3% cf. residents, statistically significant, these results are a decrease 22%). Compared to last year’s results, residents from 2017’s result. Eighty-three percent of residents are more likely to mention that their rating for agree that the information in Enviroweek is valuable Environment Southland not doing a better job than to the community and a further 76% agree that the last year because it isn’t doing anything differently and information is credible. has made no changes (39% cf. 2017, 25%) and that things aren’t improving (8% cf. 2017, 3%). Compared Just over half (55%) of farmers recall seeing to 2017, farmers are more likely to state that their Enviroweek. This is significantly higher than the reasons for mentioning Environment Southland is not residents’ results (55% cf. residents, 43%). A further doing a better job than last year relate to Environment 71% of farmers have read Enviroweek and 82% Southland doing a poor job generally (14% cf. 2017, are aware Environment Southland produces the 4%) and because things aren’t improving (14% cf. 2017, publication. This is also significantly higher than the 0%). residents’ results (82% cf. residents, 65%). Overall, 83% of farmers agree the information in Enviroweek COMMUNICATION is valuable to the community and 86% agree the information is credible. These results are on a par with Residents mention their primary sources of information results from 2017. about Environment Southland are newspapers (59%), flyers (46%), Envirosouth (35%) and other people (36%). ENVIROSOUTH Compared to last year’s results, use of the majority of Sixty-five percent of residents recall seeing Envirosouth, information sources has increased significantly amongst 75% have read Envirosouth, and 83% are aware residents. Residents are also less likely to mention Envirosouth is produced by Environment Southland. they don’t source any information about Environment Recall of Envirosouth (65% cf. 2017, 73%) and Southland (1% cf. 2017, 6%). awareness that Environment Southland produces the publication (83% cf. 2017, 87%) have decreased Farmers mention their primary sources of information significantly this year amongst residents. When looking about Environment Southland are newspapers (42%) at perceptions of Envirosouth, 81% of residents agree and flyers (31%). Farmers are also more likely to that the information is valuable to the community. This mention they source information through the internet is a significant increase from last year’s result (81% (28% cf. residents, 15%), at meetings (9% cf. residents, cf. 2017, 76%). A further 77% of residents agree the 1%), on other social media (5% cf. residents, 1%) and information in Envirosouth is credible, similar to last at community groups (3% cf. residents, 1%). Amongst year’s result. farmers, use of flyers (31% cf. 2017, 16%) and the internet (28% cf. 2017, 17%) to source information has The majority (80%) of farmers recall seeing Envirosouth. increased significantly this year. This is significantly higher than the residents’ results (80% cf. residents, 65%). A further 86% of farmers Perceptions of the information Environment Southland have read Envirosouth. This is significantly higher than provides to the community remain similar to results the residents’ results (86% cf. residents, 75%) and a from 2017. Seventy percent of residents agree the significant increase from last year’s results (86% cf. information from Environment Southland is valuable 2017, 78%). The majority (96%) of farmers are aware to the community, 64% agree the information is Environment Southland produces the publication. This credible, and a further 64% agree that they trust the is also significantly higher than the residents’ results information from Environment Southland. Amongst (96% cf. residents, 83%) and a significant increase from
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 3 SummaryPage Title of Findings
last year’s results (96% cf. 2017, 91%). Perceptions of significantly higher than the results for residents. This Envirosouth remain on a par with last year’s results year, significantly fewer farmers mention that they amongst farmers, with 83% agreeing the information listen to The Rock (11% cf. 2017, 20%). is valuable and 85% agreeing the information is credible. INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA Similar to last year’s results, 84% of residents ENVIROFARM mention they go online regularly. A further 87% of Similar to last year’s results, 28% of farmers recall residents indicate they have a Facebook profile. This seeing Envirofarm. A further 71% of farmers have is a significant increase from last year’s results (cf. read Envirofarm and 75% are aware it is produced by 2017, 83%). Just over a third of residents are aware Environment Southland. Perceptions of Envirofarm Environment Southland has a Facebook page (38%) have decreased this year, with significantly fewer and 75% would use the Facebook page to source farmers mentioning the information in Envirofarm information. This is a significant increase from last is valuable (80% cf. 2017, 89%) and credible (78% cf. year’s results (cf. 2017, 69%). Use of the Environment 2017, 86%). Southland website has also increased significantly this year amongst residents (33% cf. 2017, 26%). LUNCHTIME FARMING SHOW Just under half (43%) of farmers listen to the Amongst farmers, 77% mention they go online Lunchtime Farming Show; although not statistically regularly, in line with previous years’ results this is significant this is a 7% decrease from 2017. A further significantly lower than the results for residents (cf. 75% of farmers mention they have heard information residents, 84%). A further 84% of farmers have a from Environment Southland on the show. Ninety Facebook profile and this is a significant increase from percent of farmers agree the information on the last year’s results (84% cf. 2017, 74%). Just over half Lunchtime Farming Show is valuable and a further of farmers are aware Environment Southland has a 91% agree the information is credible. This is a Facebook page. This is significantly higher than the significant increase from 2017’s results (91% cf. 2017, results for residents (53% cf. residents, 38%) and 71% 79%). mention they would use Environment Southland’s Facebook page for information. Sixty-five percent NEWSPAPERS of farmers also mention they use the Environment Both residents (55%) and farmers (59%) mention Southland website. This is significantly higher than the they read The Southland Times. Southland Express results for residents (65% cf. residents, 33%). (46%) and Otago Daily Times (17%) are also popular newspapers amongst residents. Farmers are more IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMUNICATION likely to mention they read The Ensign (31% cf. Residents mention Environment Southland could residents, 15%), Advocate South (26% cf. residents, improve their communication through using Facebook 13%), Southern Rural Life (42% cf. residents, 8%), and social media more (14%). Compared to last year, Newslink (23% cf. residents, 7%), and Otago residents are more likely to mention that Environment Southland Farmer (37% cf. residents, 4%). Farmers Southland should hold more public or community are also less likely to mention they read Southern meetings (7% cf. 2017, 3%) and have more information Express (32% % cf. residents, 46%) and Otago Daily online (7% cf. 2017, 3%). Times (10% cf. residents, 17%). Compared to last year’s results, readership of most newspapers has Farmers are more likely to mention they are decreased amongst both residents and farmers. happy with how Environment Southland currently communicates (14% cf. residents, 6%) and that RADIO STATIONS Environment Southland should engage more with More FM (13%), The Edge (12%) and The Rock farmers (14% cf. 2017, 1%). Compared to last year’s (11%) are the most popular radio stations amongst results, farmers are more likely to mention that residents. This is on a par with last year’s results. Environment Southland should hold more community Hokonui Gold is the most popular radio station or public meetings (10% cf. 2017, 3%) and use amongst farmers (39% cf. residents, 9%) which is Facebook and social media more (7% cf. 2017, 2%).
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 4 Summary of Findings
CIVIL DEFENCE Similar to last year’s results, 61% of residents have a household emergency plan and 83% mention they would be self-sufficient for three days. A further 11% of residents heard Environment Southland’s flood warnings. This is a significant decrease from last year’s results (11% cf. 2017, 16%).
Amongst farmers, 64% mention they have a household emergency plan. This is a significant increase from last year’s results (64% cf. 2017, 52%). Almost all (92%) farmers mention they would be self-sufficient for three days - significantly higher than the results for residents (92% cf. residents, 83%), and 14% of farmers heard Environment Southland’s flood warnings. This is also a significant decrease from last year’s results (14% cf. 2017, 22%).
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 5 Table of Contents
BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND METHOD 7
AWARENESS AND IMPRESSIONS 12
SOUTHLAND’S PRIORITIES 18
COMMUNICATION 28
CIVIL DEFENCE 52
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 55
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 6 Page Title
Background, Objectives and Method
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 7 Background, Objectives and Method
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES METHOD Environment Southland is responsible for the As with previous years, a mixed-method approach management of Southland’s natural resources. was used for data collection. This involved both Currently Environment Southland communicates computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI) information about its role and activities in the region and online interviewing which was undertaken to stakeholder groups and the wider community via simultaneously. Online interviewing has again been several different methods including both print and included to ensure a representative sample of the targeted media. population can be collected, as the decreased use of landline phones makes it difficult to reach To ensure the information is reaching the intended certain groups within communities, namely target audiences, Environment Southland monitors younger residents. how well its communications are received by resident groups within the region. In 2018 Versus Research A total of n=500 (n=350 residents and n=150 was again commissioned by Environment Southland farmers) interviews were completed via CATI and to conduct a Perceptions Survey to assist with this a total of n=350 responses (n=300 residents and n=50 monitoring. farmers) were collected online, giving a total sample size of n=650 residents and n=200 farmers. Both residents The primary objectives of the survey are to determine: and farmers were canvassed online this year, • public perceptions of Environment Southland’s however the primary target of this method was environmental management; younger residents as they are increasingly difficult • the effectiveness of Environment Southland’s to reach via telephone. Environment Southland’s current communication channels; consent database was also utilised this year to help • residents’ perceptions of the environmental reach dairy farmers in the area. priorities in Southland, and how well Environment Southland has responded to these, and; CATI and online data collection was undertaken • public uptake and preference for different media between the 23 July and 13 August 2018. Telephone channels. numbers for CATI were supplied by Equifax, while the online sample was sourced through social media. Those who responded online were screened to ensure they had not completed the survey over the phone.
The sample was stratified, as per previous years, to ensure that the sample composition was geographically representative of the region as a whole.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 8 Background, Objectives and Method
MARGIN OF ERROR Margin of error (MOE) is a statistic used to express the amount of random sampling error present in a survey’s results. The MOE is particularly relevant when analysing a subset of the data as smaller sample sizes incur a greater MOE. The final resident sample size for this study is n=650, which gives a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.84% at the 95% confidence interval. That is, if the observed result for the total sample of n=650 respondents is 50% (point of maximum margin of error), then there is a 95% probability that the true answer falls between 46.16% and 53.84%. The margin of error associated with the farmer sample (n=200) is +/-6.98%.
WEIGHTING Age and gender weightings have been applied to the residents’ data set. Weighting ensures that specific demographic groups are neither under- nor over-represented in the final data set and that each group is represented as it would be in the population.
Weighting gives greater confidence that the final results are representative of the Southland region’s population overall and are not skewed by a particular demographic group. The proportions used for the gender and age weights are taken from the 2013 Census (Statistics New Zealand). The proportions used are shown in the table below:
Proportion Proportion Age Male Female 16-39 18% 18% 40-59 18% 18% 60+ 13% 15% Total 49% 51%
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 9 Background, Objectives and Method
SAMPLE The charts below show the unweighted residents’ sample from 2016, 2017 and 2018.
RATEPAYER STATUS
85% 83% 81% AGE GENDER
54% 55%55% 44% 46%45%45% 40% 42% 33% 30%30% 27%26%28% 18% 16%15%
16-39 40-59 60+ Male Female Ratepayer Non 2016 2017 2018 Ratepayer
HOUSEHOLD SITUATION AREA
60% 60% 57% 56% 50% 46% 39% 35% 32% 31% 31% 31%
12% 15% 15% 13% 7% 9%
Young , single, Family with Family, couple Invercargill Gore Southland couple, or group school aged with no children with no children children at home 2016 2017 2018
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 10 How to Read these Findings
The results for residents and farmers have been analysed and reported separately within this report.
2018’s total level results for residents and farmers are Awareness and Impressions shown in the image at left. Significance testing has been applied to these results; this testing compares UNPROMPTED AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2018 RESULTS1 farmers’ results to residents’ results. Any significant Eighty-six percent of residents are aware of Environment Southland at an unprompted level. Ninety-two percent of farmers are aware of Environment Southland at an unprompted level, significantly higher than the changes are shown using shading; green shading residents results. This year shows a significant increase in unprompted awareness amongst residents (86% cf. 2017, 82%), while farmers awareness remains on a par with previous years’ results. indicates the farmers’ results are significantly higher Total awareness remains on a par with previous years’ results, with the majority residents (98%) and farmers (100%) aware of Environment Southland. than the residents’ results, while orange shading indicates that the farmers’ results are significantly Residents 14% 86% lower than the residents’ results. cf. is an abbreviation for compare in Latin. It is used within the text of the report when the farmers’ results are significantly Farmers 8% 92% different from the residents’ results.
Not aware Aware This year’s results are also compared to previous UNPROMPTED AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS2 years’ results in table format. Significance testing 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 has also been applied to these results. This testing Aware: residents 86% 82% 71% 83% 75% compares 2017 and 2018 results. Any significant Aware: farmers 92% 92% 87% 92% 86% changes are shown using shading; green shading PROMPTED AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS indicates that there has been a significant increase 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 from 2017’s results, while orange shading indicates a Aware: residents 98% 99% 99% 100% 99% significant decrease from 2017’s results. Aware: farmers 100% 99% 99% 100% 99%
1 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents. 2 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 11
At the end of each section, area and demographic Awareness and Impressions differences are displayed. This page shows results Summary of Findings which are significantly higher than the total results Detailed below are area, age, and gender differences which are significantly higher than the total result. amongst residents.
AREA DIFFERENCES
INVERCARGILL GORE SOUTHLAND
Strongly agree (8-10) Environment Agree (6-7) Environment Don’t know if Environment Southland Southland is a leader in the development Southland is a leader in is a leader in the development of an of an environmentally friendly Southland the development of an environmentally friendly Southland (29%), enables prosperity in Southland environmentally friendly (14%), enables prosperity in Southland (24%), and effectively manages pressing Southland (40%), enables (18%) and effectively manages pressing environmental issues (22%). prosperity in Southland (37%), environmental issues (13%). Doing very well (8-10) at informing and effectively manages Don’t know if Environment Southland residents about the management of pressing environmental is informing residents about the Southland’s natural resources (23%) and issues (39%). management of Southland’s natural protecting and managing the quality of resources (11%) or providing residents water in Southland’s rivers, lakes, and with an opportunity to participate in streams (20%). decision making processes (16%).
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES
AGE Not aware of Environment Southland Strongly agree (8-10) Environment unprompted (21%). Southland enables prosperity in Doing well (6-7) at informing residents Southland (24%). Neutral rating (5) about the management of Southland’s that Environment Southland effectively natural resources (34%). manage pressing environmental issues (27%). Aware of Environment Southland Doing very well (8-10) at informing unprompted (91%). residents about the management of Disagree (3-4) Environment Southland Southland’s natural resources (32%) is a leader in the development of an and providing residents with an environmentally friendly Southland opportunity to participate in decision (24%), enable prosperity in Southland making processes (22%). (18%), and effectively manages pressing environmental issues (23%). Doing poorly (3-4) at informing residents about the management of Southland’s natural resources (25%), at protecting and managing the quality of water in Southland’s rivers, lakes, and streams (25%), and providing residents with the opportunity to participate in decision making processes (26%).
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 16
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 11 Awareness and Impressions
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - July 2018 | 12 Awareness and Impressions
UNPROMPTED AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2018 RESULTS1 Eighty-six percent of residents are aware of Environment Southland at an unprompted level. Ninety-two percent of farmers are aware of Environment Southland at an unprompted level, significantly higher than the residents’ results. This year shows a significant increase in unprompted awareness amongst residents (86% cf. 2017, 82%) while farmers’ awareness remains on a par with last year.
Total awareness remains on a par with previous years’ results, with the majority residents (98%) and farmers (100%) aware of Environment Southland.
Residents 14% 86%
Farmers 8% 92%
Not aware Aware UNPROMPTED AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS2
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Aware: residents 86% 82% 71% 83% 75%
Aware: farmers 92% 92% 87% 92% 86%
PROMPTED AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Aware: residents 98% 99% 99% 100% 99%
Aware: farmers 100% 99% 99% 100% 99%
1 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents. 2 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 13 Awareness and Impressions
IMPRESSIONS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2018 RESULTS3 Almost half (49%) of residents agree (25%) or strongly agree (24%) that Environment Southland is a leader in the development of an environmentally sustainable Southland; comparatively 61% of farmers agree (36%) or strongly agree (25%) with this. Notably farmers are more likely to agree that Environment Southland is a leader in the development of an environmentally sustainable Southland (36% cf. residents, 25%), enables prosperity (36% cf. residents, 26%), and effectively manages pressing environmental issues (37% cf. residents, 25%). This year’s results are on a par with results from 2017, with no statistically significant changes noted.
Leader in the development of an environmentally 8% 8% 15% 20% 25% 24% sustainable Southland: residents
Enables prosperity in Southland: residents 8% 10% 16% 20% 26% 19%
Effectively managing pressing environmental issues: 12% 9% 13% 22% 25% 19% residents
Leader in the development of an environmentally 6%6% 14% 15% 36% 25% sustainable Southland: farmers
Enables prosperity in Southland: farmers 6% 10% 18% 16% 36% 15%
Effectively managing pressing environmental issues: 7% 12% 16% 37% 25% farmers
Don't know Strongly disagree (1-2) Disagree (3-4) Neutral (5) Agree (6-7) Strongly agree (8-10)
IMPRESSIONS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2011-2018 RESULTS
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Leader in the development of an environmentally friendly Southland: 49% 50% 52% 62% 59% residents Enables prosperity in Southland: residents 45% 42% 45% 50% 42% Effectively managing pressing environmental issues: residents 44% 44% 50% 60% 56%
Leader in the development of an environmentally friendly Southland: 61% 64% 49% 59% 54% farmers Enables prosperity in Southland: farmers 51% 47% 35% 40% 34% Effectively managing pressing environmental issues: farmers 62% 60% 43% 60% 65%
3 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 14 PageAwareness Title and Impressions
RATINGS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2018 RESULTS4 Forty-nine percent of residents think Environment Southland is doing well (29%) or very well (20%) at informing them about the management of natural resources; comparatively 59% of farmers rate this positively. Notably, farmers are more likely to give positive ratings for Environment Southland protecting and managing the quality of water (27%) and rate their opportunity to participate (24%) as ‘very well’. Compared to last year’s results, positive ratings amongst residents for Environment Southland informing them about the management of natural resources (49% cf. 2017, 43%) have increased significantly.
Informing you about the management of 5% 14% 18% 15% 29% 20% Southland's natural resources: residents Protecting and managing the quality of the water in 18% 20% 19% 25% 17% Southland's rivers, lakes and streams: residents Providing you with an opportunity to participate in 10% 14% 19% 21% 21% 15% its decision making processes: residents
Informing you about the management of 8% 12% 18% 33% 26% Southland's natural resources: farmers Protecting and managing the quality of the water in 8% 14% 15% 36% 27% Southland's rivers, lakes and streams: farmers Providing you with an opportunity to participate in 5% 9% 16% 20% 27% 24% its decision making processes: farmers
Don't know Very poorly (1-2) Poorly (3-4) Neutral (5) Well (6-7) Very well (8-10)
RATINGS OF ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS5
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Informing you about the management of Southland’s natural 49% 43% 48% 57% 54% resources: residents Protecting and managing the quality of water in Southland’s rivers, 42% 41% 44% 56% 46% lakes, and streams: residents Providing you with an opportunity to participate in its decision-making 36% 34% 36% 41% 38% process: residents
Informing you about the management of Southland’s natural 59% 59% 61% 59% 56% resources: farmers Protecting and managing the quality of water in Southland’s rivers, 63% 62% 46% 67% 64% lakes, and streams: farmers Providing you with an opportunity to participate in its decision-making 51% 55% 48% 48% 37% process: farmers
4 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents. 5 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 15 Awareness and Impressions Summary of Findings Detailed below are area, age and gender differences which are significantly higher than the total result.
AREA DIFFERENCES
INVERCARGILL GORE SOUTHLAND
Strongly agree (8-10) Environment Agree (6-7) Environment Don’t know if Environment Southland Southland is a leader in the development Southland is a leader in is a leader in the development of an of an environmentally friendly Southland the development of an environmentally friendly Southland (29%), enables prosperity in Southland environmentally friendly (14%), enables prosperity in Southland (24%), and effectively manages pressing Southland (40%), enables (18%) and effectively manages pressing environmental issues (22%). prosperity in Southland (37%), environmental issues (13%). Doing very well (8-10) at informing and effectively manages Don’t know if Environment Southland residents about the management of pressing environmental is informing residents about the Southland’s natural resources (23%) and issues (39%). management of Southland’s natural protecting and managing the quality of resources (11%) or providing residents water in Southland’s rivers, lakes and with an opportunity to participate in streams (20%). decision making processes (16%).
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES
AGE Not aware of Environment Southland Strongly agree (8-10) Environment unprompted (21%). Southland enables prosperity in Doing well (6-7) at informing residents Southland (24%). Neutral rating (5) about the management of Southland’s that Environment Southland effectively natural resources (34%). manages pressing environmental issues (27%). Aware of Environment Southland Doing very well (8-10) at informing unprompted (91%). residents about the management of Disagree (3-4) Environment Southland Southland’s natural resources (32%) is a leader in the development of an and providing residents with an environmentally friendly Southland opportunity to participate in decision (24%), enables prosperity in Southland making processes (22%). (18%), and effectively manages pressing environmental issues (23%). Doing poorly (3-4) at informing residents about the management of Southland’s natural resources (25%), at protecting and managing the quality of water in Southland’s rivers, lakes and streams (25%), and in providing residents with the opportunity to participate in decision making processes (26%). Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 16 Awareness and Impressions Summary of Findings
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES
GENDER Strongly disagree (1-2) Environment No statistically significant differences Southland is a leader in the noted. development of an environmentally friendly Southland (11%), enables prosperity in Southland (12%), and effectively manages pressing environmental issues (13%). Doing very poorly (1-2) at informing residents about the management of Southland’s natural resources (17%) and in providing residents with an opportunity to participate in decision making processes (19%).
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 17 Page Title
Southland’s Priorities
EnvironmentEnvironment Southland Southland Perceptions Perceptions Survey Survey - August - July 2018 | 18 Southland’s Priorities
SOUTHLAND’S PRIORITIES: 2018 RESULTS6 The majority of residents (88%) and farmers (95%) mention an issue facing Southland. This year the number of residents mentioning an issue has decreased significantly (88% cf. 2017, 94%) while farmers mentioning an issue has increased significantly (95% cf. 2017, 89%).
Water, water quality and water pollution is the issue mentioned most by residents (61%) and farmers (59%). At a lower level, rubbish, plastic and recycling (residents: 13%, farmers: 11%), and dairy farming and run off (residents: 12%, farmers: 14%) are also mentioned as issues facing Southland’s environment. Notably, farmers are more likely to mention long-term sustainability (3% cf. residents, 1%) and urban pollution (4% cf. residents, 0%) as issues facing Southland.
61% Water/ water quality/ water pollution 59% 13% Rubbish/ plastic/ recycling 11% 12% Dairy farming/ dairy run off 14% 6% Clean air/ air pollution 4% 4% Pollution (general) 3% 3% Land use/ plan 5% 3% Pollution from sewerage 4% 4% 1080 1% 3% Soil management/ conservation 3% 2% Farming generally 3% 2% Pests/ weeds 1% 1% Tourism/ freedom camping 2% 1% Long-term sustainability 3% 1% Global warming/ rising sea levels 1% 0% Urban pollution 4% 4% Something else 8% 2% Don't know 1% Residents Farmers
6 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 19 Southland’s Priorities
SOUTHLAND’S PRIORITIES: 2017- 2018 RESULTS7 Compared to last year’s results, significantly fewer residents mention water, water quality and water pollution is an issue (61% cf. 2017, 67%). This year residents are more likely to mention rubbish, plastic and recycling (13% cf. 2017, 6%), dairy farming and run off (12% cf. 2017, 7%), clean air and air pollution (6% cf. 2017, 3%), general pollution (4% cf. 2017, 2%), and 1080 (4% cf. 2017, 1%) as issues facing Southland.
Farmers’ results remain similar to results from last year, however the number of farmers mentioning rubbish, plastic and recycling as an issue facing Southland have increased significantly this year (11% cf. 2017, 5%).
2018 2017
Water/ water quality/ water pollution: residents 61% 67% Rubbish/ plastic/ recycling: residents 13% 6% Dairy farming/ dairy run off: residents 12% 7% Clean air/ air pollution: residents 6% 3% Pollution (general): residents 4% 2% 1080: residents 4% 1% Farming generally: residents 2% 3% Pests/ weeds: residents 2% 1% Global warming/ rising sea levels: residents 1% 1% Something else: residents 4% 7% Don't know: residents 2% 1%
Water/ water quality/ water pollution: farmers 59% 67% Dairy farming/ dairy run off: farmers 14% 14% Rubbish/ plastic/ recycling: farmers 11% 5% Clean air/ air pollution: farmers 4% 9% Farming generally: farmers 3% 3% Pollution (general): farmers 3% 4% Global warming/ rising sea levels: farmers 1% 3% Pests/ weeds: farmers 1% 3% 1080: farmers 1% 2% Something else: farmers 8% 2% Don't know: farmers 1% 1%
7 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017. Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 20 Southland’s Priorities
RESPONSE TO PRIORITIES: 2018 RESULTS8 Around a third (30%) of residents think Environment Southland is responding to these issues ‘well’ (22%) or ‘very well’ (8%). Over half (54%) of farmers mention that Environment Southland is responding ‘well’ (33%) or ‘very well’ (21%) to the important issues facing Southland; positive farmers’ results are significantly higher than positive residents’ results. Farmers are also less likely to mention that they don’t know how well Environment Southland is responding to these issues (6% cf. residents, 11%).
Residents 11% 12% 22% 25% 22% 8%
Farmers 6% 11% 12% 17% 33% 21%
Don't know Very poorly (1-2) Poorly (3-4) Neutral (5) Well (6-7) Very well (8-10)
8 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 21 Southland’s Priorities
ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND DOING A BETTER JOB THAN LAST YEAR: 2018 RESULTS8 Just under one quarter (21%) of residents think Environment Southland is doing a better job than last year. A further 19% think Environment Southland is not doing a better job than last year and 60% of residents are unsure. Amongst farmers, 40% think Environment Southland is doing a better job than last year. This is significantly higher than the residents’ results. Farmers are also less likely than residents to mention they are not sure if Environment Southland is doing a better job than last year. This year’s results are on a par with last year’s results.
Residents 60% 19% 21%
Farmers 46% 15% 40%
Not sure No Yes
ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND DOING A BETTER JOB THAN LAST YEAR: 2017 - 2018 RESULTS
2018 2017
Better than last year: residents 21% 21%
Better than last year: farmers 40% 38%
8 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 22 Southland’s Priorities
REASONS FOR ‘BETTER’ JOB RATING 2018 RESULTS9
Primary reasons for stating that Environment Southland is doing a better job than last year relate to good communication (residents: 23%, farmers: 32%), Environment Southland generally improving (residents: 19%, farmers: 16%), and Environment Southland being proactive (residents: 17%, farmers: 11%). Notably, farmers are more likely than residents to mention that Environment Southland is collaborating and listening (5% cf. residents, 1%).
Good communication/ out and about more 23% 32% Environment Southland is generally improving 19% 16% Proactive 17% 11% Increased awareness / of issues in region 14% 5% Generally doing a good job 12% 22% No changes made/ nothing different 5% 1% Collaborating /listening 1% 5% Something else 6% 6% Don't know/ not sure 4% 1% Residents Farmers
9 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 23 Southland’s Priorities
REASONS FOR ‘BETTER’ JOB RATING: 2017 - 2018 RESULTS10 Compared to last year’s results residents are more likely to mention that their positive ratings relate to Environment Southland generally improving (19% cf. 2017, 11%), being proactive (17% cf. 2017, 5%), increasing awareness (14% cf. 2017, 10%), and generally doing a better job (12% cf. 2017, 8%). Also of note, residents are less likely to mention that they don’t have a reason for their rating (4% cf. 2017, 11%).
This year, farmers are also more likely to mention that their positive rating is based on good communication (32% cf. 2017, 21%), generally doing a good job (22% cf. 2017, 9%), generally improving (16% cf. 2017, 9%), and being proactive (11% cf. 2017, 1%). Farmers are also less likely to mention Environment Southland is collaborating and listening than last year (5% cf. 2017, 16%).
2018 2017
Good communication/ out and about more: residents 23% 20% Environment Southland is generally improving: residents 19% 11% Proactive: residents 17% 5% Increased awareness/ of issues in region: residents 14% 10% Generally doing a good job: residents 12% 8% No changes made/ nothing different: residents 5% 3% Collaborating /listening: residents 1% 1% Don't know/ not sure: residents 4% 11%
Good communication/ out and about more: farmers 32% 21% Generally doing a good job: farmers 22% 9% Environment Southland is generally improving: farmers 16% 9% Proactive: farmers 11% 1% Collaborating /listening: farmers 5% 16% Increased awareness/ of issues in region: farmers 5% 4% No changes made/ nothing different: farmers 1% 4% Don't know/ not sure: farmers 1% 3%
10 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017. Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 24 Southland’s Priorities
REASONS FOR ‘NOT BETTER’ JOB RATING11
Primary reasons for residents mentioning that Environment Southland is not doing a better job than last year relate to no changes being made (39%) and water quality still being an issue (22%). Farmers mention that their reasons for this rating relate to Environment Southland not making any changes (34%), issues are getting worse (14%), and Environment Southland generally doing a poor job (14%). Notably, farmers are less likely than residents to mention that water quality is still an issue (3% cf. residents, 22%).
No changes made/ nothing different 39% 34% Water quality is still an issue/ hasn't improved 22% 3% Things aren't improving/ issues getting worse 8% 14% Environment Southland is doing a poor job 7% 14% 1080 5% 0% Farming an issue 4% 0% Poor communication/ response 4% 3% Rates increasing/ charging money 3% 3% Not helping/supporting farmers 3% 7% Environment Southland is generally doing a good job 2% 7% Something else 12% 21% Don't know/ not sure 3% 0% Residents Farmers
11 Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 25 Southland’s Priorities
REASONS FOR ‘NOT BETTER’ JOB RATING: 2017 - 2018 RESULTS12 Compared to last year, residents are more likely to mention that their negative rating is based on no changes being made (39% cf. 2017, 25%) and that things are not improving (8% cf. 2017, 3%). Also of note, this year residents are less likely to mention that water quality is still an issue (22% cf. 2017, 30%) and that Environment Southland is doing a poor job (7% cf. 2017, 12%).
Farmers are more likely to mention that Environment Southland is doing a poor job (14% cf. 2017, 4%) and that things aren’t improving (14% cf. 2017, 0%). However they are less likely to mention that Environment Southland is not supporting or helping farmers (7% cf. 2017, 16%) and that water quality is still an issue (3% cf. 2017, 20%).
2018 2017
No changes made/ nothing different: residents 39% 25% Water quality is still an issue/ hasn't improved: residents 22% 30% Things aren't improving/ issues getting worse: residents 8% 3% Environment Southland is doing a poor job: residents 7% 12% Poor communication/ response: residents 4% 6% Farming an issue: residents 4% 4% Not helping/supporting farmers: residents 3% 4% Rates increasing/ charging money: residents 3% 3% Collaborating /listening: residents - 2%
No changes made/ nothing different: farmers 34% 40% Environment Southland is doing a poor job: farmers 14% 4% Things aren't improving/ issues getting worse: farmers 14% 0% Not helping/supporting farmers: farmers 7% 16% Poor communication/ response: farmers 4% 4% Water quality is still an issue/ hasn't improved: farmers 3% 20% Rates increasing/ charging money: farmers 3% 2%
12 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017. Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 26 Southland’s Priorities | Summary of Findings Detailed below are area, age and gender differences which are significantly higher than the total result.
AREA DIFFERENCES
INVERCARGILL GORE SOUTHLAND
Mention rubbish, plastic and recycling Mention 1080 as the Mention tourism and freedom (15%), clear air and air pollution (8%), most important issue camping as the most important general pollution (6%), and sewerage facing Southland issue facing Southland (3%). pollution (4%) as the most important (10%). Rate Environment Southland’s issues facing Southland. response to issues very poorly Rate Environment Southland’s response (1-2) (17%) or well (6-7) (27%). to issues poorly (3-4) (26%). Not sure if Environment Southland is doing a better job than last year (64%).
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES
AGE GENDER Mention rubbish, plastic and Mention Environment Southland recycling as the most important is not doing a better job than last issue facing Southland (17%). year (25%).
No statistically significant Mention rubbish, plastic and recycling differences noted. is the most important issue facing Southland (17%). Are not sure if Environment Southland is doing a better job than last year (64%).
Mention Environment Southland is doing a better job than last year (26%).
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 27 Communication
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - July 2018 | 28 Communication
INFORMATION ABOUT ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2018 RESULTS13 Primary sources of information about Environment Southland are newspapers (residents: 59%, farmers: 42%), flyers in the letterbox (residents: 46%, farmers: 31%), and Envirosouth (residents: 35%, farmers: 27%). Interestingly, farmers are less likely to gather information about Environment Southland through newspapers (42% cf. residents, 59%), flyers (31% cf. residents, 46%), Envirosouth (27% cf. residents, 35%), from other people (14% cf. residents, 36%), and in Enviroweek (4% cf. residents, 26%). Farmers are however, more likely to gather information about Environment Southland on the internet (28% cf. residents, 15%), at meetings (9% cf. residents, 1%), on social media (5% cf. residents, 1%), and at community groups (3% cf. residents, 1%).
59% Newspapers (general) 42% 46% Flyers in the letterbox 31% 35% Envirosouth Newsletter 27% 36% From other people / word of mouth 14% 26% Enviroweek 4% 27% Rates account 0% 15% Internet / websites (general) 28% 12% TV news (general) 4% 10% Radio news 8% 6% The Environment Southland website 9% 6% Personal contact 6% 3% Environment Southland's offices 9% 5% Facebook 4% 1% Meetings 9% 1% Other social media (not Facebook) 5% 1% E-newsletter 3% 2% Radio ads 1% 2% School 1% 1% Community groups 3% 1% Something else 6% 1% None 3% Residents Farmers
13 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 29 Communication
INFORMATION ABOUT ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS RESIDENTS14 Compared to last year’s results, significant increases can be seen in residents mentioning that they gather information about Environment Southland through newspapers (59% cf. 2017, 53%), flyers (46% cf. 2017, 16%), from other people (36% cf. 2017, 6%), in Envirosouth (35% cf. 2017, 27%), on their rates accounts (27% cf. 2017, 4%), in Enviroweek (26% cf. 2017, 4%), on the TV news (12% cf. 2017, 6%), on the radio news (10% cf. 2017, 3%), and at Environment Southland offices (3% cf. 2017, 1%). Also of note, there has been a significant decrease in residents mentioning they have used other social media to source information (1% cf. 2017, 5%) and that they have not seen any information about Environment Southland (1% cf. 2017, 6%).
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Newspapers 59% 53% 43% 58% 61% Flyers in letterbox 46% 16% 29% 24% 29% From other people 36% 6% 11% 6% 6% Envirosouth newsletter 35% 27% 27% 33% 18% Rates account 27% 4% 14% 10% 6% Enviroweek column 26% 4% 12% 4% 3% Internet/websites 15% 13% 12% 6% 11% TV news 12% 6% 6% 2% 5% Radio news 10% 3% 7% 4% 4% Environment Southland offices 3% 1% 3% 7% 4% Environment Southland website 6% 5% 6% 7% 3% Personal contact 6% 4% 4% 7% 5% Facebook 5% 6% 6% 1% - Other social media 1% 5% 3% 1% - Something else 1% 5% 6% 3% 5% None 1% 6% 5% 2% 2%
14 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017. Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 30 Communication
INFORMATION ABOUT ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS FARMERS15 This year farmers are more likely to mention that they have gathered information about Environment Southland through flyers (31% cf. 2017, 16%) and on the internet (28% cf. 2017, 17%). Significantly fewer farmers this year mention that they have gathered information through personal contact (6% cf. 2017, 12%).
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Newspapers 42% 45% 42% 56% 48% Flyers in letterbox 31% 16% 30% 26% 25% Internet/websites 28% 17% 13% 6% 7% Envirosouth newsletter 27% 32% 26% 44% 24% From other people 14% 18% 13% 7% 7% Environment Southland website 9% 13% 8% 8% 8% Environment Southland offices 9% 4% 7% 14% 7% Radio news 8% 5% 9% 8% 6% Personal contact 6% 12% 12% 6% 9% Other social media 5% 2% 1% - - Enviroweek column 4% 7% 7% 6% 4% Facebook 4% 4% 3% - - TV news 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% Something else 6% 2% 9% 4% 4% None 3% 2% 3% 4% 3%
15 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017. Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 31 Communication
INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND PROVIDES THE COMMUNITY: 2018 RESULTS16 Seventy percent of residents agree (25%) or strongly agree (45%) that the information Environment Southland provides is valuable; comparatively 76% of farmers rate this positively. Notably, farmers are more likely than residents to mention that they agree with these statements. Farmers are less likely to mention that they didn’t know if the information is credible (3% cf. residents, 8%) and that they trust the information from Environment Southland (2% cf. residents, 5%). This year’s results are on a par with results from previous years, with no statistically significant differences noted.
The information from Environment 5%6% 7% 13% 25% 45% Southland is valuable: residents
The information is credible: residents 8% 5% 8% 14% 25% 39%
I trust the information that I get from 5% 7% 11% 14% 25% 39% Environment Southland: residents
The information from Environment 4%5% 14% 35% 41% Southland is valuable: farmers
The information is credible: farmers 3% 7% 15% 33% 39%
I trust the information that I get from 2% 9% 16% 33% 36% Environment Southland: farmers Don't know Strongly disagree (1-2) Disagree (3-4) Neutral (5) Agree (6-7) Strongly agree (8-10)
INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND PROVIDES THE COMMUNITY: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
The information from Environment Southland is valuable: 70% 67% 66% 78% 76% residents The information is credible: residents 64% 64% 60% 73% 70% Trust the information from Environment Southland: residents 64% 64% 61% 71% 68%
The information Environment Southland valuable: farmers 76% 75% 66% 74% 76%
The information is credible: farmers 72% 70% 63% 68% 66% Trust the information from Environment Southland: farmers 69% 73% 57% 63% 65%
16 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 32 Communication
ENVIROWEEK AWARENESS AND USAGE: 2018 RESULTS17 Just under half (43%) of residents recalling seeing Enviroweek. A further 64% of residents have read Enviroweek and 65% are aware it is produced by Environment Southland. Although not statistically significant, recall, readership and awareness that Environment Southland produces Enviroweek have all decreased this year.
Amongst farmers, 55% recall seeing Enviroweek. This is significantly higher than the result for residents. A further 71% of farmers have read Enviroweek and 82% are aware Environment Southland produces the publication. This result is also significantly higher than the result for residents. This year’s results for farmers are on a par with previous years’ results.
Recall seeing Enviroweek: residents 57% 43%
Read Enviroweek: residents 37% 64%
Aware Environment Southland 35% 65% produces Enviroweek: residents
Recall seeing Enviroweek: farmers 46% 55%
Read Enviroweek: farmers 29% 71%
Aware Environment Southland 18% 82% produces Enviroweek: farmers
No Yes
ENVIROWEEK AWARENESS AND USAGE: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Recall seeing Enviroweek: residents 43% 48% 48% 52% 59% Read Enviroweek: residents 64% 69% 64% 73% 72% Aware Environment Southland produces Enviroweek: residents 65% 70% 67% 64% 63%
Recall seeing Enviroweek: farmers 55% 57% 55% 55% 55% Read Enviroweek: farmers 71% 67% 71% 73% 63% Aware Environment Southland produces Enviroweek: farmers 82% 82% 76% 77% 76%
17 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 33 Communication
ENVIROWEEK PERCEPTIONS: 2018 RESULTS18 Eighty-three percent of residents agree (24%) or strongly agree (59%) that the information in Enviroweek is valuable to the community; 83% of farmers agree (40% cf. residents, 24%) or strongly agree (43% cf. residents, 59%) with this. A further 76% of residents agree (24%) or strongly agree (52%) that the information in Enviroweek is credible; 86% of farmers agree (42% cf. residents, 24%) or strongly agree (44%) with this. This year’s results are on a par with previous years’ results.
The information in Enviroweek is valuable to the community: 3% 4% 8% 24% 59% residents
The information in Enviroweek 3% 6% 14% 24% 52% is credible: residents
The information in Enviroweek is valuable to the community: 9% 8% 40% 43% farmers
The information in Enviroweek 5% 9% 42% 44% is credible: farmers
Don't know Strongly disagree (1-2) Disagree (3-4) Neutral (5) Agree (6-7) Strongly agree (8-10)
ENVIROWEEK PERCEPTIONS: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 The information in Enviroweek is valuable to the 83% 82% 76% 84% 79% community: residents
The information in Enviroweek is credible: residents 76% 73% 67% 79% 73%
The information in Enviroweek is valuable to the 83% 79% 76% 77% 79% community: farmers
The information in Enviroweek is credible: farmers 86% 82% 65% 78% 75%
18 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 34 Communication
ENVIROSOUTH AWARENESS AND USAGE: 2018 RESULTS19 Sixty-five percent of residents recall seeing Envirosouth. A further 75% have read Envirosouth and 83% are aware Environment Southland produces the publication. Notably this year, significant decreases can be seen in residents mentioning that they recalling seeing Envirosouth (65% cf. 2017, 73%) and that they are aware Environment Southland produces the publication (83% cf. 2017, 87%).
Eighty percent of farmers recall seeing Envirosouth and 86% have read the publication. Almost all (96%) farmers are aware Environment Southland produces Envirosouth. This year, all results for farmers are significantly higher than results for residents. Also of note, this year is a significant increase in readership amongst farmers (86% cf. 2017, 78%) and an increased awareness that Environment Southland produces Envirosouth (96% cf. 2017, 91%).
Recall seeing Envirosouth: residents 31% 65%
Read Envirosouth: residents 25% 75%
Aware Environment Southland 17% 83% produces Envirosouth: residents
Recall seeing Envirosouth: farmers 21% 80%
Read Envirosouth: farmers 14% 86%
Aware Environment Southland 4% 96% produces Envirosouth: farmers
No Yes
ENVIROSOUTH AWARENESS AND USAGE: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS20
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Recall seeing Envirosouth: residents 65% 73% 69% 76% 74% Read Envirosouth: residents 75% 77% 73% 76% 79% Aware Environment Southland produces Envirosouth: residents 83% 87% 79% 84% 82%
Recall seeing Envirosouth: farmers 80% 82% 83% 90% 83% Read Envirosouth: farmers 86% 78% 84% 81% 78% Aware Environment Southland produces Envirosouth: farmers 96% 91% 91% 92% 95%
19 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents. 20 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017. Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 35 Communication
ENVIROSOUTH PERCEPTIONS: 2018 RESULTS21 Eighty-one percent of residents agree (25%) or strongly agree (56%) that the information in Envirosouth is valuable to the community; amongst farmers 83% agree (39%) or strongly agree (44%) with this. Around three quarters (77%) of residents agree (27%) or strongly agree (50%) that the information in Envirosouth is credible; amongst farmers 85% agree (43%) or strongly agree (42%). Notably, farmers are more likely than residents to agree with the perceptions of Envirosouth. Compared to last year’s results, agreement amongst residents that the information in Envirosouth is valuable to the community has increased significantly (81% cf. 2017, 76%).
The information in Envirosouth is valuable to the community: 3%4% 10% 25% 56% residents
The information in Envirosouth 3%3%4% 12% 27% 50% is credible: residents
The information in Envirosouth is valuable to the community: 4% 10% 39% 44% farmers
The information in Envirosouth 4% 9% 43% 42% is credible: farmers
Don't know Strongly agree (1-2) Disagree (3-4) Neutral (5) Agree (6-7) Strongly agree (8-10)
ENVIROSOUTH PERCEPTIONS: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS22
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 The information in Envirosouth is valuable to the 81% 76% 74% 84% 84% community: residents
The information in Envirosouth is credible: residents 77% 73% 71% 78% 78%
The information in Envirosouth is valuable to the 83% 83% 72% 78% 79% community: farmers
The information in Envirosouth is credible: farmers 85% 85% 67% 77% 73%
21 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents. 22 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 36 Communication
ENVIROFARM AWARENESS AND USAGE: 2018 RESULTS Around a quarter (28%) of farmers recall seeing Envirofarm. Of these farmers, 71% have read Envirofarm and 75% are aware Environment Southland produces the publication. Although not statistically significant, readership and awareness that Environment Southland produces Envirofarm have increased 8% and 5% respectively.
Recall seeing Envirofarm 72% 28%
Read Envirofarm 29% 71%
Awareness that Environment Southland 25% 75% produces Envirofarm
No Yes
ENVIROFARM AWARENESS AND USAGE: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Recall seeing Envirofarm 28% 28% 27% 29% 37%
Read Envirofarm 71% 63% 30% 72% 82%
Aware Environment Southland produces Envirofarm 75% 70% 75% 78% 82%
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 37 Communication
ENVIROFARM PERCEPTIONS: 2018 RESULTS Over three quarters (80%) of farmers agree (25%) or strongly agree (55%) that the information in Envirofarm is valuable to the community. Agreement with this statement has decreased significantly this year (80% cf. 2017, 89%). A further 78% of farmers agree (28%) or strongly agree (50%) that the information in Envirofarm is credible. Agreement with this has also decreased significantly this year (78% cf. 2017, 86%).
The information in the Envirofarm column is 3% 15% 25% 55% valuable to farmers
The information is 3% 18% 28% 50% credible
Don't know Strongly disagree (1-2) Disagree (3-4) Neutral (5) Agree (6-7) Strongly agree (8-10)
ENVIROFARM PERCEPTIONS: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS23
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
The information in the Envirofarm 80% 89% 76% 85% 80% column is valuable to farmers
The information is credible 78% 86% 64% 80% 74%
23 Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 38 Communication
LUNCHTIME FARMING SHOW AWARENESS: 2018 RESULTS Just under half (43%) of farmers mention that they listen to the Lunchtime Farming show. Although not statistically significant this is a 7% decrease from 2017’s results. Similar to last year’s result, 75% of farmers have heard information from Environment Southland on the Lunchtime Farming Show.
Listen to Lunchtime 58% 43% Farming show
Heard information from Environment 25% 75% Southland
No Yes
LUNCHTIME FARMING SHOW AWARENESS: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Listen to Lunchtime Farming Show 43% 50% 46% 48% 50%
Heard information from Environment Southland 75% 72% 64% 59% 73% on the show
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 39 Communication
LUNCHTIME FARMING SHOW PERCEPTIONS: 2018 RESULTS Almost all (90%) farmers agree (34%) or strongly agree (56%) that the information on the Lunchtime Farming Show is valuable: this is on a par with last year’s results. A further 91% of farmers agree (36%) or strongly agree (55%) that the information on the Lunchtime Farming Show is credible,. Agreement ratings have increased significantly this year (91% cf. 2017, 79%).
The information on the Lunchtime 5% 5% 34% 56% Farming Show is valuable to farmers
The information is 5% 5% 36% 55% credible
Don't know Strongly disagree (1-2) Disagree (3-4) Neutral (5) Agree (6-7) Strongly agree (8-10)
LUNCHTIME FARMING SHOW PERCEPTIONS: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS24
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
The information on the Lunchtime 90% 86% 88% 79% 77% Farming Show is valuable to farmers
The information is credible 91% 79% 79% 80% 81%
24 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 40 Communication
NEWSPAPERS READ REGULARLY: 2018 RESULTS25 The Southland Times is the most popular newspaper amongst both residents (55%) and farmers (59%). Similar to previous years’ results, farmers are more likely to mention they read The Ensign (31% cf. residents, 15%), Advocate South (26% cf. residents, 13%), Southern Rural Life (42% cf. residents, 8%), Newslink (23% cf. residents, 7%), and Otago Southland Farmer (37% cf. residents, 4%). Farmers are also less likely to mention they read Southland Express (32% cf. residents, 46%) or Otago Daily Times (10% cf. residents, 17%).
The Southland Times 55% 59% Southland Express 46% 32% Otago Daily Times 17% 10% The Ensign 15% 31% Advocate South 13% 26% Invercargill Eye 11% 7% Southern Rural Life 8% 42% Newslink 7% 23% Otago Southland Farmer 4% 37% None of these 19% 17% Residents Farmers
25 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 41 Communication
NEWSPAPERS READ REGULARLY: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS RESIDENTS26 Readership of most newspapers has continued to decline this year. Specifically, readership of The Southland Times (55% cf. 2017, 68%), Southland Express (46% cf. 2017, 52%), Otago Daily Times (17% cf. 2017, 12%), The Ensign (15% cf. 2017, 20%), Advocate South (13% cf. 2017, 23%), Invercargill Eye (11% cf. 2017, 35%), Newslink (7% cf. 2017, 20%), and Otago Southland Farmer (4% cf. 2017, 9%) have decreased significantly this year. Amongst farmers newspaper readership has also continued to decrease this year. Notably, readership of Southern Rural Life (42% cf. 2017, 55%), Otago Southland Farmer (37% cf. 2017, 53%), The Ensign (31% cf. 2017, 42%), Newslink (23% cf. 2017, 40%), and Invercargill Eye (7% cf. 2017, 13%) has decreased significantly this year.
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
The Southland Times 55% 68% 71% 83% 85% Southland Express 46% 52% 55% 57% 55% Otago Daily Times 17% 12% 11% 10% 10% The Ensign 15% 20% 20% 25% 19% Advocate South 13% 23% 19% 24% 17% Invercargill Eye 11% 35% 40% 36% 43% Newslink 7% 20% 21% 28% 17% Southern Rural Life 8% 10% 12% 15% 9% Otago Southland Farmer 4% 9% 10% 13% 9% None 19% 14% 10% 7% 4%
NEWSPAPERS READ REGULARLY: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS FARMERS27
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
The Southland Times 59% 67% 83% 84% 82% Southern Rural Life 42% 55% 58% 66% 48% Otago Southland Farmer 37% 53% 53% 60% 50% Southland Express 32% 38% 47% 43% 38% The Ensign 31% 42% 37% 49% 45% Advocate South 26% 34% 41% 44% 23% Newslink 23% 40% 41% 45% 40% Otago Daily Times 10% 9% 10% 8% 15% Invercargill Eye 7% 13% 14% 16% 9% None 17% 9% 6% 6% 3%
26 Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017. 27 Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 42 Communication
RADIO STATIONS LISTENERSHIP: 2018 RESULTS28 More FM (residents: 13%, farmers 11%), The Edge (residents: 12%, farmers: 7%) and The Rock (residents: 11%, farmers: 11%) are the most popular radio stations amongst residents and farmers. Notably, farmers are more likely to mention they listen to Hokonui Gold (39% cf. residents, 9%) and ZAFM (4% cf. residents, 1%), and are less likely to listen to The Edge (7% cf. residents, 12%).
13% More FM / 89.2 11% 12% The Edge / 97.2 7% 11% The Rock / 90.82 11% 9% Hokonui Gold / 94.8 39% 8% The Hits / 90.4 5% 8% ZM / 95.6 9% 7% Coast / 92.4 6% 7% The Breeze / 91.6 6% 6% National Radio / 101.2 7% 5% Newstalk ZB / 864 AM 8% 5% Magic 2% 5% Radio Hauraki / 93.2 6% 4% The Sound 5% 3% Radio Southland / 96.4 2% 3% Radio Live 4% 2% Radio Sport / 558 AM 3% 1% ZAFM / 98.8 4% 1% Solid Gold / 98.0 1% 2% Don't know / Can't recall 3% 6% Other (please specify) 3% 18% Don't listen to the radio / None 14% Residents Farmers
28 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 43 Communication
RADIO STATION LISTENERSHIP: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS RESIDENTS29 Radio station listenership is on a par with last year’s results amongst residents. However, the number of residents mentioning that they do not listen to the radio has increased significantly this year (18% cf. 2017, 12%).
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
More FM 13% 14% 17% 14% 12% The Rock 11% 10% 15% 9% 13% The Edge 12% 10% 13% 9% 12% Hokonui Gold 9% 9% 13% 12% 9% ZM 8% 9% 10% 8% 7% The Hits 8% 6% 6% 8% 10% The Breeze 7% 5% 6% 7% 4% Coast 7% 9% 11% 9% 11% National Radio 6% 7% 6% 8% 8% Newstalk ZB 5% 4% 6% 5% 6% Radio Hauraki 5% 6% 6% 3% 4% The Sound 4% 6% 7% 5% 4% Radio Live 3% 5% 6% 6% 4% Radio Sport 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% Solid Gold 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% Something else 6% 5% 10% 4% 3% Don't listen to the radio 18% 12% 10% 14% 14%
29 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 44 Communication
RADIO STATION LISTENERSHIP: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS FARMERS30 This year farmers are less likely to mention that they listen to The Rock (11% cf. 2017, 20%), however all other results remain on a par with 2017’s results.
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Hokonui Gold 39% 42% 45% 46% 45% The Rock 11% 20% 7% 14% 7% More FM 11% 10% 11% 8% 9% ZM 9% 8% 5% 3% 9% Newstalk ZB 8% 5% 8% 6% 2% The Edge 7% 11% 8% 8% 9% Radio Hauraki 6% 9% 4% 4% 2% Coast 6% 6% 5% 6% 9% The Breeze 6% 8% 5% 5% 9% The Sound 5% 6% 6% 4% 6% The Hits 5% 3% 3% 4% 11% Radio Live 4% 2% 5% 3% 4% Radio Sport 3% 5% 2% 2% 4% Solid Gold 1% 2% 1% - 3% National Radio 7% 2% 10% 6% 10% Something else 3% 4% 11% 2% 3% Don't listen to the radio 14% 10% 9% 11% 14%
30 Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 45 Communication
INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE: 2018 RESULTS31 Eighty-four percent of residents mention that they go online regularly, with a further 87% mentioning that they have a Facebook profile; this is a significant increase from last year’s results (87% cf. 2017, 83%). Significantly fewer farmers mention that they go online regularly (77%). Just over one third (38%) of residents and half of farmers (53%) are aware Environment Southland has a Facebook page and 75% of residents and 71% of farmers mention they would use the page to gather information; the residents’ results are also a significant increase from last year’s results (75% cf. 2017, 69%). One third of residents (33%) and over half of farmers (65%) use the Environment Southland website.
Go online regularly: residents 16% 84% Have Facebook profile: residents 13% 87% Aware of Facebook page: residents 62% 38% Would use Facebook page for information: residents 25% 75% Use Environment Southland's website: residents 67% 33%
Go online regularly: farmers 23% 77% Have Facebook profile: farmers 16% 84% Aware of Facebook page: farmers 47% 53% Would use Facebook page for information: farmers 29% 71% Use Environment Southland's website: farmers 35% 65%
No Yes
INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE: 2014 - 2018 RESULTS32
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Go online regularly: residents 84% 85% 78% 72% 74% Have Facebook profile: residents 87% 83% 82% 77% 67% Aware Environment Southland has a Facebook page: residents 38% 38% 33% 31% 25% Would use Environment Southland's Facebook page: residents 75% 69% 64% 60% 55% Use the website: residents 33% 26% 17% 30% 26%
Go online regularly: farmers 77% 77% 72% 74% 75% Have Facebook profile: farmers 84% 74% 65% 54% 50% Aware Environment Southland has a Facebook page: farmers 53% 55% 49% 41% 28% Would use Environment Southland's Facebook page: farmers 71% 66% 51% 44% 46% Use the website: farmers 65% 66% 39% 48% 55%
31 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents. 32 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 46 Communication
IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMUNICATION: 2018 RESULTS33 Residents mention that Environment Southland could improve communication to the region through using Facebook or social media more (14%), more public or community meetings (7%), and having more information online (7%). Farmers are more likely to mention Environment Southland could improve their communication by engaging more with farmers (14% cf. residents, 1%). Farmers are also more likely to mention that they are happy with what Environment Southland currently do (14% cf. residents, 6%).
14% Use Facebook/ social media more 7% 7% More public/ community meetings 10% 7% More information online 4% 6% Mail/ newsletters 3% 6% Happy with that they currently do 14% 5% More communication generally 5% 5% Listen to public more/ more collaboration 5% 4% Be more open/ truthful/ honest 4% 3% Articles in newspapers - paper and online 3% 3% Education 2% 3% More advertising on TV/ radio 2% 3% Advertise more 2% 2% Be proactive 2% 2% Easier to understand communication 4% 1% Engage with farmers more 14% 6% Something else 6% 30% Don't know/ not sure 23% Residents Farmers
33 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 47 Communication
IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMUNICATION: 2017 - 2018 RESIDENTS RESULTS34 Compared to last year’s results, residents are more likely to mention that Environment Southland could run more public or community meetings (7% cf. 2017, 3%) and provide more information online (7% cf. 2017, 3%). Residents are also less likely to mention that they are happy with what Environment Southland currently do (6% cf. 2017, 11%).
2018 2017 Use Facebook/ social media more 14% 11% More public/ community meetings 7% 3% More information online 7% 3% Happy with that they currently do 6% 11% Mail/ newsletters 6% 6% More communication generally 5% 4% Listen to public more/ more collaboration 5% 5% Be more open/ truthful/ honest 4% 4% Articles in newspapers - paper and online 3% 4% Education 3% 2% Advertise more 3% 5% Be proactive 2% 2% Easier to understand 2% 2% Engage with farmers more 1% 2% Something else 6% 5% Don't know/ not sure 30% 25%
34 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017. Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 48 Communication
IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMUNICATION: 2017 - 2018 FARMERS RESULTS35 This year farmers are more likely to mention that Environment Southland should run more public or community meetings (10% cf. 2017, 3%) and that they should use Facebook or social media more (7% cf. 2017, 2%).
2018 2017 Happy with that they currently do 14% 17% Engage with farmers more 14% 11% More public/ community meetings 10% 3% Use Facebook/ social media more 7% 2% Listen to public more/ more collaboration 5% 7% More communication generally 5% 5% More information online 4% 5% Be more open/ truthful/ honest 4% 3% Easier to understand 4% 0% Articles in newspapers - paper and online 3% 5% Mail/ newsletters 3% 3% Be proactive 2% 3% Education 2% 1% Advertise more 2% 1% Something else 6% 7% Don't know/ not sure 23% 25%
35 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 49 Communication | Summary of Findings
Detailed below are area, age and gender differences which are significantly higher than the total result.
AREA DIFFERENCES
INVERCARGILL GORE SOUTHLAND
Gather information about Environment Agree (6-7) that they No statistically Southland from other people (32%), Enviroweek trust the information significant (20%), and on their rates accounts (18%). from Environment differences noted. Strongly agree (8-10) Environment Southland Southland (38%) and provides credible information (43%) and that the information from residents trust the information they get from Environment Southland is Environment Southland (43%). valuable (38%).
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES
AGE GENDER Gather information about Environment Gather information through flyers Southland on the internet (21%) and in the letterbox (37%), from other Facebook (12%). Also mention that people (33%), Enviroweek (21%), they don’t get any information from and at Environment Southland’s Environment Southland (10%). offices (5%).
Mention Environment Southland could Gather information through the improve their communication by using internet (18%). Facebook or social media more (24%). Disagree (3-4) that the information from Environment Southland is valuable (10%).
Gather information about Environment Southland through newspapers (71%), flyers in their letterbox (56%), Envirosouth (48%), from other people (41%), Enviroweek (34%), in rates accounts (31%), and through personal contact (7%).
Strongly agree (8-10) that the information from Environment Southland is credible (51%), that they trust the information from Environment Southland (47%), and that the information from Environment Southland is valuable. Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 50 Communication | Summary of Findings Continued
Detailed below are area, age and gender differences which are significantly higher than the total result.
AREA DIFFERENCES
INVERCARGILL GORE SOUTHLAND
Read Southland Express (64%) and Read The Ensign (79%), Read Advocate South (34%), Invercargill Eye (17%). Also mention that Newslink (33%), and Otago Southern Rural Life (13%), and they do not read the paper (23%). Southland Farmer (8%). Otago Southland Farmer (6%). Listen to ZM (11%) and Radio Live (4%). Listen to Hokonui Gold (24%). Listen to Hokonui Gold (12%).
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES
AGE GENDER Do not recall seeing Envirosouth Strongly disagree (1-2) that the (48%) and were have not read information in Enviroweek is Envirosouth (39%) credible (4%) and valuable to the community (6%).
No statistically significant No statistically significant differences noted. differences noted.
Strongly agree (8-10) that the information in Enviroweek is valuable to the community (67%). Recall seeing Envirosouth (87%) and have read Envirosouth (84%). Strongly agree (8-10) that the information in Envirosouth is credible (60%) and information is valuable to the community (62%).
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 51 Civil Defence
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - July 2018 | 52 Civil Defence
CIVIL DEFENCE: 2018 RESULTS36
Sixty-one percent of residents mention that they have a household emergency plan, with a further 83% indicating that they could be self-sufficient for three days. Eleven percent of residents heard Environment Southland’s flood warnings, a significant decrease from last year’s results (11% cf. 2017, 16%). Amongst farmers, 64% have an emergency plan, a significant increase from last year’s results (64% cf. 2017, 52%). Almost all (92%) could be self-sufficient for three days, this is significantly higher than the residents’ results. A further 14% of farmers heard Environment Southland’s flood warnings, a significant decrease from 2017’s results (14% cf. 2017, 22%). Have household emergency plan: 39% 61% residents
Be self-sufficient for 3 days: residents 17% 83%
Heard Environment Southland's flood 89% 11% warning on the radio recently: residents
Have household emergency plan: 36% 64% farmers
Be self-sufficient for 3 days: farmers 9% 92%
Heard Environment Southland's flood 86% 14% warning on the radio recently: farmers
No Yes
HOUSEHOLD EMERGENCY PLAN: 2014, 2016 - 2018 RESULTS37
2018 2017 2016 2014
Have a household emergency plan: residents 61% 57% 51% 58%
Be self-sufficient for 3 days: residents 83% 81% 78% -
Heard Environment Southland’s flood warnings: residents 11% 16% 77% -
Have a household emergency plan: farmers 64% 52% 51% 56%
Be self-sufficient for 3 days: farmers 92% 92% 89% -
Heard Environment Southland’s flood warnings: farmers 14% 22% 70% -
36 Green shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly higher than the result for residents. Orange shading indicates that the result for farmers is significantly lower than the result for residents. 37 Green shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly higher than the result from 2017. Orange shading indicates that the result for 2018 is significantly lower than the result from 2017.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 53 Civil Defence | Summary of Findings
Detailed below are area, age and gender differences which are significantly higher than the total result.
AREA DIFFERENCES
INVERCARGILL GORE SOUTHLAND
Would not be self-sufficient for No statistically significant Would be self-sufficient for three days (21%). differences noted. three days (90%).
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES
AGE GENDER Do not have a household Would be self-sufficient for at emergency plan (53%). least three days (87%). Would not be self-sufficient for at least three days (27%).
No statistically significant Would not be self-sufficient differences noted. for at least three days (20%).
Have a household emergency plan (74%). Would be self-sufficient for at least three days (96%).
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 54 Summary of Findings
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - July 2018 | 55 Summary of Findings
Unprompted awareness of Environment Southland Environment Southland produces the publication has again increased this year amongst residents; have decreased significantly this year, while the farmers remain significantly more aware of number of farmers who mention that they have Environment Southland than residents. read Envirosouth and are aware that Environment Southland produces it have increased significantly Impressions and ratings of Environment Southland this year. remain on a par with previous years’ results, with farmers continuing to rate Environment Southland Awareness and readership of Envirofarm is on a more positively than residents. par with last year’s results, however perceptions of the publication have decreased significantly this Although water, water quality and water pollution year. Levels of listenership and farmers hearing remain the biggest priority for Southland’s information from Environment Southland on the environment, concerns about rubbish, plastic and Lunchtime Farming Show also remain similar to last recycling have increased significantly this year year’s results, while perceptions that the information amongst both residents and farmers. is credible have increased significantly this year.
This year, more residents are using the existing Newspaper readership in general has decreased this Environment Southland information sources. year amongst both residents and farmers. Amongst Impressions of the information Environment residents, use of Facebook and Environment Southland provides to the community remain on Southland’s website has increased significantly, while a par with previous years’ results amongst both the number of farmers with a Facebook profile has residents and farmers. also significantly increased.
Awareness, readership, awareness that Environment Civil defence measures remain similar to last year’s Southland produces Enviroweek, and impressions results, however this year significantly fewer residents of the information within the publication remain on have heard Environment Southland’s flood warnings a par with 2017’s results. In line with these results, on the radio. This year significantly more farmers farmers are more likely to recall seeing Enviroweek have a household emergency plan, while significantly and to be aware Environment Southland produces fewer farmers heard Environment Southland’s flood the publication. warnings. Residents recall of Envirosouth and awareness that
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 56 Points to Consider
ENGAGEMENT AND AWARENESS Awareness of Environment Southland has increased significantly this year amongst residents. It also appears that residents have sourced more information about Environment Southland in the past 12 months, with significant increases across a number of information sources. Environment Southland should give consideration to how best to communicate and engage with residents, as there hasn’t been an increase in awareness or use of Environment Southland produced publications amongst residents.
DECREASE IN NEWSPAPER READERSHIP This year shows a significant decrease in newspaper readership, especially amongst residents. This year’s decrease continues a steady decline in readership since 2015’s results. When assessing how best to communicate with both residents and farmers, this decrease in readership will have an impact on how Environment Southland can reach residents and farmers.
CHANGES IN PERCEPTIONS AMONGST FARMERS Overall, it’s interesting that farmers’ perceptions of Environment Southland have remained on a par with last year’s results, however there has been a shift from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘agree’ ratings and from ‘very well’ to ‘well’ ratings. Although this isn’t of concern as overall the positive ratings have remained the same, if this trend continues positive ratings will decrease as farmers slip from ‘agree’ and ‘well’ to ‘neutral’ ratings. Consideration needs to be given as to how best to foster a positive view of Environment Southland’s work amongst farmers.
Environment Southland Perceptions Survey - August 2018 | 57 Ph 07 856 7090 | versus.co.nz