Nick Smith, Rodney
Hide28 October, 2009 - Environment Minister
Nick Smith and Local Government Minister
Rodney Hide today announced a formal investigation
into Environment Canterbury because its
poor performance is holding the Canterbury
region back.
"The Government
is not satisfied with Environment Canterbury's
performance in efficiently processing resource
consents, developing a proper framework
for managing Canterbury's natural resources,
nor with its management of relationships
with Canterbury's territorial local authorities.
We believe an external review is necessary
to fix these issues.
"The first component
of the review is under Section 24A of the
Resource Management Act, looking into Environment
Canterbury's resource management functions.
It is the first time these provisions have
been used. The second is a non-statutory
assessment of Environment Canterbury's governance
and policy functions under the Local Government
Act."
Dr Smith said Environment
Canterbury performed poorly in the 2007/08
Resource Management Act survey, processing
only 29% of consents on time - the worst
of all 84 councils. "I have serious
concerns about the effectiveness of the
council's broader environmental management
that warrants investigation," Dr Smith
said.
Mr Hide said he had
received strong submissions from Canterbury's
Mayors about the performance of Environment
Canterbury. "Recent issues around Environment
Canterbury's governance and divisions among
Councillors do not give the Government confidence
the Council can resolve the problems."
The Ministers today
released the terms of reference for the
review, which is expected to be completed
by February 2010. "We are encouraged
by the constructive engagement by Environment
Canterbury in this process and want to ensure
the Government can help the Council get
back on track," Dr Smith and Mr Hide
said.
Terms of reference for
a review of Environment Canterbury's performance
•1. Preamble
1.1. Following the results of the 2007/2008
RMA Survey of Local Authorities, the Minister
for the Environment has decided to undertake
an investigation of resource consent processing
practices in Environment Canterbury (ECan)
and a broader review of ECan's performance
under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
The Minister of Local Government has also
expressed an intention to review ECan's
wider performance under the Local Government
Act 2002 (LGA02) in response to concerns
raised by Canterbury Mayors. The Ministers
have agreed to conduct a joint review of
ECan's performance under both the RMA and
LGA02.
2. Nature of Review
2.1. This review has
two components. The first component is a
statutory investigation under section 24A
of the RMA that seeks to identify what has
led to ECan's poor performance record over
the last survey period and performance subsequently
in resource consent processing. It also
aims to identify any broader planning, policy
and governance matters that may have contributed
to the poor performance record of Environment
Canterbury during the period of the 2007/2008
survey period in meeting statutory requirements
under the RMA.
2.2. The second component
is a non-statutory assessment of whether
there are wider issues with ECan's governance,
policies or implementation that are contributing
to perceived poor performance under the
LGA02 or other statutes.
3. Scope of the Review
Investigation of Environment Canterbury's
performance under the RMA and identify possible
solutions
3.1. The investigation
will cover the following factors:
Guidance for applicants and use of Section
88
Use of Section 92
Analysis of consent processing systems and
practices
Staffing and use of resources
Administrative systems and tools
Internal audits and monitoring
Relationships between applicants and submitters
and ECan
Relationship of timeframes to quality of
decisions
Other contextual matters, including:
o The management of
sustainability limits and cumulative effects
o Adequacy of current
planning framework for delivering the vision
and objectives of the Canterbury Water Management
Strategy in an effective and efficient manner
Assessment of Environment
Canterbury's wider performance under the
LGA02 or other legislation and identify
possible solutions
3.2. The non-statutory
assessment will cover the following factors:
The approach of ECan to meeting its legal
obligations
Adequacy of ECan's governance
Adequacy of ECan's management and decision
making processes
Financial management of ECan
The relationships between
ECan and the territorial authorities in
its region, and extent to which ECan and
TAs have met their legal obligations for
collaborating and co-operating
4. Methodology for Review
Investigation of Environment
Canterbury's performance under the RMA
4.1. The investigation will be undertaken
by two external investigators. The skill
set required is primarily skills and experience
in resource consent processing and RMA matters
and experience in working with local government.
Experience in evaluation, performance assessment
and organisational improvement is also vital.
Assessment of Environment
Canterbury's wider performance under the
LGA02 or other legislation
4.2. The assessment
will be carried out by one external consultant.
This person will have qualifications, skills
and experience in working with local government.
On site work
4.3. The team of consultants
will spend up to three weeks with Environment
Canterbury undertaking discussion with council
staff and assessing databases, file information
and council administrative systems.
4.4. Discussions with
council staff will be based on a set of
interview questions focussed on council
practices and procedures. These questions,
along with requests for the documents and
files required for the performance review,
will be pre-circulated to ECan prior to
investigators arriving on site. Further
additional information may be requested
onsite.
4.5. The following council
staff will need to be available on request
during the performance review period:
Chief Executive
Chair
Councillors
Investigation and Monitoring Director
Regulation Director
Resource Planning and Consents Director
Finance and Corporate Services Director
Regional Programmes Director
Managers and planning, consenting and compliance
staff under the above Directors
Customer Services staff (if applicable)
5. Reporting
5.1. The findings (including
any recommendations) from the performance
review will form the basis of a draft report
to be discussed with ECan before being finalised
and presented to the Minister for the Environment
and the Minister of Local Government. A
copy of each final report will be provided
to ECan.
5.2. The RMA investigation
may result in recommendations being made
to ECan on ways to improve its performance
under section 24A(b) of the RMA.
5.3. The non-statutory
assessment may result in recommendations
being made to Environment Canterbury on
ways to improve its governance, policy or
implementation processes under the LGA02
or any other enactment.
5.4. Either set of recommendations
may include ongoing monitoring.
5.5. In response to
the review's report, the Minister for the
Environment and the Minister of Local Government
may consider whether there is a case for
further intervention under the RMA or the
LGA02, if necessary.
6. Timeframe for the
review
6.1. The review is planned
to take place over a three week period in
November 2009, with a report being drafted
before the end of the year.
6.2. Any final recommendations
on ways to improve council performance will
be reported to ECan following officials
briefing the Ministers on the final report.
This is expected to be in early 2010.
+ More
Govt announces review
of Far North Council's consent processes
Nick Smith28 October,
2009 - Environment Minister Nick Smith today
announced a review of the Far North District
Council's functions under the Resource Management
Act.
"I am authorising
a formal investigation into the Council's
performance under Section 24A of the Resource
Management Act," Dr Smith said.
"The Far North
District Council processed just 37% of resource
consents within the statutory timeframes
in the 2007/08 Ministry for the Environment
Resource Management Survey - a decline from
51% in the previous survey in 2005/06.
"I acknowledge
the Far North District Council has taken
some steps in the last year to improve its
performance in this area. I want to work
constructively with the Council through
this process to ensure the RMA is well administered
in the Far North.
"The review is
constrained to resource management functions
unlike the wider investigation into Environment
Canterbury. The review will occur in November
with a report concluded by the end of the
year.
"The Far North
is very dependent on the efficient management
of its natural resources for its wealth
and unique lifestyle. This review is about
ensuring these functions are done as well
as possible for the people of the Far North."
Terms of Reference for
Review of Far North District Council's Performance
•1. Purpose of Investigation
1.1. The purpose of this investigation is
to identify what has led to the councils'
poor performance record over the last year
and identify possible solutions.
2. Scope of the Investigation
2.1. The investigation
will cover the following factors :
Applications : guidance for applicants and
use of section 92
Analysis of consent processing systems and
practices
Council staffing and use of resources
Administrative systems and tools
Internal audits and monitoring
Customer relationships and feedback.
Other contextual matters.
3. Methodology for Investigation
3.1. Investigations
will be undertaken by an external consultant
with RMA resource consent experience, with
project management and oversight being provided
by the Monitoring Compliance and Review
Team at the Ministry for the Environment.
Project support will be provided by the
Resource Management Practice Team.
3.2. The consultant
and an analyst from the Monitoring, Compliance
and Review Team will spend three days with
each council undertaking discussion with
council staff and assessing databases, file
information and council administrative systems.
Council staff that will need to be available
will include the Consent Manager, several
Consent Officers, the Planning Administrator
(if applicable) and Customer Services staff
(if applicable). The discussion will be
based around a set of investigation questions
(Attachment 1). These questions, along with
further information on the documents to
be assembled prior to the investigation,
will be pre-circulated to the councils.
4. Reporting
4.1. The findings (including
any recommendations) from the investigations
will form the basis of a draft report to
be discussed with the council before being
finalised and presented to the Minister
for the Environment. A copy of each final
report will be provided to the relevant
council concerned.
4.2. These investigations
may result in recommendations being made
to each council on ways to improve their
performance under section 24A(b) of the
Resource Management Act. This may include
further monitoring of the councils performance.
5. Term of investigation
5.1. The investigations
are planned to take place over a three day
period in November 2009.
5.2. The findings from
the investigation will be reported back
to the Minister for the Environment by 11
December 2009.
5.3. Any final recommendations
on ways to improve council performance will
be reported to the councils following the
report back to the Minister on council performance.
River water quality
league tables
The Ministry has ranked sites in the National
River Water Quality Network based on their
water quality. The national network includes
77 sites located on 35 rivers. These are
typically the larger rivers in New Zealand,
which drain about half of New Zealand’s
land area. These league tables do not include
regional council water quality data and
should not be used to interpret the state
of water quality within any one region.
The sites are ranked
in three league tables based on nutrient
levels, water quality for recreational use
and biological indicators. Many natural
and land-use factors affect water quality
and the health of rivers and streams (eg,
nutrient inputs, flow levels and riparian
and instream habitat). Therefore, the relative1
ranking of sites is not necessarily similar
for all three league tables, ie, sites may
rank high for nutrients but low for biological
indicators.
Nutrients in 2007
This first table ranks the 77 National Network
sites based on their median nutrient levels
in 2007. A site’s overall rank is based
on relative1 median levels of all four nutrients:
nitrate (also known as oxidised nitrogen),
total nitrogen, dissolved reactive phosphorus
and total phosphorus.
Key findings:
Where there is more
than one site on a catchment, the upstream
site usually has the better rank. There
are a few exceptions to this, for example,
the Mohaka (Hawke’s Bay) and Motu (Gisborne)
Rivers.
In most cases, each site is ranked similarly
for all four nutrients. There are a few
exceptions to this, for example, the Shotover
River at Bowens Peak has relatively low
levels of nitrate, total nitrogen and dissolved
reactive phosphorus but high levels of total
phosphorus. On the other hand, Oreti River
at Lumsden has relatively high nitrogen
levels but relatively low phosphorus levels.
The state of nutrients in 2007 at these
77 sites is varied throughout the country,
ie, most regions have sites that feature
among both the worst and best sites.
Nutrient league table
Water quality for recreational
use in 2007
This table ranks 76 National Network sites
based on two variables that are often used
to indicate whether water quality at a site
is suitable for recreational use: water
clarity and levels of the indicator bacteria,
Escherichia coli (E. coli). A site’s overall
rank is based on relative1 median water
clarity and 95th percentile E. coli bacteria
levels in 2007.
Note that the National
Network was not primarily designed to check
whether water quality is suitable for recreational
use. Regional councils monitor water quality
for recreational use at about 200 freshwater
sites every summer.
Key findings:
Where there is more
than one site on a catchment, the upstream
site usually has the better rank. There
are a few exceptions to this, for example,
the Opihi (Canterbury) and Rangitaiki (Bay
of Plenty) Rivers.
In many cases, rankings for clarity differ
from rankings for E. coli, especially for
sites with better water quality for recreational
use.
The state of water quality
for recreational use in 2007 at these 76
sites is varied throughout the country,
ie, most regions have sites that feature
amongst the worst and best sites. However,
there are some exceptions to this, for example,
the Manawatu-Wanganui region has three rivers
that feature in the worst 10 sites, the
Waikato region has two, and Taranaki region
has two. On the other hand, Tasman, Hawke’s
Bay and Canterbury regions all have two
rivers in the best 10 sites.
Typically a site’s ranking
for recreational use is similar to its ranking
for nutrient levels. There a few exceptions
to this, for example, Buller River at Te
Kuha has an overall ranking of 22 for nutrient
levels, but an overall ranking of 59 for
water quality for recreational use.
Water quality for recreational use league
table
Biological indicators
This table ranks 66 National Network sites
based on four biological indicators for
macroinvertebrates and periphyton (algal)
cover. This includes average Macroinvertebrate
Community Index (MCI) and percentage of
Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies)
and Trichoptera (caddisflies) taxa for 2005-2007
and the annual mean and maximum periphyton
cover for 11000-2006. A site’s overall rank
is based on relative1 scores for each of
these four indicators.
Key findings:
Where there is more
than one site on a catchment, the upstream
site usually has the better rank.
In many cases, the rank based on the two
macroinvertebrate indicators differs to
the rank for the two periphyton indicators.
The state of water quality based on these
four biological indicators at these 66 sites
is varied throughout the country ie, most
regions have sites that feature amongst
the worst and best sites.
In many cases, a site’s ranking for biological
indicators does not relate well to its ranking
for nutrient levels and/or water quality
for recreational use. For example, the Monowai
River below gates site is ranked 2nd for
nutrient levels and 5th for recreational
use, but is ranked 65th for the biological
indicators. This is likely to be a result
of the site being downstream of a reservoir
and highlights the importance of looking
at water bodies in a holistic way.
Biological indicators league table
1. Each site has been
ranked relative to other sites by calculating
a standard score for each value. The standard
score used is the value minus the median
divided by the interquartile range.
