During the 2007/08 financial
year, Environment Canterbury processed 29
per cent of resource consents with the statutory
time frames. The Minister for the Environment
made the decision to investigate under section
24A of the Resource Management Act. In addition
to this investigation
Minister Hide made the decision to carry
out a non statutory assessment under the
Local Government Act to look at ECan’s governance
and policy functions. This Performance Review
of Environment Canterbury was carried out
by Wyatt Creech, MartinJenkins, Greg Hill
and Morrison Low. This report presents the
findings of the review.
Executive Summary
This investigation of the performance of
Environment Canterbury (ECan) was undertaken
by a Review Group headed by the Rt Hon Wyatt
Creech in accordance with Terms of Reference
(ToR) established by the Minister for the
Environment and the Minister of Local Government.
The Terms of Reference were broad in scope,
incorporating the performance of ECan in
discharging its responsibilities under both
the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and
the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) (also
including other related legislation), together
with wider contextual matters including
the adequacy of the current planning framework
for delivering the vision and objectives
of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy
in an effective and efficient manner.
The issue of freshwater
management (both ground and surface water)
is the single most significant issue facing
the Canterbury Region. The Review Group
acknowledges that the scale of the issues
being addressed in terms of water availability
and quality in the Canterbury Region and
the scale and nature of competing demands
for that resource is significantly greater
than that confronted by other regional councils
throughout New Zealand. They are correspondingly
of much greater significance to the nation’s
well-being.
The Review Group acknowledges
the significance of water and the complexities
it brings to ECan in its management role.
However, the Group was struck by the ‘gap’
between ‘what needs to be done’ to appropriately
manage water and ‘ECan’s capability to do
so’. The Review Group membership included
some of New Zealand’s most experienced assessors
of organisational capability. In their experience
they had not previously seen a gap between
capability and requirement matching this
particular situation. In their view, the
extent of the gap between the capability
of ECan and what is required for it to adequately
manage freshwater issues is enormous and
unprecedented. A very large backlog of outstanding
issues needs to be addressed before water
management in the Region reaches a steady
state position. While the improvements and
efforts made to address longstanding performance
issues are acknowledged, the Review Group
has concluded that ECan’s performance on
water policy and management issues (allocation
and quality) falls well short of what is
essential.
This failure requires
comprehensive and rapid intervention on
the part of central government to protect
and enhance both regional and national well-being.
Failure to intervene will lead to continued
lack of progress in water management in
Canterbury. The Review Group considers that
a profound change in approach is required
to existing institutional frameworks to
address this matter properly. The reasons
for this include:
Around 70% of New Zealand’s
fresh water resource is in the Canterbury
Region, much of which is under demand from
competing interests. Unresolved water quality
issues persist in the Region in the minds
of many stakeholders.
The Canterbury Region
contributes a significant percentage of
the nation’s renewable hydro electricity
generation capacity, and is important in
terms of agricultural and horticultural
production. All of these activities depend
critically on water.
There are significant
issues in relation to the Crown’s Treaty
obligations, with Ngai Tahu expressing a
very strong interest in the management of
water as a Treaty partner.
Resolving water resource
issues is complex and involves controversial
and difficult judgments to achieve the appropriate
balance between the environmental, economic,
social and cultural considerations that
must be taken into account. Experience to
date indicates that Environment Canterbury
has not managed these competing demands
and interests effectively. All too frequently,
the outcome has been undue delays rather
than progress and frustration levels on
all sides are high.
Despite the passage
of more than 18 years since the enactment
of the Resource Management Act, Canterbury
does not have an operative region-wide planning
framework. The absence of an over-arching
planning and policy framework for the Region
has resulted in a piecemeal, fragmented
and inefficient approach to the management
of freshwater.
It is a matter of record
that, in the absence of a planning framework,
the Crown was forced to intervene and establish
the Waitaki Water Allocation Board to manage
the allocation of water rights in the Waitaki
Catchment following competing claims to
water from rural interests and electricity
generators.
Most stakeholders spoken
with expressed considerable frustration
with the long delays in the resource consent
approval process and associated very high
processing costs.
Territorial authorities
(TA’s) within the Canterbury Region unquestionably
believe that Environment Canterbury has
failed to effectively and efficiently manage
freshwater. TA's view this as institutional
failure.
While criticism of Environment Canterbury’s
performance in freshwater management is
widespread, the Review Group acknowledges
that Environment Canterbury has, in recent
times, made significant efforts to improve
the situation both at a Council and officer
level. While this is commendable, it will
not of itself be sufficient to satisfactorily
resolve water management issues in the Region.
The most recent initiative
to progress the resolution of water management
issues in the Region is the Canterbury Water
Management Strategy (CWMS). This Strategy
has been vigorously promoted by the Canterbury
Mayoral Forum, ECan and territorial authorities.
ECan has constructively aligned itself to
this initiative and played a leading role
in the development of the Strategy and its
intended institutional framework. ECan has
taken this approach after forming the view
that a collaboratively developed Canterbury
Water Management Strategy is the only realistic
pathway with any reasonable chance of success
for developing a solution to these complex
and controversial issues. The Review Group
notes ECan’s advice that the Canterbury
Water Management Strategy will rely on legislative
change to make it workable.
The intentions behind
the CWMS are laudable and it is very widely
supported throughout the Region, with all
stakeholders recognising the imperative
of solving the water problem in Canterbury.
The CWMS is however at a relatively early
in-principle strategic phase of development.
The next phase will be to translate these
higher level strategic objectives into ‘on
the ground’ policies and an implementation
plan. Given the diverse nature of the competing
interests involved in water, the next steps
in implementation will inevitably become
increasingly more difficult. Already some
signs of frustration are emerging amongst
stakeholders. As implementation of the CWMS
advances, the potential risk for failure
to achieve its objectives increases.
While there is much
to commend in the CWMS it will not on its
own be sufficient to resolve the Region’s
water issues. In saying this, we believe
that aspects of the CWMS, notability its
vision and objectives, should be a core
component of any future institutional change.
There is a great deal of positive momentum
in the Region following the development
of the CWMS and this should be retained
and built upon. It will also enable time
for other central government initiatives
such as the Land and Water Forum, to be
completed and the implications for the Canterbury
Region of any recommendations made to be
considered.
The Review Group has
therefore come to the conclusion that an
entirely new institutional approach is needed
for the management of freshwater in the
Region. This will involve a fundamental
reform of the structure of decision-making
within the Region for all freshwater-related
matters. The Review Group recommends that
the Government create a new Canterbury Regional
Water Authority (CRWA) to assume all water
related responsibilities in the Canterbury
Region. This recommendation reflects the
fact that issues associated with water management
in Canterbury will be enduring and will
therefore require the full and on-going
attention of a specialist body. Only by
taking this approach can the Government
be certain that a structure is in place
that has the willingness and capability
to resolve these difficult issues.
The Review Group recommends
that:
The CRWA be established
under its own Act of Parliament. That Act
should set out the overriding objectives
of the new Authority.
The Authority membership be appointed jointly
by the Minister for the Environment and
the Minister of Local Government, in consultation
with key stakeholders within the Region,
with the Chair being a respected person
with the necessary credentials from within
the Region.
The governance structure
of the Authority be reviewed after three
to five years to consider alternatives,
including a mix of appointed and elected
members.
The creation of an entirely
new specialist entity is, we believe, the
only way that the Government can be certain
that it has an institution capable of dealing
with the complexities involved in resolving
freshwater issues in the Canterbury Region.
The Authority would assume responsibility
for all of the functions of Environment
Canterbury related to the management of
freshwater in the Region. This includes:
Addressing the complexities
involved in balancing the competing interests
for the relevant resources.
Producing relevant plans for the allocation
and management of water resources and water
quality within a timeframe to be specified
in the legislation.
Allocation, monitoring and enforcement of
consents relating to water.
Addressing the water quality issues that
are currently the responsibility of Environment
Canterbury.
The Review Group is conscious that, in recommending
the creation of a specialist body for managing
water issues, the matter of how the balance
of ECan’s activities are managed arises.
The Group assessed the adequacy of the current
legislation in dealing with this issue and
concluded that the circumstances that apply
in this particular case were not anticipated
by either the LGA or RMA. It is not appropriate
to rely on the statutory intervention provisions
of either statute. In particular, Section
25 of the RMA, if used would introduce a
person responsible for managing water, but
would not replace the council. This would
create a confused governance and accountability
regime and would not be an enduring solution.
The Review Group therefore
recommends that the existing council be
replaced by a temporary Commission as soon
as practicable under special legislation.
This Commission will give ECan and the Region
breathing space to allow the CWRA to be
soundly established, and provide impetus
to urgently addressing water management
issues. In addition to the normal governance
responsibilities of a regional council,
the Commission would be charged with:
Overseeing the separation
of functions and funding associated with
the management of freshwater from ECan to
the CRWS.
Progressing ECan’s activities related to
the management of freshwater until the new
CRWS is able to undertake those activities,
so as to assure a seamless transfer of functions
to CRWS.
Putting in place the structure necessary
to operate those functions that will remain
the responsibility of ECan (that is, the
non-water related functions).
Implementing other Review Group recommendations
regarding the broader performance of ECan.
Initiating a review to consider the optimum
arrangement for the management and operation
of the public transport fleet within the
Region. The overwhelming bulk of this activity
is within Christchurch. Christchurch City
Council (CCC) is strongly of the view that
the present arrangement leads to material
additional costs due to the overlaps in
responsibility between Christchurch City
and ECan and that this resource would be
better applied to improving public transport
services. The Commission would act on that
review when completed.
The Commission should be responsible for
governing ECan until a new Council is elected.
These elections could take place either
in 2013, or such earlier time determined
by the government.
The Review Group also
made a number of findings and recommendations
arising from the overall review of ECan
in discharging its responsibilities under
the Resource Management Act and Local Government
Act. The Review Group acknowledges the steps
that ECan has taken to improve its performance
in recent times. Examples of this include:
considerable improvements in the processing
of resource consent applications in a more
timely manner, as well as other process
and systems improvements. ECan is on track
to perform significantly better in the next
MfE survey. Other examples of improved performance
are the work undertaken on the Long Term
Council Community Plan, and more robust
financial reporting planning and monitoring.
We have identified the
following priority areas for further performance
improvement. These recommendations apply
irrespective of the institutional changes
recommended by the Review Group.
In respect of the Resource
Management Act, it is recommended that:
ECan should undertake
a ‘fit for purpose’ review of the Planning
and Consenting Directorate, including
More resource management ‘content’ leadership
should be introduced in the resource consenting
section.
A broader range of skills is required in
the consenting section – notably planning/resource
management skills.
ECan needs to more effectively and actively
manage the Hearings Commissioners process
in terms of accountability, responsibility
and timeframe management.
ECan should consider cost recovery pre-lodgement
of consents, to remove the perceived barrier
to more effective pre-application engagement
with major applicants.
ECan needs to adopt a new case management
operating model for large and/or complex
consent applications.
ECan requires more experienced practicing
planners, economists and social scientists
on staff to facilitate a better balance
between environmental, economic, social
and cultural perspectives.
ECan should institute an ‘account management’
approach for dealing with major stakeholder
groups, in much the same way as exists with
most territorial authorities.
Iwi liaison should be elevated in importance
within ECan.
ECan should undertake a review of its internal
legal team to ensure it is fit for purpose.
In respect of ECan’s broader responsibilities
under the Local Government Act, the Review
Group acknowledges that some of the issues
relate to an historic failure of collective
action by local government in the region.
The Territorial Authorities (TA’s) and ECan
must all shoulder responsibility for addressing
this. Indeed there have been a number of
examples in recent times where effective
collaboration has been demonstrated, including
the Urban Development Strategy and Canterbury
Water Management Strategy. We consider that
two governance related measures would further
enhance collective local government performance
for the benefit of the Region as a whole
(we note that the Canterbury Regional Water
Authority once established will also have
a part to play in these measures):
The establishment of
a new Triennial Agreement that improves
role clarity and protocols.
The formal establishment of a Canterbury
Chief Executives’ Forum that parallels the
Mayoral Forum.
In addition to these governance related
recommendations, the Review Group recommends
a review to consider the optimum arrangement
for the management and operation of the
public transport fleet within the Region.
The Commission would act on that review
when completed.
+ More
Govt releases resource
management reports
Nick Smith, Rodney Hide19
February, 2010 - Environment Minister Nick
Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney
Hide today released the findings of independent
reviews initiated in October last year into
the performances of Environment Canterbury
and the Far North District Council.
"These reports
were initiated as part of the Government's
broader agenda of taking a more active role
in the performance of local government on
resource management issues. The two councils
performed poorly in the 2007/08 survey of
resource consenting processes," Dr
Smith said.
Mr Hide said: "The
review of Environment Canterbury was broadened
to include Local Government Act issues in
response to a joint delegation of Canterbury
Mayors seeking wider Government intervention."
Dr Smith said he was
pleased the Far North District Council,
while having performed poorly in the past,
had made an impressive effort to lift its
game.
"Significant changes
have been made by the Mayor, Council and
its Chief Executive to their resource management
process that has resulted in a much improved
performance. We see no need for further
Central Government involvement but I encourage
the Council to progress the minor additional
improvements identified in the review. I
commend the Council for the efforts it has
made to fix what has been a serious problem
in the Far North for a long period."
Dr Smith said the report
on Environment Canterbury was concerning
and challenging.
"It is difficult
for the Government to ignore the unanimous
conclusions of the four reviewers and the
major issues they raise about its capacity
to manage water in Canterbury.
"Changes are needed
to address water quality concerns, processes
for allocation and provision for storage.
Our response to this report will need to
be aligned to the important work programme
of the Land and Water Forum and the Canterbury
Water Management Strategy."
The Ministers said the
Government had not formed a view on the
major changes proposed in the report.
"We will be consulting
with Environment Canterbury, Canterbury
Mayors, Ngai Tahu and key water stakeholders
before making any decision. Our considerations
will be mindful of the recommendations for
urgent intervention but also of the huge
significance to the long-term well being
of Canterbury of these proposals,"
the Ministers said.
Dr Smith and Mr Hide
expressed their thanks for the positive
way the two councils had engaged with the
review process and for the professional
job undertaken by both review groups.
The two review reports
can be downloaded from the Ministry for
the Environment website at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/investigation-performance-enviro...
and http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/review-far-north-dc-consent-perf...
+ More
Efficiency incentives
proposed for RMA
Nick Smith18 February,
2010 - The Government is determined to improve
the processing of resource consents and
will introduce incentives to ensure this
occurs from 1 July 2010, Environment Minister
Nick Smith says.
Dr Smith today released
details of the regulations for consultation.
"Last year's report
on resource consent processing identified
that 31% of resource consents were processed
late and another 28% involved an extension
of time," Dr Smith said. "The
report also identified that this problem
had got progressively worse over the last
decade.
"This new policy
of a financial penalty on councils for late
consent processing is designed to reverse
this trend and get councils focused on providing
a timely service."
The discount regulations
suggested approach is that councils must
provide a discount of 25% for a consent
one week late, with an additional 5% per
week up to a maximum of 80%. The regulations
also set out procedures for determining
fault, and definitions to ensure the incentives
are workable.
"It has long been
councils' policy that a penalty is loaded
on ratepayers for failing to pay rates on
time. If it's good enough for the goose;
it's good enough for the gander. This new
policy applies the same principle where
the council fails to meet statutory timeframes.
"These regulations
will set the minimum discount for lateness
but councils will have the option of developing
their own tougher regime if they wish. For
instance, some councils already offer a
free consent if late (i.e. a 100% discount)
and will be able to continue to do so.
"This new policy
is about recognising that time is money.
New Zealand's economic recovery cannot be
held back by inefficient and costly red
tape.
"The Government
is seeking feedback on the details of these
regulations and will then work to have them
in place by 1 July this year."
For more information, go to http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/central/regulations.html.
