Doc # 3717829

HEALTHY RIVERS WAI ORA COMMITTEE Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee of the Waikato Regional Council to be held at the Waikato-Tainui College, 451 Old Taupiri Road, Hopuhopu on 22 March 2016 at 12.30pm. VRJ Payne Chief Executive Officer

RECOMMENDATIONS contained in reports are NOT to be construed as COUNCIL DECISIONS. Please refer to Council minutes for RESOLUTIONS.

MEMBERS: Maniapoto Māori Trust Board Trustee Ray Wi

Raukawa Charitable Trust Trustee Kataraina Hodge (Co-chair)

Te Arawa River Iwi Trust Trustee Roger Pikia

Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board Trustee Maria Nepia (Deputy Co-chair)

Waikato Raupatu Trust Trustee Marae Tukere

Waikato Regional Council Councillor Alan Livingston (Co-chair) Councillor Stuart Kneebone (Deputy Co-chair) Councillor Lois Livingston Councillor Tipa Mahuta Councillor Theresa Stark

STAFF: Waikato Regional Council Vaughan Payne (Chief Executive) Tracey May (Director: Science and Strategy) Jo Bromley (Project Manager) Dominique Thurlow (Democracy Advisor) River Iwi Technical Advisor Billy Brough Maniapoto Māori Trust Board Kura Stafford Raukawa Charitable Trust Grant Kettle Dave Marshall

1

Doc # 3717829 Page 2

Te Arawa River Iwi Trust Bridget Robson Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board Simon Bendall Waikato Raupatu Trust Parekawhia McLean Tim Manukau

IN ATTENDANCE:

APOLOGIES:

1 Confirmation of Agenda

2 Disclosures of Interest Any disclosures of interest relating to the business at this meeting.

SECTION A: (UNDER DELEGATION FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCIL) 3 Minutes of the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee meeting held on

4 December 2015 File: 03 04 14 (Doc # 3633408)

Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2015.

4-7

SECTION B: (FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL) 4 Collaborative Stakeholder Group Overview of Recommendations –

Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai File: 23 10 09 (Doc # 3714642)

This report presents the Collaborative Stakeholder Group’s overall policy approach set out in the document entitled Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai: Overview of Collaborative Stakeholder Group’s recommendations for Waikato Regional Plan Change 1 – Waikato and Waipa River catchments”, be approved in principle and recommended to Council for endorsement and recommendation to Council. The restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai: Overview of Collaborative Stakeholder Group’s recommendations for Waikato Regional Plan Change 1 – Waikato and Waipa River catchments will be provided in advance of the meeting in accordance with Standing Orders.

8-17

2

Doc # 3717829 Page 3

SECTION A: (UNDER DELEGATION FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCIL)

5 Collaborative Stakeholder Group Evaluation Report File: 41 52 51 (Doc # 3704103)

This report briefs the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee on the Collaborative Stakeholder Group’s Evaluation report.

18-23

Doc# 3717829

3

HEALTHY RIVERS WAI ORA COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting of the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee of the Waikato Regional Council held at the Suncourt Hotel and Conference Centre, 1 Northcroft Street, Taupo at 12.27pm on Friday 4 December 2015.

MEMBERS: Maniapoto Māori Trust Board Trustee Ray Wi

Raukawa Charitable Trust Trustee Kataraina Hodge (Co-chair)

Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board Trustee Maria Nepia (Deputy Co-Chair)

Waikato Regional Council Councillor Alan Livingston (Co-chair) Councillor Stuart Kneebone (Deputy Co-Chair) Councillor Theresa Stark

IN ATTENDANCE: Waikato Regional Council Councillor Paula Southgate Councillor Kathy White

STAFF: River Iwi Technical Advisor Billy Brough Maniapoto Māori Trust Board Poto Davies Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board Simon Bendall Waikato Regional Council Vaughan Payne (Chief Executive) Tracey May (Director: Science and Strategy) Jo Bromley (Project Manager) Dominique Thurlow (Democracy Advisor)

APOLOGIES: Te Arawa River Iwi Trust Trustee Roger Pikia and Katie Paul Waikato Raupatu Trust Trustee Marae Tukere Waikato Regional Council Councillor Tipa Mahuta

Accepted

4

Minutes of Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee - 4 December 2015 2

Te Kanawa Pitiroi opened the meeting with a mihi and a karakia.

Confirmation of agenda (Agenda Item 1)

Cr A Livingston moved/Cr Stark seconded

HR15/53 THAT the agenda of the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee of 4 December 2015 as circulated be confirmed as the business for the meeting.

The motion was put and carried (HR15/53) Disclosures of interest (Agenda Item 2)

There were no disclosures of interest.

SECTION A: (UNDER DELEGATION FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCIL)

Minutes of the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee meeting held on 13 November 2015 (Agenda Item 3) (Doc # 3607731)

The minutes of the meeting were taken as read. Trustee Nepia moved/Cr Kneebone seconded

HR15/54 RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee meeting held on 13 November 2015 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

The motion was put and carried (HR15/54)

SECTION B: (FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL) Terms of Reference – Appointment of Alternates (Agenda Item 4) (Doc # 3619048)

The report to amend the Terms of Reference of the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee to confirm that, from this point onwards, the appointment of Iwi alternates must be trustees of the respective River Iwi Trust was taken as read. Cr Stark moved/Trustee Nepia seconded

HR15/54 RESOLVED THAT the report ‘Terms of Reference – Appointment of Alternatives’ (Doc # 3619048 dated 23 November 2015 be received. RECOMMENDED THAT Clause (ii) of the Terms of Reference for the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee, in respect to the appointment of alternates by River Iwi partners, be amended to explicitly state that Iwi alternates must be trustees on the River Iwi Partner entity.

The motion was put and carried (HR15/54)

5

Minutes of Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee - 4 December 2015 3

Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Project Timeline - 2016 (Agenda Item 5) (Doc # 3613555)

The Director Science and Strategy (T May) outlined an amendment to the overall timeline for the Healthy Rivers: Plan for Change/Wai Ora: He Rautaki Whakapaipai Project – Plan Change 1. During questions, answers and related discussion committee members raised or noted the following matters: - The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board representative indicated her support for

the project timeline as proposed. However, it was noted that the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board would have difficulty adhering to these timeframes if significant amendments were required following the recommendation by the Collaborative Stakeholder Group. The Director Science and Strategy acknowledged this issue and advised that Council is working on a ‘no surprises’ approach leading up to this time noting that all parties are being kept informed along the way. To facilitate this, a new agenda item will be added to future meetings of stakeholders, staff and governors.

- The River Iwi Technical Advisor confirmed that the revised dates dovetail into the respective River Iwi Trust Board meetings.

- Discussion centred on the risk of new information being brought to the table at the end of the process which may not have been canvassed by the Committee. The Director Science and Strategy acknowledged the risk and advised members that staff have spent a significant amount of time minimising this risk by ensuring that the decisions made by the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee are the right decisions for the build towards the ultimate outcome.

- A member questioned whether the process had been checked legally. The Director Science and Strategy advised that Council is comfortable that the process meets all of the necessary legal requirements.

Cr A Livingston moved/Cr Kneebone seconded

HR15/55 RESOLVED THAT the report Healthy Rivers Wai Ora project timeline - 2016 (Doc # 3613555

dated 16 November 2015) be received for information. RECOMMENDED THAT the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee confirms Table 1: Revised project dates through to 30 June 2016.

The motion was put and carried (HR15/55)

SECTION A: (UNDER DELEGATION FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCIL) Intensive Engagement Period 2 – Quantitative Feedback (Agenda Item 6) (Doc # 3615251)

The report on the Collaborative Stakeholder Group’s quantitative feedback following the second intensive engagement period that ran from late October to early November 2015 was taken as read. During questions, answers and related discussion Committee members raised or noted the following matters:

6

Minutes of Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee - 4 December 2015 4

- The presentations made by the Iwi representatives during the intensive engagement period were acknowledged. It was further noted that the Collaborative Stakeholder Group valued the updates Iwi provided on the tangata whenua engagement. River Iwi members undertook to provide members with the presentation provided at these meetings.

- The Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee expressed their appreciation of the contributions made by Collaborative Stakeholder Group members to the extensive community engagement undertaken for the benefit of this process and that their personal input made for most effective communication.

Cr Stark moved/Trustee Nepia seconded

HR15/56 RESOLVED THAT the report ‘Intensive Engagement Period 2 Quantitative Feedback’ (Doc # 3615251 dated 17 November 2015) be received for information.

The motion was put and carried (HR15/56)

Trustee Wi closed the meeting with a mihi and a karakia. Meeting closed at 12.43pm. Doc # 3633408

7

Doc # 3714642

Report to Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee 22 March 2016 – Decision required

File No: 23 10 09

Date: 7 March 2016

To: Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee

From: Independent Chair, Collaborative Stakeholder Group, Director Science and Strategy

Subject:

Collaborative Stakeholder Group Overview of Recommendations - Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai

Section: B (for Recommendation to council)

Purpose The purpose of this report is for the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee to endorse and recommend to Council the Collaborative Stakeholder Group‟s overall policy approach set out in the document entitled Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai: Overview of Collaborative Stakeholder Group‟s recommendations for Waikato Regional Plan Change 1 – Waikato and Waipa River catchments.

Recommendation:

1. That the report “Collaborative Stakeholder Group Overview of Recommendations – Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai” (Doc

3714642 dated 7 March 2016) be received for information.

2. That the Collaborative Stakeholder Group‟s document entitled “Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai: Overview of Collaborative Stakeholder Group‟s recommendations for Waikato Regional Plan Change 1 – Waikato and Waipa River catchments”, be approved in principle and recommended to Council for approval.

Background The first stage of managing nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and microbes to help achieve the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River/Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato is a change to the Waikato Regional Plan, called Waikato Regional Plan Change 1: Waikato and Waipa River catchments (Plan Change 1). Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai (circulated separately), provides an overview of the work the CSG has undertaken in the past two years on the Healthy Rivers: Plan for Change/ Wai Ora: He Rautaki Whakapaipai project. Taken as a whole the document is the Collaborative Stakeholder Group (CSG) recommended approach to the project decision makers.

8

Doc # 3714642 Page 2

Healthy Rivers Wai Ora decisions about CSG outputs Up until late 2015, the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee has endorsed outputs from the CSG throughout the process. The following is a list of components of the CSG policy mix approved to date by the Committee:

1. CSG Focus Statement – 17 December 2014 2. Preferred options for scenario modelling – 19 June 2015 3. Policy Selection Criteria – 19 June 2015 4. Suite of Numeric Attributes – 14 August 2015 5. Preferred option for Freshwater Management Units – 18 September 2015 6. Values and Uses for the Waikato and Waipa Rivers – 18 September 2015

The components above are included in the CSG document „Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai‟. Overview of CSG document - Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai The purpose of the document is:

1. To provide an overview of the work the CSG has undertaken in the past two years.

2. To guide the next stage of the process, which is: a. the detailed write-up of objectives, policies and methods and rules that will go

into Plan Change 1. b. ongoing development of other agreements, funding and actions that are

outside the Resource Management Act document, but need to be progressed in order for the CSGs recommendations to be implemented.

The document is structured into four parts A-D: Part A Setting the Scene is intended to provide readers with enough context to understand the recommendations made by the Collaborative Stakeholder Group on the values, objectives, policies, methods and rules. It is a high level overview of the project purpose, scope and drivers, and the process followed by the CSG. Part B How water quality outcomes were developed provides background information about long term outcomes for the Rivers and lakes and an outline of the consultation the CSG undertook with their sectors and the wider community. Part C Policy Framework recommendations provides the CSG recommendations on the overall policy framework that will guide the drafting of Plan Change 1 and the associated section 32 document that sets out alternatives, costs and benefits. Detailed drafting and some further refinements will be worked on by the CSG throughout March and April 2016 (see Attachment 1). Part C includes some topics which the CSG has settled on, and some which are still under active consideration and requiring further definition. Part D references, glossary and appendices provides further detail, references, and a glossary that defines terms that may be unfamiliar to readers or where the CSG wants to avoid confusion about how the rules should be interpreted in Plan Change 1

9

Doc # 3714642 Page 3

Refresher on CSG process Since March 2014, the Collaborative Stakeholder Group has been attending workshops every four to six weeks, with increasing frequency as the project progressed. Their workshops have been held in different parts of the catchments and have included field trips and presentations, so they heard different perspectives and experience in order to understand the diversity of the Waikato and Waipa river catchments. The CSG has also been connecting with the community and their sectors throughout the project. Table 1: Key collaboration and consultation to date is shown below

Aug 2013 130 stakeholders attend workshop on forming CSG

Sept 2013 Almost 40 stakeholders attend workshop on forming Technical Alliance

Mar 2014 CSG workshops start, occurring every 4 to 6 weeks

May 2014 Technical Alliance announced

Oct 2014 More than 200 people discuss CSG‟s draft policy selection criteria and working list of values and uses at stakeholder forum

Mar-May 2015 More than 500 people provide feedback to CSG at a large workshop and drop in sessions and in an online survey

Oct – Nov 2015 More than 800 people provide feedback to the CSG at a large workshop, community workshops and in an online survey

Feb 2016 Sectors provide feedback to the CSG

CSG decision making framework The CSG strive for group consensus on proposals put forward for CSG resolution. The CSG have a decision making framework that they use when there are clear disagreements after the topic has been discussed. The CSG methodically worked through a draft version of their document entitled Restoring and protecting our water – Te whakapaipai me te tiaki i ō tātou wai at their workshop on 2-3 March 2016. After discussion and consideration of all viewpoints, CSG members who were present at the workshop unanimously agreed to almost all matters. Two items were not agreed, and these are set out in detail in Attachment 2 of this report. Next steps for CSG There are a number of aspects that are likely to become part of Plan Change 1, which are under active consideration and being refined by the CSG. These include:

1. The outcomes CSG expect to see in the 10-20 years after Plan Change 1 is publically notified, so that the community can be confident that progress will be tracked. These are referred to as short term objectives.

10

Doc # 3714642 Page 4

2. Enabling provisions for the development of land returned under Te Tiriti O Waitangi settlements and multiple Māori owned land.

3. Detail around how to guide the implementation of mitigation actions in property

management plans, what this might cost, and how industry schemes need to be set up to manage contaminants discharged from farms and commercial vegetable production.

4. Which parts of the catchment should be a priority and „start first‟ to implement the

property management plan rules.

5. An overall alignment of the timeline for implementation, and dates when the different rules will come into force, including rules to require stock exclusion, nitrogen benchmarking, and completion of property management plans that contain actions for mitigating contaminants.

The CSG will continue to meet in April and May, and receive information and make decisions on the output of three CSG sub-groups. Each sub-group will meet a number of times and be assisted by technical, policy, river iwi co-ordinator, legal and implementation people where relevant. The CSG sub-groups are:

1. Property Plan CSG sub-group (to refine aspects 1 and 3-5 above) 2. Māori land CSG sub-group (to refine 2 above) 3. Plan drafting CSG sub-group (to finalise wording for Plan Change 1 and the

associated Section 32 report) In May, the CSG will finalise Plan Change 1 and the associated section 32 analysis of alternatives, benefits and costs project. Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee will receive these documents as the final CSG recommendations.

Tracey May Director Science and Strategy Project Sponsor

Bill Wasley Independent Chair Collaborative Stakeholder Group

List of attachments: Attachment 1: CSG decision tree of rules Attachment 2: Matters referred to the CSG Decision Making Framework on 2-3 March 2016

11

Doc # 3714642

Attachment 1

12

Doc # 3714642 Page 6

13

Doc # 3714642

Attachment 2 Matters referred to the CSG Decision Making Framework on 2-3 March 2016

CSG Decision making framework The CSG strive for group consensus on proposals put forward for resolution. The CSG have defined consensus as “unanimous agreement”. When the CSG has discussed an issue fully and a clear proposal is put forward for resolution the proposal is tested with the group (by the independent chair) to gauge the level of agreement. The three possible responses to the question about agreement with the proposal are:

I agree

I stand aside (I don‟t agree but I understand and can live with the proposal as it is)

I disagree with the proposal If, when tested, all members agree with the proposal, then a unanimous agreement is said to be achieved and the proposal is accepted. If unanimous agreement is not achieved:

1. Those who have concerns must articulate them.

2. If the concerns are shared, then the proposal may be modified to alleviate them or the concerns explained away to the concerns member‟s satisfaction

3. The proposal (either original or modified) is again tested for unanimous agreement. If all members agree with the proposal then a unanimous agreement is said to be achieved and the proposal is accepted.

4. If the proposal is not agreed unanimously but there are no members who disagree, i.e. some members choose to stand aside, then an agreement is said to be achieved and the proposal is accepted.

5. If the proposal is not agreed unanimously and there is a least one member who remains in disagreement with the proposal then the group has to decide whether the level of disagreement is sufficient to warrant:

a. Further modifications to the current proposal

b. Disagreement and thus rejection of the proposal. This will result in further discussion, another potential solution and new proposal

c. Agreement and thus acceptance of the proposal.

d. Those who disagree must articulate their concerns and genuinely work with other group members to see whether these concerns can be alleviated through further modifications to the proposal, or through increased understanding as a result of more information

Those who „stand aside‟ accept the proposal despite having reservations or concerns and share the responsibility for decision-making. The number of members who stand aside is recorded. The CSG may decide to proceed with the proposal even though there are disagreements. In this case, the identity of those disagreeing, their concerns and the reasons for these concerns are recorded. The independent chair has a key role in judging when to proceed.

14

Doc # 3714642 Page 8

Two decisions made using the decision making framework at CSG24 There were two decisions made at CSG24 (2/3 March 2016) using the decision making framework. These are outlined below. 1. That there is no separate Freshwater Management Unit (FMU) for Whangamarino

wetland Background

The CSG decision on their preferred option for FMUs was taken to the September 2015 Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee

In December 2015 a discussion began within CSG around the need to ensure protection of significant values to wetlands as required by the NPS-FM (2014).

D Campbell (Environment/NGO delegate) put forward papers for discussion on the issue to CSG22 (28/29 January) and CSG23 (18/19 February).

The Environment/NGO sector then proposed a separate FMU for Whangamarino wetland be created. Following extensive consideration, the following recommendations were resolved by CSG at their focus day on 26 February:

1. CSG acknowledges that the wetland is of significance and should be recognised as such and accorded a priority in respect of addressing matters related to the four contaminants through the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora plan change process.

2. CSG notes that while the establishment of a separate Whangamarino Wetland FMU may have merit, it is not considered appropriate to do so at this stage for the following reasons:

i. That no community or sector engagement has occurred on such a proposal and the CSG does not wish to place the collaborative plan development processes at risk by changing FMUs without going back out to the community for feedback;

ii. That further technical information is required prior to considering the establishment of a separate FMU.

3. CSG supports in principle narrative objectives being included in the plan change and notes that a range of regulatory and non-regulatory methods are likely to be required to address the four contaminants in respect to Whangamarino Wetland.

4. CSG notes that Whangamarino should be among the higher priority sub-catchments where property plans and sub-catchment plans will occur first

At the CSG24 workshop (2/3 March) further feedback was received from the Environment/NGO sector in favour of an FMU for Whangamarino wetland (following a sector meeting the previous day). The sector remains in favour of a separate FMU.

A revised proposal with four resolutions was put forward to CSG on 3 March for consideration by the Environment/NGO delegate, D Campbell. Changes from the earlier proposal are noted in italics and underlined:

1. CSG recognises that the wetland has highly significant values and should be recognised as such and accorded a priority in respect of addressing matters related to the four contaminants through the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora plan change process.

15

Doc # 3714642 Page 9

2. CSG notes that while the proposal to establish a separate Whangamarino Wetland FMU has considerable merit, it was not considered appropriate to do so at this stage for the following reasons:

i. That no community or sector engagement has occurred on such a proposal and the CSG does not wish to place the collaborative plan development processes at risk by changing FMUs without going back out to the community for feedback;

ii. That further technical information is required prior to considering the establishment of a separate FMU.

3. CSG supports in principle narrative objectives being included in the plan change and notes that a range of regulatory and non-regulatory methods are likely to be required to address the four contaminants in respect to Whangamarino Wetland.

4. CSG notes that the catchments of rivers flowing into Whangamarino Wetland should be among the higher priority sub-catchments where property plans and sub-catchment plans will occur.

Process following the proposal:

CSG discussed the „tweaks‟ that had been made to the proposal between CSG workshops, going through the recommendations. It was noted that the changes made in editing were not material changes.

Following further discussion the independent chair tested the resolution for unanimous agreement noting it would not result in the establishment of an additional FMU. The preferred pathway was to give the wetland as high a priority as possible short of it being a specific FMU. There was not unanimous agreement.

D Campbell (Delegate Environment/NGO) indicated he would stand aside as he could not fully support recommendation 2. He noted his dedication to work on getting the wetland the best protection outside of FMU status.

A Fleming (Environment/NGO representative) was in disagreement with resolution 2. Noted:

o Additional sector feedback in favour of a Whangamarino Wetland FMU was received by the CSG following the initial decision on 26 February.

o The sector strongly supported having a Whangamarino Wetland FMU

CSG Resolution: That a separate FMU is not created for Whangamarino Wetland. Moved T Fordyce (Forestry representative) seconded W Maag (Māori Interests representative). Stood aside: D Campbell (Environment/NGO delegate) regarding resolution 2. In disagreement regarding resolution 2: A Fleming (Environment/NGO representative). Resolutions carried. 2. Decision regarding inclusion status of intermittent waterways The decision making framework was used when the CSG considered the issue of whether to include intermittent waterways in the catchment wide rule. The proposal discussed was:

Not to have intermittent waterways in the catchment wide rules. Do further work on this in the next 10 years (science, definitions, cost/benefit). Include via property planning approach.

In discussion the following points were noted regarding intermittent waterways:

16

Doc # 3714642 Page 10

They are hard to define (and they need to be defined for this region); they look different in different places/regions

In this region there is a range of intermittent waterways e.g. dry gullies in pumice that only flow occasionally

Gains will be made by excluding stock from perennials, with no size threshold

Fencing of intermittent waterways could impact significantly on the workability of farms with fences everywhere – capture via bunds and silt traps

A Fleming (Environment/NGO representative) noted his sector wants intermittent waterways included because:

o They support fencing all intermittent waterways o They see property plans could be a tool to identify intermittent waterways o intermittent waterways can and have been defined elsewhere o There would be more assurance intermittent waterways/streams would be

protected if they were part of a rule

The independent chair tested whether there was unanimous agreement. There was not. D Campbell (Environment/NGO delegate) noted his support based on strong direction in property plans and further study needed. A Fleming (Environment/NGO representative) indicated he was in disagreement due to the following reasons:

o intermittent waterways can and have been defined elsewhere o There would be more assurance intermittent waterways would be protected if

they were part of a rule

Following further discussion CSG noted there needs to be more research about the issue of intermittent waterways in this region and the range of ways they could be mitigated.

CSG Resolution: Not to have intermittent water included in the catchment-wide rule. Do further work on this in the next 10 years (science, definition, cost/benefit). Include via property planning approach. Moved G Moss (Dairy representative), seconded C Keenan (Horticulture representative). D Campbell (Environment/NGO delegate) noted his support was based on strong direction being in property plans and further study being needed. In disagreement: A Fleming (Environment/NGO representative). Resolution carried.

17

Doc # 3704102

Report to Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee 22 March 2016 – To be received

File No: 41 52 51

Date: 23 February 2016

To: Chief Executive Officer

From: Independent Chair of Collaborative Stakeholder Group

Subject: Collaborative Stakeholder Group Evaluation Report

Section: A (Committee has delegated authority to receive the Report)

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to brief Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee on the Collaborative Stakeholder Group (CSG) Evaluation report.

Recommendation:

That the report “Collaborative Stakeholder Group Evaluation Report” (Doc 3704102 dated 23

February 2016) be received for information.

Background Evaluation of the collaborative process was introduced to the Collaborative Stakeholder Group as part of the Healthy Rivers: Plan for Change/Wai Ora project at their first workshop in 2014. Since then evaluation has been integral to the CSG process from the outset. The evaluation approach used has been adaptive and responded to the needs and development of the CSG as it has evolved. An evaluative process was built in from the outset for two key reasons:

To provide a rigorous cycle of feedback which feeds into the collaborative process in real time – to support adaption and effective development of the group

To ensure the learning, lessons, strengths and weaknesses were captured in a way they could be shared and used by other jurisdictions using collaborative processes in the future.

A set of Key Evaluation Questions (KEQs) have guided the evaluation design and process. These are:

To what extent did we achieve what we set out to do?

How well did we do it?

What's the value of this (CSG) process? For council and for others?

How worthwhile is collaboration?

What did we learn that might be applied or adapted for future processes?

18

Doc # 3704102 Page 2

Discussion The evaluation process has been highly participatory. CSG members and Council staff have been involved at every stage. The data has then been independently collected, analysed and presented for consideration and discussion by the CSG. Since the start of the project, various cycles of data collection, analysis, reporting and sense-making have occurred. Fast feedback and collective sense-making of the findings with CSG members and Waikato Regional Council staff has been a feature with the learning being rapidly integrated with adaption of the process occurring in „real time‟. A round of data collection with CSG members was conducted in October 2015. Tracking of key criteria was continued along with additional questions to gather feedback on how well the CSG members perceived they would be able to achieve key outcomes. Key findings of this latest phase were fed back to the CSG at their workshop 24 November 2015 (see Attachment 1). Some of the results showed that:

There is widespread acknowledgement that the CSG process has increased understanding among CSG members about the complexity of issues facing a range of sectors. Members reported an emerging willingness among some sectors to take more account of issues outside of their sector and to work more collaboratively with other sectors. Over 80% rated CSG members understanding of other sectors as considerable to high – up from 59% in 2014.

There remain high levels of commitment to, and engagement with, the collaborative process among the CSG members with 94% (up from 53% in 2014).

There is a general sense that the relationships and communication with iwi and governance structures have improved throughout the process with increases in the number of members giving considerable or high ratings for the credibility of relationships between the CSG, Te Rōpū Hautū and the Healthy Rivers Committee.

CSG members acknowledge that they are reaching the challenging part of the process. However, there is huge will to see the process through, with over 90% confident to move forward – up from 63% in July 2014.

There is no doubt among members that without the collaborative process, some important and innovative thinking would not have emerged – for example using an 80 year time frame for considering solutions and change.

100% of CSG members rated Council staff highly for how they co-ordinate and manage the CSG process - and there are high levels of satisfaction with the Chair and the Facilitator.

The next and final phase of data collection will include interviews with all CSG members, as well as a range of members from Te Rōpū Hautū, the Technical Leaders Group, Waikato Regional Council project management and support staff, as well as wider stakeholders after CSG recommendations are completed – to gather feedback on lessons and learnings. The exact dates for this work are yet to be confirmed. Written by:

Reviewed by:

Jacqueline Henry Co-Management Workstream Lead

Bill Wasley Independent Chair Collaborative Stakeholder Group

19

Doc # 3704102 Page 3

List of Attachments: Attachment 1: Evaluating collaboration: A briefing on the evaluation of the Healthy Rivers – Wai Ora Collaborative Stakeholder Group

20

Doc # 3704102 Page 4

Attachment 1: Evaluating collaboration: A briefing on the evaluation of the Healthy Rivers – Wai Ora Collaborative Stakeholder Group

21

Doc # 3704102 Page 5

22

Doc # 3704102 Page 6

23