HortNZ Perspective – Gisborne District

Limit setting in collaboration and how Gisborne is getting it right

INZ Conference 24/3/2013

Core principles guiding Horticulture New Zealand’s involvement in the FWAG

• To maintain or enhance existing levels of access and reliability to water for existing users and provide for food production values

• Retain a good level of water quality in the Gisborne region, to allow the continued use of the region’s resources by the Gisborne community for a range of social, cultural, recreational and economic activities

• Seek opportunities to develop storage in line with the above two principles

Our underlying goal is to ensure that growers can effectively and sustainably add value to the

Gisborne community

Fruit and Vegetable Production Nodes

2.5 Value of WaterThe value of water used for irrigation on the

Poverty Bay flats is approximately $11.3 milliondollars per annum. This is the net gross margin of

the land with irrigation minus the net grossmargin of the land without irrigation.

Download the report here

Collaboration in other areasNational: Land and Water Forum – small group +

allocation and governance subgroups

Canterbury: Preferred approach Group, PAG

Tasman: Collaborative forum, (exploration of the concept of values)

Auckland: Rural Advisory Panel (+ wider RILG / EDS workshops)

Gisborne: Fresh Water Advisory Group

Hawkes Bay: Support for TANK + Pan Sector Group

Tasman: Support for Waimea Catchment Collaborative Stakeholder Group members

Canterbury / Selwyn: Support to Zone Committee members

Wellington: Support to Feds (Whaitua for Wairarapa)

Waikato: Healthy Rivers Coalition

TIME 1. The number of collaborative processes are going to increase exponentially over the next five years

2. Some of these processes are being driven by Council appointing community representation. Some are allowing their communities to represent themselves.

3. In our experience allowing communities to choose their own leadership is preferable

MEMBERS

Gisborne process• No first generation water plan - management by

consents (five year term)• Some provisions in general plan• Initial contact made over flows NES – instability

recognised• NPS established - requirement to set limits• Freshwater Advisory Group formed – Committee

in Council• Pat Seymour Chair• Officers – secretariat• Representation (see Box)• Process (see Dennis presentation)

• 8 December 2010 (first meeting). Meetings every 2 months since.• Envirolink reports (NIWA )• GNS Groundwater Report + Aqualinc peer

review*• HortNZ / GDC collaboration on economic

value of Irrigation report• Identification of Values and draft freshwater

Objectives• Now spatially prioritising Values in Waipaoa

(first)• Draft policies now up for debate• Fish passage project*Groundwater Review by Aqualinc here

Key Issues / Challenges / Responses

• Groundwater – running out! (fifty years)• Surface water no substitute• Only ~2600ha of a possible 12,000 irrigated• Significant opportunities for development (settlements)• More information required

• Managed aquifer recharge investigation • CIF application / project manager appointed

• Values – not identified in RIVAS• Irrigation regarded entirely as an economic value• Not inclusive enough• Public consultation identified wide support for food production

and food security values• Made additional to RIVAS values

• Prioritisation of values• New tools established

Key Risk: Someone still has the right to challenge the plan produced through the Court

What is going right?

• Transparency - Council has programmed each step of the process and is signalling in advance

• Council support: senior leadership and officers involved

• Inclusiveness: Wide range of views represented

• Engagement: Public meetings have been held at the production of key pieces of work (2 consultation rounds so far)

• Slow beginnings: Information collection, gap identification and potential friction points recognised early

• Process: Limit identification is following significant background work to identify the positives and negatives and the effect on the important values

• Leadership: parties (not just Council and officers are showing a willingness to adapt their views

• Best available science

Chris KeenanHorticulture New Zealand | Our Growth Industryddi 04 470 5669 | ddi 04 471 2861| mob 027 668 0142Chris.Keenan@hortnz.co.nz

Limit setting - Gisborne

For Irrigation NZ April 8th 2014

How are we doing it?

• Based on freshwater values• Collaboratively• Knowledge-based

Where are we up to?

• Technical reports• Vision for water management• Waipaoa Catchment Plan started.• Developing an implementation plan

for managing water resources

Water Plan Contents May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July

Introduction

Users Guide

Guiding Principles

Objectives and Policies

General

Allocation

Damming and Diverting

Beds of Lakes and Rivers

Discharges

Outstanding Water Bodies

Methods

Rules

General

Allocation

Damming and Diverting

Beds of Lakes and Rivers

Discharges

Outstanding Water Bodies

Definitions

Water Management Plans

Waipaoa/Taruheru

Introducion

Water Zones

Values

State of the Environment

Limits

Monitoring

Public Feedback Public Notification

Draft Refine Finalise

• We need to determine allocatable volumes of water

• We need better information on actual use of water

• Water use needs to be more targeted for crop requirement, soil type and climate.

Water Demand

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Domestic Livestock Irrigation Frost protection Industry Recreational Rural residential

Annu

al d

eman

d (M

m3 /

yr)

2013 2063

Limit setting• Identifying values -RIVAS• Consultation round with values

and objective statements Objectives Framework– National direction with the ability

to identify and manage local issues.

– Process of setting limits based on the values associated with each catchment or waterbody.

RIVAS Values

• City water (N)• Tangata whenua values• Native fish (Similar to Nat Character?)• Fish passage – 15 sites• Natural character - bush catchment (R)

(L)• Irrigation (R)• Native birds (L)• Recreation near mouth

Overview of significance test

• Values for each sub-catchment provided.

• Values ranked for each sub-catchment based on their

‘significance’ ie how well they are / should be provided for:

Low, Moderate, High.

•Council staff provide indicative results for how well values

are currently provided for.

• FWAG asked to consider how they want each value to be

provided for in the future.

Test results

• Approx half of FWAG provided results

• Results based on aspirational significance (how well we want

the value to be provided for in the future)

• Respondents assessments collated and summarised

• General trends:

– Upper sub-catchments = in-stream values prominent

– Lower Waipaoa = abstractive values prominent

– Te Arai = balance of abstractive and in-stream values

– Taruheru = recreational (in-stream) values prominent

Wharekopae sub-catchment

6                                    5                                    4                                    3                                    2                                    1                                    

L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H

Ecosystem health

Natural form and character

Human health

Fishing Contact recreation

Animal drinking water

Waikanae sub-catchment

6                        5                        4                        3                        2                        1                        

L M H L M H L M H L M H

Ecosystem health

Flood protection

Human health

Mahinga kai

Indicative result:• In-stream values

prominent

– Ecosystem

health

– Natural form

– human health

Indicative result:• In-stream values prominent

– Ecosystem health

• Flood protection also prominent

Early days - but

• Collaborative process is slow

• It is bringing diverse groups nearer to a common view

• There will be a (first) catchment plan this year.

• Local values will be reflected

• The result may be unique to the East Coast.