Sustainable Farming Fund Project A sustainable environmental land management system for Lake Taupo

Transcription

1 A sustainable environmental land management system for Lake Taupo 21 December 2004

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Background Approach/Methodology Initial stakeholder meetings The proposed variation Structure review Key Conclusions Linking into other management systems Why have a management structure Landowner meetings (Round 1) Process Summary of Results Detailed Results, Specific Issues Other issues Functions of a structure Landowner meetings (Round 2) Introduction Overview Monitoring rules Compliance Audit Research & Development Education Dispute resolution Other issues...22 i

3 10 Other stakeholder responses EW views on issues arising from landowner meetings Summary of functions and roles Other factors for consideration Cost benefit analysis Costs Benefits Funding the costs Conclusions and recommended structure Background Purpose Method CMG Mandate Funding Functions Reporting Review Establishment Progressing establishment of the group References...34 ii

4 Report Authors: Brian Bell and Andrew Thomas: Nimmo-Bell & Company Ltd, Wellington Alan McRae: Lochalsh Agriculture Ltd, Palmerston North Robin Britton, Resource Management/Planning Consultant, Hamilton Disclaimer While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this report, no liability is accepted for errors of fact or opinion, or for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on, or the use of, the information it contains. This report has been prepared for Taupo Lake Care Inc. and may only be disclosed to third parties with the prior consent of Taupo Lake Care Inc. iii

5 Executive Summary With the assistance of funding from the sustainable farming fund this project has been completed for Taupo Lake Care (TLC) to provide recommendations on a management structure that would allow a high degree of landowner involvement and buy in to future pastoral land management in the catchment. Originally the project was to consider the management system comprising two elements; a management structure and on-farm codes of practice. Subsequent changes to the proposed regional plan variation by EW have led to the focus of this work being on a management structure. It is now clear that the proposed variation will mean that pastoral farming is a controlled activity under the Resource Management Act, effectively removing the ability for future land management to be based on a code of practice. We have considered other resource management structures and processes and consulted with the stakeholders in the Lake catchment, particularly with pastoral landowners, through a series of meetings and workshops. It is clear from our research and discussions (and this was also the initial view of TLC and EW and the basis on which this project was instigated) that for nitrogen output restrictions to be effectively introduced and implemented in the catchment there will need to be a high level of buy in from affected parties, particularly pastoral landowners. There is considerable support for the concept of a management structure from landowners, and EW representatives who have overall responsibility for implementing and managing the proposed variation. While the wider community are less concerned with the establishment and management of the group, they can see the benefits of such a group and are not opposed to its establishment. In undertaking this work we have developed a management structure which we believe would satisfy the needs of all stakeholders and provide for a high level of buy in by those affected. We have identified several key functions that will need to be undertaken with the introduction of N restrictions in the catchment and defined the roles that would be undertaken by EW and a catchment management group (CMG). These are shown in the following table. We have considered and consulted with stakeholders on representation on the CMG board. We believe that this should include representatives from pastoral landowners, EW, TDC, Tuwharetoa, and forestry interests. We concur with the land overview that landowners should have a higher level of representation and note that EW staff agree with this position. We have provided comment on the costs and benefits of a Catchment Management Group and while we have not attempted to quantify the costs and benefits, it is our view that the benefits of such a structure will significantly outweigh the costs. 1

6 Function EW Role CMG Role Monitoring/ development of rules Compliance R&D To develop and implement rules To develop/adopt appropriate measurement tools To manage the reduction of 20% of N through land and N purchase To manage the -20% Trust To monitor and report on the effectiveness of the policy (a requirement under Section 35 of the RMA) To determine information requirements and processes To collect and analyse data from landowners To advise on compliance or otherwise To take required action in event of noncompliance To undertake on-site compliance checking where required To assist in identifying R&D requirements and the design of R&D programmes To assist in defining BMPs To receive recommendations on R&D expenditure and agree with CMG To provide funding for R&D expenditure To manage research projects where required To ensure the rules are fair and understood by landowners To ensure all stakeholder views are represented To maintain regular dialogue on stakeholder viewpoints To understand/monitor measurement tools and provide this information to all stakeholders To monitor and report on the effectiveness of the cap and -20% initiatives from a land owner perspective To represent stakeholder views to the -20% Trust (this may need to be included in the trust deed) To assist EW in determining information requirements and processes To provide support to landowners in the event of non-compliance To work with landowners in identifying research needs To work with research providers and EW in defining BMPs To design and implement research programmes in conjunction with research providers To make recommendations to EW re R&D 2

7 funding To approve and prioritise research projects To determine (and where appropriate manage) management requirements of research projects To seek additional funding for research and development To work with research providers in ensuring that progress and results are conveyed in a Education, advice and extension Audit/Review Dispute resolution/ mediation process To identify information gaps and the need for information To communicate progress on the -20% reduction and effectiveness of the cap in conjunction with CMG To approve the audit/review process promoted by the CMG To receive and act of the audit/review results To participate in the dispute resolution/ mediation process where applicable To implement the result of the process where agreed To take regulatory action where dispute resolution/mediation fails or is not applicable timely manner To assist in identifying information gaps and the need for information To communicate progress on the -20% reduction and effectiveness of the cap in conjunction with EW To facilitate publishing and training on BMPs in association with research providers To convey the results of R&D work To provide independence to the audit/review process through representing all stakeholders To determine the audit/review process and requirements To appoint an independent auditor To distribute audit results to all stakeholders To provide an initial assessment of disputes To provide a liaison point for affected parties To appoint an independent person to assist in dispute resolution/mediation where appropriate 3

8 Public relations and media management Other To ensure that stakeholders and the public are informed on the initiatives, issues and successes of land management in the catchment in conjunction with CMG To identify and liaise with the CMG on additional functions/activities identified To manage N trading in the event it is introduced To liaise with CMG on all issues related to land management in the catchment To ensure that stakeholders and the public are informed on the initiatives, issues and successes of land management in the catchment in conjunction with EW To provide a framework for additional functions where a need may arise in the future To provide a conduit for information flow in N trading To provide a co-ordinated approach to catchment land management, incorporating all the functions of the CMG To provide a single point of reference for all stakeholders on catchment land management issues 4

9 It has always been the intention that this work provide a basis for all parties to sign off on. The work was to define and present the principles of a management structure. We have provided the following recommendations regarding a structure on which we believe the parties can sign off. We recommend that the group be established in the following way. Purpose To provide the greatest opportunity of meeting the N targets set through a cooperative approach to management of pastoral land in the Lake Taupo catchment. Method Through establishing a CMG to facilitate a sound working relationship between stakeholders and ensure that the interests of each are fairly represented in achieving a reduction of 20% N output and a cap on N output from remaining pastoral land. CMG A group with representatives from EW, TDC, Tuwharetoa, Landowners (4) and Forestry. The group would employ an Executive with the skills to provide services in the functions and roles defined. Appointment of landowner representatives will need to be agreed with landowners however it is our view that TLC could play a role in appointing appropriate people capable of representing the range of land use within the catchment. Mandate The proposed variation should provide for establishment of the group. Funding Funding for group operations should be provided by EW from the budget for the Protecting Lake Taupo Project. Functions Final detail of the functions to be undertaken by the CMG should be decided once the group is formed and flexibility should be allowed for future changes. Notwithstanding this however we believe the initial functions of the group should include those outlined in the table above which shows the relationship and division of roles between EW and the CMG. 5

10 Role and Activities The roles and activities of the catchment management group are described in the above table. In order to perform these roles we believe the group will need to employee an executive with the following skills. Extensive knowledge of pastoral farming systems A knowledge and understanding of the operations of regional councils Well-developed communication and facilitation skills A knowledge of research and development processes and management A knowledge of environmental issues and impacts, including the science associated with environmental influences A knowledge of compliance and audit processes. Reporting Regular reporting of group activities and progress to all stakeholders represented should be required. This may include reporting progress against targets. Review There should be provision for the regular review of group functions and performance by all stakeholders represented. This could be in the form of an annual review of performance against objectives of the group by each stakeholder represented. Establishment Inclusion of provision for a CMG in the draft variation will allow for submissions to be made on the concept, the makeup of the group and other requirements of stakeholders. It is envisaged that establishment of such a group would be on release of the proposed variation. EW should be responsible for managing the establishment of the group. 6

11 A sustainable environmental land management system for Lake Taupo 1 Background Taupo Lake Care (TLC) has received funding from the Sustainable Farming Fund to investigate and develop a sustainable environmental management system for the Lake Taupo catchment. This management system is to comprise of two elements; a management structure and on-farm codes of practice. TLC has requested Nimmo-Bell assist with the development of the environmental management system. Outputs from this project will provide a basis for all parties to sign off on. The work will define and present the principles of the management structure Our approach has been consultative and involved seeking the opinions of and feedback from a wide range of stakeholders associated with the Lake. In proposing a methodology we have conducted meetings with various groups, including Land users, Community sectors and local and regional government and the Project Group. A key part of the work involved in this project has been a facilitation role in trying to establish a basis for a working relationship between the stakeholders (particularly EW and landowners) in moving forward. The project has involved meeting with a range of stakeholders, gathering thoughts and views and using these to derive a potential mechanism for an ongoing and cooperative approach to pastoral land use in the catchment. In addition to group meetings, additional meetings were held with interested parties where applicable. These included EW, TLC, Tuwharetoa, TDC, Forestry Interests and others. During the period over which this project has been undertaken there have been changes to the proposed rule and more information on the operation and requirements of the rule have been released. For these reasons, the outputs of the project have also changed in consultation with the project steering group. In particular, the determining that the rule would mean farming in the catchment would be a controlled activity and require a resource consent has influenced the scope of the work. With a controlled activity the ability to rely on a management code of practice is removed. The focus has therefore been on a management structure that will best serve all stakeholders under a controlled activity rule. 7

12 2 Approach/Methodology Our approach has been consultative and we have worked closely with various stakeholders and stakeholder groups to seek and identify a range of views and options for future management of the catchment. This is included workshop meetings with landowner groups (five in total) and informing the wider community through the 2020 Taupo-nui-a-Tia program. Our original brief was to investigate and develop a sustainable environmental management system for the Lake Taupo catchment. This management system was to comprise of two elements: a management structure and on-farm codes of practice. Since commencing the work the proposed variation has changed significantly with commercial farming in the catchment to be a controlled activity under the resource management act. This significantly reduces the ability to use on-farm codes of practice as each farm property will be limited to a specific level of N output. The focus of our work has therefore shifted to developing a management structure that will achieve the best result for the Lake catchment. Key issues identified throughout the process have been raised with the project group and progress towards the project goals discussed. Progress by EW in further defining the mechanisms by which the proposed variation would work have been considered and incorporated in the work undertaken. The findings and results of this work are presented in this report. 3 Initial stakeholder meetings Initial introductory meetings were held with the following stakeholder groups: Environment Waikato Taupo Lake Care Taupo District Council The Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board Forestry Interests Ministry for the Environment. These initial meetings were used to introduce the project and concept of a management regime where this had not previously been covered, seek the views of these organisations as to how such a regime may operate and discuss the issues that will lead to the success of such a regime or otherwise. There was general consensus that a land management regime would have a greater chance of success where there was a high level of farmer input and involvement. None of the organisations spoken to had any issue with landowners playing a significant role in the ongoing management of the catchment. 8

13 4 The proposed variation The proposed variation has changed significantly during the course of this investigation into structure. This has included a move towards making farming a controlled activity, thereby reducing the ability to utilise and rely on codes of practice as a management tool. At the time of writing the key aspects of the proposed variation were as follows: All farms will need resource consent to farm Consents will be granted as of right however there will be conditions attached The consent will cap N output for each property N output is likely to be set by grandparenting where the initial allocation of N discharge rights would be based on a 3 year average ( ) as the benchmark N output for each property will be estimated using OVERSEER No compensation will paid to landowners for capping N output Outside funding will be provided to allow 20% of N output to be removed through the purchase of land and conversion to lower N output uses or the purchase of N output. This will be voluntary however if the funding available is insufficient to purchase 20% then the cap level may be lowered A 20% reduction in N output may not be enough and any further reductions required will not be achieved with funding. It should be noted that while grandparenting is the preferred EW position TLC continues to favour a non-regulatory approach. 5 Structure review As a starting point in considering a regime that may be suitable for the management of the land in the Lake Taupo catchment we have examined selected New Zealand and overseas models and experiences (details of these structures are included in the references at the conclusion of this report). These models and experiences have been identified by the Project Group and in our own research. They cover a range of issues from on farm practices through to management structures. Some are closely related to pastoral farming and others are somewhat removed. Several in our view provide some valuable insights into the issues that need to be addressed in attempting to establish a management regime for the Lake Taupo catchment. In examining existing regimes and structures we have failed to find any that are directly comparable to the Lake Taupo situation and the management regime being considered. There key reasons for this we believe are: 9

14 Most management structures and codes of practice provide guidelines and frameworks that are not designed to address a single specific issue. Management in the Taupo catchment however requires a single specific issue to be addressed. Most structures and frameworks are designed to assist in the management of issues with non specific outcomes. In the Taupo situation there is a specific result to be achieved and therefore very defined criteria to be met in achieving this. A review of literature identified that any participatory management regime is more likely to succeed if the natural resource is known/predictable and the user-managers are an identifiable/coherent group. As the resource becomes more known/predictable and the group more identifiable/coherent the likelihood of participatory management being successful increases (Gerrard, 1997). It is likely that for some time to come that the natural resource is going to remain somewhat unpredictable (due to the non-point-source (NPS) nature of N output). The key to this project is to ensure that there is a identifiable/coherent group responsible for management of the catchment that has the ability to ensure that the resource becomes more predictable and identifiable (from the landowners perspective) over a reasonable period of time. Further, it has previously been noted that it will also be easier to achieve a successful regime where the benefits of management: accrue very soon after action, accrue locally, are relatively tangible, and accrue to those who bear the costs (Gerrard, 1997). The NPS nature of N output and the fact that benefits do not accrue directly to landowners will make the task of management more difficult. We believe these two themes have a significant impact on the ability to establish a suitable management structure for Lake Taupo. Four key areas have been identified as critical for achieving community engagement in Natural Resource Management. Awareness of the issues and the link between these and long-term viability Information & knowledge is available to managers and users Skills and training to allow implementation Facilitation and support. (AGDAF, undated) We concur with these views and believe it is important that any regime provide for these factors. 10

15 5.1 Key Conclusions As outlined our review of other structures uncovered concepts and factors that have relevance to Taupo. Having considered these and the points raised above we have listed the key factors that we believe should influence any proposed management regime in the Lake Taupo catchment. For a regime to be successful it should: Provide for ownership Provide a sense of ownership for those who being asked to participate (needs buy-in and support) Ownership will be greater where there is a bottom up process as opposed to an imposed regime Self-management will often provide a better result than a prescriptive approach. Provide Benefits Have visible and tangible benefits associated with use (may be negative incentives such as regulatory approach). Be cost efficient Be cost effective in terms of implementation, compliance and monitoring (from both the council and landowner perspective) Not become onerous to implement. Be manageable Be focussed and clear in terms of objectives Should have medium and long term outcomes Be tailored to Taupo and the specific issue of N output Have clear guidelines for compliance Be easily understood and managed. Be flexible Provide clear and easily understood feedback and information Follow a plan, do, check, act (PDCA) cycle Be open and allow for changes based on improved knowledge/practices. Be transparent and allow for accountability Must be credible and defendable in terms of process and results Contain an independent and rigorous audit process Must be well communicated to all stakeholders (objectives and results) Be backed by a regulatory approach. Be supported Ensure a high level of awareness Have an education component Provide information and knowledge to all stakeholders Be supported with readily available advice on implementation and compliance Must allow for R&D. 11

16 5.2 Linking into other management systems We briefly considered the ability to incorporate the requirements of any management system into an existing environmental management system. The range of initiatives seen in the New Zealand rural sector at present provides a degree of confusion and has the potential to place a large burden on farmers as they strive to meet the requirements of various programmes which they may be required to be a part of (e.g. supplier programmes). This range of compliance issues/programmes individual operators are likely to be required to meet will increase in the future. This experience is no different to that of other industries offshore, with the automobile industry in the US a good example. In this case the major manufacturers were all independently asking their suppliers (who supplied to all the major companies) to meet standards and auditing these. As parts supplier numbers became smaller and the standards and audit requirements of the major vehicle manufacturers more similar the industry moved to one standard and an independent audit process reducing the cost to all. A similar process has been seen in the European supermarket sector, with the emergence of EUREPGAP. While it would be preferable to start with one system that would meet the total requirements of farmers it is unlikely to be achievable. The reality is that it will take some time before the industry reaches a stage where there is one environmental and quality system that will meet all requirements. For these reasons (among others) we believe that the Lake Taupo N management system needs to be independent of existing programmes. 6 Why have a management structure EW will make the rules and run the process. Further they will have regulatory backing to allow them to do so. Without cooperation with landowners EW as the regulatory authority will do what they have to do to ensure that the rules are implemented and N output is capped and/or reduced. There are two options available to the parties involved. Their approaches can be either confrontational or conciliatory. Our belief having considered this and other structures is it will be better to work together to achieve the best outcome for both parties (This is also the view of TLC and EW). 12

17 It is our view that a management structure will ensure a better chance of all stakeholders: Ensuring that view points are represented fairly Ensuring that inequities are managed as best as possible Understanding more fully the impacts of a cap Monitoring and understanding the measurement tools being used Ensuring relevant and timely R&D is completed Monitoring/understanding the 20% reduction required and progress Understanding current and future impacts on a landowners business. 7 Landowner meetings (Round 1) 7.1 Process Two members of the research team met for 2 to 3 hours each with three separate landholder groups dairy farmers (6 dairy farms were represented), sheep, beef and deer farms (15), and Maori Trusts and Incorporations (4) - on the 1 st,2 nd and 3 rd of June. In each case the landowners were asked to accept that the outflow of N from their farms would be restricted by some means or other and that sometime in the future they would be expected to farm in an environment where N emissions from their farm would be monitored, and they would be expected to monitor and report activities on their farm that were relevant to managing that N emission. Each group was then asked to consider two questions after being given and accepting the above scenario. What would they (as landowners) think should be capped? How should this be done? And then secondly how should the N cap be managed? At the two smaller group meetings, (dairy farmers and the Maori Trusts) the first question was posed to the whole group and discussed back and forward in a semistructured discussion chaired by the research team. After some discussion the second question was posed and then discussed as a group. For the larger group (sheep, beef and deer) the first question was posed and then the group was split into three subgroups to discuss by themselves. Their findings were then reported back to the whole group, recorded on charts visible to the whole group and discussed by the whole group. The second question was dealt with in the same process. 7.2 Summary of Results Question 1 What should be capped, and how should this be done? 13

18 In all cases the landholders can see and accept the need for an N cap. However in all cases there was no agreed or well thought through method by which such a cap could be applied fairly or equitably. Part of this lack of agreement related to the non-point source nature of N emissions and hence the need to use some model such as Overseer to estimate N output for any given situation, and then related to that was a lack of understanding of what information would be needed and how diverse farm situations and systems would be handled by such a model. However the major and over-riding reason for a lack of agreement in all meetings was around the issue of equity or fairness both between farms for any farm type (for example high producing vs. low producing sheep and beef farms; and between farm types (for example dairy vs. sheep and beef). At one extreme averaging current total N output between all farms was seen as a disadvantage to future production possibilities for (currently) higher N output farms, while providing the equivalent potential for lower N output farms. Setting an N cap at current N output levels for all farms would also satisfy few landholders. Those that have not yet developed their land as far as some others would see themselves being capped at that economic disadvantage for all time, while most of those farms that have increased productivity, profit (and probably N output) in recent times still perceive large productivity gains that are available to them. Hence a cap in most (almost all) cases means a real loss in net present value terms of future income and land value. Further there was very real concern with the period over which N output may be estimated as the basis for any cap. The short history of development of pastoral farming in this catchment, technology development, and recent real increases in farming returns have all contributed to substantial production increases in this area in recent years. To use a 3 or 5 year historic average as the base for estimating N output from most farms appears likely to result in a cap being set below current output levels. This will also lead to real and in some cases substantial losses in income and value for individual farm businesses. Question 2 How should the N cap be managed? In all cases the land-holder meetings accepted and supported the concept that the ultimate responsibility for dealing with N output in the catchment was vested in EW. There was a clear and pragmatic acceptance that that was where the statutory power lay. However all meetings, and to the research teams interpretation unanimously within each meeting, were of the view that the implementation and management of any cap process would be best run by a catchment management group that included landholder representation (along with EW and representation of other relevant stakeholders). 14

19 The principal reason behind the support for this concept was the need for complex and uncertain issues to be handled practically and in context. Most land-holders considered that EW would find this difficult to do by themselves given that their perspective must be aligned largely (and correctly) to their statutory responsibilities. All three meetings agreed that the functions of a catchment management group would include representation, research and development, education, compliance and audit. 7.3 Detailed Results, Specific Issues Following is a list of activities that landowners felt they would like to see undertaken by any management entity. Several of these were raised across all landowner meetings, while others were specific to one meeting. We have listed all in table 1 below and have discussed in more detail in section 9. Table 1 Representation Must have farmers on Board with farmer interests properly represented Must make sure that it is set up in the best possible way Want to be able to take advantage of N above 20% taken out of system Must have industry links (advisors on or to the Board) Need to provide more independence than EW can provide Should just expand TLC Interface between landowners &EW Form under EW umbrella as they have overall responsibility Might represent landowners in event of conflict/issues of non-compliance Must include EW, TDC, Tuwharetoa Must have good information flows Provide information to outsiders on management initiatives and results Assist in individual discussions with EW Needs to represent all. Research & Development Needs to be a strong focus on R&D Needs to allow for incorporation into N management/output levels Co-ordinate rather than perform Source funding Attract R&D into the catchment Advise on spend priorities. 15

20 Education Process and management education Results of R&D Land use in the catchment Wider community. Compliance Could use Agriquality or the like Should not be EW Needs to be entity who understands the issues. Audit Need to audit compliance management (i.e. audit the compliance monitoring) Need to audit overseer or tools used Need to audit governing body itself. 7.4 Other issues At all landowner meetings there was perceived to be a high degree of uncertainty as to the impact any N output restrictions would have on a property. Significant issues that were not clearly understood included the mechanism by which restrictions would be imposed and the level at which restrictions would be imposed. The project team felt that there were likely to be significant equity issues associated with the introduction of a cap on N output. If a cap on N output were to be put in place with no capital input to assist landowners then it would seem impossible to address all of these equity issues. Without these equity issues being addressed then the level of Landowner/EW co-operation/goodwill in management of the catchment is likely to diminish. The position is further complicated with the NPS nature of N output and therefore the inability to measure actual output. A high level of co-operation/goodwill is likely to be essential to the establishment of a suitable management structure that has the ability to optimise the outcome for Lake Taupo. With a reduction in co-operation/goodwill it would seem likely that the relationship between Landowners and EW will be more confrontational/litigious than co-operative. This has the potential to result in a lose/lose situation. While it is outside the scope of this project to address and solve the equity issues, they are likely to have a major impact on the result of the project. There were also other operational issues associated with any management structure that needed further discussion with landowners. As a result of these findings EW conducted meetings for landowners to focus on more detail of the proposed variation to the plan. Two of the project team attended one of these meetings as observers. These meetings provided clarification on various points raised in the first round of landowner meetings held by the project team. They provided an opportunity for EW 16

21 to update landowners on current thinking regarding the proposed variation and provide a forum for gaining feedback and discussing landowner concerns. A range of issues were discussed including the 20 percent reduction and how this might be achieved, what the controlled activity rule would mean, grandparenting and what this meant, what would happen if the required reductions were not achieved, how N output would be measured and the application of Overseer, and how the rule would be monitored and reviewed. The key outcome of the meetings was a greater understanding of the workings of the proposed variation by landowners. It was agreed that EW would hold a second round of meetings once a number of the discussion points had been clarified further. The meetings resulted in a clearer understanding by landowners of the impact and very real cost to them of the proposed variation and allowed the project team to continue discussions with landowners on management structures and options in a more meaningful way. 8 Functions of a structure From our research and discussions with all stakeholders including landowners we developed a list of the key functions which was felt in management structure should cover as follows: Monitoring rules R&D Education Compliance Audit Dispute resolution Others? E.g. Support for farmers/families. Questions arise when consideration is given to what role the management group has with each of these functions this is what role EW has. Several roles for each function were identified and discussed with landowners in a second round of meetings with the results outlined below. 9 Landowner meetings (Round 2) 9.1 Introduction Earlier discussions with landowners (see sect 7) and other stakeholders had involved informal as well as semi-structured discussions on a wide range of topics surrounding the proposed N cap and reduction of N output within the catchment. The research team considered these discussions in the context of other research findings and the broad concept of what a management structure within the catchment may involve. To make progress within the time and resource constraints of this project a management structure was put together and presented to two further 17

22 meetings of landowners one to which both sheep and beef and dairy farmers were invited and one to which the Maori Economic Authorities were invited. As shown below in sections 9.2 to 9.7 each of the proposed functions was described in terms of a purpose, and then as a series of activities considering who would carry them out and who would review how well the activity was carried out. The landowners were then able to agree with each of these activities or discuss them further as they saw fit. The results from these meetings are discussed below. 9.2 Overview The general concept of a structure was discussed with the following points made Any structure is likely to need to contain representatives from Landowners EW TDC Tuwharetoa - Forestry Functions of the structure will evolve over time A structure needs to be flexible and transparent and allow for change There is a needs to be cost effective with minimal duplication with functions undertaken by the likes of EW Any structure needs to be acceptable to all stakeholders and not just to landowners Landowner comments Landowners agreed with the need for a structure to contain representatives from a range of stakeholder groups while allowing the focus to remain on issues facing landowners. There was agreement that groups represented should include EW, TDC. Tuwharetoa and Forestry interests. There was some discussion on the representation of others such as urban residents and lake users however it was felt that they would be represented through TDC and EW. 9.3 Monitoring rules Purpose What needs to be done and why? Lobbying rule/decision makers Understanding/monitoring measurement tools Monitoring effectiveness of cap and -20% Representing landowner views to -20% Trust To ensure that the rules and processes continue to be as fair and equitable as possible Who does it and how is it done? CMG representatives through regular meeting and discussion CMG engaged expert reviews and landowners informed CMG representative liaises with EW and landowners informed Landowner representative of CMG How well is it done and how is it reviewed CMG Board review progress and set direction CMG Board review and landowner feedback CMG Board review and landowner feedback CMG Board review 18

23 9.3.1 Landowner comments There was general agreement amongst landowners at both meetings that there was a very real need for landowners to have the ability to monitor the rules and the impact they are having. The ability for a group to do this as opposed to individual landowners each undertaking the task was widely accepted. It was also felt that it was important that the landowners were gaining some more independent advice on the impact on their businesses, the success of the restrictions and the measurement and monitoring methods than that provided by the regulatory authority. The ability of the structure to lobby for additional funding in the future was seen as a potential role however this will need to be considered alongside the positions of the various group members. It was acknowledged by the meetings that the role of the group would not be to manage the reduction of the 20% of N required and that the funding for this was likely to be held in a separate Trust. The ability to liaise with this Trust and represent landowner views to the Trust was however seen as a beneficial function of the group. 9.4 Compliance Purpose What needs to be done and why? Determine information requirements and process for collection Collect data from landowners Analysis of data and seeking clarification Advice on compliance or otherwise To ensure a high level of compliance and accurate assessment while minimising the impact on landowners. Who does it and how is it done? EW or agent with advice from CMG EW or agent with each individual landowner EW or agent with each individual landowner EW How well is it done and how is it reviewed CMG and EW review for effectiveness and efficiency EW/Landowner feedback EW/Landowner feedback Landowner feedback Landowner comments Landowners acknowledged that compliance measurement would need to be undertaken or managed by EW. It was however felt that some ability to influence this process is important and that the group had a potential role in this. It was acknowledged that if the group was able to have some input into the compliance process that this would give comfort to the landowners that the most efficient and practical approach was being used. 9.5 Audit 19

24 Purpose To confirm that the process is fair and transparent, the data is being collected and analysed correctly and reporting is accurate. What needs to be done and why? Who does it and how is it done? How well is it done and how is it reviewed Decide audit process and CMG with EW agreement CMG review requirements Undertake audit Independent appointed CMG review Distribute audit results to all stakeholders CMG CMG review/landowner feedback/other stakeholder feedback Landowner comments The audit function was seen by the meetings as providing an opportunity for independent assessment of the process and assessment of N output. It was felt that if EW had the ultimate responsibility of designing the compliance system, collecting the data and determining the results then it should not also have the role of setting and undertaking the audit process. It was agreed that the group setting the audit process and appointing the auditor would be likely to provide for a more independent approach and better liaison with landowners. The timing of audits was discussed and the need for an annual audit questioned. It was agreed that this detail should be addressed by the management group. 9.6 Research & Development Purpose What needs to be done and why? Devise and define Best Management Practices Identify research needs Design and implement research programmes Approve and prioritise research projects Seek funding Manage research providers Undertake research To assist stakeholders discover and implement new and relevant technology. Who does it and how is it How well is it done and done? how is it reviewed CMG and research providers CMG and landowners CMG and research providers CMG CMG/research providers CMG and/or agent/ew Various research providers CMG appoint independent reviewer/assessor annually Landowner comments 20

25 It was agreed that the there would be benefits to landowners of being able to ensure that the R&D spend was being used in the most effective way and that the focus was on those areas where the greatest benefit was going to be achieved. It was felt that an important function would be to ensure that the results of any R&D and the impact these had were clearly understood, accepted and acted on by all parties (including landowners and EW). Independent review of the R&D programme was discussed and there was some thought that this may not be necessary given that the application for funding process often set clear criteria and reporting requirements. It was however acknowledged that there was some benefit of a review determining the likely return from R&D and where the best return on investment was being achieved. 9.7 Education Purpose What needs to be done and why? Identify information gaps and need for information Communicate progress on 20% reduction success Publish and provide training on BMPs Ensure stakeholders and public informed on group initiatives Ensure stakeholders and public informed on successes To ensure all stakeholders are as fully informed as possible and able to implement best practice through the correct identification, collation and distribution of relevant information. Who does it and how is it done? CMG, research providers and EW CMG and EW Research providers and CMG CMG and EW CMG and EW How well is it done and how is it reviewed CMG appoint independent reviewer/assessor annually Landowner comments Both meetings agreed that there was an important role in education for the group. This was in ensuring that landowners were well informed on all aspects of the restrictions as well as the R&D programme and results. 21

26 It was felt that an important role of the education function would be to provide information to the wider public on the group functions and achievements and to ensure that a well balanced view was presented through a partnership approach as opposed to individual comment from the various stakeholders. 9.8 Dispute resolution Purpose To assist in the prompt and efficient resolution of any areas of disagreement or dispute. What needs to be done and why? Who does it and how is it done? How well is it done and how is it reviewed Assess dispute CMG Landowner/EW feedback Liaise with affected CMG parties Assist in dispute resolution CMG or appointed expert Landowner feedback Landowner comments It was accepted by the meetings that some form of dispute resolution process would be beneficial. It was felt that having a group that handled this process would allow an individual landowner a greater chance of a reasonable hearing and allow a coordinated approach with other landowners. The ability for a group representative to discuss issues with EW would provide a more efficient approach than by individuals. 9.9 Other issues Election of landowner representatives Management Funding Confidentiality Start date Others? Who, election process, number, term Time required, support to CMG, administration EW/TDC/Govt. will contribute through fund, Landowner levy? Need to be clear guidelines and understanding To include submission process? Landowner comments The need for some management structure run by a board was clearly accepted by all landowners. The functions and activities of this structure were seen as both complex and important. Furthermore it was accepted that the management structure would require administrative and executive input rather than just relying on appointed or elected members of the board to achieve its outcomes. 22

27 The meetings did not have the time or necessary information to make definitive statements on which stakeholder groups should be represented on such a board. It was however agreed that EW, TDC and Tuwharetoa would need to be represented as stakeholders within the catchment and that landowners appointments needed to represent privately owned farms and the farms of the MEA s. Landowner representatives would hold a majority on the board. The logic for this lies in the fact that while all stakeholders are meeting the costs of the plan variation through rating it is the landowner s properties that are the principal tool being used in capping N and reducing N output within the catchment. Furthermore the landowners, as well as paying their rate increases along with everyone else are also being asked to stand the cost of the cap on their properties a cost that has been shown to be extremely costly (see Nimmo-Bell, 2002) and in some cases a cost that will threaten the viability of their businesses. On this basis then they have a greater need to ensure that the plan variation is administered as fairly and as properly as it can be. Appointment of landowner representatives to the group Board was discussed. There was brief discussion on process and who these representatives should be. It was agreed that it would be preferential for people with suitable skills and experience to be appointed rather than elected however there was no clear view on who should appoint these people. Funding of such an entity was discussed. There was a strong feeling among meeting participants that this should not be met by a further levy on landowners as landowners were already meeting considerable costs through rates and the substantial impact of an N cap. It was also felt that much of the work undertaken by such a group would be work that EW may be required to undertake if the group did not exist. It was therefore felt that funding for the operation of the group might be made available from the funding allocated for administration of the proposed rule. There was some discussion as to when the group would be established and who would be responsible for ensuring that it happened. It was generally agreed that inclusion of such a structure in the proposed variation would provide clarity of process and purpose and that if it were possible then this option should be considered. There was some concern amongst landowners that the establishment of the CMG did not create another bureaucracy involved in the management of Lake Taupo. It was noted by the project group that it would be the clear intention of any group not to become this and to ensure that there was minimal duplication of functions or roles. Further it was noted that the functions and roles of the catchment management group would need to be undertaken by EW if the group did not exist. Notwithstanding this will be the key to the success of the group that it maintains a high level of efficiency and effectiveness. 23

28 10 Other stakeholder responses Subsequent to the second round of landowner meetings, results of the findings were discussed with EW. It was attempted to establish a meeting with the Tuwharetoa Nitrates Group however this was unable to be achieved. It was agreed by representatives of TLC and EW that the project proceed without this meeting to the point of a recommended structure for discussion with wider community groups Wider community views In May 2004 contact was initiated with the convener of 2020 Taupo-nui-a-Tia, a broadly representative community group, which was set up to ensure there was coordination between the various interest groups. A key task was the drafting of an action plan to protect the 14 identified values of Lake Taupo. This plan would be implemented by the local councils, Treaty Partners (Tuwharetoa and the Crown) and the community. A member of our team was also contracted to 2020 to help with the drafting of the action plan and so there was a good connection into the community. Arising from this initial contact it was arranged for us to make a presentation to the 2020 governance group and following this present to a public meeting of stakeholders. These meetings took place in mid June at Taupo. At the presentations the project was described and the key themes elaborated. Feedback at the meetings was positive. The general view was that the community wanted to be kept informed of progress on the structure for land management and they wanted to have a say if there were issues that concerned the community none were identified at the time. Their key concerns were over the human dimension of the issue, to help people with the emotional side, and that there was a fair sharing of the burden of change. It was agreed that the next appropriate time to meet would be once a draft report had been circulated EW views on issues arising from landowner meetings Findings from the landowner meetings were discussed with EW representatives and key points presented. A draft table outlining the functions of the CMG, EW's role, and the CMG role was presented for discussion. This was based around the functions presented to the landowner meetings. This table has been reviewed following the discussion with EW and is presented in section 11 below. General comments resulting from the EW meeting are as follows Would council be comfortable that these functions be undertaken by a representative group? EW staff were in the main comfortable with the division of roles and tasks to be undertaken by the CMG and EW as presented. There was some discussion on the audit function proposed where EW felt they already had an extensive internal audit process and there was a concern that this may be doubling up. It was felt that a more appropriate role may be for the CMG to review existing audit processes and results rather than undertake an additional audit. It would seem logical from all 24