• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

Report of the Sustainable Development Water Programme of Action Local Government Workshops

Executive Summary

1 Purpose of this Report

2 Background

3 Responses to the Issues

4 Responses to the Proposed Actions

5 Key Themes

Appendix 1: Principles of the Sustainable Development Water Programme of Action

Appendix 2: List of Consultation Meetings

Appendix 3: Record of Meetings Held in Each Region

4 Responses to the Proposed Actions

Thirteen key actions were identified in the discussion document. The 13 actions were grouped into four main areas for the presentation at the consultation meetings.

• providing national direction
• central government being more involved
• providing more tools to councils
• working together.

The grouping of the 13 actions into the four main areas can be seen in the table below.

The level of support for each of the actions was dependent on the shape and form which they would take. In many cases, local government provided comments about how the actions should be developed, which problems they could be used to address, and implementation issues which need to be considered. Therefore, it is not appropriate to draw a clear level of support or opposition to a particular action.

Central government direction

General comments

The importance of developing local solutions for local problems was raised at all of the meetings. This was regarded as an underlying philosophy of the Resource Management Act which should be retained. The long term council community planning process provided for under the Local Government Act was also raised as reinforcing the importance of local decision-making.

There was strong consensus that regional councils should continue to make decisions regarding the management of freshwater. Participants noted that different solutions are needed to address different issues across the 16 regions.

Local solutions for local problems must be maintained. (Greymouth)

There was some support for central government providing consistent direction in the form of a national framework for freshwater, as long as this incorporated sufficient flexibility to enable regional councils to implement the framework in their own way. Central government could lead on issues which are politically difficult to manage at the local level.

One participant at the Dunedin meeting raised the need for a combined top-down, bottom-up approach because practical knowledge is often missing from a top-down approach. The community was thought best placed to determine outcomes for water management. Concern was raised by some that central government tools could potentially override local solutions which are already working effectively. The key role of central government was thought to be one of assisting councils to manage freshwater effectively.

The possibility of increased government direction raised concern for some who viewed potential changes as resulting in frustration and increased costs for ratepayers.

Implementation costs will be imposed on the community. (Invercargill)

[I am] uneasy about a raft of changes which could result in frustration and cost. (Stratford)

Overall there was considerable diversity of opinion about the role of central government and the balance between central and local government. The diversity of opinion is a common theme in many of the comments made regarding Actions 1 to 3.

Action 1: Develop national policy statements

Caution was expressed at all of the meetings about the development of a national policy statement. There was some support for a document which could provide oversight and support for councils with few resources. Most expressed the view that a national policy statement should be a high-level guidance document that can accommodate regional differences. Some stated that a better approach might be to have targeted solutions for particular problems rather than developing a 'one-size fits all' document.

Concerns were raised at some of the meetings that an overly-prescriptive national policy statement could be contentious. The view was expressed at the Napier meeting that prescriptive legislation is only useful if the problem is the same across the country and that enabling legislation would better accommodate regional differences and changes. Participants also raised concern that ratepayers would bear the implementation costs if a national policy statement was too prescriptive.

[There will be] costs to ratepayers if a national policy statement is too prescriptive. (Greymouth)

Participants raised the need for a process for involving local government and stakeholders when developing a national policy statement at several of the meetings.

Irrigators and industry need to be included in the plan and policy development process. (Nelson)

The content of a possible national policy statement was discussed at some of the meetings. Suggestions included:

• issues such as water storage, supply of freshwater, and realistic implementation costs (Dunedin)
• identifying priority uses, for example, defining land-use activities that are appropriate for particular land areas as a result of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report Growing for good (Invercargill).

Action 2: Develop national environmental standards

Establishing environmental bottom lines was raised by participants as an important issue at all of the meetings held with local government. Some support was expressed for having national and regional standards for addressing water quality. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report Growing for good was raised as reinforcing the need for a minimum water quality standard. However, many participants raised concern that a national environmental standard which specified a particular base-line number would not be effective because it would not necessarily apply to all regions due to the different characteristics of water bodies. Best practice and guidelines were raised as more appropriate options by some.

Developing a national environmental standard which specifies guidance and methods for determining low flow regimes was regarded as useful by many participants. Councils often have difficulty developing methods and obtaining accurate information for establishing minimum flows for rivers. Low flow levels and methods are often contested at the Environment Court and the cost of this process was raised by many as concerning.

Consistent methodology for determining minimum flows could be helpful in a national environmental standard. (Napier)

The risks of defining methods in a national environmental standard were raised at the Nelson meeting. One participant stated that local solutions cannot always be applied in other areas of a catchment or other catchments. Flexibility within a standard to adapt to regional situations was raised by many participants as important, along with the involvement of local government in developing a framework for a standard.

Concern was raised by one participant at the Invercargill meeting that a national environmental standard could be contentious if there was no community buy-in to the tool. A standard could cut across some of the effective work that has already been undertaken.

The national environmental standard process can cut-across community solutions. Local solutions could already be working well. (Invercargill)

Action 3: Address nationally important values

There was a split in opinion regarding the value of the project on water bodies of national importance. Concern was raised at most meetings about the identification and listing of water bodies of national importance. Participants at the Christchurch and Dunedin meetings stated that all water bodies should be regarded as nationally important and that a focus on one value reduces the importance of other values. One participant suggested listing water bodies of regional importance alongside water bodies of national importance.

Does having nationally important water bodies lower the value of other water bodies? All water bodies are nationally important. (Christchurch)

Concern was also raised at the Christchurch meeting about central government interfering with the management of water bodies identified as nationally important.

Participants at the Greymouth and Nelson meetings raised the need for information about nationally important water bodies and a clear policy statement about nationally important values. The benefits of having this information included raising public awareness of water bodies of national importance and providing guidance for plan and policy development by local government. The project was also regarded as having value if it could assist whole of government approaches for managing particular water bodies or making submissions on regional plans or resource consents.

Some participants regarded central government as having a role in balancing competing national values. Questions were raised about the process for resolving competing values and comparing the criteria in each of the background reports on water bodies of national importance. The background reports in their current state were thought by one participant at the Dunedin meeting to be unhelpful for making decisions. One participant at the Nelson meeting raised the need for Māori values to be incorporated into the national values project.

Suggestions for determining national values and priority values included:

• determining instream values before determining values for abstractive uses (Dunedin)
• conducting an inquiry into how national values could be mediated through local processes (Nelson)
• determining the national interest as part of the regional planning process (Wellington)
• developing national legislation on a catchment and/or river specific basis for water bodies of national importance (Stratford).

The use of water conservation orders for protecting nationally important water bodies was discussed at some of the meetings. The question was raised at several meetings whether the Sustainable Development Water Programme of Action provided an opportunity to review current water conservation order provisions within the Resource Management Act and orders which are currently in place. One participant at the Gisborne meeting regarded water conservation orders as adding an extra layer of bureaucracy. The issue of community values being potentially overridden by water conservation orders was also raised at the Gisborne meeting.

Central government involvement

General comments

Central government involvement was generally supported if it involved providing guidance, support and funding. Interference in the management of water at the regional level was not supported. Participants did not support central government involvement adding extra layers of bureaucracy or increasing the burden of implementation costs on regional councils and rate payers. Central government funding was supported in the areas of:

• policy implementation
• scientific research
• developing and disseminating best practice
• assisting community-based projects
• establishing new agencies
• investigating options for upgrading infrastructure and water storage.

Action 4: Increase central government participation in regional planning

Whole of government submissions

Whole of government submissions were generally supported because they can allow for a broad government view to be presented. This approach was regarded as consistent with sustainable development principles:

Government needs to determine the balance between the values of sustainable development at the national level. (Greymouth)

Concern was raised that there would need to be a checking process for central government, because if local government disagreed with a whole of government view, the lowest common denominator could result.

Some participants at the Greymouthand Invercargill meetings expressed the view that a whole of government approach should be adopted at the beginning of the planning process, rather than an end of process sign-off like the coastal plan process. As well as a whole of government approach, information and guidance should be provided to councils at the beginning of the planning process.

More central government involvement

Other suggestions included central government having a supervisory role to step in where there are problems. This view was tempered by the concern that councils do not want to have to report to central government on a regular basis.

Central government has an overview role to ensure regional councils are doing their job adequately, but councils don't want to have to report to central government. (Nelson)

Action 5: Increase central government's support for local government

Funding for implementation

Concern about the overall implementation costs of the proposed actions in the discussion document was raised at all of the meetings. A general response was that if central government is going to provide the policy direction by identifying specific outcomes, criteria for funding should be developed to support local government achieve the outcomes.

The costs to ratepayers need to be taken into account. Taxpayers should pay as well as ratepayers. (Napier)

Concern was raised about the impact of the proposals on under-resourced councils with small rating bases and whether central government would provide subsidies. One participant at the Napier meeting expressed the view that support and assistance should also be given to councils doing well, and not just the poor performers. Compliance costs for water users were also raised as needing careful consideration.

Funding for science and research

Participants at all of the meetings raised the need for central government funding for more research and information on freshwater. Concern was expressed that central government investment in water research is not co-ordinated, and does not support the needs of local government.

Central government investment in water research is not co-ordinated. Research needs to be aligned with the issues raised in the discussion document. (Nelson)

The view was expressed by some participants that the Ministry for the Environment needs to be involved in reviewing funding criteria of organisations such as the Foundation of Research, Science and Technology to seek alignment.

The need for a separate fund for water was raised by some participants who felt that specific water projects often get lost between funding criteria which are not specifically for freshwater initiatives. The length of funding terms was also raised as problematic and often resulting in unfinished research.

Specific information gaps included:

• independent research on nutrients and solutions for managing diffuse pollution
• integrated catchment management and whole of catchment solutions
• methods for improving technical efficiency
• how to set water allocation limits
• how to maintain security of supply
• how to develop regimes which result in water allocated to priority uses.

Other information gaps raised were around rainwater collection and recycling of water, science-based information for calculating minimum flows, and information on how much water is available and whether water bodies are actually over-allocated. Providing a template for councils to balance competing values was also thought to be useful.

Some councils raised the need for funding for joint projects between central and local government to address particular issues, such as groundwater quality and allocation. The Canterbury Strategic Water Study was raised as an example of a local government initiative which should receive central government funding.

Develop and disseminate best practice

There was general agreement at all of the meetings that central government has a role in facilitating the dissemination of best practice. This view was strongly expressed at the Napier meeting in the comment that the Ministry for the Environment should continue to fund and administer the Quality Planning website. Enhancing the sharing of information and lessons learned was regarded as a key aspect of the Sustainable Development Water Programme of Action at most meetings.

Central government has a role in providing tools and facilitating the dissemination of solutions and best practice. (Greymouth)

The suggestion for a 'one-stop shop for water information' was made at the Invercargill meeting. This would provide research and policy networks for information coordination. One participant at the Whangarei meeting commented that manuals, guidance and education material are already available however, the problem is with their use and dissemination.

Funding for community projects

The need for central government funding for community-based projects was raised by several councils, as well as increased support for education and awareness programmes at the local level. Central government was also regarded by some as having a role in getting involved in 'on-the-ground' clean-up programmes with polluters.

Funding is needed for more information and community-based projects. (Greymouth)

Funding for new agencies

Funding for establishing a new agency was also raised at the Christchurch and Palmerston North meetings. Options of a central water efficiency agency with a similar role to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), or a national water advisory council with a scientific and policy function were raised.

A suggestion was also made by one participant at the Christchurch meeting for an agency with an ombudsman role which could resolve disputes between different agencies and stakeholders.

[We need a] dispute resolution mechanism between the different mandates [of central and local government]. (Canterbury)

Funding for storage

Most councils expressed the need for central government investment in upgrading existing infrastructure and developing new infrastructure. This included funding for investment in research and development of water storage, irrigation and distribution systems. Suggestions for water storage and water harvesting options to be investigated were made across the country in water short and water abundant regions.

Central government should help less wealthy councils upgrade infrastructure. (Stratford)

Water storage should be an option. (Palmerston North)

One participant at the Dunedin meeting suggested that a national group could oversee infrastructure development and provide funding. Views were also expressed that central government should carry the risk for regional irrigation projects.

Lack of freshwater expertise

A lack of freshwater expertise was raised as an issue at some of the meetings. Central government was regarded as having a role in providing support for regional councils to strengthen their professional networks. One participant at the Nelson meeting suggested that central government should establish forums for regional councils to discuss water issues and to disseminate knowledge and expertise.

Capacity amongst less well-resourced councils was raised as a significant issue by most councils. Participants were supportive of central government providing a roving team of practitioners or secondments to councils to help build capacity. Establishing audit panels to assess regional plans was also suggested at the Nelson meeting as a way of sharing expertise and achieving consistency in approaches and outcomes. A lack of expertise within central government was also raised as an issue for councils seeking support when developing plans.

Provide more tools

General comments

Many councils regarded the Resource Management Act as already providing a range of tools for managing freshwater effectively. There is a need however, to develop existing tools further through projects for scoping, investigating and trialling their use.

Tools are already available. They need to be used professionally, imaginatively and [with] support from communities. (Stratford)

Action 6: Develop special mechanisms for regional councils

Comments about tools focused on the need for solutions for managing the effects of diffuse discharges, the use of a tool to progressively constrain consents (often referred to as 'clawback'), establishing minimum flows, and developing incentives.

Tools for managing diffuse discharges

Tools for managing diffuse discharges were discussed at all of the meetings. Suggestions were made for greater use of non-regulatory approaches which many councils have adopted, such as codes of practice and riparian planting.

At the Nelson meeting on participant suggested that the Ministry for the Environment should have a role in developing risk mapping for catchments under pressure and making this information available to the farming community. Suggestions for waterway design guides and systems for predicting the location of fish were also made.

The option of ranking impacts on water quality and developing action plans from the ranking was raised at the Auckland local government meeting. One participant suggested establishing water fora across district and regional council boundaries where water quality is a problem.

Changes to the regulatory framework were also suggested for managing diffuse discharges. One participant's view of the problem of managing diffuse discharges was the requirement in the Resource Management Act of 'no significant adverse effects'. The participant suggestedthat 'no significant adverse effects' should be strengthened by changing it to 'no change' or to 'beneficial change' to ensure that there are no adverse effects that need to be mitigated.

A suggestion was made at the Dunedin meeting for a moratorium to be put in place to prevent degradation of waterways. A suggestion was also made for the current enforcement regime to be tightened by setting higher fines.

Progressively constrain or 'clawback'

Participants asked questions at some of the meetings about how the proposed 'clawback' tool would work. Some councils regarded the review provisions for resource consents within the Resource Management Act as sufficient rather than developing a new tool. Environment Bay of Plenty is currently considering the use of the review provisions in this way.

Support for a 'clawback' tool was expressed at the Gisborne meeting. The tool was thought to be useful for the future when water bodies may be subject to increased pressure. Information on the implementation of the tool, including the possible implications of case law, was regarded as useful to councils.

Establishing minimum flows

Tools for establishing minimum flows were regarded as useful by many councils. The current gaps in information and inconsistency of approaches to setting minimum flows were raised as problems.

Incentives

Incentives for improving water conservation and efficiency of use, and for reducing discharges to water were supported by some participants. In particular, incentives for rain water collection and the recycling of water in rural and urban areas were suggested by participants at the Palmerston North meeting.

A reward for not using water should be considered. (Auckland)

Water metering was regarding as a feasible option for encouraging efficiency of use at most meetings.

[We] need water metering in Canterbury; central government should push for compulsory metering. (Christchurch)

Action 7: Enhance the transfer of allocated water between users

The opportunities and risks of enhanced transfer mechanisms for allocating water were noted in many places. Interest was shown in enhanced trading opportunities in areas where catchments have reached, or are near to reaching full-allocation. Full allocation is not just a Canterbury issue - there are catchments all over New Zealand which are fully allocated. The fact that the current legislative framework already provides for trading was raised at some of the meetings. Interest in some mechanisms for enhancing transfer was wide-ranging.

Some participants regarded a trading system as providing more flexibility than the current first-in, first-served system especially in areas where water resources are over-allocated. The need for central government to consider transfer models developed by other countries was raised at the Palmerston North and Napier meetings. A trading system would require guidelines and boundaries to be set by central government for it to be effective. This would also prevent regions duplicating efforts to develop individual systems.

Trading of water rights is an option. We should look to overseas examples. (Palmerston North)

Measuring the actual volume of water used was crucial for a transfer system. Compulsory use of water meters or a water efficiency diagnostic service for determining use was supported. A suggestion was made by a participant at the Dunedin meeting for the use of meters to be trialled. A pilot registry system for transfers was also regarded as useful by many.

While trading consents was regarded by some as having merit, concern was raised that trading systems can assume a market value for water and this could result in private ownership.

Resource consents could become a tangible asset if water has a market value. (Greymouth)

Avoid privatisation of water. (Palmerston North)

The costs of establishing a transfer system were raised as a concern at the Napier and Dunedin meetings. The need to consider the costs of upgrading systems and processes if a more sophisticated water allocation system is developed was raised in Napier.

Thought must be given to measuring systems if we have a more sophisticated allocation system. A set of systems for determining use and undertaking monitoring will be needed. Upgrading and retrofitting equipment will be needed. (Napier)

Trading groundwater was regarded as problematic due to the difficulty in defining the boundaries of the resource. Tradability across regional boundaries was also regarded as difficult.

The need to recognise existing rights to take water was raised at all of the meetings. In particular, any system must recognise the existing economic investment of consent holders to provide certainty and security of supply.

Existing investments in infrastructure will need to be recognised if management systems change. (Napier)

[We] need certainty for consent holders. (Palmerston North)

The cost of establishing a tendering system and lack of tenure and security will mean that it will not work. Certainty is important especially where long term investments are involved. (Dunedin)

An alternative view was raised at the local government meeting held in Invercargill, where a participant was concerned about recognising existing economic investment because it reinforces the first in, first served system which cannot always provide for all interests.

Action 8: Develop market mechanisms to manage diffuse discharges

Some councils regarded the introduction of transfer of discharge permits for managing diffuse pollution as problematic. Questions were raised at the Greymouth meeting about how to quantify the level of discharge for the soil type and the number of stock. Participants stated that a tradable discharge system would need significant information and monitoring to be effective.

The need for information on how to manage non-point source discharges and the use of nitrogen caps was raised at the Invercargill meeting. Concerns about the receiving environments were also raised.

Transfer of discharge permits is concerning as the receiving environments may be different. (Auckland)

A participant at the Whakatane meeting expressed concern about the implications for Maori landowners who want to develop land if diffuse discharges become regulated. The point was made that earlier developers would not have been confined by the possible future regulation and therefore, central government was regarded as having a role in providing assistance to address equity issues.

Action 9: Set requirements for regional freshwater plans to address key issues and challenges

Few specific comments were made about this action. Comments were made at some of the meetings about the need for better strategic planning for water use at all government levels. Strategic planning included problem identification, research and consultation phases, as well as the need to be specific about the extent, trend and spatial distribution of problems. One participant at the Whangarei meeting suggested that the long term council community planning process could be used to prioritise, identify and monitor water resources of regional significance.

The problem of managing diffuse discharges was raised at the Invercargill meeting. The suggestion for joint plans to be developed between territorial local authorities and regional councils under section 80 of the Resource Management Act was made to address cross-function issues related to land-use impacts.

Action 11: Enable regional councils to allocate water to priority uses

The issue of determining highest value use for water and how this could be achieved was discussed at all of the meetings held with local government. Caution was expressed by participants about either central or local government deciding the best value or use for freshwater. Many councils expressed concern about a system that would require them to 'pick winners' amongst values and uses:

How do you decide water uses? (Whangarei)

Highest value use is subjective to determine. It would be difficult for councils to determine this. (Napier)

An alternative view was expressed at the local government meeting held in Wellington, where determining highest value use for rivers was regarded as useful by one participant.

The current system (first-in-first-served)

There was general support for retaining the first-in, first-served approach for water allocation, although problems with the system were recognised. Councils tended to prefer the existing system because it meant they did not have to 'pick winners' which could be required under an alternative system.

[There is a need for] caution with moving away from first-in-first-served. [You] could use frequent review to determine whether water is going to the highest priority use. (Napier)

The problems raised with the current system included the inability to manage over-over-allocated resources and a lack of flexibility to encourage efficiency of use. In cases of full allocation there was support for options that did not require councils to 'pick winners'. Participants at meetings held in Whangarei, Stratford, Hamilton, Invercargill and Nelson raised the need for central government to develop a system for managing over-allocated resources.

Participants at the Invercargill meeting raised other concerns with the current allocation system. These included a tendency for allocations to commercial users to dominate, leaving little water for community interests, and the preference given to existing consent holders.

A market-based system

General comments regarding the use of a market-based system for allocation included the need to be cautious when considering market options and the need to identify the costs and benefits and the appropriateness of their use.

Market instruments could be used for fully allocated resources. (Stratford)

Many participants raised the need for social and cultural values to be defined and accommodated within an allocation system. This view was often accompanied by the concern that a market-based tradable system could result in economic values becoming the highest values. One participant at the Wellington meeting suggested trading would need to occur within a framework to determine the highest value use.

Some participants raised the view that a transfer system could not always guarantee that water would be transferred to the highest value use or would result in the best outcome for the wider community. An alternative approach could be to use frequent review of consents to determine whether water is allocated to the highest value rather than using a trading system.

Concerns were raised at all of the meetings regarding access for all interests to freshwater if an auctioning, tendering or trading system was introduced. Wealthy water users were regarded as having an advantage over others in acquiring water permits. Concern was raised at most meetings about how non-consumptive interests in water would be accounted for if an auctioning or tendering regime was implemented.

How will recreational groups compete in a tendering or auctioning system? (Gisborne)

The need for boundaries to be set for an auctioning or tendering regime to protect cultural values was raised at the Hamilton meeting.

The auctioning/tendering option is commercialising water. If central government is going down this path you need to have boundaries to protect cultural values. (Hamilton)

The comment was made at the Gisborne meeting that a successful trading regime relies on access to accurate information which is not always attainable.

Overall, there was support for considering various options for increased tradability, although the need for thought to be given to the detail of a regime was raised on many occasions.

Working together

Action 10: Enhance Māori participation

Few comments were made regarding this action. The need to clearly define the type of engagement and the roles of central government, local government and Māori was expressed by one participant at the Hamilton meeting. The need to be aware of the difference between engagement with iwi as stated in the Resource Management Act, and engagement with Māori as included in the Local Government Act and the implications of this was also raised.

The role of Māori in decision-making was raised by several participants at the Nelson meeting. The question was asked whether there is there a commitment towards co-management regimes and to encourage a greater role for Māori to engage in regional decision-making. The need for central government to fund increased Māori involvement in a strategic way that does not cut across existing effective relationships was raised at the meeting held in Stratford.

Action 12: Raise awareness of freshwater problems and pressures

There was general agreement at all of the meetings that raising awareness of freshwater issues should be a key part of the programme.

Public awareness should be a tool incorporated into the other actions. (Nelson)

Some councils discussed programmes that are already in place within their regions and cautioned central government against overriding effective relationships that have already been established. The point was made at the meeting held in Stratford that there is already growing awareness of sustainability amongst resource users in the region, but often non-government organisations and policy makers are unaware of this.

Most councils agreed, however, that although there is already an abundance of education material and resources available there are gaps, and dissemination of information can be a problem. Central government could have a role in undertaking a stock-take of the material already available.

Although councils stated that resource users are generally well-informed about water management, there is a role for central government to raise general public awareness of freshwater issues. Some councils suggested that central government could develop awareness campaigns with regional councils which are customised to particular areas and empower local government to deliver the programmes that are needed within particular regions. National templates could be developed which could be adapted for local issues. National-scale campaigns would also need to build in sufficient time for local government to be incorporated. Catchment-based education programmes were regarded as more effective than large-scale advertising campaigns, for example, the Landcare Trust was regarded as an effective community-based model.

Other suggestions for increasing awareness and developing education programmes included more education on water conservation and efficiency of use for the rural and urban communities, as well as industry. Increasing awareness of the state of water quality was regarded as important at the Dunedin meeting. One participant at the Auckland meeting raised the need for greater community responsibility for monitoring environmental quality and water use.

Action 13: Collaboration between central government and local government, scientists and key stakeholders, on pilot projects to demonstrate and test new water management initiative

The value of collaboration between central and local government, the science community, and local communities was acknowledged at all of the meetings. The importance of partnerships between local and central government was raised at the meeting held in Napier, along with the need for local government to be involved at the start of the policy development process. One participant at the Nelson meeting stated that irrigators and industry groups need to be closely involved in the planning and policy development process.

The engagement of science in environmental decision-making was also raised as an important issue. At the Hamilton meeting a more coordinated approach to working together was thought to be needed where people from a range of institutions and organisations should be brought together to deal with significant issues.

Central government, local government and science need to work together on diffuse discharges. (Hamilton)

One participant at the Christchurch meeting stated that central government, local government, other agencies and communities need to work together to understand water systems and to agree on outcomes and actions.

Greater alignment between territorial local authorities and regional authorities was regarded as important at the Whakatane meeting. One participant suggested that a requirement could be included in long term council community plans to show that there has been alignment between district and regional planning.

Pilot projects

The proposal for pilot projects to test tools and new initiatives was generally supported. It was consistent with the view that funding should be targeted at particular problems and regions. Greater coordination between central and local government and the science community would provide a basis for pilot projects to be developed. Particular issues were raised as possible pilot projects such as models for addressing land-use impacts, the conversion of forestry land to dairy farming, and whole of government approaches to provide examples of process for future projects.

Greater support given to community-based projects which have difficulty obtaining funding from local rates was widely supported. The Lake Brunner project on the West Coast was cited as a good example of central government providing funding for a successful community-based project. The biodiversity fund for initiatives on private land was also regarded as an effective model for providing advice to land owners.