1. Chris Keeling Senior Strategy Advisor
Environment Canterbury’s approach to managing the risk of archaeological damage
Chris Keeling
Senior Strategy Advisor

2. Purpose & objective
Protect archaeological sites while undertaking day-to-day activities
Ensure compliance with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
Develop a standardised, logical and easy-to-use protocol
Ultimate purpose to be cognisant of and protect archaeological sites when undertaking activities such as fencing, planting, engineering works, borehole drilling, etc.
Also:
ensure compliance with the HNZPTA
inform project feasibility assessments, particularly for low-dollar value projects
reduce the potential for unanticipated delays and costs
strengthen the relationship between Environment Canterbury and Heritage New Zealand

3. Opportunities Safeguarding our regions’ archaeological sites
Consistency across the organisation
Creating a template for any organisation to use
Working more closely with Heritage NZ and Rūnanga
We can undertake the activities we need to, while making sure we safeguard our heritage. This an opportunity to do things smarter and more consistently across the organisation.
We will create a protocol that other organisations can use as a template
Building relationships with HNZ and Rūnunga

4. Challenges Complexity Process costs Working with uncertainty
Creating a risk-based approach
scale and dollar-value of activities varies considerably, (from biodiversity grants of less than $2000 for community restoration planting projects, through to multi-million dollar construction projects
The protocol must be as simple as possible to make sure it’s quick and easy to apply, process costs are minimal and staff don’t take short-cuts
A balance must be achieved: simple but not too simple – we don’t want to get this wrong
‘process costs’ associated with ensuring compliance with the HNZPTA can have a significant impact on the feasibility of many smaller projects
Taking all of the above into account, a risk-based management approach is the best way to use limited information and uncertainty to inform decision-making

5. Understanding what information we need
Type of activity and location
Any sites of interest nearby?
Activity risk – e.g. tree planting vs. earthworks
Does the activity need to be in that location?
Archaeological assessment?
Additional consultation with HNZ and Rūnanga
This is all about layering information and understanding the uncertainty, so an informed decision can be made.
Information may be limited and there will always be uncertainty
What activity do we need to do, where is it located, what does the available information tell us is nearby that may be of interest, how risky is the activity (more or less intrusive)?
No recorded information is not necessarily a good thing as it means uncertainty.
If sites correspond, can the activity be moved, do we need authorisation, how much will it cost?

6. Next steps Complete protocol
Socialise around potential users and key stakeholders for feedback and refinement
Test protocol
Implement protocol