1. HortNZ Perspective – Gisborne District Limit setting in collaboration and how Gisborne is getting it right INZ Conference 24/3/2013

2. Core principles guiding Horticulture New Zealand’s involvement in the FWAG To maintain or enhance existing levels of access and reliability to water for existing users and provide for food production values Retain a good level of water quality in the Gisborne region, to allow the continued use of the region’s resources by the Gisborne community for a range of social, cultural, recreational and economic activities Seek opportunities to develop storage in line with the above two principles Our underlying goal is to ensure that growers can effectively and sustainably add value to the Gisborne community

3. Fruit and Vegetable Production Nodes 2.5 Value of Water The value of water used for irrigation on the Poverty Bay flats is approximately $11.3 million dollars per annum. This is the net gross margin of the land with irrigation minus the net gross margin of the land without irrigation. Download the report here

4. Collaboration in other areas National: Land and Water Forum – small group + allocation and governance subgroups Canterbury: Preferred approach Group, PAG Tasman: Collaborative forum, (exploration of the concept of values) Auckland: Rural Advisory Panel (+ wider RILG / EDS workshops) Gisborne: Fresh Water Advisory Group Hawkes Bay: Support for TANK + Pan Sector Group Tasman: Support for Waimea Catchment Collaborative Stakeholder Group members Canterbury / Selwyn: Support to Zone Committee members Wellington: Support to Feds (Whaitua for Wairarapa) Waikato: Healthy Rivers Coalition TIME 1.The number of collaborative processes are going to increase exponentially over the next five years 2.Some of these processes are being driven by Council appointing community representation. Some are allowing their communities to represent themselves. 3.In our experience allowing communities to choose their own leadership is preferable

5. MEMBERS

6. Gisborne process No first generation water plan - management by consents (five year term) Some provisions in general plan Initial contact made over flows NES – instability recognised NPS established - requirement to set limits Freshwater Advisory Group formed – Committee in Council Pat Seymour Chair Officers – secretariat Representation (see Box) Process (see Dennis presentation) 8 December 2010 (first meeting). Meetings every 2 months since. Envirolink reports (NIWA ) GNS Groundwater Report + Aqualinc peer review* HortNZ / GDC collaboration on economic value of Irrigation report Identification of Values and draft freshwater Objectives Now spatially prioritising Values in Waipaoa (first) Draft policies now up for debate Fish passage project *Groundwater Review by Aqualinc hereGroundwater Review by Aqualinc here

7. Key Issues / Challenges / Responses Groundwater – running out! (fifty years) Surface water no substitute Only ~2600ha of a possible 12,000 irrigated Significant opportunities for development (settlements) More information required Managed aquifer recharge investigation CIF application / project manager appointed Values – not identified in RIVAS Irrigation regarded entirely as an economic value Not inclusive enough Public consultation identified wide support for food production and food security values Made additional to RIVAS values Prioritisation of values New tools established Key Risk: Someone still has the right to challenge the plan produced through the Court

8. What is going right? Transparency - Council has programmed each step of the process and is signalling in advance Council support: senior leadership and officers involved Inclusiveness: Wide range of views represented Engagement: Public meetings have been held at the production of key pieces of work (2 consultation rounds so far) Slow beginnings: Information collection, gap identification and potential friction points recognised early Process: Limit identification is following significant background work to identify the positives and negatives and the effect on the important values Leadership: parties (not just Council and officers are showing a willingness to adapt their views Best available science

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

10. Limit setting - Gisborne For Irrigation NZ April 8 th 2014

11. How are we doing it? Based on freshwater values Collaboratively Knowledge-based

12. Where are we up to? Technical reports Vision for water management Waipaoa Catchment Plan started. Developing an implementation plan for managing water resources

14. We need to determine allocatable volumes of water We need better information on actual use of water Water use needs to be more targeted for crop requirement, soil type and climate.

15. Water Demand

17. Limit setting Identifying values -RIVAS Consultation round with values and objective statements Objectives Framework –National direction with the ability to identify and manage local issues. –Process of setting limits based on the values associated with each catchment or waterbody.

18. RIVAS Values City water (N) Tangata whenua values Native fish (Similar to Nat Character?) Fish passage – 15 sites Natural character - bush catchment (R)(L) Irrigation (R) Native birds (L) Recreation near mouth

19. Overview of significance test Values for each sub-catchment provided. Values ranked for each sub-catchment based on their ‘significance’ ie how well they are / should be provided for: Low, Moderate, High. Council staff provide indicative results for how well values are currently provided for. FWAG asked to consider how they want each value to be provided for in the future.

20. Test results Approx half of FWAG provided results Results based on aspirational significance (how well we want the value to be provided for in the future) Respondents assessments collated and summarised General trends: – Upper sub-catchments = in-stream values prominent – Lower Waipaoa = abstractive values prominent – Te Arai = balance of abstractive and in-stream values – Taruheru = recreational (in-stream) values prominent

21. Wharekopae sub-catchment 6 5 4 3 2 1 LMHLMHLMHLMHLMHLMH Ecosystem health Natural form and character Human health Fishing Contact recreation Animal drinking water Waikanae sub-catchment 6 5 4 3 2 1 LMHLMHLMHLMH Ecosystem health Flood protection Human health Mahinga kai Indicative result: In-stream values prominent – Ecosystem health – Natural form – human health Indicative result: In-stream values prominent – Ecosystem health Flood protection also prominent

23. Early days - but Collaborative process is slow It is bringing diverse groups nearer to a common view There will be a (first) catchment plan this year. Local values will be reflected The result may be unique to the East Coast.