(Section 21 of the RPS)
Northland is subject to a variety of natural hazards which affect people, property, infrastructure and other aspects of the environment.
Under the RMA, both the NRC and the district councils have responsibilities to avoid or mitigate the effects of natural hazards. There is no clear statutory distinction between the roles and responsibilities of the two authorities, largely because of the inter-relationship between land and water management and associated hazard threats.
The RMA does, however, require that the RPS determines for each part of the region, whether the NRC or the relevant district council is to be responsible for developing objectives, policies and rules relating to the control of the use of land and the particular hazards concerned.
Anticipated Outcomes
· Increased public awareness of the risks of natural hazards and their exposure to them.
· A reduction in the damage caused to the environment by significant natural hazards.
· A reduction in the damage caused to the environment by inappropriate protection works.
Policy Mix
The objective for the natural hazards section is to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of natural hazards by minimising and where practicable, avoiding the risk to life and damage to property, infrastructural services and other aspects of the environment, from natural hazard events.
The policy approach for hazard identification and monitoring (Policy 21.4 (a)) identifies research as the key to lessening the impact of natural hazards, combined with a strong advocacy approach to raise public awareness of the risks.
The hazard avoidance and mitigation measures section (Policy 21.4 (b)) and the hazards protection section are approached by avoidance planning where possible and taking a regulatory approach through district and regional plans.
The Natural Hazards section contains 19 individual methods of implementation that flow from the policy direction discussed above.
What's the current state?
Civil Defence
The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act sets out how civil defence should be managed around New Zealand. Northland Region Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Group manages civil defence activities in Northland.
The CDEM Group works together to:
· reduce the potential effects of hazards;
· promote community and council readiness (preparedness) to respond to emergencies; and
· help the community to recover after an event.
The Northland Region CDEM Group has prepared a plan that provides the context and strategic direction for civil defence emergency management in the Northland region - The Northland Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan 2004. The plan identifies flooding as the most significant natural hazard in Northland, followed by coastal storm surges and tropical cyclones (wind and rain combined).
Flooding
Most towns in Northland are built on coastal plains that are prone to flooding. Large areas of highly productive farmland and associated structures are located near rivers and on floodplains. Recent experiences in Kaeo have highlighted the significant challenges of managing the risk of flooding.
The Northland River Management Policy 2006 sets out the responsibilities of the NRC and the three district councils in respect to river management and drainage.
The NRC oversees the operation of River Management Schemes for the Kaeo, Kaihu and Awanui Rivers. Management of these schemes is undertaken in accordance with a River Management Plan in consultation with Liaison Committees. The aim of the schemes is to reduce river flood risk. The schemes typically involve the maintenance of scheme assets, such as stopbanks and floodgates, and the removal of accumulated sediments or vegetation from river channels. These works are generally funded via income from targeted rates.
The NRC has begun the Priority Rivers project, which has initially identified 27 catchments around Northland as priorities for flood risk planning because of the potential threats the rivers and streams pose to lives, buildings, road access, infrastructure and agriculture. The NRC is working with affected communities to prioritise and develop tailor-made plans to reduce flood risks over the next several years by amongst other things, producing flood hazard maps, carrying out detailed surveys of the land in catchments and producing flood risk reduction plans
Coastal Hazards
Coastal subdivision and building with insufficient setbacks and poor consideration of coastal processes has increased the risk or threat of coastal hazards. It is likely that future climate change may result in increased periods of storminess and sea-level rise, increasing the threat of coastal hazards.
A number of Northland coastal communities are exposed to coastal flooding. Projected sea-level rise associated with climate change to year 2100 (currently projected at 0.5m – 0.8m) may not substantially increase the extent of areas subject to inundation but is likely to exacerbate the situation in times of river flooding or storm sure. This is particularly the case for locations with low topography, particularly low-lying barrier-spit systems and coastal lowlands.
The NRC has undertaken and participated in work defining areas susceptible to coastal hazards. This work has been implemented by Whangarei District Council and Far North District Council into their district plans. Put simply, they have identified coastal hazard ‘zones' and associated provisions restricting or limiting development accordingly.
To better understand tsunami hazard, and to better prepare for the event of a tsunami in Northland, the NRC contracted the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) to undertake a modelling-based assessment of tsunami hazard for the region. The model indicates that a moderate hazard and risk exists for most of the northwest and east coast, a high hazard and moderate risk for the north, and a low hazard and risk for the west. The hazard is largely a function of tsunami source, intensity and return period. Sources from near the South American coast are the most likely to cause a moderate event that would affect most of Northland's east coast, with an annual probability of occurrence of around 1 – 2 %.
Though coastal erosion does not generally put life at risk, it does impact on building and property. The management responses to coastal erosion can have significant impacts on the wider community. The RPS encourages the use of ‘soft' engineering solutions. There are a number of examples where these have been implemented such as the dune restoration and planting work at Matapouri.
Other hazards
A review of Northland's natural hazards in 2004 found that the levels of natural hazards that Northland Region is exposed to, excluding floods and climatic events, are relatively low. Of the landslide, volcanic, seismic, tsunami, and mine subsidence hazards considered, the landslide hazard was concluded to be the most significant.
What has worked well in this section?
Where there has been information about coastal and flooding hazards, this has been incorporated reasonably well into district plans. This has led to a more integrated approach to hazard management through the district plan subdivision and development provisions.
The promotion of coast care work and alternatives to hard surface protection measures is a growing area that is achieving positive environmental gains.
The NRC has initiated the priority rivers project, which initially identified 27 catchments around Northland as priorities for flood risk planning because of the potential threats the rivers and streams in them pose to lives, buildings, road access, infrastructure and agriculture. The goal is to prioritise and develop tailor-made plans to reduce flood risks over the next several years.
What has not worked in this section?
While the flood susceptibility and coastal hazard overlays in district plans have worked reasonably well in the areas that they exist, there is inevitably inconsistency in the provisions that relate to the overlays within district plans. Additionally, in the absence of national standards for hazard identification there is inconsistency in the approaches and assumptions on which the identification of areas at risk from natural hazards is based. There is increasing demand and acceptance that the RPS needs to be clear about the types of development that might be acceptable or not acceptable within hazard susceptible areas.
The section could provide more certainty in regard to the roles and responsibilities of district councils and the NRC. It is sometimes uncertain who is the lead agency responsible for addressing the management of stormwater, including redirection/diversion, and its effects on natural hazards. In addition, there is a need for more consistency in the provisions relating to protection structures being built above mean high water springs.
The impacts of climate change and tsunami threat are not addressed within this section.
General comments on this section:
A general lack of knowledge and awareness of the RPS has not assisted in implementation of this section. The rather permissive approach of the RPS has also not provided the guidance and leadership for associated management through regional or district plans.
Is this section Efficient and Effective?
Currently this section is only minimally effective, as only limited effort is being exercised on natural hazards and this may result in problems further down the track. Information and hazard risk assessments need to be accurate, consistent, robust and up-to-date, particularly in terms of climate change.
This section of the RPS should provide clear guidance on the responsibilities of each agency whilst at the same time requiring effective integration between the agencies to maximise expertise and ensure hazards are sustainably managed through the appropriate planning documents.
Clear policy direction is required that focuses on avoiding natural hazards, and utilising soft protection measures rather than engineered hard protection works.
Emerging Issues for this section?
The NRC now has much better detailed knowledge of tsunami risk, tsunami/coastal inundation maps and river catchment inundation maps. The 2007 Kaeo floods once again highlighted the huge challenge of managing hazards where people and buildings exist.
The costs associated with managed retreat of existing developments and communities in hazard areas, or other forms of protection mechanism, are in most cases prohibitively high. Nevertheless, development in areas subject to risk continues to occur and there is an expectation that local government will bear some of the responsibility for identifying and implementing solutions. It stands to reasons that the easiest and most cost effective way to manage a natural hazard risk is not to build in susceptible areas in the first place.
Policies and plans need to be able to rely on robust information ‘science' that identifies the risk from natural hazards. The emphasis has to be on robust science. Hazard ‘zones' (rightly) significantly impede on people's ability to develop their land, and any such impediment should not be implemented lightly. In the situations where the science is not available, or there is a high degree of uncertainty, a precautionary approach should be taken as the implications of a poor decision or poor planning can be significant and long term.
There is a growing shift in focus from managing hazards through permanent engineering, to ensuring preparedness for and awareness of natural hazards, including active consideration of how and when managed retreat should be implemented.
There is also a growing appreciation of the impact flood hazard engineering has on the wider environment. For example the building of flood protection works along rivers mean that less water and therefore sediment spills out onto the adjacent flood plains. This leads to increased sediment being deposited in estuaries.
The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) is currently being reviewed. It is understood it will be finalised early in 2010. Provisions in draft versions indicate that there is likely going to be strong direction to councils on how they should ‘plan' for a range of issues including coastal hazards. The NZCPS is expected to identify that the focus on managing hazards should be by locating or relocating development away from risk areas and protecting or restoring natural defences. A National Environmental Standard on sea level rise is also expected to be published in 2010. The 2nd Generation RPS will need to be consistent with this national direction.
Regional plans can contain objectives, policies and rules addressing natural hazards. Unlike district councils, regional councils can have rules in regional plans for controlling land (for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards) that are exempt from existing use rights clauses under s.10 of the RMA. This makes them particularly useful in managing hazard risk in areas where development has taken place before plan rules to manage risks could be implemented.
There would be benefit in extending the coastal hazard assessments to other coastal communities and for there to be consistency in the provisions that apply to them.
There are varying views on who (the NRC or district council) should control development in respect to natural hazards. The approach to date has been that the NRC does the ‘science' and then the district councils implement the science through their district plans. Further discussion is needed on whether the NRC should increase its role e.g. setting rules. There are numerous issues to consider including maintaining the integrity of the science and additional costs/inefficiencies of getting consents from the NRC in addition to requiring consents from the district council.
Conclusions
There is now considerably more ‘science' about hazard susceptibility and it should be implemented into Northland's RMA planning documents. There needs to be further discussion around the roles of the NRC and district councils in respect to natural hazard management and then these roles clearly spelt out.