Catchment Operations Committee 14 December 2016 Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 1 Report No. 16-244 Information Only - No Decision Required SUSTAINABLE LAND USE INITIATIVE (SLUI) 1. PURPOSE 1.1. This report is to update Members about progress on Council’s Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) for the period 1 July to 31 October 2016. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1. This report provides an overview of progress on SLUI. This is the first report in a new format which aims to provide better information through summarising: targets, progress to meet those targets (Life to Date (LTD) and Year to Date (YTD)), projections for the year and an overview of activity completed and proposed. 2.2. Some of the information proposed in this new framework is not currently available and is a work in progress. Work is underway to provide this additional reporting. 2.3. Council’s feedback on the new format is sought, as we seek to improve the next committee report. 3. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-244 and Annex. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACT 4.1. There are no direct financial impacts associated with this report. However, it does update Members on a number of financial matters associated with SLUI. 5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 5.1. Consultation was carried out through the 2012-22 Long-Term Plan (LTP) submission process. 5.2. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has a key role in funding and overseeing this activity. 5.3. The SLUI Advisory Group is updated every six months on progress with this programme and receives copies of these agenda items. The last group meeting was held on 10 May 2016. The net meeting is planned for February. 6. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 6.1. There are no significant risks inherent in the adoption of recommendations contained in this report.
Transcript
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 1
Report No. 16-244
Information Only - No Decision Required
SUSTAINABLE LAND USE INITIATIVE (SLUI)
1. PURPOSE
1.1. This report is to update Members about progress on Council’s Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) for the period 1 July to 31 October 2016.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1. This report provides an overview of progress on SLUI. This is the first report in a new format which aims to provide better information through summarising: targets, progress to meet those targets (Life to Date (LTD) and Year to Date (YTD)), projections for the year and an overview of activity completed and proposed.
2.2. Some of the information proposed in this new framework is not currently available and is a work in progress. Work is underway to provide this additional reporting.
2.3. Council’s feedback on the new format is sought, as we seek to improve the next committee report.
3. RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee recommends that Council:
a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-244 and Annex.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACT
4.1. There are no direct financial impacts associated with this report. However, it does update Members on a number of financial matters associated with SLUI.
5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
5.1. Consultation was carried out through the 2012-22 Long-Term Plan (LTP) submission process.
5.2. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has a key role in funding and overseeing this activity.
5.3. The SLUI Advisory Group is updated every six months on progress with this programme and receives copies of these agenda items. The last group meeting was held on 10 May 2016. The net meeting is planned for February.
6. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT
6.1. There are no significant risks inherent in the adoption of recommendations contained in this report.
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 2
7. BACKGROUND
7.1. SLUI has been in operation in Horizons’ Region since 2006. The initiative, targeting hill country erosion, is funded from Central Government’s Hill Country Erosion Fund (HCEF), Horizons’ rates and farmer contributions.
7.2. MPI is contracted to provide $1.19 m this year, out of $2.2 m in total available through the HCEF.
7.3. SLUI is delivered by Horizons in partnership with the HCEF and MPI through a contracted works programme which sets targets for plans and works completed.
7.4. This report is delivered as we undertake year two of a four-year contract with MPI which runs until June 2019.
Area protected by space pole planting (ha) 800 820 850 900
Other non-retirement (ha)
Progress toward this years targets
On track to achieve hectares of both Whole Farm Plans (WFPs) mapped and hectares within target catchment
On track to achieve hectares of works completed (although there may be differences within work types)
On track to meet poles planted.
8.2. Long Term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan (AP) Targets
The LTP and AP targets align with the contract targets (Table 1) and the LTP notes that it will continue to meet annual contract levels under the SLUI programme:
Add 60,000 ha of land into the SLUI programme under a WFP within three years;
Support 8,200 ha of land use changes through SLUI environmental grants within three years.
We are on track to meet AP targets this year.
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 3
8.3. National and Regional Context
MPI funds this SLUI programme and programmes by five other North Island Regional Councils.
SLUI currently receives approximately 50% of the total allocated funding.
SLUI delivers works at an average grant cost (2015-16) of $500 per ha, which compares favourably with the Government’s Afforestation Grant Scheme (AGS) at $1,300 per ha or the Erosion Control Funding Programme with grants of up to $2,000 per ha.
The SedNet NZ model indicates: o By the year 2043 a reduction in sediment in rivers of 10.6% on work
completed to date; o If SLUI continues at its current rate this reduction is 27% overall, with a
range of 0-60%. o Under a mid-range climate change scenario the 27% overall reduction could
be reduced to 13% overall. o Under a major climate change scenario the 27% reduction could be reduced
to 5% overall.
8.4. Work completed, priority erodibility classes and land left to treat
This section of the report aims to identify progress of the programme in the context of the size of the overall issue of erodible land in the Region. Graph 1 shows the amounts of land mapped within the SLUI programme split into four land erodibility classes (not erodible, erodible, highly erodible and top priority). Within each of these classes the amount of land that has tree cover and the amount that is pasture land is shown. The quantity of works in these areas is also shown. In summary, the programme has completed work on 14% of the mapped top priority land, 7% of the mapped highly erodible land, 4% of the mapped erodible land and 1% of the mapped not erodible land. Graph 2 provides a further display of this data that includes projects of the amount of land that is high priority and top priority. At present the projections are based on extrapolation of numbers collected from mapping with the SLUI whole farm plans. These projections do not take into account of any potential bias that may be introduced into the projections of the amount of high and top priority land outside of SLUI (i.e. has the programme mapped a higher proportion of the Top and High Priority land due to targeting Top Priority farms). Further work is underway to more accurately estimate the size of the remaining high and top priority land in the programme using a combination of Landcare Research’s original mapping of erodible land in the region and the more detailed mapping of the region that has now been completed through the SLUI programme. This analysis will be presented at the next Catchment Operations committee meeting.
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 4
Graphs 1 and 2: Area of SLUI works completed in relation to mapped farm plan area and estimated remaining high and top priority land.
Context: These graphs show the life to date (to March 2016) areas of SLUI work completed on the various land erodibility classes and the estimated amount of Top and High Priority land remaining to be mapped. The breakdown in each bar shows land already in trees (light green), land that was already in trees but has had SLUI works completed (dark green), land that was in pasture but has had SLUI works completed (red), and land in pasture still to be treated (blue). The estimated remaining Top and High priority land is hatched in graph 2.
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 5
8.5. Whole Farm Plan (WFP) Production
WFPs are a tool for both bringing new land into the programme and for allocating grants to the various land types. An important part of maintaining the momentum of the SLUI programme is the ability to bring new farms and new land onto the books. This table shows the plans completed in SLUI’s Life to Date (LTD) and progress in bringing new plans on board.
Table 2: WFP Production
No. Plans Hectares
643 481,024 WFPs completed in SLUI Life To Date.
27 n/a Paper work with landowners for plan this year, not committed to a plan at this stage.
25 17,492 Plans on the books this year, committed to a plan, with all 25 in the priority catchments.
2 2,737 Plans delivered to farmers so far this year. This is 14% of target.
0 n/a On wait list .
634 n/a Landowners engaged in SLUI WFP (nine completed plans to deliver).
On track to reach target of 20,000 ha mapped, all within the target catchments. The target is for 70% of farms to be within target catchments.
This will equate to 25-30 plans, depending upon property size.
There will be a waiting list develop as the year continues (25 plans already committed and a further 27 farms with documentation). If finances permit we will exceed the 20,000 ha target slightly but some farms will go on a wait list until 2017-18.
8.6. Whole Farm Plan Implementation (Current Year)
The implementation rate of WFP will provide measures of uptake of work this year and into the future. The number of landowner contacts made, the amount of work completed to date and the projections for work this year are shown in Table 3. It should be noted that some of these numbers have not been regularly collected in the past and new systems for collecting this information are currently being implemented.
Table 3: WFP Implementation
No. Plans Hectares
602 470,737 Plans available for implementation at June 15, means they have had all of 2016 to begin to implement their works programme
xx n/a Landowners contacted this year
x 117 Work completed, which is 4% of target, and 34 individual claims
259 1,031 Committed to works. This is 37% of target and 297 proposed individual claims to charge (see * note 1)
10 x Indicative commitment to works next year ($62,000 grant)
10 n/a Plan reviews and five-year programmes completed
* note 1: incomplete data at this stage with actual numbers of plans and hectares much higher than this
This table is incomplete as we do not have ready access to this data yet. We will be upgrading our methods of data collection and will progressively fill out the gaps and improve this reporting
At this early stage we believe we are on track to meet our hectares work target.
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 6
8.7. Whole Farm Plan Activity (LTD July 2006 – June 2016)
While contract targets focus on the number of plans completed, the activity of individual plans is a better measure of the level of “buy in” to the project. The number of plans active in any one year can and does change, and this table also tracks the number of plans that have had no activity.
Table 4: WFP Activity
No. Plans Hectares
482 26,318 Active plans completed; 2,324 individual claims or 4.8 claims per plan (ranging from 1-32 claims per plan)
159 n/a Non-active plans; 62 of these plans have been non-active for more than 5 years, 34 between 2-5 years, and 63 plans are non-active but less than 2 years old,
x n/a Non-active plans; farmers contacted this year, x have committed to a work programme
Staff are tasked with contacting farmers with long-term non-active plans at least once every two years.
Plans non-active and less than two years old are expected to start works within the next season. More than 90% of these have verbally committed to do so, and are expected to do so provided materials (e.g. poles) are available.
8.8. Life To Date Achievements (by work type and land priority)
Tables 5, 6 & 7 shows a summary of works completed. They track works by work type and by erodible land type. Table 5 highlights the quantity (number of claims) and dollar cost (grant paid) by work type including average costs per claim and average costs per hectare (Ha). Eventually we hope to be able to add the number of farms and the total costs to this table. Table 6 shows the summary of works by different work type on the different erodible land types percentages of the work type in the overall programme. Table 6 provides further detail of the percentages of work in each work type on the different types of priority land and the overall programme. The tables contain a lot of information and some of the key messages from the three tables are:
26,318 ha of work has been completed (Table 5) with 35% on Top Priority and 30% on High Priority land (Table 6). This work has received $12,512,547 in Grants, which equates to an average grant cost of $475/ha. In total the works completed total cost was $27.1 million which equates to an average cost of $1,030 per hectare (Table 5).
The $14.6 M landowner/other share includes contributions from landowners, Afforestation Grants scheme (AGS), Nga Whenua Rahui, and QE II Trust. The cost per ha of works can be skewed by inclusions of areas with little or no erosion, where no grant has been paid.
The majority of the claims by number (38%) relate to space planting, followed by riparian retirement (24%). Afforestation makes up 11% of the claims and Retirement 10% (Table 5).
The majority of the expenditure to date has been for riparian retirement (41%), followed by afforestation (27%), retirement (16%) and then space planting (6%).
In terms of treatment of top priority land, afforestation has treated 36%, followed by retirement at 32% and riparian retirement at 20 percent (Table 5).
The majority of the claim work (876 claims or 38 % of all claims) are for space planted poles and on average these jobs cost $870 dollars per grant ($203/ha). These claims cover 3,750 ha (14% of the area completed so far) and this is primarily (54%)on erodible land with 28% on high priority land and 15% on top priority land.
Afforestation makes up 11% or 249 of the claims with the average claim being 13,809 or $308/ ha covering 42% of the area treated to end of June 2016.
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 7
Table 5: Works LTD to June 2016 showing number of claims, total hectares (Ha) and summaries of costs.
Life to Date Average Cost
Work Type Farms Claims Grant $ Total Cost $ Total Ha Grant
$/claim $ Grant/
Ha $Total
cost/ Ha
Afforestation X 249 3,438,327 X 11,167 13,809 308 NA
Retirement X 233 2,032,884 X 6,162 8,725 330 NA
Riparian Retirement X 549 5,218,112 X 3,373 9,505 1,547 NA
Wetland Retirement X 86 340,230 X 200 3,956 1,701 NA
Managed Retirement X 32 149,508 X 479 4,672 312 NA
Space Planting X 876 762,424 X 3,750 870 203 NA
Gully Planting X 153 183,093 X 879 1,197 208 NA
Structures/Earthwork X 44 123,389 X 170 2,804 726 NA
Other X 68 264,581 X 138 3,891 1,917 NA
Total X 2,290 12,512,547 27,100,000 (rounded)
26,318 5,464 475 1,030
Table 6: Works LTD to June 2016 showing the percentage statistics for each work type e.g. 11% of the claims, 27% of the grants and 42% of the works for the programme have been for afforestation (highlighted blue). Further 36% of top priority land treatment so far has been via afforestation (highlighted green).
LTD to June 2016 Percentage statistics for each work type Percentage statistics for each work type on
the priority land types
Work Type Farms Claims Grant $ Total Ha Not
Erodible Erodible
High Priority
Top Priority
Afforestation X 11% 27% 42% 28% 40% 55% 36%
Retirement X 10% 16% 23% 18% 20% 17% 32%
Riparian Retirement X 24% 42% 13% 28% 8% 6% 20%
Wetland Retirement X 4% 3% 1% 7% 1% 0% 0%
Managed Retirement X 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1%
Space Planting X 38% 6% 14% 14% 24% 13% 6%
Gully Planting X 7% 1% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3%
Structures/Earthwork X 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Other X 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Total x 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 7: Works LTD to June 2016
Area of of work (ha) on each
priority land types Percentage of each work type on
each priority land type Percentage of work completed in
Graph 2 shows the works completed in the programme split out by work type in the different years of the programme.
Hectares of work rose steadily over the first years of SLUI, leveling off since 2012 as funding stabilized.
The spike in works in 2013 was due to SLUI supported AGS projects and Council JV forests, and large joint funded retirement projects with Nga Whenua Rahui.
Changes in the level of afforestation over the years shows the complex interrelationships between government policies (AGS and ETS, carbon value), ability of Horizons to fund joint ventures, current forestry returns and competing land uses such as manuka.
Graph 2: SLUI works completed by work type over the life of the programme Context: Works completed over the life of the programme with the MPI contract target (red line).
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 9
8.9. Year to Date Achievements
Table 8 shows the same information as Table 5, but for this financial year.
Table 8: Works YTD
Work Type
2016-17 Priority Land Type
Farms Claims Grant $ Total Ha
Not Erodible
Erodible High
Priority Top
Priority
Afforestation 6 7 37,003 27 2 17 4 5
Retirement 2 2 11,635 3
2 1
Riparian Retirement 13 13 73,530 22 5 7 2 7
Wetland Retirement 2 2 3,203 7 1 6
Space Planting 8 9 9,172 58 1 44 13
Structures/Earthworks 1 1 - 0
0 0
Total 29 34 134,543 117 10 75 20 12
117 ha of work completed is 4% of target
Claims completed to date are similar in number to the same time last year.
8.10. Current Year Forecast (targets vs actual by work type)
This table is a work in progress and requires some upgrading of data collection and compilation in order to complete. The forecast figures will change throughout the year as new jobs are agreed to and some jobs are cancelled. At this stage individual field staff manage their own allocations and the details by property and work type haven’t been a priority. We are now working at further centralisation and consistency in recording this information.
Table 9: Current year forecast
Work Type WFP Claims Ha
Target Ha
Forecast Dif
Target x$1000
Forecast X $1000
Dif. x
$1000
Afforestation 1,080 1,038 308 730
Retirement 350 270 263 7
Riparian Retirement 450 670 928 -258
Managed Retirement 100 13 30 -17
Space Planting 720
199 250 -51
Gully Planting 60 30 30
Structures/Earthworks 100
25 10 15
Other 20 0 20
Total 2,800 2,295 1,819 476
The forecast figures are inaccurate at this stage and need refining with staff in order to split some figures where more than one work type has been recorded in the database.
The MPI contract allows for reallocation between individual targets, acknowledging work programmes are fluid.
Currently forecasting to meet overall targets and be under budget.
There is no allocation for major afforestation projects (JVs) at this stage, and although any large-scale afforestation is included in the MPI hectares of work target, it is not part of the MPI-Horizons funding contract.
At this stage lack of large-scale afforestation project(s) is projected to result in an under-spend of Horizons’ share of the programme.
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 10
9. ACTIVITY SUMMARY
9.1. Season
Typical reasonably wet and mild spring conditions prevail across the Region. This should result in satisfactory establishment of winter planting programmes and staff are reporting good establishment so far.
Over winter staff assisted with delivery and planting programmes, with most cases involving advice, demonstration and liaison with contractors.
During spring staff have started the five-year plan review programme (see Table 3). The aim is to have approximately 50 reviews completed in the first half of the financial year. These reviews will assist with forecasting future works.
9.2. Staff activity
The landowner who had been considering a joint venture forestry project has decided not to proceed. This frees up funding tentatively earmarked for lease and establishment costs.
Staff investigated a site where the landowner is keen to undertake retirement. However, the potential for old man’s beard invasion is high. At this stage our best solution is managed retirement while retaining sheep grazing.
Advice given regrading pre-plant spraying of gorse for afforestation next winter, a follow up inspection has been completed.
Advice given regarding the removal of old man poplars.
Two trial sites of Manuka, planted this winter as bare rooted seedlings, were inspected and as at late October both have very good initial survival.
Inspected release spraying of a grant and non-grant afforestation site. The non-grant area was aerial broadcast sprayed with a 20 metre riparian buffer.
Advice given on a proposed manuka planting, potentially with an AGS application.
A property in the upper Rangitikei has indicated it will cease its cattle feeding operation near the river. The river flats will be returned to pasture and grazed as part of normal farming operations.
Two SLUI Scholarship students have begun their summer work programme.
Massey University is still investigating the slump at Utiku, and the landowner is considering options for work on the site.
9.3. Contract
End of year (2015-16) report sent to MPI and accepted.
Financial reports to MPI sent August and September.
MPI and HCEF group meeting held in Wellington to discuss common areas of interest in projects.
MPI contract manager changed during period; the new manager is Louise Askin, Neil Williams is due back as manager in early December.
First MPI milestone report for 2016-17 sent for period July-October, currently on track with contract deadlines.
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 11
9.4. Operational Plan Work Streams
This section discusses completion of internal targets and progress on issues outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of the SLUI Operational Plan.
Final draft and follow up on the joint Horizons/Ministry for the Environment (/MfE)/Agresearch programme looking at Whole Farm Plans. Willie Smith has undertaken this review and he will be presenting this report to MfE (as the contract funder) on 22 November. This report compares four groups – SLUI farmers with a WFP, those without, dairy farmers with a dairy environmental plan (nutrient plan) and those without. – note this presentation with MfE has been postponed due to the earthquake as the room booked for the video linkage has not received engineer’s clearance.
Science challenges and contracts will be reported more fully through the Environment Committee) but include “SedNetNZ to farm-scale Land Use Capability (LUC) units” which is work contracted to Landcare Reseach.
A case study looking into the options of manuka, retirement and afforestation is underway. The subject property is in the Tararua District and the work is being undertaken by Woodnet Ltd
LandVision has provided a draft “how to” guide for landowners considering on-farm dams and irrigation.
Staff are trialling in-field data recording using iPads. The work looks very promising and should improve our ability to capture, record and report information on WFP and SLUI progress
The claims for the resilience project (MPI funded at $150,000) have been completed. The mitigation project (SLUI funded free poles up to $136,000) will be completed once this year’s follow-up pole inspections are finished. A report on both projects will be available at the next committee meeting.
9.5. Forestry issues
Carbon accounting has been completed for the June 2016 return. This is part of our normal Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) obligations with our JV/FR forests.
Inspection of forests for wind damage has revealed toppling on the most recent Ridge Road (Pohangina) planting. We have made contact with our insurers and are investigating options. At this stage a partial claim has been made.
The wind damage assessment has lead us to re examine our insurance, we may need to make changes in the future.
Woodnet have completed two reports recently, the valuation as required by Audit and a further report on the carbon opportunities provided by our JV/FR forests.
The Woodnet report on carbon opportunities highlights the uncertainty for forest growers, especially given the Government review of the ETS. Woodnet suggests the situation will not be any clearer until after the review is completed and our best course of action will be to wait and see what changes if any the ETS review may bring.
Pre-assessment for silviculture and first thin to waste, carried out on a JV/FR. Contracts will be let once pre-costing work has been completed.
Liaison with landowners re Forestry Right agreements, including one landowner who is keen to sell the remaining portion of his property.
Catchment Operations Committee
14 December 2016
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) Page 12
10. NEXT THREE MONTHS
Afforestation claims completed as establishment phase complete.
Continue five-year reviews.
Begin space planting claims.
SLUI Advisory Group meeting (proposed for February).
Six month milestone report to MPI (due 20th February).
Silviculture continues on FR forests provided conditions allow.
Continue to add new WFPs into database.
Complete and deliver plans as they return from contractors.
Recruit for Land Information Advisor to manage WFP production, train new staff member.
Landowners generally busy and/or taking holidays so it is often hard to arrange site visits.
Follow up on works progress and begin fencing claims.
Meeting with Landcare Research on SedNetNZ work.
Next meeting will report on forest growth, mitigation and resilience packages, WFP research, and pole planting within the region.
11. SIGNIFICANCE
11.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.
Grant Cooper MANAGER - LAND Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS
