THE CITIES AND THEIR PEOPLE New Zealand’s urban environment · with vision, good strategic...

THE CITIES AND THEIR PEOPLE New Zealand’s urban environment

Office of the PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Te Kaitiaki Taiao a Te Whare Paremata

THE CITIES AND THEIR PEOPLE New Zealand’s urban environment

Office of the PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Te Kaitiaki Taiao a Te Whare Paremata PO Box 10-241, Wellington June 1998

Investigation Team

Phil Hughes (Team Leader) BSc (Geog.), BA (Econ.), MRRP Dr Chris Pugsley BSc (Zool.), PhD (Zool.) Urban Advisory Group Jim Bradley Montgomery Watson Ltd, Dunedin David Brunsdon Spencer Holmes Ltd, Wellington Grant Hawke Te Hao O Ngati Whatua, Auckland Ann Magee Waitakere City Council, Waitakere City Vanessa Moore Air New Zealand, Auckland Stuart Niven Wellington City Council, Wellington Roland Sapsford Consultant, Wellington Isobel Stout Christchurch City Council, Christchurch Consultant (analysis of submissions) Alison Gray Gray Matter Research Ltd, Wellington Cover and Ecological Footprint Illustrations William McDonald Illustrator, Wellington Peer Reviewers Graham Bush University of Auckland Prof Peter Newman Murdoch University, Western Australia Ken Tremaine KPMG, Auckland Gill James (Solicitor), Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Bob McClymont (Director Citizens Concerns) Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Editing and layout Jeanne M Boland Capstone Consultants, Wellington Acknowledgments The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and his investigation team would like to thank the many individuals who generously assisted with this investigation by providing information and comments. We would like to thank Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch City Councils for their use of photographs, which appear in this report. A full list of organisations and individuals consulted appears as appendix 1 of this report. Bibliographic reference Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 1998. The cities and their people. New Zealand’s urban environment. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. This document may be copied provided that the source is acknowledged. ISBN 0-908804-82-2

PREFACE In my 1997 strategic plan, Future Directions, I indicated that I would focus on the urban environment and the enormous challenges of creating sustainable urban ecosystems. New Zealand is coming of age in the sense that in little more than a century we have moved from being a predominantly rural, natural resource-based nation, to a predominantly urban people with a much more diverse range of wealth-generating businesses. While this is no different from many other nations’ evolution, New Zealand has, in common with Australia, compressed this transition into an extremely short timeframe. As a consequence, I believe we are still getting to grips with the challenges and opportunities of the New Zealand city and town. Cities are clearly very complex, highly managed ecosystems. Successful cities in economic, social and environmental terms appear to be those that, like a good business, have leaders with vision, good strategic planning, and strong partnerships between city government (the city business), community and commerce. This partnership is essential because urban areas require high levels of infrastructure investment - frequently across a wider range of systems than rural areas, which tend to have high investment in roading infrastructures. The significant risk in many parts of urban New Zealand is the under investment in urban infrastructures and the lack of a cohesive approach to its evolution. Cities and towns, like businesses, need ongoing investment in their plant: water, waste management, transport, libraries, sports fields, museums etc. Urban areas need the capacity to craft visions for the future, plan for the realisation of those visions and, of course invest in the infrastructure to achieve it all. Many of New Zealand’s urban authorities have faltered in all these areas, not helped by persistent central government criticism of some of their efforts and the investments needed to achieve them. An ongoing strategic risk is the lack of clear central government, local government and community partnerships in terms of how all this should be achieved. The debates about roading reform and the future of the Auckland Regional Services Trust are classic examples of the tension between central government, local government and communities in terms of infrastructure investment and management of the environment. The recently released Draft Regional Growth Strategy for Auckland is, however, a positive example of how our thinking about our urban systems needs to proceed.

In this report I have identified the challenges and some of the opportunities for improving the environmental qualities of our urban systems and, even more importantly, the whole thrust of sustainable development in an urban context. More attention needs to be given to improving the quality of the urban environment and the quality of life for all urban people and communities. My aim with this investigation is to stimulate debate on the ways forward and provide a basis for future studies of needs and opportunities.

Dr J. Morgan Williams Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • This is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s first investigation of the

management of the urban environment; an area of work foreshadowed in the strategic plan, Future Directions. Given the broad nature of the topic, and the complexity of urban environmental issues, work has begun with this overview.

• This report investigates the state of the urban environment, and identifies the key issues,

strategic risks and poses a series of questions regarding how we may advance the sustainable development of our cities and towns. This information will be used to focus future work by both this office, and other agencies.

• In this report “urban” is defined as the spatial area including the central business district,

the inner city, industrial and commercial areas, suburban areas and peri-urban areas. • The findings of this investigation highlight the need to increase the focus on, and level

of debate about, how to progress sustainable development and urban sustainability. It is clear there is a need to be more proactive as a society, if New Zealand’s urban evolution is to deliver the environmental qualities and urban system efficiencies that are within our grasp.

• Sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. It can also be described as “getting more, from less, for longer”.

• The concept of sustainable development has not been widely adopted or implemented in

New Zealand despite the enormous influence of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the concept is not “owned” by politicians or key agencies. The broad goals of sustainable development (in contrast to sustainable management) are not a feature of any legislation or policy, and Agenda 21 is not widely supported. This means that local communities and businesses are not adequately informed of opportunities to improve the quality of life and urban environments.

• The global Agenda 21 programme that New Zealand has adopted post-Rio provides one

framework for a sustainable development focus. Unfortunately, it has received little attention by Central Government and it has been embraced by only a few local authorities.

Sustainable urban development • With a few notable local exceptions, the concept of sustainable urban development is

largely being ignored in New Zealand, with a lack of leadership and vision particularly at the national level. Sustainable urban development involves improving the efficiency of resource use, reducing waste and addressing environmental, economic, and social issues in an integrated way.

• As our urban population has become more affluent, our per capita demand for land,

housing, energy, transport, and goods and services has increased. More waste has been generated. These per capita trends affect the quality of urban life (ie eroding of amenity

and heritage values and adverse affects on the health,wealth and well-being of communities).

• Decoupling increases in our quality of life (well-being) from increasing resource

consumption and waste production is a significant challenge for New Zealand. That is the fundamental challenge of sustainable development.

• The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical

resources, principally through the management of effects. However, effects-based management does not address the nature and efficiency of resource use with insufficient emphasis on issues relating to the health and well-being of people and communities.

• Moving towards sustainable development necessitates greater efficiencies in resource use

and not just managing effects. With increased efficiencies there will be substantial cost savings to be made by businesses, the wider community and government (eg reducing the quantity of imports of raw materials, cost savings of improving health and well-being, less waste, and greater reuse of materials).

The urban community • Critical to future urban sustainability will be greatly enhancing the role of the community

and participatory democracy. A major challenge exists at all levels of government to find new and creative ways to inform and empower communities, to involve them in decision-making, and to enable them to make choices in an efficient and effective way.

• Education about the value of urban areas, the elements of improved urban sustainability

and civics is urgently needed to improve appreciation of what sustainable development is, and can be and to identify opportunities for progress. Consumers require more information to enable them to make choices about goods and services that contribute to advancing sustainability. Businesses need to be more involved and better informed about the practical applications of sustainable development.

• The liveability of urban areas stems from unique combinations of amenity values (open

space, design features, urban vegetation); historic and cultural heritage; location; and intangibles such as character, landscape, and “sense of place”.

• The value of Liveability issues and the importance of good urban design are not adequately

recognised in management approaches, policy or legislation. The provisions of the RMA that address amenity values and the interactions between development and the environment (including people and communities) are essential and they must be retained.

• Urbanisation can lead to health problems from poor living conditions and inadequate

access to basic necessities of life. There is no doubting the health benefits of environmental factors associated with good air quality; safe, secure and quality housing; safe drinking water; access to open space, and safe management of chemicals and hazardous substances. The ongoing review of the Health Act 1956 must be completed to clarify roles, improve management of risk and obtain better outcomes for public health.

• Well maintained infrastructure is critical for ensuring the quality of the urban environment. The ‘polluter pays-user pays’ principle needs to be applied more extensively to fund the full costs of infrastructure (ie construction, maintenance and operating costs) including environmental costs.

• Increased attention needs to be given to integrate the management of urban transport

systems with wider environmental management. Road pricing, energy use, vehicle emissions, mobility, access and community issues need to be addressed, with more attention focused on alternatives to car based transport.

Information • There is information about our urban environments, but it is dispersed, of variable quality

and lacks integration and analysis. Awareness of what does exist is also poor. The absence of national support and coordinating agencies has resulted in low levels of quality information and very limited funding for urban research.

• The State of New Zealand’s Environment report (1997) is a valuable document, but it does

not adequately address urban sustainability issues, or the integration of social and economic influences on the biophysical environment. Similarly, our environmental indicators programme is not yet adequately addressing urban sustainability issues.

A new agenda • The sustainable development agenda is no longer one that New Zealand has any real

choice over, it is now a global agenda, with increasingly challenging global “performance targets”. New Zealand is entering a new era of globalisation. Global competition is shifting the focus from countries onto cities. This gives local communities an important opportunity to provide creative local solutions for sustainable development.

• Sustainable development of New Zealand’s urban environments has been plagued by a

lack of vision, lack of concern (‘urban denial’), and a history of many (small) starts but few finishes. Decision makers may be unaware of how our current attitude to urban issues and sustainable development is in conflict with that espoused by international organisations (eg the United Nations and the OECD) and other countries and target markets that are considered important. This attitude is a strategic risk for the environment, the economy, and the well-being and resilience of urban communities.

There are opportunities for New Zealand to progress sustainable development through: • central government preparing a strong national sustainable development strategy that

specifically recognises the requirements for creating more sustainable urban environments (eg addressing resource use, eco-efficiency and integrated management of environmental, economic and social issues);

• local government working with their communities of interest in resourced, well-managed

partnerships to address urban sustainability issues; and • requiring a government agency to provide national support (including funding) and

coordination of research and information on urban sustainability.

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 A report roadmap 1.2 Sustainable urban development 1.3 The New Zealand urban environment 1.4 Why is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment doing this work? 1.5 Methodology 2. THE URBAN ISSUES PAPER AND SUBMISSIONS 2.1 Summary of the urban Issues Paper 2.2 Summary of submissions 3. THE STATE OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Assessment approaches 3.2 A metabolism flow model for our urban areas

3.2.1 Resource inputs 3.2.2 Social-economic drivers 3.2.3 Waste outputs

3.2.4 Liveability 3.3 National state of the urban environment reporting 3.4 Local state of the urban environment reporting 3.5 Other urban environment reporting 3.6 Conclusion 4. KEY URBAN ISSUES 4.1 Governance and vision 4.2 Partnership 4.3 The urban community and participation 4.4 Management of growth 4.5 Liveability, amenity values and heritage 4.6 Public/environmental health 4.7 Infrastructure and transport systems 4.8 Energy efficiency and waste management 4.9 Monitoring and indicators 4.11 Urban sustainability research 5. THE CRITICAL ISSUES AND THE WAY FORWARD 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Summary of sustainable urban development issues and trends 5.3 The critical urban issues

5.3.1 Sustainable urban development 5.3.2 the role of Agenda 21 5.3.3 Leadership, vision and governance 5.3.4 Sustainable urban communities 5.3.5 Liveability and quality of life 5.3.6 Sustainable transport and eco-efficiency 5.3.7 Future research and innovation priorities

5.4 Priority areas for investigation 6. KEY MESSAGES Glossary References Appendix 1 Organisations and individuals consulted in the preparation of this report Appendix 2 List of submitters Appendix 3 The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21

Intended outcomes from the investigation

It is anticipated that the investigation will have the following internal and external outcomes:

Internal outcomes • the development of a database of contacts who are involved with the management of the

urban environment; • the identification of significant issues affecting the urban environment (ie through the

submissions analysis and the overview report); and • the identification of likely priority areas for future urban investigations by the

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. External outcomes • greater public awareness of the significant issues affecting the urban environment (ie

through the submissions analysis and the overview report); • increased recognition by Parliament, local government and other decision-makers of the

need to debate and respond to sustainable development issues in urban/suburban areas (ie as part of the investigation process, through the release of the report and subsequent presentations and investigations);

• the provision of a resource document for other agencies/researchers; and • increased recognition of the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

in undertaking strategic environmental/sustainable development investigations.

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 A report roadmap

This report provides an overview of the management of the urban environment in New Zealand and identifies and prioritises issues to be explored in future investigations. It has taken a sweeping review of a large number of different issues and sectors. It has been purposely written for Parliament, local government, other decision makers and researchers, in order to inform and provide an agenda for future action. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the report with background on New

Zealand’s urban environment and the background and the methodology for this investigation.

Chapter 2 summarises the investigation’s discussion paper and the submissions that were received. A report on the analysis of submissions is

available from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the state of New Zealand’s urban environment and major resource use trends and sustainable development issues. It shows that many resource use and waste trends per capita are

deteriorating and there is a lack of comprehensive information documenting the state of the urban environment in New Zealand.

Chapter 4 provides an overview of ten key urban issues with background information, the New Zealand context and international comparisons. The issues covered include: governance and vision, partnership, the urban

community, integrated management, liveability, environmental health, infrastructure, monitoring and research. These issues were identified

through submissions to the investigation, discussions at meetings and as part of the analysis and preparation of this report.

Chapter 5 summarises the key urban issues and current government responses in a comparative table. It then discusses the principles of

sustainable urban development in relation to resource use trends, gaps and deficiencies in current management approaches and how New Zealand

could improve in this area. The chapter concludes with future work priorities resulting from this investigation.

This report finishes with a series of key messages from the

investigation in chapter 6.

1.2 Sustainable urban development Sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). At the Habitat II conference, sustainable development was described as “a process of change which improves people’s quality of life while protecting the natural and human resources on which future generations will also rely” (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements 1996). Sustainable development can be thought of as “getting more, from less, for longer”. Sustainable urban development involves integrating the requirements of environmental management, social equity and economic opportunity into all decision-making. Sustainable urban development is not a fixed state, but rather a process of change in which the use of resources, technological development, and institutional change are managed so as to meet future as well as present needs.

The concept of sustainable development

Sustainable Development (well-being)

Social

(nuturing community)

Sustainable economic

environment

Sustainable natural & built environment

Equitable social

environment

Economic

(sufficient economy)

Environment

(viable natural environment)

Core components of sustainable urban development Economic Social Environment - growth - empowerment - ecosystems integrity - equity - participation - carrying capacity - efficiency & effectiveness - social mobility - biodiversity - risk - social cohesion - global issues - resilience - cultural identity - resilience - productivity - institutional development

The city as an ecosystem A city can be considered as an ecosystem and ecological concepts can be used to understand urban sustainability issues and to develop solutions. A city is a physical ecosystem like a forest or wetland, and energy and material flows can be analysed as well as the effects on other ecosystems. Ecosystem concepts can also be applied to the social and economic dimensions of cities with the city viewed as a complex, interconnected and dynamic system. Viewing a city in ecological terms as a dynamic organism resident in a wider ecosystem is a profound departure from viewing a city solely as a site for clean-up action involving top-down management measures. It can be likened to changing management from end-of-pipe pollution control thinking to closed-loop thinking with an increased focus on efficient use of resources and the reuse of waste (Commission of the European Communities 1996).

Urban ecosystem: habitat, flows and impacts

Habitat - humans - plants

- animals - buildings & workplaces - public & private space

- historic & cultural heritage Flows Impacts - energy - land use - air & water - construction - waste & emissions - transport - traffic - consumption - goods & services - waste & emissions - capital - flora & fauna - information - cultural change - humans Using this ecosystem model we can view New Zealand’s urban areas1 as complex ecosystems with high levels of resource consumption per unit area and high waste disposal requirements. This approach recognises not only ecological challenges but the wider social, economic, political and cultural challenges. These challenges require the development of new methods, skills and attitudes to address and change existing patterns of human development, production and consumption. As New Zealand’s population and consumption levels have grown, so have the pressures we place on the urban environment. We have increasing demands for water, energy, transport, 1 The spatial area including the central business district, the inner city, industrial and commercial areas,

suburban areas and peri-urban areas

housing and services with increasing air emissions and discharges of sewage and stormwater. This has caused the consequent loss of heritage and amenity values; intense pressure on traditional relationships of tangata whenua with significant places and other taonga; and has had adverse effects on people’s health and well-being. Current resource use trends in urban New Zealand indicate that our consumption of resources per capita is increasing each year (see chapter 3.2). There is a significant risk to New Zealand’s economic performance if the urban environment is not efficiently managed, in economic, social and environmental terms. Moving towards sustainable development (ie “getting more, from less, for longer”) necessitates greater efficiencies in resource use, and ultimately a reduction in total resource flows. The challenge for New Zealand is to develop economic systems and lifestyles where the individual and cumulative effect is within the environment’s capability to sustain itself. Cumulative effects of individual decisions (eg waste disposal decisions or transport choices) are obvious in urban areas, yet often people may feel that their personal actions will have little effect on improving urban sustainability. This perception is a major challenge to the development of a more sustainable community, economy and environment. Efficient and productive cities and towns are essential for maintaining national economic growth and welfare. Equally at the local level, strong urban economies can generate a healthy urban tax base and the resources needed for public and private investment in infrastructure, education, health and improved living conditions. 1.3 The New Zealand urban environment New Zealand is a relatively urbanised country with more than 85% of its population living in urban/suburban environments. Each of our urban areas is to some extent unique but they all have been shaped by a mixture of geographic, economic and demographic forces. New Zealand’s cities and towns started as trade centres and expanded around road and rail corridors. Post World War II they expanded very rapidly with low density subdivisions and car and roading networks strongly influencing the shape, form and density that is apparent today (Perkins et al 1993). Auckland is the largest urban region in New Zealand although Hamilton, the Wellington region, Christchurch and Dunedin play an important part in defining our urban culture. Urban issues discussed in this report are also relevant for smaller urban areas (ie Whangarei, Tauranga, Rotorua, Gisborne, Napier, Hastings, New Plymouth, Wanganui, Palmerston North, Nelson, Timaru and Invercargill).

Central government agencies Many central government agencies are directly and indirectly involved with aspects of the management of the urban environment (see figure 1.1). However, there is no central government agency that has the urban environment as its sole or even major focus. The lack of this national focus on urban issues (eg the urban environment, sustainable development and management of infrastructure) is reflected in national environmental policies such as the Environment 2010 strategy (MFE 1995) and national research priorities such as the Public Good Science Fund output classes, and the Mess sustainable management fund. The focus has been on generic environmental management that is applicable to all ecosystems (see box 1). In contrast, this report identifies that New Zealand faces some real challenges to the sustainability of urban ecosystems. These issues are much wider and cannot be properly addressed by generic environmental management approaches and the management of effects via the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). There is a compelling need to focus on improving the efficiency of resource use and integrated management of the urban environment, with people and communities being recognised as core elements of that environment.

Box 1 The Environment 2010 strategy (MFE 1995)

The Environment 2010 strategy (E2010) is the Government’s strategy on the environment. It was prepared to develop an overall vision and coherent focus for environmental management. E2010 recognises that most New Zealanders are urban dwellers. However, it states that “while urban environments face many significant environmental challenges, these typically do not transcend the cross-cutting environmental challenges, such as water pollution, air quality and land management” that are addressed in the strategy. Interestingly, the strategy then proceeds to recognise that many environmental problems “can have more concentrated effects in an urban setting” and “this can give issues a sharper edge” (eg sewage disposal, water supply and noise pollution). It concludes: Although the emphases in cities may be different, the environmental issues that arise are essentially the same. This strategy takes the view that it is unhelpful to divide environmental issues into ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ but recognises that in urban settings, the different pressures may lead to different priorities for action within the overall Agenda for Action... E2010 identifies current environmental problems and “threats to our biophysical environment”. However, the primary focus is on the current problems facing the natural environment (ie threats from pests and weeds, soil erosion, the loss of biodiversity, overfishing, damage to wetlands, and logging of lowland forests). It does not recognise significant urban and sustainable development issues that generate significant environmental pressures such as: • New Zealand’s high levels of energy use and poor record of energy efficiency, which

ultimately affects our economic performance; • New Zealand’s increasing numbers of vehicles per capita with increased energy use by the

transport sector; • New Zealand’s very high per capita levels of domestic and industrial waste; and • adverse effects on the quality of the urban environment for people and communities such

as changes to amenity values and landscapes and the loss of historic and cultural heritage. Of the eleven identified goals in the “Agenda for Action”, many are focused on the natural environment (ie land, biodiversity, fisheries and global issues). Goals for the management of water resources, energy services, transport services and waste do have urban themes and implications. However, these goals and subsequent actions do not sufficiently address the efficiency of resource use, the absolute levels of the consumption of resources, and the integrated management of the environment with people and communities recognised as part of the environment. For example, the E2010 goal for managing the environmental impacts of energy services is “to manage sustainably the environmental effects of producing and using energy services”. This goal does not adequately address the need to improve New Zealand’s performance in terms of total energy use and energy efficiency, particularly in the transport sector. These efficiency issues are also not recognised in the goal “to manage the provision of transport services in a manner that minimises adverse effects...”. The management of effects is not

sufficient for sustainable development purposes when New Zealand has increasing per capita numbers of vehicles, the average distance travelled per person is increasing and energy use and emissions by the transport sector continue to grow (see chapter 3.2.2). It is worth noting that the goal of the Government’s energy policy has been “to ensure the continuing availability of energy services, at the lowest cost to the economy as a whole, consistent with sustainable development”. There is no recognition in the E2010 “Agenda for Action” of urban environmental issues such as the management of urban growth and form, amenity values, landscape, historic and cultural heritage, and health and safety. In the strategy’s definition of environmental quality the “protection of cultural and historic values” and an “aesthetically attractive and healthy urban environment” are core qualities. However, these issues are not addressed in the strategy. A section on the management of the urban environment was prepared for inclusion in the draft strategy but presumably this was excluded with the decision to focus on generic environmental issues. Managing land resources in its broadest term is a key issue for the management of urban environments with potential conflicts between different land uses and subsequent effects on people and communities with changes to amenity and heritage values. However, the E2010 goal for managing land resources is limited “to maintain and enhance the quality, productivity and life-supporting capacity of our soils, so that they can support a variety of land use options”. This goal has limited application in the urban environment and key urban issues such as the form and direction of urban growth and the management of amenity values are ignored. In summary, E2010 does not adequately address the nature and efficiency of resource use, the needs of people and communities living in the urban environment, and the interactions between the social, cultural, economic and environmental spheres (ie sustainable development). The coverage of urban issues in the strategy is sporadic with a lack of integration. The E2010 strategy is a classic example of the policy vacuum within which our urban ecosystems sit. In the forthcoming review of the strategy, sustainable development and urban issues must be more comprehensively addressed. Local authorities Both regional councils and territorial authorities have key roles in providing for the management of the urban environment. Regional councils have functions under the RMA including integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the region, and responsibilities under the Land Transport Act 1993 for transport management and the Biosecurity Act 1993 for weed and pest control. Auckland and Wellington Regional Councils also have a network of regional parks. Territorial authorities empowered by the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA), the RMA, Building Act 1991 and Health Act 1956 have the most direct role in managing the urban environment and safeguarding the health and well-being of local communities. Under the provisions of the LGA, territorial authority responsibilities include: • recognition of the identities and values of different communities; • definition and enforcement of appropriate rights within those communities;

• provision for communities to make choices between different kinds of local public facilities and services;

• operation of trading activities on a competitively neutral basis; • delivery of appropriate facilities and services on behalf of central government; • efficient and effective exercise of the functions, duties and powers of local government (eg

implementation of the RMA and the preparation of a district plan); • provision for the effective participation of local persons in local government; • preparation of an annual plan; and • preparation of a long-term financial strategy (covering at least ten years) and funding

policies. Territorial authorities have various roles with the provision of infrastructure (eg roads and wastewater treatment) and in improving the health and safety of the community (eg through activities such as civil defence, provision of a safe water supply, recreational facilities, monitoring of health standards, and animal control). 1.4 Why is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment doing this work? In 1997 the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) undertook the development of a strategic plan to set a broad framework for the office and identify future work priorities for the next five years (PCE 1997a). Following an ‘environment symposium’, discussions with interested parties and comment on the draft strategic plan, the management of the urban environment was identified as one of five significant environmental management areas to be addressed by the Commissioner. In summary, the management of the urban environment is a significant challenge because: • the urban environment is home for around 85 per cent of New Zealanders and it constitutes

the most highly managed and complex ecosystem involving a significant proportion of the nation’s energy and other resources;

• New Zealand needs to continue investing in the maintenance and enhancement of its ‘clean

and green image’ in order to satisfy community expectations and the demands of its trading partners regarding management of both its rural and urban environments;

• New Zealand is a signatory to international agreements that have implications for the

management of the urban environment (eg Agenda 21, which highlighted the importance of sustainable human settlements, cross-sectoral coordination, decentralisation of decision making and broad based participatory approaches), the Biodiversity Convention, the Framework Convention on Climate Change; and

• the urban environment has unique pressures on it due to the conflicting environmental,

economic, social and cultural requirements of communities and failure to address urban issues will result in a decline in our quality of life (eg current traffic congestion and recent water and power crises in Auckland).

The sustainable development agenda is no longer one that New Zealand has any real choice over, it is now a global agenda, with increasingly challenging global ‘performance targets’. New Zealand is entering a new era of globalisation, where competition is shifting from countries to cities. This means that local communities have a crucial role in providing creative local solutions for sustainable development. The functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (s 16 Environment Act 1986) include: (a) reviewing the system of agencies and processes established by the government to

manage the allocation, use and preservation of natural and physical resources...; (b) investigating the effectiveness of environmental planning and management carried out

by public authorities; (f) undertaking and encouraging the collection and dissemination of information relating

to the environment. The Environment Act 1986 defines “environment” to include:

a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; b) all natural and physical resources; c) those physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to

people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes; and

d) the social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this definition or which are affected by those matters.

The management of the urban ecosystems, the sustainability of natural and physical urban resources, and the needs of future generations form the basis for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s decision to review the management of the urban environment. Terms of reference With the objective of maintaining and improving the quality of the environment (s 16(1)(a) Environment Act 1986), the terms of reference for this investigation are: 1. to identify significant issues and strategic risks affecting the management of the urban

environment; 2. to identify critical issues and strategic risks that require more detailed investigation; and 3. to report on the outcomes of the investigation to the House of Representatives by 30 June

1998. The report will: • focus on the adequacy of urban environmental information and data; • take a holistic approach to the management of the urban environment, examining the

linkages between economic, social and environmental goals and policies; • examine how values, attitudes and perceptions influence many decisions that affect the

urban environment; • illustrate how cities, New Zealand-wide, are exploring innovative ways of providing for a

more sustainable urban environment; and

• report on international developments with innovative approaches to managing the urban environment and their potential for wider use in New Zealand.

1.5 Methodology As part of the initial scoping of this investigation, meetings were held with: local government, engineering, architecture and resource management professionals; University of Auckland planning and geography departments; the Auckland growth forum team (councillors and staff); and the Christchurch growth forum team. Information was also gathered as part of the PCEs suburban amenity values report (PCE 1997b) and during the development of the strategic plan (PCE 1997a). Further information was gathered through PCE involvement with Canterbury Dialogues (see chapter 4.2) and the Pathways to Sustainability conference (Newcastle, Australia) where progress by local communities towards local and global sustainability was explored. In January 1998 an Urban Advisory Group (see page ii for list of members) was formed to assist the Commissioner to undertake this overview investigation. This group assisted with the development of terms of reference, the Issues Paper (see summary in chapter 2.1) and this overview report. At the end of February 1998 the Issues Paper was widely circulated (around 800 copies) requesting submissions on both the investigation and the seven preliminary investigation themes.2 Sixty-three submissions were received on this paper and these are summarised in chapter 2.2.3 Meetings to discuss issues and gather information were held with more than 70 organisations and individuals in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin during March and April 1998. In early April the team leader also attended the Urban Environment Foresight Workshop.4 This workshop was one of a series of workshops promoted by the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MORST) as part of the Foresight project. The objective of the project is to identify future science needs so that national research priorities can be established. MORST has requested that different sectors identify their preferred vision for the future (say by 2010) and how science can contribute to the achievement of this vision and determine, by working back, what research is required now. Published reports and papers, submissions and information gathered from meetings have been used in preparing this overview report. A list of organisations and individuals that provided information and comments to the investigation is given in appendix 1 and a list of submitters is provided in appendix 2.

2 The seven themes were: attitudes, perceptions and risks; information; sustainability; partnership;

management approaches; innovation; and technology. 3 A copy of a report on the analysis of submissions is available from the Office of the Parliamentary

Commissioner for the Environment. 4 The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is a member of the Environmental Foresight

Programme steering group.

2. THE URBAN ISSUES PAPER AND SUBMISSIONS

This chapter provides a brief summary of the PCE urban environment Issues Paper and then summarises the main points raised in submissions. 2.1 Summary of the urban Issues Paper The urban environment Issues Paper was released on 27 February 1998 following initial scoping with a range of agencies and groups and input from the PCE urban advisory group. The purpose of the Issues Paper was to stimulate debate and obtain submissions and other information on aspects of the management of the urban environment and the strategic risks facing New Zealand. The reasons for undertaking the overview investigation were outlined in the introduction to the paper. The management of the urban environment presents a considerable challenge to New Zealanders because of the intensity of resource use, the nature of waste generated, the complexity of the effects of resource use, the nature of interaction between people and the biophysical environment, the particular impacts on environmental values of significance to tangata whenua, and the nature of the mix of environmental, economic and social factors. Key resource trends indicating that we are using more resources per capita were highlighted. It was noted that there appears to be a lack of understanding in New Zealand of the effect people’s individual choices and consumption have on the life-supporting capacity of urban ecosystems and the quality of life (eg personal shopping choices and effects on the waste stream; transport choices and the level of energy use). The Issues Paper briefly explored the following themes with key questions posed on each theme: • Attitudes, perceptions and risks: the management of the urban environment is influenced

by individual and/or collective perceptions, attitudes, and values. The apparent neglect of urban issues and New Zealand’s ‘clean and green’ image are briefly discussed.

• Information: there is a lack of comprehensive, reliable and useful information that can be used to assess the state of the urban environment or to measure national trends.

• Sustainability: what does sustainable development mean in a New Zealand urban context and what more could be done to implement Agenda 21 in New Zealand?

• Partnership: what is partnership in the urban context (ie between central and local government; local government and community, business, and tangata whenua).

• Management approaches: how can an appropriate balance of planning and market solutions be achieved to provide for the management of the urban environment?

• Innovation: are new mechanisms required to coordinate, integrate and promote ‘best practice’ solutions to urban issues? Can international approaches (eg ecological urban renewal and new urbanism) be adapted and used more in New Zealand?

• Research and technology: new technology will bring many changes to the way urban areas operate in the future (eg new information technology, alternative energy sources, waste management and transport systems, changing employment patterns and hours). What impact will technology have on the management of the urban environment and is there sufficient research into the management of the urban environment?

2.2 Summary of submissions The Commissioner received 63 submissions in response to the discussion document. These came from individuals (19), non-governmental organisations (15), government departments and quasi-government agencies (12), local authorities (11), and professional groups (6). A full list of submitters is included as appendix 2. There were few areas of contention among these different sectors, with strong agreement on the steps that need to be taken to promote urban sustainability. Many submissions commended the Commissioner for taking the initiative in opening debate on this ‘important and complex issue’. They welcomed the opportunity to become involved. Some submissions, particularly from non-governmental organisations and community groups, found the questions numerous and difficult to answer and the level of ‘eco-jargon’ confusing. Definitions Several submitters wanted clearer definitions of terms such as ‘urban sustainability’ and ‘urban environment’ and their relationship to the RMA. Te Puni Kokiri commented on the use of the term ‘tangata whenua’ and suggested that the vocabulary used to describe any grouping of Maori must be carefully and consciously considered. The Environmental Risk Management Authority expressed concern that the definition of ecological risk is “in fact a mixture of risk measures, states and characteristics.” Attributes Submitters identified the key attributes and outcomes of a more sustainable urban environment. The most frequently mentioned were that a sustainable urban environment: • has good transport systems; • is compact and limits urban growth; • has a sound infrastructure; • embraces recycling and minimises demand for resources; • provides a healthy and pleasant environment; • offers a good social infrastructure and cultural identity; • provides business opportunities and employment choice; • offers affordable housing choices; and • is aware of and acts on sustainability issues. Attitudes Submitters were divided on whether urban New Zealanders see themselves as a rural or urban people, and what impact this has on urban sustainability. One pointed out that in New Zealand, the concept of ‘urban’ is also a relative one, with provincial cities being considered urban centres. Some thought New Zealanders see themselves as a suburban or even frontier people and this, in part, accounts for neglect of urban issues. Others believed that any neglect stems from people feeling unable to effect change and therefore being unwilling to act. Some, like the Wellington Civic Trust, believed those who live in urban environments do see themselves as urban and are very concerned about their homes, the services provided for them and transport matters. They agreed with the submission quoted below that the problem lies not in people’s perceptions but in lack of leadership, particularly from central government.

Urban issues neglect is not due to New Zealanders having a rural perception of themselves, but from a lack of role models. Central government especially needs to recognise that the urban-based economy is as important as the rural-based economy and lead people’s thinking that way. Both central and local government need to articulate their visions and monitor their implementation. (submitter 13)

Submitters suggested that people could be focused on urban issues through: • involving people in decisions about their neighbourhood and city; • making people aware of the financial and environmental costs of their actions; • providing workable and sustainable alternatives; • strengthening industrial standards and pricing all forms of energy to reflect their full costs;

and • carrying out a high profile communications campaign. In response to the question “What environmental outcomes do tangata whenua want for the urban environment?” Te Puni Kokiri said that a traditional Maori view would conceptualise urban and rural environments in exactly the same way.

The view would be based on whakapapa links to the land as holding a greater importance than the population size of the town or the city. It would be a view of guardianship over natural resources and scrutiny of unsustainable resource management practices in order to fulfil obligations to past and future generations. (submitter 63)

Risk rating Relatively few submissions commented on this topic. Most were ambivalent or did not understand the concepts of risk rating and risk evaluation and their application in the urban environment. A Maori group looked at risk from a tangata whenua perspective and found that:

two key concepts emerge: kaitiakitanga and whanaungatanga. Maori have an invaluable contribution to make in this area and we, through our knowledge of tikanga, do not rely on professional expertise to manage these situations... Whanaungatanga − the relationship that Maori have with the water and land − arises from a cumulative body of knowledge and beliefs handed down through generations by cultural transmission and the relationship of all living things (including people) with one another and the environment. (submitter 45)

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) believes that developing a concept of risk rating is more complex than the question implies and that the focus should be on risk management. Those who did comment on the risk rating agreed that it is high because: • we do not have sufficient contingency plans for possible and likely scenarios for adverse

environmental effects; • of the concentration of people and their impact on the environment; • of the likelihood of loss of cultural heritage; and • of the likelihood of water shortages, power failure and the threat of gridlock.

Steps The issues paper asked what steps need to be taken to achieve sustainable cities. The steps mentioned most often were: • changing modes of transport and the urban form to significantly reduce emissions of air

pollutants and reduce energy consumption; improvements to public transport and the introduction of ‘congestion pricing’;

• educating regulators and the general public on issues related to urban sustainability, particularly the sustainable use of resources;

• designing the infrastructure to reduce to a minimum the impact of a high-density population on the environment; and

• improving waste disposal, reducing the amount of waste and greater recycling of waste. Very few submitters mentioned a time frame for action. Submissions from all sectors were strongly in favour of educating both the regulators and the general public on issues related to urban sustainability. Education can also make such issues interesting and relevant by relating them to people’s values and aspirations. As one local authority noted:

People need to be educated as to the longer-term consequences of maintaining the ‘traditional forms of urban development’, made aware of all the costs their actions have (both environmental and financial) and be shown that there are alternatives which are sustainable and workable. To let ‘the market’ decide assumes that the market is educated as to the consequences of its decisions, has taken into account all the costs and is willing to pay them. (submitter 33)

Amenity values In discussing this topic, most submissions focused on the provision of open space, rather than on urban design generally. All agreed that amenity values, and in particular the provision of public open space, are critical in making urban areas more sustainable.

Urban design concepts which acknowledge those principles such as public transport supportive urban design or new urbanism should be promoted more widely. (submitter 4)

Information Submitters believed a wide range of people and agencies should be involved in collecting information relating to urban sustainability. These included: government departments (Ministry for the Environment, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Health); local authorities (regional, city and district councils); residents’ and environmental groups; tangata whenua, local hapu and whanau; urban service providers; independent scientists and social science researchers; ombudsman and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Information collection could be improved through: • an audit of existing information systems; • more national guidance and a core set of urban indicators;

• a close working relationship between central, regional and local government to establish indicators and increase their integrity;

• work towards developing a framework to link information between the environmental, social and economic sectors.

Most submitters, particularly non-governmental organisations, favoured including measures of quality of life among the indicators of urban sustainability. Researchers from Lincoln University suggested that:

it may be time to look at the creation of a Ministry of Urban Development to address the issues of sustainable development, regional development and information sharing among urban authorities. (submitter 57)

The Hutt City Council believed that:

the shortfall of data, information and methods in relation to measuring urban sustainability must be addressed with urgency...An important issue in the urban context is the identification of precise indices for measuring urban sustainability on matters relating to amenity, well-being, and quality of the environment. These are all terms used in part II of the Resource Management Act and have subsequently been used in proposed district plans prepared under the Act. Development of these indices is not the responsibility of a single agency and it is considered that the Parliamentary Commissioner should recommend that resources and funding be made available for this work. (submitter 17)

Sustainable development and sustainable management Submissions from all sectors, but particularly from local authorities, agreed that ‘sustainable development’ is a wider concept than ‘sustainable management’. While most submissions thought the terms do have relevance in the urban context, some disagreed because the RMA makes little explicit recognition of urban environments. Submitters strongly agreed that it is time to move from managing the effects of resource use to managing for more efficient use. Integrated environmental management (IEM) Comment on this topic came primarily from local authorities with contributions from some government agencies and non-governmental organisations. They noted that IEM can identify pressure points in existing management structures where improvements can be most effectively targeted. Several agreed that national guidelines and requirements are needed, along with a national vision and adequate funding to support initiatives. The Wellington Regional Council noted that:

lack of clear direction and accountability on urban management and sustainability issues has contributed to the current low level of integrated agency response to these matters. To turn that around, agencies responsible for aspects of sustainable management/development of the urban environment need guidance, innovative ideas, support from the public and government and so on. In

particular, support from central and local government is vital. Accountability with regard to expectations and outcome also needs to be clear. (submitter 51)

Agenda 21 Submissions from all sectors favoured implementing legislative requirements on local authorities to put local Agenda 21 plans into effect. Strong government leadership is required to achieve this. Submitters made several suggestions for implementing Agenda 21, ranging from setting up a new Ministry to changing people’s attitudes. Partnership in the urban context Most submissions on this topic came from local authorities and non-government organisations. They acknowledged that partnerships or strategic alliances are crucial in the sustainable management or development of urban areas and suggested a number of attributes of or definitions for partnership in the urban context and a number of ways in which partnership might be achieved. A local authority described partnerships as:

Public and private sectors working together to provide more environmentally sound patterns of residential subdivision and development, exploring more cost effective ways of providing essential services or other similar projects. Partnerships may also mean agencies which look after the social and economic health of the community working with those who manage the natural and physical environment. (submitter 33)

Partnership with tangata whenua Relatively few submissions commented on the opportunities for partnerships with tangata whenua. Those that did were generally positive. Submissions from Maori organisations noted that there are numerous opportunities for partnership. Win-win opportunities with business Suggestions for generating more win-win opportunities with businesses came from local authorities, government agencies and other organisations. Suggestions included: • developing a national commitment to Agenda 21, national standards and monitoring; • encouraging businesses to minimise costs through minimising waste production; • minimising compliance costs while maximising the compatibility of development with

environmental sustainability and community concerns; • providing information through pamphlets, papers or joint venture projects, including case

studies of good practice and information on ISO Environmental Standards; • establishing public awards, tax incentives, carbon taxes and polluter pays measures; and • holding forums or workshops where representatives of private and public sectors discuss

common areas of interest and work together to come up with acceptable solutions. Management approaches Responses on the topic of a balance between planning and market solutions came from all sectors with a particularly strong contribution from community and environmental groups. The balance of opinion was in favour of strategic planning. Opinion was divided on whether

the vision should be set by central government or the community or a combination of the two. Submissions from all sectors argued for strong central leadership.

The lead must be taken by central government to set the vision and enforce the limits and boundaries, because central government signed and ratified Agenda 21, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and administers the RMA. (submitter 56)

Central government should be responsible for providing an appropriate vision for the nation. There is a need for greater leadership which can be translated locally. Currently central government appears to have abdicated this role. (submitter 61)

A second group favoured a more ‘team’ approach with vision set by central and local government agencies and monitored by both; a third group believed the vision should come from the community. Innovation Submissions from a range of groups and individuals were strongly in favour of new mechanisms to coordinate, integrate and promote ‘best practice’ solutions to urban issues. They stressed the need to share information on local and overseas innovations so that the best options can be developed and applied widely.

For at least the last decade, urban sustainability issues and questions have been discussed and debated overseas. Many of the proposed options and ideas put forward to increase or achieve urban sustainability could be applied in New Zealand. (submitter 51)

Technology Submitters were cautious in considering the effects of technology on the management of the urban environment. While they acknowledged that new technologies had the potential to reduce the size of cities and the need for commuter overload, most agreed that this would not necessarily result in more sustainable management. Research While submitters strongly noted the need for more innovation and investment in new approaches (eg water management, integrated management, sustainability indicators and urban design), few submitters commented on whether more research is needed into the management of the urban environment. While the majority of those who commented wanted more research, some believed that it should be targeted on desired outputs, better coordinated and the results more widely publicised. Conclusion While the submissions expressed a range of opinions on a number of topics, there was strong agreement on the key points. In particular, submissions recognised the need for leadership and vision, particularly from central government through a strong commitment to implementing the principles of Agenda 21, and at the local government level through planning strategies and partnerships with the community, tangata whenua and business interests.

Contributors were in favour of increased education of the public, developers, service providers and regulators as a way of enhancing urban sustainability, along with measures to manage urban growth and improve the infrastructure. Overall, submitters sought a proactive stance from central government, agencies and decision makers towards the management of the urban environment. 3. THE STATE OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT This chapter provides an overview of the state of New Zealand’s urban environment. Various assessment approaches are identified and key resource use trends, socio-economic drivers, waste outputs and liveability factors are highlighted. Agency and local authority reporting on the urban environment is discussed and information is identified.

3.1 Assessment approaches Different approaches can be used to assess the individual and cumulative impact of urban areas on the environment. One way of assessing the environmental impact of a city is by modelling the amounts of raw materials (ie land, water, food, energy, building materials) entering the city, and comparing this with the benefits they bring to people (liveability) and the amount of waste they produce. This is conceptually similar to studying how living organisms metabolise food to produce energy and wastes, and has been referred to as the metabolic flow model of a city (see below). Infrastructural and other engineering systems at city, industrial and household levels process raw material flows and, in so doing, create conditions that facilitate liveability and produce waste. These systems also operate at varying degrees of efficiency and environmental impact. This information can all be built into the metabolic model. The model can then be used to answer questions such as: which parts of the transport and communications system maximise liveability (convenience) while minimising energy use and waste production; which produce the greatest benefits for a given supply of raw materials; which are the least polluting. Sustainable management of our natural and physical resources is not just a function of population numbers, but is also a function of per capita consumption, and the efficiencies and effectiveness of our production and consumption. Increasing sustainability means decoupling economic growth from resource use (ie producing more from less, for longer by increasing eco-efficiency and decreasing demand for materials). Carrying capacity is a concept usually used to calculate the numbers of species and/or individuals per unit area that an ecosystem can sustain without damage. Calculating human carrying capacity is complex − both our consumption and waste assimilation requirements have an influence well outside our immediate settlement boundaries, and often globally (as evidenced by global warming and ozone depletion). The ecological footprint (Wackernagel & Rees 1996) is a measure of the ‘load’ imposed on the natural environment by a given population. It is a vivid representation of the land area needed to sustain current levels of population; an accounting tool to assess per capita consumption, production and discharge needs using land as the unit of measurement. Ecological footprint calculations start with the elementary assumption that every category of energy and material consumption and waste discharge requires the productive capacity of a finite area of land or water. The total area of land required for all categories of consumption and waste discharge by a defined population represents that population’s ecological footprint, whether or not this area coincides with the population’s home region. ‘Footprints’ are only an approximation, for example they take no account of the marine or atmospheric resources required to support us. Scaled for population, the national, regional or city footprints can be compared to the total amount of land available as an index of current sustainability. Footprint calculations demonstrate the extended environmental impacts of cities or nations, but are ‘silent’ on how to reduce resource requirements while maintaining or improving liveability. These broader issues are better solved by using metabolic flow modelling (see above).

New Zealand has so far not embraced the metabolism concept used by the Australians in their 1996 State of the Environment Report (Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1996a). However, recent New Zealand work on ecological footprints (Bicknell et al 1996, Williams et al 1997) summarised below, shows it to be a simple and engaging concept, with better public ‘resonance’ (understanding) than their more technical metabolic cousins. The ecological footprint is useful as a monitoring tool or as a sustainability indicator (ie can steer policy making, is transparent, and has public ‘resonance’). New Zealand’s per capita footprint is 3.49 hectares, in total, representing 64 % of New Zealand’s ecologically productive land. That means that on average each person’s resource requirements are provided by about 70 times the average 500 m2 urban section. Forty per cent of our footprint covers agricultural land, 26 % ‘imported land’ (our offshore footprint), 15 % ‘energy land’, and the rest accounts for forest and degraded land. New Zealand’s per capita footprint is ten times bigger than India, 5 % higher than the Netherlands, but 30 % smaller than the USA (Williams et al 1997). 3.2 A metabolism flow model for our urban areas In this section the metabolism flow model is used to show that New Zealand’s urban areas are major consumers of resources and they produce significant amounts of waste. Urban areas are also influenced by key socio-economic drivers that have impacts on the environment. The combination of these factors then influences liveability, those values that contribute to making cities better places for people to live in. Where possible, data for urban areas has been used but for some sections, national statistics have had to be used because of a lack of specific urban data. Given that more than 85 % of the New Zealand population live in urban areas, key trends are still very relevant indicators of the metabolism flows for urban areas. 3.2.1 Resource inputs In general terms, urban areas are using more resource inputs per capita. For example: • Energy use5 New Zealand’s energy use is still high. In 1994/5 we used 4.3 tonnes of oil equivalent per capita compared to 2.6 in the UK and 2.5 in Japan. Between 1975 and 1996 New Zealand’s population increased by 19 % while total consumer energy use rose by 49 %. In 1996 transport and industrial sectors used 74 % (39 % and 35 % respectively) of our total consumer energy. Some of the environmental by-products of our energy use are greenhouse gases and particulates, mining and transport impacts, pipes and transmission lines. As with waste generation, New Zealand’s energy use closely correlates with our economic growth (per capita GDP which rose by 43 % from 1975 to 1996). By stark contrast, most other OECD countries show a trend of declining energy use per capita since the 1970s. Our per capita energy use started to flatten in the 1990s, and is predicted to fall. However, present policies appear to focus on reducing the cost of energy via enhanced competition in energy markets, while relatively few resources (by comparison to other OECD nations) are being 5 Information sourced from EECA 1997 and Statistics New Zealand 1997.

specifically applied to increasing efficiency of energy use. We may be leaving future generations with an expensive legacy (ie competing against more energy efficiency countries and becoming more exposed to the risks of increasing dependence on world energy prices). • Water use6 Water for domestic, commercial and industrial use in urban areas is provided by public water supplies. The quality of New Zealand’s drinking water is an issue for several areas with high risk water supplies (Dunedin, Timaru, Nelson and Wanganui). Consumption pressures can be very high in areas with variable rainfall (eg Auckland and Christchurch). Average daily water use is around 300 litres per person per day although in some areas this is much higher. For example, in 1993 Wellington’s consumption of water averaged 470 litres per person per day and rose to 512 litres per day in 1996. In Christchurch consumption has declined by about 13 % over the years 1993 to 1998 to an average of 420 litres per person per day. The groundwater beneath Christchurch is the source of drinking water and is supplied untreated. Residential use is approximately 55 % of the total Christchurch supply, of which 75 % is used inside the home and 25 % outside. An average of 307,000 cubic metres of water (for the 12 months up to May 1997) is supplied by Watercare Services to six of Auckland’s territorial authorities each day. These local authorities then reticulate this water to about 960,000 individual consumers. The Auckland region’s water consumption increased by 5.8 % in the 12 months ending June 1997. Over the next 25 years, the water needs of the Auckland region are expected to rise by over 30 % to 468,000 m3 per day. The more water used, the greater the pressure on the environment and the infrastructure needed to store, treat and supply the water. • Land use7 Urban, industrial and transport land covers 900,000 ha, 3 % of New Zealand, double the area of crops and orchards. Although the urban population has increased by about 30 % since 1969, the area of land classified as urban has almost trebled. When averaged, the rate of urban expansion over the past 25 years has averaged 4 % per year, increasing from 270,000 ha/year in the late 1960s to 730,000 ha/year in 1993. This represents an average expansion of 15,000 ha/year in the 1970s rising to 30,000 ha by the early 1990s. The fact that cities and other urban areas (defined by Statistics NZ as settlements over 1000 people) are predominantly located on flat coastal flood plains or estuaries, suggests that this expansion has been at the expense of the nation’s wetlands and most fertile or ‘versatile’ soils. What proportion of the nearly 500,000 ha of land converted to urban areas since the mid-1960s contained Class I and Class II soils is unknown. Class I and Class II soils (versatile soils suitable for multiple use cropping and orcharding) occupy 6 % (1,641,000 ha) of New Zealand’s land area whereas urban areas cover about 730,000 ha (3 %). At the present rate of urban expansion, a further 300,000 ha of rural land will have been built over by 2010. The Auckland region has relatively low density urban development at 2,000 people per km2 compared to older more compact European cities as Paris at 5,500 people per km2.

6 Information sourced from MFE 1997a, Watercare Services Limited 1997, Christchurch City Council

1998, and Wellington City Council 1997a. 7 Information sourced from MFE 1997a.

3.2.2 Socio-economic drivers • Population growth8 Between 1991 and 1996 the population of New Zealand increased by 7.2 %, the additional 247,000 people bringing the total to 3.6 million. The population of Auckland’s seven territorial authorities grew by 12.9 %, an extra 125,000 people over the five years. The cities of Hamilton, Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch all grew by more than 5 %, and collectively gained 43,000 more people. The highest growth areas were Queenstown-Lakes and Tauranga/Western Bay of Plenty which grew by 31.1 % (4,700 more people) and 16.7 % (16,000 more people) respectively. The age structure, ratio of males to females, and ethnic groups is changing. The New Zealand population is ageing (median age increased since 1971 by 7.5 years to 33.1 years in 1996), with the number of children (under 15) dropping from 26.5 % of the total population in 1991 to 23 % in 1996. Since 1971 the proportion of people over 65 has increased by more than one-and-a-half times. The Maori, Pacific Island and Asian populations at 14.5 % and 5.6 % and 4.4 % (in 1996) are the largest ethnic groups after the predominant European group (71.7 %). There are 63,000 more women than men in New Zealand (96.6 men to every 100 women). However, the majority of this imbalance occurs in the over 65 age group, where for every 100 females there are only 76 men. Internal and external migration are major drivers of change and composition of city populations as most migrants settle in the main centres. Rapid growth in immigration in the early 1990s fuelled urban growth. • Housing occupancy9 Housing occupancy and demand can be used as a proxy for the amount of resources required to provide shelter − a basic human need. Housing occupancy is decreasing so that by 2016 we will have nearly 30 % more dwellings but for a population increase of just over 20 % (ie more housing is required per capita). This is a product of demography (eg ageing), more single person households, larger houses, and greater diversity of household types. • Transport choices and mobility10 For most people cars equal mobility. In 1997 there were more than 1.65 million cars in New Zealand. The number of cars per capita is increasing with one car for every 2.2 people. Increasing per capita car numbers assisted by declining relative prices and continued economic growth will put pressure on urban air quality, increase consumption of liquid fuels, increase requirements for road building and parking, and add to already congested roads. In urban areas roads cover 25-30 % of the land area and, by adding in parking and vehicle servicing land, this proportion can approach 40 %. The vehicle ownership rate in New Zealand (all vehicles with four or more wheels) is 55 vehicles per 100 people, the OECD average is 50, Canada is 60 and the USA 75. Between 1965 and 1995 the number of licensed motor vehicles doubled; this is almost twice the rate at 8 Information sourced from Statistics New Zealand 1997. 9 Information sourced from Statistics New Zealand 1997. 10 Information sourced from EECA 1997 and MFE 1997a.

which the human population grew. In 1996 in Auckland, the number of new vehicle registrations increased by approximately 80,000 vehicles (23 %). Cities with traffic congestion have reduced commercial efficiency and hence reduce New Zealand’s competitiveness in global markets. In 1996 people in Auckland made on average three trips per day, 72 % of them by car. Between 1981 and 1991, the average length of the journey to work increased 17 % from 10.8 km to 12.6 km, equivalent to an extra 1.4 million vehicle km of daily travel. Personal mobility increased 39 % between 1985 and 1996 to 15,600 km/person/yr and traffic volumes on urban roads have substantially increased. Across New Zealand, the percentage of full-time workers who drive to work has increased from 44 % in 1971, to 65 % in 1991, while their use of public transport dropped from 14 % to 5 % and walking dropped from 11 % to 7 %. Cycling remained constant at 5-6 % over this time period. High vehicle use has contributed to New Zealand having the highest rate of child pedestrian fatalities in the OECD. • Values and beliefs Key social drivers for the evolution of New Zealand’s urban community will include: • changing values and beliefs regarding environmental issues and rights of future generations

and changing patterns of demand for goods and services with generation shifts (ie from baby boomers through to generation X-er’s). Changes in societal norms will occur with this generation shift with greater focus on environmental quality and outcomes;

• increasing awareness of the environment and ‘civics’. Currently New Zealand’s overall level of environmental education is behind that of many of our OECD counterparts. There are education strategies being developed by MFE and educational NGOs to remedy this but it will require a long-term commitment to bring changes in attitude;

• increasing influence of Maori environmental values on city cultural and environmental development (eg recognition of traditional relationships and significance of historic and cultural heritage values);

• increasing influence of Polynesian and Asian environmental values on city cultural and environmental development;

• New Zealand’s economic development is tending to lead to a greater disparity in the distribution of wealth with the emergence of a sector of society that is more focused on maintaining the basics of life (shelter, health and education) for their children, rather than on what impacts their limited demands have on environmental qualities. The continuation of this trend will have major implications for urban New Zealand;

• increased globalisation and the consequential pressures of global companies and global consumers on the qualities of both rural and urban systems that provide our export goods. Increasing global awareness about the need for sustainable development and increasing recognition of the crucial role that local communities have in providing creative local solutions for sustainable development (eg Agenda 21).

3.2.3 Waste outputs • Solid waste11 The only reliable trend data comes from the Auckland region where waste disposal levels per capita in Auckland landfills increased by 50 % over the last fifteen years to 821,000 tonnes 11 Information sourced from Auckland City Council 1996 and MFE 1997a.

per annum, closely mirroring economic growth (ie the faster the growth in per capita GDP, the more waste Aucklanders generate). The OECD average was a 20 % increase per capita over the same period. A lack of strong waste management policies have produced significant changes with reduced use of reusable glass containers (eg for milk or beer) and, although widely promoted, markets for recycled materials from disposable packaging are poor. There are few incentives for waste minimisation and greater resource efficiency (eg refillable versus used once drink containers) and some are currently negative (eg lower per tonne landfill costs in cities where the amount dumped per capita is highest). • Wastewater12 All urban areas with populations of 5,000 or more people have a reticulated sewerage system with some form of treatment system. In recent years some older sewerage systems have required upgrading at a large cost. Every day each New Zealander pours and flushes an average of around 350 litres of water down the sewer pipes. National data on sewerage systems is only beginning to be compiled again after a gap of almost a decade with the disestablishment of the Ministry of Works and the ending of regular five year surveys of local authorities. The Auckland wastewater collection system operated by Watercare Services Limited services over 750,000 people and 600 trade waste users. About 280,000 cubic metres of wastewater is received from the territorial authorities systems each day and treated at the Mangere treatment plant. Point source discharges of sewage and non-point source discharges of stormwater have major impacts on the quality of urban streams and rivers and ultimately the marine environment. In Auckland stormwater with high levels of contaminants from streets and construction sites and sediment can amount to 75 % of the total quantity of sewage effluent. Over 3,000 hectares of Auckland is still serviced by the old combined sewers (ie no separate pipes for stormwater). Overflows from the sewers occur when the volumes of wastewater (and stormwater) in the system exceed its capacity (ie after rainfall, pump failures). About 35 overflows exist in Watercare sewers and 350 in Auckland City (the largest area served by combined sewers). • Emissions13 Transport and energy use in urban areas are major contributors to national carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In New Zealand, between 1990 and 1995 gross emissions increased by 7 % to 27,368,000 tonnes in 1995. CO2 emissions from Auckland’s transport system produce about 1.9 million tonnes of CO2 per year, 40 % of the total from all sources in Auckland. Without any action it is predicted that this level will increase to 2.9 million tonnes by 2021. Increased levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, smoke and other particulates can affect the air quality of urban areas and consequently public health. This is not a major problem for most New Zealand urban areas except where there are low wind speeds and heavily used traffic corridors (eg Auckland) or domestic fire use (eg

12 Information sourced from Auckland Regional Services Trust 1997, Watercare Services Limited 1997,

Wellington City Council 1997, Christchurch City Council 1998 and MFE 1997a. 13 Information sourced from Auckland Regional Council 1997 and MFE 1997a.

Christchurch). Domestic fires are a major air pollution and health issue in Christchurch where a temperature inversion layer prevents pollutants from dispersing. Carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen levels in heavily used traffic corridors have at times exceeded World Health Organisation guidelines in both Auckland and Christchurch. 3.2.4 Liveability • Gross Domestic Product Gross domestic product (GDP) is a measure of the dollar ‘value added’ from all economic activity in New Zealand, ie GDP is the total market value of all goods and services produced in New Zealand after deducting the cost of production. In 1993-4 our GDP was $80.3 billion, of which $7.8 billion was contributed from rural based industries (agriculture, fishing, forestry, mining). Urban areas are the major source of GDP and employment, and through employment people and communities have the resources to provide for and improve liveability. • Health14 Life expectancy at birth in New Zealand 1994-96 was 74.2 years for boys and 79.5 years for girls, an increase of 3.9 and 3.1 years since 1980-82. Infant mortality in 1997 was 7.2 per 1000 live births, with the rate for Maori infants (12.2) being almost double that of non-Maori (6.45), with sudden infant death syndrome accounting for 43 % of the Maori figure. Recent data (to 1995) indicate that heart disease, cancer and cerebrovascular diseases (stroke), in that order, account for 61 % of deaths. Of these heart disease and cerebrovascular disease have been declining since the early 1980s, and cancer rates have been fairly stable. During 1996 the three largest categories of hospitalisation for injury came from accidental falls (27 %), surgical or medical complications (24 %) and transport (11.9 %). Of the transport accidents 69.7 % or 6,882 cases treated as inpatients were motor vehicle traffic accidents. • Personal safety15 Reported non-traffic crime has fluctuated with no particular trend over the period 1992-1996 (between 488,533 and 518,693 offences). In Christchurch there has been a more consistent pattern with a rise of 22 % occurring between 1991 and 1996. Most (69 % in 1996) were dishonesty offences, which reflects the national pattern (62 %). However, there has been a doubling in the rate of violent crime since 1991 (ie 110 % increase); nationally it has increased more slowly (58 % increase). A major contributor has been assaults by men on women. The death rate from road traffic accidents has been steadily declining over the last ten years, but is still high compared to other OECD countries (16.2 killed per 10,000 in 1994 compared to 10.9 in Australia, and 6.5 for the UK). About two-thirds of fatal accidents in 1995 were caused by speed and alcohol/drugs. One quarter of injury accidents were caused by failing to give way or stop. In Christchurch the number of reported road crashes has declined between 1991 and 1996 from 1,419 to 1,045, with the number of fatal crashes halving from 30 to 14 14 Information sourced from Statistics New Zealand 1998. 15 Information sourced from Christchurch City Council 1998 and Wellington City Council 1997a.

over this period. However Christchurch has the highest rate in New Zealand for road casualties, nearly 45 per 10,000 population compared to Wellington’s 30 and Auckland City’s 37. Wellington City has the lowest road accident risk anywhere in the region, well below both the regional and New Zealand averages. The number of road casualties since 1991 in Wellington City has dropped from 736 to 434 per year in 1996. Perceptions of a personal sense of safety have a major impact on liveability. Christchurch City has undertaken an annual survey since 1994 on people’s feelings about the safety of the central city, cycling and street lighting. The majority of respondents (69 %) felt unsafe at night in the central city, about 30 % would not go walking at night, and nearly 60 % thought that riding a bicycle (at any time) was dangerous/very dangerous. • Public open space Public open space (ie parks, regional parks, green belts and sports fields) provides the setting for active and passive recreation in a city. It contributes to the social and psychological well-being of residents; helps articulate urban structure; and contains natural and cultural features. A sample of statistics of the per capita amount of public open space show North Shore City with 8.5 ha/1000 people; Auckland City 7.2 ha/1000; Hamilton City 7.7 ha/1000; Wellington 17.8 ha/1000; Christchurch 17 ha/1000. • Heritage management16 Cultural heritage is difficult to quantify because of the number of agencies involved in heritage management and the lack of a single integrated database. In 1995 the Historic Places Register listed 5,794 buildings, archaeological sites, historic areas, and waahi tapu, although it is acknowledged this is not truly representative of all significant heritage. The loss of heritage continues in urban areas. For example, between 1984 and 1994, 42 buildings on the Register were destroyed in Auckland, and between 1980 and 1995, 41 (12 %) were destroyed in Wellington. Tangata whenua environmental values and priorities are under particularly intense pressure in urban settings. For example, in the Auckland area alone, about 50 % of the known pa sites have been extensively modified or destroyed as the city has developed

• Biodiversity17 New Zealand has more species of ancient origins (‘primitive species’), and more endemic species (ie species found nowhere else) than most other countries. In less than 1000 years we have, for example, lost 32 % of our endemic ‘land birds’ and 43 % of our frogs. Nearly 1000 of our species are threatened. This suggests that we have not recognised how fragile and finite our environment is. Habitat destruction (eg the loss of wetlands and lowland forests), urban expansion and high levels of waste from our urbanised population continue to exert substantial pressure on our biodiversity.

16 Information sourced from Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 1996. 17 Information sourced from MFE 1997a.

3.3 National state of the urban environment reporting State of the environment (SOE) reporting is used to document the condition of the environment and natural resource stocks. Sustainable development is impossible without adequate and accessible information about the environment. SOE reporting is a powerful tool for providing this information. It allows regular reports on environmental conditions in much the same way as well accepted economic indicators are used to report on the state of the economy.

The State of New Zealand’s Environment Report

The first New Zealand state of the environment report was released in 1997 (MFE 1997a). The report is primarily a state of the natural environment report and it largely ignores the urban environment. It is described as a “report to the nation describing New Zealand’s natural environment, what we have done to it, and what we are doing now.” Three chapters predominate: the state of our land, water and biodiversity (384 of the 623 pages). Information of relevance to the state of the urban environment includes: • history, demographic, and cultural heritage sections in chapter 2: “The place and the

people”; • living standards, production, consumption patterns, comparison with OECD countries,

changing structure of New Zealand’s economy, energy consumption trends, energy use and economic growth, composition of household waste, economic growth and waste disposal sections in chapter 3: “Production and consumption patterns”;

• trends in motor vehicle numbers and the percentage of homes with open fires in chapter 6: “The state of our air”;

• impacts on water quality, daily water use in cities, main uses of Auckland’s public water

supply, and trends in water use in Auckland and Wellington in chapter 7: “The state of our water”;

• land use areas and expansion of urban areas in chapter 8: “The state of our land”. Overall, there is a lack of information in the report on how people live and how they regard the environment. There is also no analysis of rural-urban relationships and interdependencies. For example, “The place and the people” (chapter 2) makes no attempt to discuss the integration of socio-economic indicators or link them with the pressure, state, response model which features in the later ‘biophysical’ chapters. Linkages between social and economic policy are not explored and the Royal Commission for Social Policy’s (1988) report is not mentioned, even though it covers all the topics (and many more) mentioned. It is also unclear whether chapter 2 is purely contextual (ie one-off information sharing) or whether it sets a basis for continuity, for future comparative or time series reporting. Land management (chapter 8) is discussed from a much narrower focus than RMA definition of “environment”. Land indicators are similarly narrow and exclude social, economic and

cultural perspectives. Indicators of the ‘state’ of and ‘pressure’ exerted by the urban land environment would help address this imbalance . New Zealand’s State of the Environment Report: a critical response (Hughey et al 1998) sets out not only to review the New Zealand State of the Environment report, but also its part in the process of environmental reporting. The authors note with alarm the almost total lack of timely intellectual response to the report. Overall they conclude that:

“A major shortcoming is the lack of integration of social and economic, or socio-cultural influences on biophysical phenomena. Indeed the minor weighting given to social, economic, cultural, political and regulatory structures in New Zealand is of great concern. Comparison with Australia’s report, for example, shows that other countries go to far greater lengths to understand the impacts upon the environment of particular sectors of society.”

Australia - State of the Environment Report

In contrast to its New Zealand cousin, the Australian SOE report has a chapter devoted to “Human Settlements”, one of seven about equally sized chapters covering: land, air, marine, inland waters, biodiversity, and heritage. The Australian federal government used a number of independent advisory groups to prepare this report and it “links land, water, air, plants and animals, human settlements and how we value them” (Department of the Environment, Sport and the Territories 1996a). “Human Settlements” explores the state of the Australian urban environment through the pressure, state, response model. This is prefaced with an introductory discussion of “metabolism models” of human settlements (ie the environmental impacts of a settlement’s inflow of resources and outflow of wastes). “Pressures” looks at technological and economic forces acting on urban environments, population dynamics and patterns of settlement. “State” discusses liveability, amenity and health and their indicators. “Response” covers current government programmes and policies and their effectiveness, categorising and discussing each of them as being positive, inadequate or uncertain. 3.4 Local state of the urban environment reporting Local authorities have a duty under section 35 of the RMA “to gather information, monitor and keep records”; “undertake or commission such research as is necessary to carry out effectively its functions”; and specifically to monitor: “the state of the whole or any part of the environment”; “the suitability and effectiveness of any policy statement or plan” and the exercising of any delegated authorities and resource consents. Each territorial authority (city and district councils) and regional council therefore has a statutory duty to report on the state of the urban environment. The following sections describe selected examples of local authority state of the environment reporting. Regional councils

• Canterbury Regional Council’s Regional Environment Report 1995/96 (1997) although mainly biophysical, but it does contain data on: transport (eg passengers carried by public transport 1990-96, percentage change in transport modes 1986-91, road transport energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions by transport mode); energy (eg changes in “gross regional product” ie like GDP, energy use, and carbon dioxide emissions by sector); and waste management.

• Taranaki Regional Council’s report (1996) again concentrates on the biophysical, with

only minor references to urban issues in the land section (amenity and heritage values, network utilities and infrastructure issues), and a two page chapter on energy.

• Wellington Regional Council’s The State of the Environment, Wellington region, 1991 has

a chapter on human communities (eg social and economic profiles for each urban areas) which states:

“In a document like this it is easy to lose sight of the human ‘system’ - as part of rather than apart from these wider systems. Society’s goals, ... do not operate in an environmental vacuum. Facts and figures about people, together with an understanding of social and economic processes and how they impact upon the environment, are essential in any ‘holistic’ assessment of the state of the environment.”

However, since 1991, there has been a progressive reduction in the relative weight placed

on socio-economic issues. For example their Annual Environment Report 1997 has no mention of demographics, the economy or any other socio-economic data; people feature as pollution complainants or as applicants for consents. This and the earlier Bulletin 35 (an annual series of monitoring reports) are seen by staff as only covering the council’s monitoring work, and are not “proper state of the environment reports”.

• the Auckland Regional Growth Forum was established in response to a need to address

growth issues in the region in a cooperative way. Reports from eleven project teams primarily designed to inform public debate on Auckland’s future growth, also contain state of the environment information (eg land use patterns and development constraints, major employment trends, and attitudes to growth).

Territorial authorities • Christchurch City Council publishes an annual report on the state of the city’s environment

to provide “decision makers and the wider community with up to date information on social, economic and environmental issues” (Christchurch City Council 1998). It contains a rich and detailed data with an emphasis on people and the economy. “The City’s People” provides the human context for the subsequent discussions of trends in the natural, physical and economic environments”.

• Wellington City Council in its 1996 Right Here − Right Now − Wellington’s State of the

City Report − an owner’s guide to life in Wellington (Wellington City Council 1997a & 1997b) again takes a people centred approach, with chapters entitled “Our community”, “Our economy”, “Our environment”, and “Sustainability − our footprint, our future”.

Monitoring covers per capita measures of land use; water and energy consumption; and solid waste, sewerage and greenhouse gas production. Means of transport to work, peak travel times and a table of comparisons with other cities is also included in the “Sustainability” section.

• Auckland City Council’s 1996 report Our Changing Environment, has two socio-economic

chapters (ie demographics and the Auckland economy). • Marlborough District Council (a unitary authority since 1992), in its 1994 report

(Marlborough District Council 1994a) makes the link “people-environment-economy” on the front cover. The chapter “Community heath and safety” covers “the interests of people”. In their 1994 state of the environment monitoring strategy (Marlborough District Council, 1994b)), community well-being is seen as “an important and complex idea reflecting the quality of life available to people”. Quality of life attributes were listed alongside the parameters to be used to monitor them. This monitoring has not been implemented. Reference to quality of life issues has also been downgraded in their subsequent 1995 and 1996 annual state of the environment reports (Marlborough District Council 1996 & 1997).

3.5 Other urban environment reporting Statistics New Zealand The New Zealand’s Official Yearbook (Statistics New Zealand 1998) is produced annually by Statistics New Zealand and the 1998 volume presents a wide range of official and general information about our country. It balances the hard statistics of New Zealand society and economy with a snapshot view of events and achievements during the year. In assessing information on the state of the urban environment it appears to contain more than The State of New Zealand’s Environment report. Relevant chapters and sections include: commerce and services, transport, housing and construction, energy and minerals, health and safety, social framework, and population change. Documenting the Environment (Statistics New Zealand 1992) listed existing sources of data on the New Zealand environment. This was followed in 1993 by Measuring up (Statistics New Zealand 1993), which used graphs and tables to summarise the data alluded to in 1992. It contains chapters on energy, and human settlement and socio-economic activity, and six more on the biophysical (ie atmosphere and climate, energy, fauna, fresh water, land and marine). Both publications were the result of joint projects with MFE as part of their state of the environment reporting work. The data in Measuring up is now six years old, and has not been updated. However, the New Zealand Official Yearbook 1998 and The State of New Zealand’s Environment 1997 contain some of the material. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA)

One of EECA’s core functions is to collect and analyse New Zealand’s energy use data. Energy Efficiency Trends in New Zealand: a compendium of energy end-use analysis and statistics (EECA 1997) fulfils this requirement and it provides important and valuable information on energy efficiency trends for the economy and specific sectors (ie residential, commercial, transport, industrial and primary production, and mining). 3.6 Conclusion New Zealanders are making few gains in terms of resource use efficiencies or reducing their impact on the urban environment. Although it is difficult to isolate urban data, national trends between 1980 and 1996 for resource use and waste outputs have been increasing per capita:

National parameters Percentage change from 1980 to 1996

GDP1 37 % increase Total consumer energy use 44 % increase Area of urban land 78 % increase Number of dwellings 28 % increase Number of cars 31 % increase Solid waste disposal (Auckland region only)2

95 % increase

Population 15.5 % increase

1 At 1991/92 prices 2 1983 to 1996 figure Furthermore, the way we use resources, and the management and effects of our activities have impacted on social and economic outcomes. Overall resource use and waste per capita needs to be decoupled from GDP as part of the sustainable development agenda (ie getting more from resources, with less waste, while still increasing GDP per capita). One of the consequences of the series of restructurings of central government in the last ten years is the loss of national datasets and agency focus for processing information about people and their environment in urban New Zealand (eg New Zealand Planning Council or the Ministry of Works). There is little publicly available business or corporate sector data that has a specific urban focus. Privately commissioned market research carries out extensive and regular assessments of demographics and consumption patterns, concerns and values, but this information is not always available to researchers. Some of the data contained in The New Zealand Official Yearbook would be a starting point on which to base New Zealand state of the urban environment reporting. By contrast, the Ministry for the Environment’s state of the environment report has a predominantly biophysical and rural focus, with little social or economic data, or reference to the urban environment. Local authorities produce a plethora of state of the environment and other reports but few have taken an integrated approach to reporting on the state of the urban environment. This has

not always been the case. Since the early 1990s there has been a progressive excluding of the socio-economic dimension from many local authority state of the environment reports (eg Marlborough District and Wellington Regional Councils). However, there are some notable exceptions to this trend (eg Christchurch and Wellington City Councils). There is very little guidance available for local government to meet what is essentially a new function. There are no statutory or other guidelines, and no standard operating procedures for preparing state of the environment reports. Despite the promotion of consistent national monitoring systems, there has yet to be much practical implementation with transfers of information between councils being ad hoc. The consistency of staff effort, and amount of money to monitor the environment, source and analyse additional data, and to prepare state of the environment reports, suffers from cyclical workloads caused by statutory timeframes eg preparation of district plans. Unless data is obtained from other bodies (eg Statistics New Zealand, EECA), data sets tend to be incomplete, inconsistent and short run. Consequently, the scope, content, and frequency of these reports is highly variable. The 1996 OECD environmental performance review of New Zealand (OECD 1996) urged the government to move rapidly to strengthen data on the environment, and to carry out further research on the impact of human activity. Overall state of the environment reporting in New Zealand fails to address the human dimension (ie the social, economic, historical and cultural issues). As a result, there is little integration or recognition of the social and economic influences on biophysical attributes of the environment. A more comprehensive review of the state of New Zealand’s urban environment is warranted along with improvements to the collection and analysis of data for urban areas.

4. KEY URBAN ISSUES This chapter reviews a range of sustainable urban development issues including: governance and vision; partnership; the urban community and participation; management of growth; liveability; environmental health; infrastructure and transport systems, energy efficiency and waste; monitoring and research. It also reports on some innovative approaches and ideas for addressing these issues. The key issues were identified through submissions on the Issues Paper, discussions at meetings and as part of the analysis and preparation of this report. 4.1 Governance and vision Issues: the lack of leadership and vision for the management of the urban environment; the lack of coordination and integrated management, especially among central government agencies; and the lack of support from central government for local government initiatives. The last decade has seen major changes in legislation relating to environmental management and governance at both central and local level. Over the next few decades, particularly under MMP, significant changes in the roles and relative dominance of central and local government can be expected to continue. Central government, leadership and vision Urban sustainability and governance issues are important national issues for New Zealand given that this is where most people live and where many of our sustainability challenges lie (ie reducing resource use, waste generation and mobility demands). Central government has a key role in responding to urban sustainability challenges. The devolution of functions to local government does not remove overall responsibility from central government. This is not ‘coming in over the top of local government’ but providing leadership, vision, coordination and assistance. Good environmental management usually requires good foresight and acknowledgement of the long time frames that are needed to achieve certain outcomes. There is a marked lack of clearly articulated vision for what New Zealand or most communities envisage for the environment and utilisation of resources in the future. Central government can provide leadership and vision through a national sustainable development strategy with specific reference to urban sustainability, national policy statements, national environmental indicators, coordination and research, demonstration projects to model good practice, and best practice guidelines (for local government, citizens and communities). The Environment 2010 Strategy (MFE 1995) is a starting point and one effort to articulate a national environmental vision (see chapter 1). However, it does not clearly articulate what sustainable development requires as its focus is on the management of the environmental effects that arise from whatever development courses New Zealand may happen to take. To date there also seems to be limited integration between this nationally developed strategy and implementation of the RMA at the local level.

There seems to be a belief that, in terms of implementing the RMA, if the process is somehow ‘got right’ the ultimate vision (more sustainable resource management) of the RMA will be delivered. That seems unlikely and effective implementation needs clearer mechanisms. The issue of how to get good local solutions within a national framework remains to be resolved. The RMA is visionary in providing for the preparation of national policy statements (NPS) but apart from the mandatory coastal policy statement, no other NPS has been prepared. The lack of coordination and integration among central government agencies is a key issue for local government. There are many departments, ministries and agencies involved with different aspects of urban management and at times these agencies do not communicate with each other. In some situations this has required local government to provide an important bridging role to bring agencies together. For example, in the social service area Manukau City Council is trying to link around 15 central government agencies to get some semblance of coordination and integration in the city. Local government and urban management The purposes of local government are focused on local democracy, serving citizens and the public good in a business like manner (s 37K LGA). Territorial authorities are to respond to their community of interest by ensuring the provision of services that people cannot provide for themselves. For example they facilitate and support the communities aspirations, generate combined visions, have an ‘influencing role’, and are the provider or facilitator of infrastructure and public goods (eg public open space). Mechanisms for developing local long-term visions are available through the LGA and the RMA (ie strategic plans and objectives in district plans) and local authorities are busy developing strategic plans for their area. However, a 20 year strategic plan vision is more than multiplying an annual plan by 20 and strategic planning is not simply a collection of actions under the heading of a long-term financial strategy. Inadequate strategic planning and the lack of long-term visions for urban areas are major risks for urban sustainability. There is a need to improve the legislative framework for local government through reviewing the LGA, and realigning some of the financial accountabilities and reporting of revenues. A review of specific areas of the Rating Powers Act 1988 would include discretionary powers in setting rates and a reappraisal of the current exemptions from rates. The current rate exemptions for central government provide a direct subsidy from local authorities to central government activities which, in terms of central government policies, should bear their own cost. There are currently proposals that could lead to major changes in the role of local government (eg roading, water, and waste management reform). In assessing reform proposals, the challenge for central government is how to continue to be permissive (ie allowing local communities to decide how their council will manage service provision), while setting standards or ‘modes’ of operation that will give the best mix of economic and environmental efficiencies and incentives (ie preventing political interference in operating decisions while still allowing opportunity for democratic control over ‘higher level’ strategic policies). In a recent review of trends influencing local government policy and direction (McKinlay 1998), three factors that are likely to dominate the ongoing reform of local government are:

• changes in the ownership and management of infrastructure, coupled with an increased infrastructure regulatory role;

• a rethinking of the split between regulation and service delivery; and • a growing involvement in the coordination, and perhaps delivery, of social service

activities of central government. There is growing awareness that New Zealand’s communities are not homogenous, and that a centralised, specialised approach to service delivery has limitations when addressing community, family or individual needs. Some local authorities have already become proactive in health, education and social services.

The role of regional councils in urban management is often questioned by agencies and groups who comment that there is no need for two levels of local governance (ie regional councils and territorial authorities). However, all regional councils have important integrated management, coordination and research functions (eg regional studies). For example, in Auckland and Wellington, the regional councils have undertaken important integrated management and coordination functions under the RMA. Regional councils and territorial authorities also bring a degree of local accountability through observing and commenting on each other’s actions. Notwithstanding the above comments, there is opportunity for greater use of delegations and transfer of power and responsibility between local authorities to bring improved efficiencies in both economic and environmental terms.18 Building the vision − planning for sustainability In 1993 it was noted that “the concerns of the critics of past urban planning are unlikely to be diminished by the RMA” (Memon 1993). More recently it has been noted that:

there exists a growing concern that the RMA with its bio-physical emphasis is not ‘city friendly’ and does not address some of the broader concerns of urban authorities where the interconnection between the natural environment and the socially constructed form is much more complex and requires a different set of instruments and policies to address it (Perkins & Thorns 1997).

Planning is more than statutory planning in accordance with a legal framework; it is “a process by which communities attempt to anticipate and respond to change and make individual and collective existence better than it otherwise might be” (Perkins et al 1993). Sustainability planning or planning for sustainability will need to be discovered in New Zealand. This is not heavy handed planning or regulation but a new planning process that is able to recognise, promote and reconcile a wide range of goals; coordinate and integrate the activities of different public and private agencies; intervene strongly in private actions where necessary to secure public goods; work steadily towards long-term goals; and secure and maintain public support and legitimacy (Levett 1998). The European Commission Urban Environment Expert Group has strongly stated that:

Sustainable development will only happen if it is explicitly planned for. Market forces or other unconscious and undirected phenomena cannot solve the serious problems of sustainability. Agenda 21 specifies a thorough process of considering a wide range of issues together, making explicit decisions about

18 In 1998/99 the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Auditor-General are

conducting an investigation of local government models, specifically unitary authorities.

priorities, and creating long-term frameworks of control, incentives and motivation, combined with specific targets in order to achieve stated aims (CEC 1996).

The Expert Group also stated that a package of environmental management tools is required to address partnership, policy integration, market mechanisms, information management, and measuring and monitoring. Each approach is considered an element within an integrated system of urban management. Key approaches that could be used in New Zealand include: • stronger and better impact assessment and extension into strategic environmental

assessment of policies and programmes; • ecological tax reform (shifting the balance of taxation from socially desirable factors such

as employment to undesirable environmental factors such as pollution and waste generation) and environmental taxes;

• progressive pricing structures for utilities with ‘user pays’; and • ‘whole-life’ investment appraisal methods. Integrated urban management Integrated urban management is the process of taking a more holistic and strategic approach to managing the interrelated aspects of the urban environment. It involves recognising the linkages between social, economic and environmental issues and adopting a range of coordinated approaches by all agencies. Integrated management can assist in redressing piecemeal and ad hoc approaches to environmental management. In a report examining integrated environmental management and the implementation of the RMA by a visiting USA environmental analyst, the following factors were found to be the most significant barriers to integrated environmental management (Frieder 1997): • lack of advocacy for a strong environmental vision, kaupapa and direction; • inadequate data and monitoring; • inexperience with the essentials of fair process; • a system of accountabilities that favours outputs over outcomes and efficiency over

quality; • lack of resources; and • an unusual cultural relationship with change that permits macro changes while it resists

micro changes. Local government requires a legislative framework that enables it to integrate and coordinate policy to deliver on agreed outputs and outcomes. The RMA and the LGA are the two main pieces of legislation that govern resource management and planning in New Zealand. Although the RMA requires integrated management of natural and physical resources of a region, this is not defined in the RMA and it is not integrated management in accordance with sustainable development. There is a need to explore how regional and territorial authorities can better integrate their functions and how territorial authority district plan and annual plan requirements can be integrated to produce better outcomes with use of the whole spectrum of policy instruments.

4.2 Partnership Issues: the lack of partnership between central and local government; and variable partnerships between councils and communities. There is considerable opportunity for the development of partnership approaches to address urban sustainability and sustainable development issues (eg between central and local government; local government and tangata whenua; and local government, businesses and communities). National level partnerships The lack of central government support and its remote and unproductive relationship with local government degrades the public perception of both local authorities and urban issues. This directly impacts on New Zealand’s ability to apply integrated management principles to urban environments. Currently there appears to be little demonstration of partnership between central and local government in urban management unless it is forced by local government (eg the debate about what to do with the accumulated income and capital potentially available in the Auckland Regional Services Trust). Central government has chosen to proceed independently from local government on issues of roading reform and the review of aspects of the RMA. In addition the 1997 appointment of a Minister of Local Government outside of Cabinet is perhaps indicative of the level of interest in enlivening this partnership. There is no national urban agency that can undertake research and provide information on urban sustainability issues and thereby assist local government with management of the urban environment. This is surprising given that 85% of the population live in urban areas and these areas are major contributors to the economy with subsequent effects on the environment. With no national agency there is an outright neglect of urban policy development, a lack of information on innovative approaches and a lack of funding (and thereby interest) in urban research. Until its abolition in 1991 it was anticipated that the New Zealand Planning Council would carry the responsibility for the broader social, cultural and economic aspects of environmental policy, including concerns relating to the urban environment (Memon 1993). The inadequate consideration of wider environmental, economic and social issues by central government agencies can have serious consequences for urban environments. For example, the decision to remove school zoning has had a number of presumably unintended consequences. With deregulation more children can now attend distant schools in contrast to local schools. This increases the number of vehicle trips, traffic congestion and energy use, with flow on effects for pedestrian mortality and effects on child health from less exercise. Research in the UK and in Canberra suggests that children who are driven to school do not develop as good a sense of independence and neighbourhood geography because of their reduced interaction with the local environment. Local level partnerships

There is considerable contrast among different urban areas in New Zealand in terms of local partnerships with tangata whenua, businesses and the wider community. Urban Maori are a major community interest group with specific concerns and issues that also need to be recognised. Much could be learned from taking the best approaches and practices from every area and applying them back at the national level. To achieve integrated management of urban areas, further development of partnerships between different councils will also be very important. The balancing of community participation with a long-term strategic approach to urban development is a delicate tension. New partnerships have developed in Canterbury, Wellington and Hamilton in attempts to respond to urban sustainability issues. By undertaking a strategic issues analysis and involving many of the companies in the issues of a city, a public/private sector network approach would raise levels of awareness and improve the final outcomes, for example, in areas of waste reduction and participation. Canterbury Dialogues

In 1997 the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and the Sustainable Cities Trust proposed Canterbury Dialogues as a partnership between local government, the business sector and the local community. Its purpose is to develop a shared vision for Canterbury and improve information flows between different groups with the development of indicators and to encourage integrated approaches. Dialogues provides an active cross-sectoral networking forum, fosters participation, encourages practical action programmes, and supports a balance between individual rights and community responsibility. After an initial series of meetings, Dialogues is focusing on the development of sustainability indicators and several action areas (community and social well-being, creative enterprise, environmental education and transportation).

Wellington: Our city, our future Our city, our future (Wellington City Council 1997c) is a long term vision and plan for Wellington City. Taking over two years, and with the participation of a wide range of groups and 70 vision workshops, the plan brings together a vision for Wellington with eight major theme areas. The plan includes goals, targets and indicators of progress and, it identifies particular initiatives for implementation. All relevant organisations are asked to take the plan into account in their operations.

4.3 The urban community and participation Issue: insufficient recognition and involvement of the community in participatory democracy. The urban community is made up of a wide range of individuals, neighbourhoods and groups. The individual is often seen as the ‘choice instrument’ for public policy based on a market

economy model. However, a community often has more impact and needs than the sum of the individual choices. A bottom-up pressure for change is slowly emerging from citizens’ groups and other social forces calling for improved participatory democracy, a larger voice in community decision-making and accountability from all levels of government. It is suggested that a lack of access to decision making has resulted in a decrease in personal responsibility as urban sustainability issues and lifestyle changes are put into the ‘too hard basket’. Consultation for Hamilton’s strategic plan indicated that a large proportion of the community was aware of urban issues and solutions. However, many people did not believe that they were in a position to effect change nor were they given the appropriate incentives to change lifestyles to contribute towards urban sustainability. Enhancing the role of the community and involvement in local issues with access to decision making will be required. The important role of community groups is often hindered by a popular image of environmentalists as extremist members of a fringe group in society with the primary focus on conservation issues (eg saving whales or indigenous forests) and not environmental. Active community participation in decision making processes is also threatened by the number of consultation documents, submission fatigue and some consultation processes that are little more than ‘window-dressing’. A major challenge exists at all levels of government to find new and creative ways of obtaining community input and involvement in environmental management to promote urban sustainability. Access to information and lack of resourcing for expert witnesses or research hinders the ability of the community to participate in shaping and managing urban environments. Opportunities exist to obtain community input through: • creative consultation approaches using focus groups and design workshops; • ensuring participation by different groups in society. For example, undertaking gender

analysis (Ministry of Women’s Affairs 1996), ie a test of how appropriate policy directions, service delivery options and consultative processes are to meet the needs of women in the community;

• the funding of community advocates by local authorities to provide information on urban sustainability and encourage the involvement of the community;

• improving access to information on urban sustainability (eg through environment centres) and developing education programmes, particularly relating to more sustainable lifestyles;

• a commitment to sustainable development by businesses and support for community approaches (eg as reflected by the Zero Waste NZ network based in Auckland supported by the Tindall Foundation, the Environmental Business Network, and the Natural Step).

Urban landcare groups have an important role to play as they can undertake a variety of local actions that contribute to urban sustainability (eg waste minimisation programmes, conservation initiatives, monitoring the local environment, and participating in healthy cities/community programmes). Through being involved in urban landcare groups, local communities can maintain direct involvement with their environment. Local authorities can play a key role in fostering and supporting the development of these groups. Iwi and urban Maori community groups in Auckland and Hamilton are emerging political forces. They provide a valuable source of new ideas, perspectives and experiences of urban life. They bring together a new brand of politics and new linkages with the urban community.

These groups are forging new partnerships with local authorities. Iwi-based groups like the Tainui Maori Trust Board and Ngai Tahu are viewed more positively, now that they are better resourced and empowered by the land and financial assets from treaty settlements. 4.4 Management of growth Issues: the effects of low density development on increased car use, energy use and emissions; the effects of intensification on amenity values and quality of life caused by a lack of urban design and community involvement; and the legislative capability and capacity of local government to manage urban form, the direction of growth and to provide guidance on urban design. Initially, population and housing growth changed New Zealand’s towns into cities and brought a greater range of goods and services. However, during the last few decades, population and housing growth has made urban areas less liveable with increasing traffic congestion (affecting mobility and access), the loss of natural, cultural and historic heritage resources, and increasing infrastructure costs, social dislocation and isolation. Rapid growth (eg Auckland and Tauranga) or very slow growth (eg Dunedin) have significant implications for the funding and management of infrastructure, reducing waste and pollution and improving the quality and liveability of the environment. For areas of rapid growth it is difficult for adequate new infrastructure to be provided and for areas with little growth, it is very difficult for urban communities to fund maintenance of the existing infrastructure. The management of urban growth is a key issue that also affects the rural fringe with changes to rural landscapes, lifestyles and the incremental loss of versatile/high class soils. National immigration policies can have a major effect on urban areas, as this is where the majority of new immigrants settle. Despite this, there has often been little consideration of the impacts of immigration policies on urban areas. Immigration is as much an urban issue as it is a national issue. The management of the effects of urban growth (and thereby the form and direction of growth) is a key role for regional councils. However, the mandate of regional councils to directly manage the effects of growth under the RMA has been challenged. Voluntary groupings of councils have formed in the Auckland and Canterbury regions to address urban growth and develop long term solutions. The stability of these fora, and issues of adequate resourcing and ownership by all councils still need to be resolved. The management of growth is a real sustainability issue because of the flow on effects from incremental growth at the margins of cities. The Auckland Regional Growth Forum has undertaken significant research to assist policy development to manage growth in the Auckland region. Further research that is applicable in other parts of New Zealand is also needed to explore the linkages between urban form, energy use and vehicle emissions, the effects that new technologies may have on urban form (eg telecommuting) and the effects of demographic changes on urban growth and form.

International developments In Australia, research has been undertaken to quantify the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions, energy requirements, and the form and design of new neighbourhoods. The major conclusion of the study was that in comparison with conventional subdivision design, substantial savings in energy requirements and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved through managing land use and transport-related factors to reduce car travel and improve housing design. Traditional neighbourhood designs and mixed-use developments provided higher levels of emission and energy savings than dwelling-related changes such as additional insulation (Loder & Bayly et al 1993). A more recent Australian study has again explored the links between urban form, energy and air quality and is the first comprehensive attempt to develop a blueprint for the optimum urban development of major Australian cities (CSIRO 1997). Using spatial planning and urban design software, integrated land use-transport-emissions-airshed models were used to explore the effects that alternative urban forms might have on energy consumption and urban air quality to the year 2011. The study recognises that there are advantages and disadvantages in concentrated development but to improve urban air quality and energy use, it strongly supports corridor development along major transport routes over other forms (eg low density development or wholesale intensification). If Australian cities became more public transport oriented with less car use, or were intentionally re-shaped as well-integrated, self-contained urban nodes which encourage more efficient means of transport, they would not only become more liveable, but would probably become wealthier. The report suggests a number of strategies including: • greater use of modelling in decisions about urban form; • minimising energy consumption and emissions in the construction, operation and

maintenance of buildings. • education of the public on the effects of air pollution and the impact of private transport on

air quality. 4.5 Liveability, amenity values and heritage Issues: the adverse effects on communities from changes to liveability and amenity values from intensification and development; inadequate management and protection of historic and cultural heritage; and inadequate recognition and use of urban design approaches to address the effects of higher density development in residential areas. The liveability of urban environments is dependent on unique combinations of amenity values19 (eg open space, design features, urban vegetation); historic and cultural heritage; location; and intangible attributes such as character, landscape and “sense of place”. Liveability contributes to both “sense of place” and “sense of community” and allows for more successful community ownership and enjoyment of urban areas. The design of cities

19 Defined in the RMA as “those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute

to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes (s 2 RMA).

and towns is a crucial factor that influences the way people interact with their environment and an appropriate urban form is a critical factor for urban sustainability. Urban design is a key factor in maintaining the liveability, viability and “sense of place” of urban neighbourhoods. In New Zealand there has been little recognition and promotion of urban design principles that contribute to sustainability and improve the quality of life for urban people. How existing legislation (ie the RMA) is used to incorporate urban design approaches and how the community is involved with design processes (eg charrette workshops20) requires further examination. The lack of urban design information for New Zealand conditions and the complete lack of investment of central government agencies (eg MFE and MORST) and some local authorities in developing and promoting urban design approaches is a significant issue. Ad-hoc infill housing and redevelopment has affected the liveability of some city areas. This has resulted in a public backlash against medium-density housing and urban intensification. A better approach would be for territorial authorities to encourage innovative housing development approaches in accordance with community developed design guidelines (eg the development of medium density housing guidelines by city councils in the Auckland region and partnerships between councils and housing developers eg Harbour View development, Waitakere City). An issue to overcome is that some residential developers can have a negative attitude to anything but mainstream subdivision. With mixed use development (eg shared residential, commercial and industrial development in the same area), increasing attention needs to focus on addressing conflicts between different land uses in areas with high people densities. The assessment of cumulative effects of disparate land uses and increased attention on mitigating effects (eg visual and noise pollution) will be essential. At times, buffer zones may be required for physical separation of some land uses. The management and protection of historic and cultural heritage (eg waahi tapu, historic buildings) is currently under review by the Government. As part of this review: recognition of the importance of New Zealand heritage; the need for clear agency responsibilities and policies; adequate funding of heritage management and protection; and recognition of the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi will need to be addressed. International developments In both the UK and Australia, considerable emphasis has been placed on the importance of good design in helping to secure higher quality development and a higher quality built environment. The UK government is set to issue new urban design guidance to local authorities. Research is also being undertaken to assess the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits associated with urban design to inform policy development. In Australia, since the report by the Prime Minister’s Urban Design Task Force (1994), much work has been undertaken at all levels (Commonwealth, State and local authority) to improve 20 An intensive planning and design workshop to enable a community to discuss issues and provide

potential solutions for the future.

urban design. The task force was the first time that an Australia-wide review had attempted to examine ways of improving the quality of urban areas, and to strengthen the role played by urban design. The Australian National Resource Document for Residential Development (known as AMCORD) was launched by the Commonwealth Government in November 1995 (Department of Housing and Regional Development 1995). This is a manual of best practice covering both infill and greenfields development and it contains information on the latest urban research material. It emphasises the importance of adopting an integrated performance based approach to urban development, and provides a practical alternative to more prescriptive methods. The Commonwealth has funded States to employ AMCORD promotion officers to implement the programme at state level. The Australian Government has also released Australia’s guide to good residential design (Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1996b) targeted at industry, the general community, real estate agents, planners and urban designers. It includes sections on design principles for the single house, design principles for multi-unit development, designing for energy efficiency, and designing for safety. 4.6 Public/environmental health Issues: inadequate legislation and focus on public health issues; insufficient use of health impact assessment and healthy cities/communities approaches. Urbanisation can lead to specific health problems due to inadequate living conditions (overcrowding and dampness) and inadequate access to basic necessities of life and health services. Further risks arise from environmental conditions (eg air and water pollution) and social problems (eg increased accident and crime rates). Currently the Ministry of Health’s Public Health Group is reviewing water supply protection regulations, social/environmental determinants of health, and public health legislation. Territorial authority involvement with public and environmental health issues is variable as the public health legislation is enabling and does not clearly specify roles. It is essential that the Health Act review is completed to clarify the roles of respective authorities, improve the management of risks to public health, and obtain better outcomes for public health. Health Impact Assessment Health impact assessment (HIA), is a systematic approach for assessing the consequences of a particular course of action or choosing between a number of options over a wide range of proposed policies, programmes and legislation. The aim of HIA is to evaluate how proposals (and options) are likely to affect environmental quality and amenity values, which may consequently affect the health of individuals, a community or particular groups within a community (Public Health Commission 1995). As a decision-making tool, HIA should be regarded not only as a means of avoiding or reducing adverse health effects from individual activities, but also as a means of identifying opportunities to promote healthy and safe communities through improvements in environmental quality (Taylor 1998). There is little

evidence that HIA, and its potential to contribute to decision-making processes is well understood, or that in some cases much effort goes into assessing effects. Healthy Cities/Communities projects The Healthy Cities/Communities (HCC) project, is a World Health Organisation programme that was first started in New Zealand in 1988. There are currently nine HCC in operation. The project strives to improve environmental health and better living conditions in urban areas. Healthy Cities are a recognition that a person’s health is affected by their environment as well as the quality of health care. Local authorities have a key role with the implementation of HCC and there are significant opportunities for HCC programmes to involve Maori. HCC programmes in New Zealand have resulted from ad hoc initiatives and the commitment of individuals and community groups with variable support from government agencies, local government and the health sector. The Ministry of Health supports HCCs and has prepared service development guidelines, but there is no national designated coordinator of HCC programmes (Randle & Hutt 1997). There is considerable potential for the HCC programme, with its intersectoral and collaborative approach, to complement and enhance the development and success of local Agenda 21 approaches. The linking of biophysical and social issues with the integration of healthy city/community approaches and the principles of Agenda 21, would integrate and strengthen both environmental and social capital. Internationally, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has linked sustainable development and health and is assessing the practical implications for health of developing and implementing long-term action plans towards sustainability (Price & Dube 1996). The Safer Community Council programme operating out of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet provides for partnerships between central and local government and the community. The programme is a mechanism for encouraging crime prevention at the local level. There is scope for the programme to be extended beyond crime prevention to incorporate the HCC programme and also address other health and social issues. International research In the UK research on how to humanise housing estates was investigated to address common causes for problems like rising crime, educational decline, and overloaded social and health services; and to follow up with practical solutions to reduce the heavy human and financial costs on society that these problems incurred (Coleman 1997). In 1988 a UK$150 million national programme of experimental urban “retrofitting” was started. Grants were given to local authorities to redesign and retrofit their worst ‘state housing’ with surveys of every site and the whole process. This has since demonstrated the beneficial effects on education, crime, health and welfare of the improved buildings. Researchers found that the design changes did not merely displace crime, but actually changed basic attitudes (eg children became much calmer and easier to teach).

4.7 Infrastructure and transport systems Issues: inadequate recognition of ecological and energy efficiency requirements; insufficient adoption of the “polluter pays-user pays” principle to fund infrastructure; a lack of alternatives to roading and cars; inadequate focus on integrated management of all water flows (freshwater, wastewater and stormwater) as part of ecosystem management. Effective management of the infrastructure of cities is one of the most important components for ensuring the quality of the urban environment. The ecological and energy efficiency of our cities is going to be increasingly reliant on the adoption of advanced technologies. Examples are already emerging overseas of new sewage treatment systems, water mining from wastewater21, and programmes to reduce material use. These are leading, as in the case of Canberra, Australia, to a zero waste city within a decade. The adoption of new technologies will require shifts in investment strategies. For example, evaluating rates of return on investment over much longer time frames and evaluating the energy and ecological efficiency of all investment decisions, both in the short and long term. The “polluter pays-user pays” principle needs to be applied more extensively to cover the funding of the full costs (including environmental) of the provision and use of infrastructure. Infrastructure options will now be driven by economic criteria through the LGA but wider urban sustainability issues also need to be addressed (ie energy efficiency). Adequate criteria will be needed to determine the best mix of capital/operating costs and to address the relative weight of short term economic solutions compared with longer term but more sustainable options. Asset management planning is very valuable but the integration of methodologies that link asset management and environmental management will be essential (eg to integrate the management of water infrastructure, water use and the environment). Sustainable transport systems Urban transport systems have major effects on local air and water quality, noise levels, community sustainability (accessibility and severance issues), amenity values, and urban land use patterns. In New Zealand the transport sector contributes around 35 % of gross CO2 emissions. It is worth noting that a 1997 study of 37 cities for the World Bank made the following observations relating to transport, urban form and sustainability (Kenworthy et al 1997): • most cities are reurbanising and concentrating, reversing decades of decline in densities

(jobs and population); • the growth in car use in many cities is starting to decline and there is increasing use and

investment in collective transport systems (eg bus, light rail and train); and • those cities with better balanced transport systems are doing better economically and

environmentally. Less car dependent cities tend to spend less of their regional income on transport, have more capital and land for other activities, and fewer and shorter journeys are needed for a given level of accessibility.

World Resources 1996-97: The Urban Environment jointly published by the World Resources 21 The appropriateness of such overseas concepts within the New Zealand context will also need to be

evaluated within tangata whenua values and priorities such as the imperative to protect water - a taonga as well as a resource - from pollution and degradation.

Institute, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank, opens its chapter on Urban Transport with the following observations:

Motor vehicles offer undeniable advantages such as speed and convenience; indeed during the early stages of economic development, motor vehicles are vital to economic growth. However, the costs of increasing dependence on cars in the world's cities are becoming all too apparent. These include expensive road building and maintenance; clogged congested streets that undermine economic productivity; high levels of energy consumption with its attendant economic and environmental costs; worsening air and noise pollution; traffic accidents and social inequities that arise when the poor find transportation services increasingly unaffordable.

The high costs associated with urban transportation are not inevitable. Indeed considerable opportunity exists to design more efficient transportation systems and, in the process, create more liveable cities. A critical step for developed and developing countries alike is to move towards managing urban travel demand rather than simply increasing the supply - in particular by reducing or averting over-reliance on the privately owned car (World Resources Institute et al 1996).

Many effects of land transport are difficult to control because they arise from the cumulative, synergistic effects of many individual decisions over a long period of time. “Appropriate pricing” of road transport including the full consideration of the environmental costs and benefits may bring changes in the cost of road transport. However, with inelastic demand, changes to the pricing of land transport may not bring the desired changes in behaviour, with continuing use of private vehicles, albeit at a higher price. Major transport initiatives such as: road reform; the Transport and Environment Select Committee inquiry into the environmental effects of road transport; the development of the national land transport strategy; Transfund’s review of both project evaluation procedures and alternatives to roading procedures; the vehicle fleet emissions control strategy; and the demand restraint working group (Ministry of Transport and others), are all currently in progress. Sustainable transport systems are wider than those previously proposed for road reform. There is a need to integrate the management of transport systems as part of wider environmental management and address energy use, vehicle emissions, mobility and access issues (ie how New Zealand can use less resources and increase efficiencies). Technical innovations to decrease per vehicle emissions and increase fuel efficiency can fail to achieve any overall environmental gains if vehicle use continues to increase. Reducing the need for mobility, particularly at peak traffic times, is one way of reducing traffic. A more balanced approach to achieve safe, sustainable land transport systems is required with a comprehensive package of pricing, regulatory, enforcement, and education approaches. In the longer term, the energy efficiency of passenger transport can best be improved through a more energy-efficient urban form with better integration of transport infrastructure and greater provision of consumer-friendly public transport along with changes to fuel and

transport prices and improvements to vehicle engines and body technologies. Lifestyle choices will also impact on vehicle use (EECA 1997). A weakness in the New Zealand urban transport system is the lack of significant investment in public transport in comparison to roading. The role and provision of public transport is not given adequate attention as part of longer term solutions for sustainable transport systems. Public transport is essential in a city to improve overall energy efficiency and ensure affordable, accessible and means of mobility for the transport disadvantaged. A significantly higher level of public transport service provision is warranted when road users are required to pay the full costs of their road use including environmental and congestion externalities. A recent positive development is the Canterbury Regional Council’s preparation of a public transport strategy for Christchurch. A highly successful consultative approach has resulted in strong public support for a public transport vision to reduce car traffic and provide a less car dependent future. Sustainable transport systems are being addressed in Europe with considerable emphasis placed on strategic environmental assessment (SEA). SEA can be applied to policies, programmes and plans and is a complementary measure to the system of EIA. SEA can promote sustainable development since it can more adequately address the aggregate environmental impacts of transport systems and the evaluation of alternative transport strategies (European Conference of Ministers of Transport 1998). Sustainable water systems One of the big challenges of the 21st century will be to reduce large flows of both solid and liquid wastes to reduce environmental impacts and to increase the efficiency of resources uses inclusive of energy. “Long pipe” water supply and sewage systems, dominate our urban evolution. However, some water and sewerage systems are nearing the end of their useful life and significant amounts of deferred maintenance have built up as the result of short term decisions, political involvement and conflicting priorities. The cost of replacing this existing infrastructure is potentially a major impediment to the development of more ecologically and cost-effective systems. Cities depend on a variety of environmental functions and “ecosystem services”22 to provide clean air and water, and to process waste. However, as cities grow and infrastructure and roads are built, the contribution from natural “ecosystem services” is reduced. Greater recognition is required of the role of “ecosystem services” and the value of these services needs to be incorporated into decision-making systems. “Ecosystem services” are very expensive to replicate and the loss of these services has socio-economic effects with long term implications for urban sustainability (Costanza et al 1997). There are major legislative deficiencies with at least 36 national and 130 local Acts constraining the way in which local authorities operate the water and wastewater industry. 22 These are the functions carried out by ecosystems that ensure natural cycles (of water, carbon, oxygen,

soil etc) continue to provide an environment that is conducive to quality of life, including human life. Ecosystem goods (such as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) represent the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions. Because “ecosystem services” are not fully “captured” in commercial markets or adequately quantified in terms comparable with economic services, they are often given too little weight in policy decisions.

The health regulatory framework is also inadequate and where regulations do exist, they have no mandate in legislation (eg national drinking water standards). In some areas there is a lack of effective integrated planning by territorial authorities with the result that rapid growth areas like the Kapiti Coast could be over-engineered because of the demands of subdivision developers, which then places higher economic costs on to the rest of the community (Wilson 1998). The requirement for territorial authorities to develop asset management plans and long term financial strategies has highlighted the true cost of some infrastructure systems (eg the cost to upgrade the Auckland region’s water and wastewater assets has been estimated to be around $3 B over the next 20 years). Water utility reform will inevitably bring a major overhaul of water management policies and practices but it will also require the adoption of systems that are more sustainable with higher levels of resource reuse and greater recognition of the need for water conservation measures. New water or waste business models that are dependent on increased sale of their goods or services (ie increased throughput) will not deliver on the environmental resource efficiency aims that are required. A very good overview and summary of common themes and conclusions for the water industry was presented at the 1998 New Zealand Water and Wastes Association conference (Boshier et al 1998). They included: • consumers want safe drinking water, adequate management of wastewater, continuity,

affordability and environmental performance; • there is a need to separate out the functions of asset ownership, service provision and

regulation, to retain public ownership of assets through some (new) mechanism; • there is a strong linkage between water and wastewater functions; • existing legislation for the water industry is a “mess” and new legislation is required. It

should be enabling, with non-negotiable bottom lines through the Health Act. Business practices should be covered by other legislation; and

• costs must increase to fund capital works and deferred maintenance. Water charges are too low and metering is an important tool for good management control.

Urban stormwater flows need urgent attention if there is to be significant improvement in the quality of urban streams and coastal marine areas. The separation of combined sewage/stormwater pipes is progressing slowly in Auckland but on the basis of overseas experience, there will eventually be a need to treat all stormwater discharges, particularly that from roads. In 1995 an Auckland Regional Council commissioned report from NIWA on the effects of Auckland’s urban stormwater runoff found widespread contamination of estuarine sediments sufficient to cause abnormal growth in shellfish. Sustainable urban water management involves closer integration of water and material recycling loops with those of the natural environment and a concerted attempt to minimise waste and water consumption. CSIRO (Australia’s national research institute) is undertaking a major three year study on alternative approaches to the design of urban water systems including improved nutrient management (to keep nutrients out of the sewerage system or to recover them); reduction in stormwater quantity and velocity; and new pipeline technologies such as dual reticulation. The aim of the sustainable urban water systems programme is to deliver a reduction in costs, more efficient use of resources and better environmental outcomes (CSIRO 1998).

4.8 Energy efficiency and waste management Issue: inadequate focus on improving energy efficiency and reducing waste. Energy efficiency Most of the world’s most dynamic, developed economies (eg Japan) use energy very efficiently and overall economic performance is strongly correlated with the price of energy (ie the higher the price, the better the performance) (Weizsacker et al 1997). Although New Zealand’s energy intensity23 has been improving since 1993, New Zealand still has high levels of energy use per capita compared with other OECD countries and this affects both the environment and the economy. The transport sector uses 39 % of total consumer energy while the industrial sector (35 %) and the residential sector (12 %) are the other main users. Electricity industry reform and increased competition between petrol companies are largely motivated by the Government’s desire to ensure that energy services continue to be available at the lowest cost to the economy. This focus on least cost economic solutions may bring short term economic benefits but it could result in missed opportunities to improve energy efficiency, with longer term costs for the environment and the economy. For example, the stated objectives of the proposed reforms to the electricity industry are to:

o lower wholesale electricity prices; o give choice of energy supplier to consumers; o inject new technology; and o encourage sensible amalgamation of the industry.

However, it is not clear to what extent the reforms will make a significant contribution to increasing New Zealand’s energy efficiency and thereby reduce the use of resources and advance sustainable development. Good monitoring of the actual outcomes of the reforms, in terms of the benefits they deliver, or fail to deliver, would be a sound investment. Some promotion and investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy has occurred in New Zealand through various Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) approaches (ie the energy wise companies campaign, the $18 M energy saver fund for the residential sector, the Crown energy efficiency land scheme and renewable energy initiatives), and from the revision of the Building Code. The Building Research Association of New Zealand’s green home scheme launched in 1997 is also a positive initiative. EECA has been making a steady contribution towards improving energy efficiency in New Zealand. However, in the 1998/99 budget the Government reduced funding of EECA from $5.1M to $4.6M and accelerated the phasing out of the energy saver fund for household efficiency projects. EECA has successfully established valuable partnerships with a range of agencies (eg power companies and councils) to deliver on energy efficiency. There is considerable potential for EECA to become more involved with transport/energy issues, cleaner production/energy issues and responding to climate change. Further exploration of demand side and energy efficiency programmes would bring environmental and economic 23 The energy required to produce a unit of gross domestic product.

benefits for all energy users and suppliers. They would also reduce the need for more generating capacity, most of which is likely to be thermal and thus CO2 emitting. There is a lack of central government support for alternative fuels with declining use. This is surprising given that in 1996, EECA tests of a dedicated natural gas vehicle revealed it could produce savings over the petrol version of around 13 % in energy and 40 % in cost (EECA 1996). Alternative fuels and clean energy sources need to be promoted as part of the management of urban environments. The 1996 OECD review of New Zealand’s environmental management (OECD 1996) commented on the energy sector and made several recommendations to the Government to: • continue to use and expand the use of ambitious quantitative targets for the country’s

environmentally related energy objectives, particularly with respect to energy efficiency, car emissions and greenhouse gas emissions;

• continue to improve energy efficiency in the industry, transport, residential and commerce sectors;

• strengthen measures to internalise external costs of energy activities; and • introduce measures to control motor vehicle emissions. Although the Government is committed to an ongoing role with EECA to foster improved energy efficiency and it is developing a vehicle fleet emissions control strategy, it has not yet adequately responded to available opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming and climate variability - risk management From a risk management perspective, New Zealand is not putting enough effort into establishing systems to monitor and manage climate extreme risks regardless of their ultimate cause. As a nation we accept that global warming is occurring and as a consequence of the warming there appears to be (though not scientifically proven) an increase in climate variability (ie extremes of weather). The insurance industry is very aware of the cost of storm-related damage worldwide and 1997/98 is shaping up to be another record year for such damages. Climatic extremes represent one of New Zealand’s biggest economic risks; firstly to our land-based industries but, secondly, to the infrastructure of our cities, principally power, water supply and sewage management. Many urban areas are also situated on the coastal edge and they are at risk from rises in sea levels. Given our electricity production is largely based on renewable energy (ie hydro), New Zealand has a relatively high cost of abatement of CO2 emissions and the majority of the abatement will need to occur within the transport and industrial sectors. Waste management Waste is an increasing problem, being generated in ever increasing quantities and in more complex and hazardous forms. Disposal facilities are increasingly more difficult and costly to establish and operate. The LGA, RMA and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 provide the framework for waste management in New Zealand. Territorial authorities have responsibilities for waste management under the LGA and they are required to adopt the

waste management hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycle, recover and residual management) and develop waste management plans. “Cross-media effects” (eg effects of different waste disposal pathways/options on the media of air, water, etc) need to be considered if decisions are to reflect sustainable development. There is considerable scope for improving the quality of information on waste management practices and achieving waste minimisation rather than just managing effects. Improvements in cost modelling are required so that the true costs of options are considered (eg transport costs of landfilling of solid waste) as there are significant risks if this is not done. In 1997 the MFE produced the first national waste data report. Comprehensive waste data was scarce with incomplete information for industrial and trade waste. The results indicated that limited progress has been made with waste reduction. To assist the future gathering of information on waste, MFE has developed a waste analysis protocol and is undertaking a three year work programme to provide for the effective management and disposal of hazardous wastes. The reduction of domestic and municipal waste is being promoted by MFE through cleaner production programmes, voluntary waste agreements with industry groups (eg to reduce packaging) and the promotion of the Environmental Choice label. MFE’s cleaner production work is not focussing on specific industries (eg the construction sector) but on the capability of key organisations (eg local authorities and BRANZ) to promote cleaner production. The MFE Sustainable Management Fund has supported more than 20 cleaner production projects but more attention must go on reducing and reusing waste (as identified by the 1996 OECD environmental performance review). The ARC and other territorial authorities in Auckland have also done considerably work in promoting waste minimisation. The establishment of the Recovered Materials Foundation in Christchurch to encourage waste minimisation and create jobs is a positive initiative with new markets for waste gathered through recycling. Despite these initiatives there is a lack of incentives for resource users to reduce waste and further work is required to develop national standards with more ambitious waste reduction targets.

International developments with indicators

The United Nation Commission on Sustainable Development is researching indicators for sustainable development in response to chapter 40 of Agenda 21. These indicators seek to address the integration of social, economic, environmental and institutional aspects of sustainable development. The concept of pressure has been replaced by that of “driving forces”, in order to accommodate more accurately the addition of social, economic and institutional factors. The UK Round Table on Sustainable Development’s report Getting the best out of indicators (1997) has recommended the further development of indicators of sustainable development to develop and communicate policy and to monitor its implementation and consequences. Seven suggested high profile ‘headline’ indicators encompass: non-renewable resource consumption (transformation of materials, use of land/water, energy production), pollution (land, air,

water), social issues (health, education, poverty, unemployment, crime), biodiversity, landscape and cultural values.

Europe’s Environment Agency has commissioned work examining the quality of more than 50 European cities using data on 20 indicators, focusing on patterns (population, land use cover, areas of dereliction and urban renewal and urban mobility), urban flows (water consumption and waste, energy, transport of goods, waste production, treatment and disposal, and recycling) and urban environmental quality (air and water quality, noise, traffic safety, housing conditions, accessibility to green space and wildlife quality). This analysis is currently being updated along with specific research to develop an urban audit for Europe (Fudge 1998). The independent Australian state of environment report reviewed the state of human settlements (see chapter 3.3) and recommended a set of social amenity and health indicators to report on: wealth inequality; income inequality; unemployment; education and training; housing; accessibility and urban design and health. Further work on both human settlement and natural and cultural heritage indicators is being undertaken (Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1996a).

4.9 Monitoring and indicators Issue: the lack of urban sustainability indicators and targets to measure and report on sustainable urban development trends. Monitoring is required to assess the state of the urban environment and measure the effectiveness of national and local actions to improve urban sustainability. Urban sustainability indicators that highlight key trends should address all dimensions of sustainable development including environmental, economic, social, cultural and environmental health. There is no specific government programme to develop or use indicators of sustainable development at the national, regional or local levels. The MFE environmental indicators programme primarily focuses on the development of indicators for the biophysical environment (eg proposed indicators for air, freshwater and land), although amenity values indicators are proposed. While vitally important the programme is inadequate to monitor urban sustainability in its wider context and the programme has extremely limited value for territorial authorities directly involved with urban sustainability issues. Most regional councils have limited their involvement with monitoring of the urban environment and urban sustainability and have primarily focussed on monitoring the sustainable management of the biophysical environment. Therefore the state and total impact of urban areas has not been monitored or assessed. While it is acknowledged that territorial authorities gather much information on urban sustainability issues (eg socio-economic, community, landuse, and amenity values information), the level of processing and funding for aggregating information internally or to regional and national levels needs to be addressed.

At the national level there has been little development of quality of life indicators that incorporate social and environmental health dimensions. At the local level, Christchurch, Hamilton, Manukau and Waitakere City Councils are developing core sets of sustainability indicators that address quality of life aspects and environmental, social and economic factors. 4.10 Urban sustainability research Issue: the lack of central government interest and investment in urban research. The overall level of investment in research and technology in New Zealand is one of the lowest in the OECD. Central government has increased its share of investment through expanding the public good science fund (PGSF) and the “science funding envelope”, but the private sector has responded slowly. The majority of PGSF (1996/97) is spent on:

o primary industries ($150 M or 56 %, outputs 01 to 06), o manufacturing ($28.8 M or 11 %, output 07); and o biophysical resources and ecosystems ($69 M or 26 %, outputs 14 to 17).

The rest of the fund (7 %) covers “other outputs” ie tourism and service industries; information and communication services; the construction industry; transport and energy sectors; society and culture (outputs 08 to 13). The Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FORST) which administers the PGSF, has identified that 51 out of 675 1996/98 PGSF research projects have some relevance to urban management issues. Most of these 51 projects are clustered in the “other outputs” category, with 32 in the energy, society and culture, land and freshwater ecosystems classes. There is a lack of funding for research of urban sustainability issues that often involve cross-output research and at times elements of operational research. The PGSF does not fund operational research as this is left to government agencies and other interests but these agencies do not fund urban research either. The Marsden Fund, administered by FORST for “blue-sky” innovative research, is seen by some as being directed at pure, not social, science. Since October 1994 the MFE has administered a sustainable management fund for environmental management research. Around $19 M has been allocated over the four years to date. Applications to the fund are assessed on their contribution to sustainable management and their contribution to achieving the Government’s environmental goals in the Environment 2010 Strategy. Most funding has been on:

sustainable land management ($4.4 M or 23 %); contaminated sites ($2 M or 11 %); waste management and cleaner production ($3.4 M or 18 %); monitoring ($4.9 M or 26 %); and voluntary methods ($2 M or 11 %) (MFE 1998).

Around $5.3 M has been spent on research relating to urban sustainability (ie contaminated sites, waste management/cleaner production ($1.3 M), monitoring ($1.9 M including air pollution monitoring $1.4M), and voluntary methods (0.8 M). However, there has been little funding available for research of the socio-economic dimensions of urban sustainability or for the development of urban indicators, urban design initiatives, and historic and cultural heritage research. In 1992 MFE published a short report called Resource Management Ideas No. 5 - Urban Sustainability (MFE 1992). In early 1993 the workshop on Sustainable Development - a social perspective was held with FORST (MFE & FORST 1993). This was followed in April 1993 by the launch of the Significant Trends booklet (MFE 1993), a questionnaire on urban issues. Here MFE commented it had “a role to play in maintaining or improving the ecological, social and economic conditions of urban areas” and to help in “developing a framework for understanding urban sustainability and identifying related indicators for its monitoring.” Since 1994 this work has been discontinued. It has been difficult to obtain information from within MFE to trace the subsequent development of this urban sustainability initiative, and the timing or reasons for its apparent demise.

5 THE CRITICAL ISSUES AND THE WAY FORWARD 5.1 Introduction The objectives of this report are to provide an overview of the management of the urban environment and to identify the critical issues and strategic risks affecting the management of the urban environment. This chapter discusses seven issues of critical importance for the future management of New Zealand’s cities: sustainable urban development; the role of Agenda 21, leadership and vision; sustainable communities; liveability and quality of life; sustainable transport systems and eco-efficiency; and science, research and technology. It then concludes with a list of priority areas that require further investigation and analysis. The critical urban issues were selected because of their current and/or potential impact on the quality of the urban environment. 5.2 Summary of sustainable urban development issues and trends Sustainable urban development is being addressed globally. Increasingly, cities are being recognised as the engines of economic development and so they need to compete using this new agenda. This is a new challenge for New Zealand cities. Table 5.1 (next page) highlights some of the key issues and trends affecting the management of the urban environment in New Zealand. The table shows a range of positive, negative and uncertain central and local government responses to sustainable urban development. The table shows a lack of action at the national level on urban sustainability issues (eg no national sustainable development strategy, lack of implementation of Agenda 21; no urban sustainability indicators). The lack of a sustainable development and urban research focus means there is a lack of information on how to progress urban sustainability. There is insufficient national focus on issues relating to improving resource use, energy efficiency and reducing waste. These are all vitally important in the urban context. Local government performance is too variable to be adequately summarised. However, many local authorities have not sufficiently embraced urban sustainability issues or adopted the principles of Agenda 21 as the basis for decision-making. Local Agenda 21 action plans would be one mechanism for the integration of many urban sustainability issues and for providing for greater levels of participation by the community. Many regional councils are not putting significant resources into addressing urban sustainability issues. Many regional policy statements do not adequately recognise urban sustainability issues and this has resulting consequences for the research and monitoring of the outcomes of policies and objectives for sustainable urban development at the regional level.

Table 5.1 Key issues, condition and responses Key issue Condition Public sector response Effectiveness of response Sustainable urban development based on Agenda 21 principles

No implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level. Some implementation of Agenda 21 at the local level (eg Waitakere, Hamilton, Christchurch City Councils).

Little national coordination and a lack of information on Agenda 21 approaches and best practice. Sustainable urban development principles not featuring in national decision making. No sustainable urban development indicators.

Poor, apart from a few initiatives by territorial authorities who have prepared strategic plans and visions. Practical implementation still to be addressed

Urban growth and development.

Low density development continuing but increasing medium density housing and infill/redevelopment. Increasing urban development pressure along coastal areas. Continued loss of versatile soils to suburban development.

RMA promotes sustainable management of the natural and physical environment. LGA asset management plans and long-term financial plans to fund infrastructure. Slow progression towards full user pays for infrastructure.

Too early to assess. Some concerns about ability of RMA to provide integrated management and deliver on sustainable management. Adverse public reaction to user pays for infrastructure.

Transport management

Increasing car ownership, traffic congestion, air emissions, noise levels and urban stormwater runoff from roading network.

Road reform proposals to date have not addressed all transport issues eg environmental, social and sustainable development issues. Limited encouragement of alternatives to roading and lack of funding. Some use of transit oriented development planning.

Limited integration of transport and land use planning. Greater consideration of alternatives to private vehicles required. Lack of travel demand management.

Urban air quality Localised issue for Christchurch, and some areas adjacent to motorways (eg in Auckland).

Christchurch addressing use of fires for home heating. National vehicle fleet emission control strategy being developed.

Slow responses but gathering momentum.

Climate change Continuing increases in gross emissions, mainly from the transport sector.

Voluntary reduction agreements with major industry groupings. Energy efficiency programmes. Consideration of carbon taxes and transferable permits.

Little progress with gross emissions increasing.

Liveability Comparatively high although some changes to local amenity values through infill/ redevelopment. Continuing loss of cultural heritage sites and buildings.

Limited use of urban design approaches by councils and no national support. Government review of system for historic and cultural heritage management.

Insufficient focus on urban design and liveability. Inadequate management and protection of important heritage features.

Reducing resource inputs

High levels of per capita consumption of energy, water, land and building materials.

Limited initiatives to reduce resource inputs with primary focus on ‘least cost’ solutions. $18 M five year energy saver fund announced in 1995. In 1998 reduced funding for EECA and energy efficiency programmes.

Energy, water and land use planning not sufficiently integrated. No vehicle energy programmes. Some water demand management. Few building material programmes.

Reducing waste outputs

High levels of waste. Some cleaner production measures and local waste minimisation programmes. Limited management of urban stormwater.

Little support for waste minimisation initiatives. Management of urban stormwater yet to be addressed.

The Auckland Regional Council is a notable exception and through the Auckland Growth Forum, the Council and Auckland territorial authorities are attempting to develop a vision for the Auckland region and respond to urban sustainability issues. Canterbury Regional Council (transport and energy issues) and Wellington Regional Council (built environment and heritage issues) have also been active in addressing some urban sustainability issues. 5.3 The critical urban issues 5.3.1 Sustainable urban development At the simplest level, sustainable urban development is about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, both now and in the future. Sustainable urban development is not an end state but a process that recognises and integrates the different components of sustainable development (economic, environmental, social and cultural factors) for the wellbeing of both present and future urban generations.. Key attributes of a sustainable urban environment include: • a reducing ecological footprint with improving resource use efficiency and reduced waste; • maintenance of the natural environment and life-supporting ecosystems with action to limit

global and local environmental threats such as climate change and the loss of biodiversity; • opportunities for true individual and community participation in decision-making and

management of the environment; • recognition of cultural diversity and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; • well maintained physical and social infrastructure; • transport systems that provide mobility, accessibility and choice; • a healthy, safe and pleasant environment with opportunities for recreation and leisure; • the provision of affordable housing and recognition of the social needs of everyone with an

equitable and caring community; and • the provision of business opportunities and employment choice. A vital part of sustainable development is setting targets and devising performance indicators (ie environmental, economic, social and cultural parameters) to keep track of progress to enable policy and management changes where targets are and are not being met and to report to a wide audience. However, New Zealand’s capabilities to measure sustainability, as distinct from environmental indicators, is very limited. Internationally there is increasing effort being devoted to developing measures of well-being as part of the sustainability quest.24 A recent study tour has examined and reported on “measures of sustainability” to link economic, ecological and community indicators of sustainability. The findings of this study tour need to trigger a more effective research and policy effort for sustainability in New Zealand (MORST 1998). In New Zealand the broad goals of sustainable development of the urban environment are not currently a feature of any legislation or environmental policy. Unlike other OECD countries (eg the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, Australia, Sweden and Germany), New Zealand has 24 An example is “The Genuine Progress Indicator” described by Halstead, T, 1997 in “The Science of

Politics of New Measures of Progress: A United States Perspective. In Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Measuring National Progress, Canberra, Australia, July, 1997. (In Press.)

no national sustainable development coordinating body (neither a government agency nor roundtable), no national sustainable development strategy and no sustainable development indicators. There has also been inadequate debate at both government and community level on what sustainable development actually means for New Zealand’s urban environment. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) recognised the vital role of urban areas in contributing to sustainable development. The OECD has promoted sustainable development as the central component for all government policies, not as a “policy clip on”, but an underpinning philosophy that determines the way in which government policy is ordered and approached. However, New Zealand seems reluctant to adopt the broad principles of sustainable development that ultimately require changes to consumption and waste patterns. Instead New Zealand has chosen to largely focus on the mitigation of effects. In contrast to sustainable development, the purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. There is currently debate about what the RMA should address but a pure biophysical approach to resource management, as some propose, is too narrow an approach to address the requirements of urban sustainability and assist the integrated management of the urban environment. New Zealand is committed to sustainable management of natural and physical resources but only within the context of “we will choose our development pathway on the basis of economic efficiencies and mitigate any resulting environmental effects that arise”. The mitigation of effects dominance of our sustainability model is our Achilles heel as it does not imply the need for efficiency of resource use. The focus of the RMA on the management of effects, and not the nature and efficiency of resource use, will not be enough to achieve urban sustainability. Sustainable development requires greater efficiencies in resource use, and a reduction in resource flows (ie getting more, from less, for longer) and not just managing effects. To remain internationally competitive New Zealand will need to improve its efficiency of resource use (ie in household, transport and business energy use, water use and waste production), while retaining labour productivity. Consumers will require more information to enable them to make choices in the supply of goods and services that contribute to advancing sustainability. The RMA provides for a limited version of environmental impact assessment (EIA) by requiring an assessment of environmental effects (AEE) as part of resource consent applications. This is more restrictive than the broad range of effects covered by EIA approaches and EIA has ceased being a policy analysis tool since the introduction of the RMA. There is a need to re-establish EIA as a major instrument (including strategic environmental assessment) and use it for policy appraisal, by central, regional and local government and not just when the RMA requires an AEE. It is not clear whether it is possible to adapt the RMA to better consider resource flows and efficiencies through new procedures such as local Agenda 21 plans and strategic environmental assessment, or whether new legislation is required to provide for sustainable development. International approaches

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development In late 1996, the OECD Secretary-General established a high level advisory group on the environment to advise him on how the OECD could best serve its member countries in the field of the environment. This was completed in November 1997 and the advisory group reported:

the crux of our recommendations is that sustainable development not be seen as one among many important items on the OECD agenda. Instead, it should become a way of ordering and approaching all other issues. Our key recommendation is that the OECD should, as a matter of urgency, develop into the key intergovernmental organisation providing the industrialised nations with the analytic and comparative framework of policy necessary for their economies to make the transition to sustainable development (OECD 1997).

The report recommended that the OECD place as much emphasis on improving resource efficiency as traditionally spent on improving labour productivity. More effective environmental governance was required to enable more effective coordination of environmental, economic and sectoral policies necessary for the transition to sustainable development. Following this high-level report, the Secretary-General committed the OECD to pursuing sustainable development as a key strategic priority. The April 1998 OECD environment Ministers meeting (chaired by the Hon. S. Upton, Minister for the Environment, New Zealand) reaffirmed the leadership role and special responsibilities of OECD countries in the world-wide pursuit of sustainable development, in accordance with Agenda 21. Environment Ministers agreed on several goals to implement sustainable development including: • promoting strong national policies and effective regulatory structures on the protection

of the natural environment and human health; • promoting an integrated policy approach which encourages coherence among

economic, environmental and social policies by: a promoting sustainable consumption and production patterns; b promoting other innovative approaches such as eco-efficiency, aiming to

achieve substantial improvements in resource productivity (eg by a factor of 4 and eventually 10);

c ensuring that prices of natural resources as far as possible reflect the true environmental and social costs of production, consumption and scarcity;

d integrating the environmental dimension into sectoral policies eg transport, energy, and tourism; and

e showing leadership by improving the environmental performance of government’s own operations, procurement and investment policies and decision-making processes.

Europe The European Commission has formally recognised the need to give more attention at European Union level to the problems of cities. The European Commission’s Green Paper on the Urban Environment (CEC 1990) is regarded as a milestone in thinking about the urban environment, principally because it advocated a holistic view of urban problems and an integrated approach to their solution (Fudge 1998). More recently the Commission released Towards an Urban Agenda in the European Union (CEC 1997) to seek input into future actions and the organisation of an urban forum. The 1990 Green Paper led to the formation of the Urban Environment Expert Group and the European Sustainable Cities project. The Expert Group undertook the preparation of European Sustainable Cities (CEC 1996) which identifies the principles of sustainability and the mechanisms needed to pursue it in all levels of urban settlement. The European Sustainable Cities project links policies for sustainable cities and implements them through the European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign. The objective of the Campaign is to encourage and support cities, towns and countries in working towards sustainability and to promote sustainability at the local level through Agenda 21 processes. The European environment agency has been active in providing information to promote sustainable development by local authorities in Europe (EEA 1997).

United Kingdom (UK) In the UK, the Blair Government has established the Environment Cabinet Committee (chaired by the Deputy Prime-Minister) to assist the Government to deal with sustainable development issues in a coordinated way, and to set clear goals. The Committee has moved to re-establish and reinvigorate the previous Green Minister network where each government department has an appointed Green Minister to progress the sustainable development agenda in three particular areas: • ensuring environmental appraisal of Government policies, programmes and projects; • advocating sustainable development concerns at the policy-making level; and • greening Government operations. The Government has also established the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee to consider the extent to which the policies and programmes of Government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit the performance against such targets as may be set for them by Ministers; and to report to the House. In 1995 the previous conservative Government founded the Round Table on Sustainable Development. This is a high level think tank charged with identifying the agenda and priorities for sustainable development and developing new areas of consensus between people who have different perspectives and responsibilities. The Round Table provides advice and recommendations to the Government and other groups on actions to achieve sustainable development and evaluates progress towards objectives (Canada also has a national round table on sustainable development). A sustainable development unit has been established within the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions to coordinate and integrate government policy initiatives. Part of this work includes the release of a consultation document on revising the national sustainable development strategy (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions 1998a).

Potential New Zealand approaches New Zealand lacks a central government agency or unit that could advise the government on the full range of economic, social, cultural and environmental issues within a sustainable development framework. In addition, there is no independent environment agency like the UK Round Table concerned with the broader social and cultural dimensions of sustainable development, such as making urban areas more liveable. A central Government agency or unit charged with sustainable development could: • prepare an overarching national sustainable development strategy with clear goals for

implementation; • use strategic environmental assessment approaches to assess all policy proposals from a

sustainable development perspective (eg inclusion of sustainable development reporting on papers going to Cabinet committees, eg as is currently required for financial implications using the existing CAB100 report format);

• promote education on sustainable development issues and approaches (see chapter 5.3.3); • prepare, and report on sustainable development indicators; and • develop national guidelines and information packages (eg good practice) to assist local

authorities and communities to adopt sustainable development principles and Agenda 21 (see below).

Achieving sustainable cities requires urban development to be addressed in an integrated manner, balancing economic, social and environmental considerations. This will take vision, leadership, participation and involvement, investment, and agreement on clear goals for sustainable urban development (eg zero waste, increased energy efficiency, increased accessibility, improved health and well-being). Vision and leadership is not the imposition of ideas, but rather an investment in consultation, dialogue, and negotiation processes which can enable informed decisions by agencies and groups. A New Zealand sustainable cities policy could be prepared as part of a national sustainable development strategy. A sustainable cities policy could address the larger urban issues such as: • a national vision for urban settlements; • standards for information and monitoring; • planning and funding of cross-boundary infrastructure; • assistance and promotion of local authority and community partnerships in areas such as

affordable housing and urban design; and • research funding priorities across the wide sustainable development portfolio which

includes social, economic and environment integrated studies. Local authorities There is a clear need for investment in assisting the role of coordinating integrated management at community, city and regional levels. Support could also be provided to assist community-based initiatives in addressing urban sustainability issues. Local authorities have an important role and the potential exists for them to work more in resourced, well-managed partnerships with their communities of interest, stakeholders and citizens on sustainability issues. A constructive rethink of how local government addresses sustainable development issues and interacts with other agencies and constituencies is needed.

Sustainable urban development

Unresolved issues include:

• how can central and local government best respond to the principles of sustainable development and Agenda 21 with the integration of environmental, economic and social issues as part of the management of the urban environment? How can competitive advantage for New Zealand cities be achieved through sustainable urban development?

• how can New Zealand make better use of resources and improve economic and environmental efficiency (ie how to “get more, from less, for longer”)? Does this require new legislation or can the RMA be re-interpreted and new administrative procedures and processes be created around the new agenda?

• what sustainable urban development indicators should be prepared and reported on?

5.3.2 The role of Agenda 21 A major result of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was Agenda 21: a non binding framework of action to achieve sustainable development (see appendix 3). Agenda 21 consists of four interlinked sections: social and economic dimensions; management and conservation of natural resources; means of implementation; and strengthening the role of major groups. Agenda 21 provides a framework for bringing together disparate issues, actions, people and organisations into a coherent strategy for a more sustainable future. In 1997 the nineteenth special session of the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed that Agenda 21 remained the fundamental programme of action for achieving sustainable development and that an acceleration in the implementation of Agenda 21 was required. The Assembly confirmed that sustainable urban development is essential and that local Agenda 21 programmes should be actively encouraged. Notwithstanding differences in opinion on the value of international agreements, the benefits of Agenda 21 include: • that it has provided a framework for discussion on sustainable development; • it has introduced the need for holistic approaches and integrative strategies; and • it has strengthened the principles of participation and partnership (EEA 1997). Agenda 21 specifically recognises that local authorities have key roles in implementing local Agenda 21 action plans. A successful Agenda 21 process to implement local partnerships for sustainable development can involve: • multi-sectoral engagement in preparing a long term action plan based on sustainable

development; • a commitment to long term meaningful consultation; • strengthening participatory assessment of local social, environmental, and economic

conditions and needs; • negotiating of specific target setting to achieve local visions and goals; and • monitoring and reporting through the use of local indicators developed and measured by

local community.

Following UNCED the New Zealand Government established an UNCED implementation officials group, an interdepartmental committee to coordinate the Government’s domestic implementation of Agenda 21 and prepare annual reports to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). So far, the group’s main focus has been on reporting progress rather than ensuring the implementation of Agenda 21 at either the national or local levels. In 1994 the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) produced an Agenda 21 implementation guide for local authorities (MFE 1994) and formed a trial partnership with the then Local Government Association and five local authorities (Waitakere, Wellington, Nelson, Tasman and Waimakariri). Since then, there has been little national leadership, promotion or coordination of local Agenda 21 initiatives with no national Agenda 21 implementation strategy. Without adequate central government support, the awareness of opportunities provided by Agenda 21 in integrating economic, environmental, social and cultural factors is limited. As a result only a few urban territorial authorities are committed to, and deeply involved with, implementation of Agenda 21 in New Zealand (ie Waitakere and Hamilton City Councils). New Zealand has reported to the CSD that:

Most local authorities, in preparing the various strategic planning documents required of them under legislation such as the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act, are giving effect to many of the matters set out in Agenda 21. In many ways their annual, strategic, and district plans can be considered “local Agenda 21s” (MFE 1997b).

In early 1998, MFE stated it had “maintained a watching brief on Agenda 21 and has worked on the basis that much of what local government is already doing in terms of environmental management and sustainable development is consistent with the aims of local Agenda 21”. Presumably this is through the requirements of the RMA (regional and district plans) and LGA (annual and strategic plans). While sustainable management may be enshrined in the RMA, this is not sustainable development as recognised by Agenda 21. Most local authorities have not formally adopted the principles of Agenda 21 and they are not giving effect to the matters set out in Agenda 21. In New Zealand, the integrated management of the different components of sustainable development by local authorities remains elusive. In partnership with central government, local authorities (eg through Local Government New Zealand) could play a key role in supporting Agenda 21 actions and in developing resources from which to base sustainable development initiatives appropriate for each authority and the communities they serve. The inclusion of an Agenda 21 workshop in the 1998 local government conference programme is a welcome sign that local government is prepared to explore and expand their understanding of the benefits that Agenda 21 approaches can bring, particularly, when it is used as a broad framework for integrating a range of environmental and socio-economic initiatives within cities and districts.

A key aspect of Agenda 21 is the involvement of individuals and community groups to improve participation and actions to progress sustainable development. New and innovative ways of enabling community participation in decision making that are more than just consultation will be required. There are opportunities for local authorities to be real leaders in equipping, informing and empowering their communities to make choices that assist sustainable development through the use of focus groups, workshops, and urban landcare groups. Local authorities can assist with partnering innovative community capacity building programmes such as in Hamilton (eg waste management strategy and public transport strategy), Christchurch (eg zero waste programme). International Agenda 21 developments In contrast to New Zealand, in Europe, Asia and Australia there are comprehensive Agenda 21 initiatives at national and local levels. For example, in the United Kingdom and Sweden, it is now a mandatory requirement for local authorities to prepare Agenda 21 action plans. In 1997 the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair stated at the UN General Assembly Special Sesion on the Environment that “I want all local authorities in the UK to adopt local Agenda 21 strategies by the year 2000”. The UK government and local government associations have recently released further guidance on how to prepare effective local Agenda 21 strategies25 (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions 1998b). The UK Local Government Management Board has provided an abundance of information for local authorities on Agenda 21 frameworks, step by step guides, case studies of best practice and audits of Agenda 21 implementation.

Agenda 21 Unresolved issues include: • what support and assistance could be provided by central government and local

authorities (possibly through Local Government New Zealand) for the implementation of the principles of Agenda 21?

• does Agenda 21 provide an appropriate framework for advancing sustainable development in New Zealand? Can it add value to what local government is already doing ie add an overarching framework that provides means to link economy, social and environmental enhancement?

• wer communities to become more involved with How can local authorities empo

sustainable urban development?

5.3.3 Leadership, vision and governance

25 The UK guidance on how to prepare effective Agenda 21 strategies covers:

• why there is a need to act at the local level and the importance of community participation and improving local democracy;

• how Agenda 21 complements other initiatives; • suggestions for getting started; • sustainable development principles and characteristics of a sustainable society; and • core elements of an Agenda 21 strategy and components of the process. 25

Central government leadership There is a lack of central government vision and leadership for the management of the urban environment; even though this is the place where most New Zealanders live. A new partnership is needed between central and local government; one in which Ministers and

e bers of Parliament provide leadership, cohesion and vision without “coming in over the

e made of existing institutions (eg Local Government New e and) to provide a local government perspective on any central government policy before

licies with the philosophies of sustainable development; and how well they esign and use their council offices, homes and vehicles to achieve greater efficiencies of

development

• lausible futures;

• of capability is a major strategic weakness for New Zealand (MORST, through its Foresight Programme has certainly recognised it for future

h the LGA and MA, but there is a need to develop a much wider spectrum of policy instruments for eveloping visions, and the policies and approaches needed to achieve them.

solutions). Environmental efficiency, community participation and

M mtop of” local government. The credibility of local government and its crucial role in shaping the future of New Zealand would be greatly enhanced by the leadership, inspiration and positive support that can only come from central government. In the preparation of all government policies, the implications for local authorities and thereby communities should be more thoroughly examined. Better use could bZ alformal consultation processes. Local government leadership Local government leadership requires vision, practical examples and demonstrable commitment from local politicians. Councillors can lead local communities in sustainable development, by the example they set. Examples include: incorporating the principles of sustainable development into all decisions; how well they imbue their procurement and investment podresource use. Urban visions The development of urban visions and scenarios that recognise sustainableare restricted by:

our limited capability to develop well-crafted scenarios of p• virtually no capacity to develop sustainability models that can incorporate social, economic

and cultural (institutional decision-making) elements; and limited recognition that such a lack

research direction and investment). The lack of forward planning, of not having a clear vision for the future, is a major risk for New Zealand cities. Mechanisms for planning are currently available througRd Future roles and structures for local government There are currently proposals that will lead to major changes in the role of local government (eg through roading, water, and waste management reform). It is essential that the future role of local government is discussed and agreed on before further incremental loss of functions occurs. The reforms are primarily motivated by a desire for greater economic efficiency (least cost

sustainable development goals do not appear to be integral in the development of new service delivery mechanisms. A two tiered local government structure (regional councils and territorial authorities) for urban areas has raised concerns about unnecessary duplication and additional costs for ratepayers. However, properly functioning, with both tiers fulfilling different statutory roles,

uplication of effort and inefficiencies can be minimised (eg making better use of delegated

ase nd low population may be difficult which may bring further amalgamations. However, it

egree the price of democracy and public service. The cost f having two levels of local government can be seen as the cost of bringing balance and

nd the development of nctions has resulted in the different roles of regional councils and urban territorial

The long term implications of this limitation and the potential hifts to greater use of user charges and various forms of citizen tax at a local level need to be

explored to ensure that environ ned with movement to a more sustainable urban environment.

dauthority and partnerships). While a local authority can transfer functions and powers under the RMA, it cannot transfer responsibility for those functions and this needs to be resolved. Achieving business efficiency in the smaller territorial authorities, with their small rating bawill be essential that a range of local government modes are available to ensure the most appropriate structure is used to meet the special needs of different areas and communities. Limitations imposed by local authority structures, boundaries, funding constraints, and statutory obligations are to some docompetitive tension to regional and local decision making, something which is more difficult under a single unitary authority. Statutory processes and timeframes can have a major influence on local authority communication, integration and partnership. Lengthy planning cycles afuauthorities only now becoming clear. This increased awareness is creating much stronger partnerships than previously existed (eg the Auckland Growth Forum). Integrated management is a central concept for achieving sustainable development. Local authorities are well placed to seek local mechanisms to integrate across all public goods and services26 provided by government (ie a city based integration of natural environment, transport, public health, social welfare, law enforcement, emergency responses, etc). To achieve better integration and efficiencies at a local level, there is some merit in extending the role of local authorities to the delivery of more central government functions. However, the extension of the role of local government is limited with it raising most of its discretionary revenue through property rates. s

mental qualities are maintai

26 Public and private goods: 1) in terms of tangible assets or services, a private good is one which can be

enjoyed by and confined to one person, by contrast, enjoyment of a public good by one person does not detract from its enjoyment by others, and once provided to an individual, others cannot be prevented from enjoying its benefits free of charge; 2) in terms of interests in a resource, each represents an extreme end of a spectrum. At the public end is the desire to know everything about the resource and how to conserve it, at the other end, private interests will only want to know about how to maximise resource use as soon as possible. In reality private interests have some public interest values, while the public interest will often allow private use of the resource for economic development.

Leadership and vision Unresolved issues include • dership and vision for our urban how can central government best provide lea

environments? • ities best suited to implement the policies is the current structure of local author

needed for achieving sustainable urban development and balance economic and environmental efficiency with local democracy?

• al councils and territorial authorities best promote integrated how can regionmanagement of the urban environment?

• how can New Zealand develop sustainability models that incorporate environment, social, cultural and economic elements to illustrate well-crafted scenarios of plausible urban futures?

5.3.4 Sustainable urban communities The maintenance of a sense of identity and the ability to participate within a community are crucial elements for urban sustainability. The government policy focus on the individual (with some extension to families, but not to communities) over the last decade has affected participation and affected community sustainability. The focus on the individual has also raised both intra- and inter-generational equity issues, particularly the closing of access to decision making and information (eg local authority trading enterprises are not subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and this reduces access to information). As a result, many individuals and their communities have become

isempowered (ie left out of decision making and with few options for exerting personal

, of encouraging and supporting participatory democracy g local referenda), and of increasing community involvement. Through the use of local

nt, ecent housing, good health, and access to services and recreation, in ways that make good

social cohesion, and contribute to

nformation about sustainable urban development, either from central o rnment or independently researched by the media is sparse. In New Zealand it is the

dchoice). For example, the closing down of Auckland City’s area offices has meant the loss of local knowledge and experience and the council appears to have progressively drawn back from the community. The future success of local governance will depend on the success of re-building a sense of community, of empowering people(eenvironmental advocates, environment centres, and new technology (eg the internet) individuals and communities can be provided with information so that they can become involved in their local community. Building sustainable communities involves considering how to encourage employmeduse of natural resources, protect the environment, promote local, regional, and national prosperity. It brings together matters such as: land use planning, integrated transport policy, housing and construction, and regeneration of cities and towns. Sustainable development and environmental awareness It is unfortunate that ig veinternet that provides contact with information on sustainable development by international

organisations such as UNCED, OECD and APEC and a host of Agenda 21 and non-governmental networks. A 1994 survey of New Zealanders’ understanding of environmental issues and expectations of government (Gendall et al 1994) indicates where the knowledge gaps lie. For example, most people identified nuclear power stations as a threat to the New Zealand environment

espite New Zealand having a nuclear-free policy. Also interesting was the demand for

owever, we have little idea about why nd how some changes occur. For example, the image of Wellington changed dramatically

“cafe society”, inner city al of New Zealand). We know little about underlying

this dramatic change and how we can learn from this

a lack of government leadership; landers’ outdoors image;

mental consequences of their choices. The ecological footprint model (see chapter .1) could be an important educational tool, but proper application would require that we

s. Footprint analyses could also form part

voluntary waste reduction agreements for packaging and waste oil) and oluntary ecolabels (eg environmental choice and Project 98). Some programmes funded by

dincreased regulation for environmental management and acceptance of the higher costs of goods and services that would result. The focus on such things as nuclear power reflects that a large majority of New Zealanders obtain environmental information from television and international programmes and not from New Zealand information. Attitudes and perceptions influence many decisions that affect the environment. Good information flows are crucial to improving the understanding of links between personal choices, behaviour and environmental consequences. Habetween 1987 and 1997 (ie the enlivening of the CBD, the apartments, night life, cultural capitcauses of the momentum and scale ofabout future trends and their environmental outcomes.

The apparent lack of interest in urban issues can be attributed to:•• New Zea• a focus on conservation, as opposed to environment and sustainable development issues;

and • a lack of information on, and discussion about, urban issues. Education Education about the value of urban areas, urban sustainability and civics is urgently needed to bring increased recognition of New Zealand’s urban environment; increased recognition of sustainable development opportunities that are being missed; and to inform individuals of the environ3know more about the material flows within our citieof the information package about major decisions so that environmental implications, (eg different development options) were transparent, and decision makers made responsible for them. Sustainable business and industry development The Ministry for the Environment’s business and environment initiative known as Green New Zealand Inc aims to support joint industry/government initiatives for improved environmental performance. There are several programmes and initiatives that encourage improved environmental performance by businesses and industries including cleaner production initiatives (egvthe sustainable management fund. EECA’s energy wise companies campaign has been successful with over 700 companies signed up to implement energy efficiency best practice.

There are also more than 20 voluntary CO2 reduction agreements between key sectors and the government. Business involvement with sustainable development is variable. For example, Telarc developed the “environmental choice” label in 1990 but up to mid-1997 it is disappointing to note that only three companies had achieved the award of an environmental label. In 1997 KPMG released an international survey (13 countries) of the extent of environmental

erformance reporting by private companies in their annual reports. The international trend

ion and resources for its members. A lack of funding, the high cost f information and survival imperatives have limited EBN’s ability to research, identify and

rested. This hortsighted approach is common in many spheres of business throughout New Zealand.

tainable development

s, looking at the “bigger picture” reasons for their xistence rather than just a return on shareholders’ funds.

a similar development, the establishment of the Natural Step Environmental Foundation of

r contribution to the quality of urban life and yet e value of liveability is not adequately recognised by existing legislation that provides for

pwas for 75% of companies to include environmental information. New Zealand was the exception in that no separate environmental reports were produced. It was also the lowest scoring country, with only 39% of companies mentioning the environment in their reports (KPMG 1997). More recently, companies like ECNZ, Carter Holt Harvey and Watercare Services have produced dedicated environmental reports. The Environmental Business Network (EBN) started five years ago in Dunedin and there are branches around the country. However, EBN has still to grow into a national network and produce relevant informatosupply relevant information to businesses in a way that they can use it. For businesses, insufficient, readily accessible and useable information is the main block to further progress along with a reluctance to acquire a philosophical outlook that results in action. Businesses need to know more about the practical applications of environmental sustainability and what they can and should do. Despite the efforts of local EBN groups, many local businesses are just not intesMany cannot see the potential for marketing “environmental initiatives”, but local role models and examples of best practice are persuasive in illustrating the principles of sustainable development (ie demonstrating by example, educating, and building awareness in the local community). Some businesses are not used to supporting each other and cannot understand a network of mutually supportive businesses working for sus The recent establishment of Businesses for Social Responsibility is a practical step to enable businesses to become more informed and directly involved with local employment initiatives, waste management, community housing, etc. Its aims are to encourage and foster the concept of social responsibility in businessee InAotearoa New Zealand to advance a Swedish developed business oriented model for sustainable development is another example to link environmental and economic goals to produce positive business outcomes.

5.3.5 Liveability and quality of life Liveable urban environments make a majoththe overall management of the urban environment (ie the RMA and LGA). In the context of the management of the urban environment, it is essential that amenity values are retained in the RMA to address the interaction of the environment with people and communities. Many

urban residents place a high value on amenity values and the contribution they make to improving the quality of life (PCE 1997b). The liveability of urban environments is dependent on unique combinations of amenity values (open space, design features, urban vegetation); historic and cultural heritage; location; and

tangible attributes such as character, landscape and “sense of place”. Liveability

participate in a diverse range of activities (eg for ocial, recreational and cultural purposes).

he overall management of historic and cultural heritage in urban areas in New Zealand has

such as design, the provision of public open space and anagement of urban vegetation as well as how to provide adequate infrastructure and reduce

he relationship between health and the quality of the environment is important. Environmental quality affec lex interactions, and direct effects on health cannot al ubting the importance of nvironmental factors associated with good air quality; safe, secure and good quality housing;

o open space, and safe management of chemicals and hazardous

Liveability and quality of life

incontributes to both “sense of place” and “sense of community” and enhances community ownership and enjoyment of urban areas. Liveability is not totally dependent on individual income as it is a community value that can be enjoyed by anyone. For example, the provision of public open space enables citizens tos Urban design is a key factor in maintaining the liveability, viability and “sense of place” of neighbourhoods. Urban design approaches can improve contextual relationships (ie building compatibility), improve accessibility, promote safety, assist social cohesion, and identify and generally contribute to social well being. Tgenerally been poor, PCE 1996. There is considerable opportunity through the current government review of heritage management to improve the management and protection of all types of heritage, particularly Maori. Historic and cultural heritage contributes significantly to liveability and the unique identity of different cities and towns. This unique identity is a valuable asset in the promotion of tourism (eg Dunedin and Napier). Research and “best practice” approaches on how to maintain and improve liveability and quality of life are as important as knowing how to maintain the physical environment and manage urban infrastructure. For example, in managing urban growth, considerable attention needs to be given to issues mthe physical impact of development on the environment. Insufficient attention to liveability issues will bring a public backlash and reaction against urban infill and redevelopment (ie as demonstrated in Auckland and Christchurch) which will then produce pressure for more low density development with impacts on the natural environment, greater levels of resource use and higher infrastructure costs. T

ts health but it usually involves compways be measured. There is no do

esafe drinking water; access tsubstances.

U rn esolved issues include • what more can be done to improve the liveability and quality of urban environments

(eg through the use of urban design approaches)? In particular, how can local authorities use urban design approaches to improve liveability whilst reducing car dependency?

• as part of the management of urban growth, how can liveability be improved with medium and higher density development?

5.3.6 Sustainable transport and eco-efficiency

t sustainable urban development is the fact that the best

in an conomically and environmentally sustainable framework. However, attempts to reduce road

modes that promote “choice” will be necessary for wider socio-economic goals to be

bu

distribution of costs and impacts according to the benefits through the use of

e ride sharing.

At the heart of the debate aboudesigned and most sensitively managed and governed cities cannot be sustainable if the inhabitants live unsustainable lifestyles. Choice of mobility is a major determinant of how sustainable our lifestyles will be. Sustainable transport systems Achieving integrated management of transport systems as part of the wider urban environment is a major challenge. Mobility and accessibility will need to be achieved etraffic and congestion will not be sufficient to achieve urban sustainability. A range of transport addressed. The preparation of an integrated transport strategy to meet the needs of people and

siness while sustaining the environment would be a key element to assist integration.

Critical factors for progressing towards more sustainable transport systems in New Zealand include: • the integrated and strategic management of transport (road and public transport) and land

use (including urban form and lifestyles) so that transport systems are managed with full and balanced account taken of all environmental and social effects, short and long term;

• the provision for community input and participation with decisions made at the relevant local level;

• the consideration of social equity, with transport users provided with choices that reasonably meet their needs;

• the maintenance of public rights (eg safety and amenity values) and private rights (rights of access);

• the consideration of alternative modes (ie public transport) and the respective values, costs and benefits, of different transport management models (eg community-owned, cooperatives, partnerships and companies);

• the potential effects of innovation and new technology and the nature of evolving urban systems and work/recreation patterns; the equitable •a range of instruments with transparent, business-like funding mechanisms which have appropriate pricing and charging mechanisms; and

• the potential for collective ownership of cars (ie vehicle sharing) and mechanisms for saf

Transportation requires a comprehensive approach with the consideration of issues of governance, land use planning, economics and equity. Peripheral development typically continues a pattern of low density land use and associated higher levels of transport activity.

In contrast to New Zealand it is interesting to observe that in the United Kingdom “transport e the responsibility of the same Government department that is responsible

y be described as getting more from less. Eco-efficiency expresses e efficiency with which ecological resources are used to meet human needs. Eco-efficiency

gy intensity since 1993. The effects of the roposed energy reforms may lead to lower prices which will be good for consumers but this

how to construct ustainable built environments for New Zealand (ie that take into account the New Zealand

fficiency concepts, then sustainable urban development ill become more of a reality. Consumer demand for more efficient products is stimulated by

n as e major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment. Demand side

of d a work

f pollution and ressures on natural resources from production processes. However, growth in consumer

demand has, in many case, more than offset these benefits. If OECD countries are successfully to tackle major environmental problems, such as climate change, air pollution and

sector issues” arfor the environment and the regions. This assists the integrated management of transport and environment issues. In New Zealand transport, environment and energy issues are addressed by different policy ministries. Eco-efficiency Eco-efficiency can basicallthwill be important as we attempt to find ways to reduce emissions, resource use and waste which are all significant challenges for the urban environment. The most pressing needs are likely to be reducing energy use by households, transport and businesses, and reducing water use and waste production. Current trends in New Zealand show that the total amount of energy consumed is still increasing despite some reductions in enerpwill also encourage more energy to be used and provide less incentive for investment in new energy efficient technologies and practices. As advocated by the OECD and International Energy Agency, further new approaches and partnerships need to be developed to improve the efficiency of energy use in New Zealand. It will be essential that sustainable development and eco-efficiency are taken into account in the planning, design, construction and operation of infrastructure and buildings to promote the sustainability of cities. More research and information will be required onsgeography, climate, and culture). More thinking will be required about the whole life and use of a building (including final disposal) rather than just construction costs; efficient manufacture of construction materials (including thorough use of waste materials) and promoting environmental management practices in the construction sector. If consumers think about needs and services rather than products, and if they make demands of producers to take into account eco-ewbetter information and energy labelling would assist consumers in making sound decisions. More widespread company environmental reporting would also assist consumers to judge how effective companies are at managing their impact on the environment (eg as required by the Energy Wise Companies charter). Chapter 4 of Agenda 21 identifies unsustainable patterns of production and consumptiothmeasures to influence consumption have received less attention than measures to influence production patterns. The OECD has stated that addressing unsustainable patternsconsumption is a crucial challenge for member countries and it has establisheprogramme to examine government responses to this and eco-efficiency (OECD 1998a). Improved technology and increased efficiency have helped to lower the level op

the safe guarding of freshwater supplies, they must find ways to influence the decisions of individual consumers and to expand the options open to them (OECD 1998b). In practice, many initiatives to influence consumption patterns involve a package of measures (ie a mixture of ion), along with measures which d

sport systems and eco-efficiency

regulation, economic instruments, information and educatirectly address production as well as consumption patterns.

Sustainable tranUnresolved issues include: • how to better integrate planning and transport management in New Zealand’s urban

environments than at present? • how to promote and give primacy to public transport solutions? • imnprove eco-efficiency and promote sustainable what action can be taken to

consumption and production patterns? • what information would assist consumers to buy more sustainable products and who

would provide this information?

5.3.7 Future research and innovation priorities Research roadblocks There is no national support or coordination agency for research or even information, on urban sustainability, and no coordination or standardisation of the work done by local uthorities. Key agencies like MFE have a reducing involvement with urban sustainability

social and cultural issues, with most bids falling into more than ne output, mostly in the “other outputs” category. Bidding for cross-output research

ate information from key agencies on what research has already been undertaken. ombined with university research outside of the FORST system, there is a compelling need

that it is nearly impossible for non-governmaental rganisations, groups and community-based initiatives to get research funding through the

aissues and there is also little national coordination of local authority research or common information needs. There is no output class for urban research in the PGSF, and no urban research funding strategy. Research on urban sustainability will of necessity need to integrate across biophysical, socio-economic, oparticularly in this “other outputs” category, is difficult. Funding opportunities outside of the PGSF are extremely limited. Researchers have commented that initial university and Crown Research Institute internal assessment and filtering of proposed research bids can result in research proposals being declined because they do not directly meet the output categories before they are considered by FORST for PGSF funding. Researchers have also commented that they struggle to get adequCfor a regular update on what urban research has been undertaken and where the information is held. Comments have also been made oavailable programmes and yet community-based funding is an essential part of the mix for resolving urban sustainability issues.

In its submission to the PCE, FORST said that; “environmental impacts are included in all of the research strategies, but none specifically mention urban management.” “The focus is on reducing the impact of various activities, rather than managing the impacts of urban centres themselves.” This reliance on reducing urban impacts through funding a small set of unrelated and unfocussed urban management projects has close parallels with the MFE’s view that sustainable management of effects through the RMA and LGA processes can adequately

lfil the sustainable development goals of Agenda 21 (see chapter 5.3.2). Such an approach

e land.” “New Zealand does not collect search and development statistics specifically related to sustainable development.” The

city evolution occurring in our target arkets (particularly in Europe and North America) could tarnish our otherwise “clean and

This could put at risk our otherwise careful attention and investment in the

ce and Technology is undertaking a Foresight Sector trategy process to help establish the 2000 to 2005 science and research priorities. Different

for e environmental sector. The development of a strong urban sustainability research

future priorities for urban research as part of the Foresight

rt from providing a means to plement the urban Foresight visioning process on urban research, it would underpin the

fuis grossly inadequate because it does not provide a coherent integrated framework for monitoring progress or addresses the need to improve overall efficiency. New Zealand’s April 1997 report to the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development stated “Within the PGSF there is no overarching mechanism for prioritising national research for sustainable development.” “Although it is recognised that the impact of human behaviour poses the biggest threat to sustainable land management, there is currently little social science input to the management of threreport also says that no attempt has been made to assess New Zealand’s national scientific knowledge in the area of sustainable development. The increasing demands of global consumers for higher levels of environmental management, and hence standards, will be important drivers for our science investment and evolution of sustainable systems for our agricultural production. New Zealand can only afford to be in the premium end of world markets in order to get sufficient returns from our land and sea based exports to sustain our social and economic goals. There is a risk that by focussing research and environmental quality investment onto export products we are neglecting the wider issues of sustainable development and urban environments. This continued neglect of sustainable development and urban issues, and ignoring changes inmgreen” reputation. environmental management of our productive systems. Urban Foresight To ensure that New Zealand’s research priorities are appropriate to meet the challenges of the future, the Ministry of Research, ScienSsectors (eg environment, energy, agriculture, marine) have held workshops to discuss what research will be required in the future. In April 1998 an urban environment Foresight workshop was held as part of the process and it will contribute to the broader environment workshop and the development of a strategy thagenda and identification of process will be critical to furthering sustainable urban development in New Zealand. Potential research solutions One way of re-focussing New Zealand research into urban sustainability would be for MORST to establish a National Science Strategy. Apaim

Ministry for the Environment’s indicators programme (interpretation, modelling, and prediction), and above all, provide leadership and direction. The operational research needs of local authorities and the research they fund could also have

ies would be of assistance to many urban searchers. There are inventories (eg McCutcheon [universities], Statistics NZ

questions remain to be addressed as to which agencies should collect what formation on urban sustainability (eg central government, regional councils or

to it and who should coordinate

A further research include:

measures of sustainability for

l-being or “green GDP”;

• ensities and

• iveability through urban design

the impact of changing demographics and changing social and cultural values; what is the cause of this change and what are the consequences; and

• analysis of com transport).

closer links with the ‘science envelope’ (ie FORST-administered funds such as the eg PGSF, plus central government’s operational research that is contained within departmental votes). The widespread publication of exactly what databases and collections are held by Crown Research Institutes and government agencre[environmental information]; and MORST [science databases and collections]), but could ultimately be made available on the internet. Keyinterritorial local authorities). Who should have access it? What research, innovation and information is needed?

wider debate on priorities for urban research is required but important areas that require

• underlying issues like material and energy flows (eg through the metabolism or footprint models), the outputs being used as education tools andpolicy evaluation;

• urban sustainability indicators to assist with state of the environment reporting and the development of measures of wel

• transport systems that provide access and mobility, which are affordable and sustainable; the relationships between urban containment policies, higher urban dsustainable development goals;

• the environmental, economic and social impact of the use of new technologies (eg wastewater treatment of stormwater, transponders for tracking vehicles);

• mechanisms for financing new urban infrastructure that can assist urban sustainability; methods for recognising, maintaining and enhancing lapproaches including linkages with energy efficiency and community safety;

•

munity attitudes and behavioural changes (eg use of public

Research, science, technology and information: Unresolved issues include • how to coordinate and integrate current urban research and information? • how to get better access to information on sustainable urban development?

5.4 Priority areas for investigation

Many issues have been traversed as part of this investigation but the following priority areas missioner for the Environment. No

efinitive decision will be made on future investigations until comments are received on this

Th

. e structure and role of local government to address the principles of sustainable urban

evelopment and meet Agenda 21 requirements including the participation of the

. e management of urban transport systems including integration of land use and transport

. the management of the liveability aspects of urban environments for people and communities including tangible attributes such as urban design, open space, urban vegetation, and historic and cultural heritage features, and intangible attributes such as character, landscape and “sense of place”.

warrant further attention by the Parliamentary Comdreport (see below).

e broad priority areas for investigation are: 1. the adoption of the principles of sustainable development at national and local levels to

address the efficiency of resource use (including energy), the management of waste, and integrated management of environmental, economic and social factors;

2 thdcommunity in decision making and actions to promote sustainable development and the development of sustainability indicators at the local level;

3. the management of urban water systems including the integrated management of the

delivery of water and the management of wastewater and urban stormwater consistent with sustainable development;

4 th

planning, the provision of public transport and alternatives to roading, and full assessment of the environmental and social costs of transport systems;

5

Your response to this report The P onses arliamentary Commissioner for the Environment would appreciate any respor comments on this overview. These should be sent by e-mail to <[email protected]>

Any responses, particularly where the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment can make the best contribution to advance sustainable urban

development in New Zealand, will be considered when decisions are made on future work priorities in the urban area

6. KEY MESSAGES This is a summary of the key messages contained in this report. Collectively, they provide a “wake-up call” for improving the management of urban New Zealand and progressing sustainable development. It is anticipated they will stimulate a much needed debate on what urban sustainability means for New Zealand. With a few exceptions, at the city level the sustainability of urban development is largely being ignored in New Zealand. There are many opportunities for New Zealand to “get more, from less, for longer” as our cities and towns evolve. The New Zealand urban environment Our urban environment is subjected to a very different set of pressures than rural areas because of the highly modified nature of the urban ecosystem; a product of the density of settlement and the tensions between the environmental, economic, social and cultural requirements of people and communities. For example, increased roading development (eg motorways) can separate communities and lower the quality of life (extra noise and air pollution) while in rural areas they connect communities and add to quality of life. As our urban population has become more affluent, there have been: • increasing per capita demands for land, water, energy, transport, housing and services; • increasing air pollution and discharges of sewage and stormwater; • consequential losses of heritage and amenity values with intense pressure on traditional

relationships of tangata whenua with the environment and taonga; and • adverse effects on the health, wealth and well-being of people and communities. Sustainable development Sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. It can also be described as “getting more, from less, for longer”. Sustainable development is now a global imperative that is recognised and endorsed at the international level (eg by the United Nations and the OECD). New Zealand is entering a new era of globalisation where global competition is shifting the focus from countries onto cities. This gives local communities an important opportunity to provide creative local solutions for sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development has not been widely adopted or implemented in New Zealand despite the enormous influence of the RMA and the concept is not “owned” by politicians or key government agencies. The broad goals of sustainable development (in contrast to sustainable management) are not a feature of any legislation or policy, and Agenda 21 is not widely supported. This means that local communities and businesses are not adequately informed of opportunities to improve the quality of life and urban environments. In contrast to sustainable development, the purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, principally through the management of effects. However, effects-based management does not address the nature and efficiency of resource use with insufficient emphasis on issues relating to the health and well-being of people and communities. Moving towards sustainable development necessitates greater efficiencies in resource use and not just managing effects. With increased efficiencies there will be substantial cost savings to be made by businesses, the wider community and

Government (eg reducing the quantity of imports of raw materials, cost savings of improving health and well-being, less waste, and greater reuse of materials). Possible stimuli to the adoption and implementation of sustainable development in New Zealand include: • preparing a strong national sustainable development strategy that specifically recognises

the requirements for creating more sustainable urban environments (eg addressing resource use, eco-efficiency and better integrated management of environmental, economic and social issues);

• requiring all Government agencies to report annually on how they have recognised and implemented the principles of sustainable development as part of policy and programme development;

• establishing a sustainable development unit to inform Ministers on the strategic risks and opportunities of embracing the global agenda on sustainability; and

• setting up a non-governmental business orientated “Foundation on Sustainable Development” as a high level independent think tank to advise government, business and communites.

Central government and urban sustainability Central government is not responding to urban sustainability challenges and yet they have a key role in providing leadership and vision, support, coordination and assistance. This is not “coming in over the top of local government” or the imposition of ideas, but rather an investment in consultation, dialogue, and information which can enable informed decisions by local authorities, businesses and communities. Many central government agencies are involved with aspects of the management of the urban environment but no one agency has the urban environment as its sole or even major focus. Possible initiatives for central Government to progress urban sustainability include: • providing leadership on sustainable development (eg a national strategy) and supporting

local government efforts, through improved partnerships; • assisting local government to implement the principles of Agenda 21 (eg information on

Agenda 21 best practice approaches and sustainability indicators); • improving the integration of service delivery from central government (eg by welfare

agencies) at the local level; • involving local government in the early examination of the implications of Government

policy proposals on local government, and thereby people and communities; and • requiring a central Government agency to focus on the management of the urban

environment including the provision of information to local government, businesses and communities on actions to progress urban sustainability.

Local government Both regional councils and territorial authorities have important roles in providing for the management of the urban environment. Regional councils have integrated management, coordination and research functions (eg regional studies) in urban areas. The management of the effects of urban growth (and thereby the form and direction of growth) is a key role for regional councils. Territorial authorities have the most direct role in managing the urban environment, and ensuring the health and well-being of local communities.

Various reform proposals (eg roading, water and waste management reform) have the potential to reduce the integrated management capacities of local government, a critical element of sustainable development. It will be essential that the future role of local government is discussed and agreed on before this occurs. The role of local government is limited by having to raise most of its revenue through rates on property. The long term implications of this limitation and other potential forms of funding need to be explored. There is a compelling need to focus on integrating the management of the urban environment, with people and communities recognised as core elements. Possible areas for action by local authorities to progress urban sustainability include: • minimising duplication of effort and inefficiencies through better national coordination;

and better use of delegated authority and partnershipsto clearly differentiate stautory roles and functions;

• providing a city-based integration of all public goods and services provided by

government; • preparing local sustainable development plans based on the principles of Agenda 21to

assist integrated management; and • working with their communities of interest in resourced, well-managed partnerships to

address sustainability issues. Sustainable urban communities Critical to urban sustainability will be greatly enhancing the role of the community and participatory democracy. A major challenge exists at all levels of government to find new and creative ways to inform and empower communities, involve them in decision-making, and enable them to make choices in an efficient and effective way. Education about the value of urban areas, urban sustainability and civics is urgently needed to improve appreciation of what sustainable development is and can be; to identify opportunities for progress; and to explain the consequences of individual choices and actions. Management of the urban environment is larger than just dealing with so called “green” issues. A popular image of environmentalists as extremist members of fringe groups with a primary focus on conservation issues (eg saving whales or indigenous forests) and not on sustainable development issues appears to hinder community groups with wider agendas. Liveability and environmental health The liveability of each urban area stems from unique combinations of amenity values (open space, design features, urban vegetation), historic and cultural heritage, location, and intangible attributes such as character, landscape and “sense of place”. Liveability contributes to both “sense of place” and “sense of community”. Many urban residents place a high value on amenity values and they make a major contribution to improving the quality of urban life. The value of liveability and the importance of good urban design are not adequately recognised in management approaches, policy or legislation. The provisions of the RMA that address amenity values and the interactions between development and the environment (including people and communities) are essential and they must be retained. Proposed

developments need to recognise amenity values and follow design guidelines established by the community. Urbanisation can lead to specific health problems associated with inadequate living conditions and inadequate access to basic necessities of life. The ongoing review of the Health Act 1956 must be completed to clarify the roles of respective authorities, improve the management of risk, and obtain better outcomes for public health. Infrastructural issues and eco-efficiency Well maintained infrastructure is essential for ensuring the quality of the urban environment. The “polluter pays-user pays” principle needs to be applied more extensively to fund the full costs (including environmental) of the provision and operation of infrastructure (eg the transport of people, goods and services, water and waste), with the consideration of economic and ecological efficiency, both in the short and long term. Urban areas have significant challenges in providing sustainable transport and water systems. Our road dominated transport systems have major effects on the environment (eg energy use, emissions, congestion, community dislocation and traffic accidents). Urban water/wastewater systems are requiring high levels of maintenance. While water utility reform will inevitably bring new water management approaches, it will also need to drive the adoption of urban water systems that are ultimately more sustainable with higher levels of reuse and water conservation measures. Although improving since 1993, New Zealand still has high levels of energy use per capita compared with other OECD countries and this affects both the environment and the economy. Liquid and solid waste is also a growing problem, being generated in ever larger quantities and in more complex and hazardous forms. Disposal facilities are increasingly more difficult and costly to establish and operate. Actions to improve infrastructure management and eco-efficiency include: • applying the “polluter pays-user pays” principle to ensure the funding of the full costs of

the provision and operation of all infrastructure and services; • integrating transport and environmental management and providing greater support for

public transport; • improving energy efficiency through further exploration of demand side and efficiency

measures that have positive economic and environmental benefits; • improving the quality of information on waste management practices and promoting

integrated waste management with strong waste minimisation targets and higher levels of recycling; and

• taking greater consideration of the planning, design, construction and operation of infrastructure and buildings with whole life appraisal methods and reuse of waste materials.

Information, monitoring and research There is a lot of data about biophysical, social and economic aspects of the urban environment. However, the data is dispersed, of variable quality, and there is a lack of integration, analysis and awareness of what does exist. The State of New Zealand’s Environment Report is a valuable document. However, it does not address the integration of social and economic influences on biophysical phenomena and urban sustainability issues. Similarly, our national environmental indicators programme focuses on biophysical indicators, although some are proposed for amenity values. There is no national support or coordination agency for research or even information, on urban sustainability or even aspects of urban development. There is also no output class for urban research in the Public Good Science Fund (PGSF), and no dedicated urban research funding strategy. Research on urban sustainability is, of necessity, cross-output research, and funding for such research, in contrast to most other OECD countries, is extremely limited. The identification of future priorities for urban research, as part of the 1998 Ministry if Research Science and Technology’s Foresight process, will be critical to further sustainable urban development and to develop a strong urban sustainability research agenda. Possible solutions to improve research and information on urban sustainability include: • creating an explicit output class within the PGSF structure for urban research; • preparing a national science strategy for sustainable development to encourage cross-

output research and integrates biophysical, social, economic and cultural issues; • tasking a Government agency to provide national support (including funding) and

coordination of research and information on urban sustainability; and • preparing a regular state of the urban environment report based on a national urban

sustainable development indicator framework. Glossary

AEE Assessment of environmental effects

Agenda 21 A major result of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). A non-binding framework of action to achieve sustainable development consisting of four interlinked sections: social and economic dimensions; management and conservation of natural resources; means of implementation; and strengthening the role of major groups.

Amenity values Defined in the RMA as “those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes (s 2 RMA). It can include open space, design features, urban vegetation, historic and cultural heritage, and intangible attributes such as character, landscape and “sense of place”.

BRANZ Building Research Association of New Zealand

CRI Crown Research Institute

Ecological footprint The ecological impact of cities, including the direct local effects and the indirect regional and global effects due to the resources they use and the wastes they produce

EECA Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority

EIA Environmental impact assessment

ERMA Environmental Risk Management Authority

Foresight project A series of sector workshops (eg environment, agriculture, energy, etc) organised by the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology to identify future science needs in order to establish future national research priorities.

FORST Foundation for Research, Science and Technology

HCC Healthy Cities/Communities. A World Health Organisation programme to improve environmental health

HIA Health impact assessment

IEM Integrated environmental management

MFE Ministry for the Environment

MORST Ministry of Research, Science and Technology

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (Crown Research Institute)

NPS National policy statements (produced under the Resource Management Act 1991)

NZHPT New Zealand Historic Places Trust

PCE Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

PGSF Public Good Science Fund (administered by Foundation for Research, Science and Technology)

SMF Sustainable management fund (administered by Ministry for the Environment)

SOE State of the Environment

TPK Te Puni Kokiri

International agencies and organisations:

CEC Commission of the European Communities

CSD Commission on Sustainable Development (of the United Nations)

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia)

DEST Department of Environment, Sport and Territories (Australia)

EEA European Environment Agency

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

WHO World Health Organisation (of the United Nations)

Key legislation:

BA Building Act 1991

EA Environment Act 1986

HA Health Act 1956

HSNO Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

LGA Local Government Act 1974

LTA Land Transport Act 1993

RMA Resource Management Act 1991

REFERENCES A list of worldwide web sites that deal specifically with sustainable development and urban sustainability issues is provided at the end of this list of references. Auckland City Council 1996: Our Changing Environment. Environmental issues and development trends in Auckland City. Auckland: Auckland City Council. Looseleaf binder. Auckland Regional Council 1997: Transport facts and figures. Transfacts. Auckland: Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regional Services Trust 1997: Final Annual Plan 97-98 Auckland: Auckland Regional Services Trust. Bicknell K B, Ball R J, Cullen R, & Bigsby H 1996: Estimating New Zealand’s ecological footprint. Paper presented at the 1996 Conference of the New Zealand Agricultural Economics Society, Blenheim, New Zealand. Boshier J, Macdonald G & Booth J 1998: Crossroads for the future. Overview and summary. Common themes and conclusion. Conference reviewers of the 1998 New Zealand Water and Wastes Association Conference. Canterbury Regional Council 1997: Canterbury Regional Council. Regional Environment Report 1995/96. Christchurch: Canterbury Regional Council. 129p. Christchurch City Council 1998: Christchurch City Update ‘97 Christchurch: Christchurch City Council. 94p. Available at URL < http://www.ccc.govt.nz/EPP/Update97> Coleman A 1997: “How to humanise housing estates” In Human Ecology, v14, 14-16. Commission of the European Communities 1997: Towards an Urban Agenda in the European Union. Brussels. Commission of the European Communities 1996: European Sustainable Cities. Expert Group on the Urban Environment. Brussels. Commission of the European Communities 1990: Green paper on the Urban Environment. COM (90) 218 CEC, Brussels. Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg B, Naeem S, V. O'Neill R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P & van den Belt M 1997: The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. <http://www.floridaplants.com/news/article.htm> CSIRO 1998: “Alternative approaches to the design of sustainable water systems.” In Building innovation and construction technology. Number 1, June 1998. CSIRO 1997: Shaping Cities for a more Sustainable Future. Exploring the link between urban form, air quality, energy and greenhouse gas emissions. Research Monograph 6. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1996a: Australia: State of the Environment Report 1996. Camberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1996b: Australia’s guide to good residential design. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories. Canberra, Australia. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions 1998a: Sustainable Development:Opportunities for change. Consultation paper on a revised UK strategy. United Kingdom.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions 1998b: Sustainable Local Communities for the 21st Century. Why and how to prepare an effective local Agenda 21 strategy. United Kingdom. Department of Housing and Regional Development 1995: AMCORD - A National Resource Document for Residential Development. Canberra, Australia. Dunlop, R 1998: “Highway traffic growth and passenger transport”. In Proceedings of the IPENZ Annual Conference 12-16 February 1998. Volume 1. keynote speaker papers. Sustainable City theme papers. pp 17-25 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority 1997: Energy Efficiency Trends in New Zealand. A compendium of energy end-use analysis and statistics. Wellington: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority 1996: Lower costs, less pollution, Energy wise case study 8. August 1996. European Conference of Ministers of Transport 1998: Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Transport Sector. France. European Environment Agency 1997: Towards sustainable development for local authorities. Approaches, experiences and sources. Copenhagen, Denmark. Frieder J 1997: Approaching sustainability: Integrated environmental management and New Zealand’s Resource Management Act. Prepared by Julie Frieder with funding from the sponsers of the Ian Axford New Zealand Fellowship in Public Policy. Wellington. Fudge C 1998: “Changing cities - new science for a new world.” In Proceedings of the IPENZ Annual Conference 12-16 February 1998. Volume 1. Keynote speaker papers. Sustainable City theme papers. pp 1-16 Gendall P J, Hosie J E, & Russell D F 1994: The Environment: International social survey programme: Palmerston North, New Zealand: Special publication, Department of Marketing, Massey University. 4p. Hughey K F D, Rixecker S S, Montgomery R & Buhrs T (editors) 1998: New Zealand’s State of the Environment Report: A critical response. Christchurch: Environmental Management and Design Division, Lincoln University. 106p. Kenworthy J, Laube F, Newman P & Barker P 1997: Indicators of transport efficiency in 37 global cities. A report for the World Bank. KPMG Bohlins Environmental Advisors, The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University 1997: International Survey of Environmental Reporting 1996. Malmo, Sweden: Published by EnTrust. 16p. Levett R 1998: “Rediscovering the public realm.” In Town and Country Planning. Volume 67, Number 1, pp 11-14. Loder & Bayly Consulting Group, R J Nairn & Partners Pty Ltd, Sustainable Solutions Pty Ltd, PPK Consultants Pty Ltd 1993: Greenhouse neighbourhood project. The low energy suburb. Summary report. Prepared for the Victorian Government’s Department of Planning and Development. Environment Protection Authority, Energy Victoria. Melbourne, Victoria. Marlborough District Council 1997: Marlborough environmental update - 1996. Blenheim. 85p.

Marlborough District Council 1996: Marlborough State of the Environment Report - 1995. Blenheim. 93p. Marlborough District Council 1994a: State of the Environment Report Marlborough District 1994. Blenheim. 53p. Marlborough District Council 1994b: State of the Environment Monitoring in Marlborough. A discussion document. Blenheim. 55p. McKinlay P 1998: Local government reform: what was ordered and what has been delivered. Part two. Research monograph series paper No. 7. Local Government New Zealand. Memon P A 1993: Keeping New Zealand green. Recent environmental reforms. Dunedin: University of Otago Press. Ministry for the Environment 1998: Sustainable Management Fund. Summary of funded projects, February 1998. Wellington. 48p. Ministry for the Environment 1997a: The State of New Zealand’s Environment 1997. Wellington. 623p. Ministry for the Environment 1997b: New Zealand Country Profile. Implementation of Agenda 21: review of progress made since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Wellington. Ministry for the Environment 1995: Environment 2010 strategy. A statement of the Government’s strategy on the environment. Wellington. Ministry for the Environment 1994: Living for the future: a guide to Agenda 21. Wellington Ministry for the Environment 1993: Urban Sustainability. A study of significant trends for the future. “The Significant Trends Booklet”. 49p Including a letter of transmittal signed W. Rob Storey, 16 April 1993, to accompany the booklet. Ministry for the Environment 1992: Resource Management Ideas. No 5: Urban sustainability by Mike Edwards, Works Consultancy, Wellington. 10p. Ministry for the Environment & Foundation for Research, Science and Technology 1993: Sustainable development: a social perspective. Wellington. Ministry of Research, Science and Technology 1998: International study tour to examine “measures of sustainability”. Prepared by Dr Willie Smith. Report No. 72. Ministry of Women’s Affairs 1996: The full picture. Guidelines for gender analysis. Wellington. Newman P 1997: “The global city and sustainability - perspective’s from Australian cities and a survey of 37 global cities.” For Fifth International Workshop on Technological Change and Urban Form. Jakarta: Indonesia. OECD 1998a: Eco-efficiency. Paris: OECD. OECD 1998b: Towards sustainable consumption patterns. A progress report on member country initiatives. Paris: OECD. OECD 1997: Guiding the Transition to Sustainable Development: a critical role for the OECD. The report of the High-level Advisory Group on the Environment to the Secretary-general of the OECD. Paris: OECD. OECD 1996: Environmental Performance Reviews, New Zealand. Paris: OECD. 201p. Ombler K 1998: “Agenda 21: an update.” In New Zealand Local Government. April 1998.

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 1997a: Future Directions. Strategic focus for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 1997-2001. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 1997b: Management of Suburban Amenity Values. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 1996: Historic and Cultural Heritage Management in New Zealand. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Perkins H C, Memon P A, Swaffield S R & Gelfand L 1993: “The Urban Environment.” In Environmental planning in New Zealand. Edited by P A Memon & H C Perkins. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press Limited. Perkins H & Thorns D 1997: “The debate over sustainability and city planning.” Paper presented at the Regional and Urban Development Conference, Regional Science Association International. Pacific Regional Science Conference, Wellington, December 8-12 1997. Price C & Dube P 1996: Sustainable development and health: concepts, principles and framework for action for European cities and towns. Sustainable development and health series: Book 1. Copenhagen: World Health Organisation. Public Health Commission, 1995. A Guide to Health Impact Assessment. Wellington: Public Health Commission (now Ministry of Health). Randle N & Hutt M 1997: Healthy Cities. A report for the Midland Regional Health Authority. Royal Commission on Social Policy 1988: The April Report. Volume 1 - New Zealand Today, Volumes 2 & 3 - Future Directions, Volume 4 - Social Perspectives. Wellington: The Royal Commission on Social Policy. Statistics New Zealand 1998: New Zealand Official Yearbook 1998. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. 607p. Statistics New Zealand 1997: New Zealand Official Yearbook 1997. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. 645p. Statistics New Zealand 1993: Measuring up, New Zealanders and the Environment. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. 166p Statistics New Zealand 1992: Documenting the Environment. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. 213p. Taranaki Regional Council 1996: State of the Environment - Taranaki region 1996. Stratford: Taranaki Regional Council. 95p. Taylor B 1998: Health impact assessment. Paper presented at the IAIA workshop on health impact assessment, Christchurch 1998. UK Round Table on Sustainable Development 1997: Getting the Best Out of Indicators. London: UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. 27p. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements 1996: Habitat Agenda Principles. Habitat II Conference 1996. Urban Design Task Force 1994: Urban design in Australia. Report by the Prime Minister’s urban design task force. Commonwealth of Australia.

Wackerhagel M, & Rees W E 1996: Our Ecological Footprint. Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriolea Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers. 160p Watercare Services Limited 1997: Interflow Issue 24, August 1997. Auckland: Water Services Ltd. Watercare Services Limited 1994: Technical Sheet, Wasterwater collection. Auckland: Water Services Ltd. Weizsacker E, Lovins A & Lovins L 1997: Factor Four. Doubling wealth halving resource use. London: Earthscan. 322 pp. Wellington City Council 1997a: Right Here Right Now. A public summary of Wellington’s state of the environment report. An owners guide to life in Wellington. Wellington: Wellington City Council. 40p. Wellington City Council 1997b: Right Here Right Now. A council file. Wellington’s state of the environment report. Wellington: Wellington City Council. Looseleaf ring file. Wellington City Council 1997c: Our City, Our Future. Wellington: Wellington City Council. Wellington Regional Council 1997: Annual Environmental Report 1997. Wellington: Wellington Regional Council. 55p. Wellington Regional Council 1991: The State of the Environment, Wellington region, 1991. Wellington: Wellington Regional Council. 74p. Williams J M, Bicknell K B, & Cullen R. 1997: “Environmental Implications of Meeting New Zealanders’ Needs in the 21st Century: More than just the numbers of people.” In Session 2D Population Change and Conservation. The Population Conference, Te Papa Tongarewa (Museum of New Zealand), Wellington. 12-14 November 1997. Conference Proceedings <http://www.executive.govt.nz/minister/bradford/population/index.htm> World Commission on Environment and Development 1987: Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme & the World Bank 1996: The urban environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Urban sustainability web sites http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/ United Nations sustainable development site http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd.htm United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development site http://www.unhabitat.org/scp/ United Nations Centre for Human Settlements and the Sustainable Cities programme http://www.oecd.org/env/ OECD environmental issues site http://www.who.dk/tech/hcp/index.htm World Health Organisation Healthy Cities project http://www.iclei.org/ International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) site

www.un.org/esa/sustdev/

www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd.htm

www.unhabitat.org/scp

www.oecd.org/env

www.who.dk/tech/hcp/index.htm

www.iclei.org

http://iisd1/iisd.ca/ International Institute for Sustainable Development (Canada) http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/pcsd/index.htm United State’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg11/urban/home.htm European Commission Sustainable Cities programme http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/European_Sustainable_Cities/ The European Sustainable Cities and Towns campaign http://cities21.com/europractice/index.htm EURONET/ICLEI Consortium http://www.best.com/~schmitty/ueindex.shtml Urban ecology site http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/sustainable/index.htm UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions http://www.dbce.csiro.au/ CSIRO built environment site (Australia) http://www.ahuri.edu.au/ Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute site Appendix 1 Organisations and individuals consulted in the

preparation of this report

Alan Bickers Management Services Limited (Alan Bickers) Apple Fields Limited (David Wilson) Auckland Regional Services Trust (Alan Tonks) Auckland City Council Auckland Civic Trust Auckland Regional Council and Auckland Growth Forum team

http://iisd1/iisd.ca/

www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/pcsd/index.htm

http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg11/urban/home.htm

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/European_Sustainable_Cities/

http://cities21.com/europractice/index.htm

www.best.com/~schmitty/ueindex.shtml

www.environment.detr.gov.uk/sustainable/index.htm

www.dbce.csiro.au

www.ahuri.edu.au

Beca Carter, Tauranga (Christine Ralph & Terry O’Connor) BOMA Tauranga Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce Canterbury Regional Council Chamber of Commerce, Tauranga Region Inc. (Linda Ross) Christchurch City Council Christchurch-Otautahi Agenda 21 Forum Crown Public Health, Christchurch (Kay Rollinson) Dave Fox & Associates, Surveyors, Christchurch Davis Ogilvie, Surveyors, Christchurch Dunedin City Council Dunedin Ratepayers and Householders Association Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority Environment Waikato Hamilton City Council International Global Change Institute, University of Waikato (Prof. Neil Ericksen) Kingston Morrison (Craig Cairncross) KPMG (Ken Tremaine) Lincoln University (Dr Harvey Perkins) Local Government New Zealand Manukau City Council Manukau Urban Maori Authority (June Jackson) Metrowater, Auckland Ministry for the Environment, Head Office, Auckland and Christchurch Regional Offices Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Darryl Dunn) Ministry of Health Montgomery Watson Ltd, Dunedin (Jim Bradley) Mount Maunganui Residents & Ratepayers Group North Canterbury Forest and Bird Otago Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc Otago Regional Council Papakura District Council Perry Waste Services Limited (Peter Higgs) Peter Beven, Architect and Associates, Christchurch Port of Tauranga Limited (Tony Reynish & Geoff Thompson) Public Health Service, Healthcare Otago Ltd (Louise Croot) Resource Management Law Association: Auckland, Hamilton and Christchurch Branches

Salmond Anderson Heath, Dunedin (Tim Heath & Don Anderson) Shrimpton & Lipinski Ltd, Surveyors, Tauranga (Gerald Kelly) Sustainable Cities Trust, Christchurch Tainui Maori Trust Board Tauranga District Council. Te Hao O Ngati Whatua (Grant Hawke & Bill Kapea). Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust (John Tamihere) University of Auckland, Planning and Geography Departments, Department of Economics (Prof. Tim Hazledine) University of Canterbury, Department of Geography (Prof. Eric Pawson) and Department of Sociology (Prof. David Thorns) University of Otago, Department of Geography (Associate Prof. Ali Memon, Dr Richard Morgan & Kerry Grundy) and Department of Political Studies (Dr Janine Haywood) University of Waikato, Department of Geography, (Prof. Richard Bedford & Mairi Jay) and Department of Economics (Dr Frank Scrimgeour) Waikato Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Mavora Hamilton) Waikato Environmental Business Network (Paula Southgate) Waitakere City Council Watercare Services Limited, Auckland Wellington City Council Wellington Civic Trust Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce Wellington Regional Council Western Bay of Plenty District Council Western Bays Community Board, Auckland City

Appendix 2 List of submitters 1 Andew Guerin 2 Lyn Heaton 3 Land Information New Zealand 4 Kingston Morrison Ltd 5 National Council of Women, National Office 6 Carole Donaldson 7 National Council of Women, Christchurch 8 John McLean 9 Owen Jennings 10 Transit New Zealand 11 Environmental Risk Management Authority 12 Greenpeace 13 Anne Fenn 14 Road Transport Forum New Zealand 15 Southland District Council 16 Davis Ogilvie & Partners Ltd 17 Hutt City Council 18 Janet Gough 19 Ravensbourne Residents Assn & the Ratepayers and Householders Assn Inc 20 Forest and Bird, Auckland 21 Transfund New Zealand 22 Jeanette Fitzsimons 23 Invercargill City Council 24 Mairi Jay 25 Risk Assessment Associates Ltd 26 Campaign for Public Transport Inc. 27 Bay of Plenty Conservation Board 28 NZ Institute of Landscape Architects Inc. 29 NZ Historic Places Trust 30 Christchurch City Council 31 Sustainable Cities 32 Landcare Research NZ Ltd 33 Tauranga District Council 34 Auckland Regional Council 35 NZ Federation of University Women Inc. 36 Louise Croot 37 David Bowden 38 Ministry of Health 39 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority 40 Wellington Civic Trust 41 Red Design:Architects 42 Annette Barrow 43 Hamilton City Council 44 Anon 45 Te Hao O Ngati Whatua 46 J.C.Horne

47 Auckland City Council 48 NZ Institute of Architects 49 Matthew ter Borg 50 Laura Kellaway 51 Wellington Regional Council 52 Foundation for Research Science and Technology 53 Christchurch-Otautahi Agenda 21 Forum 54 Dushko Bogunovich 55 Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc. 56 Wellington Conservation Board 57 Harvey Perkins & David Thorns, Lincoln University 58 Christine Cheyne, Massey University 59 Forest and Bird, Central Office 60 Otago Regional Council 61 Palmerston North City Council 62 Auckland Civic Trust 63 Te Puni Kokiri

Appendix 3 The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: the principles of Agenda 21 Principle 1 Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Principle 2 States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Principle 3 The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. Principle 4 In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it. Principle 5 All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world. Principle 6 The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries. Principle 7 States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command. Principle 8 To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies. Principle 9

States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies. Principle 10 Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilititate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided. Principle 11 States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries. Principle 12 States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus. Principle 13 States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction. Principle 14 States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health. Principle 15 In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Principle 16

National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment. Principle 17 Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority. Principle 18 States shall immediately notify other States of any natural disasters or other emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmful effects on the environment of those States. Every effort shall be made by the international community to help States so afflicted. Principle 19 States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected States on activities that may have a significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with those States at an early stage and in good faith. Principle 20 Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development. Principle 21 The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilised to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all. Principle 22 Indigenous people and their communities, and other local communities, have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development. Principle 23 The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected. Principle 24 Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary. Principle 25 Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible. Principle 26 States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Principle 27 States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of partnership in fulfilment of the principles embodied in this Declaration and in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable development.

Agenda 21 - chapter outline Chapter 1: Preamble Section 1: Social and Economic Dimensions Chapter 2: International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies. Chapter 3: Combating poverty Chapter 4: Changing consumption patterns Chapter 5: Demographic dynamics and sustainability Chapter 6: Protecting and promoting human health Chapter 7: Promoting sustainable human settlement development Chapter 8: Integrating environment and development decision-making Section 2: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development Chapter 9: Protection of the atmosphere Chapter 10: Integrated approach to the planning and management of land resource Chapter 11: Combating deforestation Chapter 12: Managing fragile ecosystems: Combating desertification and drought Chapter 13: Managing fragile ecosystems: Sustainable mountain development Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development Chapter 15: Conservation of biological diversity Chapter 16: Environmentally sound management of biotechnology Chapter 17: Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources Chapter 18: Protection of the quality and supply of fresh-water resources: Application of integrated approaches to the development, management and use of water resources Chapter 19: Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals, including prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products Chapter 20: Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes, including prevention of illegal international traffic in hazardous wastes Chapter 21 Environmentally sound management of solid wastes and sewage-related issues Chapter 22: Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes Section 3: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups Chapter 23: Preamble Chapter 24: Global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development Chapter 25: Children and Youth in sustainable and equitable development Chapter 26: Recognising and strengthening the role of indigenous people and their communities Chapter 27: Strengthening the role of non-governmental organisations: Partners for sustainable development

Chapter 28: Local authorities’ initiatives in support of Agenda 21 Chapter 29: Strengthening the role of workers and their trade unions Chapter 30: Strengthening the role of business and industry Chapter 31: Scientific and technological community Chapter 32: Strengthening the role of farmers Section 4: Means of implementation Chapter 33: Financial resources and mechanisms Chapter 34: Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity-building Chapter 35: Science for sustainable development Chapter 36: Promoting education, public awareness and training Chapter 37: National mechanisms and international cooperation for capacity-building in development countries Chapter 38: International institutional arrangements Chapter 39: International legal instruments and mechanisms Chapter 40: Information for decision-making

Date post:	30-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

THE CITIES AND THEIR PEOPLE New Zealand’s urban environment · with vision, good strategic...

Documents