3. Content of Iwi Management Plans

Assessment criteria

The contents of the sample IMPs were assessed against nine components KCSM identified to be essential elements of an IMP. The components are:

1. Description of the iwi or hapū – who they are; e.g. whakapapa; history.
2. Purpose of the IMP – why it was prepared, who is it prepared for and what it is seeking to achieve; e.g. environmental, social, cultural and economic goals.
3. Rohe – the area being covered by the IMP.
4. Issues the IMP seeks to address; e.g. stormwater and sewage outfalls; environmental degradation; vegetation clearance; housing.
5. Objectives, policies and methods – statements identifying what outcomes are being sought by the IMP to address the issues and how that can be achieved; e.g. by research; information gathering, and monitoring resource consents.
6. Participation – the circumstances when the iwi or hapū seek consultation with an agency; e.g. a council or consent applicant, the process to be used, points of contact, and the information the iwi or hapū need to enable it to assess the agency’s proposal.
7. Administration of the IMP – who is responsible for the IMP; e.g. iwi authority; hapū authority; marae committee.
8. Readability – the IMP is well structured and easy to understand.
9. Review – how and when the IMP will be reviewed.

Findings

General

All 10 IMPs reviewed were found to have clear statements of purpose, desired outcomes and policies that were easy to read and understand.

Most IMPs were written to assist external agencies understand the position of the iwi or hapū on key resource management issues and how those external agencies can achieve a better working relationship with the iwi or hapū. One IMP listed criteria for reviewing its implementation.

The IMPs reviewed ranged from five pages to over 200 pages.

A number of IMPs lacked one or more of the following:

1. a basic description of the iwi or hapū
2. a description or map of the rohe covered by the plan
3. practical guidance for external agencies on how to consult with the iwi or hapū
4. who was responsible for administering the IMP
5. when and how the IMP was to be reviewed.

Description of the group

Half the IMPs included descriptions about the iwi or hapū such as brief histories and whakapapa linkages. One IMP, for example, devoted a section to explaining their history and their current situation.

KCSM note that a description about the group is particularly helpful for IMPs seeking to improve working relationships with external agencies, providing those agencies with a basic understanding of the iwi or hapū and ‘where they are coming from’.

Where an IMP did not describe the group, the IMP appeared to assume that external agencies already had that information. For example, one IMP included numerous statements for external agencies to consult with various hapū, but no information was provided on who those hapū were.

Purpose of the IMP

With one exception, the IMPs reviewed had statements on the purpose and scope of the IMP. Examples of purpose statements in the IMPs reviewed included:

• to develop understanding and relationships both internally (within the group) and externally (with other groups and agencies)

• to assert customary rights and responsibilities over taonga

• to sustain the mauri of natural and physical resources.

In the case where the purpose is for developing internal and external relationships, KCSM suggest it may be worth having separate documents or sections for the different purposes.

A number of IMPs also stated that the IMP was not to be regarded by external agencies as a substitute for consultation.

Rohe covered by the plan

Four of the IMPs included a map showing the rohe covered by the Plan. Another two IMPs included maps but no boundaries were shown. The remaining four IMPs had no map or description of the rohe.

Issues addressed

Seven of the 10 IMPs reviewed had clear statements of issues or lists of issues addressed by the Plan. The issues included partnership, consultation, land use, fisheries, water quality, wāhi tapu, and mineral management.

Two of the remaining IMPs had issue statements that were difficult to identify as they were included within the general text of the IMP. The remaining IMP was not issue based.

Policies

All IMPs included the desired outcomes to be achieved and/or policies about how issues are to be addressed. Policies included working relationships with local authorities and consent applicants, gathering more information on an issue, and training for kaitiaki. Some IMPs went further and listed implementation methods.

The IMPs policies differed between those that had a strong tikanga foundation and those that were more closely aligned with western models of resource management.

Participation

Four of the IMPs provided clear guidance to external agencies on how to consult with the iwi or hapū or enable the group to participate in discussion of a plan or application. One iwi prepared specific consultation guidelines for external agencies that KCSM regard as a useful model for others to consider.

The remaining six IMPs stated generally the outcomes sought from consultation, but not how to achieve these outcomes.

Administration of the IMP

Half of the IMPs reviewed stated explicitly who was responsible for the IMP, including contact details.

Readability

KCSM considered all the IMPs reviewed were generally easy to read. Six of the IMPs increased readability by good use of a table of contents, photos, maps and graphics. The most readable IMP reviewed was 50 pages long, but each page had either a table, photo, picture, diagram or map to add interest. This IMP was a joy to read.

Review of the IMP

Three IMPs addressed the need to review the plan. One of those three IMPs listed evaluation criteria for its review. Another partially addressed this issue by providing a review process but no timeframe.

Conclusions

The 10 IMPs reviewed varied widely in style, size, content, format and presentation. Most IMPs reviewed contained the majority of elements KCSM consider important to have in an IMP. Some of the IMPs reviewed were of a very high quality.

Most IMPs were to assist external agencies understand the views of the iwi or hapū on resource management issues and to facilitate better working relationships with those agencies.

Nevertheless, a number of the IMPs lacked one or more of the following:

1. a basic description of the iwi or hapū
2. a description or map of the rohe covered by the plan
3. practical guidance for external agencies on how to consult with the iwi or hapū
4. who was responsible for administering the IMP
5. when and how the IMP was to be reviewed.

The variation in the IMPs reviewed is not surprising when one considers that:

• the iwi and hapū organisations are uniquely different in terms of longevity, legal structure, and political dynamics

• the age of the IMPs represent different stages in the implementation of the Resource Management Act

• some IMPs were largely written by the iwi members while others were written by environmental consultants with differing access to the specialist expertise of kaumatua, scientists and cartographers

• funding to develop the IMPs varied widely.