4. Effectiveness of Iwi Management Plans

Effectiveness of the IMP has been assessed in terms of:

1. the value in managing the group’s participation in resource management
2. the usefulness for clarifying and prioritising environmental issues
3. the value of developing an IMP for building the capacity of the group
4. the improvement in environmental outcomes
5. the ongoing relevance to achieving environmental aspirations and engaging in resource management
6. the alternatives to IMPs
7. the likelihood the group would repeat the experience of developing an IMP.

Findings

The findings of this section come mainly from the face-to-face interviews with staff from the sample of 10 iwi organisations, but also include some comments provided during the preliminary phone interviews.

Value in managing a group’s participation in resource management

Most respondents considered their IMP has aided their participation in resource management.

“It has improved communications with (name of TA) – for us and other iwi and hapū.”

“For my job, it is a really useful document.”

“It is still a good tool. A lot of our people still request copies.”

“We use it all the time.”

The IMP enhances the understanding of councils, consent applicants and consultants in preparation for engaging with iwi and hapū.

“It is used as a reference point beforehand – before consultation with us. It is a document for them to refer to – so they don’t come in ‘cold’. It makes things happen a lot smoother.”

“People now know where we stand. It is providing a basis for iwi, hapū and whānau to build on, and to develop our capacity to be involved.”

“It has given people an appreciation of the issues. For our people to move forward on. Also for people externally.”

“It has been more a communications plan. Things continue to change, but the core issues remain the same – the need for good relationships.”

“The intention is that it will say to anyone, anywhere, this is how to deal with us.”

Some respondents said that councils had started to refer to their IMP in the council’s plans.

“(Name of regional council) appear to have integrated some parts of our Plan into their plans.”

“Its now acknowledged in their (name of district council) 10 year plan.”

Most respondents noted the part the IMP had played in their relationship with councils.

“Relationships have improved over time – a reasonable relationship has developed.”

“The outcome sought is a better working relationship with councils, consultants and government departments.”

For two respondents with close working relationships with councils, the IMP had been a catalyst in the development of other arrangements in which reliance on, and use of, their IMP has reduced. The IMP had been useful as an initial strategy for presenting their views and engaging with councils, developers, consultants and other stakeholders. Effective relationships and processes had become the main focus for these iwi.

“We did something quick so we could have a say on how things were being run … Because of it, we now have a strong relationship. It provided a basis of understanding – used as a basis for the relationship and input to decision making we now have … It did the job.”

“It was used initially. It was a scene setter – not the Bible.”

“But as the years go by, people develop their own ways of doing things. We use the principles but the focus has been on relationships with developers rather than the Iwi Management Plan. A lot of people know the Iwi Management Plan but they also now know the iwi dynamics and the variations across the region – so some areas follow the IMP while others don’t.”

“It has been good but it is now outdated. It’s not important any more – we are doing the work!”

This positive perspective was not consistently supported especially in some of the phone survey responses. Two phone respondents stated their iwi organisation had not used their IMP at all.

“We were one of the first to have an IMP (1987). It only re-surfaced when I started three years ago.”

“We never really used the original, because it was originally done as a desktop exercise. We are now more aware of the RMA. The consequence is that we now have to bring our people alongside us – a desktop plan is of no use to anyone.”

The value of the IMP is also limited by the awareness of the IMP in the community. Only half of the respondents were satisfied with the level of awareness.

“There is now major awareness of the Plan. Major consultancy firms now refer to OUR PLAN! We now have to stress to consultancy firms that the Plan is not to be used instead of consultation. But it is a good starting point. The major ones (consultancy firms) are very good at using it.”

“It is used as a reference document and for resource consent applicants. Copies have been made available to developers … The net could have been cast wider but it has been a slow process gaining acceptance of our special status (as per the RMA).”

“Council needs to include an induction package for new staff and councillors. They need to make staff aware of the people and plans they should consider. Then it should be in their policies and procedures – and they should be trying to address some of the issues our plan raises.”

“I must say that since the plan has been in place the process has been better, but progress is slow, and its up to council to come to the party, let people know that they can come and talk to us before they submit their applications instead of meeting us at the hearing stage.”

“There is minimal awareness of the plan – apart from those participated in the development process, and the knowledge they picked up from that. There has been no ‘delivery process’ as such, but we would like to do that sometime soon, planning at the moment.”

“The awareness has waned in councils – partly attributable to the changes in tribal dynamics. They also want face-to-face – it was a useful starting point.”

“Not enough people are aware that it exists – through the resource consents process I only get a list of the consents and we object to the ones that we think will harm our environment. We don’t get anyone actually coming to talk to us about what’s in our plan and how our plan has an effect on their plans. It got to the point where we were objecting to resource consents by letter only, but not providing a reason why, so they would come and talk to us. Even then it was a struggle.”

“We are involved too far down the track (in resource consent processes).”

“Councils are aware of it – but are still not using it enough. At all stages, there is still more that councils can do. The obligation is on council for determining and directing developers to recognize it. We are starting to see a trickle of communications from developers after directions from the council – we need an extension of that.”

“It hasn’t been used as much as it should have.”

The stronger responses demonstrated a level of frustration that they had been trying to work with councils for many years to gain some recognition of iwi and hapū views without success.

“We need to meet again with (name of TA) and reaffirm our position. They agreed we are the first point of contact – but they aren’t following through on it.”

“All of the councils do refer to (name of IMP) – but there are lots of other complications … Councils and developers use consultants that contest our input. Also our own taurekareka (traitors)! For $50K, they can come up and kill a taniwha! We tell them not to come up here – don’t come up and takahi (trample) on us – they use our enemies to come up and takahi on us... The relationship hasn’t improved – it has just taught us how to have our whawhai (fight) – it is a peculiar relationship!”

Usefulness for clarifying and prioritising environmental issues

Many responses confirmed that IMPs had been useful for iwi to clarify and prioritise their environmental issues.

“It has been useful for us – because it has provided consistency over time.”

“It has helped us focus our activities – we now have a much more strategic approach. Before, we were putting out fires – now we have a focused Plan. It is very hard to get funding, so you must focus.”

“Very useful, we as an iwi are clear about how we plan to manage the natural resource. We have three objectives and these are being reviewed annually. It outlines issues, gives broad scope to reach agreement with participants.”

“It has given a focus on environmental management. The thinking is now more focused. We are now committed more to the RMA. The thinking is based on the expertise we have – there is not a low of high level, but a lot of common sense.”

A few respondents noted that the IMP helped clarify the different roles for the iwi and hapū.

“Certainly within (name of their organisation) we have utilized it (IMP) in our annual planning. We don’t really want to be involved in resource consent issues – that’s for hapū at the ground level. We provide back-up support for hapū.”

“We used to get involved and weren’t clear how we should get involved.”

One respondent highlighted how other issues can distract groups from the priorities in their IMP.

“Some iwi have never been involved at all (in environmental management). While no other iwi in (name of region) were involved in the RMA, we put down a kaupapa for kotahitanga – unified approach across the iwi for environmental management. Then along came the FISH! (Sealord deal and the allocation of quota via Te Ohu Kaimoana). We made some progress with (name of IMP), but everyone was watching the fish. The Regional Council saw the mandate disputes that have ensued and they gradually pulled the plug on what we were doing.”

Those respondents who were less confident the document had clarified and prioritized the issues, stated that their IMP was overly philosophical in nature.

The value of developing an IMP for building capacity for the group

Most respondents stated there had been limited building of capacity from developing their IMP. In these cases, just one or two people from the group had developed the document, or the IMP had been produced by a consultant or other organisation.

“It was developed by (name of person). There was no professional development.”

The main constraint to capacity building raised by respondents was the lack of support to iwi and hapū to develop an IMP and to then follow through on what the IMP provided.

“Human resources are the main issue – they all have jobs. Meetings get cancelled – there are further delays.”

“There are a few people that do a lot. Succession is a huge issue in the resource management area – a lot of people are snapped up by consultancies – so we have a lot of volunteer workers.”

“There is so much work involved to get to that point – for our people to use and apply it – at hapū and whānau level.”

“You’ve just got to give us the resources to up-skill our whanaunga (iwi members).”

In particular, the constraint on capacity building was most onerous for the role of hapū environmental management.

“We have done all the groundwork – but we are trying to work with hapū who often contradict what we have stated. The expertise must be continuously developed. The LGA has empowered our whanaunga here at home – to put us (the iwi) down, but not to know the issues.”

“It will take a lot of effort to work through the hapū capacity issues.”

“Our ability to raise the capacity of hapū in environmental matters has been a burdensome journey. There are 13 hapū. It is quite a struggle for us – while we try the ability to build their capacity has been negligible.”

Nevertheless a few respondents including some from the phone survey saw a capacity building benefit from the IMP development.

“It helps up-skill iwi and council officers.”

“I think the plan helped to create a greater awareness amongst our people about our natural environment.”

“It was more an awareness raising exercise. We got really good turnouts from a wide range of people.”

“Its been the best thing. It has helped us allay a lot of mistrust and helped up-skill iwi.”

“People use it in resource consent processes to support their concerns. They use it as an initiative to develop their own plans – as a lead-in to actions for them.”

One respondent noted the IMP had been the catalyst for further development of the iwi’s capacity.

“I guess the process increased capacity in some respects – the iwi have created my position now so that has something that has come out of it. I can’t comment on the capacity of the trust before I came along, but since I’ve been here I see my role as an increase in capacity.”

The value in improving environmental outcomes

Respondents stated that the awareness raised by their IMP provided the lead-in for them to be involved with councils in environmental management would improve environmental outcomes.

“There is now a sign-off process – an acknowledgement of the plan in their processes – they are now making the developers come to us.”

“The main thing is that people now know where we stand. It’s providing a basis for iwi, hapū and whānau to build on and develop our capacity to be involved.”

The IMP had been a tool towards establishing relationships, processes and protocols that will in turn improve environmental outcomes.

“The outcome must be a better working relationship with councils, consultants, and government departments. In theory, there should be a seamless working relationship.”

“It’s been helpful by determining the need for a position to deal directly with the consents process. The relationship between iwi and council staff has been good – we have some really good contacts in there, but the relationship with 'council' itself is strained.”

However, many respondents considered there was insufficient support from councils to allow iwi to fulfil their responsibilities under the Act and participate using their IMP:

“We have continuously asked for resources – since 1991.”

“If they assisted us – to resource us – then they would have a sustainable system. We have got our resources from a range of projects we are developing with others – but we haven’t got one dollar from government based funding!”

“The main bodies know we have one (an IMP) and that’s a start – would like to let the community know about it so they are more informed when applying for resource consent – unfortunately we don’t have enough funding.”

“We don’t have enough resources to promote the plan. We would like to go and formally discuss the document with council but we have little resources as it is – promotion of the plan will cost too much and coupled with the foreshore and seabed submissions and debate we don’t have the time or the money.”

“It has improved, although it is a heavy burden. We are vastly under-resourced so we can’t have the input. The LTCCP is okay in philosophy – but the process for us in planning is not budgeted for – so we are not funded to fulfil this function.”

“There is no consistency across the TAs – we have five we work with. Then there is also DoC with all its overlaps.”

Respondents stated that a lot more work was still required before the impact of the IMPs on environmental outcomes would be as effective as intended.

“The intention of the document is to provide a plan for our resources, but we have also written it in a manner whereby it can be used as an educational tool. The designation of a position to handle environmental management is a start – I need to educate people – iwi and council – about our plan and its importance. If this is successfully done then the effect of the development of our plan will be beneficial.”

Respondents also stated that even in situations where there was high recognition of iwi environmental outcomes in council plans and high awareness amongst resource consent applicants of the IMP, it was still too easy for both council and applicants to ignore the views of iwi.

“Consultants know the document. A lot though continue to just write ‘There are no sites of significance’, even though they are on the list provided to them … Where is the accountability? Its like crime – 99% of the time you will get away with it.”

“Another problem is with planner turnover as they roll over. Just as you get one understanding our views and the way we operate, they leave – so we tend to deal with consultants more. The council isn’t putting the onus on the new planners to pick things up. A new planner creates problems – they don’t understand.”

“This all tends to keep us in a reactive mode – we are trying to be proactive.”

“We have been at the forefront of resource management - under our kaupapa. They (TAs) plough straight over the top of you if you don’t look out. What is TPK doing in terms of monitoring interaction between councils and iwi and hapū? Its taken 10 or 11 years of raruraru (problems) between us and the TAs already – and there has still been no transfer of powers under Section 33. It’s still really difficult to stop someone bulldozing your pā – it’s really frustrating. We’ve been trying to make some progress but it is koretake (useless).”

KCSM found that while some high quality IMPs had not improved relationships with councils and other stakeholders, other iwi had made significant gains with very basic IMPs. This suggests that other factors are also important in determining success.

Ongoing relevance to achieving environmental aspirations and engagement in resource management

Most interview and phone respondents considered that their IMP had ongoing relevance to iwi aspirations for the environment. There was some confidence that it would continue to be a useful tool.

“Its an ‘in’ to get iwi involved in the next step – monitoring and decision making.”

However, most respondents stated there still had not been enough progress towards iwi having a significant role in environmental management.

“It (the IMP) needs to be used a lot more. I believe tangata whenua need to be involved a lot more – at the beginning in the council planning process. It is starting to happen – with one council – but it needs to be a lot more robust. We have participated in (name of TA) planning process this year – but (name of another TA) only provide a forum.”

“It’s a fairly idealistic document. It was designed to get a start in resource management. Where do we want to see ourselves. And then some practical action plans.”

“We are still interacting – we are at the forefront, we still address the issues. The submissions have been made for the last 10 years but none of things (in our submissions) come to pass.”

“We have continually said to Council if you come to us in the first instance, everything will tick over okay. When they come to us at the 11th hour – as they continue to do – it’s hard.”

“We knew we would be labouring under this thing called 'iwi' – that came out of the Rūnanga Bill. It’s all back to front. The RMA talks about iwi. (With) the LGA – now you can just talk to a Māori.”

Several respondents noted the significant changes that had occurred since the RMA was enacted in 1991 – ranging from the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims to the introduction of the new Local Government Act. They suggested that for IMPs to still be relevant, the IMPs would need to be reviewed and updated.

Alternatives to IMPs

Effective relationships were identified as one alternative to an IMP to effectively participate in environmental management.

“We are focused on developing relationships and participation in decision making. The relationship with council is THE issue.”

“We (the iwi) are targeting the regional level – a formal relationship with (name of regional council) and national agencies. Some of these will be funded projects – we took the initiative to change our approach and get involved in the design of the policies and processes right from the beginning. And they asked to help facilitate and participate. Other opportunities are now emerging.”

“We want to look at outcomes based relationships. We have well established relationships with councils. We assist our people as adviser and facilitator. A lot of developers come to us because they know they can get an outcome. The legislative requirement is just one. Timing is another issue. Are there political processes that we can work through together? What are the joint interests? So we pull developers towards us. Its all about understanding. Relationships!”

Funding was stated to be the key to participation in most instances.

“We need funding to set up a unit. We need an expert in here to drive and lead this thing. We don’t have the expertise – we need someone to focus in order to resolve a lot of issues.”

Improving the RMA was another option identified by respondents.

“We have found the RMA to be a ‘toothless tiger’. It talks about avoidance and mitigation without any ‘no-no’s’! There needs to be some bottom lines. We can’t pursue many of the avenues because of cost. Just for (name of a local case), the time commitment for us was huge. Environmental management needs to be strengthened further – not watered down. There needs to be more clarification of the Māori issues.”

Two respondents were developing community resource centres that would further support their participation – and more importantly the participation of hapū – in environmental management processes, rather than relying on their IMP.

“We are establishing a Kaitiaki Resource Centre.”

“The longer term plan is to set up our own Information Centre where people can access information. Data-basing information so it’s accessible to (name of iwi) members and anyone in the rohe (area).”

One respondent stated that the Treaty claims process was superseding the need for an IMP.

“We envisage the agreements we reach in the outstanding claims we have over the rivers and waterways will become the Iwi Management Plan and supersede the current document. We are content with the current one as an interim document.”

A hapū management plan was identified by one respondent as the correct alternative to an IMP.

“They should develop Hapū Management Plans. It should be an empowering strategy.”

Given the opportunity would iwi develop an IMP again

Almost all respondents said they would be either reviewing their IMP and would develop an IMP again if they had the opportunity.

“Yes. The revised version is due out soon.”

“Plan review is a big task. It is almost better to start from scratch. It is a huge process – so many people involved.”

“New councils have developed their new plans – it is a good time to review it (their IMP).”

“Yes, reviewed annually with full review every three years. If changes are required in the annual review we provide supplementary notes to all those groups who have it, then incorporate in three yearly reviews.”

Some respondents said they lacked the resources to review their IMP.

“It requires a lot of human resources. You have to have the ability to get out and do the research – kōrero with pakeke – it needs a lot of research. Both whānau and councils need to be comfortable with it. Then there is promoting it – making people aware. This is all inhibited by the lack of funding.”

“The plan needs to be reviewed regularly to be effective – but we need the resources to review them.”

A few respondents didn’t see the need for developing another IMP because, either they had made positive progress and an IMP was no longer an important tool, or because the key principles of an IMP do not change.

“No, just work with the one we have now, I think we’ve got a really good document we just need to promote and apply it more.”

Conclusions

The majority of iwi organisations interviewed considered an IMP to be a useful tool in iwi environmental and resource management. In particular, the IMP provides key information to councils, consent applicants and consultants to enhance their understanding before engaging with iwi and hapū.

Half of respondents considered there was wide awareness of their IMP in their community and half were concerned awareness was still limited.

Most respondents felt that IMPs were not being utilized sufficiently by councils and consultants.

Most respondents said their IMP was useful to clarify and prioritise their environmental issues, for both external and internal stakeholders.

Many respondents stated there had been little capacity building from the development of the IMP, because just one or two people or an outside consultant had developed the IMP. This approach was linked to a lack of resources for involving the iwi members effectively in the development.

Most respondents advised that the awareness raised by the IMP had led to relationships, processes and protocols that could increase iwi involvement with councils and in time improve environmental outcomes. Overall, however, the relationships were still seen as poor. Respondents noted that, even where there was recognition of iwi issues in council plans and good awareness amongst resource consent applicants of the IMP, it was still too easy for councils and applicants to ignore iwi views.

Respondents generally considered that the IMP had ongoing relevance to iwi aspirations, but were concerned at the lack of progress to give iwi a significant role in environmental management.

Respondents stated that alternatives to an IMP for assisting iwi to participate in environmental management included effective relationships, iwi resource centres and Treaty settlements. However, these options were constrained by limited capability amongst iwi organisations, lack of commitment by councils, and lack of funding.

Most respondents said they would be reviewing their IMP and would develop an IMP again if they had the opportunity.