Ranking NZ river values – application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS) Ken Hughey and Mary-Anne Baker

Acknowledgements A big thanks to: FRST, for funding the Envirolink Project that led to development of this system; The multiple participants who have worked together, and ‘separately’ on system development. 2

The challenge Need a ‘prioritisation’ tool now, for multiple statutory and non statutory purposes. A tool that works regionally but also has national level application potential. A tool that will work with the best available information. A tool that is user friendly. A tool that, when applied, provides defensible (e.g., Environment Court) results. 3

The approach In late 2008 we established a project steering group. Initiated literature review. Some work, e.g., kayaking (but 20+ yrs ago); the Waters of National Importance project, but of limited value. No one had developed a system to look objectively/ quantitatively or in a standardised, user friendly way across a range of values. We developed a methodology, the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS). RiVAS applied to range of values at selected councils … 4

The values tested Salmonids – Tasman: done; subsequently, Marlborough; Hawkes Bay : in press Irrigation – Canterbury; Tasman: done Native Birdlife – Canterbury; Tasman: done Native fish – Wellington and Tasman: in progress Iwi – Southland: done Natural character – Marlborough; Tasman: done Swimming – Manawatu-Whanganui; Tasman: done Kayaking – West Coast; Tasman: done; subsequently, Hawkes Bay : in press Hydro – Bay of Plenty; Tasman: in progress 5

The method – multi-criteria driven, standardised numeric scale, and expert panel based approach Very few ‘values’ have full or up-to-date, comparable or quantitative, data, either nationally or regionally – notable exception is F&G NZ’s salmonid angling surveys. No contemporary data for some values, e.g., swimming or natural character, while others are mixed, e.g., native birdlife. Used the best available information - filled the gaps with expert judgement: there is no other way! Method built around key attributes of river values, populating where possible with real data, and then converting this information to numeric scales for ranking values = this is known as multi criteria analysis. Ultimately this led to us using expert panels and best available information as the cornerstones of the project. 6

Using the Best Available Information Mandated in Fisheries Act 1996 under the Information Principles (S10) Supported by numerous Environment Court decisions Bottom line: cannot wait forever for the collection of perfect data so we use the Best Available Information, in a precautionary way We are absolutely explicit about the data we use – nothing is hidden

Why we use Expert panels The most appropriate people to find, populate and interpret the Best Available Information are experts in the various values Experts are also best placed for identifying the attributes, indicators and importance thresholds of the values The choice and credibility of experts is vital – a credible panel tends to act cautiously because its members, by definition, have to remain credible An independent facilitator can keep experts ‘honest’ Independent peer reviewers are also an important moderating influence

The method – operationalising Assessment criteria Step 1: define river value categories and river segments Step 2: identify all of the value’s attributes – economic, social, environmental, cultural Step 3: select and describe primary attributes – reduce to a list of <10 Step 4: identify indicators – choose objective over subjective wherever possible Determining significance Step 5: determine indicator thresholds – quantify these where possible and think nationally Step 6: apply indicators and their thresholds – convert all to 1=low; 2=medium; 3= high Step 7: weight the primary attributes – preferably equal weighting, but otherwise as needed Step 8: determine river significance – sum total and determine overall importance, e.g., in relation to water conservation order criteria Step 9: outline other factors relevant to the assessment of significance Method review Step 10: review assessment process and identify future information needs, e.g., survey needs 9

So, what does the output look like at the end of the day? The following two applications – for native birdlife and irrigation in Canterbury are examples showing: the sorts of input data, the integrating system, and the final ranked outputs.

Demonstration 1: Birdlife - Canterbury

Demonstration 2: Irrigation – Canterbury

Some of the lessons/questions to date Expert panel selection sometimes challenging – ultimately, credibility extremely important and willingness and ability to work within a collaborative. People sometimes sceptical/hesitant until they have worked through the process – ‘working through’ removes this concern, mostly. Need a preliminary scan to reduce the size of the task, i.e., based on the best available information remove rivers of no importance for this value. 15

Resource requirements A ‘champion’ needed within council, and probably an external consultant to run the project(s); A credible multi stakeholder group must be established; For some values, e.g., tangata whenua, considerable time is needed for consultation and resource gathering; Cost varies greatly – for first time national level development of attributes etc then cost is greater than subsequent regional level applications (for latter: estimate of $3-6,000 per value application). Guidelines & reports available in the Hughey and Baker (2011) LEAP report 24 published by Lincoln University. 16