Part 5: Sustainable development in the LTCCPs

Matters arising from the 2009-19 long-term council community plans.

5.1
In this Part, we review how six local authorities approached sustainable development in their 2009-19 LTCCPs. This review builds on an external review25 that we commissioned on the 2006-16 LTCCPs. We discuss:

Summary of our findings

5.2
An external review of six local authorities' 2006-16 LTCCPs found that, although they had better information about sustainable development than the 2004-14 LTCCPs, they could be improved by better articulating sustainable development and how it affects the local authority's intentions and operations.

5.3
Our review of the 2009-19 LTCCPs found some improvements but room for still more. Five of the six LTCCPs we reviewed explicitly covered sustainability issues, and linked community outcomes and the four aspects of well-being to some extent (particularly in regard to water). However, we consider that more analysis of, and specificity about, the effects of activities on well-being would be useful.

The Auditor-General's role in sustainable development

5.4
In the period since the 2006-16 LTCCPs, we have been considering the Auditor-General's role in sustainable development in the public sector and, in particular, in local government.

5.5
We consider that the concept of sustainable development fits well with our mandate in matters of performance, use of resources (not just financial), waste, and accountability. However, we have found that sustainable development can be a challenging concept for public entities and for auditors. Our main focus has been on local government, given that the Act requires local authorities to take a sustainable development approach.26

How sustainable development applies to local government

5.6
One authoritative definition of sustainable development comes from the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.27

5.7
This definition accords with a common view that sustainable development involves increasing the standard of living and well-being of people over time, without compromising the natural environment in doing so. Sustainable development involves broad consideration of economic, social, and environmental aspects in planning and decision-making, and taking a long-term view.

5.8
In our view, although the concept of sustainable development is not difficult to understand, applying it in practice can be challenging. Most government agencies and activities aim to improve the well-being of citizens in some way. A sustainable development approach that integrates economic, social, and environmental considerations can be a useful way of thinking about what the agency or local authority is trying to achieve and the effects of its activities. Taking a longer-term view can ensure that current spending and policies do not compromise the needs of future generations.

5.9
Internationally, some Auditors-General have taken an active role in improving government actions by monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on the effectiveness of public entities in:

  • implementing sustainable development legislation, strategies, policies, and programmes; and
  • their planning and reporting processes.

Sustainable development and the Local Government Act 2002

5.10
The Act explicitly links well-being and sustainable development. It gives local authorities the core statutory purpose of promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being28 of their communities and "taking a sustainable development approach".29

5.11
A sustainable development approach is defined to include:

  • taking account of the economic, social, and cultural well-being of people and communities;
  • the need to protect and enhance the quality of the environment; and
  • the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.30

5.12
We note that the Act's definition of sustainable development gives slightly more emphasis to the environmental aspect of well-being compared with the other three aspects of sustainable development.

5.13
The Act does not give detailed direction to local authorities on how to promote the four aspects of well-being or on how to advance sustainable development in their communities. This is for them to decide, with their communities. However, the Act does have clear requirements for local authorities to consider the needs of future generations. For example, an LTCCP must provide a long-term focus for decisions and activities, and local authorities must consider intergenerational equity issues in funding decisions.31

5.14
The LTCCP must also explain why a local authority carries out its activities, the activities' contribution to community outcomes, and any negative effects of those activities on well-being.32 This provides scope for local authorities to link their activities to achieving the economic, social, cultural, and environmental well-being of current and future generations in their district or region – that is, for local authorities to explain how they are giving effect to their statutory purpose.

5.15
In their annual reports, local authorities must report on progress in implementing their plans, including how their activities affect economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being in their communities.33 This can be seen as an opportunity to report on their progress in achieving sustainable development, as defined by the Act.

5.16
Our audit opinion on the annual report needs to confirm that local authorities have met this reporting requirement. We have produced a series of reports to Parliament on how local authorities have performed with this.34 Some local authorities are not meeting the requirement in full or at all, despite it having been in place for several years. Local authorities would more easily meet this requirement if they incorporated a sustainable development approach in their LTCCPs. We explain what this approach might look like below.

What a sustainable development approach might look like in an LTCCP

5.17
We provided some guidance to our auditors on what a sustainable development approach might look like in an LTCCP. We said that it could include:

  • a set of high-level principles adopted by the local authority, used in decision-making;
  • strategies and policies that are explicit about how the local authority considers economic, environmental, social, and cultural well-being, and their integration, the needs of future generations, and working with others in collaborative ways, as well as how the local authority is maintaining and enhancing the environment;
  • operational plans such as asset and activity management plans that integrate the four aspects of community well-being and long-term perspectives; and
  • performance measures that consider the effect of a local authority's activities on the four aspects of well-being, and their contribution to community outcomes.

5.18
A good strategy for achieving sustainable development would include a set of targets for what needs to be achieved and indicators or performance measures to check progress against those targets. In an LTCCP, this could involve putting targets and indicators or measures in place for each aspect of well-being. The results of the community outcomes process could be used in setting these targets and indicators, to link the outcomes sought with each aspect of well-being, and to identify priority indicators to measure achievement of the community's priority outcomes.

5.19
Such targets and indicators may be at a "headline" level, to complement more detailed indicators and targets set at the activities level (which would feed into the headline indicators), and could be used to give local authorities and their communities a high-level overview of progress. This process could also provide a way of achieving integrated thinking about the effect of the local authority's activities on each aspect of well-being.

5.20
The local authority would need to have a monitoring system to measure and record its progress against the headline well-being indicators. At the end of each year, the local authority would then be able to use the information from its monitoring process to report the effects of its activities on each aspect of well-being in its annual report.35 This would enable the local authority to publicly state how it is giving effect in its district or region to achieving sustainable development, including how it is promoting each aspect of community well-being, how it is maintaining and enhancing the environment, and how it is taking account of the needs of future generations in carrying out its activities.

5.21
Local authorities could then use their monitoring results to inform decision-making and when devising policies and strategies.

5.22
Guidance from the Working Group on Environmental Auditing suggests that it can be useful to select a small number of key indicators and identify some desirable trends to work towards, rather than try and measure too many indicators.36

5.23
The work of Statistics New Zealand on measuring New Zealand's progress towards sustainable development provides an example of an approach using a small set of key indicators to measure environmental, economic, and social aspects of sustainable development.37 Statistics New Zealand grouped key indicators by four broad concepts:

  • Meeting needs – how well do we live? (indicators – employment rate, income, life expectancy, crime rates);
  • Fairness – how well are resources distributed? (indicators – access to early childhood education by ethnicity, income inequality);
  • Efficiency – how efficiently are we using our resources? (indicators – greenhouse gas intensity in the economy,38 energy intensity in the economy, labour productivity); and
  • Preserving resources – what are we leaving behind for our children? (indicators – biodiversity, trend in greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen in rivers and streams, adult education levels, number of Māori language speakers).

5.24
Statistics New Zealand established a target trend for each indicator to show the desired direction, and then measured progress using data gathered over a 20-year period. A favourable result indicates progress towards sustainable development and a negative result the opposite. Local authorities that are interested in further engaging with sustainable development may wish to consider the Statistics New Zealand report.

5.25
More guidance on sustainable development was available to the sector for the 2009-19 LTCCPs than for the 2006-16 LTCCPs. Local authorities could access guidance on how to reflect a sustainable development approach in LTCCPs,39 on how to reflect possible climate change impacts in plans,40 and on the benefits of having a strategic framework to guide decision-making (for example, by having a set of sustainable development principles).41

Sustainable development in six 2009-19 LTCCPs

5.26
During our audit of the 2006-16 LTCCPs, we commissioned an external review on the extent to which the LTCCPs showed that local authorities were taking a sustainable development approach as defined in the Act.

5.27
Overall, the reviewer concluded that the six 2006-16 LTCCPs she reviewed would be more effective as strategic documents, more useful as a management framework for local authorities, and of more value to the public if they more strongly articulated sustainable development and how it affects a local authority's intentions and operations.

5.28
We reviewed the 2009-19 LTCCPs of the same six local authorities. They were:

  • Environment Canterbury;42
  • Kapiti Coast District Council;
  • North Shore City Council;
  • South Taranaki District Council;
  • South Wairarapa District Council; and
  • Tasman District Council.

5.29
We were interested to see whether the 2009-19 LTCCPs showed that local authorities had changed their approach to sustainable development, and were particularly interested to find out whether increasing public interest and focus on environmental sustainability issues such as freshwater management and climate change had been reflected in the 2009-19 LTCCPs.

Quality of information in LTCCPs about sustainable development and links with community outcomes and well-being

5.30
Most of the 2009-19 LTCCPs we reviewed have shown significant improvement in articulating sustainable development and linking it with community outcomes and well-being. We outline below how five of the six LTCCPs we reviewed explicitly covered sustainability issues, and linked community outcomes and the four aspects of well-being to some extent.

5.31
Environment Canterbury's process for identifying community outcomes involved ranking 32 outcomes for the region in order of priority. The Council's 2009-19 LTCCP then categorises the community outcomes according to whether their achievement will contribute to economic, cultural, social, and environmental well-being, states a commitment to advocating sustainable development in Canterbury, explains the sustainable development approach required by the Act, and discusses the concept of sustainable development and what the four well-being aspects of sustainable development encompass.43 Throughout the LTCCP, the Council includes brief statements about the effect that its activities will have on the four aspects of well-being and covers both positive and negative effects. The LTCCP notes that the sustainable management of water is the major issue for the region.

5.32
North Shore City Council's 2009-202444 LTCCP has a strong focus on the strategic approach of Council, and includes several linked strategies and policies including 12 "city principles" to guide the Council's thinking and planning as well as forward-looking "city directions". The LTCCP emphasises all aspects of community well-being, and approach that is reflected in the city principles. The LTCCP notes that:

… sustainability in its broad sense, including not only environmental but also social, economic and cultural aspects, is the overarching principle and outcome for the city.45

5.33
South Wairarapa District Council's 2009-19 LTCCP takes some steps towards articulating sustainable development concepts, but its approach is less sophisticated than that of the larger councils. The Council has five high-level community outcomes, one of which is "sustainable South Wairarapa", linking economic development and environmental management of the district. The LTCCP contains several references to sustainability and sustainable management, including in the description of the Council's 10 significant activities, but doesn't strongly link community outcomes, well-being, and activities.

5.34
Tasman District Council's 2009-19 LTCCP has quite a strong sustainable development focus. The LTCCP notes that this focus was sought by the community, which had called for greater sustainability, protecting both the district's natural and man-made environments. The LTCCP links the relationship between community outcomes for the district, the four dimensions of community well-being, the Council's objectives in each of those aspects, and how its activities will contribute to achieving community outcomes.46 The LTCCP has a focus on balancing economic and population growth with sustainable development and environmental management, but taking a cautious approach to keep the district moving forward in a difficult economic environment. The LTCCP discusses the Council's approach to sustainable development and environmental management in relation to managing land and land use, and projected growth and demand for land and services, and managing water resources.47

5.35
Kapiti Coast District Council's 2009-19 LTCCP has a strong focus on sustainable development. It contains a section explaining its sustainable development approach, and notes that the Council has adopted 14 principles to guide its decisions and actions rather than trying to define its approach precisely. The Council identified its community outcomes for a 20-year period and the LTCCP notes that some issues facing the community, such as planning for coastal erosion and protection, must be seen as 10-, 20-, or even 50-year issues. The LTCCP describes activities that appear to be different to standard council activities, such as ‘supporting social wellbeing', and ‘supporting environmental sustainability' (which includes advice on household sustainability, and community programmes such as waste minimisation).

5.36
South Taranaki District Council's approach to linking community outcomes, well-being, and activities in its 2009-19 LTCCP was less sophisticated than the approach taken by the other five councils. The Council's LTCCP does show how the district outcomes are linked to regional outcomes, and there are summary tables of how the Council's activities are linked to district and regional outcomes. However, the LTCCP does not disclose the sustainability concepts in the way the other 2009-19 LTCCPs do.

Presentation

5.37
The LTCCPs for Environment Canterbury and North Shore City Council presented information very clearly. They did so in a logical and coherent way, with good use of graphics to explain how policies, plans, and strategies fit together. Clearly, the larger councils have an advantage over smaller councils because of greater resources and capacity.

Localising community outcomes

5.38
All six local authorities identified community outcomes in their LTCCPs that were localised to their city, district, or region, rather than broad, high-level outcomes that could apply anywhere. The LTCCPs clearly explained the local authority's contribution to outcomes. In some cases, the summary version of the community outcomes could be read as generic outcomes applicable in any part of New Zealand. However, more detailed material in later sections of the LTCCPs provide the local context and rationale. North Shore City Council's LTCCP is an example of this approach,48 which is complemented by its other strategies that are specific to its district.

5.39
Several of the LTCCPs feature both district outcomes and regional outcomes.

Considering the well-being of future generations in decision-making

5.40
A major aspect of the sustainable development approach is taking a long-term view. This is the concept that the actions of current generations to raise our standard of living should not be at the expense of future generations and the natural environment. The Act expresses this as taking account of the foreseeable needs of future generations, and promoting well-being in the present and for the future.49 The financial management principles in the Act also contain references to the current and future interests of the community, and require local authorities to consider, in their funding decisions, the period of time in which benefits occur.

5.41
This part of the sustainable development approach requires councils to think about the future rather than short-term gains, and the 10-year time frame of LTCCPs supports this. However, the ordinary meaning of "a generation" is the average period of time in which children are ready to take the role of their parents (usually about 30 years). This indicates that, where possible, local authorities should take a longer focus than the 10-year minimum.

5.42
Local authorities should by now have developed processes to consider future needs in their decision-making and planning, and this should be a core part of decision-making templates. For example, some local authorities have created overarching principles for decision-making (for example, Kapiti Coast District Council and North Shore City Council). The process for identifying community outcomes also provides an opportunity to consider long-term aspirations or goals for future generations, particularly for issues that take a long time to change such as water quality.

5.43
The six 2009-19 LTCCPs showed improvements, with discussion of future needs early on in the LTCCPs and then throughout the document in relevant activity descriptions and assumptions. Councils do not tend to use the language such as "the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations", but this is not important so long as they are clearly taking a long-term view.

5.44
Kapiti Coast District Council, which also did this well in 2006, takes a longer-term view than the 10-year minimum period for the LTCCP. Its LTCCP states that a council's role is to work with its community on a managed transition to a future (the next 50 years) that will be strongly affected by issues such as climate change, peak oil, competition for labour, and a generally ageing society. Kapiti Coast District Council used a 20-year period for its community outcomes and the LTCCP notes that some issues facing the community must be seen as 10-, 20- or even 50-year issues. Its 2009-19 LTCCP explores two future scenarios.

5.45
North Shore City Council's LTCCP covers a 15-year, rather than 10-year, period and its "city directions" indicate locations for future growth, change, and development during the next 30 years. It also discusses global and other external drivers of change, with challenges including resource availability and climate change, and other drivers such as population growth and diversity.

5.46
All of the LTCCPs discuss key issues for the community in the period of the LTCCP, so are future focused to some extent. However, the needs of future generations are more likely to be implicit (for example, when explaining funding decisions), rather than explicit. Most of the LTCCPs contain information about matters such as climate change and forecast population changes, sometimes in the material on assumptions.50 Some LTCCPs refer to "future proofing" services (for example, Tasman District Council's LTCCP notes that the Council is investing in future proofing its water supplies with a proposed dam). The South Wairarapa District Council's LTCCP has sections on "the district today" and "the district tomorrow", with the latter section taking a longer-term view of trends and key issues for significant activities and major projects.

5.47
The fact that the 2009-19 LTCCPs were prepared in a difficult economic climate with uncertainty about how long the recession might last may have made taking a long-term view harder for the smaller districts. This comes through in the LTCCPs for South Taranaki District Council and Tasman District Council.

5.48
It is noteworthy that the LTCCPs all placed importance on the need to manage water as an increasingly valuable resource.

Integrated thinking (across environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being)

5.49
Another key component of a sustainable development approach is "integrated thinking", which involves taking a broad approach to decision-making by considering the economic, environmental, social, and cultural aspects of decisions and recognising any trade-offs required.

5.50
This was harder to evaluate in the LTCCPs that we reviewed, but we have covered it to some extent in the discussion above on integrating community outcomes, well-being, and groups of activities.

5.51
In the 2009-19 LTCCPs, we noted that the aspects that were most clearly linked were economic and environmental well-being, and that some councils show integrated thinking on these aspects. Environment Canterbury's 2009-19 LTCCP is one example. The Chairman's introduction notes that the Council's role is one of working towards achieving a sustainable environment – for people in the region and for generations to come, but done in step with the community and at an agreed cost. This LTCCP also signals that water management is one of the most complex sustainability challenges for the region. Another example is South Wairarapa District Council's LTCCP. One of this Council's five community outcomes is "sustainable South Wairarapa", which is defined as "a sustainably managed district where economic development and environmental management go hand in hand".

5.52
As noted above, all LTCCPs have a strong focus on water management issues. Water is a good example of an issue where integrated thinking is required, as all four aspects of well-being are relevant.

Using sustainable development principles and community outcomes as a framework for performance planning and management

5.53
Using the Act's sustainable development principles and community outcomes framework as an overarching basis for a local authority's performance framework would help the local authority to measure and report on whether it is achieving sustainable development in its community. We discuss an approach to this sort of performance framework in paragraphs 5.18 to 5.22. Guidance is also available for the sector about incorporating a sustainable development approach in LTCCPs.51 This provides some examples of councils that have linked outcomes and activities in useful ways.

5.54
Local authorities are required to include information in their annual reports about any identified effects of their activities on environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being. They are also required to report the results from measuring progress in achieving community outcomes. To report on this requires putting in place performance measures for each group of activities. There is limited value in LTCCPs describing effects on well-being if local authorities do not incorporate measures into their performance frameworks to report on the effects of their activities.

5.55
As discussed in paragraphs 5.30 to 5.36, the 2009-19 LTCCPs were generally more successful in explaining links between community outcomes, economic, environmental, social, and cultural well-being, and activities. In Part 9, we discuss our findings on how well local authorities integrated community outcomes in performance frameworks, and note that the performance frameworks in the 2009-19 LTCCPs were found to have significantly improved from those in the 2006-16 LTCCPs. This was especially true for the flow or link from community outcomes through to levels of service and performance measures, as well as for disclosing specific targets and measures for community outcomes.

5.56
However, from a sustainable development point of view, the links with the four aspects of well-being were less apparent. In some cases, the statements about the effect of activities on each aspect of well-being were so general that they were of little value (for example, by saying that a particular activity affected all aspects of well-being but not explaining in what way). It would be more meaningful to consider the aspects of well-being most affected by each of the local authority's main activities, and discuss the reasons why and how the effects will be measured.

5.57
As stated earlier (see paragraph 5.18), an effective strategy for achieving sustainable development would include a set of targets for what needs to be achieved and indicators or performance measures to check progress against those targets. In an LTCCP, this could involve putting targets and indicators or measures in place for each aspect of well-being. This was not readily apparent in most of the LTCCPs that we reviewed.

5.58
Several LTCCPs had high-level indicators for regional and district outcomes, but it was not always clear how the local authority would use performance measures for its activities to report on its contribution to those district and regional outcomes. The information in LTCCPs about how performance in groups of activities would be measured did not always link back to an aspect of well-being. Although these links can often be inferred, it would be clearer to make them explicit. These links are perhaps more visible in annual reports than in LTCCPs.

5.59
North Shore City Council's 2009-2024 LTCCP is a good example of a more explicit approach. It contains, for each group of activities, information on the effects of the activity on each aspect of well-being (both positive and negative), as well as on the activity's contribution to community outcomes.

Negative effects

5.60
The Act requires an LTCCP to:

… outline any significant negative effects that any activity within the group of activities may have on social, economic, environmental or cultural wellbeing of the local community.52

5.61
Most of the 2009-19 LTCCPs showed some improvement in this aspect, although local authorities still tend to describe negative effects without being explicit about whether the effect is on social, environmental, economic, or cultural well-being. In some cases, local authorities give little or no information about negative effects, or the description is of a negative aspect of an activity but is not one that really affects well-being. It appears that local authorities still find difficult to articulate any negative aspects of their activities.

5.62
It is encouraging to see that several of the 2009-19 LTCCPs reviewed do not just focus on negative effects, but cover both the positive and negative effects of activities. We consider that the approach of describing both positive and negative effects is preferable and more logical than just focusing on negative effects. In our view, the Act would be improved by requiring local authorities to identify in their LTCCPs all effects of their significant activities on well-being, not just negative effects. This would fit better with the annual report requirement to include the identified effects of a local authority's significant activities on each of the four aspects of well-being. It would be easier to meet the reporting requirement if planned effects were identified in the LTCCP, and measures put in place. This would also provide a greater incentive to integrate well-being measures into performance frameworks for groups of activities.

5.63
In our work on auditing service performance information, we are increasing the focus on the appropriateness of performance measures. This will provide us with scope to examine reporting by local authorities on the effects of their activities on environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being in more depth.

Working internally ("corporate sustainability")

5.64
Entities that are committed to taking a sustainable development approach often take steps to make their own operations more sustainable (for example, by attempting to reduce the environmental effects of their corporate activities).

5.65
There are no explicit requirements to include information in LTCCPs about how sustainable development relates to a local authority's internal functioning and operations or how the local authority tries to operate in a sustainable way. This type of information was not clearly visible in the 2009-19 LTCCPs. The South Wairarapa District Council's LTCCP did refer to it, by noting that the Council had joined the Communities for Climate Protection scheme. The aim of that scheme is for member councils to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their own operations and from their communities and thus show leadership.

5.66
It may be that these efforts are part of a local authority's business processes but are not explicit in its LTCCP. As part of the annual audit for the year ending 30 June 2010, we have asked our auditors to gather information about whether local authorities are measuring, reducing, and reporting on their greenhouse gas emissions from their corporate activities and whether any assurance is being provided. We may continue doing this over the next few years, partly to assess the effect of the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Maintaining and enhancing the environment

5.67
The Act states that, in taking a sustainable development approach, local authorities should take into account the need to maintain and enhance the environment. The Act gives slightly more emphasis to environmental sustainability than to economic, cultural, or social well-being.

5.68
Four of the 2009-19 LTCCPs have quite a strong focus on environmental sustainability (those for Environment Canterbury, Tasman District Council, North Shore City Council, and Kapiti Coast District Council). These LTCCPs use concepts such as stewardship, resilience, and adaptability to guide their environmental management responsibilities to preserve and protect the environment for future generations.

5.69
Given the functions of regional councils, their LTCCPs might be expected to be the most explicit about how they will help maintain and enhance the environment. However, in Environment Canterbury's LTCCP, this tends to be implicit rather than explicit. However, the LTCCP is not the only way that a local authority can express how it might promote environmental sustainability. A regional council may express its contribution to environmental sustainability more clearly in its Resource Management Act policies and plans.

5.70
It is possible that the economic context that existed when the 2009-19 LTCCPs were prepared led to a greater focus on economic well-being than environmental sustainability, particularly for the smaller local authorities. The strength of a local authority's approach to environmental sustainability would also be driven by its community. Tasman District Council's 2009-19 LTCCP notes that the community encouraged the Council in this direction.

5.71
Most of the 2009-19 LTCCPs refer to possible effects of climate change in their districts or region, and some referred to possible effects of the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Our conclusions

5.72
We were pleased to note that most of the 2009-19 LTCCPs reviewed show that those local authorities have made progress on the matters that the external reviewer of the 2006-16 LTCCPs recommended:

  • expressing how sustainable development is localised, owned, and defined at a local authority and community level;
  • expressing community outcomes in a way that shows their relevance for the district or region, and clearly showing how the local authority contributes to the outcomes; and
  • considering and describing how they have taken account of the needs of future generations.

5.73
We were also pleased to note that some of the 2009-19 LTCCPs we reviewed had improved the way they described the effect of their activities on economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being, and described both positive and negative effects. However, we think that more analysis of, and specificity about, the effects of activities on well-being would be useful.

5.74
The proposed reforms of the Act to improve transparency, accountability, and financial management (see paragraphs 1.49-1.51) do not affect the requirement for local authorities to take a sustainable development approach or make any substantive changes to the accountability provisions discussed in this Part. We consider that taking a sustainable development approach is a useful way for local authorities to operate, especially when integrated into performance frameworks. We will continue to work with our auditors and the sector on improving this.

5.75
All the 2009-19 LTCCPs we reviewed had a strong focus on water management issues. Water is a good example of an issue where integrated thinking is particularly useful, because water is relevant to all four aspects of well-being.

Preparing for 2012

5.76
There is considerable "sustainability" language in the 2009-19 LTCCPs, indicating that local authorities are comfortable with the concept and that it is part of their role. However, we consider there is still room to improve:

  • integrated sustainable development thinking, in terms of how activities affect each aspect of well-being and any trade-offs that have been made;
  • being explicit about how the local authority's activities are maintaining and enhancing the environment;
  • using performance management frameworks for groups of activities to measure the effect of activities on each aspect of well-being and achieving community outcomes; and
  • describing how local authorities are taking a sustainable development approach to their corporate operations.

5.77
In February 2010, we reported on how eight local authorities are planning to meet the forecast demand for drinking water,53 including the extent to which they are taking a sustainable development approach to the supply of drinking water. We recommended that local authorities integrate sustainable development strategies into drinking-water supply management as part of preparing comprehensive demand management plans.

5.78
Local authorities that wish to take further steps to using a sustainable development approach in their thinking, decision-making, and planning could do so by focusing on one of their activities initially, such as water management, to test the value of the approach to them and their communities.

25: Holdsworth, L (2007), "Reviewer's Report 1: Sustainable development review – findings and recommendations" in Report of expert reviewers on changes between the 2004-14 and 2006-16 Long-Term Council Community Plans, Office of the Auditor-General, Wellington.

26: Sections 3(d), 10(b), and 14(1)(h) of the Act.

27: In Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development of Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future [the Brundtland Commission]. Available at www.un-documents.net. [United Nations: Transmitted as an Annex to document a/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment.]

28: In most other contexts, sustainable development has three pillars – economy, society, and the environment – and the broad concept of society would embrace cultural well-being. However, the Act gives cultural well-being explicit recognition.

29: Section 10(b) of the Act.

30: Section 14(1)(h) of the Act.

31: Sections 93 and 101 of the Act.

32: Part 1 of Schedule 10 of the Act.

33: Clause 15(1)(d) of Schedule 10 of the Act.

34: Most recently, in Office of the Auditor-General, Local Government Results of the 2008/09 audits, Part 2 – Reporting on activities in the annual report.

35: As required by clause 15(1)(d) of Schedule 10 of the Act.

36: Sustainable Development: The Role of Supreme Audit Institutions (2004), available at www.wgea.org. The Working Group on Environmental Auditing is part of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions.

37: Statistics New Zealand (2008), Measuring New Zealand's Progress Using a Sustainable Development Approach, Wellington. Available at www.stats.govt.nz.

38: "Intensity in the economy" is measured in relation to real gross domestic product. That is, whether greenhouse gases, or use of energy, has grown faster or slower than the economy. See page 4 of Statistics New Zealand (2009), Measuring New Zealand's Progress Using a Sustainable Development Approach, Wellington.

39: New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers (2008), Fit for the Future: Reflecting Your Approach to Sustainable Development in Your 2009-19 LTCCP, Wellington.

40: Ministry for the Environment (2008), Preparing for climate change: A guide for local government in New Zealand, Wellington. Available at www.mfe.govt.nz.

41: Office of the Auditor-General (2007), Turning principles into action: A guide for local authorities on decision-making and consultation, Wellington.

42: The fact that Environment Canterbury councillors have been replaced by commissioners since the 2009-19 LTCCP is not considered relevant for the purposes of this review.

43: Environment Canterbury Long Term Council Community Plan 2009-19, page 15.

44: North Shore City Council's LTCCP has a 15-year time frame.

45: North Shore City Council City Plan 2009-2024 – Module 2 – City Direction, page 21.

46: Tasman District Council Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP), Volume 1, pages 71-77.

47: Ibid, pages 32 -36.

48: North Shore City Council City Plan 2009-2024 – Module 2 – City Direction, community outcomes in summary form on page 20 and in detail on page 47 and following.

49: Sections 3, 10, and 14 of the Act.

50: See Part 6 of this report for more discussion about assumptions in the 2009-19 LTCCPs.

51: New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers (2008), Fit for the Future: Reflecting Your Approach to Sustainable Development in Your 2009-19 LTCCP , Wellington, pages 13-17.

52: Clause 2(1)(c) of Schedule 10 of the Act.

53: Office of the Auditor-General (2010), Local authorities: Planning to meet the forecast demand for drinking water, Wellington, pages 75-77 and 97.

page top