of stream bank erosion, financial benefits to developers of good controls; and how developers, local councils and the then Auckland Regional Authority, could work together. However, it had very little detail on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls. Moreover, it was not backed by legislation, so had very little in the way of ‘teeth’.
By March 1992, following the passage in 1991 of the Resource Management Act (New Zealand’s main piece of environmental legislation), more detailed Auckland-specific environmental research had been carried out. This research, together with an investigation of overseas best practice, especially from North America, led to the publication of ‘TP2’, the region’s second Technical Publication on erosion and sediment control28. The guideline set out the principles and processes of erosion and sediment control, advised on general sediment control design considerations, and spelled out detailed designs for runoff (erosion) control, sediment control and revegetation. It also defined when legal authorisation to carry out land-disturbing activities would be required. This was the all-important mechanism by which the Auckland Regional Authority (which had by then become part of a new Auckland Regional Council, or ARC) could require the use of the controls in the TP2 guideline.
A steep learning curve ensued for regulators and regulated alike, and it was soon evident that not all of these elements were strong enough to ensure adequate control.
By June 1995, accelerating development, poor standards of preparation of applications for environmental authorization (including erosion and sediment control plans and assessments of environmental effects), and poor site management, indicated the need for technical training.
In September 1995, the ARC notified its Proposed Regional Plan: Sediment Control29. Regional plans in New Zealand have the force of law, and this plan prescribed when developers would need environmental authorizations for land-disturbing activities, and set out stringent performance requirements based on criteria such as slope and area of works and proximity to water.
The need for training to support compliance
Anticipating the need for training to promote compliance with the new plan, the ARC set up a formal industry registration and training program in June 1995.
Again, this was based on extensive research in which staff closely examined the already very successful erosion and sediment control and associated training programs in Delaware and Maryland in the USA. (Links to these programs are in ‘How to find out more’.) On two occasions the ARC also brought Earl Shaver to New Zealand. Earl is an expert who had worked with both programs, to talk over the issues with staff and industry representatives. They were very successful visits – the program took off and Earl now lives and works in Auckland.
In keeping with the ARC’s philosophy that good environmental management is a responsibility shared between the Council and the community, the new training program aimed to:
Industry engagement was seen as crucial to the success of the training. A focus group, comprising representatives from the indigenous Maori people of New Zealand, consultants, contractors, developers, environmental interest groups and local councils in the region, was set up to assess the options for upskilling the industry.
On the focus group’s advice, and with their input, an introductory seminar and two training workshops were developed for the ARC by two external consultants, of whom I was one. Brian Handyside, who is still my co-trainer, was the other.
The introductory seminar launched the training program to senior managers in the development, consulting and contracting sectors. It aimed to raise their awareness of the need for better environmental performance and the availability of training to help deliver it, in the hope that they would encourage senior management to release their staff to attend the workshops.
In June 1996, together with key staff from the ARC and the focus group, we trialled the content and delivery of a one-day workshop for contractors (constructors) and a two-day workshop for consultants (designers) and selected a study site for the two-day workshop. The pilot was a lot of fun, and generated immensely helpful feedback. It allowed key players to promote the training to their constituencies, and improved both content and delivery before the first workshops began in July 1996.
The training objectives were to improve:
As a result of this, the ARC hoped that:
In March 1999, the ARC released a new technical publication,
