Aportes y perspectivas de la lingüística del

The purpose of stakeholder analysis is to explore the gap between the government’s and stakeholders’ perceptions of the M2PP project and its benefits addressing the second phronēsis theme: ‘handling different perceptions’. The concept and relevance of stakeholder analysis is given in section 2.4.2. Based on the M2PP Consultation Report16 (NZTA, 2011a) and interviews, the views of political, statutory, territorial, business groups, emergency services, industrial, interest groups, Maori, and individuals / groups stakeholder categories are identified.

Under the legal requirements, NZTA followed a resource consenting process in M2PP. This process is illustrated in Figures 11 and 12. Figure 11 only explains the resource consent process. Figure 12 provides the micro level picture of the overall

16

136

process including the pre-construction stages. The M2PP resource consent process, involving nine stages, is shown by Figure 11. NZTA first investigated different M2PP route options and consulted the public in 2009 (Alliance, 2011; EPA, 2013, p. 8). The NZTA Board later recommended proceeding with the RMA applications for M2PP. This stage was followed by technical studies and the assessment of environmental impacts in 2010/11 (Alliance, 2010, 2011). At the next stage, NZTA lodged its regulatory consents application for M2PP with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in April 2012 (NZTA, 2012c). In July 2012, the Minister for the Environment referred the regulatory consents application lodged for M2PP to a Board of Inquiry (BOI) for determination (ibid). The BOI hearing for the M2PP regulatory consents application took place between November 2012 and January 2013 (ibid). In April 2013, the BOI announced its decision and final report on the NZTA application. The BOI decision was challenged in High Court. In this regard, the High Court heard two appeals in July 2013 which were dismissed in August 2013. Following the dismissal of appeals, the M2PP construction started in late 2013 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2017 (NZTA, 2012c).

Figure 11: The steps involved in the consenting process for RONS under the Resource Management Act requirements (NZTA, 2011a, p. 10).

In case of M2PP, the submissions on the application were received by NZTA followed by a summary produced by the EPA. Then, in 2012, a pre-hearing conference was

137

held in Wellington (BOI, 2012a, 2012b). The applicant then prepared evidence-in- chief17 (EIC) which was presented to the Environment Court Commissioners in front of expert witnesses.

Figure 12: The pre-construction decision-making process in M2PP (NZTA, 2011a, p. 14).

During the BOI hearing in 2012/13, apart from the assessment of alternatives, various national, regional and local/district level policy documents were evaluated within their legal jurisdictions to reach a decision. In case of M2PP, thirty five statutory and non-statutory documents were identified and evaluated during the hearing process. Some of the statutory documents include (EPA, 2013): National Environmental Standards for Air Quality, New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010, Wellington RPS (operative and proposed), Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region, Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region, and, Operative Kāpiti Coast District Plan. Some of the non-statutory documents considered are the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding, New Zealand Transport Strategy 2008, National Infrastructure Plan 2011, Western Corridor Plan 2006, Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy, Wellington Regional Strategy 2007, National Land Transport Programme, National State Highway Strategy 2007, The 2011/2012 (2013/14) State Highway Plans, NZTA Environmental Plan 2008, Getting There – On Foot, By Cycle Strategic Implementation Plan 2006 – 2008, Wellington Regional Freight Plan, KCDC Development Management Strategy, and, KCDC Sustainable Transport Strategy.

17

138

In addition to RMA, s96(1) of LTMAA 2013 place the NZTA under the legal obligation to consult relevant stakeholders before implementing the M2PP project as part of the planning process. Therefore, ‘[NZTA] believes that to make good decisions and provide sound advice to decision makers, it is important to include the perspective of stakeholders’ (NZTA, 2012a). For public engagement, NZTA follows the Highways and Network Operations Public Engagement Manual, originally drafted by Transit in 2007 (NZTA, 2014a). This manual is an updated version of Transit’s Public Engagement Manual containing the policy, standards and guidelines for NZTA’s engagement with the public. For M2PP, NZTA prepared a Stakeholder and Communication Management Plan (SCMP) for engaging communities (Black & Brophy, 2012). The SCMP is based on current understanding of construction activities and traffic methodologies necessary to facilitate the construction work. Its scope is limited to Kāpiti Coast communities, road users and the Wellington region residents (ibid).

The M2PP consultation took place in three phases since the project was initiated (NZTA, 2011b). This includes the pre-implementation consultation stage in 2009/10 (NZTA, 2009b), consultation on alignment and interchange options in 2010/11 (NZTA, 2011b, p. 2), and, consultation on M2PP design development (NZTA, 2011b, p. 3). The main objectives of these consultation exercises were to provide information about the route options, project connection to local roads, the number and location of interchanges NZTA was considering, feedback from the public and stakeholders on the options being considered, and the criteria that NZTA would use to make their following consultation (NZTA, 2011b, p. 5). The consultation exercise also informed the public about possible mitigating measures to address embankments, landscape, noise, air quality, vibration, storm water and visual effects as required by RMA. NZTA uses different methods to involve local communities in these consultation phases. It prepared brochures and postcards, conducted individual meetings and EXPOs, set up an information centre, website, project phone line and feedback form and used newspaper and radio for advertising purposes (NZTA, 2011b). Methodologically, all submissions were recorded in a database

139

(called Darzin) by noting down the name and contact details of the submitter, the type/method of submission made, opinions expressed and a summary of the comments made.

The three route-alignment and interchange options consultation phase received 1617 submissions from which eighteen key submission themes were identified by NZTA. These include: support for proposals, opposition to proposals, design, accessibility and connectivity, construction, environmental considerations, social and community, health and safety, amenity and urban design, culture and heritage, economic factors, property, transportation, local network, justification of route, other route options, and consultation. The design development consultation phase received 216 submissions which were categorised into the following ten themes: accessibility for alternative forms of transport (non-motorized transport & public), environmental considerations, interchange design, health and safety, consultation, private property, general design, road network operation, community, and national and regional economic impact.

The M2PP alignment, interchange and design options were finalised on the basis of these consultation and NZTA criteria. Because of the adoption of a consultation process, some stakeholders seem satisfied as reflected in their comments ‘Just do it! Thanks for the consultation’; ‘it is obvious much thought and many hours went into planning. Thank you’; and, ‘looks good. Well presented “considerations”, explanations are very good’ (NZTA, 2011a Appendix J). This suggests, in summary, the formal rules for stakeholder consultation were systematically followed in the M2PP.

Regardless of the statutory provisions of involving stakeholders in the transport planning process, a resident argued that the government is ‘selective’ in hearing the stakeholders’ voices so that it could manipulate the public consultation process and make it ‘more acceptable’ (Resident 1). Similarly politician 2 argued that ‘they [government] had not really investigated [RONS] but they made a decision and their

140

approach to consultation is very much getting people on board in building support for the solution that they already decided on … and not actually the communities output to incorporating that into the solutions’.

These arguments were further strengthened when some political parties also held the government responsible for not taking all stakeholders on board ‘meaningfully at the strategic level’ in the RONS decision-making process which was perceived as a top-down approach:

[The] government’s policy is to elevate these RONS above the normal resource allocation processes … they decided to impose it on the community … they didn’t say alright, let’s have a discussion involving the public and the community involving good data and good advice and let’s make a decision together what is the best option … when they [government] started making high level political decisions, they try to impose it on the interest groups like Kapiti District Council and local communities. That’s what happened (Politician 1).

His argument suggests that non-involvement of stakeholders at the initiation (strategic) phase (see Figure 13 & section 2.4.2) resulted in a blame-game, distrust and even conflict at the local levels. Being completely oblivious of the strategic level decision-making of the M2PP, a Kapiti resident first suspiciously looked at Road Transport Forum (RTF) indicating this blame-game and distrust:

Many people point finger at the Road Transport Forum [for building RONS] but I don’t think this is the case because they offered their submission in 2009 (Resident 1).

An RTF official who was also a Kapiti resident responded that they had justifications for promoting roads infrastructure:

Yes, we [Road Transport Forum] are lobbyists … our members are in business of road transport … we need infrastructure to do the job and we pay for it (Resident 3).

The Kapiti resident, then, suspiciously pointed out NZCID:

One group may have been involved [in building RONS] – New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development … NZCID report 2006/7 is almost a blue print where the things have gone (Resident 1).

141 NZCID is a very strong proponent of the RONS largely because of two reasons: one [not only] is obviously the economic stimulus in terms of productivity of NZ’s leading cities but also the road safety improvements that RONS would create in the long run (Expert 2).

Figure 13: The weak and strong phases of stakeholders’ involvement in the M2PP project.

During the consultation process, there was no such option as to whether M2PP should be built or not. This makes it a non-negotiable area. This is followed by the preparation phase which is, although negotiable, connected with initiation phases. The above-mentioned views of Politician 1 suggest that it was already decided that M2PP will be built; now it is time to prepare for consultation. Therefore, it is negotiable. In case of the M2PP, the first two phases are weak because the public was not engaged in a meaningful and empowering manner. However, the M2PP consultation is very strong in the following two phases of participation and continuation (Figure 13) in which the main thrust of the NZTA-led Alliance18 was to consult stakeholders on design and route issues.

The feedback of the various categories of stakeholders on the three route options (NZTA, 2010a) indicates a complete absence of stakeholder participation at the strategic phase of initiation. In the political category, the Labour Party’s response, for

18

It is the M2PP construction alliance made up of NZTA, Beca Planning and Infrastructure, Fletcher Construction and Higgins Group supported by Goodmans Contractors, Incite and Boffa Miskell

142

example, indicated strong disagreement with the government’s perceptions of the M2PP benefits:

None of the expressway options would meet the needs of either the local community or the travelling public. [The Labour Party] supports the two-lane Western Link Road as a local road … and improvements to SH1.

In the territorial category, the Greater Wellington Regional Council saw all three options as detrimental to the environment:

The expressway options would affect local rivers/streams, access to rivers, floodplains, flood flow paths and land that it manages.

The Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council, however, supported the three options on the basis of ‘improving the safety, capacity and reliability of State Highway 1’. As the district and city councils usually have jurisdictional roles at participation and continuation levels, some of the territorial councils generally supported the three options:

We do support whichever of these options will be completed soonest (Horowhenua District Council).

[We] support the KCDC submission. Expenditures on the expressway to be deferred until later in the Wellington RONS programme (Porirua City Council).

Some statutory stakeholders took exceptions in clearly supporting any of the three options indicating an absence of their meaningful participation at the initiation and preparation stages. The Department of Conservation, for example, saw M2PP as a threat to local fauna and flora:

Undoubtedly impact is nationally significant and in some cases threatened plant communities that occur through this corridor.

Several interest groups categorically opposed all three options, on various economic and transport grounds, indicating a lack of their meaningful participation in the M2PP decision-making:

143 [It] considers that the expressway proposals could have serious impacts on the Paekakariki community (Paekakariki Community Board).

[It] questions why an expressway needs to be built at all. It avoids that the two-lane Western Link Road is the only option (Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board). Whatever expressway option is chosen would have substantial detrimental effects on the Waikanae residents and the business community (Waikanae Community Board).

NZ Historic Places Trust also opposed ‘the Western and WLR Expressway options’. The transport industry stakeholders, however, supported the three options possibly because of their business interests:

Busy highways with 10% heavy vehicle traffic are incompatible with residential low speed environments with older drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders (Automobile Association).

[It] states that it does not have enough information costs, road user benefits, and social/environmental effects … the expressway options presented seem to focus on through traffic rather than on local traffic (RTF).

[It] recognizes the need to provide for the efficient and safe movement of people and goods throughout the region (Wellington Regional Transport Committee).

Some business groups also indicated their reservations indicating their absence at the strategic level decision-making:

The preferred expressway option must provide local connectivity between residential areas, good access between SH1 and Paraparaumu (Kapiti Coast Chamber of Commerce).

The chamber notes that a detailed cost benefit analysis was not provided. It comments that it is important that over-capitalisation does not occur on the preferred expressway (Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce).

NZ Fire Service, as an emergency service stakeholder, had a limited focus on relocation of a fire station to support WLR:

The Paraparaumu Fire Station was relocated to Te Roto Drive in early 2009 to be in close proximity to the two-lane Western Link Road … ensure safe and efficient access is available to the proposed local roads (NZ Fire Service).

Many Maori stakeholders also opposed the three options indicating lack of meaningful stakeholder participation:

144 Options along the coastline or western route will be strongly opposed by Muaūpoko (The Board of Muaūpoko Tribal Authority).

It is undesirable for the expressway to go through QE2 Park. The historic importance of Whareroa Farm should be taken into account (Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc).

In summary, the stakeholders’ involvement in the M2PP project is confined only to the project’s participation and continuation phases and not at the strategic stage of initiation and preparation. This is possibly because of political over-optimism of the National-led government attracted to catch-up with the first world countries in shorter time through massive infrastructure investment as referred to, for example, by the television programme Campbell Live (2012).