In what sense a region? Drawing a line around economic development

Unleashing the spatial plan

Auckland’s Spatial Plan is intended to help shape the city/region’s future development.  The council has just-released a Discussion Document to engage the community in its preparation. 

It’s an ambitious document that goes well beyond discussing just land use and infrastructure.  The Auckland Plan is proposed as a blueprint to transform the region into “the world’s most liveable city” and “the economic powerhouse of the nation”.

This focus raises questions of just where the city’s economic borders begin and end.  In what sense is Auckland City with its sprawling borders a discrete economic unit?

Inclusiveness – where do the neighbours fit in?

Among many other things, the discussion document acknowledges that “Auckland is also part of an emerging northern North Island urban and economic system – a cluster of cities and towns north of Taupo (Hamilton, Tauranga and Whangarei)”. 

This, it says, calls for “a strong planning and policy relationship” with adjoining regions and ”an inter-regional agreement for the upper North Island ... to cover land use, planning, infrastructure and a range of other issues”(p21) and that it is “essential to develop inter-regional transport links to support the burgeoning Northland, Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty urban and economic systems” (p48),.  It also notes Auckland’s dependence for some services and resources on the Waikato region.

But that’s about all it says about these key relationships in its 220 pages.  

At a seminar of the Institute of Public Administration this week, Hamilton Mayor Julie Hardaker said that this was not enough.  She pointed out the economic significance of her region, the Waikato, as the heart of New Zealand’s dominant dairy export sector for example.

Mayor Hardaker also reminded us that what happens to Auckland’s land use influences what happens in other cities in the Northern North Island. 

Hamilton, for example, has had rapid investment in light industry, warehousing, and distribution around its northern gateway over the past 10 to 15 years.  This is a cost effective location for accessing a wide market, including Auckland.  The resulting investment in Hamilton has been boosted by a shortage of reasonably priced industrial land in Auckland. 

In a similar vein, Tauranga and Whangarei both receive significant population contributions by way of migration from Auckland (as detailed in Margins Matter, p18).

Auckland as a regional centre

The notion of inter-regional integration is not new.  Auckland’s original growth was driven by the output of its resource-rich hinterland.  It also came to enjoy prosperity as an import substitution centre through much of the last century. That role has almost disappeared today. 

More recently Auckland has prospered as a centre of consumption. Nevertheless, the city continues to depend for much of its income on that hinterland, and on providing services to trade and business in the northern North Island.

Much of the value added in the processing of primary output from this “region of regions”, especially food products, happens in Auckland.  The city is also the hub of many financial, business, and technical activities that service the resource-based industries of the northern North Island. 

Even the much vaunted “marine industries” value added cluster associated with Auckland reaches deep into the neighbouring regions with their skills and marine infrastructure. 

Four into one might just go

Equally important is the cumulative economic capacity, infrastructure, and resource base of this extended region, a region which we have argued for some time may be the best level at which to plan for regional economic development in a globalising world (see, for example, our report to the Metropolitan Auckland Project in 2006). 

Taken as a whole, the northern North Island has substantial fertile grasslands, horticulture and arable land, forestry, and associated processing industries.  It has a wide range of mineral deposits.  It has good energy resources with high levels of current and potential renewable energy.  Its marine resources are extensive.  It has specialist concentrations in research, scientific expertise, and education that when considered jointly are of international substance and offer the potential to substantially lift the value of New Zealand’s exports and expertise.

The fortunes of the ports of the northern North Island -- Auckland, Tauranga, and Whangarei -- are connected by ownership links and by a degree of complementarity in their respective trades.  As internal transport costs increase and as shipping companies rationalise international movements the regions’ (and country’s) interests might be best served by more collaboration among them.

And this might be the catch cry for relationships among the councils of the region: more collaboration.  Because if we really believe the rhetoric about globalisation and world cities, New Zealand will only succeed if it digs deep into what are ultimately finite physical, human, and capital resources.  Administrative boundaries should not define or constrain the definition of a region within which we identify how public policy and investment might best support economic development. 

Decentralisation is happening

Sure, Auckland remains dominant in the area, as it is in New Zealand, and it will remain so.  It accounted for around two thirds of its jobs in 2010, and 60% of job growth over the past decade. 

However, the 6% difference between these two numbers hints at a degree of decentralisation.  This is confirmed in relative gains (or losses) in employment between 2000 and 2010. The three other regions had better growth rates than Auckland.  The best performing urban areas within the northern North Island were Tauranga, Hamilton, and the urbanised area of South Auckland (Manukau and Papakura).

	All Employment		Manufacturing
	Number	%	Number	%
Auckland Region	92,590	18%	-10,500	-13%
Auckland City	30,350	11%	-8,160	-24%
Manukau City & Papakura District	31,380	29%	180	1%
Waitakere & North Shore Cities	23,330	22%	-2,230	-13%
Rest of Auckland	7530	25%	-290	-6%
Northland	10,170	24%	170	3%
Whangarei	5,910	25%	210	0
Rest of Northland	4,260	22%	-40	0
Waikato	29,130	22%	100	1%
Hamilton	16,560	29%	-100	-1%
Rest of Waikato	12,570	17%	200	2%
Bay of Plenty	5,480	22%	-800	-6%
Tauranga	12,970	37%	140	3%
Rotorua	2,110	8%	-420	-12%
Rest of Bay of Plenty	5,480	22%	-520	-12%
Northern North Island	152,450	20%	-11,030	-9%
Northern North Island Excluding Auckland	59,860	23%	-530	-1%

Source: Business Statistics, Statistics New Zealand

And as manufacturing slipped into the negative under the pressure of cheap imports and then global recession, Auckland led the way down.  The figures in the table include the negative impact of the post 2007 recession: until 2007 manufacturing was growing everywhere but Auckland City, led by the Waikato with 16% growth as Auckland Region stopped growing.

Working together

If it wants to tackle economic matters, Auckland can ill-afford an inward focus.  If it wants to micro-manage land use, it may also pay to look hard at the opportunities that the wider region offers.  And if liveablity is how we define Auckland’s place in the world, it cannot afford to exclude from the portfolio the qualities of the smaller centres, their rural settings, mountains, and coastal hinterlands.

By avoiding being locked into an administrative construct with only limited relationship with what drives Auckland’s growth the Mayor can play a leadership role in economic development that can make a difference.  But it’s time to lead the city beyond “better because we are bigger” and reflect on what it really means to be connected in today’s world, starting at home. 

*************************************

Dushko's banana - here is the image rferred to in the comments below:

Crossing the urban-rural divide

The edge – always in transition

The urban-rural divide preoccupies planners and politicians.  It is where city and country meet.  It is where countervailing forces create an area in permanent transition.  It is not an area easily defined, but is marked by its distinctive mix of activities and a continuously  changing landscape . 

Here traditional investment in rural enterprise may decline in anticipation of future urbanisation.  Or, rural production is compromised by pressures from urban people and their needs, while the physical environment is reshaped by urban expectations. 

Conversely, the urban-rural edge may be where extensive farming gives way to intensive horticulture to satisfy city consumers.  Or urban capital dabbles in new forms of production, displacing the old.  Where urban refugees stimulate demand for services to replace those lost as a result of declining traditional activity.  And where rural conservation may be championed by urban interests.

The result of all this is not the new and brash dislodging the old and valuable, as the more conservative planners would have us believe.  It is more about the inevitably changing and often contested nature of rural activity in the shadow of the city.

Governing beyond the urban edge

While a city’s hinterland may have some characteristics considered urban, and while urban refugees boost rural population , the character of the divide is definitely not urban.  I have argued already that governance of urban and rural areas should differ to reflect their  different needs and values. 

It was illogical for the architects of Auckland’s new city to lump 14,680ha of rural land onto 1,630ha of urban land.  An extensive area of a mainly rural nature should not be governed by predominantly metropolitan politicians, managed by predominantly metropolitan managers, or planned by predominantly metropolitan planners.

In this posting I confront the argument that because the urban area depends on services delivered from the rural area they should be administered as one. 

Crossing the boundaries

The reliance of a metropolitan area on its hinterland for food, water, waste disposal, and recreation doesn’t justify governing them as one.  Cross-boundary issues – issues that affect parties on both sides of the divide – can be dealt with by means other than amalgamation. 

Rural hinterlands have always accommodated urban infrastructure.  And with corporatised services, there is even less need for producers to sit within the same administrative boundaries as users. 

Drawing water from the Waikato River, for example, does not mean that Auckland Council should have authority over local government in the Waikato region.  Similarly, waste disposal often takes place across boundaries. Catchment and drainage issues across jurisdictions can be readily handled by collaboration, especially as the technical capacity for monitoring and management improve. 

What about recreation?

City dwellers make use of the surrounding countryside for recreation.  But does this justify placing country and coast within the same administrative boundaries as a densely settled urban area?

Rural communities the world over cater for day visitors .  Hopefully, they take good care of the local environment and local community in doing so.  There is a good incentive .  The visitor industry provides income and employment that complements other rural business.  It supports commercial and community services that might not otherwise survive. 

Planning in these areas can ensure that their appeal is not undermined by a degraded environment.  There is no need for city boundaries to swallow our rural playgrounds to achieve that, though. 

Anyway, Aucklanders’ recreation impacts stretch well beyond even the new boundaries.  Was it considered that the holiday destinations of Coromandel or the Bay of Islands should be included in the city on these grounds?  Course not.  So the rural the playground argument does not justify Auckland’s exaggerated boundaries.

Are they really Auckland’s regional parks?

What about responsibility for regional parks?  Aucklanders have funded regional parks scattered widely across the rural hinterland, a legacy of the Auckland Regional Council.  Most are well removed from the urban area.  The Hunua and Waitakere ranges alone provide 34,600ha of reserve land (50km south and 25km west of the CBD respectively).  They include protected and restricted water catchments, significant bushland areas, and recreational facilities. 

If we place the water catchment reserves aside aside, rural areas still account for 79% of the balance of 4,900ha of regional parks.  Unfortunately, most are remote and hard to get to.  40% by area are north of the metropolitan edge.  The seven parks north of Orewa average 90-km from the CBD.

The parkland focused on the Firth of Thames (18% of the total), to the east, is not a lot more accessible, with five parks there an average of 70km from the CBD.

What were they thinking?

Despite a policy of containing urban development to reduce travel demand, the ARC invested heavily in remote, car-dependent parks.  Where is the consistency in that?

Look at the following diagram which compares visitor numbers in 2007 with the location of the 17 main parks.  Parks more than 50km away from the CBD tend to be much less patronised than the others, so may not be serving the purpose they were intended for. 

If they were intended for conservation  purposes, should the ARC should have been acquiring and running them at all?  The same goes if remote park locations were justified by an expectation that they would cater for users from outside Auckland. 

If the real priority is creating recreational and educational experiences for Aucklanders, then we need to think more seriously about developing truly urban parks and forget about acquiring large swathes of remote country and coast. 

Rethinking our countryside parks

Now that we have reformed Auckland’s governance – for better or worse – it may be time to rethink ownership and funding of non-urban parks.  In many countries national and state agencies take responsibility for major parks outside urban areas .  This can resolve issues around purpose, funding, and partisanship. 

Now that we don't have a regional council the Department of Conservation could perhaps take responsibility for acquiring significant parkland outside Auckland urban area (and elsewhere).  It would mean a reorientation of priorities and perhaps increased funding.  It recognises that the benefits of iconic parks are national rather than just regional. 

We could be even more creative.  Gary Taylor, long an advocate for coastal protection, has set up the New Zealand Coastal Trust, for example.  The aim is to provide for voluntary mechanisms and cooperation among agencies to acquire and protect significant coastal land, including areas long considered the holiday playgrounds of city dwellers.  The Karori Sanctuary Trust in Wellington is a great example of volunteerism restoring as well as preserving an important wildlife park close to the urban area, in this instance.  

Maybe we should think more about growing the involvement of civil society as a partner with government in conserving our favourite natural and recreational areas outside our cities.

The city council looking after its citizens

The reform of Auckland’s governance, even if the boundaries are flawed, provides an opportunity to rethink the governance, funding, and management of valued rural and coastal areas in the city's hinterlands.  A starting point might be clarification of the role and use of regional parks.  A finishing point might be a new agency taking over responsibility for running and expanding them.

Auckland Council can then concentrate on what needs to be done on the urban side of the divide.  This may even be an opportunity for developing a more extensive and accessible greenscape within metropolitan boundaries, rather than seeking simply to extend urban values into nearby rural areas.