MfE's water consultation: 5 key questions and responses
Ask a scientist working on Land and Water issues? A guide from Prof Troy Baisden
The MfE Action for Healthy Waterways Consultation aims to be a turning point, a waterfall moment, for our lakes and rivers. The intent is relatively simple, yet the documents and changes are big and complex.
Public consultation meetings are already underway around the country. Have your say, and help others do so.
I've created this document because, too often, our leading researchers and academics seem to hide from debate on this issue, when the public and stakeholders affected need support thinking through their positions. Major NGOs and sector organisations have created or are creating guides for consultation and submission. Here, I've tried to fill the usual gap in support from academic research to help people and groups understand where to focus.
Public consultation meetings are already underway around the country. Have your say, and help others do so.
I've created this document because, too often, our leading researchers and academics seem to hide from debate on this issue, when the public and stakeholders affected need support thinking through their positions. Major NGOs and sector organisations have created or are creating guides for consultation and submission. Here, I've tried to fill the usual gap in support from academic research to help people and groups understand where to focus.
I’ve compiled all the questions in a single document and offer answers to five key questions that may help people and groups responding to the consultation. I provide either a direct scientific and technical view, or academic thought leadership that includes the context of wider social and environmental issues including global trade, economics, and the Treaty of Waitangi.
My answers are designed to help if you're in the wide cross section of New Zealanders who:
My answers are designed to help if you're in the wide cross section of New Zealanders who:
- want to speak for nature (because nature doesn't generally have standing to speak for itself in democratic processes),
- the ability to maintain and enhance the value of our agricultural exports and tourism,
- want to see full respect for Te Mana o te Wai, the Treaty and settlements, leading to resolution rather backsliding on equity issues, and/or
- value our natural heritage and a future where we were proud of how we managed this period of consultation, debate and decision-making.
Here are my thoughts on the 5 most important responses for public consultations.
1. Do you think the proposals set out in this document will stop further degradation of New Zealand’s freshwater resources, with water quality materially improving within five years?
Details will matter, but the most important part is the intent: placing caps on activity (intensification) that escalates environmental harm, and establishing targets and action plans to restore human and ecological health.
Timescales of recovery are not a reason to avoid these steps. However, human health (drinking water and recreational health) will respond quickly to action and investment. Nutrient and sediment pollution may respond as quickly as it deteriorated, or may be slower to respond in some cases.
This is the most important single thing we learn from the discipline of Environmental Studies – act early and use adaptive management. It also answers much of questions 17, 18 and 51: a faster process, improved clarity of intent, and interim measures all deserve strong support.
2. Do you think the proposals will bring New Zealand’s freshwater resources, waterways and ecosystems to a healthy state within a generation?
In a great many places, yes. The reality that not all are recoverable or predictable (with current data and tools) does not justify inaction. We can act now to save and restore many of our most iconic waterways while this remains possible.
It is worth focussing on places where we know the process being consulted on has worked. Lake Rotorua already provides an example where harmful algal blooms have been stopped by implementation of a combined set of actions resembling those proposed, and further steps are underway. Lake Taupo also provides an example where regulation was successful in preventing further harm and degradation. More widely, Switzerland provides examples of a similar landscape to ours where near natural states of iconic lakes were restored from severely polluted states over decades.
7. Do you think it would be a good idea to have an independent national body to provide oversight of freshwater management implementation, as recommended by KWM and FLG?
Yes. Complex issues benefit from a single body accountable for national strategy on timescales longer than election cycles. Integration between the groups working on the Essential Freshwater process was a concern from the beginning, and does not appear to have worked well, creating delay and leaving some of the most important issues unresolved.
The right model seems obvious to me: a body parallel to and sharing membership with the Climate Commission, and able to deal authoritatively with iwi rights and interests arising from the Treaty and settlements.
22. If we are managing for macroinvertebrates, fish, and periphyton, do we also need to have attributes for nutrients that have been developed based on relationships with aquatic life?
Yes. We need to monitor and manage ecosystems, including a chain of attributes relating causes (nutrients and sediment) to impacts on life (macroinvertebrates, fish and taonga species). Attributes in the middle of the chain that represent immediate harm to organisms, such as dissolved oxygen levels or trends in ecosystem metabolism that drive anoxia (lack of oxygen means organisms can't breath) these appear to need more work.
The middle of the chain connecting causes to impacts can be filled in later, and may need to be targeted to reflect local differences.
79. Do you think there are potential areas of tension or confusion between the proposals in this document and other national direction? If so, how could these be addressed?
Yes. There is still a lack of consideration of how issues affecting farmers, iwi/hapū and councils differently in different regions and catchments will be able to cope with the requirements and the cost of complexity, including the consultation itself.
This is the heart of living in a democracy and supporting our whole community. To avoid the intractable political polarisation seen in the US and UK (e.g. Brexit) this will require effort, but is not a reason to pull back on the intent of the proposal. If you're at consultation with vocal farmer opposition to turning the tide on water quality, this question and answer provide an opportunity to try to find common ground.
The areas of tension and confusions will need further work, including the proposed RMA reform, and pathways that provide support and funding for the needed effort.
Those were my 5 key answers. Here are all the questions asked in the Action for Healthy Waterways Consultation Document
The Government welcomes your feedback. The questions below, and at the end of each section, are a guide only. You do not have to answer all the questions and all comments are welcome. See section 12 for how and when to make a submission.
1. Do you think the proposals set out in this document will stop further degradation of New Zealand’s freshwater resources, with water quality materially improving within five years?
2. Do you think the proposals will bring New Zealand’s freshwater resources, waterways and ecosystems to a healthy state within a generation?
3. What difference do you think these proposals would make to your local waterways, and your contact with them?
4. What actions do you think you, your business, or your organisation would take in response to the proposed measures?
5. What support or information could the Government provide to help you, your business, or your organisation to implement the proposals?
6. Can you think of any unintended consequences from these policies that would get in the way of protection and/or restoration of ecosystem health?
7. Do you think it would be a good idea to have an independent national body to provide oversight of freshwater management implementation, as recommended by KWM and FLG?
8. Do you have any other comments?
Te Mana o te Wai
9. Do you support the Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations, that the first priority is the health of the water, the second priority is providing for essential human health needs, such as drinking water, and third is other consumption and use?
10. Do you think the proposals will have the desired effect of putting the health of the water first?
11. Is it clear what regional councils have to do to manage freshwater in a way consistent with Te Mana o te Wai?
12. Will creating a long-term vision change how councils and communities manage freshwater and contribute to upholding Te Mana o te Wai?
New Māori value
13. Do you think either or both of these proposals will be effective in improving the incorporation of Māori values in regional freshwater planning?
14. Do you foresee any implementation issues associated with either approach?
15. What are the benefits and impacts of either of these approaches?
16. What implementation support will need to be provided?
New planning process for freshwater
17. Do you support the proposal for a faster freshwater planning process? Note that there will be opportunity to comment on this proposal in detail through the select committee process on the Resource Management Amendment Bill later this year.
More integrated management of freshwater
18. Does the proposal make the roles and responsibilities between regional councils and territorial authorities sufficiently clear?
Exceptions for major hydro schemes
19. Does the proposal to allow exceptions for the six largest hydro-electricity schemes effectively balance New Zealand’s freshwater health needs and climate change obligations, as well as ensuring a secure supply of affordable electricity?
Attributes
20. Do you think the proposed attributes and management approach will contribute to improving ecosystem health? Why/why not?
21. If we are managing for macroinvertebrates, fish, and periphyton, do we also need to have attributes for nutrients that have been developed based on relationships with aquatic life?
Threatened indigenous species
22. Do you support the new compulsory national value? Why/why not?
Fish passage
23. Do you support the proposed fish passage requirements? Why/why not?
24. Should fish passage requirements also apply to existing instream structures that are potentially barriers to fish passage, and if so, how long would it take for these to structures to be modified and/or consented?
Wetlands
25. Do you support the proposal to protect remaining wetlands? Why/why not?
26. If this proposal was implemented, what would you have to do differently?
Streams
27. Do you support the proposal to limit stream loss? Why/why not?
28. If this proposal was implemented, what would you have to do differently?
29. Do the ‘offsetting’ components adequately make up for habitat loss?
New bottom line for nutrient pollution
30. Do you support introducing new bottom lines for nitrogen and phosphorus? Why/why not?
31. If this proposal was implemented, what would you have to do differently?
32. Do you have a view on the STAG’s recommendation to remove the ‘productive class’ definition for the periphyton attribute?
Reducing sediment
33. For deposited sediment, should there be a rule that if, after a period (say five years), the amount of sediment being deposited in an estuary is not significantly reducing, then the regional council must implement further measures each and every year? If so, what should the rule say?
34. Do you have any comments on the proposed suspended sediment attribute?
35. If this proposal was implemented, what would you have to do differently?
Higher standard for swimming
36. Do you agree with the recommended approach to improving water quality at swimming sites using action plans that can be targeted at specific sources of faecal contamination? Why/why not?
Minimum flows
37. Is any further direction, information, or support needed for regional council management of ecological flows and levels?
Reporting water use
38. Do you have any comment on proposed telemetry requirements?
Raising the bar on ecosystem health
39. Do you have any other comments?
Draft NPS-FM(see the draft NPS-FMon the Ministry for the Environment’s website)
40. Are the purpose, requirements, and process of the National Objectives Framework clearer now? Are some components still unclear?
41. What are your thoughts on the proposed technical definitions and parameters of the proposed regulations? Please refer to the specific policy in your response.
42. What are your thoughts on the timeframes incorporated in the proposed regulations? Please refer to the specific policy in your response.
43. Do you agree with the proposed amendments to the Drinking Water NES? Why/why not?
44. Are there other issues with the current Drinking Water NES that need to be addressed?
45. Do you have any other comments?
46. Does the proposed Wastewater NES address all the matters that are important when consenting discharges from wastewater networks? Will it lead to better environmental performance, improve and standardise practices, and provide greater certainty when consenting and investing?
47. Do you agree with the scope of the proposed risk management plans for wastewater and stormwater operators? Are there other aspects that should be included in these plans?
48. What specific national level guidance would be useful for supporting best practice in stormwater policy and planning and/or the use of green infrastructure and water sensitive design in stormwater network design and operation?
49. What are the most effective metrics for measuring and benchmarking the environmental performance of stormwater and wastewater networks? What measures are most important, relevant and useful to network operators, regional councils, communities, and iwi?
50. Do you have any other comments?
Restricting further intensification
51. Do you support interim controls on intensification, until councils have implemented the new NPS-FM? Why/why not?
52. For land-use change to commercial vegetable growing, do you prefer Option 1: no increase in contaminant discharges OR Option 2: farms must operate above good management practices. What are your reasons for this?
53. How could these regulations account for underdeveloped land, and is there opportunity to create headroom?
Farm plan options
54. Do you prefer mandatory or voluntary farm plans (acknowledging that farm plans may be required by councils or under other parts of the proposed Freshwater NES?) What are your reasons for this?
55. What are your thoughts on the proposed minimum content requirements for the freshwater module of farm plans?
56. What are your thoughts on the proposed priorities and timeframes for roll out of farm plans, as set out in the proposed Freshwater NES?
57. Do you have any comment on what would be required to ensure this proposal could be effectively implemented, including options for meeting the cost of preparing, certifying and auditing of farm plans; and on financing options for other on-the-ground investments to improve water quality?
Immediate action to reduce nitrogen loss
58. Which of the options (or combination of them) would best reduce excessive nitrogen leaching in high nitrate-nitrogen catchments? Why?
59. If you are in a high nitrate-nitrogen catchment, what would you have to do differently under these options?
60. In addition to those already identified, are there other high nitrate-nitrogen catchments that should be subject to these options?
61. Do you think the action already underway in five regions (identified in section 8.4) will be effective in reducing excessive nitrogen leaching in those high nitrate-nitrogen catchments?
62. Should there be higher thresholds for farms that produce food products in winter, and if so, which food products?
63. What alternative or additional policies could contribute to reducing nitrogen loss?
64. Do you have any comment on what would be required to ensure this proposal could be effectively implemented?
Excluding stock from waterways
65. Do you support excluding stock from waterways? Why/why not?
66. Do you have any comment on the proposed different approach for larger and smaller waterbodies?
67. Do you have any comment on the proposed five metre setback, or where it should be measured from?
68. Are there any circumstances that are appropriate for allowing exemptions to the stock exclusion regulations? If so, please give examples.
Controlling intensive winter grazing
69. Do you prefer Option 1: Nationally-set standards or Option 2: Industry-set standards? Why?
70. For the proposed nationally-set standards, which options do you prefer for the area threshold, slope, setback, and pugging depth components of the policy?
Restricting Feedlots
71. Do you have any comment on the proposal to restrict feedlots?
Reducing pollution from stock holding areas
72. Do you support the proposal relating to stock holding areas? Why/why not?
73. Do you think sacrifice paddocks should be included?
74. What would you have to do differently if this proposal was implemented?
75. Do you have any comment on what would be required to ensure this proposal could be effectively implemented?
Draft proposed National Environmental Standards for Freshwater
76. Are the definitions used in the policies accurate, and if not, how do you suggest improving them?
77. What are your thoughts on the proposed technical definitions and parameters of the proposed regulations? Please refer to the specific policy in your response.
78. What are your thoughts on the timeframes incorporated in the proposed regulations? Please refer to the specific policy in your response.
Other national policy statements, strategies, RMA reform and planning standard
79. Do you think there are potential areas of tension or confusion between the proposals in this document and other national direction? If so, how could these be addressed?
80. Do you think a planning standard is needed to support the consistent implementation of some proposals in this document? If so, what specific provisions do you consider would be effectively delivered through a planning standard tool?
Comments
Post a Comment