Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee

Transcription

1 Reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Water Quality in New Zealand: Land Use and Nutrient Pollution, Update Report and Managing Water Quality: Examining the 2014 National Policy Statement Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee Contents Recommendation 2 Introduction 2 Background: water quality in New Zealand 2 Land use and nutrient pollution update 3 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 4 Conclusion 6 Appendix 7

2 Reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Water Quality in New Zealand: Land Use and Nutrient Pollution, Update Report and Managing Water Quality: Examining the 2014 National Policy Statement Recommendation The Local Government and Environment Committee has considered the reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Water Quality in New Zealand: Land Use and Nutrient Pollution, Update Report and Managing Water Quality: Examining the 2014 National Policy Statement, and recommends that the House take note of its report. Introduction The reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Water Quality in New Zealand: Land Use and Nutrient Pollution, Update Report and Managing Water Quality: Examining the 2014 National Policy Statement, were released in June The reports are part of a series on water quality in New Zealand. The series includes Water Quality in New Zealand: Understanding the Science, and Water Quality in New Zealand: Land Use and Nutrient Pollution, released in March 2012 and November 2013 respectively. Background: water quality in New Zealand The commissioner stressed that the findings in her 2012 and 2013 water quality reports should be kept in mind when considering her 2015 reports. Her 2012 report highlighted three main water quality problems: pathogens (bacteria that can make you sick), sediment (soil that is washed into waterways), and nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorous). The commissioner said that, although pathogens and sediment were the focus of water quality conversations in the past, nutrients are the hot topic of water quality today. The commissioner s 2013 report was about the effect of changing land use on nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient levels in waterways. The commissioner emphasised that major changes in land use have been under way in New Zealand for some time. She attributed this mainly to a dairying boom, where farmers have switched from sheep to dairy. We were told that this boom was driven by changes in commodity prices and by the suitability of the land. The commissioner said that this change in land use has increased the transfer of nitrogen and phosphorus into waterways, negatively affecting stagnant water sources in particular. Nitrogen and phosphorous are vital for plant growth on land but cause the unwanted and accelerated growth of plants such as algae in waterways. 2

3 Nitrogen in waterways derives mainly from farm animal urine. We were told that cows are the biggest source of nitrogen because of the volume of urine they discharge. The commissioner clarified that land use change, in particular the expansion of dairy farming, is the main factor affecting water quality, not dairy intensification. We were told that, although strategies to address nitrogen seepage into waterways exist, the most effective strategies are expensive. As a result, the commissioner believes that nitrogen is the main challenge for the dairy industry. Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus is found in soil naturally. Phosphorous migrates into waterways through erosion and human activities. Its build-up in waterways is relatively easy to mitigate, such as through riparian planting. Land use and nutrient pollution update The commissioner s Water Quality in New Zealand: Land Use and Nutrient Pollution, Update Report follows on from her 2013 report. The predictions in her 2013 report went to These predictions were based on data collected between 1996 and Her update report analyses land use change using more recent satellite images collected between 2008 and We were told the new data revealed that the commissioner s predictions about land use change in sheep and dairy farming were accurate. However, her predictions about forest and scrub land use change were less accurate. The commissioner said that the model s use of inaccurate commodity prices likely caused the discrepancy. The commissioner revealed that the biggest changes in land use between 2008 and 2012 were in Waikato, Canterbury, Otago, and Southland. The commissioner is concerned that land use changes in these areas are already running ahead of the report s predictions. Waikato already exceeds her 2020 prediction. In her view, Waikato s change is particularly worrying because it was primarily caused by tree felling, leading to land use intensification, which increases nutrient levels in waterways. Export dependence and diversification The commissioner noted that New Zealand s dependence on exports makes us susceptible to price fluctuations. This dependence affects our land use, because New Zealanders switch to the export of more profitable goods when prices change. This occurred when our export focus changed from timber to sheep and from sheep to dairy. The commissioner suggested that the effects of land use change could be avoided by greater diversification of our land use. Some of us were interested in whether diversifying from conventional to organic farming might be beneficial. The commissioner explained that the farming technique used does not mitigate the effect of land use change. The way in which the land is used, including the quantity and type of animals farmed, is more important. Measuring the effect of nitrogen and phosphorus The effect of nutrients on aquatic ecosystems can be measured by the macroinvertebrate community index. We were interested to see that macroinvertebrate health has remained 3

4 relatively stable from 2000 to 2010 and has improved in Taranaki. Taranaki has long been a dairying area. We were interested to know whether a recent focus on containing phosphorus, using methods such as riparian planting, might have contributed to Taranaki s improved macroinvertebrate health. The commissioner cautioned that the index s data is limited, especially in the Waikato region. Although she commended the programme of riparian planting in Taranaki, she credited Taranaki s macroinvertebrate health improvement to the local weather and geography, which allows nutrients to wash out to sea. The commissioner stressed that local conditions play a large role in nutrient levels in waterways. Combating the effects of nitrogen in waterways We are concerned about the expense of effectively mitigating nitrogen build-up in waterways. We asked whether promoting the sharing of best-practice techniques among the dairying community would help reduce the amount of nitrogen in waterways. The commissioner was cautious about taking a general approach to farming throughout New Zealand. She praised the effective and innovative mitigation strategies some farmers are taking. However, she expressed concern that current mitigation practices have been unsuccessful in combating nitrogen levels in waterways. Some of us were interested in the role of the Resource Management Act 1991 in encouraging better environmental protection of waterways. The commissioner said that this Act focuses on environmental protection. However, she believes that central government should act independently of the private sector. The commissioner noted that nutrient discharge into waterways comes from a variety of sources, making the problem harder to tackle. We asked how New Zealand compares internationally and whether we could learn from what other countries are doing to mitigate nutrient build-up in waterways. The commissioner admitted that her office had not done an international comparison. However, she suggested that future state of the environment synthesis reports from the Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand could potentially provide this information. National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) is a government policy document that gives local authorities direction on managing freshwater resources, particularly for enforcing minimum water quality standards. The first version of the NPS- FM was released in The commissioner acknowledged that this was a positive step forward for water quality management in New Zealand. An updated NPS-FM was released in In her 2015 report, Managing Water Quality: Examining the 2014 National Policy Statement, the commissioner presents her view on the 2014 NPS-FM. Although she recognised that the updated freshwater policy document is a work in progress, she provides six recommendations to amend or address its provisions. These are: 4

5 1. that the words maintained and improved be defined, and the word overall be deleted from Objective A2 on water quality, to provide greater clarity 2. that the Minister for the Environment direct his officials to provide clear guidance to councils about freshwater management units (FMUs) 3. that the bottom line exceptions for water quality be better defined in relation to existing infrastructure, and that existing infrastructure be specified as infrastructure already in place by that regional councils be required to prioritise objectives and limit-setting for water bodies and catchments that are particularly vulnerable, and that interim measures be set before all the provisions in the NPS-FM come into effect 5. that the macroinvertebrate community index be used as a compulsory measure for assessing the health of aquatic ecosystems 6. that estuaries be prioritised for inclusion in the NPS-FM. The commissioner is particularly concerned that the wording in the 2014 NPS-FM could result in some water bodies being neglected, potentially causing irreversible damage. In particular, she is concerned about the requirement in the NPS-FM to overall maintain or improve freshwater quality in a region. The commissioner believes this wording could result in the prioritisation of some water bodies over others (an unders and overs approach). This issue was addressed in the 2015 decision of the Environment Court in Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated v The Hawkes Bay Regional Council. In this case, the judge ruled that the quality of a water body within the Hawke s Bay region could not be allowed to degrade despite the NPS-FM s use of the word overall. Community opinion is an important aspect of freshwater management in the 2014 NPS- FM. We asked the commissioner whether this is the best approach and, if not, whether central government should be giving more direction to local authorities. The commissioner did not comment on whether more central government direction would be desirable. She instead emphasised the positive freshwater quality results that can be achieved at a local community, rather than local authority, level. However, she recognised that both central government direction and local community action is important. Some of us wondered whether it was possible for all freshwater sources in New Zealand to be clean and safe enough for human activities such as swimming. The commissioner said that this standard does exist around New Zealand but that issues remain in lakes and lower catchment areas. Although the commissioner expressed her view that a wadeable water quality standard was not good enough in the long run, she acknowledged that water quality improvement takes time. The commissioner said she felt encouraged by the great deal of improvement in water quality during recent years. Some of us were interested to know whether it is important to set high water quality standards. The commissioner said that, although high water quality objectives are aspirational, she preferred that high standards were set. 5

6 Conclusion We would like to thank the commissioner for speaking to us about her water quality reports. We are concerned about the knock-on effects of land use change and how expensive it is to effectively mitigate against nutrient build-up in waterways. We note that the Government will be reviewing the 2014 NPS-FM next year. We are pleased to hear that some of the commissioner s recommendations are already being acted on. Some of us would like to see all of the commissioner s recommendations implemented. 6

7 Appendix Committee procedure Both reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment were referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 19 June The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment provided oral evidence on 23 July Committee members Scott Simpson (Chairperson) Matt Doocey Paul Foster-Bell Julie Anne Genter Joanne Hayes Tutehounuku Korako Ron Mark Todd Muller Eugenie Sage James Shaw Su a William Sio Dr Megan Woods 7