Action for healthy waterways – consultation update

Good afternoon

Over the past week, we have spoken to over two thousand people at nine public and primary sector meetings across New Zealand. We thank everyone who has taken the time to come and talk to us. We know some of the circumstances were less than ideal in a couple of places because we ran out of room, and we thank you for your patience with our team. We are fixing that for future meetings. We are still finalising venues in some places but you can find the latest information on our website.

Here’s a summary of the key issues and some frequently asked questions and answers. We will continue to add questions and answers to our website.

Freshwater consultation timing

We have heard a strong message that six weeks is not long enough to consult on a large and complex package of policy proposals. We have conveyed this to Ministers.

Environment Minister David Parker has heard the feedback, and has agreed to receive submissions for a further two week period past the 17 October deadline. This means submissions will be able to be provided up to 31 October.

We have also heard that this is the busiest time of year for farmers. We appreciate the huge efforts many have made to come and talk to us and acknowledge that many others were not able to get to meetings. There is information online, and people can ask questions by email [email address] or on social media and we will respond.

You can make your submission online. We are also in the process of scheduling more meetings and will keep you posted about the details, including a video of a meeting so people can watch at a time that suits them and an online forum where you can ask your questions to our panel.

Impact on all New Zealanders

We have heard that the burden of cleaning up our waterways should not fall unfairly on farmers. Action for healthy waterways seeks to share the responsibility across all New Zealanders and includes a proposal to set new standards for wastewater outflows that is expected to require upgrades to sewage systems in many urban areas. There are also other proposals that will require action to improve the health of urban waterways, and protect urban streams from development.

Desire for certainty

We have been talking at public meetings about pieces of national direction - policies to better protect freshwater, protect productive land, grow cities to benefit people and the environment, and also to better deal with harmful waste and chemicals. We have also touched on the longer term, more comprehensive review of the Resource Management Act, and climate change.

We have heard people want certainty around the future of these policies and what it will mean. The Government is trying to progress environmental policies quickly so we can provide that certainty, while also responding to the urgent issues outlined in the report Environment Aotearoa 2019, which showed that the way we live and make a living is having a serious impact on our environment.

Frequently asked questions @ 17 September

Consultation process

1. Why is the consultation period so short?

We know these issues are critically important to individuals and communities and we want to hear feedback from people through this consultation process. Environment Minister David Parker has heard the feedback from the first week of meetings, and has agreed to receive submissions for a further two week period past the 17 October deadline. This means submissions will be able to be provided up to 31 October.

It’s important to remember that submissions don’t have to be long and you don’t have to comment on every single part of the package. People can focus on the areas most important to them, or give us an overall comment.

2. What are the next steps after consultation?

Following consultation, all the submissions received are provided to an Independent Advisory Panel for review and they will provide advice to the Government by the end of the year. Work on analysing the impact of the proposals will continue. This will be provided to Ministers before they make final decisions. We expect Ministers to make final decisions early next year and for regulations to be in force by the middle of the year.

3. Why weren’t there any representatives of the primary sector on the freshwater advisory groups?

Members of the advisory groups were chosen for their expertise, not to represent specific sector or lobby groups. However, a number of members are farmers and/or involved in agri-business. Primary sector organisations were involved in the Land and Water Forum, which spent a decade working on these issues and provided a starting point for these proposals.

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

4. How can you take a one-size-fits all approach through a national policy statement when every catchment and every farm is different?

We recognise that every catchment and every farm is different. We know of hundreds of catchment groups and many thousands of farmers already taking action, but some farmers, land developers, and urban infrastructure operators are lagging behind. Some catchments are improving but others are not.

The Freshwater National Policy Statement sets minimum standards for all waterways, to meet New Zealanders’ expectations. How those standards will be achieved locally will be determined through regional planning and collaboration on the ground, including catchment groups the Ministry for the Environment is already supporting, and through individual farm plans.

Hydro-electricity

5. Why are rivers with hydro-electricity generation schemes excluded?

It is not correct that hydro-electricity generation schemes are excluded from the NPS-FM, or from requirements to maintain and improve water quality. Councils will still have to set targets for ecosystem health attributes in consultation with their communities that maintain or improve these rivers. The only difference is that, for six major hydro schemes, it is proposed that regional councils will have more flexibility to preserve their generation capacity, storage and operational flexibility by maintaining water quality below a national bottom line (if they choose to). Councils would have to improve these rivers and lakes to the extent possible without affecting renewable electricity generation, and can still control with activities like spraying and mulching lakeweed if this is appropriate.

Storing water for generation means holding back some of a river's flow until it's needed. This can contribute to excess algal growth downstream that would otherwise be flushed away by higher flows.

We are seeking feedback on whether this proposal effectively balances freshwater health needs and the need for renewable electricity generation to meet climate change obligations.

Proposed bottom lines for nutrients

6. How did you decide what the new nutrient limits should be? What’s the science behind them?

The Science and Technical Advisory Group (STAG) has provided advice about where the nutrient bottom lines should be set.

High nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorus) damage ecosystem health. Reducing nitrogen run-off has benefits not only for ecosystem health but can also reduce emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas.

The current rules (in the current NPS-FM) already require limits on nitrogen – through limiting the growth of periphyton, or slime; limits on the level of nitrogen in lakes; and through rivers having to be better than the toxicity level of 6.9 milligrams per litre. In some regions, for example Canterbury, the regional council is already requiring farmers to take steps to reduce nitrogen loss to meet these limits.

However, the Science and Technical Advisory Group has recommended a new bottom line at a level of 1 milligram per litre, that would give freshwater ecosystems a better chance of supporting healthy populations of aquatic species and other life.

As a rough guide this means muddy/sandy bottom streams and rivers will have to meet the same kind of nitrogen reductions as stony bottomed streams.

Because these are hard decisions, the Government is seeking input from communities and more analysis of the impact of a new bottom line would be before making any decisions. The Government is open to exploring a range of options.

The STAG is made up of 16 of New Zealand’s leading freshwater scientists from crown research institutes, universities and councils. Members are listed on the Ministry for the Environment website.

7. Where is the economic analysis of the impact of these new nutrient bottom lines?

We have done initial economic impact analysis on aspects of the package but know we need to do more before final decisions are taken. In particular we know we need to understand the impact of particular bottom lines on local communities and catchments.

It is impossible to finalise the impacts of the package without knowing what the final package is. In the meantime, there is a lot of interim analysis available in the discussion document.

It is also important to note that how things impact communities will be determined by the timeframes for implementation of the new proposals. While some of these are specifically set in the proposals; others are for communities to determine through council planning processes (eg, particularly timeframes for giving effect to proposed nutrient bottom lines).

8. Are the proposed bottom lines fixed and uniform across the country?

We are open to feedback on any ideas for how to reduce nitrogen and improve ecosystem health, including how we reflect different conditions in different regions.

Stock exclusion from waterways

9. I’ve already fenced off my streams. Will these fences need to be moved? When?

Currently we are proposing that over time fences will need to be moved to at least 5 metres from the stream bank. This is because research shows that the wider the setback, the more effective it is in protecting waterways from sediment. Providing setbacks also protects spawning areas for fish and allows riparian planting to shade the waterbody. The proposal currently is that farmers would have until 2035 to move existing fences.

We are seeking feedback on the proposed five metre setback.

10. Isn’t this going to cost a lot of money?

The evidence we have is that farmers have often found the costs of fencing are generally less than they thought, and the benefits are generally greater. Seventy-five per cent of farmers found no change in profit after excluding stock from waterways, 8 per cent saw increased profits and 17 per cent saw lower profits. Farm performance and environmental performance were both higher than expected (52 per cent and 65 per cent compared with their expectations of 20 per cent and 41 per cent).

11. What if fences are at risk of being carried away by flooding, or the land is too steep to fence?

We recognise there may need to be exemptions in some circumstances and we are seeking feedback on what these exemptions should be.

12. Does stock exclusion include sheep?

No. The proposals only apply to cattle, deer and pigs on flat to gently rolling country (low-slope land) and in other areas where the concentration of cattle or deer is similar to dairy stocking rates. We are seeking feedback on how to define low-slope land, and carrying capacity. See the information sheet for livestock farmers, or the Draft Stock Exclusion Section 360 Regulations for more detail.

General

13. How do I know if I’m doing the right things to protect waterways on my farm already? What practical steps can I take?

Good farming principles are a great place to start. There are three general principles:

Identify the physical and biophysical characteristics of the farm system, assess the risk factors to water quality associated with the farm system, and manage appropriately.
Maintain accurate and auditable records of annual farm inputs, outputs and management practices.
Manage farming operations to minimise direct and indirect losses of sediment and nutrients to water, and maintain or enhance soil structure, where agronomically appropriate.

From a practical point of view, a Farm Environment Plan helps farmers recognise on-farm environmental risks and set out a programme to manage those risks. The plans are now recognised as good business practice, a visible indication of sustainable activity on farm.

14. What if I already have a farm plan?

Farmers with existing farm plans are on the right track. It may be that these plans need to be refined or adapted over time to meet new requirements. However, as far as possible we want to build on what farmers and industry groups already have in place.

We are also seeking feedback on what would be required to implement farm plans effectively, including how to meet the costs of the plans and on-the-ground investments to improve freshwater health.

If you have further questions, email us at [email address].

Ministry for the Environment
Environment House
23 Kate Sheppard Place, Thorndon, Wellington.

You’re receiving this because you have been involved or shown an interest in our freshwater work.