Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Water quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee Contents Recommendation 2 Introduction 2 Causes of water quality loss 2 Combating the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus 4 Conclusion 5 Green Party minority view 5 Appendix 7
Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Water quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution Recommendation The Local Government and Environment Committee has considered the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Water quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution, and recommends that the House take note of its report. Introduction The Local Government and Environment Committee has considered the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Water quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution. The report examines the relationship between nitrogen, phosphorus, and land use, and the resulting effects on water quality. It follows on from the commissioner s report Water quality in New Zealand: understanding the science, which we previously considered. The commissioner s report emphasises that nitrogen and phosphorus levels in water are affected by changes in land use. This includes both conversion of land to a different purpose, and the intensification of existing activities such as dairy farming. The report asserts that activities which increase nitrogen and phosphorus levels in fresh water harm the quality of the water. Although nitrogen and phosphorus are valuable nutrients on land, the commissioner s report stresses that excessive nitrogen and phosphorus pollute water by accelerating the growth of plants, slime, and algae. This adversely affects populations of insects, fish, and water birds, as well as people s recreational use of fresh water. The commissioner s report expresses concern about the recent increase of nitrogen in fresh water across the country, and the increase of phosphorus concentrations in some regions of New Zealand. It warns that without efforts to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus levels in fresh water, water quality in New Zealand will deteriorate. Because of high interest in the commissioner s report, we heard from DairyNZ and Fish and Game New Zealand, as well as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Causes of water quality loss The commissioner informed us that nitrogen in fresh water sources is principally derived from the urine of farm animals, particularly from cows, which washes into the water. Phosphorus in water originates from a number of sources. Mostly, it is naturally found in soil, but migrates into water through erosion, and human alteration of landscapes such as the conversion of forest to farm land. According to the commissioner, it is easier to prevent phosphorus from polluting fresh water than nitrogen. 2
We were told that the accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus in water also depends on features of the water body. Stagnant water, for example, attracts a greater build-up of these chemicals than flowing water. Fish and Game agreed with the commissioner s conclusions about the causes of loss of water clarity. They told us that it depends on a combination of variables, including land conversion to dairy, and algal growth. They were particularly concerned about the effect of farming practices on water quality. Fish and Game emphasised their concerns about the intensification of dairy farming. They said that in recent years the dairy industry has moved away from the optimum high-profit, low-risk sweet zone of production. They believe dairy farming is moving towards more environmental degradation and water pollution as a result of intensification practices encouraged by the Government s goal of doubling agricultural output. We were concerned about this, and would be interested in statistics to illustrate this trend. Fish and Game emphasised that farms can be both profitable and environmentally friendly, if they are well managed. We were pleased to hear that some farms which do not practise higher-intensity farming are successful. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels as a test of water quality DairyNZ offers an alternative perspective on the commissioner s report. They argue that whilst nitrogen excreted on land may be a good measure of land use pressure, it is not necessarily predictive of water quality outcomes. They argue that not all excreted nitrogen makes its way into water, and the nitrogen and phosphorus that do are not necessarily problematic for water quality. They cited the example of the upper Waikato River, and argued that in this case, despite rising nitrogen levels in the water, algae have decreased. Therefore, DairyNZ argues that nitrogen levels may not be directly correlated to deterioration in water quality. We asked what water quality meant to DairyNZ. They told us that they prefer a flexible definition of water quality which reflects the local community s interpretation and objectives. They said they support the 2011 National Policy Statement as it provides a useful guide to direct local decision-making on water quality. DairyNZ believe that water quality is a subjective issue, as communities interpret water quality differently. For example, some communities may rank certain water characteristics, such as clarity or safety for swimming, above the presence of algae. Communities may also vary in their interpretation of suitable nitrogen and phosphorous levels in water. We asked DairyNZ what they thought of a board of inquiry s recent decision, regarding the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, to set stricter limits on nitrogen in waterways. DairyNZ expressed their disappointment over what they believe to be a decision based on a correlation rather than scientific facts. Dairy farming and water quality DairyNZ voiced their concern about dairy farmers attracting excessive blame for water pollution, and argued that some of New Zealand s most polluted streams are in urban areas. They recognise the impact of dairy farming on water quality, but emphasise that many farmers are working to reduce it through practices such as the fencing of streams. We were told that DairyNZ is hoping to survey every farm in New Zealand on their contribution to water quality. 3
We asked whether DairyNZ believes that conversion to dairy farming on vulnerable soils should be permitted. They told us that if there is evidence that negative environmental effects upon water quality are likely in a particular case, they would support councils acting to prevent the conversion of the land in question. Despite DairyNZ s reservations about the correlation between water quality and nitrogen and phosphorus levels, they stressed that some dairy farmers have been working to mitigate the impacts of these chemicals on fresh water. They gave the example of the Manawatu region, and how the regional council has financially invested in reducing the concentrations of these chemicals in water, with positive results. We were pleased to hear about efforts to improve nitrogen and phosphorus trends in some areas of New Zealand. We were curious as to whether nutrient budgeting, a practice that was prevalent about 15 years ago, has been effective and become standard practice for farmers in managing the nitrogen and phosphorus runoff on their properties. DairyNZ said they believed that many farmers would now be benefitting from, and practicing, nutrient budgeting. We heard from DairyNZ that farmers were on target to meet the 2014 goals of the Sustainable Dairying Water Accord, an initiative led by the Dairy Environment Leadership Group, which comprises farmers, dairy companies, central government, regional councils, and the Federation of Māori Authorities. We commend the positive steps that dairy farmers and others have made to reduce negative environmental impacts and improve water quality. Combating the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus We understand that many factors influence the concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in water, and some activities harm water quality more than others. To help analyse whether there is a positive correlation between particular land use practices and water quality, we believe solid statistical data would be helpful. We understand that this report did not provide recommendations, taking a scientific rather than a policy approach; however we believe it would be helpful for further consideration of water quality in New Zealand if recommendations were presented. We recognise that some regional councils and other entities have already implemented proactive measures to improve water quality, and we hope that ways to mitigate the impacts of various land uses will continue to be sought. Overseer as a nutrient management tool We heard that DairyNZ supports the use of the nutrient management system Overseer as a tool to help analyse nitrogen and phosphorus loss into water. DairyNZ acknowledges that improvements are needed to its accuracy, and to incorporate variables such as soil type, but insists that it is currently the best available model. Fish and Game raised concerns about the accuracy of Overseer, including its unreliability, and told us that it is also inadequate at analysing the most risky stony and sandy soils. We are concerned about this, as we believe an analysis of vulnerable soil is an important component of any evaluation of water quality. We agree that reliable tools to help measure nitrogen and phosphorus levels are important. 4
The National Policy Statement and National Objectives Framework The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment highlighted various shortcomings of the 2011 National Policy Statement and the 2013 National Objectives Framework, which guide action on water quality in New Zealand. In particular, the commissioner stressed that resources could be better allocated for mitigating the impacts of nitrogen in water. We are interested in how iwi are involved with water quality plans under the National Policy Statement. The commissioner said that iwi are heavily involved in water catchment monitoring, but that this information does not feature prominently in the statement. We note that iwi values and involvement are recognised in the 2014 National Policy Statement 1, but believe that specific references to iwi contributions should be included in future documents. Public inquiry proposal Fish and Game voiced their concern about water quality issues being confined to the political arena. They suggested that a formal Royal commission of inquiry should be initiated into water quality. Fish and Game believe a formal inquiry is necessary because the issues around water quality are too important to be left in the political realm. They argued that an independent assessment involving all stakeholders would be a valuable, fair approach, which could help to provide farmers with a clear and timely environmental framework. The majority of us note these concerns. Conclusion We understand that water quality in New Zealand is an important issue that affects New Zealanders socially, culturally, and economically. We note that water quality concerns are already prevalent around New Zealand. The economic cost of removing nitrogen and phosphorus from fresh water is large, and we agree with the commissioner that mitigation is preferable to remediation. Some of us therefore feel encouraged by the recently released 2014 National Policy Statement, which we believe is a useful framework, and a step in the right direction, towards the better management of New Zealand s fresh water. We would like to thank the commissioner for her report, and both DairyNZ and Fish and Game for their perspectives. We are keen to see progress in the area of water quality in New Zealand, and encourage the relevant committee of the 51st Parliament to closely observe future developments on this topic. Green Party minority view The Green Party supports the call by Fish and Game New Zealand that there be a commission of inquiry to examine and report on the future of agriculture in New Zealand. Fish and Game made this request when it and DairyNZ briefed the select committee following a briefing by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on her report. 1 Ministry for the Environment, National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nps-freshwater-management-2014/nps-freshwater-management-jul-14.pdf, (accessed 9 July 2014) p.18. 5
The Parliamentary Commissioner s 2013 report shows a strong link between land use change to intensive agriculture, and water pollution. It models nutrient pollution from land uses such as dryland farming, forestry, and dairying and matches this with changes in land use to predict the amount of nutrient pollution entering our waterways. The report predicts that even if farmers adopt best management practices such as riparian planting and fencing of streams, the large-scale of land use change to more intensive uses such as dairying will result in ongoing deterioration of water quality in many catchments across New Zealand, especially in Canterbury and Southland. The Green Party believes that further decline in water quality in our rivers, lakes and streams is not acceptable. We need to give integrity to our 100 % Pure New Zealand image. Major change is required in the way we use land and water to improve the health of our waterways. The evidence presented by Dr Alison Dewes for Fish and Game highlighted that the expansion of dairying as a land use had led to intensification in more marginal landscapes, including on steeper land which is more vulnerable to erosion and nutrient leaching. She said dairying s growth had been encouraged by low-cost flexible production systems where land and water have been seen as abundant. She said changes to farming systems and tomorrow s farming today could reduce nutrient loss and environmental effects while improving profitability. Dr Dewes noted, The current growth agenda for agriculture will inevitably result in increased environmental costs to the public and the regions, and increased economic vulnerability at farm level. Therefore the growth being proposed needs to be reviewed in the face of resource limitations to ensure the strategy is resilient, future-proofed, and strategic for New Zealand as a whole. The Green Party believes that an inquiry would help promote a more sustainable and viable future for agriculture by examining the environmental, economic, and social costs and benefits of the current growth agenda, and investigating and helping promote farming models, regulatory and other changes that better recognise environmental constraints and help increase farm profitability. 6
Appendix Committee procedure The report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Water quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution was referred to the committee on 3 December 2013. We heard evidence from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on 13 February 2014, and we heard from DairyNZ and Fish and Game on 17 April 2014. The committee received written evidence from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, DairyNZ, and Fish and Game New Zealand. Committee members Maggie Barry (Chairperson) Kelvin Davis Jacqui Dean Paul Goldsmith Claudette Hauiti Hon Phil Heatley Gareth Hughes Moana Mackey Eugenie Sage Su a William Sio Andrew Williams Hon Maurice Williamson 7