SciBlogs

Happy World Water Day! Waiology Mar 22

No Comments

By Daniel Collins

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013World Water Day is held annually on 22 March to focus people’s attention on freshwater and advocate for the sustainable management of freshwater resources. Championed by the United Nations, each year is dedicated to a different theme. This year’s theme is cooperation (“water, water everywhere, but only if we share”), and it is for this reason that for the month of March, Waiology has been running the series on water governance.

WorldWaterDay2013Already we have read insightful commentary and analysis from across New Zealand, each time giving some thought to the role of science in the process of water governance. But there is plenty more to come. In fact, we have so much that the series will have to spill over into April.

So how will you commemorate World Water Day?

Here are 10 ideas:

For my part, I will do what I always do: hydrology. And observe the Government’s freshwater reforms consultation meeting this afternoon in Christchurch.

Dr Daniel Collins is a hydrologist and water resources scientist at NIWA.

Print This Post Print This Post

The National Parks of our waterways: Do they have any future under proposed Government reforms? Waiology Mar 20

3 Comments

By Neil Deans

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013Water Conservation Orders (WCOs) are statutory tools used to protect waterbodies of outstanding value nationally – rivers, lakes, and wetlands – much like mountains and coasts are protected by National Parks. They preserve or protect outstanding features such as fisheries, wildlife, Maori, cultural, recreational, wild and scenic or scientific values. They are to exist in perpetuity, unless amended.

Confluence of Kawarau and Clutha Rivers and old Cromwell, before and after the formation of Lake Dunstan created by completion of the Clyde Dam in 1992, Otago.

Confluence of Kawarau and Clutha Rivers and old Cromwell, before and after the formation of Lake Dunstan created by completion of the Clyde Dam in 1992, Otago.

The WCO sets out necessary restrictions on water use so that the outstanding resource is maintained, such as prohibitions on damming, maintenance of river flows and water quality, and restrictions on in-river works. This process granting WCO protection is arguably more robust – and certainly more independent – than that required to create a National Park. The history of WCOs is set out here.

Today, 16 water bodies have now been protected by WCOs. Many groups – notably Fish & Game NZ, QEII Trust, Whitewater NZ, Forest & Bird, some iwi and, in one case only, DOC – have applied for WCOs. Many outstanding waters, however, have never had WCOs applied for to ensure their protection.

When the RMA was introduced in 1991, WCO provisions were transferred into the new environmental legislation to recognise and protect New Zealand’s outstanding waterways. However, despite the RMA being ‘environmental’ in its focus, there are few other means of actually securing enduring protection for resources (particularly freshwater) being managed under the Act. For example, while you can apply for a consent to take water from a river, it is not possible to consent leaving water in the river for ‘instream’ purposes. Part 9 of the RMA is a notable exception, intended to recognise and sustain outstanding values.

Regional plans can provide some protection for instream values, such as by prohibitions on damming, but as these have a 10-year life they do not endure. Such prohibited activity rules are rare. Regional plans cannot recognise nationally outstanding values through an independent process, are also optional and some regions have not produced comprehensive plans protecting water bodies from development.

Interestingly, although regional councils are responsible for water management, including the management of WCOs once established, they have often proved hostile to WCOs, seeing them as displacing local decision-making and fettering their options in water development. None of the original WCOs applied for were even supported by any of the regional councils in their respective areas. For example, on 13 March 2013 Otago Regional Council policy director Fraser McRae was quoted as saying “We also disagree with the use of water conservation orders. They are redundant.” Otago has a WCO on the Kawarau River catchment, administered by the Council.

The Land and Water Forum (LWF) considered many aspects of water management, and recommended strengthening WCOs by ensuring that land uses do not diminish outstanding water values.

Which brings us to today. The Government’s recent Freshwater Reform package proposes changes to WCOs by allowing the Environment Minister to:

“…refer an application to a regional council or unitary authority, or put it on hold. For example, if a regional council advises that the matters the application covers are being (or will be) considered through a regional planning process.”

This is contrary to the recommendations of LWF, and hardly inspires confidence in the Government’s desire for collaboration. In fact, the Government seems willing to cherry-pick desired results. It echoes the 2009 Environment Canterbury Act which halted consideration of a WCO application for the upper Hurunui River.

It is also one-sided. Consider the outrage there would be if large consent applications were treated the same way, to be put on hold while alternatives may be sought.

This is symptomatic of a raft of proposals in the Government’s RMA reform package, removing vital checks and balances against potentially unsustainable natural resource development. This is entirely counter to the intended purpose of the RMA which is to provide for use, development, and protection of natural resources.

The proposed changes include:

  • removal of any reference to matters of national importance
  • introducing uncertainty by limiting protection of habitats only to those which are specified or significant,
  • not requiring the current protection of aquatic habitats,
  • removing the requirement to maintain or enhance public access to waterbodies, and
  • completely deleting reference to intrinsic and amenity values, finiteness of resources, stewardship, or the quality of the environment.

What possible advantage can these changes have for protection of freshwater resources? These are also to be removed while consideration of various matters relating to resource utilisation is to be added. Government has advised these changes for ‘consultation’. Anyone not wanting this needs to signal their concerns by way of the public process and to your local MP as no doubt these matters will be put in a Resource Management Reform Bill soon.

For more information on Water Conservation Orders visit: www.OutstandingRivers.org.nz.

Neil Deans is the Fish and Game Regional Manager for Nelson and Marlborough with part time national responsibility for freshwater resource management.

Print This Post Print This Post

The legitimate use of science in managing water Waiology Mar 18

1 Comment

By Ian MacKenzie

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013The Government has just released the discussion paper “Freshwater Reform 2013 and beyond“. It has three main recommendations: establish a national objectives framework, allow for collaborative community planning, and manage within quality and quantity limits using best industry practices.

All three of these need sound information, preferably undisputed, and based on sound interpretation of the underlying science.

Interestingly, we are not in a position yet to implement a national objectives framework as we need more information on the values and water body types (p29 of the report).

Similarly, for communities to develop their own water plans, they will need a huge amount of information. In Canterbury, where collaborative governance is being pioneered through “zone committees“, support staff are struggling to provide the information required to enable sound decision-making. This is especially evident in the areas of economic and social consequence, which highlights how little information our regional councils have had to go on. A little frightening really.

In terms of managing for quantity and quality, farmers have known for a while that all is not well with the information being used to make decisions. This is all too obvious when members of the same consultancy argue both sides of a dispute over water availability for allocation. Or when the regional authority sets allocation limits assuming that layered aquifer systems are linked, but then requires a consent applicant to conduct aquifer tests for the degree of linkage.

So where to?

The Government has gathered many of our top water scientists into the National Objectives Framework with undisputed parameters. Some subjective judgements will be required to set values for thresholds between bands of water quality, but given the clear intent of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, that does not have to be too contentious.

But providing information around managing to water quality and quantity limits has further to go.

The Government’s “Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond” discussion paper identifies a need to strengthen our science, research and information around water quality, and that industry, scientific institutions, councils and Government need to work together to develop good management practice (GMP) toolkits.

That is good stuff because too many people believe GMP is unable to meet community water quality aspirations. I find this counter intuitive for two reasons. Firstly, in most cases communities have not decided on their water quality aspirations in any detail. Some regional authorities have done this on their behalf but with limited consultation and even less supporting information. Secondly, no one has a clear idea of what GMP is, let alone what it could deliver.

This is where the agricultural industry bodies, our best farmers, and our smart scientists need to be working together: to develop a template for GMP. It would provide advice on what the farmer should or shouldn’t be doing.This could also be linked to financial benefits derived from more efficient resource use, which should alone provide motivation for farmers to use this technology. Industry requirements to comply with GMP as part of that industry’s quality assurance system could be used to provide further motivation.

Furthermore, Industry Audited Self Management could then be used to measure and report the modelled improvements (say 37% reduction in N loss, 80% reduction in sediment loss, 95% reduction in faecal contamination in 10 years). The regional authorities could measure how that translates into improved water quality, and then and only then determine whether GMP was making sufficient progress.

What we do know is that we all want better water quality. It is clear to me, and apparently also the Government, that GMP is the best way forward. Let’s stop arguing over that. Let’s work together and get on and articulate what it is we expect from GMP, what technologies we can use and what science we need, and start delivering better quality water.

Ian MacKenzie is Federated Farmers Grain & Seed chairperson and is an arable and dairy farmer in Canterbury.

Print This Post Print This Post

Who owns water? Māori or the Crown? Waiology Mar 15

2 Comments

By Jacinta Ruru

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013Water governance is tricky at the best of times. As we all know, water is fundamentally important to the welfare of people, plants, livestock, farming activities, industry and power generation, it has an increasing economic value, and it moves in a flowing nature. But water is also uniquely important to Māori for the simple reasons that Māori derive part of their identity from water (tupuna awa – water ancestors) and view water as a taonga (treasure) with its own mauri (life force).

For more than 100 years, Māori have politically and legally sought to retain responsibilities to care for water. Several statutes now provide Maori with an anchor to participate in water governance. For example, the Resource Management Act 1991 directs Regional Councils to recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with waters as a matter of national importance. Moreover, there are statutory joint or co-management regimes in place for many waters including the Te Arawa Lakes, Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere), and the Waikato and Waipa rivers.

But all of these statutory mechanisms are silent on the issue of water ownership. Who owns water – Māori or the Crown – has become more of a publicly hot issue in recent decades. In terms of old Māori law and old English law, water could not be exclusively owned. In fact, old Māori law would have said this about land too. But the old English law would not have. The old English common law held that land, and even river and lake beds and banks could be exclusively owned. But not flowing water. However, all laws evolve including Māori and English laws. Is our current Aotearoa New Zealand legal system capable of recognising ownership of water?

For many decades, Māori have been urging the Government to address this very question. For example, the Ministry for the Environment report Wai Ora: Report of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action Consultation Hui (2005) clearly records that Maori believe that the issue of water ownership “must be addressed before any major changes to water management can be considered” (page vii). This has yet to occur.

Māori frustration at the Crown’s assumption of sole control and power over water (for all intents and purposes ownership) reached its apex when the Government announced the partial sale of some water reliant state-owned enterprises. In 2012, the Waitangi Tribunal accepted to urgently hear a claim from the New Zealand Maori Council that Māori have commercial proprietary interests in water protected by the Treaty of Waitangi and that the Crown would be in breach of the Treaty if it proceeded with the share sales without first negotiating water ownership issues. The Tribunal agreed with the Maori claimants. On the point of ownership, the Tribunal held:

“Our generic finding is that Māori had rights and interests in their water bodies for which the closest English equivalent in 1840 was ownership rights, and that such right were confirmed, guaranteed, and protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, save to the extent that there was an expectation in the Treaty that the waters would be shared with the incoming settlers” (page 110).

Following the Tribunal’s recommendations to the Crown, and the Government’s short consultation period with Māori, Māori took their case to the High Court and eventually the Supreme Court. In February 2013, the Supreme Court released its judgment. The overriding issue in this Supreme Court case was whether the sale of up to 49% of the shares in Mighty River Power would be consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? The New Zealand Māori Council argued no; the Crown argued yes.

The Supreme Court’s judgment provided an overall win for the Crown: “the partial privatisation of Mighty River Power will not impair to a material extent the Crown’s ability to remedy any Treaty breach in respect of Māori interests in the river.” (at paragraph 8). But there was also a substantive win for Māori: “the proposed sale of shares (on which the claim of material prejudice is based) is reviewable for consistency with the Treaty principles” (at paragraph 7).

All persons working with water, including scientists, will be no doubt aware of the importance of water to Māori health, well-being and identity and the associated deep feelings of loss and grievance in witnessing the degradation of water quality and quantities. As Ned Norton and Helen Rouse wrote previously, scientists would do well when they “walk in the communities’ shoes“, and the issue of water ownership would be no exception.

Māori are continuing to work with Government on exploring mechanisms to better provide for Māori opportunities to be involved in water governance. The Government is listening as is evident in the recently released ‘Freshwater reform for 2013 and beyond’ proposals. Nonetheless we’re probably still some time away from legally resolving the core issue of who owns water in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a sensitive issue for us all and one that scientists ought to be aware of when working with water.

Dr Jacinta Ruru is an associate professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Otago.

Print This Post Print This Post

Water governance and the RMA Waiology Mar 13

7 Comments

By Steve Couper

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013Deteriorating water quality is consistently rated by many New Zealanders as being their number one environmental concern. Their concern is well placed. Some of our lowland waterways are now so badly polluted that the ‘clean green’ brand we promote is being actively challenged.

The evidence for declining environmental health in these waterways is strong. Monitoring 77 sites along 35 rivers, the National River Water Quality Network (NRWQN) shows an overall decline in water quality since its inception in 1989. While the bulk of this deterioration has been caused by diffuse pollution from intensification of agricultural land use, the waterways running through our urban environments are the most degraded. Urban dwellers are in no position to point the finger at “dirty dairying.”

The purpose of the Resource Management Act is set out in section 5. It’s a simple one line statement – “to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” Enacted in 1991 the Acts’ life almost exactly spans and that of the National River Water Quality Network and the second phase expansion of the national dairy herd.

It is not achieving its statutory purpose of water.

Is it the Act itself that isn’t fit for purpose or the way it is being administered, or both? I think that both can be fingered, but that more will be required to achieve a coherent system for governance of water in New Zealand.

Firstly, is the Act itself fit for purpose?

Applying the effects-based philosophy of the Act on a case-by-case basis that considers social, cultural and economic factors alongside environmental considerations often creates conflicting views and inconsistencies across catchments and regions. While this approach may be appropriate for urban development, it isn’t appropriate for water management, where environmental protection conditions should be science-based. We’ve become hooked up on processes rather than the substance of decision making on resource management.

Requiring the setting of, and working within, environmental bottom lines for water quality and quantity on a catchment by catchment basis, as recommended by the Land and Water Forum, will potentially help alleviate this problem.

Secondly, is the administration of the Act to blame?

New Zealand runs a devolved, regionally based environmental regulatory regime. 11 regional councils along with six unitary authorities administer the Act. Given the limited water science and technical capacity in NZ, spreading that resource across 17 councils places it thinly on the ground. It is not surprising therefore that some authorities have taken decades to put in place regional plans for water.

Neither should it be surprising that there is:

  • inconsistency in the way the Act and associated policies are developed and applied geographically;
  • inconsistency with consent conditions and water quality limits; and
  • inconsistency with policing and regulating those who breach limits.

What is the point of setting standards that are required to protect the environment if regulators are not willing or able to police them? What message does this send to our water service providers and wet industries? Rightfully, the dairy sector is becoming increasingly vocal about differing compliance and enforcement standards being applied to their sector (c.f. municipal water service providers).

So the way the Act is being administered is contributing to the problem.

In 2008 Water New Zealand convened the Turnbull Group (PDF), to come up with a better way of governing water. The Group recommended scrapping regional environmentally based regulation, and centralising it to the (at that time yet to be formed) centralised Environmental Protection Authority. It saw adequate science and technical capacity as being a key to effective resource management. Aggregating this capacity into an Environmental Protection Authority was advocated. It was envisaged that the Authority would have regional offices to properly inform local decision making.

The Turnbull Group went further. It recognised that water policy needed to be managed in an integrative and collaborative way. At that time there were nine central agencies with responsibilities for aspects of water policy, but none were in overall charge. It therefore recommended the establishment of a Water Commission to provide high level leadership and oversight of policy formulation and implementation.

It is history now that regional councils survived at the Land and Water Forum. A water reform directorate has been formed in the MfE with staff on secondment from various Ministries. Its role is to coordinate cross-agency water policy input into reform of the Resource Management Act. Will the directorate be maintained beyond the current RMA reform round, to coordinate central water policy generally? I hope so.

The Land and Water Forum recommended setting and enforcing catchment based limits on water quality and quantity. This is strongly supported by the Government in its recent discussion document on water reform ‘Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond.’ Will regional councils have the science, technical and administrative capacity to set and properly enforce these proposals? Or will we need to have a third crack at fixing water governance in New Zealand?

Steve Couper is the President of Water New Zealand. The views expressed in this article are personal, and do not represent those of Water New Zealand.

Print This Post Print This Post

The role of science and science communication in setting environmental limits Waiology Mar 11

3 Comments

By Ned Norton and Helen Rouse

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013In water resource management under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS) (2011), limit setting refers to the process of defining the amount of the resource that is available for use (in terms of both quantity and quality) while still meeting defined freshwater environment outcomes. A collaborative approach to setting limits for managing water resources has been promulgated in the Land and Water Forum reports and is being attempted in some parts of the country, including in Canterbury where the collaborative approach is also a feature of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

The collaborative approach to limit setting requires that scientists provide information on the future consequences of limit options for environmental, cultural, social and economic values, so that informed community debate can occur and decisions on limits can be made. While current knowledge allows many consequences of resource use to be readily predicted, most scientists would share the view that research in this area needs strengthening to better predict all the effects of water takes and point and diffuse discharges. However the NPS requires that freshwater objectives and associated limits be set in regional plans in a timely manner, despite uncertain knowledge, recognising that advancing knowledge will lead to refinement of limits in future.

In this context, predicting some of the consequences of limit options can be an uncomfortable role for scientists for the following reasons:

  • Scientists are trained, for good reason, to be inherently conservative about drawing conclusions in haste and in the face of uncertainty;
  • In some places there are serious consequences of limit setting decisions for multiple, sometimes conflicting, values (e.g. environmental, economic, social, cultural);
  • Scientists in collaborative processes come face to face with the communities affected – people with livelihoods as well as social and cultural values at risk;
  • Scientists are required to stay objective in the face of sometimes emotional discussions.

The discomfort for scientists increases significantly where there is intense demand for resource use and limit options have serious consequences for conflicting values. Nonetheless, science is critical for well informed decisions. The challenge therefore is to communicate complex science information, including uncertainties, credibly and accessibly for a wide community audience.

Our observations from experience to date suggest that the following elements are required for the evolving role of scientists in collaborative limit setting processes today. Scientists must:

  1. Recognise the ‘expert witness’ science role
  2. Inform (but not attempt to make) decisions
  3. Walk in the communities’ shoes to develop perspective beyond the technical
  4. Use crisp visual communication tools to translate science for the community
  5. Simplify technical material to tell a story that makes sense for decision-making
  6. Communicate uncertainty and ways to manage it
  7. Do all of this while presenting good science and retaining credibility.

Further detail can be seen in our presentation to the Freshwater Sciences Society Conference, December 2012. We are actively working to improve the effectiveness of freshwater science at the science-policy interface in our research under the Management of Cumulative Effects of Stressors on Aquatic Ecosystems Programme, funded by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.

Ned Norton is a water resource management consultant working part time for NIWA and part time assisting Environment Canterbury with collaborative limit setting processes. Dr Helen Rouse is a resource management consultant and group manager of the Freshwater Ecology group at NIWA Christchurch.

Print This Post Print This Post

Government releases freshwater reform proposals Waiology Mar 09

No Comments

By Daniel Collins

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013On Saturday the Government released its freshwater management reform proposal – Freshwater reform 2012 and beyond. The report proposes a massive suite of reforms, stemming from work initiated in 2009 with the Government’s ‘Fresh Start for Freshwater’, and based on recommendations from the Land and Water Forum, and consultation with stakeholders and the Iwi Leaders Forum.

“The freshwater reform package presented in this paper is based on and consistent with the Land and Water Forum’s recommendations. The Forum’s core proposals (collaborative planning and the national objectives framework) will be progressed immediately, while others will be integrated in the Government’s direction and guidance in the next few years, or will be developed as part of the Government’s longer term programme of reforms.”

Reforms are grouped into three areas: (1) planning as a community, (2) a National Objectives Framework, and (3) Managing within quantity and quality limits. Some will be implemented immediately and others in the longer-term. See the following tables for more detail.

Planning as a community
Immediate reforms Next step reforms
Include an optional collaborative planning process in the RMA, covering plan development, independent hearing panels, and limited appeal rights

Provide national guidance and a support package on implementing the collaborative planning process
Formalise a role for iwi in providing advice and formal recommendations, with a requirement for a council to consider that advice before making decisions on submissions, both for the new collaborative process and on Schedule 1 decisions relating to fresh water in a proposed plan
A National Objectives Framework
Immediate reforms Next step reforms
Make consequential changes to the National Policy Statement and/or other regulation making powers to facilitate a National Objectives Framework and consequential amendments to section 69 and schedule 3 of the RMA Provide guidance and regulations to set clear national expectations and support limit setting under the National Objectives Framework, including managing outstanding water bodies and wetlands
Develop regulation to implement the National Objectives Framework including national bottom lines
Managing within quantity and quality limits
Immediate reforms Next step reforms
Amend the RMA to ensure that councils can obtain information needed for accounting systems Provide national guidance on dealing with over-allocation
To account for all freshwater takes: make amendments to ensure the Government can require councils to collect data from all water users and share data with central government; use any standard accounting system developed; and adopt defined methods for estimating water takes Provide national guidance and/or direction on dealing with transition issues (quantity)
To account for all contaminants (for regional decision-making): make amendments to ensure the Government can require councils to collect data on all sources of contaminants and share data with central government; and adopt defined methods for estimating discharges Provide national guidance and/or direction on managing takes that do not need consents
Provide national guidance and direction on the setting of allocation limits covering all water takes Provide national guidance and/or regulation on compliance and enforcement (quantity)
Develop sector good management practice toolkits Provide national guidance and/or direction on the choice of methods and tools to manage water quality
Develop national guidance on implementing the national policy statement provisions on water efficiency Review the duration of permits
Develop national guidance on the specification of water permits Develop alternative tools for initial allocation of fresh water
Review the Water Research Strategy Develop options for allocating permits on expiry
Provide national direction on accounting for sources of contaminants Facilitate transfer and trade for quantity
Provide national guidance on the use of models for managing freshwater quality Develop new transfer or offsetting mechanisms for water quality
Develop incentives for efficient water use (both for quality and quantity): for example, pricing and standards

As these are all proposals, members of the public have the opportunity to submit comments to the Government by 5 pm, Monday 8 April. The accepted proposals will be woven into the 2013 Resource Management Reform Bill later in the year.

It is remarkably fortuitous that this report was released during Waiology’s series on water governance. Some of the remaining articles during the series will be sure to address these proposals, in each instance shedding some light of the role of science in the governance process. In the meantime, have a read of the full document and offer your impressions and comments on the science here.

Dr Daniel Collins is a hydrologist and water resources scientist at NIWA.

Print This Post Print This Post

The Department of Conservation’s role in water governance Waiology Mar 08

1 Comment

By Rosemary Miller

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013The Department of Conservation’s (DOC) vision is to foster a healthy, functioning environment today and for future generations. This includes New Zealand freshwaters. So where does DOC fit into the overall picture of water governance in New Zealand?

Firstly, DOC has specific freshwater functions as set out in the Conservation Act Legislation:

  • To preserve so far as is practicable all indigenous freshwater fisheries, and protect recreational freshwater fisheries and freshwater fish habitats (6ab);
  • To advocate the conservation of aquatic life and freshwater fisheries generally S53(3); and
  • Various sections relating to recreational fish responsibilities.

In addition, the Department’s Statement of Intent sets out several goals:

  • To conserve a full range of New Zealand’s ecosystems to a healthy functioning state;
  • To conserve nationally threatened species to ensure persistence;
  • To maintain or restore as partnerships locally treasured natural heritage; and
  • To hold public conservation lands, waters and species for now and future generations. This would cover the management of public conservation lands, many were set aside originally specifically for the purposes of water or soil conservation.

The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (2000) further requires DOC to either lead or be involved in various actions, such as protecting a full range of remaining natural freshwater ecosystems and habitats to conserve indigenous freshwater biodiversity.

We know that freshwater ecosystems provide valuable ‘ecosystem services’ such as the provision of good quality water or managing the quantity of water. Wetlands filter water and mitigate the damaging impacts of floods. For example, Te Papanui Conservation Area in Otago provides high quality water to Dunedin City and other water users in the region that would otherwise cost $11m per year. Also, Whangamarino wetland forms part of the flood control scheme in the Waikato, reducing the cost of stopbanks downstream.

Increasingly, the science challenge for DOC is to demonstrate the economic value of healthy ecosystems and the ecosystem services derived from the land it manages. The management of public conservation areas secures ecosystem services like protection from flooding, erosion, and ensures abundant sources of clean water. Losing these services would have massive financial implications for the country. However, our ability to quantify those ecosystem services, and the difference that management of public conservation land makes to those services, is still in its infancy. For example, we have not yet attempted to quantify the difference that pest control makes on water quality of water leaving public conservation land.

However, freshwater biodiversity values most under pressure are not on public conservation land. Therefore to achieve freshwater biodiversity conservation, DOC must participate in freshwater planning processes. This includes:

  • Providing technical and scientific information to inform identification of values and the setting of objectives;
  • Bringing specialist expertise to planning forums where not otherwise provided;
    Working closely with applicants in the development phase of consent or plan applications to find innovative ways to address issues;
  • Seeking decisions that are informed by commonly agreed science that set environmental limits in order to achieve freshwater biodiversity objectives; and
  • Providing input to the development of freshwater policy by working closely with MPI and MFE.

These challenges are not insignificant. Flow regime requirements for the whole suite of threatened fish species is one area of science research that we have really only scratched the surface of, particularly when one considers flow requirements for different life stages of individual fish species.

DOC works closely with others to progress freshwater biodiversity conservation, including local government, MPI, MFE, commercial businesses, NGOs and community groups. For example, work on didymo has been undertaken in partnership with local government and MPI. The Department’s work on pest fish (survey, control and monitoring) is another example of working in partnership with local communities.

Finally, and significantly, the Department is well placed to work with iwi on freshwater biodiversity matters that are of concern to iwi and has MOUs and protocols through settlements with Treaty Partners.

Rosemary Miller manages the Freshwater Team in the Science and Technical Unit of the Department of Conservation.

Print This Post Print This Post

Water governance – we’re getting into overdraft Waiology Mar 06

2 Comments

By Andrew Fenemor

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013Like the challenge of balancing the household budget, we NZers are finding that despite being a ‘pluvial country’ we’re reaching allocation limits in many of our catchments.

Looking back, 100+ years ago exploitation of water resources focused firstly on rivers. Then water use especially for irrigation and urban supplies moved to groundwater takes. Now as pumping from our aquifers starts to deplete river flows and aquifer storage too much, we are seeing greater interest in water storage. Case in point, the Government’s Irrigation Acceleration Fund is supporting feasibility assessments for large schemes in Canterbury, Otago, Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa and Tasman, most involving new dams.

The trouble is, it’s a tough job for regional councils to set catchment limits in their regional plans (PDF) before the symptoms of excess appear. That’s not surprising, given the sizable investments in catchment science needed, the long time frames required to understand the inherent variability in water fluxes, water quality and aquatic ecosystems and the long time period required to establish new regional planning regimes. Setting catchment limits certainly focuses the mind. Most councils are now getting on with the job.

In a recent project for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), we identified five high level outcomes being sought through water management:

  • LIMITS: Values identified for protection are protected
  • EQUITY: Fair, equitable sharing of access to water, and land uses that affect water
  • EFFICIENCY: Maximise the benefits from use of the available water and land resources
  • PARTICIPATION: Everyone with an interest has an opportunity to participate, and Treaty of Waitangi partnership obligations are honoured by the Crown and Māori
  • DECISION-MAKING: Decisions about use and protection of water, and land uses which affect water, are made in a timely, cost-effective, integrative and adaptive manner

Limits need to address both cumulative water extraction and water quality impacts from the mix of upstream land uses and discharges. Objectives of limit-setting usually maintain sufficient flow and water quality to support aquatic life, recreation, iwi values and other uses authorised through consents and the regional plan.

Either your catchment has room for more allocation (lucky you!) or it is over-allocated. The latter requires claw-back, restoration or water augmentation. These measures restrict peoples’ perceived property rights, wallets or both. Over-allocation is always harder to remedy than setting limits early.

Water allocation states corresponding to four levels of allocation.

The figure to the right is a schematic of water and land resource development when limits are set in a regional plan. Perversely, the announcement that limits may be set can often cause a ‘gold rush’ as potential users seek an allocation before the limit is reached.

Limit-setting is a socio-political process informed by biophysical sciences and economics, even though we hydrologists would love to be in the driving seat. As discussed by Hugh Canard, in their three reports to government, the Land and Water Forum recognises the benefits of collaborative processes and of an integrated catchment management approach to limit setting. Judgements must be made to balance development opportunity and conservation interests, so ideally all stakeholder and iwi groups should be engaged in understanding the trade-offs involved.

Financial benefits for water and land uses are weighed against less tangible values such as the ability to swim, the habitat left for fish, landscape values and the mauri of the waters. As a trout fisher commented in a workshop for our ‘Freshwater Values Monitoring & Outcomes’ research programme, “I wake up in the morning and wonder what I’m going to lose today”.

The figure shows that we should expect limits to change over time. After all, knowledge about catchment dynamics is improving all the time (grey shaded). But more importantly, the balance of values considered important will change over time.

Once a catchment becomes fully allocated, we’re confronted with the ‘Re-Allocation Problem’: how to accommodate deserving new uses of water – or land, with consequential discharge implications – from within the legislated fully allocated block. This is where economic drivers can play a part. Allowing transfers of water or discharge allocations, provided the environmental and third party effects of the transfer are not made any worse, seems the best available mechanism. Maori, environmental and farming interests have various objections to ‘water trading’. The devil is in the detailed design of the policy. In the absence of an ability to transfer consents, we have to ask ourselves what other policy mechanism would address the Re-Allocation Problem. I don’t think the answer is to extend the overdraft.

Andrew Fenemor is a hydrologist and water management researcher with Landcare Research in Nelson

Print This Post Print This Post

Personal reflections on the Land and Water Forum Waiology Mar 04

1 Comment

By Hugh Canard

WaterGovernanceWaiology2013I was asked to contribute to Waiology’s series on water governance, and after a very brief struggle with my inertial guidance system, I thought my contribution should be from the inside of the governance tent looking out. I have been variously engaged in the early stages of the development through to the implementation phases of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and I have been a member of the small group of the Land & Water Forum. I was selected as a representative of water-based recreation, not for any real or perceived level of expertise in science or engineering.

The Land & Water Forum was a bottom-up response to a rapidly deteriorating state of many of New Zealand’s waterways and failed attempts to address the wider legislative issues. Agricultural intensification and a widespread perception of abundance of water failed to deal with the creeping decline of water quality in many catchments. The stakeholders collectively approached a receptive environment minister to fund the forum in a collaborative process to produce a series of reports.

The result was three reports full of recommendations, some unexceptional common sense, and others more challenging, requiring a paradigm shift from adversarial to collaborative processes to manage water. The government took a bold step in supporting a process with no specified outcome, and the response to the reports has been largely positive. What worked? What were the key features that enabled this process to deliver? I think – entirely from my perspective – three things.

1. Social organisation and kaupapa. Peer-to-peer selection occurred at a level of authority that left little wriggle room for backing away from commitments made around the table. We had CEOs and their equivalents. Having all competing user groups, iwi, eNGOs around the table made for an uncomfortable time during the early sessions and towards the report deadlines, but without a consensus across the full spectrum, the reports would have lacked force and would been diluted by political risk.

2. Resources. The government funded the process in part, with the participants contributing substantially in-kind. With senior representation in attendance the stakeholder contribution was significant enough to command attention from both the participants and the wider government. The chair was a critical choice. We needed both a facilitator and a guide through the labyrinth of government.

3. A common and elevated level of understanding. This is where the role of science came into play, so I’ll become more expansive. Each stakeholder came with their own personal knowledge. Some with detailed RMA knowledge, some with ecological, economic, operational or agricultural backgrounds. Each had a corporate agenda and a personal value set in varying proportions. Iwi had a multi-layered set of values that in many respects mirrored the national scene of competing interests. The early sessions included a briefing from each stakeholder which enabled the Forum members to understand where each of us were coming from, and a specialist science briefing from nationally recognised experts in all matters ‘water’. There was a notable two day session at which Clive Howard-Williams of NIWA assembled a range of scientists who addressed the Forum in a participatory process. There were legal, economic and policy sessions by experts as well. The end result was that all Forum members quickly began to appreciate the full spectrum of issues and be up to speed with the state of the art knowledge that exists in New Zealand. A notable exercise was when Fish & Game’s CEO gave a flawless representation of the dairy sector’s position on water, followed by an equally flawless presentation of the environmental NGOs’ views values and position by the Federated Farmers Dairy chair. Hard to imagine a year earlier.

The final report of the LWF contains many references to the role of science and understanding in aiding policy development and in the future management of water in New Zealand. Science informs, sheds light, and lifts the game. In turn policies inform future science direction in the service of the nation. That to me, at a professional and personal level, is one the major achievements that the collaborative process delivered.

Hugh Canard is an engineer, a kayaker, and the Group Manager, Environmental at Lincoln Agritech Ltd. His team addresses the issue of groundwater contamination.

Print This Post Print This Post

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer