What's So Special About the Deathstalker Scorpion_.pdf
Luwq preferred-approach-report-jan2012 (1)
1. Everything is connected
The preferred approach for
managing the cumulative effects
of land use on water quality in
the Canterbury region
A working paper
January 2012
2. LUWQ Preferred Approach Report January 2012
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................................i
Executive summary.................................................................................................................................ii
Part 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................................1
1 Background .....................................................................................................................................1
2 A Guide to the Report.....................................................................................................................2
3 Background and methodology........................................................................................................3
4 Scope of the Preferred Approach....................................................................................................5
5 The different ways of expressing environmental outcomes ..........................................................6
6 Roles and responsibilities................................................................................................................7
7 Ongoing refinement of the approach.............................................................................................7
Part 2: Establishing catchment limits......................................................................................................9
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................9
2 Priority outcomes – establishing limits step 1..............................................................................10
3 Selection of nodes – establishing limits step 2 .............................................................................10
4 Development of scenarios – establishing limits step 3.................................................................11
5 Environmental, social, economic, and cultural analysis – establishing limits step 4....................12
6 On‐farm analysis – establishing limits step 5................................................................................12
6.1 The need for on‐farm analysis ..............................................................................................12
6.2 Mitigation options.................................................................................................................13
7 Discussion and decision making process – establishing limits step 6...........................................16
8 Translating freshwater objectives into load limits ‐ establishing limits step 7.............................18
Part 3: Managing to limits.....................................................................................................................20
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................20
2 Nutrient allocation – managing to limits step 1 ...........................................................................21
3 Implementation mechanisms – managing to limits step 2...........................................................23
4 On‐farm and community actions – managing to limits step 3......................................................24
4.1 Action plans...........................................................................................................................24
4.2 Selecting the right mitigation measures...............................................................................24
5 Monitoring and review – managing to limits step 4.....................................................................27
4. LUWQ Preferred Approach Report January 2012
i
Acknowledgement
This report has been prepared under the direction and guidance of the LUWQ Governance Group.
Environment Canterbury acknowledges the valuable contribution made by members of the group to the
development of the Preferred Approach.
Members of this group include:
Ken Taylor (Chairperson) Environment Canterbury
Rick Pridmore (Deputy Chairperson) DairyNZ
Don Rule Environment Canterbury
Bruce Thorrold DairyNZ
Simon Tucker (from August 2011) DairyNZ
Neil Deans Fish and Game
Chris Todd Forest & Bird
David O’Connell (Upto October 2011) Ngai Tahu
Richard Ball (from October 2011) Ngai Tahu
Cathy Begley Ngai Tahu
Murray Doak Ministry Of Agriculture
John Hutchings Fonterra
Nick Pyke Foundation for Arable Research
Chris Keenan Horticulture NZ
Ken Hughey Lincoln University
Vince Bidwell Lincoln Ventures
Clive Howard-Williams NIWA
Phil Smith Culverden farmer
Michael Morrow Federated farmers
Environment Canterbury also acknowledges the input of the Core Management Team responsible for the
development of the Preferred Approach. Members of this team include:
Ian Brown, Raymond Ford R, Tami Woods, Tim Davie, (Environment Canterbury), Shirley Hayward, David Johns,
James Ryan, (DairyNZ), Liz Wedderburn, (AgResearch), Ned Norton, (NIWA), and Simon Harris (Harris
Consulting)
In addition the Council acknowledges the input of a large number of individuals representing a wide range of
stakeholder groups including farming, agribusiness, recreational, environmental, public health, energy and
tourism interests.
The assistance of Gerard Willis (EnFocus Ltd) in preparing the initial draft of this report, Penny Nelson
(formerly DairyNZ) for her role contribution as initial joint project leader, and Tina von Pein (Development
Matters Ltd) for project management, is also acknowledged.
16. LUWQ Preferred Approach Report January 2012
11
• A composite groundwater node is used in a groundwater catchment where a series of wells will be
monitored as opposed to a single monitoring well.
• A composite groundwater/surface water node is used where multiple groundwater‐fed springs can be
monitored in lieu of groundwater wells.
• An industry standard node is used where no receiving environment can be monitored or there is no
monitoring that has taken place, and therefore no catchment nutrient limit can be set. Therefore, in lieu of
setting a catchment limit, all farms should reach at least industry standards or approved practices for
nitrogen and phosphorus.
Before a node is selected for the setting of a catchment nutrient load limit, an assessment needs to
be made as to the adequacy, (i.e. good, average, poor), of the quality and flow data used for the site.
Using this approach a decision can be made, firstly, on whether there are sufficient data to establish
a limit and secondly, the degree of certainty that the data provides.
As part of this node identification process, the merits of increasing routine monitoring (water quality
and flow) at nodes with fair or poor data should be assessed. Enhanced routine monitoring should
be introduced where appropriate so that more robust catchment nutrient load limits may be
calculated in future.
4 Development of scenarios – establishing limits step 3
This step includes the exploration of a range of alternative future scenarios. The scenarios chosen
should be based on the priority outcomes. The results from the analysis of these scenarios (steps 4
and 5) are used to inform the discussion and decision making process (step 6). In developing the
scenarios, it is important that the options and modelling assumptions are transparent, credible and
resonate with the Zone Committee and community. For example, if the scenario assumes best
practice is applied, then this should be clearly stated in the scenario statement. The scenarios used
in the Hurunui case study are set out in Box A.
Box A ‐ Case study: Setting of scenarios in the Hurunui catchment
Table CS1. Future land use scenarios. See Wedderburn et al (April 2011) for detail.
1 Current land use Based on current land use
2 Business as usual*
Some intensification in line with historic trends. All border dyke
irrigation converted to spray irrigation.
3 Extensive irrigation*
Full irrigation of suitable land. All border dyke irrigation
converted to spray irrigation.
A Conservative
All productive land was converted to forestry, aimed at
achieving the highest level of confidence of meeting NRRP
objectives for periphyton.
B
1990 – 95 Hurunui Water
Quality
A combination of some land use change and mitigations that
aim to meet water quality as it was in the Hurunui River in the
early 1990s. All border dyke irrigation converted to spray
irrigation.
*Assumes current land use practice – no additional mitigation
21.
16
7 Discussion and decision making process – establishing limits step 6
The process of establishing catchment nutrient load limits is designed to recognise the inevitability
of conflict, particularly between economic and social values associated with land and water use and
environmental and cultural values. At times there may be the need to make compromises on some
aspects of values or level of value protection and/or risks to achieving those values. Making a
recommendation with full transparency of these conflicts and compromises requires value
judgements based on sound information.
The process for making value judgements should involve taking the technical information described
in Steps 4 and 5 into a dedicated community discussion and decision making process. This should
occur at zone level. The Zone Committee should have a central role in facilitating such a process.
Involvement of the Zone Committee will ensure that the setting of a land development strategy and
catchment nutrient load limits is fully integrated into other aspects of water management (including
water quantity decisions).
Zone Committee discussions and decision making should be informed by the environmental,
economic, social and cultural analysis undertaken as part of Steps 4 and 5, and by feedback from a
‘deliberation process’14
undertaken by key stakeholder groups. The deliberation process allows
these groups to record the acceptability of different future scenarios against a suite of values
articulated as assessment indicators.
Trade‐offs may need to be made as part of the discussion and decision making process undertaken
by the Zone Committee, and the deliberation process undertaken by the key stakeholder groups. In
this case the process must allow for these being made in an open and transparent manner. One of
the implications of this analysis and of achieving a particular environmental state is that in some
instances future development may not be economically viable. In such cases a political decision may
need to be made not to proceed with development.
The lesson from the Hurunui case study is that agreeing on catchment nutrient load limits also
requires an understanding of the risk and ways of managing that risk. One of the key ways of dealing
with risk is through adaptive management. Such an approach means corrective action can be taken
in a timely way (i.e. before irreversible effects manifest themselves)15
.
The output from the Zone Committees discussion and decision making process will be a series of
recommendations on the desired freshwater objectives set within the framework of the desired
economic, social and cultural outcomes for the zone. For example, in the case of the Hurunui case
14
Deliberation process – A structured methodology that allows participants to explore progressively, or in parallel,
different aspects of an agreed problem. – described in Wedderburn L et al (2011)
15
Note here that irreversible effects can include environmental irreversibility (damage to ecosystems that cannot be
restored); economic irreversibility (investment that cannot be unwound without significant damage to businesses and
individuals; social irreversibility (changes to community structure that would be significantly disrupted by either
environmental or social changes required) and cultural irreversibility (changes to areas of cultural interest that would be
significantly disrupted by either the environmental, social or economic changes required).
23.
18
8 Translating freshwater objectives into load limits ‐ establishing limits step 7
The final step in the establishing limits process is the translation of the agreed freshwater objectives
in to catchment nutrient load limits.
In this process the same biophysical models that were used to support the recommendation of the
agreed environmental outcomes will be used to ‘translate’ these environmental outcomes into
water quality and water quality limits.
Once calculated, the catchment nutrient load limits should be formalised through the regional
planning process of notification, submissions, decisions and adoption. This step is shown in Figure 3
and follows the standard Resource Management Act statutory processes.
As noted earlier, the process of setting the catchment nutrient load limits cannot be practically
separated from agreeing future development/land use within the catchment.
Hence, the output from the process described in this section is not simply a load limit for each node
but rather a strategic development pathway for the catchment. Such a pathway should include
specification of the following:
1. Changes to flow regimes as a result of abstraction, water storage or water
enhancement/augmentation
2. Any land use change, particularly intensification, irrigation and increases in nutrient
leaching activities.
3. Mitigation levels likely to be required, both on and off farms to stay within the catchment
load limits.
4. The pathway for development (economic, social and cultural), including the location of
development in the catchment and any staging of that development.
Key aspects of the strategic development pathway will in most instances be articulated through the
Zone Implementation Programme.
25.
20
Part 3: Managing to limits
1 Introduction
Once limits have been set the key issue is managing to these limits at the zone, catchment and farm
level.
At the most fundamental level there are two approaches that can be taken:
• Obligations on landowners can be set and imposed by the regional council (through
regulation and/or publicly funded non regulatory programmes); and/or
• A high level of responsibility can be retained by landowner/industry groups operating within
an agreed regulatory framework of expectations (i.e. agreed management objectives).
The managing to limits component of the Preferred Approach represents a hybrid of these two
options but with emphasis on the latter. The underpinning philosophy of this component is to
empower those responsible for, or who benefit from, land use effects on water quality within a
catchment to develop their own catchment‐specific and property‐specific means to deliver on the
agreed freshwater management objectives and limits.
Overall the approach is best described as one of collaborative self management whereby industry
and other stakeholders work within an agreed regulatory framework to achieve the desired
outcomes. A collaborative self management approach differs from a purely voluntary or purely
regulatory approach in that the catchment targets will be ‘regulated’, but the ‘on‐the‐ground
management’ is devolved to the industry. The only difference centres on who ‘regulates’ the system.
While the ultimate responsibility for the sustainable management of the environment rests with the
regional council, one significant advantage of collaborative self management over the conventional
regulatory approach is that it allows internal solutions to be pursued as long as the agreed outcome
or process is met.
However, it is important to note that under this approach Environment Canterbury would maintain
close oversight and involvement at various levels. Confidence in this approach should be assured
through a number of means including:
• Commitment to this approach and to appropriate participation by industry should be locked in
through partnership agreements. These should be between Environment Canterbury and
primary sector and other stakeholders at both the regional scale (in terms of the general
approach) and at the individual catchment scale (in terms of Zone Implementation
Programmes).
• Regional plan provisions that formalise the catchment objectives and load limits and underpin
the approach. This includes backstop provisions written into the plan upfront and firmly enacted
after a reasonable timeframe if the above approach proves ineffective or insufficient. Auditing of
the management approach whereby a third party audits actions and progress towards targets at
both the farm and catchment level. Environment Canterbury should retain a role to “audit the
auditors.” An overview of the managing to limits process is shown in Figure 4.
26.
21
Figure 4 – Overview of the managing to limits process
2 Nutrient allocation – managing to limits step 1
Once a decision has been made to set catchment nutrient load limits, it is necessary to establish a
basis for allocating the nutrient load within a catchment between land users. This must take into
account both natural and human influenced sources. From a practical on‐farm management
perspective, a nutrient load limit on its own provides little guidance as to what is required at farm
level. Ultimately, when limits are developed they need to be attributed to something to be effective.
People in catchments do need to know what they are required to achieve. In this regard, nutrient
allocation is a tool for managing the environment which provides clarity and transparency across
operators, stakeholders and regulators.
It is expected that a nutrient allocation process will be developed and included in the new Regional
Land and Water Plan for the Canterbury region which is due to be notified in July 2012. It is also
expected that the nutrient allocation process developed will include a mechanism for assigning
nutrient discharge allowances (NDAs) to individual properties if agreed necessary on a catchment by
catchment basis. As part of the initial thinking on nutrient allocation, the following principles have
been prepared to guide the nutrient allocation development process.
27.
22
Nutrient allocation principles
In developing an approach for nutrient allocation in the Canterbury region, the options shall be
evaluated against the following key principles.
1. All sources of nutrients generated as a result of human activities should be managed
Explanation: All human derived sources of nutrients, including discharges, and current future
activities should be managed in an equitable way within a catchment nutrient limit. Significant
natural sources of nutrients will be recognised.
2. Nutrient allocation decisions should be applied in the most efficient way that minimises losses to
water
Explanation: Activities need to be undertaken in a way that ensures efficient nutrient use.
Nutrient allocation decisions and loss limits should be set with knowledge of natural capital and
the associated opportunity to achieve best sustainable gains for communities. Amongst other
things, the approach should incentivise more efficient use of the resource.
3. The inherent properties of soil and their susceptibility to nutrient loss should be considered in
the establishment of an allocation process.
Explanation: There are significant differences in nutrient leaching and run‐off risks between soil
types. The allocation approach taken should recognise these differences.
4. The allocation system(s) should be applicable at enterprise, community, sub‐catchment and
catchment levels and should be applied in defined management zones
Explanation: The allocation approach(es) chosen need to be able to be applied at different
catchment scales. The management zones should be based on catchment boundaries.
Information on whether they are predominantly groundwater or surface water fed should be used
to define boundaries of the zone.
5. The allocation system will be determined with considerations of the legitimate expectations of
people and the law, natural justice principles, and applied adopting a transition process which
allows balanced implementation.
Explanation: Allocation systems will recognise the social and economic importance of allowing
existing businesses to continue, and that existing land uses have made investment and
undertaken their activities in compliance with relevant regulations and in the absence of nutrient
load limits. This should not allow continuation of poor practice
6. The allocation system should be technically feasible, simple to operate and understandable.
Explanation: A high level of technical feasibility is fundamental to the allocation approach. At the
same time the simpler the system, the more likely it is to be able to operate effectively. The
approach must also be understandable by both land users and the wider community.
7. The administration and transaction costs associated with the implementation of a nutrient
allocation approach should be assessed relative to the benefits, and compared with alternative
approaches.
Explanation: The nutrient allocation approach should minimise costs associated with
administration, collection of information, and costs to land users and to the community.
28.
23
3 Implementation mechanisms – managing to limits step 2
Implementation of the Preferred Approach will be coordinated through the Zone Implementation
Programme and will employ tools appropriate to the circumstances. This will include some or all of
the following:
• Facilitated sub‐catchment scale planning and catchment agreements that provide for fine‐
grained, more detailed planning at sub‐catchment scale. These may be important to ensure
management at nodes within the catchment is co‐coordinated and nutrient limits at the bottom
of the catchment are recognised as the limiting factor. Sub‐catchment scale programmes also
provide a basis for discussion and agreement on catchment scale mitigation options.
• Audited self management (ASM). ASM is expected to be in widespread use (i.e. not regarded as
discretionary) and may be implemented through industry‐based quality assurance/certification
schemes, irrigation company programmes or local catchment clubs.
ASM is defined as:
“An environmental management process implemented by an operator to assess, avoid
and/or mitigate risks to the environment arising from their farming activities.
It is a 'tool' that enables a farming operation of any size or type to control the impact of
its activities, on the natural environment.
ASM may be used to demonstrate to markets and regulators adherence to good
management practices and/or agreed management objectives.”
The approach advocated goes beyond the status quo by establishing clear expectations around the
collective pursuit of targets and the responsibilities that fall on landowners and industry
representative bodies.16
This particularly relates to expectations of landowner compliance with a
baseline nutrient loss rate and/or nutrient discharge allowance. This will ensure that farmers have a
target to work to that sets the direction of travel.
• Individual property farm planning. Property plans are a key component of any ASM scheme.
Note that, in the case of dairy farms, this should include property planning that incorporates
whole farm systems including land used for winter grazing at different locations from the milking
platform. For other systems of farm management, it should also extend to leased and shared
land as well as owned land.
• Industry benchmarking programmes that provide information on the key indicators of nutrient
use efficiency, nutrient loss and water use efficiency. It is expected that benchmarking
information will be used as a basis for discussion within farming groups.
16
Note: Industry bodies often have no or only limited ability to compel compliance in order to ensure that management
action targets are fulfilled. This does not mean that industry representative bodies do not have responsibilities, just that
they need to be very carefully framed in a realistic manner.
29.
24
• Information dissemination programmes including collective style extension programmes
involving Environment Canterbury and the primary sector partners and supported by access to
information and tools (e.g. soil risk info, info on different mitigation measures). It is expected
that these programmes will also include support for the monitor farm/demo farm concept.
• Science and innovation programmes which include support for local trials to prove mitigation
measure effectiveness (e.g. nitrification inhibitors). New science will add to the pool of
knowledge available to land owners and resource manager’s overtime, and encouragement of
on‐farm innovation.
• Financial support mechanisms including; grants towards farm system analysis for individual
properties to determine the best mix of mitigation measures for individual properties; mitigation
or offset fund (a cross‐sector collaborative fund) to subsidise/pay for offset measures in areas
where riparian management, wetland management, and retirement of high‐risk areas would
influence water quality. Funded by those wishing to intensify through a levy on water,
biodiversity, environmental enhancement, and market based incentive through industry.
The above list is not exhaustive or exclusive. Other policy tools may be necessary as the programme
develops.
4 On‐farm and community actions – managing to limits step 3
4.1 Action plans
Catchment scale and on‐farm actions should be articulated through sub‐catchment plans and farm
plans respectively. Sub‐catchment plans will require a high degree of local collaboration with an
emphasis on finding the ‘best’ solutions for a particular situation.
It is envisaged that farm plans will be part of the ASM process. The format of these plans may vary
depending on the promoter, (i.e. irrigation scheme, industry group etc), but they will be expected to
meet some basic criteria as stipulated by Environment Canterbury.
An important issue in implementing local plans will be the coordination of the various initiatives. It is
expected that local coordination will be agreed on through the local partnership agreement.
4.2 Selecting the right mitigation measures
Introducing mitigations, whether at a farm or catchment scale, may come at a cost. The vexed
questions are who should bear these costs and what motivation is there for existing land users to
spend money providing ‘nutrient space’ for new water users to develop? The Preferred Approach
sets an expectation that over time the adoption of good management practices (GMPs) that
minimise nutrient losses will become the ‘norm’ for all land users. In setting this expectation there is
a clear distinction between new water users and existing land users.
The expectation for new water users is that on‐farm GMPs would be required from day one and that
the cost of applying these would be a cost of setting up the operation. For existing land users,
obligations may need to be phased in allowing reasonable time to make required on‐farm changes
and to integrate new practices and/or investments into farming systems and budgeting.
33.
28
• Economic, social and cultural monitoring (to understand the impact of action on land users and
the wider community).
Further work is required on the cost of this monitoring programme. There is likely to be some
opportunity for rationalisation and prioritisation of existing monitoring programmes. However, the
extension of monitoring into economic and social spheres is likely to mean some increase in overall
budgetary requirements.
Key messages
The Preferred Approach (managing to limits component) is best described as an industry self‐
management approach whereby industry and other stakeholders work within an agreed
regulatory framework to achieve the desired outcomes.
Means of implementation should be recorded, coordinated and prioritised in Zone
Implementation Programmes.
Commitment to and underpinning of this approach is achieved through a combination of
regional and local partnership agreements and regional plan provisions.