Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to New Zealand river management
Similar to New Zealand river management (20)
More from Remco1
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
New Zealand river management
- 1. Emerging new alternatives in river and water management Part 2 – NewZealand
- 2. 2 “Water quality is not just about numbers, it’s also about the relationship that people have with water.” Dairy NZ New Zealand openly recognises that it has a water problem
- 3. New Zealand’s pollution problem Water degradation is from • rural land use & • rural land management Like Australia, land management practices currently need not acknowledge/respond to their impact on the water Some activities are inappropriate for their location
- 4. NewZealand’s image is important The NZ government said: “Clean water is crucial to our economy and to our brand as a country. Our primary exports and tourism rely on our clean, green image.”
- 5. Improving the health: lakes and rivers Image enhancement: agri. sales, tourism Concern of people: health & pollution Skill enhancement: exemplar farmers Modelling: improved farming practices Committed & supportive rural organisations Drivers for reform in NZ
- 6. Instruments for change – NZ style Modelling Impact of regulations on land use (individual and society) Legislation Simple understandable targets National network Inclusive of normally opposing groups (LAWA) Information Comprehensive, understandable and accessible by the people Acknowledgements Farmer-initiated Heroes
- 7. Regional councils define & enact the mechanisms to achieve the targets: • Point source discharge limits • ‘Farm Environment Plans' by landholders • 'Best Practicable Options' • Trading of 'Nutrient Discharge Allowances' Driving the change – NZ style
- 8. How to implement change? Step1: informthepeople Information is honest, clear, relevant and understandable Step2: promotecollaboration There is a palpable commitment to community spirit in NZ
- 10. A people-first target “swimmable rivers” by a date Farmers lead the change proactively with professionals Resilient farms and healthy ecosystems are not alternatives Good Management Practices – check yourself Support your leaders Support your champions Adjust or “an exit strategy may be a real option. Obtain a premium for your product George Moss a leading New Zealand dairy farmer talking at WA Government sponsored water pollution conference: Nutrient Summit, 15 August 2017, Mandurah WA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A leading New Zealand dairy farmer speaking
- 11. Whereas in Australia, farmers are not only exempted from responsibility, they often receive taxpayer money/services Here sugar cane farmers receive funding to retain consultants to reduce fertiliser usage. In 20 minutes of commentary there is no reference to the environment.
- 12. Point source discharges Best practicable options Map information of land use The landholders must produce FEPs to identify: Farm Environment Plans (FEPs) The landholders must accept independent audits
- 13. Difference of concentration @ BB c.f. AA gives insight into pollution increase in that zone Zones of responsibility on the rivers
- 14. Reports for each zone comprises Land Reports Summed by authorities from the individual FEP’s of landholders River Reports Concentrations (base loads and annual ingress) of pollutants Changes in the concentrations of pollutants Reconciliation Reports Land Reports are compared with Water Reports to show landholder contribution to water pollution in each zone
- 15. Zone features and outcomes Pollution ingress to water Identified and quantified Collective responsibility Landholder’s choices of management and land use Tradeable pollution agreement For N (and P) pollution. Land values Responsive to river pollution. Offset opportunity Soil amendments, riparian buffers, fencing etc.
- 16. Actionfor healthy waterways (AHW)
- 17. Roles for the Maori indigenous people ensure any land use intensification has a positive net benefit to the “people, the environment, and the economy”. The AHW summarises the proposal but it will also: recognise and employ Maori indigenous people with community management practices and values.
- 18. NewZealand as a role model Information is clear with performance measurement The problem is meaningfully described and understood People first (less subject to a Minority Interest bias) Land values become sensitive to land management and use Promotion of improved land use & management and some landholders may leave Government is dealing with the source (not symptoms) of the problem
- 19. Common law only deals with people. Rivers cannot be protected by that law But if corporations, which are not people, are protected, then why not also rivers? So…….. Living Rivers – making rivers visible to the law
- 20. Receive financing for social and environmental projects Conduct cultural activities Name the river For theWhanganui River, theMaōri peoplenowhave authority to:
- 21. NewZealand is an all-inclusive democracy It acknowledges ALL of its people It does not exempt its farmers
- 22. TheMaōri view –themauri of water…… “….if the water quality is no good, we are not going to be healthy either.“ Dr Hudson NIWA
Editor's Notes
- PART 2 Session 2 of 2 - The emerging new alternatives in river and water management. In New Zealand rivers are into the political arena where they are becoming a role model for how to reform. The change is shaped with progressive farmer groups and a Land Air and Water Authority which comprises what in Australia would be opposing groups. There is a sense of a cooperation in the recovery of their rivers. There are legal compulsions. Landholders are compelled to be responsive for the harm they do to the rivers with Farm Environment Plans which describes their own assessment of their activities on the waterways. Reconciled with what is actually happening in the river, their reports will be subject to independent audit. Studies and modelling is showing that overall, the initiatives to recover their rives will represent a net gain for the country. The farmers themselves admit some may have to leave the land if unwilling or unwilling to adapt. A key strategy has been to inform the public in a meaningful way in terms of creating a deadline for rivers to be swimmable by a specified date. The campaign by government has been so successful that water quality has become the number one concern by the people. This alone has created the conditions for farmer groups to take the initiative to be progressive and even promoting River Champions to identify their more progressive farmers. Already one river there has been made a Living River with the rights of a human being. The Maori indigenous people are being involved in the spirit of the UN’s Agenda 21 to protect biodiversity. In WA the indigenous Aboriginal people are specifically excluded from the legislation. The overall sentiment stands here in stark contrast to Australia where the culture from the landholders is defensive and vulnerable. New Zealand is a role model for what is possible once the people are informed in a meaningful way.
- New Zealand has severe river health problems. But the government is open to admitting to that in contrast to Western Australia where a formed Premier called the river “stunning” and the experts are “carrying on a bit much”. New Zealand recognises it is about looking at how the land is used and the quality of its management.
- Status of water ways Some land inappropriately used and managed and needs not have regard to the impact on the water Farms occupy just 18 % of the land, but contributes 90 % of the manageable nitrogen input to water. The government is responding and helped by meaningful pollution targets that have enrolled the people. Its image is at stake.
- New Zealand’s international image is influenced by the quality of its environment given its agricultural heart. However there are other motivations for river health reform, including stimulating farmers who are adaptable.
- It isn’t just brand image that is driving reform, but awareness of the wider benefits which including Improving the health of lakes and rivers. Image enhancement: “Clean water is crucial to our economy and to our brand as a country. Our primary exports and tourism rely on our clean, green image.” Concern of people: Water pollution is number one concern (82 % want tougher protection). Skill enhancement: knowledge and skills of exemplar farmers to be shared. Modelling: shows improved farming practices leads to large reductions in N leaching (5-20 %) and sediment loss (47-70 %) while retaining farm viability. Lead rural industry organisations, like DairyNZ, has already committed members to a farm environment plan by 2025 (for climate impact reduction). What are the key instruments for change?
- The key instruments driving change in New Zealand is by five initiatives Modelling of regulation impact on land use (total and individual) Legislation Includes simple understandable target (for the community to understand) The draft is open to counter offers National networks can be inclusive of normally opposing groups (such as LAWA, Land Air and Water Aotearoa) Information is comprehensive, understandable and accessible Acknowledgement processes e.g. 'Farmer initiated Heroes' '
- Regional councils define & enact the mechanisms Point source discharge limits defined ‘Farm Environment Plans' by landholders Promote 'Best Practicable Options' Trading of 'Nutrient Discharge Allowances'
- New Zealand is about clear and objective information with the participation of what could be opposing groups. The national interest, the interest of the people comes first.
- New Zealand is open to counter-offers from farmers who….. Offer eighty year plan with a 100 % outcome with an intermediate outcome of 10 % in ten years. Accept there is a need for farm remodeling and some talk of departures of some farmers unwilling or unable to comply. The farmer groups are promoting River Heroes The next slide has extracts of a NZ dairy farmer talking at a conference in WA in 2017.
- Videos of George Moss, a NZ dairy farmer, talking about how the farmers acknowledge there is a problem and who are prepared to take the initiative and lead towards what is required, including making compromises. The next slide is a sample of how the environment is not mentioned by either farmers or forms the basis of grants made by the government to reduce fertiliser usage.
- The politically-motivated disconnect of Australia’s rural sector In Queensland, instead of using regulations, sugar cane farmers received taxpayers' money from the state government to encourage them to reduce their fertiliser usage. Called RP20, or 'Six Easy Steps', this program had farmers talk of "a good return to taxpayers" in reducing their farm costs. Unlike New Zealand, there is a disconnect between WHAT rural land is used for, HOW it is managed, and the impact on the WATER. It is politically expedient for the governments in democracies to avoid publicity and to use taxpayers' money. The people have a right to know and the rural landholders to be treated as equals. The land must be managed and used in an appropriate way. One measure in New Zealand is the introduction of Farm Environment Plans
- The landholders must produce FEPs to identify: Point source discharges (incl. Nitrogen Reference Points with average N leaching losses) Best practicable options to avoid or mitigate adverse effects (or an offset measure if not practicable). Map information of land use (incl. stocking rate, water bodies, fences, livestock crossing points etc.) The landholders must Accept independent audits Zones of responsibility are being introduced.
- Zones of Responsibility are divisions along the river that reconciles pollution variations with reports from groups of landholders via the FEP . A zone begins at A-A & ends at B-B At each line, the water is sampled and an assessment made of how much the nitrogen has increased (NB-NA) And likewise, for phosphorus, with its increase being broadly the difference of PB –PA Reporting enables an understanding of where the pollution originates and the quantities involved.
- Land Reports : Summed by authorities from the individual FEP’s of landholders River Reports are prepared by the authorities for each zone to show: Concentrations (base loads and annual ingress) of pollutants from landholders. Changes in the concentrations of pollutants. Reconciliation Reports: Land Reports are compared with Water Reports to show landholder contribution to water pollution in each zone. The whole process creates a community process and responsibility for the river.
- Identifies and quantifies the pollution ingress Influences landholder’s choice of 1. management and 2. land use as there is now a collective responsibility Stimulates a tradeable pollution agreement for N (and P). The collective value of land becomes responsive to river pollution. Stimulates offsetting soil amendments, riparian buffers, fencing etc. All of this is outlined in the government’s Action for Healthy Waterways
- The action for Healthy waterways spells out the government’s commitment. The government has also created key roles for the Maori indigenous people.
- The AHW summarises the proposal but it will also: recognise and employ Maori indigenous people with community management practices and values ensure any land use intensification has a positive net benefit to the “people, the environment, and the economy”. New Zealand is a role model for what is possible.
- New Zealand as a role model Information is clear with performance measurement The problem is meaningfully described and understood. People first (less subject to a Minority Interest bias) Land values are made sensitive to land management and use. This encourages the use of soil amendments and stock fences etc. Promotion of improved land use & management and some landholders may leave. Government is now dealing with the source (not symptoms) of the problem Progressive it is, but it involves its indigenous Maori people in a meaningful way
- Common law only deals with people and as rivers cannot be protected by that law. So if corporations, which are not people, are protected, then why not also rivers? So ……..
- So, for the Whanganui River, the Maōri people now have authority to: Conduct cultural activities, Name the river, and Receive financing for social and environmental projects.
- New Zealand acknowledges all of its people and is honest about the problem and involves the Maori people in the solution and does not exempt its farmers from responsibility.
- The Māori view of water can give guidance in how we should value it for health and recreation. "Their concept of the live-supporting capacity and the mauri of water. We are part of that environment and if the water quality is no good, we are not going to be healthy either.“ Dr Neale Hudson of NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/118106297/we-love-our-swimming-spots--but-are-they-pristine-or-foul