Post here to discuss NZFSS response to NPS Objective 3
0 Kudo
NPS Objective 3: Improving the quality of fresh water
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Marc Schallenberg |
NPS Objective 3: Improving the quality of fresh water |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 45 24 Nov, 2008 21:57 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Colin |
#1 | |||
|
Posts: 3 8 Dec, 2008 13:54 |
An interesting feature of the EU Directive is its focus is on biological response variables. Thus, water chemistry is just a 'supporting variable'. It
would be nice to see the NPS take a similarly enlightened, ecologically-based approach.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Deleatidium |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 17 9 Dec, 2008 14:44 |
" To ensure the progressive enhancement of the overall quality of Freshwater Resources, including actions to ensure appropriate Freshwater
Resources can reach or exceed a swimmable standard. "
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
LimnoloGuy |
#3 | |||
|
Posts: 15 9 Dec, 2008 16:54 |
You're right Deleatidium. Those terms would need some defining, were they acceptable for the purpose. The use of "swimability" as the sole
freshwater indicator (without any elaboration of what it means) in a piece of government environmental policy is a worrying example of "dumbing
down".
However, I am in two minds about introducing biological indicators. As an ecologist, I see their utility. However, the NPS will be mainly aimed at councils who generally don't have people on staff who are well versed in interpreting biological indicators. Perhaps by ensuring good water quality, the biota will look after themselves and the ecosystem services will naturally be optimised? I can see why this approach is attractive to governments. It's a lot easier to collect and interpret the physico-chemical information, which should in turn underpin the biotic integrity of the system. From a governmental perspective, is that logic terribly wrong? Perhaps we could suggest a new objective, "Improving the biodiversity of fresh water" to go alongside Objective 3. Such an objective could focus on bio-indicators and habitat. Back to the draft Objective 3-do we need to help define "swimability" and "appropriate" or are we going to suggest a whole new approach? I think that we could plausibly put some indicator values around a swimability criterion. For a start, I'd suggest including: transparency, microbiological indicators, chlorophyll a, and nuisance cyanobacteria. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Roger Young |
'Degraded' freshwater resources | #4 | ||
|
Posts: 2 11 Dec, 2008 16:25 |
I agree that the definition of appropriate freshwater resources needs to be defined in a more thorough way. Currently sites with faecal pollution may be considered 'inappropriate' for swimming and therefore would not have to meet the swimmable standard.
I personally like the 'swimability' standard because it is very sensitive and meaningful to the majority of the community. In my experience it is much easier to encourage changes in polluter behaviour if human health is at risk. Ecological values are often secondary in most people's minds. I agree that other standards should also apply (such as biodiversity), especially in systems that are naturally not appropriate for swimming (shallow streams, groundwaters etc.).
The other main concern I have relates to the concept of Degraded Freshwater Resources. In the back of the proposed NPS these are defined as "Freshwater Resources whose notable values have been so degraded by inappropriate land-use development, discharges of contaminants and/or the taking, use, damming or diverting of freshwater as to require that priority be given to enhancement or restoration in order to achieve the purpose of the Act".
I would like the Society's submission to comment on the implications of defining some water bodies as degraded. Perhaps this means that they have top priority for restoration efforts. However, I would not like to see our limited resources being solely focused on degraded systems, that are probably beyond help, while we watch other systems become degraded!!
As far as I'm aware the EU Water Framework enables some systems to be below 'good' health status as long as the relevant polluters apply for non-compliance status and identifies a plan for trying to remediate the situation. Perhaps a similar system is needed in the NPS so heavily degraded systems don't get all the attention, plus the onus is placed on the polluters rather than society as a whole to address the issue. This may be relatively easy with European point source pollution, but perhaps more difficult with NZ's predominately non-point source problems.
A final thought - why are freshwater bodies continually referred to as 'resources' throughout the proposed NPS. This certainly portrays a very anthropogenic philosophy to the document and emphasizes that freshwaters are resources for us to use (and abuse)!!
Let the discussion continue!!
Roger. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Marc Schallenberg |
#5 | |||
|
Posts: 45 11 Dec, 2008 18:04 |
I agree that the definition of appropriate freshwater resources needs to be defined in a more thorough way. Currently sites with faecal pollution may be considered 'inappropriate' for swimming and therefore would not have to meet the swimmable standard. Roger, are you saying that you are OK with an NPS based on a single indicator (faecal pollution) in lakes and deeper rivers? I see that "swimability" is perhaps a useful concept for obtaining buy-in from Joe Bloggs. But I am concerned that the NPS is primarily designed to give guidance to councils, most of which have an understanding of the value of freshwaters which already exceeds that of mere swimability. I would like the Society's submission to comment on the implications of defining some water bodies as degraded. Perhaps this means that they have top priority for restoration efforts. However, I would not like to see our limited resources being solely focused on degraded systems, that are probably beyond help, while we watch other systems become degraded!! I agree. I am also worried about this. A final thought - why are freshwater bodies continually referred to as 'resources' throughout the proposed NPS. This certainly portrays a very anthropogenic philosophy to the document and emphasizes that freshwaters are resources for us to use (and abuse)!! I suspect that they are hoping to encourage people to value freshwaters more by referring to them as "resources", which certainly implies "use" and "profit". Probably only 10% of people would see freshwater as anything beyond a resource to exploit. That is the size of the task we have ahead of us - to educate NZers about the many other amazing facets (not faucets  ) of freshwaters.
|
|||
|
|
||||
