Hi all, I have been asked to make some comment on the need for (and lack of) clear bottom lines in the NPS. This topic doesn't seem sit naturally in any of the Objectives as it cuts across all of them and, in my opinion has a policy solution anyway, so I've started a new topic.
I consider that the lack of bottom lines is a result mainly of the philosophy behind this NPS which is really about compelling local government agencies to develop policy which guides the continued compromise of natural and physical resources to facilitate "land use development". For example, land use development is included in the text of Objectives 2, 4 and 5 and in none of these is it stated or implied that further development is to be halted in any circumstance. Nor is there an acknowledgement that in many areas land use development has already gone too far.
In the preamble the NPS states that only 60% of NZ's freshwater swimming spots meet the applicable guideline, but in the face of such degradation discusses the need to limit (not cease) and remediate the degradation of water quality.
Compare this approach to that of the EU's Water framework directive which as Murray points out in his topic about vision and goals, provides a clear direction around future degradation and requirements (and deadlines) for enhancement.
The EU water framework directive includes strong statements requiring that all member states "protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water" and it clearly states that its primary objectives are "preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, in prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, to be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay."
Below is a copy of the Purpose of the Water Framework Directive for comparison with the Purpose and objectives of the NPS on freshwater.
Article 1- Purpose
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:
(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and
losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts and thereby contributes to:
. the provision of the sufficient supply of good quality surface water and groundwater as needed for sustainable, balanced and equitable water use, a significant reduction in pollution of groundwater,. the protection of territorial and marine waters, and achieving the objectives of relevant international agreements, including those which aim to prevent and eliminate pollution of the marine environment, by Community action under Article 16(3) to cease or phase out discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous substances, with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances.
Suggestions to improve NPS in terms of clear bottom lines:
-
Re-draft the preamble to include:
- a discussion on the quantitative loss of freshwater resources nationally, i.e. > 90% of wetlands since1840's as well as the loss trends in water quality and quantity (i.e. only 60% of swimming spots are swimable),
- a discussion on the benefits derived from the use of freshwater resources in the context of the four bottom lines, cultural, economic social and environmental, including the significant ecosystem services.
- An acknowledgement that in many areas we are at, or past a tipping point where the restoration of critical ecosystem services will cost more than the economic gain associated with their development or alteration.
- Re-draft the purpose of the NPS to make it clear that this is an NPS on "sustainable" freshwater management NOT on land use development and that its intention is set a framework and bottom lines which will enable local authorities and communities to protect and enhance remaining freshwater ecosystems both in terms of quality and quantity.
- Change the Policy framework to include a set of national bottom lines. In many cases the Policies in the NPS have merit if applied at a national level; however in every case the NPS defers the decisions on value, levels of protection etc. to local government and simply offers the guidance that these issues have to be addressed by way of an RPS. So what?
The issue this then creates is the same one we face now with some councils, due to local politics or accidents of history, taking a develop at all costs approach to resource management, while others (many of whom have already developed at all costs) are starting to take the opposite approach at huge expense and to little end if the national policy remains so focused on "provincial self management".
If the NPS instead set the bottom lines on critical freshwater resources and values regardless of region, such as minimum water quality standards like the good status adopted by the EU WFD or no further loss or degradation of wetlands (which we know is a critical issue), then councils could determine HOW to implement these requirements as opposed to whether or not to implement them.
For example; Policy 1 could be changed to include provisions such as …"every regional policy statement specifies objectives, policies and methods which -
· prevent further loss of, or damage to freshwater habitats (wetlands, lakes, rivers, springs) as a result of physical or hydrological alteration
· require a progressive reduction in the discharge of contaminants (including but not limited to nutrients and sediment) to water from all land use types
· provide for Land Use development that prevents further deterioration and/or protects and enhances the status of freshwater ecosystems
As it currently stands, Policy 1 would allow each council to determine its own "notable values" or decide for itself what is and isn't degraded and then draft policy accordingly. This would provide no protection from development driven councils or from continuous compromise due to the adversarial policy development process in NZ.
Another example is Policy 2 (c) (iii) which includes a couple of reasonable provisions and then (C) which effectively allows for the degradation of freshwater resources by land use development as long as it is managed in an integrated way and uses industry best practice. This could be changed to be an effective policy which would encourage investment in improved industry best practice if it set a minimum standard such as "no increase in the effects of land use development and discharges of contaminants on the quality and available quantity of freshwater resources.
This should be enough to get some discussion going and provides a reasonable steer for the drafters on "setting some bottom lines".
Cheers
