The main outcomes sought by the Government in relation to fresh water were outlined in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action. They are to:

 
  • improve the quality and efficient use of fresh water by building and enhancing partnerships with local government, industry, Māori, science agencies and providers, and rural and urban communities

  • improve the management of the undesirable effects of land use on water quality through increased national direction and partnerships with communities and resource users

  • provide for increasing demands on water resources and encourage efficient water management through increased national direction, working with local government on options to support and enhance local decision-making and developing best practice.

In the context of the resource management issues identified in the previous section, and the above outcomes, it is clear that the existing framework of regional and district plans is not delivering the required outcomes. In this section a series of options is presented for remedying this situation. These options are evaluated against the three outcomes set out in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.

3.1 Alternatives considered

There are a number of options for improving the outcomes for freshwater management at a national level. One option is clearly the development of a national policy statement, which is the subject of this assessment. However, the process of developing an NPS requires that alternative options for addressing the resource management issues be examined. Six alternatives are considered:

  • amendments to the RMA

  • enhancement of the status quo (fresh water managed through regional and district planning mechanisms)

  • ministerial call-in of major freshwater proposals

  • national environmental standards for fresh water

  • economic instruments

  • best-practice guidance.

Most of the alternatives considered are not mutually exclusive. In particular, a national environmental standard (NES) relating to human drinking-water sources came into effect on 20 June 2008, and an NES for the measurement of water takes was agreed to by Cabinet in February 2008. Consultation is currently underway on a potential NES on Ecological Flows and Standards. Equally, regardless of whether an NPS is developed, some improvement of the current management system (the status quo) would be expected, primarily through ongoing improvement of regional council practice.

3.2 Evaluation of the alternatives

3.2.1 Amendments to the RMA

Given that an NPS would affect freshwater management across the country, one alternative would be to amend the RMA. This could involve adding specific provisions on fresh water, and greater focus on integrated management in relation to the interface between land use and freshwater management. However, Part II of the Act already expressly requires safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of water as a part of sustainable management, so it is doubtful that further strengthening of freshwater considerations under Part II would facilitate a substantial improvement in freshwater management.

An NPS can be much more specific than Part II of the RMA, which effectively lists (sections 6 and 7) a range of matters to be provided for or considered in resource management processes. Similarly, amendments to the RMA – even beyond possible amendments to Part II – would be unlikely to reflect the objectives and values of New Zealanders in relation to fresh water as definitively as an NPS. Given the significance of freshwater management, it is possible to make the preparation of regional plans for water mandatory, but, as noted previously, most regional councils already have such plans in place.

Amendments could be made to the RMA to address specific freshwater management cases. This occurred in 2004 when the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Act 2004 was enacted to address water allocation in the Waitaki catchment. This case-by-case approach is unlikely to be effective in the context of national-level freshwater management, however, because it would not clearly articulate national values and objectives in relation to fresh water, and is also unlikely to be effective from either a cost or timeline perspective.

Amendments to sections 30 and 31 could be developed to more closely align the functions of regional and district councils and ensure better policy overlap for land-use and freshwater management. However, while possible, this may not in practice resolve the issue and could create the risk of an overlap of responsibilities.

In reviewing this alternative against the outcomes sought, it is considered that further amendments to the RMA, even if they could be adequately identified, would not build or enhance partnerships with local government, industry, Māori, science agencies and providers, and rural and urban communities. Furthermore, although amendments could be contemplated with the aim of improving the management of the undesirable effects of land use on water quality, this need not occur at the legislative level, but rather could occur through increased national direction and partnerships with communities and resource users.

Finally, RMA amendments would struggle to further improve local management of increasing demands for water resources or encourage efficient water management. Basically, amendments could not provide a detailed policy framework that both recognises the national significance of fresh water and provide for local variations.

3.2.2 Enhancement of the status quo

It is difficult to anticipate specific enhancements to the status quo. Broadly, the development of second-generation regional policy statements and regional and district plans is expected to involve improved and updated methods and rules to address freshwater resource issues. The timeframe for these improvements will be variable, however, and there would be no certainty that the management of freshwater resources will meet all the sustainability outcomes sought.

The diversity of current approaches to management across the country is likely to continue in the absence of any clear articulation of national priorities for freshwater management. The status quo cannot provide a national policy framework, or raise the status of fresh water to one of national significance.

One method through which Māori could have more decision-making powers in relation to fresh water is to promote the use of section 33 in the RMA to transfer powers to iwi authorities. This has not currently been successfully utilised, but is a way in which Māori could, for example, become the resource consent authority over a particular section of waterway. The RMA also contains section 36(a), which allows for the establishment of joint management agreements, which enable a joint approach to specific functions and areas.

It is considered, therefore, that although freshwater management will improve through second-generation plans and allow for local flexibility based on the varying needs of different regions and districts, it will not be sufficient to meet the three outcomes specified in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.

3.2.3 Ministerial call-in of major freshwater proposals

Under sections 140−150AA of the RMA, the Minister for the Environment (or Conservation in the coastal marine area) may 'call-in' proposals of national significance, and refer them to a board of inquiry or the Environment Court for determination. Until recently very few proposals have been called in. Legislative amendments to the Act in 2005 changed the call-in provisions to broaden their scope, and a number of proposals, mostly concerned with electricity transmission and generation, have been called-in in recent years.

In relation to fresh water, only one project, known as Project Aqua, has been called-in and this was before the 2005 legislative amendments. In this rather exceptional case, new legislation was passed (the Resource Management [Waitaki Catchment] Amendment Act 2004), which provided for a specific decision-making framework for water allocation in the catchment.

Call-in is limited to proposals that are, or are part of, a matter of national significance. Although call-ins can be useful provisions for specific proposals, they are of limited value in addressing the wider issues associated with freshwater management. Specifically, a call-in would not provide for any direction in terms of how resources should be managed. This is because the majority of issues associated with freshwater management, such as diffuse pollution and water allocation, do not usually relate to any single project. Rather, the environmental outcomes for fresh water are a product of multiple activities in a catchment, and multiple takes from surface and ground waters; essentially, most of the current problems with fresh water are not a result of a single activity or project. Use of call-in can highlight issues and contribute to solutions, but cannot establish a policy framework to address the management of New Zealand’s fresh waters.

It is not considered that greater use of, or amendments to, call-in powers will have any significant influence on the first two outcomes specified in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action. Call-ins of freshwater proposals could provide the best process for decision-making in relation to water allocation issues, but this is considered to be only a partial solution and would not provide a context for all such proposals.

3.2.4 National environmental standards for fresh water

National environmental standards (NES) are prepared under section 43 of the RMA and may prescribe technical standards, methods or requirements. There are currently two NES relating to fresh water – one for drinking-water sources and one for the measurement of water takes. The NES for sources of human drinking-water was issued in December 2007 and came into effect on 20 June 2008. It requires regional councils to consider the effects of activities on drinking-water sources when making decisions on water and discharge permits, and on permitted activities in regional plans. Although this is a positive addition to the freshwater planning hierarchy, it only applies to water used for drinking-water supply.

Other NES can tackle specific issues, such as establishing minimum flows, water-quality standards or land management practices to minimise the impacts on fresh water. The two instruments – NES and NPS – are expected to be complementary in ensuring effective freshwater management. This is because NES can set national standards and regulate specific activities, whereas NPS establish an overall policy framework for decision- and plan-making, and recognise the national significance of matters.

Areas of particular interest to Māori relate to sewage discharges and establishing minimum flows. It will be essential that Māori have a role in determining NES. The potential development of freshwater NES is seen as an opportunity for Māori values to be included in these guidelines and for Māori to be included in the decision-making process. These standards could also include cultural health indicators, such as measuring the mauri of the waterways.

NES can therefore provide strong guidance in specific areas, and help improve freshwater management at a national level. In particular, NES can help implement outcomes 2 and 3; that is, to improve the management of the undesirable effects of land use on water quality, and to provide guidance on water allocation and encourage more efficient uses of water. However, it is unlikely that NES by themselves can achieve the three outcomes sought.

3.2.5 Economic instruments

Economic instruments such as water metering and pricing (for agricultural, horticultural, industrial, commercial and domestic use) and nutrient trading schemes could be developed, and to some extent have evolved under the current regime.

Used in isolation these instruments are not sufficiently holistic to meet the wide-ranging outcomes sought. They can help in specific areas, where pricing of water can lead to more efficient allocation or a reduction in demand, but their implementation will rely on the collection of information and data, consultation and target setting, and the regulatory framework would presumably be needed to provide a common set of rules (or property rights) for them to function effectively. Also, economic instruments will not be appropriate in all circumstances. For example, universal water metering and pricing for domestic water supply may be a less efficient option than alternative charging mechanisms, when equipment and administration costs are taken into account, depending on water availability and supply augmentation costs.

Māori continue to reaffirm their view that they have interests and rights in water, and that these should not be overridden by the creation of water property rights through economic instruments without these issues first being addressed by the Crown with Māori.

Economic instruments, again, are not likely to achieve any of the three outcomes in their entirety, although they will likely be most useful in outcome 3 – managing water demand. Outcome 2 could also benefit from the application of economic instruments, principally by identifying the real costs of land-use intensification relative to the impacts on water quality and establishing a suitable charging regime to mitigate adverse effects. However, on the whole, it is not considered that greater use of economic instruments will have any significant influence on the three outcomes specified in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.

3.2.6 Best practice guidance

Best practice guidance generally involves presenting case studies that show examples of effective and innovative approaches to resource management issues. Best practice guidance has been developed on a number of issues, including planning for water allocation. It is generally developed by industry leaders in conjunction with the Ministry, and is disseminated through the Quality Planning website.

Further guidance on other aspects of freshwater management could be developed, showcasing examples of good practice by regional and local authorities, and these could include examples of model rules and methods. This approach allows for local flexibility, with local authorities using the aspects of best practice examples that fit their specific circumstances. The disadvantage of a sole reliance on this approach is that it does not carry any statutory weight. Although it is clear that this advocacy-based approach is of limited value by itself, it is likely that some form of best practice guidance will be necessary as part of any mix of potential solutions.

Overall, it is considered that guidance is not an appropriate means of achieving the three outcomes specified in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.

3.2.7 National policy statement

A national policy statement (NPS) has the advantage of being able to specify clear policy in the form of objectives and policies. An NPS can both direct councils to amend plans and policy statements, as well as being a matter that decision-makers on resource consents must consider under section 104. An NPS is potentially a dynamic and responsive instrument, particularly when compared to, say, legislative amendments. An NPS is also relatively easy to prepare, review and alter if necessary. This is important, because a reflexive and adaptive approach to freshwater management is likely to be required, particularly given areas of current uncertainty or emerging knowledge, such as changing climatic conditions.

It is worth noting that under the current legislative framework there is already considerable scope for national-level direction on the management of New Zealand’s freshwater resources – notably through the use of an NPS. An NPS can provide direction for policy, as well as programmes. In this sense, an NPS can provide objectives and policies aimed at improving the quality and efficient use of fresh water. It can also promote both non-regulatory and regulatory methods, which may include building and enhancing partnerships with local government, industry, Māori, science agencies and providers, and rural and urban communities. By doing so, an NPS would meet the requirements of outcome 1.

An NPS could also provide clear policy on how to improve the management of the undesirable effects of land use on water quality by tying together policies on water quantity, water quality and land-use development so planning takes place in an integrated and strategic manner. This area is seen as a major opportunity for improved practice, and therefore an NPS is able to satisfy outcome 2.

Finally, an NPS can provide clear guidance on how to deal with increasing demands on water resources and encourage efficient water management. This can be achieved through regulatory means, as well as non-regulatory means such as encouraging partnerships with local government on options for supporting and enhancing local decision-making, and developing best practice.

An NPS would have the additional benefit of being a relevant matter for decision-makers in relation to section 104 of the Act. Therefore, an NPS would satisfy outcome 3 of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.

3.3 Conclusions

The purpose of developing this proposed NPS is to address the key issues facing New Zealand’s freshwater resources, so our future approach to resource management will achieve the sustainable management of this important resource. Although the conclusion of this section 32 assessment is that an NPS is the most appropriate option to achieve greater national guidance on achieving the sustainable management of freshwater resources, the other alternatives identified and evaluated should not be discounted, but rather could be a future part of the overall Sustainable Water Programme of Action.

In terms of alternative approaches, amendments to the RMA are a possibility. However, while some improvements to the Act could be contemplated, when the specific aspects of freshwater management are examined, significant detail and direction are needed that are not appropriate for legislation. Given the complexity of the interaction between freshwater management and land management, and the overlaps between regional and district council functions, an NPS is considered to be a more effective mechanism for achieving an improved approach to delivering more sustainable outcomes. It can do so by helping improve plan-making and decision-making.

The existing regional and district planning framework around the country (the status quo) has provided a number of improvements to water quality. In particular, point-source discharges are generally acknowledged to have improved around the country. However, there are a range of other areas (eg, non-point-source discharge management, water allocation, and the use of section 33 and 36[a]) where further improvements are required. It is possible that these improvements could occur over time, or the Minister could engage with councils to encourage further reviews, but the outcomes are less certain. Providing a nationally consistent approach to fresh water is therefore considered to be more likely to achieve sustainable management, and the status quo option has been discounted for this reason.

The NPS will, however, rely heavily on regional policy statements and regional and district plans as implementation measures. With an NPS in place there will be great certainty about what is required, and within what timeframe. This will encourage more involvement of Māori, and more certainty that the values and interests tangata whenua have in water will be widely accepted and more consistently implemented. It will also require decisions made under the RMA to recognise the national significance of New Zealand’s freshwater resources.

Ministerial call-ins may be appropriate for proposals of nationally significant potential impacts on water availability and quality, but using the call-in mechanism will not establish a policy framework that will lead to improved freshwater resource management. It is considered that this alternative will not address the issues identified.

The use of national environmental standards (NES) will not provide the policy direction or framework necessary to address all the issues identified. Although NES may help to address specific issues (eg, land management or intensification) they will not address some of the wider-ranging issues that can be addressed by an NPS. It is considered that NES can work alongside an NPS, particularly where some issues become of such significance that the Government wants to provide a specific level of control (eg, over the uncontrolled intensification of agricultural land adjacent to water courses for dairying). But NES on their own are not considered an appropriate alternative to the NPS. In a similar way economic instruments and best practice guidance may also assist with improvements in freshwater management.

Table 1 summarises the seven options evaluated against the three outcomes sought by the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.

Table 1: Evaluation of the alternatives

Alternative

Outcome 1

Outcome 2

Outcome 3

Amendments to the RMA

Cross.

Tick.

Cross.

Incremental enhancement of the status quo

Cross.

Cross.

Cross.

Call-in of major water projects

Cross.

Cross.

Tick.

National environmental standards

Cross.

Tick.

Tick.

Economic Instruments

Cross.

Tick.

Tick.

Best practice guidance

Tick.

Cross.

Cross.

National policy statement

Tick.

Tick.

Tick.

Outcome 1: To improve the quality and efficient use of fresh water by building and enhancing partnerships with local government, industry, Māori, science agencies and providers, and rural and urban communities.

Outcome 2: To improve the management of the undesirable effects of land use on water quality through increased national direction and partnerships with communities and resource users.

Outcome 3: To provide for increasing demands on water resources and encourage efficient water management through increased national direction, working with local government on options for supporting and enhancing local decision-making, and developing best practice.

It is clear that the proposed NPS is the only option that addresses all of the three desired outcomes. However, although the NPS is the preferred option, and is considered to be the most appropriate mechanism to provide strong national guidance, other tools may be complementary.

In conclusion, an NPS is the most appropriate mechanism to address the issues for freshwater management identified, and the sustainable management of freshwater resources. It can provide a basis for achieving the outcomes specified by the Government through the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.

 

See more on...