Luwq preferred-approach-report-jan2012 (1)

Everything is connected

The preferred approach for managing the cumulative effects of land use on water quality in the Canterbury regionA working paper

January 2012

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


Part 4: Underpinning processes............................................................................................................29

1 Role of rules and the regional plan...............................................................................................29

2 Partnership Agreements ...............................................................................................................32

3 Further work .................................................................................................................................32

Glossary of Terms..................................................................................................................................34

References ............................................................................................................................................35

Appendix 1 – Groups and organisations involved in the development of Preferred Approach. ..........36


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.


ii

Executive summary This report sets out a Preferred Approach for managing the cumulative effects of land use on water quality in Canterbury. That approach has been developed based on a case study process of data collection and analysis and stakeholder and community engagement carried out for the Hurunui catchment. The findings of that case study exercise are reported separately1.

The Preferred Approach is, in essence, a two stage process. A process for setting of catchment nutrient load limits and a process for managing to these limits. The setting the limits stage can be further divided into two phases, a non‐statutory community‐led phase for establishing the limits, followed by the statutory Resource Management Act (RMA) phase. The Preferred Approach for the setting of limits concentrates almost entirely on the first phase (i.e. establishing the limits). The point of this phase is to better enable community discussion in the exploration of community issues and opportunities. The statutory RMA phase (i.e. giving effect to the limits established through the non‐statutory phase), is not described in this report but it is a critical component of the effective implementation of the Preferred Approach.

The Preferred Approach as encompassed within the two stages of setting and managing to limits, and the various methodological steps inherent in each, are been based on ten core principles. These ten principles recognise the fundamental importance of a collaborative approach, of the consideration of environmental, economic, social, and cultural considerations and of the need for adaptive management and a learning approach given the uncertainties and complexities inherent in managing the cumulative effects of land use on water quality.

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. Therefore, at times there will be the need to make compromises on some aspects of values, level of value protection and/or risks to achieving those values. Making catchment limit recommendations with full transparency of these conflicts and compromises requires value judgements based on sound information. The process for making value judgements, and ultimately making recommendations on the catchment nutrient load limits, involves taking the technical information into a dedicated community discussion and decision making process.

Once limits have been set the key issue is managing to these limits. The fundamental philosophy of the managing to limits phase of the Preferred Approach is to empower those responsible for, or who benefit from, land use effects on water quality and quantity within a catchment to develop their own catchment‐specific and property‐specific means to deliver on the agreed management objectives. Overall the approach is best described as a collaborative self management approach whereby industry and other stakeholders work within an agreed regulatory framework to achieve the desired outcomes.

It is expected that some aspects of the Preferred Approach will be refined as new work is completed and as new learnings and experience is gained through implementation of the Preferred Approach.

1 See the companion report Nutrient Management in Hurunui: A Case Study in Identifying Options and Opportunities.


1

Part 1: Introduction

1 Background There is increasing evidence that parts of Canterbury’s freshwater resources are at, or over, their capacity to assimilate nutrients and that some values are becoming degraded. It is also clear that the mix of regulatory and voluntary approaches currently being used has been insufficient to effectively manage all aspects of diffuse discharges, particularly as land use intensification has increased. In some other regions, addressing this problem has become highly adversarial and it is evident that a different approach is needed.

Addressing the water quality issue in Canterbury provides both a challenge and an opportunity for the Canterbury community. The challenge lies in developing effective solutions to address the issue and to minimise or avoid further decline in water quality. The opportunity lies in the possibilities of an integrated management approach that sees improvements not only in the sustainable management of the region’s water resources but also facilitates improved economic, social and cultural outcomes.

As signalled through the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS)2, a paradigm shift in the way water is managed is required. There is significant capacity for further land use development within the region but it will require existing land users and new water users to improve the way they use water and manage diffuse discharges to water.

The Land Use Water Quality project (“the LUWQ Project”) was initiated by Environment Canterbury as a collaborative initiative with Ngai Tahu, the primary sector, and other key stakeholders. This project considers approaches for managing the cumulative effects of nutrient enrichment in Canterbury in a manner consistent with the CWMS. A full list of the collaborating groups is provided in Appendix 1. This report presents the findings of the LUWQ Project consistent with the primary objective set for the project, which was:

“To develop an approach to manage cumulative nutrient (N and P) loads while recognising the spin‐off benefits for managing micro‐organisms and sediments”.

Although this report focuses on nutrient management, it is important to record that managing nutrients through mitigation measures, such as stock exclusion from water bodies, also has benefits in terms of managing other contaminants and other adverse effects. This is recognised by the objective of the project as outlined above. Similarly some mitigation will not focus on land management but on other dimensions (including, for example, flow enhancement). While the report does not highlight those other benefits specifically, the report should be read with those other benefits in mind.

2 Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) page 32.


2

It is important to recognise that this report is a ‘living’ document. It is expected that some aspects of the Preferred Approach, as described within the report, will be refined, developed and changed as new work is completed and as new learnings and experience is gained through implementation of the Preferred Approach. However, it is anticipated that the overall thrust and direction that the Preferred Approach provides will remain. It is expected that any changes to the Preferred Approach will be reflected in updates to this report.

2 A Guide to the Report This report is set out in four parts. It begins in Part 1 by setting out some preliminary background to the project and by describing the principles that have been applied in developing the Preferred Approach for managing the cumulative effects of land use on water quality. The Preferred Approach is, in essence, a process for agreeing a catchment‐by‐catchment response rather than an inflexible blueprint of specific actions and regional plan provisions.

Parts 2 and 3 of the report set out two key stages of the Preferred Approach, establishing limits and managing to limits. Each of these stages includes a series of steps. This is illustrated by Figure 1. Figure 1 also serves as a high level overview of the approach proposed. It should be noted, however, that the Preferred Approach requires that each of the steps as outlined is carried out according to the processes and methodologies discussed in the following pages.

The intention is that the Preferred Approach as described will be underpinned by a Regional Partnership Agreement and by regional plan provisions. These are described in Part 4 of the report.


3

Figure 1 – Overview of the Preferred Approach

3 Background and methodology The development of a Preferred Approach for the management of the cumulative effects of land use on water quality builds on the desire as set out within the CWMS to, “improve the collaborative input of stakeholders to the integrated management of Canterbury’s water resources.”3

A case study based on the Hurunui catchment was used to develop and test various options and methodologies for the Preferred Approach. This provided the opportunity to develop a common understanding of the issues, to test possible options with stakeholders, and to identify potential obstacles. This was conducted through various consultation forums and included a series of catchment workshops.

The intent of the Hurunui case study was three fold:

i. To develop a technical approach to assess cumulative effects,

3 CWMS P 31


4

ii. To use stakeholders and communities to make recommendations on the preferred outcomes they want to see or are willing to tolerate for their local resources, and

iii. To build a framework for managing those cumulative effects.

This report draws upon the lessons learnt from the Hurunui case study experience plus knowledge gained through the early stages of implementing the Preferred Approach. Where relevant, the Hurunui experience is recounted to illustrate the methodology used. However, the detailed findings related to nutrient management in Hurunui and the options and opportunities that exist in that catchment are not contained in this report but can be found in an accompanying report entitled Nutrient Management in Hurunui: A Case Study in Identifying Options and Opportunities (“the Hurunui Report”). A number of other reports containing more detailed information were written as part of the study and are referenced in the Hurunui report.

In addition to the experiences gained through the Hurunui case study a number of other legislative and policy matters were also important influences and drivers of the process. These include:

The Resource Management Act (RMA 1991) and the Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Act 2010 (“Environment Canterbury Act”). In developing a Preferred Approach there is an obligation to take into account the matters and values set out in Part II of the RMA, and the vision and principles of the CWMS.

The Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) that establishes measurable objectives for the different types of rivers, lakes and groundwater in the region. It also establishes policies and methods, including rules, to manage activities that affect water quality.

The Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) that is designed to achieve the integrated management of the region’s freshwater resources. The CWMS sets out a vision and principles4 for managing the region’s freshwater resources, and a suite of environmental, social, cultural, and economic outcomes that must be met collectively in the next 5, 10 and 30 years.

The Land and Water Forum (2010)5 report which signalled the need for environmental limits and catchment specific targets for discharges.

The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (2011)6 which requires, amongst other things, that all regional councils set catchment limits for water quality and quantity.

In considering these influences and drivers within the context of the Preferred Approach, it is important to recognise that in both setting and managing to catchment limits, there a number of preset objectives, policies and rules that must be considered.

4 First order priority matters are: the environment, customary uses, community supplies and stock water. The second order priority

matters are: irrigation, renewable electricity generation, recreation, tourism and amenity.

5 Land and Water Forum. 2010. Report of the Land and Water Forum: A Fresh Start for Fresh Water

6 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2011): Ministry for Environment


5

4 Scope of the Preferred Approach In reference to the Preferred Approach it is important to recognise that the Hurunui case study focused on water quality limits, and in particular, on establishing agreed catchment nutrient load limits. However, water quality, including nutrient management, cannot be considered in isolation from the consideration of water quantity issues. Water allocation for irrigation, stock water and related industrial and commercial uses is the driving force behind land use intensification. Therefore it is critical that decisions on new water be integrated with assessments of the impacts on nutrient loads and water quality. Clearly, any future changes in flows will affect the capacity of a river to assimilate a given quantity of nutrient. Similarly, changes to the hydrological characteristics of the river system (e.g. frequency and duration of flushing) will directly influence hydrological and ecological processes.

While the Preferred Approach as described in this report focuses on managing the impacts of land use on water quality, this process can be used to integrate water quality and water quantity and other aspects such as biodiversity. This is consistent with the approach as recommended under the CMWS and the tasks which the Zone Committees have been charged with achieving.

The development of the Preferred Approach has been guided by ten key principles. While these principles were useful in developing the approach they will also have on‐going applicability in implementation of limits on a catchment‐by‐catchment basis. In that sense the principles themselves should be regarded as part of the Preferred Approach.

1. Focus on outcomes: Clearly defined and expressed community outcomes are an essential start and end point for any discussion on the impacts of land use on water quality. The use of the term outcomes is important as it, right from the start, opens the opportunity for use of multiple mechanisms to achieve success.

2. Collaborative management: Multiple parties have an interest in, or influence over, nutrient management. A style of working that involves these parties working collaboratively on solutions, sharing information, building trust and confidence in each other, will yield the most durable response.

3. Quadruple‐bottom line: The promotion of opportunities for and setting of expectations of land managers (collectively and individually) needs to be done having considered the environmental, economic, social and cultural costs and benefits of those opportunities and expectations.

4. Adaptive management: In the absence of complete information, nutrient management needs to take an adaptive management approach. Such an approach is one where improved information can feedback into decision‐making processes allowing adjustment of both desired outcomes and responses over time. Contributing information will include environmental, social, cultural or economic conditions and the efficacy of mitigation responses.

5. Catchment approach: Management efforts need to address land use (current and future) and water quality issues at a catchment and sub catchment scale to ensure effectiveness and maximise opportunities for least cost responses.


6

6. Flexibility: A detailed prescriptive approach is not recommended. Flexibility provides the space for innovation and allows land users the opportunity to develop solutions which fit their particular land and farming type and management style.

7. Manage both nitrogen and phosphorus: Sources of both nutrients need to be managed although the extent to which each is managed may vary depending on the situation. Restricting just one nutrient is risky, as nutrient limitation may vary within different reaches of a river and over time. Also in addition a failure to manage the limiting nutrient adequately could lead to algal blooms.

8. Certainty: Certainty is a desirable prerequisite for investment, yet with the issue of land use and water quality there is a high level of uncertainty. Many aspects are associated with defining the capacity of the resource for use. Science can reduce but not eliminate this uncertainty. Some uncertainty is inevitable and this requires acceptance and a fit‐for‐purpose management response.

9. Equity: Existing users have existing user rights. In the development of the Preferred Approach these rights must be respected at the same time as recognising the rights of new and intergenerational users. Notwithstanding these rights, user rights do not include the right to have unacceptable environmental impacts.

10. Avoidance of irreversible and/or perverse outcomes: In attempting to achieve a set of environmental outcomes it is essential to understand how the actions impact on other outcomes. The delivery of outcomes needs to optimise the balance between the environmental, economic, social and cultural values. Irreversible economic, social, cultural and environmental outcomes are unacceptable.

5 The different ways of expressing environmental outcomes

The development of catchment nutrient load limits is a key method for achieving the desired environmental outcome. However, it is worth noting that these outcomes may be influenced by other factors such as flow regimes, climate, and habitat aspects. Water quality outcomes can be expressed in different ways with progressively more detailed specification, as illustrated by Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Multiple ways of expressing environmental outcomes (using visual amenity and recreational values as an example).

The starting point for all discussions on setting catchment water quality limits is identifying the outcomes sought, which can then be described as a set of agreed outcomes (as in the two boxes on


7

the left hand side above). Defining the key attributes (e.g., periphyton biomass) and causative factors (e.g., nutrient concentrations) enables the establishment of quantitative limits that allow the outcomes to be met. In order to establish the relationship between the yield of contaminants from land use (nutrients in this case) and concentrations in waterways, the contaminant load is determined (e.g. tonnes/year) for a particular catchment. The Preferred Approach focuses on establishing catchment nutrient load limits that link nutrient concentrations (that affect outcomes) with land use activities and a means of managing those activities (e.g., restrictions on land use). These catchment limits provide a basis for management that can be translated to a per‐hectare loss and/or nutrient discharge allowance (NDA) at individual farm level. However, managing nutrient losses is just one (albeit important) means of achieving the desired outcomes. Consideration should also be given to other factors affecting outcomes, as indicated above.

6 Roles and responsibilities Overall responsibility for setting catchment nutrient load limits rests with Environment Canterbury. The Council is also charged with the responsibility for ensuring that these limits are met.

However, the Preferred Approach described in this report sees the relevant Zone Committee having a central role in all aspects of the process7. This includes the setting of community‐agreed outcomes, making freshwater objectives recommendations, and an implementation oversight role. The involvement of the Zone Committees in this way is critical to ensure integrated water management in the region. Communities of interest and key stakeholders also have an important role to play by participating in the process and ensuring their views are included in discussions.

The Zone Committee may make recommendations to the Canterbury Regional Council on the catchment nutrient load limits to be included in the regional plan and/or changes that ought to be made to the water quality objectives as a result of the work undertaken at the catchment level. However, the council is ultimately responsible for the final setting of limits to meet the requirements of the NPS and other statutory planning constraints. In this regard there will need to be consistency for similar bodies in different zones8 to ensure a regional‐wide approach.

7 Ongoing refinement of the approach In undertaking the Hurunui case study and in developing this Preferred Approach, the need for further work in a number of policy and research areas has become apparent. It is quite likely, indeed it is recommended, that the Preferred Approach be subject to ongoing scrutiny and enhancement on the basis of improved knowledge and experience.

7 Note that the Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee was a participant in the Hurunui process. However, in future processes, Zone Committees should have a more significant oversight role.

8 Zones. There are ten CWMS zones covering different geographic locations across Canterbury


8

The intention of the Hurunui case study was to develop a framework for working across the Canterbury region. It is important to recognise that there are a number of scenarios that present themselves within the region, for example

• Some regions are either over allocated, under allocated or at a maximum in terms of water use and/or nutrients

• There are varying degrees of opportunity for further development

• There are varying degrees of environmental sensitivity and resilience

• The relationships between surface and groundwater are variable across the region.

While the overall principles for developing and implementing solutions (e.g. consultation process, adaptive management principles, mitigation and policy options) will be common across the region, the overall framework must also be able to accommodate the different planning characteristics of each zone.

The approach set out in this report is flexible enough to address the number of different issues related to water and land management that will be catchment‐specific. In many instances a full process may not be required and components related to issue identification and building up a common understanding of the catchment may be all that is required. In other catchments a very detailed and deliberate process will be required.


9

Part 2: Establishing catchment limits

1 Introduction Setting catchment limits involves a two‐phase process, a non‐statutory community‐led phase, followed by the statutory RMA phase. The Preferred Approach for the setting of the limits, as set out in this report concentrates almost entirely on the first phase (i.e. establishing the limits). The point of this phase is to better enable community discussion in the exploration of community issues and opportunities. The statutory RMA phase (i.e. setting the limits or giving effect to the limits established through the non‐statutory phase), is not described in this report but it is a critical component of the effective implementation of the Preferred Approach. The two phases are illustrated in Figure 3.

An integrated approach to the establishment of catchment limits, (involving water quality and water quantity), is proposed as part of the Preferred Approach for managing the cumulative effects of land use on water quality. This is consistent with the approach as recommended under the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and the task which the Zone Committees have been charged with achieving.

The process for establishing the catchment limits, as set out within this section and illustrated in Figure 3 provides for an integrated approach as suggested above.

Figure 3 – Overview of setting the limits process


10

While the diagram suggests a logical step‐by‐step process, it is in fact an iterative process where there is expected to be some interchange and revisiting of steps as discussions progress. For example, the stakeholder discussion and decision‐making process in step 7 may raise questions that require further analysis and a revisiting of steps 4 or 5. The output from the community process is a set of agreed freshwater objectives which can be converted to catchment nutrient load limits. The expectation is that these objectives and limits will feed into a statutory RMA process as suggested above.

2 Priority outcomes – establishing limits step 1 The first step in establishing catchment nutrient load limits is to establish the priority outcomes for the catchment and associated sub‐catchments. This step is included as part of the process that Zone Committees work through in developing their Zone Implementation Programmes (ZIPs). If information on priority outcomes is not available from the ZIP process then a separate process of establishing values and priority outcomes is required.

These priority outcomes will be based upon the values that people and the community hold for the Zone across the 10 target areas in the CWMS. The values people hold in fresh water are inextricably linked to the potential for economic use and the degree of conflict between environmental and cultural values and economic and social priorities. For that reason, the identification of values should include intrinsic values (including amenity, conservation, and social and cultural values) as well as use values (including supporting land use and economic well‐being, recreational and drinking water uses). Values should be described following community consultation and distinctions should be made between historic, current and aspirational values. There is also a need to determine the extent to which these values are achieved currently or need to be achieved in the future (this in turn requires an assessment of the environmental, social, cultural and economic costs and benefits).

The scale at which the values are described is important. For example, most people will agree that they want healthy waterways. This in itself, though, is not enough. It is important that as far as is practicable, the components of a healthy waterway which are valued are described (i.e.: valued for contact recreation, fishing, mahinga kai etc). These values may vary from waterway to waterway and will impact the management response required.

3 Selection of nodes – establishing limits step 2 Once priority outcomes have been identified, the actual process of establishing catchment nutrient load limits through the Preferred Approach should begin by identifying locations that are suitable for establishing limits in each catchment, sub‐catchment and aquifer zone. These are referred to in this report as “nodes”.

In a review of the process for selecting nodes, Robson M. (2011) proposed five node types.

• A master node is used where there is a clear downstream monitoring point.

• A master plus principal node is used where there is a clear downstream monitoring point but there are important tributaries that are in a poorer condition or are more sensitive than the master node and would therefore not be protected by the status at the master node or have development potential.


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


12

5 Environmental, social, economic, and cultural analysis – establishing limits step 4

This section describes the technical work carried out to support and inform the Zone Committee and wider stakeholder discussions around consequences of various future options on environmental, social, economic and cultural values. Included in the technical work is on‐farm analysis. On‐farm analysis is addressed in the following section.

The purpose of the technical analysis is to identify options for limits and to describe the environmental, cultural, economic and social consequences of each option. This assumes that outcomes can be met at a range of levels and with different levels of certainty. Information gained through this analysis is used to inform the Zone Committee and other stakeholders in their decision making and deliberation processes. (See Part 2 Section 7)

Initially, appropriate biophysical, economic, social and cultural modelling or research to be carried out should be identified and input requirements, dependencies, assumptions, uncertainties and timelines detailed. Appropriate models may vary from one part of the region to another.

The biophysical models should encompass water quality and water quantity for the principal receiving environments identified in the area. They should be capable of delivering the necessary spatial and temporal information required by dependent models. It is likely that in complex catchments several models will be required.

In general there is a paucity of local and relevant social and cultural and economic information in the public domain, and therefore these workstreams are important, both in providing a baseline and also generating information for the Zone Committee and wider stakeholder discussions. The social workstream may include social research techniques such as local surveys, semi‐structured interviews or social impact assessments. The cultural workstream may include cultural research techniques such as the COMAR framework, based on flow preference studies and development of associated quality preference studies. The economic workstream should use local or regional scale economic models that provide information on metrics such as revenue, regional GDP and employment.

The suite of models will be used to understand the implications of different future scenarios, identifying the direction and likely scale of change and their impacts. The outputs of some models can be compared to regulatory and community identified indicators for water quality, quantity and other key areas of interest. There is likely to be significant uncertainty associated with such predictions but enough information is likely to be available to allow classification into “almost certainly”, “probably”, “possibly” or “unlikely” categories. The outputs from across the technical workstreams are presented to the stakeholder groups and to the Zone Committee.

6 On‐farm analysis – establishing limits step 5

6.1 The need for on‐farm analysis

On‐farm analysis is a crucial step in the process of understanding the implications of different scenarios which helps inform discussions on the economic and social consequences of catchment nutrient load limits on existing and future farming activities.


13

On‐farm analysis should be undertaken on a representative sample of farms within the catchment. It should include an initial analysis using Farmax (or another appropriate financial analysis model)9 and Overseer10 to establish the current baseline of nutrient losses and nutrient use efficiency, and provide information on N loss and risk, N conversion efficiency, P loss and risk, and farm productivity and financials. This analysis should be used to evaluate the likely on‐farm costs of achieving various nutrient limit options, and the cost‐effectiveness of the various mitigation options, and their impact on‐farm viability. The information collected will help inform the discussion and decision making process (Step 6).

6.2 Mitigation options

Although there is no set formula for selecting mitigation measures, there is a general process to be followed. The selection of mitigation responses should begin by collecting base information. This will allow rational, informed choices to be made by those promoting the uptake of practices and by individual landowners.

In farming‐dominated catchments, the key strategic questions will include the following:

• What is the existing level of uptake of mitigation measures on‐farm? How effective have these measures been?

• What is an appropriate benchmark of performance at different levels of intensification? What’s the spread/distribution of performance (i.e. what does the bell curve of nutrient loss performance look like)?

• How much load reduction can be achieved by full or enhanced uptake of Tier 111 mitigations based on benchmarked performance?

• What is good practice in mitigation at different levels of production intensity (i.e. at what level of intensity are Tier 212 measures reasonable/necessary/affordable)?

• What is the “headroom”/deficit after full uptake of Tier 1 measures and Tier 2 measures and what are their costs (where these are appropriate and taking account of uncertainty)?

• What catchment scale (Tier 313) mitigation measures might be possible and who benefits and pays?

9 Farm production and financial information can be obtained using a case study approach where a financial analysis model is not available.

10 Overseer may be informed by other models such as LUCI, SPASMO and APSIM.

11 Tier 1 mitigations are those practices that have been well proven and are relatively cost‐effective.

12 Tier 2 practices can be considered as ones where some uncertainty remains as to their effectiveness or where their cost‐effectiveness is relatively low, or the capital investment required is very high.

13 Tier 3 mitigations would include collective (rather than individual farm scale) catchment or sub catchment scale projects.


14

• If there was further intensification, would the benefits derived be sufficient to warrant the costs of mitigation?

As noted earlier, the scenarios developed for evaluation would ideally include development options with varying degrees of mitigation (i.e. Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 – see Box B below). At the very least some of the catchment scale and/or more obvious mitigation options should be including in the scenario evaluation mix (in the Hurunui, for example, a shift from border dyke to spray irrigation was modelled).

However, it is also important to note that what is a feasible, effective mitigation response will vary greatly across a catchment according to farm system type, physical characteristics and other variables.

In short, the key to a successful integrated management solution is to ensure that the catchment nutrient load limits can be achieved while maintaining viable farming businesses that contribute to achieving economic and social outcomes. Notwithstanding this, cost considerations alone don’t negate land owners responsibilities to utilise resources efficiently. To determine how that can be achieved requires working with landowners and others at both the catchment and individual farm/property scale.

There is no specific formula for determining what mitigation options will be appropriate (and which should, therefore, be promoted). Rather, there is a toolbox of possible measures (see Box B for some dairy sector examples. Examples of mitigation options are also available for sheep and beef and arable enterprises.). The most suitable mitigation measures – at both a catchment and individual property scale – will depend on the individual circumstances and the opportunities that exist in that catchment or on that particular property.


15

Box B – Mitigation Options: Dairying

• For convenience, mitigations available to reduce the transfers of pollutants from farms to water can be categorised into Tier 1, Tier 2 and (potentially) Tier 3 practices.

• Tier 1 mitigations are those practices that have been well proven and are relatively cost‐effective – these can generally be described as the “low‐hanging fruit”. Examples from a dairy sector perspective include stream fencing to prevent stock access, protecting existing wetlands, nutrient management planning and the implementation of the suite of improved effluent management practices that are now available. The appropriateness of mitigation practices depends on the land use (i.e. practices relevant to dairy farms may not be relevant to arable land use).

• Tier 2 practices can be considered as ones where some uncertainty remains as to their effectiveness (e.g. the use of nitrification inhibitors) or where their cost‐effectiveness is relatively low (e.g. constructed wetlands, etc).

• Tier 3 mitigations would include collective (rather than individual farm scale) catchment or sub catchment scale projects. These might include dams or weirs to trap sediment or large scale strategically located constructed wetlands providing nutrient mitigation benefit to an entire sub catchment (or at least multiple properties). Although these are described as tier 3 mitigations, in any given situation it may be that such measures are some of the most sensible (and cost effective) options available and should be introduced before other on‐farm practices.

• A range of possible mitigation measures and their potential effectiveness for reducing N and P loads were identified for the Hurunui case study and are set and referenced in the Hurunui Report.

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).

17

study it was agreed that the desired freshwater objective should be to retain the river at SH1 at or about its current condition at the same time as allowing for an increase in irrigated area.

The process of establishing limits is predicated on the assumption that the decision making body, in this case the relevant Zone Committee, reaches a consensus view on the limits and is able to make recommendations to Environment Canterbury. The default position in the case where the Zone Committee has not been able to come to a consensus view, is that Environment Canterbury will assume responsibility for making the decisions, taking into account the discussions that have gone before through the Zone Committee and stakeholder discussion and deliberation processes.

An example of how a deliberation process can work is discussed in detail in the companion report Nutrient Management in Hurunui: A Case Study in Identifying Options and Opportunities.

Box C below illustrates what the value judgement meant for nutrient loads in the Hurunui.

Box C ‐ Case study: Value judgements made for the Hurunui Catchment

Feedback from technical workshops, community deliberation workshops and the Governance Group (29 November 2010) varied across the different stakeholder groups.

There was a general acceptance that the option that would ‘probably’ achieve all environmental outcomes was the appropriate risk management approach. This value judgement reflects an acceptance of only modest risk of breaching environmental outcomes ‐ i.e. outcomes are likely to be achieved most, but not all, of the time and occasional breaches were, upon weighing all values, tolerable for the Group.

Importantly, this position was reached only after there had been a failure of the process to agree on a development scenario given very different perceptions of risk of achieving environmental objectives amongst stakeholders. That disagreement led to the development of a new scenario (that would “probably” achieve the objective) that was based on a staging of development that would provide for monitoring and adaptive management in future.

The scenario that would “probably” achieve NRRP objectives in the Hurunui main stem is a “current use”/maintain water quality at 2005/2009 levels. For the tributaries it meant a land use scenario that would lead to improvement on current state (i.e. Scenario B returning to 1990‐1995 water quality). All parties agreed with that although it was also recognised that further analysis, with the inclusion of river flow regime information, and deliberations, were needed to confirm or otherwise the acceptance of the limits.

Implications of those nutrient load limits for economic and related social values were broadly articulated as set out in the Hurunui Report. Further work to assess the implications of the limits on cultural values is in progress.

What those load limits would mean for future land uses is that, unless mitigation measures are employed to reduce current catchment nutrient loads, there would be currently no available capacity for conversion to more intensive land uses that generate greater nutrient losses per hectare than the uses they replaced.

For the Hurunui main stem (SH1), a reduction in current load somewhere in the catchment would be required to provide an opportunity to intensify and increase load in proportion somewhere else. For some of the tributary sub‐catchments, it would be necessary to reduce existing loads in the order of 20% before any subsequent additional load reductions would create capacity for further intensive land uses in other areas of the catchment.

Lessons from this case study suggest that a robust evaluation and deliberation process is needed to ensure that findings can be fed back into the objective setting process. This allows for iteration and adjustment on the basis of improved information.

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.

19

Box D ‐ Case study: Setting a load limit in the Hurunui catchment

For the Hurunui case study, the first part of the technical analysis was to identify freshwater environmental values, describe a range of options for outcomes (e.g. periphyton cover) that would support environmental values at a range of levels, and then determine related nutrient concentrations and load limits that would achieve each of the identified options. This task was carried out and reported in detail by Norton and Kelly (2010).

A second part of the technical analysis was to identify social, cultural and economic values, define a series of alternative future scenarios for land use in the Hurunui catchment and then assess the social, cultural and economic consequences of each scenario. This task was carried out and reported in detail by Wedderburn et al (April 2011) A modelling approach was used to predict the catchment nutrient loads that would result under each future scenario (Lilburne et al 2011). The assessment method of Norton and Kelly (2010) was then generally applied to assess the environmental consequences of the same five scenarios.

Development scenarios 2 and 3 assumed current land use practice with no additional mitigation measures that might reduce nutrient losses and associated impacts on water quality. Mitigation options and their potential effectiveness in the Hurunui catchment are discussed further in the Hurunui Report.

The five alternative future scenarios were then presented at catchment community workshops, together with a description of consequences for environmental, social, cultural and economic values, to inform a community deliberation process. The material was subsequently presented to a Governance Group workshop and feedback sought from the Group on the need to make value judgements, manage uncertainty and risk, and select a preferred option for determining nutrient load limits. An overview of the options and their consequences is provided in the Hurunui report.

On the basis of this experience, it is clear that the scenario development process adds value particularly where there have already been some strategies, policy options, and some future development options identified. In this way the deliberations are around real life, plausible options which include flow regimes and mitigations, and the focus is clear.

Key messages

The process of setting the catchment nutrient load should include consideration of both environmental limits and community aspirations for further land use development. This should be done by the evaluation of different (credible) land development and nutrient loss mitigation scenarios. These should take account of the associated environmental, economic, social and cultural costs and benefits. There also needs to be integration with water allocation and flow management.

Selection of the nutrient load will need to comply with any statutory plans. It will however involve value judgements and judgements about appropriate levels of risk, and needs to occur through a community discussion and decision making process.

The Zone Committees should have a central role in overseeing the process of setting of the catchment nutrient load limits.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

25

Potentially there will also be costs associated with catchment scale mitigations such as constructed wetlands or the enhancement of existing wetlands. In the situation where nutrient mitigation measures are required to free up nutrient space for new water users, it is unreasonable to impose these costs on existing land users alone. The same argument may not apply in an already severely over allocated catchment without the development pressure. One option put forward during discussions on the Hurunui case study was the cost of providing for catchment scale mitigations should be a cost associated with the provision of new water. This option requires further investigation.

There is no firm answer on the question of how best to motivate existing land users to apply mitigations. These land users may be motivated by the prospects of more water and any improvements to reliability of supply that this brings. This is not going to apply in all situations though. There are moral persuasion reasons for farmers to improve performance but again these reasons will not apply in all instances. There may be good financial reasons for making changes. There are many examples of highly profitable farming operations in Canterbury that are recording relatively low nutrient losses. This ultimately may be the most significant motivating factor.

Further work is required to investigate other incentive mechanisms such as nutrient trading.

Mitigation principles and key messages

In addition to the principles set out earlier, selecting and promoting mitigation measures needs to occur consistent with the following mitigation principles.

1. Mitigation measures almost always come at a cost. The lowest cost/easiest (i.e. “low hanging”) mitigation options should be used first.

2. Mitigation responses should increase as land use intensification increases (e.g. more stock per hectare more mitigation measures required).

3. Mitigation measures should be capable of securing whole farm commitment. This means obligations fall across farming operations that may span multiple properties, either continuously or seasonally (such as the winter grazing of dairy cows off the milking platform).

4. Obligations on landowners should be imposed/linked to benchmarked performance of farmers facing similar physical operating environments. Notwithstanding this it is recognised that in some cases the catchment may require more concessions than the benchmarks provide.

5. Farm‐specific assessments of opportunities are critical as no two farms/production systems are exactly alike. Some mitigation measures will “fit” some farms better that others because:

‐ of the farming system/lifestyle options employed by the individual farmer.

‐ of differing physical characteristics/locations/topographies/soil types of farms.

‐ some farms are better placed to take on the business risk associated with large capital items such as herd shelters.

6. Obligations need to be phased in allowing reasonable time to make required on‐farm changes and integrate new practices and/or investments into farming systems and budgeting.

7. Uncertainty around the efficacy and potential unintended consequences of some Tier 2 measures exists. This uncertainty needs to be factored into the mitigation selection and promotion process.

One specific and potentially critical mitigation approach to managing nutrient loss associated with development within a catchment is to control the rate of land use intensification and development

26

through requiring the staging of development. Staging is used to reduce the risk of an irreversible economic, environmental, social, or cultural situation occurring.

A staged approach is a precautionary approach to development and is a form of an adaptive management where any development and the consequent impacts are monitored and subsequently managed. The approach allows the impacts of each stage to be assessed before the next stage is allowed to occur. This is particularly important when there is significant development potential in a catchment and uncertainty over effect. As noted earlier, based on the Hurunui experience, management objectives that include development staging can be critical in securing broad based agreement on nutrient load limits.

A staging example from the Hurunui case study is provided in Box D. Further work is required to assess the feasibility of this option and the alternatives. This may include allowing full development but placing restrictions on the type of land use that may be undertaken. Further work is also required to assess how significant the risk of allowing full development in one ‘hit’ is. For example if the nutrient load were to exceed the target by 5%, is this significant in terms of the environmental outcomes that are to be achieved?

Box D – Staging of development in the Hurunui Catchment

Data from the Hurunui study suggested that, while development of the full potentially irrigable area was possible while maintaining the state of the Hurunui at State Highway 1 at or about where it is now, there was a significant risk associated with this. To minimise this risk, the Hurunui case study considered a scenario (not a firm proposal) where the full irrigation development in the catchment was divided into 3 stages.

• The first stage would utilise efficiency gains in existing water, and potentially one of the smaller storage sites or Waiau water, to irrigate areas within the Pahau and St Leonards sub‐catchments, some conversion of Balmoral forest, and some riparian areas on the south side of the Hurunui river mainstem.

• The second stage would utilise a smaller storage site, transfer of water from the Waiau River, and likely a transfer of water with riparian areas lower in the Hurunui catchment enabling irrigation higher in the catchment. This would irrigate all areas on the north of the Hurunui River, and all accessible areas on the south of the Hurunui River (referred to as Peaks in the CWMS Stage II report). There may also need to be some limited infrastructure development to provide water into the Hawarden area south of the Waitohi River.

• The final stage would see full development of all irrigable areas in the catchment, as well as areas outside the catchment in the proposed Hurunui Water Project (HWP) schedule.

In order for such a scenario to work out, there would need to be a high level of control by the irrigation company over the ability to rearrange water supply at different stages of development. For example, initially the irrigation consents lower in the Hurunui River could be supplied with Waiau river water passed through the existing Amuri Irrigation Company infrastructure, freeing this water for use higher up in the case study area. There would also be a need to require mitigation from both existing and new users to a high level.

Modelling of these stages was undertaken to determine how much nutrient losses from the land may be affected. It showed how mitigation requirements increased significantly at each stage. More detail on this modelling is provided in the Hurunui Case Study Report.

27

While staging in the way modelled has clear benefits, it would have direct costs in terms of infrastructure development and also in terms of reduced irrigation benefits. These costs were modelled and reported in Butcher (2011). This sort of analysis would be required before any actual staging could be required.

Furthermore, staging may not be feasible in every situation. Infrastructure development is not always able to be divided into projects in a way that matches the desired staging of intensification in a catchment. Irrigation infrastructure for major developments tends to be “chunky” – requiring, for example, dams that cannot be easily matched to a desire for smaller stages of development. The feasibility of staging therefore needs careful consideration.

Notwithstanding these concerns and limitations, the Hurunui case study experience suggests that staging may have a role where there is doubt that a catchment or sub catchment could be fully developed without irreversible environmental effects.

5 Monitoring and review – managing to limits step 4 As noted earlier, one of the core principles underpinning the development of a preferred approach is that of adaptive management. Adaptive management requires a commitment to monitoring (at a range of levels and across all four well‐beings), and to learning from monitoring results.

In some respects the process associated with monitoring is as important as monitoring itself. It is important that the process of monitoring is carried out transparently and openly. The results need to be communicated accurately and fairly to stakeholders on a timely basis. Key messages about what the monitoring data does and does not say should be made clear by technical experts.

When monitoring shows that changes in direction are required, there need to be clear processes, in place to ensure that these changes happen. These should be based on the identification of trigger levels with appropriate responses.

Further, there needs to be some mechanism where the results of monitoring are discussed and fed back into the planning and implementation process.

Robust monitoring information will move the discussion about the state of the catchment beyond anecdotal and individual experience, which is important if different stakeholders groups are to communicate effectively in the catchment management process. It is therefore critical that monitoring is properly designed and funded.

The detail of the monitoring programme will be developed within the Local Partnership Agreements process. However, it is clear that monitoring will need to go beyond (in both frequency and spatial extent) what is currently undertaken by Environment Canterbury and will need to cover (at both catchment and sub‐catchment/tributary levels):

• Environmental outcomes (including groundwater monitoring as a potential early warning signal).

• The type and rate of land use change and intensification.

• Uptake of good management practices on‐farm (including compliance with and actions taken with regard to audited self management)

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.

29

Part 4: Underpinning processes

1 Role of rules and the regional plan One of the more challenging issues in nutrient management relates to the role of statutory instruments and regulation.

Environment Canterbury has a legal obligation under the Resource Management Act to manage the adverse effects of land use on water quality.

The Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) already controls land use activities that pose a high‐risk to water quality. This control includes rules that:

• set conditions to minimise runoff of fertiliser into surface water bodies.

• set conditions that govern stock access to water bodies.

• control contaminants discharged from stockholding areas.

• control vegetation clearance, earthworks and cultivation in riparian zones or adjacent to wetlands.

• Require annual cropping involving cultivation and very high stocking situations to meet a property nitrate‐nitrogen leaching rate threshold of 16 g/m3 in soil drainage water17.

It is proposed that these rules continue (although these may be rationalised in any review of the regional plan).

In addition, the NRRP also controls takes for irrigation. A recent trend in irrigation scheme consents has been a requirement for farm plans as a condition of consent. Again, the Preferred Approach would see this requirement retained.

Considerable work has been done on designing appropriate draft provisions for the new Land and Water Regional Plan for the Canterbury region. These include:

• rules requiring consent for existing rural land uses that do not comply with listed industry certification systems or relevant management plans or catchment agreement

• consents for any new rural land use.

In addition, there are likely to be other options that will be worthy of consideration.

The implementation of audited self management is a key component of the managing to limits phase of the Preferred Approach. In adopting ASM it is important to recognise that it does have its limitations and should not be used as a means of prevention of clearly unacceptable risk. This limitation will need to be considered in the development of the regulatory framework which underpins the Preferred Approach.

17 The application of this rule is currently untested.

30

Any new provisions introduced to the regional plan will need to be subject to a formal process of consultation and submissions under the RMA. This will provide an opportunity for refinement of the Preferred Approach in light of the issues raised. However, collaboration should see these issues discussed and agreed on with key stakeholders, in advance of any statutory process. Further discussion is required on the appropriate regulatory framework that encompasses the principles outlined earlier. This recognises the uncertainty in data and the complexity of the issues and options that exist. The regulation principles as outlined below provide guidance for these discussions.

Regulation Principles

The following principles will be used to guide the development of regional rules. It is envisaged that these rules will support and facilitate industry and community initiatives and provide a regulatory backstop to underpin the policy framework for managing all activities that affect the achievement of catchment objectives

1 Rules must comply with the Resource Management Act and accepted legal principles.

Explanation: The rules must comply with the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act and relate to the primary functions of a regional council. A general set of legal principles has evolved through case law that rule drafting must comply with.

2 Rules must act as the last line of defence in achieving the objectives and policies of the plan.

Explanation: The purpose of rules is to act as the regulatory backstop and to operate in harmony with other methods to achieve the objectives and policies of the plan. There must be a clear line of logic linking the methods and these three elements.

3 Restrictions on land use activities are appropriate where other policy approaches will not or are not managing the cumulative effects of that land use on water quality.

Explanation: Land use activities that affect water quality can be restricted under the Resource Management Act. Until recently, land owners have not been required to manage non‐point source discharges, consequently a set of complementary methods and a transitional period will be required to allow existing land users adjust and make the necessary changes to their activities.

4 The level of regulatory control for an activity should acknowledge the legitimate expectations of existing landowners while also reflecting the scale, irreversibility and extent of potential effects on the environment. It should also acknowledge the degree to which other policy levers have been used, and the level of council oversight that is required to manage those effects.

Explanation: The Resource Management Act provides for activities to be managed with varying levels of control. The degree to which an activity is controlled should reflect the risk of adverse effects on water bodies and their associated values and uses.

5 Rules should provide a more permissive regulatory framework for those landholders who participate in industry and catchment self‐management approaches, such as environmental agreements, audited self management, and/or industry certification systems.

Explanation: As far as practicable, the regulatory framework should not duplicate, but rather support and encourage participation in appropriate self‐management regimes, such as

31

industry certification systems and audited self management schemes. It should also set out clear standards and/or criteria that these schemes must meet.

6 The rules should clearly define the catchment and sub‐catchment nutrient load limits, with strong policies to give regulatory certainty that these limits (or nutrient caps) are not exceeded.

Explanation: The rules should clearly define the limits to the assimilative capacity of the receiving water body, to avoid ambiguity and continuing debate. Activities must be managed to ensure that the assimilative capacity is not exceeded or incrementally eroded by the granting of consents on a case by case basis.

7 Catchment nutrient load limits will be set through a community process to ensure that they represent the desired outcomes of, and are supported by, the broader community.

Explanation: It is important that the process used to define catchment nutrient load limits takes into account the environmental, social, cultural and economic values of the wider community. This helps define the level of risk the community is willing to accept in terms of achieving the NRRP objectives.

8 Rules should be written clearly enough to enable plan users to judge the meaning and effect of a rule without having to seek explanation from those who wrote it.

Explanation: There should be certainty about the requirements, conditions and permissions needed, for the sake of both the resource user and for compliance monitoring.

9 The administration and transaction costs associated with the implementation of a rule should be assessed relative to the benefits, and compared to alternative approaches including doing nothing.

Explanation: The regulatory framework should minimise costs associated with administration, collection of information, and costs to the applicant, the consent authority, and the community.

The key issue that remains though is what action should be taken in the event that the Preferred Approach proves ineffective. The Preferred Approach as outlined has a place for rules that regulate land use for the purpose of managing non point source discharges as a “back stop.” This raises a number of issues:

• How “effectiveness” should be judged and, in particular, how long should landowners be given to deliver against the objectives set?18

• At what level should effectiveness be judged (and therefore what would be the geographic scope of any rules that are triggered) ‐ farm, sub catchment, catchment or region?

18 The Hurunui process anticipated a timeframe of 5‐7 years.

32

• How can any backstop regulatory regime provide appropriate incentives so that landowners groups emerge at the catchment scale that are motivated to assume the roles needed to make the Preferred Approach work?

• What is the nature of any rules that should kick in? (Should they require farms to meet specific nutrient loss limits, adopt certain practices, develop farm specific nutrient management plans etc)?

• What is the best legal formula for any rule?

2 Partnership Agreements It is proposed that Partnership Agreements be developed between Environment Canterbury, Ngai Tahu, primary sector partners and other key stakeholders. The Partnership Agreements provide a basis for cross‐sector management, and will operate on two tiers – regional and local.

Regional Partnership Agreement

The intention is that the Regional Partnership Agreement (RPA) will involve the regional council, Ngai Tahu, industry bodies, and key community stakeholders. This Partnership Agreement will set out agreement to the general approach to management of nutrients in the region, and outline the major responsibilities and commitments of the stakeholders. The high level Partnership Agreement is intended to prevent the renegotiation of each of these items at the local level.

Local Partnership Agreements

The Local Partnership Agreement (LPA) will commit all parties to achievement of the management objectives for the catchment, with a particular emphasis on the environmental outcomes. The emphasis on environmental outcomes is important because it allows for review of nutrient loads and catchment plans over the course of the adaptive management cycle. This LPA should include specific local stakeholders of importance, particularly irrigation companies, major industrial stakeholders, local iwi and other potential stakeholders such as hydro companies. The LPA will be more specific about the particular areas of responsibility in the implementation plan that different stakeholders will be accountable for.

In developing the partnership agreements, consideration will need to be given to how these agreements connect to the legal and planning framework of the RMA.

3 Further work It is important to recognise that this report is a ‘living’ document. It is expected that some aspects of the Preferred Approach, as described within the report will be refined, developed and changed as new work is completed and as new learnings and experience are gained through implementation of the Preferred Approach. It is expected that any changes to the Preferred Approach will be reflected in updates to this report.

33

Specific areas of further work that are required, some of which have already been noted within this report, include: nutrient allocation and nutrient trading mechanisms; developing more details around adaptive management and catchment plan development; development of the Regional Partnership Agreement and an evaluation of possible incentive mechanisms. It is anticipated that other needs and areas of further work will arise as experience is gained in implementing the Preferred Approach.

34

Glossary of Terms

Adaptive management is a structured, iterative process of decision making in the face of uncertainty, with aims of reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring and the taking of corrective management responses (if necessary) in the face of improved information as it becomes available.

Audited self management is an approach to securing desired outcomes dependent on actions of multiple parties. It relies on participants self managing towards the outcome by taking agreed actions but includes regular compliance auditing of actions taken. Audit information is typically made available publically. Audit is typically undertaken by an independent third party or regulator‐approved party.

Catchment nutrient load limit (sometimes called a “nutrient cap”) is a limit set for management purposes. It represents the maximum nutrient load that can be carried by a river while maintaining a specified value (or set of values) e.g., salmonid spawning habitat. It is usually expressed as kilograms or tonnes per year at a defined point in the catchment.

Collaboration is the process of working with a wide range of interested parties in each aspect of a decision‐making process, including the development of alternatives and the preferred solution(s)

Community deliberation process is a dedicated process of engaging communities in decision‐making in which participants consider relevant facts from multiple points of view, converse with one another to think critically about options before them and enlarge their perspectives, opinions, and understanding.

CWMS Zones are water management zones established in accordance with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

Nutrient concentration is the amount of nitrogen or phosphorus per unit volume of water. It is usually expressed in mg/L.

Nutrient load is the total amount of nitrogen or phosphorus leaving a catchment during a period of time. It is usually expressed as either kg/year or tonnes/year at a defined point in the catchment.

Property nutrient leaching loss is the total mass of nutrients lost or discharged from a property over a specified area and time period. This includes nutrients discharged from both point and non‐point sources. It may be expressed in kg/ha/year or as the total load (kg/year) for the whole property. Property leaching losses can be estimated by farm‐scale nutrient loss models.

Property nutrient load limit is the maximum nutrient load that may be discharged from a property. The limit may be a nominal or informal target to guide land owners or a regulatory requirement. It may be expressed as either a load limit for the whole property (kg or tonnes per year) or as an average discharge in kg/ha/year.

Zone committees are committees established for a particular zone in accordance with the CWMS and which comprise representatives of Environment Canterbury, the relevant territory authority, Ngai Tahu/runanga and appointed community representatives.

35

References Butcher, G. (March 2011). Effects on Irrigation Benefits of Staging Development Hurunui Case Study –Unpublished Report. Butcher Partners Limited.

Lilburne, L.; Elliot, S.; Bidwell, V.; Shankar, U.; Kelly, D.; Hanson, C. (April 2011). Hurunui catchment‐scale land use and water quality modelling report. Report prepared for Environment Canterbury.

Norton, N.; Kelly, D. (2010). Current nutrient loads and options for nutrient load limits for a case study catchment: Hurunui catchment. Environment Canterbury Report No. R10/66; ISBN 978‐1‐877574‐58‐0. NIWA Client Report No. CHC2010‐088.

Norton, N.; Snelder, T.; Rouse, H. (2010). Technical and scientific considerations when setting measurable objectives and limits for water management. NIWA Client Report CHC2010‐060 to the Ministry for the Environment.

Robson, M (September 2011), Regional node memo, Environment Canterbury, Internal working paper report

Wedderburn, L.; Bewsell, D.; Blackett, P.; Brown, M.; Kelly, S.; Mackay, M.; Maani, K.; Montes, O.; Payne, T. (April 2011). Developing a Preferred Approach for Managing Cumulative Effects of Land Uses on Freshwater Quality. Report Prepared for P21 Environment Programme and Environment Canterbury.

36

Appendix 1 – Groups and organisations involved in the development of Preferred Approach.

Environment Canterbury acknowledges the input from a wide range of groups and organisations who have contributed to the development of the Preferred Approach. These include:

Te Runanga O NgaiTahu

Federated Farmers of NZ

Irrigation NZ

Horticulture NZ

Dairy NZ

Fonterra

Foundation for Arable Research

Fertiliser Research Association

Beef and Lamb NZ

Forest and Bird

Fish and Game NZ

Harris Consulting

AgResearch

Landcare Research

Plant and Food Research

ESR

NIWA

Lincoln Ventures

Lincoln University

Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee

2

Report Number: R12/23ISBN: 978-1-927210-03-1 978-1-927210-04-8 (electronic)

© Environment Canterbury 2012

Everything is connectedFacilitating sustainable development in the Canterbury region

www.ecan.govt.nz

Environment Canterbury offices

Christchurch PO Box 345Christchurch 8140

P: 03 365 3828F: 03 365 3194

Timaru75 Church StreetPO Box 550Timaru 7940

P: 03 687 7800F: 03 687 7808

Luwq preferred-approach-report-jan2012 (1)

Environment

Transcript of Luwq preferred-approach-report-jan2012 (1)