• Rural NZ
• Adverse Events
• People issues
• Profitability
• Research
• Rural Proofing
• SLM Hill Country Erosion Programme
• Community Irrigation Fund
• Stats & forecasts
• Sustainability
  • Best practices
  • Biodiversity
  • Climate
  • Irrigation
  • Land
  • Native forests
  • Organics
  • Resources
  • Water
• Legislation
• Media Centre
• Publications
• What's New

Qualitative Assessment of the impacts of the NPS on the primary sectors

Unpublished report prepared for MAF Policy by Harris Consulting, June 2008

Executive summary

Context

The Government proposed a National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS FWM) in July 2008 (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nps-freshwater-management/nps-freshwater-management.html). A Board of Inquiry has been appointed to publicly notify and undertake a formal consultation process on the proposal.

In proposing a national policy statement, the Minister for the Environment is required by section 32 of the Resource Management Act to consider the benefits and costs of the policies. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) commissioned such an analysis (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nps-freshwater-management-section32-evaluation/html/index.html). However, given the broad scope of the NPS and of the required analysis, the report does not cover the primary sectors in any detail.

Agriculture, horticulture and to a lesser extent forestry are the major water users, in terms of consumptive use (for irrigation) and discharges of contaminants (mainly from diffuse leaching and run off). Hence, the NPS FWM could be expected to have greatest impacts on these sectors. The MAF in consultation with MfE commissioned Harris Consulting to prepare a qualitative assessment of the impacts of an earlier draft of the proposed NPS on the primary sectors.

Key findings of the report

The key findings in the report are:

1. Actions by local government and the sectors in the absence of the NPS are likely to improve water use performance by the sectors.
2. The NPS is likely to bring forward the development of new standards and rules, on average, by about five years.
3. Earlier environmental flows and requirements for good practice specified in the NPS, and beyond what is required in the proposed NES on Ecological Flows and Water Levels, are likely to impose only limited additional costs on most users and may have some benefits through improved efficiency.  Impacts in specific catchments may be significant.
4. Most sectors should be able to reduce discharges in the order of 10 percent and this may be enough to meet generalised water quality standards.
5. The 30–40 percent discharge reductions required to protect many outstanding or sensitive waterbodies may have very significant economic impacts on all sectors and may be unachievable by some (for example, hill country farms). 
6. The approximately 80 percent reduction in microbial discharges which may be required to meet contact recreation standards in particular waterbodies may not be able to be achieved without significant land use practice change from current intensive pastoral livestock farming practices.
7. Improved water management may have benefits including:
   • increased certainty of supply;
   • reduced water supply costs;
   • improved allocation of a scarce and valuable resource.

Limitations of the report

Limitations in the time available, the process followed and available data meant that the report contains several caveats (see section 3):

• Because the NPS was in the process of being submitted to Cabinet, access to external parties (especially regional council staff) was limited. 
• The draft NPS has subsequently changed and may receive further change following consideration by the Board of Inquiry.
• The scenarios presented in this report were based on a practical assessment of how the NPS may be acted upon by regulators and landholders. The nature of the actions, the time frames and other developments during that time are impossible to know. 
• Impacts of the NPS on individual farms will depend on particular circumstances and could be significantly higher or lower than suggested. 
• The impacts may be modified by the implementation of the measures. For example, long transition times allow landholders to incorporate regulatory requirements into their investment and maintenance cycle. 
• The report focuses on impacts on the primary sector. Other impacts, both positive and negative, for other parts of the community are covered in the section 32 report.

Disclaimer

While every effort has been made to ensure the information in this publication is accurate, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry does not accept any responsibility or liability for error or fact omission, interpretation or opinion which may be present, not for the consequences of any decision based on this information.

Any view or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the official view of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Contact for Enquiries

MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person