Commentary by Chief Executive Murray Gibb - November 2011
Diffuse pollution: not just a New Zealand problem
The International Water Association’s Diffuse Pollution Specialist Group’s biennial conference was held in Rotorua in September. The event brought together specialists from across the globe to share information on management of what is deemed by some to be a ‘wicked’ problem.
It is certainly a problem in New Zealand. Intensification of land use, particularly over the past 20 years, has brought water pollution to public attention. When asked about their environmental concerns, degradation of water quality is uppermost in peoples’ minds here. For our government policy makers, this environmental issue ranks second behind climate change.
There are a number of misconceptions round water pollution.
There is a widely held view that with the advent of the Resource Management Act regime, and a requirement for consenting of point source discharges to water, that we have fixed these sources of freshwater pollution.
This is not the case.
It has been 20 years since the Resource Management Act was enacted. Despite good progress made to date, there are still municipal and industrial effluent discharges that are of poor quality. The substandard effluent treatment of these discharges often does not match the scale and environmental risks of waste flows. In many cases regional councils are reluctant to impose stringent consent requirements due to financial constraints. Many local authority sewage discharges to water still require lengthy mixing zones.
A significant percentage of the low flow nutrient loading in the lower reaches of the much maligned Manawatu River still comes from point sources of pollution, including sewage treatment plants.
A further misconception is that freshwater degradation is all due to ‘dirty’ dairying. In the last 20 odd years the national dairy herd increased from 2.4 to 4.6 million. Certainly the significant increase in the dairy herd over this period has been accompanied by declining water quality.
But urban dwellers cannot righteously point the bone at farming practices. We still use waterways to flush away much of the detritus of urban lifestyles. As a consequence the most polluted streams in the country are those running through our towns and cities.
Although pastoral streams are not as polluted as urban waterways, the much greater pastoral land area does mean that these sources of diffuse pollution dominate at the national scale.
Another misconception is that this is a uniquely New Zealand problem.
New Zealand is no worse or better in its performance on this count than most other countries. Loss of water clarity and algal blooms are common features of degraded waterways across the globe, including the marine environment. For example the Baltic Sea is now regularly afflicted with these blooms.
In increasing its environmental footprint, agriculture is responding to market forces requiring more food to feed a burgeoning, wealthier and more urbanised population. The pressure will increase because further intensification of agriculture is inevitable in order to satisfy increased demand.
This is well illustrated by trends in the amount of available land on a per capita basis. It is decreasing rapidly with population growth increasing at an exponential rate. In 1995 there was 0.4 hectare of agricultural land per person across the globe. By 2030 this figure will have reduced to 0.17 hectares per person, when the total human population exceeds 8 billion.
Internationally policies aimed at fixing diffuse pollution have generally fallen short of need. Exceptions amongst the OECD countries include the Scandinavian countries where there has been progress. Not surprisingly these countries have taken an innovative approach using a mixture of regulatory and non - regulatory tools. There is also growing international interest in innovative policies such as water quality trading.
In New Zealand with the exception of the Taranaki region public policy initiatives to date have been unsuccessful in dealing with the problem. The Office of the Auditor General recently released a report on the performance of four regional councils in managing their obligations under the Resource Management Act.
To quote the Auditor; “….. I conclude that Waikato Regional Council and Environment Southland are not adequately managing the causes of non-point source discharges in their regions. In both regions, significant intensification of land use (dairy farming) has meant more pressure on freshwater quality.
The current regulatory and non-regulatory methods, and how they are being implemented in these regions, are not enough to reduce the known risks to freshwater quality. Both councils are trying to tackle the challenges of non-point source discharges and their cumulative effects, and there are some signs of improvement, but there is still significant work to be done.”
Following the successful Scandinavian collaborative model, the government has established the Land and Water Forum to provide advice on setting and managing limits on water quality and quantity. A mixture of regulatory and non - regulatory tools will be recommended.
What is clear is that using some basic tools will assist in addressing the problem over time. There is abundant evidence on the efficacy of fencing off waterways, planting riparian strips, good pasture management, using wetlands wisely and the proper management of nitrogen and phosphate inputs and outputs.
Wicked problems do require innovative solutions, but tried and true measures can be part of that mix.
The International Water Association’s Diffuse Pollution Specialist Group’s biennial conference was held in Rotorua in September. The event brought together specialists from across the globe to share information on management of what is deemed by some to be a ‘wicked’ problem.
It is certainly a problem in New Zealand. Intensification of land use, particularly over the past 20 years, has brought water pollution to public attention. When asked about their environmental concerns, degradation of water quality is uppermost in peoples’ minds here. For our government policy makers, this environmental issue ranks second behind climate change.
There are a number of misconceptions round water pollution.
There is a widely held view that with the advent of the Resource Management Act regime, and a requirement for consenting of point source discharges to water, that we have fixed these sources of freshwater pollution.
This is not the case.
It has been 20 years since the Resource Management Act was enacted. Despite good progress made to date, there are still municipal and industrial effluent discharges that are of poor quality. The substandard effluent treatment of these discharges often does not match the scale and environmental risks of waste flows. In many cases regional councils are reluctant to impose stringent consent requirements due to financial constraints. Many local authority sewage discharges to water still require lengthy mixing zones.
A significant percentage of the low flow nutrient loading in the lower reaches of the much maligned Manawatu River still comes from point sources of pollution, including sewage treatment plants.
A further misconception is that freshwater degradation is all due to ‘dirty’ dairying. In the last 20 odd years the national dairy herd increased from 2.4 to 4.6 million. Certainly the significant increase in the dairy herd over this period has been accompanied by declining water quality.
But urban dwellers cannot righteously point the bone at farming practices. We still use waterways to flush away much of the detritus of urban lifestyles. As a consequence the most polluted streams in the country are those running through our towns and cities.
Although pastoral streams are not as polluted as urban waterways, the much greater pastoral land area does mean that these sources of diffuse pollution dominate at the national scale.
Another misconception is that this is a uniquely New Zealand problem.
New Zealand is no worse or better in its performance on this count than most other countries. Loss of water clarity and algal blooms are common features of degraded waterways across the globe, including the marine environment. For example the Baltic Sea is now regularly afflicted with these blooms.
In increasing its environmental footprint, agriculture is responding to market forces requiring more food to feed a burgeoning, wealthier and more urbanised population. The pressure will increase because further intensification of agriculture is inevitable in order to satisfy increased demand.
This is well illustrated by trends in the amount of available land on a per capita basis. It is decreasing rapidly with population growth increasing at an exponential rate. In 1995 there was 0.4 hectare of agricultural land per person across the globe. By 2030 this figure will have reduced to 0.17 hectares per person, when the total human population exceeds 8 billion.
Internationally policies aimed at fixing diffuse pollution have generally fallen short of need. Exceptions amongst the OECD countries include the Scandinavian countries where there has been progress. Not surprisingly these countries have taken an innovative approach using a mixture of regulatory and non - regulatory tools. There is also growing international interest in innovative policies such as water quality trading.
In New Zealand with the exception of the Taranaki region public policy initiatives to date have been unsuccessful in dealing with the problem. The Office of the Auditor General recently released a report on the performance of four regional councils in managing their obligations under the Resource Management Act.
To quote the Auditor; “….. I conclude that Waikato Regional Council and Environment Southland are not adequately managing the causes of non-point source discharges in their regions. In both regions, significant intensification of land use (dairy farming) has meant more pressure on freshwater quality.
The current regulatory and non-regulatory methods, and how they are being implemented in these regions, are not enough to reduce the known risks to freshwater quality. Both councils are trying to tackle the challenges of non-point source discharges and their cumulative effects, and there are some signs of improvement, but there is still significant work to be done.”
Following the successful Scandinavian collaborative model, the government has established the Land and Water Forum to provide advice on setting and managing limits on water quality and quantity. A mixture of regulatory and non - regulatory tools will be recommended.
What is clear is that using some basic tools will assist in addressing the problem over time. There is abundant evidence on the efficacy of fencing off waterways, planting riparian strips, good pasture management, using wetlands wisely and the proper management of nitrogen and phosphate inputs and outputs.
Wicked problems do require innovative solutions, but tried and true measures can be part of that mix.