Latest news with #NPS-FM
The Spinoff
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
What you need to know about the proposed freshwater reforms
As part of its overhaul of the Resource Management Act, the government has launched consultation on a proposal to shake up the management of freshwater in Aotearoa. Here's a quick(ish) rundown. What's all this then? Yesterday, the government released three discussion documents proposing changes to the 'national directions' of three areas: infrastructure and development, the primary sector, and freshwater. 'National direction' refers to various rules and policies that sit under the Resource Management Act (RMA) and inform how councils develop local rules and plans. Sorry but this all sounds deeply boring. I hear you, but as Bluey's mum says, boring things are still important. The RMA, which was passed in 1991, governs how we interact with the environment. For some years there's been broad agreement across much of the political spectrum that the complex web of planning rules sitting under the RMA are overly restrictive and contributing to our housing crisis and infrastructure deficit. There's been less consensus on what should replace it though: the Labour government did repeal and replace the RMA in 2023, but the new coalition government repealed that replacement and embarked on its own overhaul. Right, so this new announcement is the replacement of the replacement? Nope – that was announced in March and is coming later this year by way of two new laws that 'clearly distinguish between land-use planning and natural resource management, while putting a priority on the enjoyment of private property rights'. Yesterday was all about the aforementioned ' national directions ', which comprise national policy statements, national environmental standards, national planning standards and regulations made under section 360 of the RMA. The three discussion documents released yesterday propose reforms to 12 different 'instruments', as these sets of rules are called, as well as the introduction of four new instruments. Most of these fall under the primary sector and infrastructure and development categories, so let's start with freshwater, where, mercifully, just two instruments are involved. Phew. Tell me more. With pleasure. Two sets of rules are set to be replaced: the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) and the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020 (NES-F). Replacing NPS-FM was promised in the National-Act coalition agreement. NPS-FM, NES-F… not exactly catchy names. Is that why they're for the scrapheap? Not as such. When it comes to freshwater, the current rules are 'too complex, too expensive, and too often ignore the practical realities of landowners', said agriculture minister Todd McClay yesterday, in a press release announcing 'practical, farmer-focused reforms' that he said would 'restore confidence and reduce red tape, while still delivering environmental gains'. Farmer-focused, you say? Yep. The current freshwater management rules, part of a 2020 reform package aimed at halting the degradation of our waterways, put controls on certain high-risk farming practices. The government thinks they've been too onerous on farmers and rural communities, and reforms are needed to 'restore balance' so that 'the interests of all water users, including farmers, growers, and rural communities, are properly reflected'. There's particular concern with Te Mana o Te Wai, the concept underpinning the NPS-FM that sets a hierarchy of obligations for authorities to prioritise in consenting: at the top is the health and wellbeing of waterways, then the health needs of people (such as drinking water), followed by 'the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being'. It also emphasises that tangata whenua should be involved in decision-making around freshwater management. The government was so concerned by this framework that it passed the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act late last year to exclude consideration of the hierarchy from resource consenting while the replacement for the NPS-FM was worked on. What was the hurry? Act has long been critical of Te Mana o te Wai, which it considers a form of its bête noire, co-governance – and one that relies on ' vague spiritual concepts ' to boot. National has been less openly scathing – it was a National government that first enshrined the concept in the NPS in 2014, after all – but just before the 2023 election the party announced its intention to 'rebalance' Te Mana o Te Wai to better reflect the interests of all water users. This is the line that made it into the National-Act coalition agreement. In the press release yesterday, associate minister for the environment Andrew Hoggard (an Act MP) said Te Mana o te Wai had 'caused frustration across rural New Zealand, with some councils applying it in a way that sidelines the very people working to improve water outcomes'. National's McClay, interestingly, was more forthright, saying, 'We won't stand by while councils weaponise Te Mana o te Wai, to push ideology over common sense.' How have councils 'weaponised' Te Mana o te Wai? The press release mentions the government's 'decisive intervention' in 2024 to stop the Otago Regional Council from passing its land and water plan that would have increased freshwater environmental protections, and, according to McClay, 'would have imposed unnecessary costs and uncertainty on rural landowners'. I see. So what changes are actually being proposed? Some new objectives are suggested, including that councils should 'safeguard the life-supporting capacity of freshwater and the health of people and communities, while enabling communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being, including productive economic opportunities'. These two things would have to be considered equally, with neither considered more important than the other. Councils would also be required 'to consider the pace and cost of change, and who bears the cost'. The aim of this is to 'increase recognition that change takes time. Long timeframes for improving water quality have always been appropriate and are, in some cases, unavoidable.' As for how exactly Te Mana o te Wai should be 'rebalanced', three options are proposed. First, the hierarchy of obligations would be removed and councils would be advised that Te Mana o te Wai shouldn't be used in planning decisions, but 'process steps for councils to apply Te Mana o te Wai – for example, by actively involving tangata whenua in freshwater management' would be retained. The second option is to reintroduce Te Mana o te Wai provisions from the 2017 NPS-FM, which essentially required councils to recognise the connection between water and the broader environment and engage with the community, including tangata whenua. The third option would ditch the concept entirely, removing all mention of Te Mana o te Wai from the NPS. Anything else? Yep – more flexibility for councils around monitoring and reporting requirements and the setting of limits for stuff like nitrogen and phosphorus levels from agricultural fertiliser runoff, and stock units (eg how many cows) are allowed per hectare on a farm near a waterway. This includes the potential removal of 'bottom lines', minimum national standards for the likes of nitrate and ammonia toxicity. Also, allowing commercial vegetable growing activities (which are high risk in terms of nitrogen leaching) to go ahead without resource consent, permitting the construction of off-stream water storage such as storage ponds on farms, allowing more farming activities near wetlands and removing the requirement for councils to map natural inland wetlands within 10 years. Then there's simplifying fish passage regulations, reducing requirements for farmers to report on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser use, and introducing mapping requirements for drinking water sources, to name just a few. Righto. What has the response been to these proposals? The Green Party's environment spokesperson Lan Pham, formerly a freshwater commissioner, said the proposals painted 'a damning picture of a government hellbent on profit at all costs', adding that it was 'a dark day for rivers, lakes, streams, beaches, forests and all who enjoy and rely on these taonga across Aotearoa'. Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay described the proposed reforms as 'a massive blow for the health of our water and the health of our communities', while Greenpeace said they would 'drive more dairy pollution at the expense of safe drinking water and swimmable rivers'. The Environmental Defence Society reckoned that 'the reprioritisation of freshwater objectives is likely to leave gaps, have cumulative adverse effects, allow more pollution and breach FTAs', while the rebalancing of the hierarchy of obligations of Te Mana o te Wai would 'significantly weaken protections'. Federated Farmers, meanwhile, welcomed the proposals, with the group's freshwater spokesperson Colin Hurst particularly applauding the proposed rebalancing of the 'unworkable and highly problematic' Te Mana o te Wai. 'We believe it's worth considering whether Te Mano o te Wai [sic] is a concept that should be scrapped altogether, which is one of the options now on the table,' he said in a press release. Beef + Lamb New Zealand was also supportive of the proposals, noting its concerns around the 'unachievable numeric limits' set by the current regulations, but said further analysis was required before it would come out in favour of any of the options. What happens next? Consultation runs until July 27, with the public encouraged to submit feedback on the proposals here. You can read the discussion document and the regulatory impact statements here, as well as find details for a series of webinars the Ministry for the Environment is running on the proposed changes. The government is also seeking feedback on whether to implement the reforms under the existing RMA (for 'immediate impact' or as part of the replacement legislation ('to have impact longer term'). A draft set of proposals will be released later in the year.
Scoop
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Time To Dump Te Mana O Te Wai, National Bottom Lines
Press Release – ACT New Zealand Under Labour and the Greens, farmers not only had to manage the day-to-day challenges of farming but also navigate an onslaught of red tape and costs, says ACT MP and dairy farmer Mark Cameron. ACT is welcoming public consultation on changes to New Zealand's freshwater national direction and encouraging New Zealanders to engage in the process. 'Under Labour and the Greens, farmers not only had to manage the day-to-day challenges of farming but also navigate an onslaught of red tape and costs,' says ACT MP and dairy farmer Mark Cameron. 'The coalition government was elected with a mandate to end this war on farming. We've made excellent progress, but the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 still lingers. 'NPS-FM centralised control in Wellington and elevated the vague, spiritual concept of Te Mana o te Wai, or the mana of the water. 'ACT believes the Government should scrap Te Mana o te Wai and national bottom lines, allowing regional councils to set their own standards. 'The vague concept of 'Te Mana o te Wai' replaces scientific benchmarks with a subjective idea of the mana of the water that leads to co-governance and unequal treatment based on who someone's ancestors were. 'At the moment, iwi have a right of veto over how water is used. The NPS-FM requires Te Mana o te Wai to apply to the consenting of all projects involving freshwater management. 'Consenting is now subject to consideration of mauri, or the 'life-force' of water. 'It has led to water users making large one-off and on-going payments for 'cultural monitoring' services which do nothing for the environment but add costs to consumer and business power bills. 'Is requiring farmers to comply with a spiritual concept going to make them farm better? Of course not. It means they'll have to employ a cultural consultant and waste time and money that could instead be spent improving their farming practices. That's what happens when we regulate water quality based on superstition not science. 'Farmers just want to grow food and look after their land, incorporating spiritual concepts isn't necessary for them to do that. 'The broad and ambiguous interpretation of Te Mana o te Wai by councils and courts has led to confusion, time and money being wasted, and a new cottage industry of cultural consultants. 'We should get rid of it. 'We should also let local communities decide what standards work best for them. The NPS-FM is too inflexible. Standards set nationally aren't appropriate for all catchments. 'Our diverse geography and conditions mean farming practices vary across regions as farmers adapt best practices to their local conditions. Blanket regulations set by bureaucrats in Wellington are unsuitable. 'We should get rid of national bottom lines and devolve these decisions to regional councils who are best positioned to understand the local conditions and who have direct relationships with stakeholders. 'ACT is dedicated to real change. We cannot continue with a policy that burdens our farmers unnecessarily. We campaigned on a complete overhaul of the NPS-FM to remove subjective concepts and ensure that our freshwater management is scientifically sound and adapted to the needs of local communities. 'It is time to protect our farmers from the ongoing effects of what has effectively been a war on the rural sector.'
Scoop
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Time To Dump Te Mana O Te Wai, National Bottom Lines
Press Release – ACT New Zealand Under Labour and the Greens, farmers not only had to manage the day-to-day challenges of farming but also navigate an onslaught of red tape and costs, says ACT MP and dairy farmer Mark Cameron. ACT is welcoming public consultation on changes to New Zealand's freshwater national direction and encouraging New Zealanders to engage in the process. 'Under Labour and the Greens, farmers not only had to manage the day-to-day challenges of farming but also navigate an onslaught of red tape and costs,' says ACT MP and dairy farmer Mark Cameron. 'The coalition government was elected with a mandate to end this war on farming. We've made excellent progress, but the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 still lingers. 'NPS-FM centralised control in Wellington and elevated the vague, spiritual concept of Te Mana o te Wai, or the mana of the water. 'ACT believes the Government should scrap Te Mana o te Wai and national bottom lines, allowing regional councils to set their own standards. 'The vague concept of 'Te Mana o te Wai' replaces scientific benchmarks with a subjective idea of the mana of the water that leads to co-governance and unequal treatment based on who someone's ancestors were. 'At the moment, iwi have a right of veto over how water is used. The NPS-FM requires Te Mana o te Wai to apply to the consenting of all projects involving freshwater management. 'Consenting is now subject to consideration of mauri, or the 'life-force' of water. 'It has led to water users making large one-off and on-going payments for 'cultural monitoring' services which do nothing for the environment but add costs to consumer and business power bills. 'Is requiring farmers to comply with a spiritual concept going to make them farm better? Of course not. It means they'll have to employ a cultural consultant and waste time and money that could instead be spent improving their farming practices. That's what happens when we regulate water quality based on superstition not science. 'Farmers just want to grow food and look after their land, incorporating spiritual concepts isn't necessary for them to do that. 'The broad and ambiguous interpretation of Te Mana o te Wai by councils and courts has led to confusion, time and money being wasted, and a new cottage industry of cultural consultants. 'We should get rid of it. 'We should also let local communities decide what standards work best for them. The NPS-FM is too inflexible. Standards set nationally aren't appropriate for all catchments. 'Our diverse geography and conditions mean farming practices vary across regions as farmers adapt best practices to their local conditions. Blanket regulations set by bureaucrats in Wellington are unsuitable. 'We should get rid of national bottom lines and devolve these decisions to regional councils who are best positioned to understand the local conditions and who have direct relationships with stakeholders. 'ACT is dedicated to real change. We cannot continue with a policy that burdens our farmers unnecessarily. We campaigned on a complete overhaul of the NPS-FM to remove subjective concepts and ensure that our freshwater management is scientifically sound and adapted to the needs of local communities. 'It is time to protect our farmers from the ongoing effects of what has effectively been a war on the rural sector.'
Scoop
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Time To Dump Te Mana O Te Wai, National Bottom Lines
ACT is welcoming public consultation on changes to New Zealand's freshwater national direction and encouraging New Zealanders to engage in the process. 'Under Labour and the Greens, farmers not only had to manage the day-to-day challenges of farming but also navigate an onslaught of red tape and costs,' says ACT MP and dairy farmer Mark Cameron. 'The coalition government was elected with a mandate to end this war on farming. We've made excellent progress, but the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 still lingers. 'NPS-FM centralised control in Wellington and elevated the vague, spiritual concept of Te Mana o te Wai, or the mana of the water. 'ACT believes the Government should scrap Te Mana o te Wai and national bottom lines, allowing regional councils to set their own standards. 'The vague concept of 'Te Mana o te Wai' replaces scientific benchmarks with a subjective idea of the mana of the water that leads to co-governance and unequal treatment based on who someone's ancestors were. 'At the moment, iwi have a right of veto over how water is used. The NPS-FM requires Te Mana o te Wai to apply to the consenting of all projects involving freshwater management. 'Consenting is now subject to consideration of mauri, or the 'life-force' of water. 'It has led to water users making large one-off and on-going payments for 'cultural monitoring' services which do nothing for the environment but add costs to consumer and business power bills. 'Is requiring farmers to comply with a spiritual concept going to make them farm better? Of course not. It means they'll have to employ a cultural consultant and waste time and money that could instead be spent improving their farming practices. That's what happens when we regulate water quality based on superstition not science. 'Farmers just want to grow food and look after their land, incorporating spiritual concepts isn't necessary for them to do that. 'The broad and ambiguous interpretation of Te Mana o te Wai by councils and courts has led to confusion, time and money being wasted, and a new cottage industry of cultural consultants. 'We should get rid of it. 'We should also let local communities decide what standards work best for them. The NPS-FM is too inflexible. Standards set nationally aren't appropriate for all catchments. 'Our diverse geography and conditions mean farming practices vary across regions as farmers adapt best practices to their local conditions. Blanket regulations set by bureaucrats in Wellington are unsuitable. 'We should get rid of national bottom lines and devolve these decisions to regional councils who are best positioned to understand the local conditions and who have direct relationships with stakeholders. 'ACT is dedicated to real change. We cannot continue with a policy that burdens our farmers unnecessarily. We campaigned on a complete overhaul of the NPS-FM to remove subjective concepts and ensure that our freshwater management is scientifically sound and adapted to the needs of local communities. 'It is time to protect our farmers from the ongoing effects of what has effectively been a war on the rural sector.'
NZ Herald
16-05-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Why New Zealand's fresh vegetable prices may spike without National Direction for Vegetables
It has warned that without such action, and as a result of proposed regulations aimed at reducing nitrogen run-off, fresh vegetable prices would rise sharply. I used an options analysis approach to compare and contrast the various options. This was the vehicle that led me, as an independent economist, to support HortNZ's approach. The report has demonstrated that a National Direction is both needed and viable, underpinned by the importance of domestic vegetable production for New Zealanders. It has also highlighted that the way the National Policy Statement for Freshwater (NPS-FM) is being interpreted and translated into freshwater regulations by councils could severely impact vegetable production, leading to price increases. I tested HortNZ's concerns over potential price rises by taking broccoli prices for the last 10 years and calculating what prices would be if vegetable production had been restricted by 20% over that time. This would have meant broccoli rising as high as $27 a kilo, or about $9 a head. When informing strategy for biological industries, it is essential to have a strong understanding of the finer details. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Durable legislation requires an understanding of how such businesses go about these activities. Without that, you cannot understand the impacts of policy. It's also important to recognise that commercial vegetable production in this country has some unusual characteristics. New Zealand cannot import fresh vegetables at the reasonable prices we have at the moment. Climate, soils and topography mean there are only a certain number of specific areas where production can occur, so these supply the entire country. The report examined the options for freshwater management associated with commercial vegetable production (CVP) and the economic implications of proposed regional regulations. It looked into the importance of CVP, the regulatory framework and contaminant measurement approaches adopted by councils and what the unintended consequences would be of restricting vegetable production. It outlined how, for CVP to continue to grow and meet the needs of New Zealanders, priority needs to be provided for vegetable growing. This will mean giving CVP priority allocation of the nitrogen contaminant load within the freshwater limits, supplemented with action plans, to meet targeted freshwater outcomes. The NPS-FM can be largely retained. However, greater specificity around priorities for human health, including vegetable production, needs to be provided to ensure councils take a consistent approach to applying public good priorities. Legislation also needs to allow current and new vegetable production to be a permitted activity within a freshwater farm plan. Growers often move growing from one piece of leased land to another. Putting regulatory barriers in the way of typical industry practice is problematic – vegetable farming should not need a consent. Where bottom lines are unlikely to be met by freshwater limits alone, action plans could be drawn up that work towards meeting those. This could be achieved by a mixing of local solutions in specific areas and the central government, but it would also need to be resourced by the central government. Following a Good Agricultural Practice Environment Management System Add-on (GAP EMS) framework would assure the safe and sustainable production of vegetables, focused on maintaining production and reducing the impact of nitrogen leaching and sediment discharges. What is required is a mixture of top-down and bottom-up approaches. We absolutely need a national freshwater plan, but we cannot ignore the implications of restricting vegetable production and what that would mean for New Zealanders. Most businesses need certainty about where they are in terms of lead-in times, but that is particularly important where biological processes are involved. Vegetable growers are currently having to consider whether regulations will allow them to grow vegetables. I would argue that there is a need to put vegetables front and centre. New Zealand needs a durable policy approach to this, one that does not need revisiting year after year – because if only some kind of side deal is achieved then there will be cost implications and consumers will have to pay higher prices.
