Ministry for the Environment

Submission on the Discussion Document: Next steps for fresh water

22 April 2016

INTRODUCTION [1]

This submission has been prepared by Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi.

[2]

Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi is the mandated organisation representing over 120,000 people who identify as Ngapuhi. Ngapuhi is the largest Iwi in New Zealand. Te Whare Tapu O Ngapuhi, i.e. the tribal lands and shores of Ngapuhi, are generally described as being from Takou Bay through to Whangarei, across to Maungakaramea, then northward to the Hokianga, across to Mangamuka and arriving back at Takou Bay.

[3]

As affirmed in Te Tiriti O Waitangi Ngapuhi is the guardian of the natural resources – land, foreshores, sea, waterways and other taonga within our tribal region. This includes the foreshores and seabeds extending out from the coast and harbours of Te Whare Tapu O Ngapuhi and the subject of the current debate over ownership and management of such.

[4]

Nga Hapu O Ngapuhi actively exercise their customary rights and responsibilities of kaitiakitanga (guardianship) throughout our rohe. Traditional cultural practices closely tie Ngapuhi to our coastal shores, waters and whenua.

[5]

Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi welcomes the opportunity to comment on “Next steps for fresh water"

GENERAL VIEWS [6]

We acknowledge that improving the way we manage fresh water is critical to New Zealand’s future growth, environmental integrity and cultural well-­‐being.

[7]

We value the benefits of a collaborative planning process and we also see the need for an integrated approach between several organisations, agencies and iwi that are tasked with the responsibility for managing different aspects of freshwater resources.

[8]

Although we support many of the proposed amendments in principle, we are concerned that there must be an integrated and coordinated approach across all agencies, legislation and local, regional and national objectives for effective changes in fresh water reforms.

Page 2

FRESH WATER AND OUR ENVIROMENT Maintain or improve overall [9]

There is support for the proposal to manage water quality within “fresh water management units” (FMUs) rather than at region wide level. FMUs will define a specific spatial area for managing fresh water under the National Policy Statement for Fresh Water Management (NPSFM). Alignment with the ‘maintain and improve’ directive with the specific spatial scale where management will occur is appropriate.

[10] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi believe that an ‘overall’ approach should not be pursued. This ‘unders and overs’ approach has been rejected by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Environmental Court. In practical terms the ‘unders and overs’ approach becomes unworkable when trying to assess what positive effect would offset an adverse effect. [11] There is some concern regarding the definition of ‘maintain’ in terms of what is proposed in the Consultation Document. When setting limits or targets an attribute would be able to fall below its state at the time the limits or targets was set provided it stayed with the same attribute band. [12] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi understands that the attribute bands are too broad and that a downward shift in the state of water would result in significant degradation of water quality. If it can be scientifically proven that the movement within the band has no impact on water quality then that movement would be acceptable. However, if that downward shift in the actual state of the water, results in significant degradation of water quality then it would be inconsistent with the Resource Management Act and the National Policy Statement for Fresh Water Management (NPSFM). [13] An alternative definition could be based on the ‘current state’ of the attribute in the FMU at the time of setting limits and targets. The ‘current state’ then becomes the average attribute figure, calculated over a period of time from monitoring data. This allows for flexibility in monitoring results, fits within the National Objectives Framework (NOF) and ensures that the attribute and water quality is ‘kept at the same level’. Include measures of macroinvertebrates [14] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi supports the inclusion of the Macroinvertebrates Community Index (MCI) in the NOF. MCI measures the effect of increasing nutrient pollution on fresh water aquatic ecosystems. Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Community Index (QMCI) is the quantitative variant measure and the two needs to be used in tandem. Biological and ecological measures are essential attributes for the NOF if the NPSFM is to provide for ecosystem health as a compulsory national value. [15] We further recommend the Matauranga Maori be utilised to monitor ecosystem health and that further work is undertaken in partnership with iwi and hapu to identify opportunities for incorporating matauranga Maori into both the NOF and wider fresh water management.

Page 3

Significant infrastructure and water quality [16] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi supports in principle the proposal for further direction on when infrastructure exceptions can be included in Appendix 3 NPSFM. Exceptions must be limited to ensure bottom lines are recognised and adhered to. [17] The current exemption test is too low. The concern here is with “whether infrastructure contributes to any breaches”. Exceptional circumstances should only apply where existing infrastructure is the reason for a FMU being below the national bottom line. Any criteria set for considering exceptions must be designed to prevent the misuse of Appendix 3 by regional councils. [18] We acknowledge current developments in seeking effective iwi/Maori involvement in freshwater decision-­‐making processes and the benefits that improved water quality provides. Although the RMA sets the regulation framework for freshwater management, current freshwater management predominantly occurs at a regional level. Therefore, we support the proposed approach in principle, that statutory requirements will provide a role for iwi/Maori advice and recommendations. However, we would like to see further development of this role that include effective participation throughout the process and having authority in the final decision making process. [19] “Significant” and “Existing” infrastructure should also be defined. Appendix 3 was intended to provide an exception for infrastructure in place when the NPSFM came into effect in 2014. Coastal lakes and lagoons [20] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi supports the proposal that the lake attributes in the NOF apply to intermittently closing and opening lakes and lagoons. These areas are of particular significance to iwi and hapu, particularly for mahinga kai. We expect iwi and hapu will be involved and participate in decision making capacity regarding the management and application of national bottom lines to these FMUs. [21] We support the proposal to develop support packages for implementing the collaborative planning process and would like to see the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum be part of the proposed support packages. Stock exclusion from water bodies [22] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi supports the proposal for national regulation for stock exclusion in principle. However, there are some elements of the proposal requiring more direction. In particular: a)

A more stringent timeline for when stock other than dairy cattle should be defined. For stock exclusion to have any effect on water quality, it requires a much faster response. The deadlines proposed will provide no incentive for change.

b)

Slope classification is not addressed in the Consultation Document. It is believed that the scale of classification will significantly impact upon the extent and cost of exclusion.

Page 4

c)

Significant omission relating to riparian setbacks. Stock exclusion and riparian setbacks are closely linked. Exclusion prevents stock from entering waterways however; it does not prevent runoff of nutrients into waterways. We support the recommendation 31 in the Land and Water Forum’s 4th Report.

ECONOMIC USE OF FRESH WATER [23]

Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi supports the introduction of technical efficiency standards (TES) and good management practice standards (GMPS) in principle. a)

TES should be introduced in all catchments as part of the transition to a FO based regime. Their application should not be limited to catchments that are at or approaching full allocation.

b)

GMPS should be a requirement where discharge allowances have been allocated or in catchments that are, or approaching over-­‐allocation. This needs to be expanded to all users in all catchments, not just those where councils have elected to allocate discharges. Applying both TES and GMPS is consistent with recognizing and providing for Te Mana o Te Wai and will support the achievement of positive outcomes for both water quality and water quantity.

[24] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi supports Proposal 2.3 requiring councils to apply these standards at defined times. Further work is required to determine how and when the tests will be applied and this should be in conjunction with iwi and hapu involvement. [25] Support is also given to these standards being developed collaboratively with a range of stakeholders, including iwi. Any final decisions on the structure and application of the tests should also be discussed directly with iwi to ensure iwi rights and interests are effectively represented. Consent transfer and over-­‐allocation [26] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi supports better enabling transfer between users in principle. However, the proposal to apply the tests on transfer of water or discharge consents raises the questions to whom will the test apply to and how transfer effects re-­‐consenting. This is a significant gap. [27] While there is some potential to be gained through enabling transfers between users, these should only be progressed once both over-­‐allocation and iwi rights and interests to access a share of both water and discharge capacity have been addressed. Enabling easier transfers prior to addressing over-­‐allocation and iwi rights and interests is likely to frustrate the achievement of these objectives. [28] Furthermore, depending on when and how TES and GMPS are applied, transfer of existing allocated water, and/or discharge rights is likely to undermine the benefits to be gained for water quality and quantity through both TE and GMP standards. [29] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi notes that the Discussion Document is silent on allocation. It indicates further work will be done but sets no timelines for this work. It does not address the Page 5

range of allocative issues on which the Land and Water Forum has made recommendations, or on which agreement was not reached be extensive comment provided. Allocation and GMPS are the core of the system the Forum recommend for managing water quality. It is extremely concerning neither has been adequately addressed. IWI RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN FRESH WATER [30] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi support the intent of these proposals. However, provisions already exist regarding councils requirements. It is unclear how these proposals will improve the already existing provisions requiring councils to recognise and provide for the relationship of iwi with their taonga under section 6 of the RMA. [31] Support is also given to amend the RMA so that is recognises and provides for Te Mana o Te Wai in section 6 of the RMA as a matter of national importance. [32] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi further support the proposed Mana Whakahono-­‐a-­‐rohe Agreements developed by the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group outlined in the consultation document. Enabling iwi to initiate the agreement recognises both the mana of the iwi, and ensures they are able to control the initiation of engagement with the council rather than being at the behest of the council. Effective implementation of these agreements will require sufficient and sustainable resourcing/funding, capacity, capability, and guidance for both councils and iwi to ensure they are able to effectively negotiate and implement meaningful arrangements. [33] The proposed Mana Whakahono-­‐a-­‐rohe agreements will provide a solid platform for iwi to engage with councils, including identifying their values for fresh water bodies. Strengthening council staff understanding about manawhenua of their history, aspirations, and contemporary governance structures will also support improved outcomes. [34] These agreements should not just be limited to engagement on RMA matters, but be capable of encompassing the full range of council’s activities and powers that iwi have an interest in. [35] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi support the Government considering the need for funding to support water infrastructure on marae and papakainga where required, subject to commitment to provide the necessary funding if the need is identified. FRESH WATER FUNDING [36] The Consultation Document proposes the broadening of the $100 million Fresh Water Improvement Fund, beyond purchase and retirement of riparian corridors. The broadening of scope is supported and Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi recognises that improved water quality can be achieved through other methods. [37] Notwithstanding this support, Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi is concerned that the scope of the fund is now too broad, and could extend to funding activities with perverse consequences for fresh water, including those that might undermine improvements elsewhere. [38]

Furthermore, the criteria appears at least in part, designed to support existing water users adjust their water use to meet the impending quality and quantity limits. While this may provide environmental benefits, presumably water users would be required to meet these Page 6

limits regardless and the fund is therefore effectively compensating existing users for having to meet new rules. [39] We would prefer that funding is used to achieve environmental improvements over and above what existing users will already be required to achieve by new limits. [40] Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi further support Proposal 2.6 to increase the ability of councils to recover costs from water users for monitoring, enforcement, research and management. This additional funding could also assist supporting iwi participation in freshwater management, including increased use of mātauranga Māori in monitoring and limit setting for example.

…………………………..

22 April 2016

Erena Kara Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi

Page 7