Transcript Document
Actions to Restore the Health and Wellbeing of the Waikato River – the Independent Scoping Study RMLA conference, Hamilton 6th October 2011 Kit Rutherford NIWA, PO Box 11-115, Hamilton [email protected] http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/treaty/waikato-river-scoping-study/index.html Context for the study 2010 Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Act ‘…ushers in a new era of co-management between the Crown and the five Waikato River Iwi to protect the Waikato River...’ Creates o a new co-management body – the Waikato River Authority o a ‘clean up’ fund – administered by the WRA – $7m per year for 30 years Waikato-Tainui Waikato-Tainui has ‘settled’ with the Crown Other 4 iwi are negotiating with the Crown Raukawa Te Arawa All 5 Waikato River iwi are involved in co-management Maniapoto Tuwharetoa Scoping Study – WRISS 2009-2010 Steered by the Guardians Establishment Committee (GEC) Funded by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Key contributors • • • • • • • • NIWA – lead Diffuse Sources Limited Tipa and Associates AgResearch Beca Enveco Nimmo-Bell & Company Limited Market Economics Limited Study brief “…Identify priority actions and associated costs of those actions, necessary to rehabilitate the … health and wellbeing … of the Waikato River and its tributaries, wetlands and lakes for future generations … to achieve Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato …” 1. 2. 3. What do we need to do? How much will it cost? How long will it take? Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato The vision and strategy “…where a healthy Waikato River sustains abundant life and prosperous communities who in turn are all responsible for restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River, and all it embraces, for generations to come…” Developed by the GEC through consultation with iwi and the wider community Waikato River’s health and wellbeing • Some iwi regard the Waikato River as their tupuna (ancestor). • The awa (river) represents the mana and mauri of the river iwi. • ‘…If the river is degraded then the people suffer – their health and wellbeing is compromised...’ • Not just biophysical health (eg water quality, state of the fishery, landscape values etc). • Also people’s relationship with the river (eg perceptions, use, guardianship) “…The Waikato River is our tupuna and looks over us throughout our lives. The river feeds us, nurtures us and takes care of us, healing our hurts and protecting us from harm. The river is our lifeline from which we take our name, our identity and our mana…“ Challenge – integrate Maatauranga Maaori and Western Science and recommend priority actions • Both knowledge systems are concerned with observing, understanding and predicting the effects of various behaviours on future outcomes. • But gathering that knowledge required unique methods/techniques. • Both knowledge systems are used to identify priority actions. Our approach • • • • Consulted with iwi and the wider community Collated input about aspirations and actions Aspirations aligned closely with Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa Waikato c. 100 suggested actions • • • • Investigated the benefits, co-benefits, dis-benefits, practicality & costs More detailed investigations of c. 65 actions Identified our priority actions, benefits and costs Provided information to help the WRA administer the CUT – 33 Technical Appendices Aspirations to achieve Te Ture Whaimana Significant and historic sites … recognised, restored, protected. Greater access … improve people’s use and enjoyment. Water quality …improved. Recreational value … improved. Aesthetic and landscape value … improved. Risk of illness minimised … recreation, food, water supply. People have a secure supply of water … from the Waikato River. Abundance … fish and other kai … restored and protected. Abundance … treasured plant & animal species … restored and protected. Ecological integrity … restored and protected. Management … conducted in a holistic, integrated way. People feel engaged … river… actions to restore and protect. Spiritual values … restored and protected. Actions consider … prosperity … local community, region & New Zealand. Two issues 1. Water quality 2. Traditional fisheries Water clarity Bathing guideline – black disc 1.6m 0.4 m BD Good in the upper Waikato hydro lakes Waipa River Severely degraded in the lower Waipa lower Waikato floodplain lakes Affected by erosion & phytoplankton Cumulative effects from upstream ‘toilet end’ of the river Lake Taupo Agricultural sources N P 1. Dairy Free Drain 2. Dairy poor drain 3. Dairy peat 4. Sheep/beef, class 3 farm 5. Sheep/beef, class 4 farm 6. Sheep/beef, class 5 farm 7. Forestry 8. Horticulture & cropping sediment Figure 5.3: Estimates of the key sources of contaminants discharged from farms within the Waikato River catchment. Waipa River Original source – steep, mudstone Including sheep/beef pasture Sediment stores from historic erosion river banks, floodplain re-worked by floods Drainage – peat soils – colour Lake Taupo Possible actions Actions on dry stock farms Cost ($M) Dry stock farms Fence (single e-wire) and plant poplars on 1st and 2nd order streams*** 93 Fence (8-wire post and batten) and plant 10 m native buffer on 3rd order and larger streams ** 66 Retire and afforest 68,000 hectares of steep hill country pasture 91* Earthflow remediation 15 * In the first 20 years before harvesting. Once harvesting starts there is a net return ** Co-benefits for pathogens, temperature, ecology, landscape *** Co-benefits for pathogens Fencing hill-country streams is expensive Sheep/beef farming on steep, erodible land has low profitability Conversion to forestry has long-term financial benefits Short-term cash-flow problems – planting costs & low initial income Carbon credits have the potential to add to financial benefits Conversion to native forest has low financial benefits but other cobenefits Re-planting alone may not protect river banks in flood-prone rivers - both reforestation and river bank protection required Nitrogen Eutrophic – 300 mgN/m3 Moderate phytoplankton in the hydro lakes. Occasional blooms Waipa River High chlorophyll in floodplain lakes. Frequent blooms BGA toxicity Contributes to degradation of colour & clarity Mostly from diffuse sources Pathway – drainage, sub-surface flow Lake Taupo Hard to intercept (eg in riparian buffers) Phosphorus Eutrophic – 30 mgP/m3 Some significant point sources Mostly from diffuse sources Pathway – erosion, surface flow Easier to intercept Naturally high on the volcanic plateau Binds to & releases from sediment Debate whether to control N or P Consensus in New Zealand – control both Agricultural sources N P 1. Dairy Free Drain 2. Dairy poor drain 3. Dairy peat 4. Sheep/beef, class 3 farm 5. Sheep/beef, class 4 farm 6. Sheep/beef, class 5 farm 7. Forestry 8. Horticulture & cropping sediment Figure 5.3: Estimates of the key sources of contaminants discharged from farms within the Waikato River catchment. Model farms 3 dairy (free-draining, poor-draining, peat soils), 3 sheep-beef (Class 3, 4 and 5) 1 forestry 1 horticulture-cropping Losses to water nitrogen (N) – OVERSEER phosphorus (P) – OVERSEER sediment – USLE faecal microorganisms – CLUES Farm profitability – FARMAX Cumulative abatement, tonnes N 10000 9000 N reduction, Tonnes per catchment 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 Cumulative abatement, (no organic dairy): T N/catchment 3000 Cumulative abatement (organic dairy option) 2000 1000 0 -100 -50 0 50 Expenditure, $M 100 150 Waikato Catchment Model Predict the effects of the hydro dams & landuse on: • Nutrients • Phytoplankton chlorophyll • Clarity • Colour Red – current Green – priority actions Dairying makes a major contribution to regional and national income. Nitrogen loss from dairy pasture is hard to reduce. Significant increases in nitrogen concentration in streams, lakes Dairy expansion is occurring in the upper catchment. more nitrogen in the hydro-lakes, more phytoplankton, bigger & more frequent algal blooms? Possible actions Actions on dairy farms Cost ($M) Dairy farms Improved nutrient management 11** Improved effluent management 36 Run-off diversion 5 Creation of wetlands over one percent of catchment 45§ E-fence and plant 5 metre buffers on all streams 263 Use of nitrification inhibitors 138 Improved management of cropping land -20* Herd shelters (keeping cattle inside in winter) 1,090§ * Cost savings from erosion control ** Some cost savings from better use of P fertiliser § Not a priority action Waikato River Authority & Regional Council Drystock farming • Finance retirement/reforestation on a large scale. Unlikely. • Promote retirement of unproductive hill-country farms. Rules? Incentives? • Lobby for carbon credits? Dairy farming • Consolidate onto ‘best’ dairying land • Control expansion into upper catchment – hydro lakes • Control expansion onto steeper farmland – greater risk of runoff Fencing of cattle out of streams – no brainer, patchy. Enforcement? Replanting of stream banks. • Dissemination of information on methods, benefits, costs etc • Co-ordination & funding of Landcare & Streamcare Groups. Incentives? Rules? Enforcement? Actions to improve water quality Point source discharges Land disposal of treated human sewage Colour removal from Kinleith pulp and paper mill Retrofitting urban stormwater controls * Costs subject to engineering feasibility Cost ($M) 365* 195 1,000 § Whitebait Fishery 1931-1950 1980s 2000 46 tonnes 10 tonnes 3 tonnes Spawning habitat – estuary Fencing, re-planting, Protection Adult habitat – wetlands, lakes Culverts Fencing, re-planting Administration DoC, WRC Quota, monitoring Traditional fishing sites Action to restore the whitebait fishery Cost ($M) Restore and protect iinanga spawning habitat 5.9 Restore kookopu habitat in hill country streams 9.9 Replace or retrofit road culverts that are barriers to migration 4.7 Modify farm culverts that are barriers to migration Install 'fish-friendly’ tide gates to restore iinanga habitat Restore iinanga habitat in streams and drains Remove flood control structures in the Aka Aka/Otaua region 30.3 6.9 44.3 220.2§ Re-introduce giant kookopu into restored urban streams 0.2 Create a single whitebait management agency 7.5 § not a priority action Tuna Fishery 1980s current 400 tonnes 100 tonnes Quota system in place customary allowance Puhi a traditional kai Longfin eel becoming rare Migration – hydro dams elver transfer adult spawners – problem Migration – pumping stations Overfishing Actions to restore the tuna fishery Cost ($M) Develop and implement a management plan 15 Upstream elver transfer 6.7 Aquaculture of elvers to sub-adults, then release 17.3 Create farm ponds and wetlands in the Lower Waikato 177 Install and maintain fish-friendly flood control pumps 96.5 Install and maintain intake screens and bypasses at the hydro dams 600§ § not a priority action Lake restoration Floodplain lakes – Whangape Hydro lakes – Whirinaki Arm of Ohakuri Invasive species Aquatic weeds Pest fish – koi Toxicity Algal blooms Geothermal arsenic, mercury Adaptive management Monitoring Report cards …. Pulling it all together Scenario modelling S1 current initiatives S2 + proven technology S3 + unproven Summary of the improvement in health and wellbeing of the Waikato River with increasing net cost. Bars represent the range in aspiration scores for each scenario. Scenario 1 Actions underway – nobenefits additional costmillion) Table 6.7: already Total direct costs and ($2010 Total Present value* Scenario 2 CAPEX OPEX Total 630 2,050 2,680 520 710 1,230 Benefit Net cost 1,030 1,660 330 900 Scenario 3 CAPEX OPEX Total 3,170 6,420 9,590 2,480 1,980 4,460 Benefit Net cost 5,570 4,020 1,280 3,180 Notes: 1 *Discount rate eight percent. 2 Figures may not add due to rounding. Table 6.8: Cumulative and average net economic impacts, 2011–2040 Scenario 2 Waikato Region Rest of New Zealand Cumulative net economic impacts Value added Jobs 3 $2007million MEC1 Years Average net economic impacts per year Value added Jobs 3 $2007million MEC1 Years 1,260 -1,009 (0.005% GDP) 13,900 -15,850 (0.003% employment) -1,950 42 -34 460 -530 8 -65 11,600 -68,300 (0.085% employment) -56,700 20 -158 390 -2,280 -138 -1,890 Total Scenario 3 Waikato Region Rest of New Zealand 251 Total -4,130 600 -4,730 (0.082% GDP) Notes: 1 Modified Employment Count (MEC). This includes both employment counts and working proprietors. 2 Figures may not add due to rounding. $2007million – The IO modelling is based on an IO table for the year ending March 2007 developed by Market Economics Limited. This is the latest year for which all economic data required to produce an updated IO table are available. A regional table was also produced from the 2006/2007 national table. Non-market Values We can estimate the costs of restoration, and some monetary benefits Some benefits currently cannot be ascribed a monetary value (e.g., recreation, wellbeing) Estimates suggest non-market values are comparable with the costs of restoration Further work (e.g., on willingness to pay) is required There are significant costs associated with continued degradation ‘…to do nothing is not an option…’ Holism Engagement Significant sites Access Spiritual values Recreation Aesthetics Human health Water quality Fisheries and kai Taonga species Ecological integrity Water supply Predicted progress for each aspiration, compared with the current state, assuming full implementation of the recommended priority actions. annual expenditure cumulative benefits 100 100% Annual expenditure $m 90 80 80% 70 60 60% 50 40 40% 30 20 20% 10 0 0% 0 10 20 30 Years 40 50 Main Findings 1. The priority actions will restore the Waikato River so it almost meets the objectives of Te Ture Whaimana. 2. Assessment supported by the international case studies and restoration projects elsewhere in New Zealand. 3. Estimated net expenditure required is $2,240 million (PV $1,400 million). 4. The CUT cannot/should not fund all priority actions. 5. Expenditure on restoration is estimated to • stimulate the local economy but redistribute capital & employment • transfer capital & employment from the rest of New Zealand • the percentage changes are small 1. Some benefits cannot be ascribed a monetary value but NMV are estimated to be comparable with the costs of restoration 2. There are information needs including • site selection & engineering design • making ‘how to’ guides available to stakeholders, and • research on fish and non-market values. 3. The project combines • maatauranga Maaori • social and biophysical science • economics to identify the actions required to meet the aspirations of • Maaori • wider community for improving the ‘…health and wellbeing…’ of the Waikato River. Key to success ‘…A key to the success of restoration will be to change people’s attitudes and behaviour. This requires a significant effort to engage with the community, industry and local government. If people understand and support the objectives of restoration then it is more likely to be successful…’ ‘…communities …are responsible for restoring and protecting…’ (Te Ture Whaimana) Understanding and support comes through ‘hands on’ involvement in restoration and protection and making greater use of the river, river banks, lakes, wetlands… Acknowledgements • • • • • • • • Waikato-Tainui Raukawa Tuwharetoa Maniapoto Te Arawa River Iwi The wider Waikato community through consultation Guardians Establishment Committee Ministry for the Environment “Tooku awa koiora me oona pikonga he kura tangihia o te maataamuri. The river of life, each curve more beautiful than the last.”