Government Failure – Koi Carp
The Government released their new “action plan for healthy waterways” on the 5th September which sets out the proposed new requirements to improve freshwater.
Research published on 11/09/19 by Local Government New Zealand shows that the proposed water quality restrictions on nitrates have the potential to change the New Zealand rural landscape radically.
Applying the proposed 85 per cent reduction in freshwater nitrate levels to the Waikato could see a massive shift from beef and sheep farming to forestry.
And land used for dairying could shrink by 13 per cent.
Forestry would then occupy over 50 per cent of the farmland in the Waikato.
The research was undertaken by a group of scientists and academics from NIWA, Ag Research, the University of Waikato, Dairy NZ and private consultancies.
Vaughan Payne, Chair of the Regional Sector Water Subgroup and Chief Executive of Waikato Regional Council said improving environmental outcomes would have economic and community impacts.
“Our initial work suggests that the economic impacts will be significant and these need to be carefully managed,” he said.
The report was prepared in July, but the researchers had access to the new nitrate limits proposed in the Government’s draft National Policy Standard on Freshwater released last week.
The study focused on the Waikato-Waipa catchment. The Waipa River winds its way for 115 kilometres from the south-east of Te Kuiti to join the Waikato at Ngaruawahia. Its journey takes it through the heartland of the Waikato dairy industry.
To cope with the proposed new limits, the study found that the solution required considerable changes in land use.
In particular, it found large-scale afforestation; particularly of drystock land would be required.
According to the modelling results, drystock farming would fall from 43% of modelled land use in the catchment to 14 per cent, while forestry would increase from about one-fifth of the catchment to more than one half.
The area allocated to dairy farming would also fall by 13%, drystock farming would fall by 68%, and forestry land use would increase by 160%.
It said the switch away from drystock farming (beef and Lamb) was because the profit per hectare was lower than for dairy farming; thus the opportunity cost of planting a drystock farm was lower than planting a dairy farm.
Combining the change in land use profitability and transition costs gives an estimated annual cost of meeting the new limits in the Waikato-Waipa catchment of around $100 million (or around 11% of the total profits derived from land use in the catchment).
The study also questions whether the focus solely on nitrate and phosphorous levels is the right approach to measuring the cleanliness of streams and rivers.
The problem is centred on what measure is used to define the ecosystem health of a waterway.
The current measure being used to define the ecosystem health of the waterways is wrong and this is quite provably so when you take into account the fact that there has been no account taken of the effects from the spread of Koi Carp throughout the waterways.
There is a legal requirement under the Waikato River Settlement Act 2010 for the cumulative adverse effects to be managed in statutory planning documents at the time of their review as shown in the copied sections below:
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010
Schedule 2
Vision and strategy for Waikato River
Strategy
Section: (k) ensure that cumulative adverse effects on the Waikato River of activities are appropriately managed in statutory planning documents at the time of their review:
The failure to address the effects from Koi Carp, in any of the proposed planning documents by the WRC and also from the Government’s “New Action Plan for Healthy Waterways”, amounts to a wilful disregard for this legal requirement.
There is huge environmental and habitat damage being done by Koi Carp and very little being done to control or eradicate this pest.
The Vision under the settlement Act in section (k) states that the water quality objective will be pursued as copied below:
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010
Schedule 2
Vision and strategy for Waikato River
Strategy
Section: (k) the restoration of water quality within the Waikato River so that it is safe for people to swim in and take food from over its entire length:
Failure to address the pest fish issues will result in absolute failure of the ability to achieve the requirements of the Vision & Strategy, relating to Swimmability and Food gathering.
The water will be too sediment laden for swimming and there will be no native flora or fauna left for food gathering after the Koi Carp have finished feeding.
Without addressing the issue of uncontrolled expansion of the Koi Carp population in our rivers, there is absolutely no way that this objective will be attained.
In fact the whole of our river systems will continue to have a declining standard of water quality (from the effects of Koi Carp) no matter what other actions are taken.
The Prime Minister is on record as saying that she is concerned about rural communities and their welfare.
Yet this government has decided to release this “New Action Plan for Healthy Rivers” with only an eight week consultation period, even though it does not address the worst problem related to water quality (Koi Carp), as is required by the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010.
This action plan will result in 68% of drystock farmers and 13% of dairy farmers going out of business. You may question my reasoning behind this claim but it is very simple to answer your questioning of this.
To change to forestry will require a large cash injection to develop and plant the forests and then a wait for approximately thirty years to gain any return on this investment while in the ensuing period you have to also maintain the trees (pruning, thinning, etc.) which is added cost.
This equates to bankruptcy for most of these farmers.
Then we should address the issues of the rural towns that will become ghost towns because the people that used to support all of the rural industries such as doctors, dentists, vets, supermarkets, volunteer firemen, volunteer ambulance officers etc. are no longer there as they have lost their employment.
They will look to move to the cities to look for employment as the forestry employment won’t happen in any large numbers for another thirty odd years. So yes we will see ghost towns around the Waikato region.
Doesn’t look to me, that the Prime Ministers concerns about rural communities and their welfare, are much of a consideration under this plan.
Yes we need to address the water quality in our waterways but not at the expense of bankrupting either individual farmers or the country as a whole.
By addressing the issue of Koi Carp we can go a long way towards improving the water quality without creating economic carnage for either individual farmers or the country as a whole.
So my question for the Government, given that I believe they are failing in their requirements under the Settlement Act, also failing to physically address the effects of Koi Carp and the plan will decimate the primary export production from the Waikato Region, is:
HOW WILL THIS PLAN AFFECT OUR COUNTRY’S GDP and OUR BALANCE OF OVERSEAS LOAN PAYMENTS?
Andy Loader
Co-Chairman P.L.U.G.
Primary land Users Group