Aotearoa has more than 900,000 hectares of irrigated agricultural land, mostly in the South Island. Photo / RNZ, Sally Round
By Monique Steele of RNZ
Access to water, food production as a priority, and land use classifications are some of the issues primary sector groups are considering with the Government’s proposed new resource management legislation.
Public hearings into the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill, which would replace the Resource Management Act, continued during the environment select committee this week.
Primary sector groups generally supported the intent of resource management reform, but requested further changes to the drafts from the Government.
The environment select committee will consider all submissions before reporting back to Parliament by the end of June.
It said 2242 written submissions were publicly available, but the total number of submissions was confidential to the committee.
Water was a key issue for the country’s winemakers, who warned that future access would likely become more difficult with climate change in a competitive market for users.
Wine vineyards covered around 44,000 hectares across Aotearoa, with the majority in Marlborough.
The sector used water usually for irrigation, frost protection and then in winemaking.
New Zealand Winegrowers’ general manager for sustainability, Dr Edwin Massey, told the select committee on Monday the RMA was no longer fit for purpose, as water became a more “scarce” resource.
“Certainly, water is absolutely critical for the success of our industry, largely along the east coast of both islands,” Massey said.
“And water is highly competitive.”
Massey said the sector prioritised efficient water use, and a market-based allocation, which it opposed, could lock up the resource.
“New Zealand is getting warmer and drier with less snow melt, and those east coast catchments are likely to, on long-term average, have reduced access to clean, fresh water.
“So getting that allocation system right and basing that around incentivising sustainability, we feel, is a great way to not only ensure export return, but also to protect the environment and its quality.”
Massey said wine companies metered their water use and reported back to the organisation to try to improve sustainability and efficiency of water use, under the Sustainable Winemaking scheme.
Group New Zealand Winegrowers represented 1400 commercial grape growers and wine companies.
Agricultural irrigators wanted the new resource management system to recognise the importance of food production and highlight their role as key infrastructure in its success.
Aotearoa has more than 900,000 hectares of irrigated agricultural land, mostly in the South Island/Te Wai Pounamu.
These systems either stored rainfall when it was plentiful or extracted it from rivers and streams to feed crops during dry periods.
However, large-scale irrigation could impact river flows, degrade water quality from nutrient runoff and cause soil issues.
Irrigation New Zealand represents around 5000 irrigators, irrigation schemes and farmers.
Chief executive Karen Williams told the environment select committee on Monday that the proposed legislation replacing the RMA failed to highlight the role of natural resources in producing food.
“If irrigation and farming are framed primarily as environmental pressures, the system will regulate them mainly as activities to constrain,” she said.
“But when managed well, irrigated land strengthens food production, regional employment, and provides greater resilience to climate variability.”
Williams said water storage and distribution should be considered as long-life infrastructure in the legislation.
“So the decisions before this committee are very much about balance between protecting fresh water and enabling responsible use.”
But the Green Party’s agriculture spokesman, Steve Abel, told the select committee that groundwater nitrate levels had significantly worsened since the advent of large-scale irrigation.
“Your industry is at the heart of some of our most chronic water contamination problems, particularly in Canterbury, because big irrigation has driven dairy intensity,” he said.
“Isn’t your industry exactly the reason we need to constrain activities that could be going to chronically harm what is the collective commons, our fresh water?”
Williams said irrigation had enabled all sorts of agricultural land uses to evolve.
“Yes, it has enabled dairying, and the application of nutrients associated with any of those activities need to be carefully managed.”
The group said 90% of horticultural land was irrigated, 80% for arable, 40% for sheep and beef, and 28% for dairy.
Beef + Lamb New Zealand called for significant changes to the drafted legislation in its submission, arguing the wording in the legislation did not match the Government’s own intent.
Chairwoman Kate Acland said farmers could be worse off under the proposals, as setting and managing limits would likely result in a need for more consents, not fewer.
“There are more onerous requirements on permitted activities,” she said.
“The lack of appropriate guardrails on the exercise of ministerial and council powers in many areas and the lack of requirement to consider costs and benefits could result in significant economic impacts.”
Acland said freshwater health was very important to farmers, rural communities and the country.
“We need to get the framework for managing this right.
“Changes to the legislation are necessary, but I’m confident we can get to an enduring framework that’s practical and achievable.”
She said the drafted legislation lacked detail on how freshwater farm plans and other assurance programmes might fit into the consenting picture.
Federated Farmers was also concerned about compliance requirements and red tape for farmers.
Spokesman Mark Hooper said a major concern was that, as the terms were currently written, instead of a farm plan replacing the need for a resource consent, a farm may need both.
“We see a risk of farmers facing more red tape under the Natural Environment Act than they presently do under the RMA,” he said.
“There are too many ambiguous, principle-based clauses in the two bills, which is likely to see continued expensive, time-consuming and litigious decision-making.”
It raised concerns that the same farming activity might fall between the two parliamentary acts, leading to more complicated and costly compliance processes.
It did not support a market-based water allocation system nor a levy.
Pork industry group NZPork said it urged the Government to ensure permitted activity rules enabled farmers to operate without unnecessary red tape.
Horticulture New Zealand renewed its calls for commercial vegetable production to be enabled in the new legislation rather than hindered, as it argued was the situation for some growers now.
Some growers in areas such as Waikato and the Horizons regions have struggled to get consents due to local and regional rules.
Chief executive Kate Scott told the environment select committee last week that a clearer national direction for securing the supply of domestic production of fruit and vegetables was needed.
She said the Government could create goals of either enabling the supply of fresh fruit and vegetables or making it an activity of national significance.
“The way these sections are drafted would mean that most horticultural activities would require a restricted discretionary or discretionary consent, even where growers are making environmental improvements,” she said.
“This is worse than the status quo, particularly for orchardists who do have a very minimal effect on freshwater quality.”
Scott said it was concerned that permitted activities under the new system appeared to be more expensive for consent holders than the status quo.
Horticulture New Zealand did not support the introduction of market-based water allocation, nor did New Zealand Winegrowers nor the Canterbury Regional Council.
It said the approach would allocate resources to the highest bidder or highest-value user.
However, the Environmental Defence Society demanded changes to the drafts due to what it called significant weaknesses in the legislation.
It said regulatory relief risked undermining environmental protection, environmental limits lacked clarity, public participation would be stripped away and there was a narrow scope of planning.
– RNZ