Scientific Panel Consensus and Majority Statements

Thank you once again for taking part in this process so far. This is the final round
of the science panel process.

This round should be fairly straightforward. We have compiled a list of
statements that we think summarises the broad areas of agreement from the
process so far. We would like you to indicate whether you agree or disagree with
each statement. Please note that we have tried to keep the statements simple so
that laypeople will be able to understand them.

This document will be published on our website as the output from the process,
indicating which statements have majority or unanimous support. We will also
summarise our broader learnings from the process, which will highlight areas of
disagreement and signal where further work is needed on the science.

Once you have completed this task, that is the end of our process.

NB: During the process, some of you made comments that were more of greater
relevance to our work on policy rather than the science. So please dont think that
your efforts are in vain simply because those issues do not appear here.

# Statement Agree Disagree
1 Different peoples perspectives of water quality depend on
what they value water for. Garnering these values is the
purpose of collaborative processes under the NPS-FM.
However, underpinning these collaborative processes is a
non-negotiable goal: to protect the heritage of future
generations. This is evident in the fact that water policy as
embodied in the NPS-FM and NOF is designed to ensure the
ecological qualities of waterways remain above
scientifically-defined irrecoverable tipping points.


2 New Zealands water quality is degraded in areas developed
for human settlement or pastoral agriculture.


3 There are many causes of water degradation throughout New
Zealands history. These include deforestation (for many
reasons); introduced species; disposal of human sewage;
increased irrigation take-offs; manufacturing, mining,
urbanisation, flood protection schemes, hydro schemes, the
drainage of wetlands and different types of farming.


4 Many of our waterways, and lowland ones in particular, have
been impacted in some or all of the following ways: reduced
shade cover; reduced flow; increased temperature; and/or
they are have higher levels of sediment, nutrients and/or
bacteria such as E. coli than they did in the past.


5 Sediment and E. Coli reduce ecosystem health, human health,
livestock health and make swimming and fishing difficult and
unpleasant.


6 Lack of shade and excess nutrients contribute to the growth of
weed and algal blooms, which can also make swimming and
fishing difficult and unpleasant and algal blooms
(cyanobacteria to be precise) may in some cases contribute to
the creation of poisonous cyanotoxins.


7 Depending on local conditions, it may take decades or even
centuries to see the impacts of current practices on water
quality.


8 The Macroinvertebrate Index is a better indicator of ecosystem
health than any one nutrient variable.

9 In recent decades the amount of human sewage and industrial
waste that has gone into waterways has reduced.


10 The increased intensity of farming, which is particularly
evident in the dairy sector, is the most likely cause of any
continuing degradation.


11 More intensive farming is being made possible by increased
irrigation.


12 There are a variety of ways of mitigating the impact of farming
on water quality, depending on local circumstances. Some of
these, such as reduced intensity or precision agriculture, can
have a neutral or even positive impact on farm profit. It is also
possible to mitigate the effects of high intensity farming, such
as with feed pads and wintering sheds in the case of dairy, but
this is likely to increase farming costs.


13 NOF is a valuable start in establishing a framework for
freshwater management but there is considerable scope for
improvement if it is to be effective in improving the
management of all water bodies. There is an urgent need to
develop the NOF further.


14 When considered individually each of the NOF bottom lines
(where they exist) is adequate to prevent waterways from
reaching a state of irreversible degradation.


15 The approach taken in NOF does not account for the composite
effects of water attributes.



16 Composite effects may trigger an unexpected and irreversible
ecosystem collapse.


17 Ensuring the NOF assists communities in the process of setting
limits that are appropriate for a particular water body but also
reflect complex interconnections between waterways (such as
rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries and groundwater) is a
challenge facing those designing the NOF.


18 In principle using adaptive management is the best way to
manage freshwater.


19 To be effective, adaptive management requires comprehensive
and timely monitoring of water quality, land use, off-takes and
discharges and a reliable understanding of the ecological
processes at work within catchments.


20 In practice, many catchments will not have the level of
information required for adaptive management, so managers
will have to be precautionary in the way they manage their
waterways.


21 Given the current wording of the draft amendment to the NPS-
FM that includes the NOF with the exception of outstanding
water bodies, significant values of wetlands and degraded
water bodies that have been over-allocated, it is unclear
what protection the NPS-FM provides for water bodies with
water quality above the bottom line. As it currently stands
NPS-FM Objective A2 (the overall quality of fresh water
within a region is maintained or improved) could be seen as
allowing deterioration in some attributes within a waterway,
or deterioration in water quality within a catchment (providing
on average there is no deterioration within the region). This
uncertainty regarding the intent of the NPS-FM with its Draft
Amendments will unnecessarily obstruct its implementation.


22 Please indicate whether you are comfortable having your
name used as being involved in this process. No
statements will be attributed to individuals.