Andy Loader argues that the pause on Waikato Plan Change 1 is not a retreat from improving river health, but an opportunity to address what he sees as fundamental flaws in the plan. He says PC1 failed to properly balance environmental objectives with the economic and social wellbeing of farming communities, despite those considerations being central to the original Vision and Strategy for the Waikato and Waipa Rivers.
The paper on Thursday 24th published an article by Mathew Martin regarding the hold on PC1 under the headline:
“Waikato farmers welcome PC1 reprieve as River Authority sounds alarm”
The article starts with the following paragraphs, but I believe it does not give a clear picture of the true facts behind the decision to place a hold on implementing PC1.
“Waikato farmers say parking Plan Change 1 until 2033 has lifted a weight from their shoulders, but the Waikato River Authority says it stalls urgent work on deteriorating waterways and sets a troubling precedent for treaty settlements.
Parliament passed new Planning and Natural Environment legislation this week, pushing PC1’s deadlines for farm environment plan and farming consent beyond the end of 2032.”
The Waikato River Authority (WRA) statement doesn’t take into account the work already voluntarily undertaken by the farming industry. A large percentage of what was required under the proposed PC1 has already been achieved and, in the case of the Lake Waikare/Whangamarino catchment, the Waikato Regional Council’s own water quality data shows that the water going into the wetland from the farming areas above is actually better than the receiving waters.
Why PC1 Was Put On Hold
The real reasons PC1 has been put on hold are the same reasons why many people objected to the plan being accepted by the elected members of the Waikato Regional Council fifteen years ago.
To understand the issue, we need to go back to the beginning and look at how PC1 came about.
Around 2010 an agreement was made between the Crown and five River Iwi on the future of the Waipa and Waikato Rivers. This was a Treaty Settlement agreement. To enable the agreement to proceed, the Waikato River Authority was created.
The Authority is made up of five Crown appointees and five Iwi appointees. Each of the five Iwi has a representative. A total of ten members make up the Authority. The Crown, through taxpayers, created a fund. The fund is invested and the Authority uses the annual proceeds from that investment to operate the Authority and fund projects to improve the quality of the water in both rivers.
The Authority needed a mission statement for the trustees to refer to, and a mission statement was developed under the title of Vision and Strategy for the Waikato and Waipa Rivers.
This document was fully consulted and everyone in the Waikato region had the opportunity to participate in the process. The backbone of the Vision and Strategy document is that water quality must improve over time in both rivers.
Section (3) of the Vision sets out 13 objectives to realise that vision. The following are what we believe to be the main objectives:
(3) (a) The restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.
(3) (d) the restoration and protection of the relationships of the Waikato Region’s communities with the Waikato River, including their economic, social, cultural, and spiritual relationships.
(3) (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.
We believe the Vision and Strategy document was very well written. It sets out a vision for the future 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.
How Plan Change One Emerged
Once the Vision and Strategy was adopted, the Waikato Regional Council was tasked with formulating a plan to allow the region to fulfil the Vision and Strategy objectives.
To do this, WRC brought about thirty people together to produce a plan. This group was called the Collaborative Stakeholders Group.
This plan was labelled Plan Change One (PC1). After about two years and about $10 million, the plan was presented to the elected Council for them to vote on accepting the plan.
WRA Co-Chair Stu Kneebone was an elected member of the WRC when this plan was adopted.
The plan presented was so controversial that seven elected councillors voted against it and seven voted for it. The Chairperson of the Council at the time used her casting vote to move the plan to the next stage.
From when the Council accepted the plan until the present day, the plan has been in dispute and something like $100 million has been spent collectively trying to sort the mess out.
Finally, the present Government has told the Waikato Regional Council to pause until 2032.
So, What Is The Problem?
The Vision and Strategy document clearly says that the health and wellbeing of the rivers must be restored and protected, but whilst doing so we must take into account the economic, social, cultural and spiritual relationships with the river.
We do not believe that the Collaborative Stakeholders Group placed enough emphasis on these objectives in the Vision and Strategy document.
Instead, they demanded that the rivers become swimmable quality within 80 years.
The 80-year timeframe was invented by the Collaborative Stakeholders Group even though there was no timeframe ever included as part of the publicly consulted Vision and Strategy document.
That 80-year timeframe was an unrealistic goal which has since been shown would have put the entire region and country at serious risk economically and socially. The objective is too tough, if not impossible.
There is huge concern that many of these standards or timeframes are currently not practical or implementable whilst still maintaining the economic viability of farming operations, yet they will be legally enforceable.
The Economic Consequences
Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of PC1 on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation, according to that report, was that 68% of sheep and beef farmers and 13% of dairy farmers would leave the agricultural sector.
WRC, in its initial costing of the implementation of PC1, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 million to $600 million per year for the eighty-year timeframe of the proposed plan change implementation.
The total negative economic impact on the Waikato region comes about even though only 15 of the sub-catchments in the Waikato and Waipa catchments were exceeding the standards proposed to be introduced through the enactment of PC1 at the time it was proposed.
The Environment Court explicitly recognised “significant social and economic consequences” and the need to avoid “unrealistically short timeframes” that would cause “increased stress for land users”.
Waikato Regional Council’s own modelling of the final version of PC1 found:
“Overall, there is potential loss of about 18% of catchment-level income in the long term scenario, and about 16% in the short term scenario.”
Many organisations had realised these problems early in the process but, even after much discussion, Waikato Regional Councillors and the Waikato River Authority totally ignored these concerns.
We were told the Vision and Strategy is above the law and an agreed Treaty Settlement, yet those agencies that are responsible for implementing the agreement do not see where they had failed their ratepayers and taxpayers.
Why The Government's Pause Matters
Only after a huge effort by many people belonging to various organisations has the present Government now accepted the failure of both the Waikato Regional Council and the Waikato River Authority to adequately address all of the relationships, such that they have placed a hold on the process in relation to farm environment plans and farming consents.
The legislation, passed under urgency on Tuesday night, means farmers will not be required to prepare, implement and maintain a PC1 Farm Environment Plan before 2033.
WRA Co-Chair Stu Kneebone said the pause had halted momentum at the point it was most needed.
For the Co-Chair of the WRA to make such a statement, given that the Authority acknowledged that PC1’s underlying rules remain in force, including controls on nitrogen fertiliser, cultivation, intensive winter grazing and land-use change, is, to say the least, disappointing.
The WRA had failed to adopt a plan which fitted the conditions of the Vision and Strategy document and, as a result, have put the prosperity of the region at risk.
The WRA needs to accept their mistake and redesign PC1 so that it reflects the true interpretation of the Vision and Strategy: to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato and Waipa Rivers to an aspirational level, over time, whilst at the same time allowing the region to prosper.
Until the WRA accepts their mistake there will continue to be major disagreements and years of opportunity will be wasted.