Part 3: How regional councils monitor and report on freshwater quality

Managing freshwater quality: Challenges for regional councils.

3.1
In this Part, we:

discuss how freshwater quality is measured;
outline how freshwater quality is monitored and the state of, and trends in, freshwater quality in the four regions we looked at;
review the public reporting of freshwater quality results; and
discuss how regional councils are monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness and efficiency of their policies and methods.

Our overall findings

3.2
There is no single set of freshwater quality variables or monitoring methods that regional councils use to measure freshwater quality, and no nationally agreed guidelines, standards, or methodology for analysing and reporting regional freshwater quality data at the national level.

3.3
The Ministry for the Environment and regional council representatives are working together to get better national data on freshwater quality. We support this initiative. In particular, we consider that regional councils could improve the consistency with which biological variables are monitored. The information derived from monitoring these variables can be useful for determining whether the regional plan objectives for freshwater quality are being achieved.

3.4
All four regional councils had adequate systems for collecting data on freshwater quality and had a good understanding of freshwater quality in their region.

3.5
Each regional council's data showed that there were areas where accepted guidelines, "trigger values", or standards were not met. Each region had some freshwater quality trends that were deteriorating and some that were improving. Overall, freshwater quality trend results show that water quality declined during the 10-year period (2000-2009) in low-elevation areas (generally used as pastoral land) and some hill areas.

3.6
All four regional councils reported freshwater quality information to their councillors and to communities. A number of innovative methods are in use, but some improvements could be made.

3.7
Taranaki Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council were completing the monitoring required under the RMA to measure and report on whether their freshwater quality policies and methods are having the desired effect. Environment Southland and Horizons Regional Council were not meeting these requirements.

3.8
The ultimate measure of whether policies and methods for freshwater quality are working is whether freshwater quality objectives are being achieved and, if not, whether freshwater quality is improving. Including specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives in planning documents provides a strong basis for measuring and reporting on whether policy outcomes are being achieved.

Measuring freshwater quality

Where is freshwater quality monitored?

3.9
Regional councils and NIWA regularly monitor the water quality at more than 800 river and stream sites throughout New Zealand. NIWA's National River Water Quality Network includes 77 of these sites, which are located on 35 rivers.

3.10
The remaining sites are part of monitoring networks operated by regional councils. These networks include reference sites in catchments with little development, where water quality is typically good, and sites where water quality is likely to be affected by human activities.

3.11
The Ministry for the Environment is running a project to improve national water quality statistics. The project aims to create a National Freshwater Monitoring Network that will mainly use existing regional council and NIWA sites. This larger national network should enable more robust conclusions to be made about freshwater quality from different river types and land uses. Regional councils support this project. Staff from a range of regional councils are part of the technical steering group for the project.

What is measured?

3.12
The most common variables that regional councils and NIWA measure and report on include:

Bacteria – Faecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci indicate the presence of human or animal faeces and the associated risk of infectious disease for people swimming in or drinking the water, and for livestock from drinking the water.
Nutrients – Increased levels of various forms of nitrogen and phosphorus in water bodies can cause excessive plant growth rates, which can lead to blooms of algae and nuisance weeds. These can then reduce the recreational and aesthetic value of water bodies and affect fish and other aquatic animals.
Visual clarity – A river or lake with low clarity can indicate significant erosion in the catchment or algal growth in the water. Low clarity affects fish feeding and spawning habits, plants' growth rates, and recreational uses.
Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) – This measures the composition of the invertebrate animals that live on the river beds. The MCI gives an overall indication of river health and water quality.
Periphyton – The algae that grow on the beds of rivers, streams and lakes turn dissolved nutrients into nutritious food (periphyton biomass) for invertebrates, which are themselves food for fish and birds. Elevated levels of nutrients can cause periphyton blooms – long filamentous growths or thick mats that cover much of the streambed. Too much algal growth can be a nuisance for swimming, fishing, and kayaking and adversely affect fish and insect life in rivers.

3.13
Regional councils' monitoring programmes generally provide good coverage of physical, chemical, and microbiological water quality variables (nutrients, visual clarity, and bacteria). These are particularly useful for analysing trends and for assessing the causes of environmental problems.

3.14
Regional councils can monitor other variables, such as the type and abundance of fish and water plants, herbicide and pesticide residues, and heavy metals. The analysis carried out by NIWA as part of our audit of the four regional councils showed that the consistency of monitoring of biological variables (for example, invertebrates and periphyton) could be improved. These types of variables provide potentially useful information for determining whether the regional plan objectives are being achieved.

How are the variables measured?

3.15
There is no standard method that all regional councils and other entities use to sample and monitor each variable. The Ministry for the Environment and a group of regional council science officers are working to set up standard methods for all regional councils – and, ideally, other entities doing this work (such as NIWA) – to use.

How are water quality results interpreted?

3.16
As well as no standard set of variables or methods, there is no nationally consistent set of guidelines or standards that regional councils, the Ministry for the Environment, and NIWA use to assess whether water quality is within acceptable limits. Instead, agencies that report on freshwater quality use various guidelines or targets, including:

Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) guidelines;¹⁵
Ministry for the Environment water quality guidelines for clarity;¹⁶
Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health microbiological water quality guidelines for recreational use;¹⁷ and
targets, limits, or standards set by regional councils.

3.17
Revised in 2000, the ANZECC guidelines include numerical "trigger values". These values can be used to assess whether there is cause to investigate water quality issues further or whether a result suggests that the water quality supports ecological values.

Freshwater monitoring in the four councils' regions

3.18
We commissioned NIWA to help us assess whether the Waikato, Taranaki, Horizons, and Southland regional councils have effective methods to gather information about and monitor the physical, chemical, and microbiological quality of freshwater.

3.19
Because there is no single set of variables, monitoring methods, guidelines, or standards that regional councils use to measure freshwater quality, and no agreed methodology for analysing and reporting freshwater quality data at the national level, NIWA had to design a methodology to analyse regional data and report conclusions at a national level. This methodology involved nominating trigger values for physical, chemical, and microbiological freshwater quality variables and comparing the regional freshwater quality monitoring data against these trigger values.

3.20
The trigger values are not national standards but have been nominated to assess whether the levels of physical and chemical stressors might have adverse biological or ecological effects. They are not specifically designed for each region. Rather than implying that increased levels of physical and chemical stressors will cause adverse biological or ecological effects, values above the trigger levels call for further investigation of water quality.

3.21
NIWA's methodology to assess the state of, and trends in, freshwater quality included:

assessing the methods used to monitor the freshwater in each of the four regions;
obtaining information from the regional councils that described physical, chemical, and microbiological water quality monitoring programmes for rivers, lakes, and groundwater (including the locations and the details of monitoring sites, the frequency of monitoring, the variables analysed, and the quality assurance/quality control and data storage procedures);
evaluating whether the monitoring networks in each region included enough sites; and
determining that the scope of the freshwater quality state and trend analysis would include 10 physical, chemical, and microbiological variables in river water quality data supplied by the councils and the National River Water Quality Network.¹⁸

3.22
The state and trends in lake water and groundwater was not analysed because there is less consistency in how that information is collected.

3.23
The four regional councils also monitor biological characteristics in rivers, including periphyton and macroinvertebrates, as measures of ecological health. However, NIWA did not analyse the state of, and trends in, these biological variables because the councils assessed different variables, at different sampling frequencies, and over different periods. These differences reflect differing regional focuses for biological monitoring programmes.

3.24
NIWA used the River Environment Classification system (REC), which is a tool that organises and maps information about New Zealand's rivers. The REC groups rivers with similar characteristics based on the climate, topography, geology, and land cover of their catchments. The groups used in this study were based on the dominant catchment topography. Four topographic categories were defined: low-elevation, hill, mountain, and lake. The REC assigns sections of rivers (and therefore the water quality monitoring sites) to one of these categories using "rules" that are mainly applied to data that describes the elevation at which most of the catchments annual rainfall occurs. For example, if most of a catchment's rainfall occurs above 1000m above sea level, the catchment was categorised as "Mountain".

3.25
NIWA used the median value of each of the variables at the sites (or the 95th percentile for E. coli) as a measure of the state and compared these with guideline trigger values (where available) for water quality (see Appendix 4).

3.26
Finally, NIWA analysed trend direction and strength for the 10 physical, chemical, and microbiological variables over the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009. The strength and direction of trends were quantified using statistical methods for estimating trends in data that are subject to appreciable seasonality, such as water quality data. The freshwater quality trend data were adjusted for river flow or a flow estimation method was applied before the data were analysed.

Monitoring networks, range of variables monitored, and quality assurance

3.27
The results of NIWA's analysis showed that each of the four regional councils:

has well-planned and well-operated networks for assessing the current state and long-term trends in the physical and chemical quality of freshwater;
has monitoring networks with sites that are distributed throughout their regions reasonably representatively;
is monitoring a comprehensive suite of relevant physical, chemical, microbiological, and biological variables suitably often; and
generally has adequate quality assurance, quality control, and data storage procedures.

3.28
This analysis indicated that each of the four regional councils had access to good quality information about freshwater quality, which it could use to inform freshwater quality management.

3.29
NIWA considered that no region had too few sites to adequately describe regional patterns in water quality, but Environment Southland and Waikato Regional Council had many more sites than Taranaki Regional Council and Horizons Regional Council that met NIWA's criteria for trend analysis.

3.30
The data for 12 physical, chemical, and microbiological monitoring sites in Taranaki were enough to detect patterns. Horizons Regional Council's dataset was barely adequate to describe large-scale patterns in water quality state and trends in the region. This is because Horizons Regional Council had previously used a system of "rolling sites". Horizons Regional Council significantly improved its monitoring network between 2007 and 2009, which will now support more comprehensive trend analysis.

3.31
The large differences between regions in the total number of active monitoring sites partly reflects the size of the regions.

3.32
To provide more meaningful commentary about the freshwater quality trends in Horizons Regional Council and Taranaki Regional Council's regions, we have also considered additional analysis carried out within these regions (see paragraphs 3.43-3.46).

Freshwater quality state

3.33
Figures 7 to 10 summarise the results of the freshwater quality state and trend analysis for each of the four regional councils, compared to the trigger values and guidelines discussed in paragraph 3.20 and shown in Appendix 4.

3.34
When the freshwater quality is shown as "Fail" in these Figures, there is cause for further investigation. A "Pass" is given where the results are below (or above, for Clarity) a guideline trigger value. A "Pass" suggests that the water is ecologically healthy. "NS" means there are no significant trends, and "NA" means there are no monitoring sites in the topographical category.

3.35
NIWA's analysis shows that water quality varied considerably between and within regions. In general, sites classified as being in the "mountain", "lake", and "hill" topographical categories had the best water quality. Low-elevation sites usually failed water-quality guidelines, trigger values, and standards. Hill sites sometimes failed.

3.36
Poor water quality (high nutrients and faecal pollution, and low visual clarity) was associated with pastoral land use areas. Water quality was even poorer in urban streams. These patterns match findings of other studies.¹⁹

Freshwater quality trends

3.37
NIWA analysed freshwater quality trends in the four regions between 2000 and 2009.

3.38
Overall, water quality declined during the 10 years in low-elevation areas (which are usually dominated by pastoral land) and some hill areas.

3.39
Most regions showed a mix of improving and deteriorating trends. Overall, phosphorus levels showed improving trends.²⁰ This might be related to the increased cost of phosphorus fertiliser and active managing of soil phosphorus, or because of better managing of point source discharges.

3.40
The most concerning trends were in Waikato and Southland. In Waikato, six of the nine assessed variables in low-elevation sites, three of nine variables in hill sites, and four of nine in lake sites showed deteriorating trends (see Figure 7).

Figure 7
NIWA's analysis of water quality – Waikato Regional Council

Variable	Low-elevation (57%)		Hill (25%)		Lake (16%)		Mountain (2%)
Variable	State	Trend	State	Trend	State	Trend	State	Trend
Clarity	Fail		Fail		Fail		Pass	NA
Conductivity	NA		NA	NS	NA		NA	NA
Ammoniacal nitrogen	Pass		Pass	NS	Pass	NS	Pass	NA
Oxidised nitrogen	Fail		Pass		Pass		Pass	NA
Total nitrogen	Fail		Pass		Pass		Pass	NA
Dissolved reactive phosphorus	Fail		Fail		Fail	NS	Fail	NA
Total phosphorus	Fail		Fail		Fail	NS	Pass	NA
Escherichia coli	Fail		Fail	NS	Pass	NS	NA	NA
Faecal coliforms	Fail		Pass	NS	Pass	NS	NA	NA

Note: The data has been compared with nominated water quality trigger values and grouped using REC categories (see Appendix 4). The value in brackets is the proportion of rivers (by length) that belong to each REC category in this region. Upward arrows indicate improving trends; downward arrows indicate deteriorating trends.

3.41
The results for Southland show deteriorating trends for three of nine variables in low-elevation sites and two of nine in hill sites (see Figure 8).

Figure 8
NIWA's analysis of water quality – Environment Southland

Variable	Low-elevation (43%)		Hill (33%)		Lake (10%)		Mountain (13%)
Variable	State	Trend	State	Trend	State	Trend	State	Trend
Clarity	Fail	NS	Pass	NS	Pass	NS	Pass	NA
Conductivity	NA	NS	NA		NA	NS	NA	NA
Ammoniacal nitrogen	Fail		Pass	NS	Pass	NS	Pass	NA
Oxidised nitrogen	Fail		Pass		Pass	NS	Pass	NA
Total nitrogen	Fail		Pass	NS	Pass	NS	Pass	NA
Dissolved reactive phosphorus	Fail	NS	Pass		Pass	NS	Pass	NA
Total phosphorus	Fail	NS	Pass	NS	Pass	NS	Pass	NA
Escherichia coli	Fail	NS	Fail		Pass	NA	Pass	NA
Faecal coliforms	Fail	NS	Pass		Pass	NA	Pass	NA

3.42
NIWA's analysis for Taranaki showed two deteriorating trends in low-elevation sites and no improving trends (see Figure 9).

Figure 9
NIWA's analysis of water quality – Taranaki Regional Council

Variable	Low-elevation (83%)		Hill (16%)		Lake (0%)		Mountain (1%)
Variable	State	Trend	State	Trend	State	Trend	State	Trend
Clarity	Fail		Pass	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Conductivity	NA	NS	NA	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Ammoniacal nitrogen	Pass		Pass	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Oxidised nitrogen	Fail	NS	Pass	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Total nitrogen	Fail	NS	Pass	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Dissolved reactive phosphorus	Fail	NS	Fail	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Total phosphorus	Pass	NS	Pass	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Escherichia coli	Fail	NS	Fail	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Faecal coliforms	Pass	NS	Pass	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA

3.43
We also considered MCI data in Taranaki. Taranaki Regional Council's MCI monitoring is carried out at 51 sites on 22 rivers twice a year, and covers near-pristine waters and those in intensively farmed catchments. NIWA concluded that the data provide a good picture of the biological status of the rivers.

3.44
The MCI data show fair-poor biological health in low-elevation pasture areas. Upper catchments are healthier. Taranaki's MCI data trends show that the biological health of surface water is being maintained, is improving in some places (primarily in the mid-catchment areas), and has not demonstrably deteriorated at any sites.

3.45
NIWA's analysis of trends in Horizons Regional Council data showed no significant improvement or deterioration in freshwater quality (see Figure 10).

Figure 10
NIWA's analysis of water quality – Horizons Regional Council

Variable	Low-elevation (52%)		Hill (39%)		Lake (0%)		Mountain (9%)
Variable	State	Trend	State	Trend	State	Trend	State	Trend
Clarity	Fail	NS	Fail	NS	NA	NA	Fail	NA
Conductivity	NA	NS	NA	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Ammoniacal nitrogen	Pass	NS	Pass	NS	NA	NA	Pass	NA
Oxidised nitrogen	Fail	NS	Pass	NS	NA	NA	Pass	NA
Total nitrogen	Fail	NS	Pass	NA	NA	NA	Pass	NA
Dissolved reactive phosphorus	Fail	NS	Fail	NS	NA	NA	Pass	NA
Total phosphorus	Fail	NS	Pass	NA	NA	NA	Pass	NA
Escherichia coli	Fail	NS	Fail	NS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Faecal coliforms	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

3.46
Because of the previous limitations of Horizons Regional Council's water quality monitoring networks (discussed in paragraph 3.30), we have also analysed a 2009 NIWA report for Horizons Regional Council on trends in freshwater quality.²¹ This report concluded that there were long-term declining trends in visual clarity and nutrients,²² but analysis of more recent data suggested that water quality was stabilising or even improving at some sites.

Reporting the results of freshwater quality monitoring to communities

3.47
Section 35 of the RMA requires regional councils to monitor:

the state of the environment (section 35(2)(a)); and
the effectiveness and efficiency of policies, rules, or other methods in their policy statement or plans (section 35(2)(b)). The results of this monitoring must be compiled and made available to the public at least every five years (section 35(2A)).

3.48
We assessed the four regional councils' State of the Environment reports and other reports on freshwater quality to determine whether they:

clearly told the reader the state of, and trends in, freshwater quality;
explained the information in a way that could be easily understood;
were consistent between reports and documents; and
identified whether action was needed in response to what the information showed and summarised what was being done to address any issues.

3.49
All four councils had reported their State of the Environment monitoring results in varying formats and frequencies. As well as State of the Environment reports, Waikato Regional Council and Environment Southland reported freshwater quality through regular "report cards". Since 2009, Horizons Regional Council has operated the WaterQualityMatters online water quality database, which makes freshwater quality monitoring results quickly available to the community.

3.50
In many ways, the four regional councils clearly reported information about freshwater quality to communities – particularly where the councils' overall judgements on the information reported made it easy for readers to understand (for example, "water quality is poor"). Summaries in Environment Southland's Our Health²³ report were clear and answered the questions most relevant to many readers – "Is it safe to swim and play and collect kai from the waters?".

3.51
However, each of the four regional councils could improve their State of the Environment reporting (whether in a report, report card, or online database) to allow the reader to fully appreciate the implications of the information. Ideally, freshwater quality information for the public should:

compare the freshwater quality monitoring results with plan objectives, limits, and standards where possible, and with freshwater quality guidelines where necessary;
say whether freshwater quality is getting better or worse;
outline probable reasons for the quality of the freshwater; and
discuss what the council and the community are doing, or can do, to remedy problems.

3.52
In our view, regional councils could clarify what freshwater quality monitoring results mean for communities and resource users. For example, reporting on bacteria levels might clearly show that they are above guidelines but, for a member of the public to see the relevance of this, the corresponding potential outcome needs to be more clearly stated. A statement could be made that "E. coli levels were above guidelines because rainfall has caused faecal matter to run off from land. There are health risks associated with high E. coli levels and the water is not suitable for swimming."

3.53
Most of the four regional councils provided information on what they were doing in response to any water quality issues, but this information was not always easy for the reader to access. This information was generally in a separate section of the report and not structured in a way that allowed the reader to easily identify what aspects of freshwater quality the various management actions were targeting and whether they were working. This means that the reader could not judge whether the council was responding appropriately to freshwater quality issues.

3.54
State of the Environment reports are often published as high-quality documents. With the availability of the Internet, councils might wish to consider whether it is necessary to provide a State of the Environment report in hard copy. Targeted report cards and online databases are a timely and cost-effective alternative to producing more time-consuming and expensive State of the Environment reports. One risk of using report cards and online databases is that it can be more difficult to get an overall picture of the state of the whole region. This risk could be reduced by providing clear links between report cards and by ensuring that all online information is easily accessible in one place.

3.55
All regional councils' freshwater quality monitoring results are available on a new website (www.landandwater.co.nz). Regional councils and unitary authorities set up the website, which aims to report data in a common format. Creating the website has helped identify opportunities for regional councils to improve practices and be more consistent in monitoring, data storage, analysis, and reporting.

Reporting freshwater quality information to councillors

3.56
We looked at reporting of freshwater quality information to councillors. We expected information about freshwater quality to be regularly reported in a format that allowed councillors to understand the issues and make informed management decisions.

3.57
We found that all four regional councils operated a reporting framework that allowed information about freshwater quality and issues to be brought to the council promptly for advice or decisions. Information was regularly reported on freshwater quality to the council and council committees. The information included summaries on work programmes, specific projects, water quality trends, consent and compliance updates, and monitoring approaches. We considered that the information provided to the councils and their committees was clear, appropriate, and understandable.

3.58
All four regional councils published council and committee agendas, minutes, and most reports about freshwater quality reporting on their websites.

Conclusion

3.59
All four regional councils report freshwater quality information to their councillors and to communities. A number of innovative methods were in use. Overall, regional councils could improve how they report on freshwater quality to make it easier for the public to understand what freshwater quality results mean to them, where freshwater quality is not good, the factors contributing to this, and what the council and communities could do to improve it.

Recommendation 1
We recommend that all regional councils and unitary authorities review methods for reporting results of their freshwater quality monitoring to ensure that the methods: compare the freshwater quality monitoring results with (ideally specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) plan objectives, limits, and standards where possible and with guidelines where necessary; say whether freshwater quality is getting better or worse; outline probable reasons why freshwater quality is in the condition that it is; and discuss what the council and the community are doing, or can do, to remedy any problems.

Monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods

3.60
Taranaki and Waikato Regional Councils met the RMA requirements to monitor and report on the effectiveness and efficiency of the policies and methods in their planning documents. Horizons Regional Council and Environment Southland were not formally monitoring the effectiveness and efficiency of their policies and methods, and therefore not making the results of the monitoring available to the public.

3.61
Horizons Regional Council and Environment Southland were not alone in this. In 2007/08, the Ministry for the Environment asked regional councils and unitary authorities whether they were doing the monitoring and reporting required under the RMA.²⁴ The results of the survey showed that, although all regional councils monitored the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods, only 75% reported this information. Only 60% of unitary authorities monitored the effectiveness and efficiency of their plans and only 20% did the required reporting.

3.62
Taranaki Regional Council has robust methods for reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies and methods. In 2008, it carried out a comprehensive review of its Regional Freshwater Plan. The review was made available to the public. In our view, it clearly shows that Taranaki Regional Council understands the importance of monitoring whether its plans and policies are having the desired effect. Its monitoring incorporates State of the Environment monitoring, and monitoring of complaints and compliance with resource consents.

3.63
Waikato Regional Council monitors the effectiveness of its policy and methods and reports the results of this monitoring to the public. In 2007, the council evaluated its 2002 regional policy statement. It has also carried out a series of reviews looking at the extent to which the objectives of the regional policy statement were being achieved. Each review looks at a selection of objectives, so that every five years all objectives will have been reviewed.

3.64
The regional policy statement evaluation and the reviews look at whether objectives (outcomes) are achieved. They are done on the assumption that the policies and methods would need to be re-examined if the outcomes were not achieved. If objectives are not achieved, the methods and how they are implemented are analysed in more detail. More detailed analysis seeks to understand what is going wrong (that is, whether the methods are the right ones, whether they are implemented successfully, or whether there are external pressures that are not being managed). Suggestions for improvements to meet the objectives are identified.

3.65
Waikato Regional Council's regional plan became operative in 2007 and has not yet been monitored under section 35(2)(b) of the RMA.

3.66
Waikato Regional Council's 2007 regional policy statement evaluation found that, for the most part, its objectives had not been met. There had been either no monitoring to assess whether they were achieved or the objectives were too imprecise to measure. In late 2010, Waikato Regional Council released a proposed new regional policy statement, which, like its predecessor, does not provide a strong basis for measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies and methods. The Environmental Results Anticipated²⁵ (ERAs) in the proposed regional policy statement are not a statement of what can be achieved by implementing the proposed regional policy statement, are not easily measurable, and, sometimes, do not specify an environmental result.

3.67
Waikato Regional Council is planning to review its regional plan, which presents an opportunity to improve its ability to monitor whether its policies and methods are having the desired effect. To support the quality of its performance information, Waikato Regional Council needs to write specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives and clearly set out how its policies and methods will ensure that these objectives are achieved. This approach has largely been taken for the objectives set in the Waikato Regional Council's Variation 5 – Lake Taupo Catchment. Also, Waikato Regional Council's regional policy statement includes a method to set standards associated with the values of water bodies. These standards should help to set a measurable framework for assessing whether the policies and methods are being achieved.

3.68
Horizons Regional Council has clear methods to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies and methods in its new combined regional policy statement and regional plan, called the One Plan. It has thought about how it will use water quality monitoring results to show that its policies are working. Horizons Regional Council has aligned the ERAs in the One Plan with the outcomes in its long-term plan. Therefore, the information needed to assess progress towards ERAs and community outcomes is the same.

3.69
Horizons Regional Council intends to monitor how effective the policies and methods in the One Plan are in achieving ERAs every three years. It will do this at the same time as it reports progress made in achieving community outcomes for the region. Although the One Plan is still under appeal and it is too early to have assessed this plan under section 35(2)(b), Horizons Regional Council has not met these requirements for its previous regional policy statement or regional plans.

3.70
Environment Southland's regional policy statement has been in use since 1997, but there was no review of the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies and methods until a statutory review of the document began in 2009.²⁶ The Regional Water Plan for Southland became operative in March 2010, so has not yet been reviewed. The Regional Water Plan includes a method to assess the plan's effectiveness. As with Waikato Regional Council, the method measures whether environmental outcomes are achieved as a proxy for measuring the effectiveness of the policies and methods. As well as the method outlined in the Regional Water Plan, Environment Southland has written a monitoring strategy. The strategy is high-level, and does not specifically set out how the policies and methods in the regional plan will be monitored. Environment Southland's approach to effectiveness and efficiency monitoring includes State of the Environment and compliance monitoring.

3.71
Environment Southland intends to use annual report cards to report to the community on how effective its plan is. Environment Southland considers that trend data indicates whether its policy approaches and rules are effective. There need to be stronger links in the monitoring strategy to how this data will be used to assess policy effectiveness. Again, as with Waikato Regional Council, the water quality standards in the Regional Water Plan provide a basis for this.

Conclusion

3.72
Taranaki Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council were meeting the requirements of the RMA to measure and report on whether their policies and methods are having the desired effect. Horizons Regional Council and Environment Southland were not.

3.73
The purpose of sections 35(2)(b) and 35(2A) of the RMA are to ensure that councils are pursuing environmental management in the most effective way available. These legislative requirements ensure that policies are developed, monitored, and reviewed on an ongoing basis.

3.74
Including specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives in planning documents provides a strong basis for measuring and reporting on whether policy outcomes are being achieved.

3.75
We consider that writing regional plans with specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives, including numeric targets for water quality, and including indicators and systems to monitor efficiency and effectiveness, is not too onerous. The ultimate measure of whether policies and methods for freshwater quality are working is whether freshwater quality objectives are being achieved and, where not yet achieved, whether freshwater quality is improving or declining.

Recommendation 2
We recommend that all regional councils and unitary authorities set up stronger links between freshwater quality monitoring results and how they measure the effectiveness of their policies for maintaining and enhancing freshwater quality.
Recommendation 3
We recommend that all regional councils and unitary authorities meet the requirements of sections 35(2)(b) and 35(2A) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the policies, rules, or methods in their policy statements and plans, and to compile and make the results of this monitoring available to the public at least every five years.
Recommendation 4
We recommend that the Ministry for the Environment provide guidance on what is expected from regional councils to meet the requirements of sections 35(2)(b) and 35(2A) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Recommendation 5
We recommend that all regional councils and unitary authorities include specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives in their regional plans and in their long-term plans under the Local Government Act 2002.

15: Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (2000), National water quality management strategy: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

16: Ministry for the Environment (1994), Resource Management Water Quality Guidelines No. 2: Guidelines for the Management of Water Colour and Clarity, which is available at www.mfe.govt.nz.

17: Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health (2003), Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Recreational Areas.

18: Appendix 4 sets out the 10 variables assessed for this analysis.

19: For example: Davies-Colley RJ, Nagels JW (2002), "Effects of dairying on water quality of lowland streams in Westland and Waikato", Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association Vol. 64, pages 103–205; Smith CM, Wilcock RJ, Vant WN, Cooper AB (1993), Towards Sustainable Agriculture: Freshwater Quality in New Zealand and the Influence of Agriculture. NIWA ecosystems report for MAF Policy and Ministry for the Environment; Larned ST, Scarsbrook MR, Snelder TH, Norton NJ, Biggs BJF (2004), "Water quality in low elevation streams and rivers of New Zealand: Recent state and trends in contrasting land cover classes", New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, Vol. 38, pages 347–366; and Ballantine, D.; Booker, D.; Unwin, M.; Snelder, T. (2010), Analysis of national river water quality data for the period 1998–2007. NIWA Client Report CHC2010-038. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment.

20: Specifically, total phosphorus and dissolved reactive phosphorus levels improved. Figures 7-10 do not reflect the detailed NIWA data on phosphorus.

21: Water Quality State and Trends in the Horizons region, June 2009, prepared by NIWA for Horizons Regional Council.

22: Specifically turbidity, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and nitrate.

23: Environment Southland (2010), "Our Health: Is our water safe to play in, drink and gather kai from?" Part 1, Southland Water 2010: Report on the State of Southland's Freshwater Environment, page 5.

24 Ministry for the Environment (2009), Resource Management Act: Two-yearly Survey of Local Authorities 2007/2008, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, page 43.

25: Environmental Results Anticipated must be included in regional policy statements, and are a statement of what might be achieved from the combined effect of the objectives, policies, and methods. For more information on the contents of planning documents, see Appendix 3.

26: Under section 79 of the RMA, there is a legal requirement to review planning documents every 10 years.

page top