Freshwater national direction

Since 2014, the National Objectives Framework (NOF) has provided a consistent process for setting environmental limits at a catchment level. Figure 1 describes the components and process of the NOF.

Figure 1: The National Objectives Framework

National direction needs some flexibility in terms of what councils measure and manage. Some bottom lines are arguably unsuitable for some catchments, and it may not always be necessary to manage all attributes to achieve desired environmental outcomes. The Government wants to ensure that the scope of the NOF and national bottom lines are focused only on matters critical at the national level.

We are consulting on whether or not to retain some elements of the NOF and make it more flexible to implement. This consultation covers:

• which values should be compulsory to provide for, and which should be optional
• which attributes and national bottom lines are critical for councils to manage nationally
• whether to give councils flexibility to deviate from the nationally defined thresholds (including bottom lines) that guide where the environmental limits (targets) are set, and to deviate from the detailed methods for monitoring attributes.

The NOF requires councils and communities to develop a long-term vision and identify the values they want to see provided for. We are interested in which values should be compulsory.

The NPS-FM currently has four compulsory values,¹⁴ which cover the core aspects that matter to people. These are healthy ecosystems, human interaction, mahinga kai (food gathering), and protection for our most threatened species. Councils are required to consider an additional nine optional values.¹⁵

Councils and communities could have more flexibility to choose the values they consider appropriate for their region. We are consulting on which values should be compulsory to provide for, and which should be optional.

Changes to which values are compulsory or optional would mean changes to Appendices 1A and 1B of the NPS-FM.

Table 2: Values for the National Objectives Framework

^{14  Refer to Appendix 1A of the NPS-FM.}

^{15 Refer to Appendix 1B of the NPS-FM.}

Attributes in the NOF are measurable characteristics (eg, nutrient concentrations) that provide for values (eg, ecosystem health). Councils must at least maintain the health of freshwater. They must improve it if it is below minimum thresholds called ‘national bottom lines’, or where councils/communities choose to aim for improvement.

We are consulting on which attributes and national bottom lines are critical for councils to manage nationally.

The NPS-FM has been criticised for being relatively inflexible. Some attributes may not need to be managed to achieve the desired outcomes in particular catchments. Also, councils and communities can identify additional attributes locally.

It is important councils are directed to manage the four major contaminants that are known to adversely affect freshwater (ie, nitrogen, phosphorous, sediment and Escherichia coli (E. coli)).¹⁶ This direction will ensure cumulative effects are managed at the catchment scale, and it provides a basis for future resource allocation systems.

We are seeking feedback on all options, including whether attributes should be retained as compulsory or optional, and whether these should be subject to requirements to monitor and respond to degradation. Table 3 sets out an example of compulsory and optional attributes.

Table 3: Attributes for the National Objectives Framework

Changes to which attributes are compulsory or optional would mean changes to Appendices 2A and 2B of the NPS-FM.

^{16 Nutrients and sediment can degrade ecosystems and the cultural and recreational value of water, while pathogens can make people ill when they drink or swim in polluted water.}

We are consulting on:

• whether to give councils flexibility to deviate from:
  • nationally defined thresholds (including bottom lines) that guide where the environmental limits (targets) are set
  • detailed methods for monitoring attributes
• whether national bottom lines are required at all, or if instead councils should determine where limits are set based on community input.

Nationally defined thresholds are sometimes inappropriate in a specific catchment (eg, due to naturally high levels of suspended sediment), and we are consulting on enabling councils to deviate from those thresholds in certain circumstances. Similarly, developments in science and evidence, or monitoring methods, may mean the thresholds need to be revised.

There are also trade-offs involved in providing this flexibility. That is why any additional flexibility (described in proposal (1) above) would be subject to it being used for specific purposes and having regard to appropriate matters. For example, councils could deviate from nationally defined thresholds or detailed methods for monitoring attributes because:

• the science underpinning a threshold or method for monitoring an attribute has changed
• local conditions make a threshold or method for monitoring an attribute inappropriate
• more effective or efficient methods are developed
• achieving national bottom lines has a high social, cultural or economic cost.

Councils would need to follow the default thresholds and monitoring methods prescribed for individual attributes in Appendices 2A and 2B of the NPS-FM, except for the above purposes.

Figure 2¹⁷ illustrates an example of which elements of an attribute could be deviated from (shown below in orange) and which elements would still need to adhere to national default settings (shown below in green).

Figure 2: Example of how flexibility could apply to an attribute

Key

This would mean amending various clauses throughout Part 3, Subpart 2 of the NPS-FM to create a new process for deviating from nationally defined thresholds or detailed methods for monitoring attributes. It would also require consequential changes to be made to processes that use attributes to set targets, and to monitor and respond to degradation.

For further information, refer to the impact analysis document entitled Interim Regulatory Impact Statement: Replacing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

^{17 Table 5 from Appendix 2A of the NPS-FM is used here as an example to illustrate where deviation would be possible.}