The national freshwater policy goal is commendable but the NPS-FM approach is 'unworkable' and a threat to farmers and the overall economy

The agricultural sector is under threat, not from market forces or climate change, but from the very government that should be safeguarding its future. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) has set forth a series of regulations and bottom lines that, while well-intentioned, are fundamentally flawed and risk crippling an industry that has been the backbone of our economy since the 1840s.

The NPS-FM, as outlined by Michael Greer, Principal Scientist at Torres Environmental, is a policy document drafted by central government aimed at setting national standards for freshwater management. While the overarching goal of protecting and improving New Zealand's freshwater systems is commendable, the approach taken by the NPS-FM is anything but.

At its core, the NPS-FM includes a series of national bottom lines for various water quality attributes, such as nitrate levels, suspended fine sediment, and E. coli. These bottom lines are non-negotiable targets that regional councils must enforce through their regional plans. However, the scientific basis for these targets is questionable, and the economic impact on our farmers is potentially devastating.

One of the most concerning aspects of the NPS-FM is the national bottom line for suspended fine sediment. As Greer’s review reveals, these bottom lines are not based on direct, measured relationships between sediment and ecosystem health. Instead, they rely on data models that pair fish data collected as far back as the 1970s with visual clarity models from 2017. This approach is fraught with issues, not the least of which is that the model data used is not fit for purpose. The result is a policy that could require drastic and potentially unachievable changes to land use, particularly for sheep and beef farmers in hill and high-country areas.

Furthermore, the requirement to meet these sediment bottom lines might not even result in the improved ecosystem health that they are supposed to ensure. According to recent data, up to 20% of monitored natural state rivers may not meet these bottom lines currently, and in some cases, achieving these targets could require returning land use to a state that predates European settlement – an impossible and impractical goal.

“We may have to turn land use back to beyond to better than natural state, to make the national bottom lines, which is not possible.”

The E. coli regulations are equally problematic. The NPS-FM includes multiple measures for E. coli, one of which, the 95th percentile statistic, is not even linked to a specific health risk. Yet, regional councils are required to enforce these targets, even in conditions where they are nearly impossible to achieve, such as during rainfall events when E. coli concentrations spike due to runoff and resuspension of faecal matter.

The impact on farmers, particularly in the sheep and beef sectors, is severe. Greer’s analysis, which compares government models with data from Beef+Lamb New Zealand, suggests that meeting these freshwater targets could require the retirement of nearly half of the country’s sheep and beef farmland. Even with extensive mitigation efforts, such as stock exclusion and tree planting, many rivers would still fail to meet the NPS-FM’s requirements.

“I've just interrogated the models that were put together for the development of the NPS-FM and the associated reforms, and that includes some stock exclusion modelling from NIWA and some erosion control modelling from land Care Research. And I've been able to pair those models with the Beef+Lamb survey farm data, Beef+Lamb have about 540 survey farms, which are randomly selected and representative of the different farm types across New Zealand. So I compare that information with the models that have been produced by central government, and look at the specific impacts on sheep and beef farms, and that modelling suggests that achieving the sediment and Ecoli requirements of the NPS-FM could require full stock exclusion from waterways under 10 degrees, including sheep.”

“And that goes quite a bit further than what is required by the current stock exclusion regulations. It will also require the retirement of almost half of sheep and beef farmland and the extensive planting of poplar trees on an additional 8% and even with all of that, that same modelling suggests that the e coli targets wouldn't be met in 50% of rivers, and that roughly half of the catchments currently not meeting the sediment bottom lines would continue to fail. And this basically points to the fact that the targets require wholesale land use change.”

This points to a fundamental flaw in the policy: it demands wholesale land use changes for outcomes that are scientifically uncertain and economically damaging. The targets set by the NPS-FM may be based on incomplete or inadequate science, and the burden of achieving them falls disproportionately on farmers, who are already facing immense pressures from market forces, climate change, and the rising cost of doing business.

The question that New Zealanders need to ask themselves is: What do we want for the future of our country? Do we want to return vast swathes of farmland to native bush, sacrificing the economic backbone of our nation in the process? Do we want to impose unrealistic and unworkable regulations that could drive our farmers out of business, leading to a decline in food production, loss of export revenue, and ultimately, the degradation of our economy?

New Zealand has been a farming nation for nearly two centuries. Our identity, culture, and economy are intertwined with the land and the people who work it. To impose regulations that threaten this way of life without clear, measurable benefits is not only irresponsible; it is dangerous.

This is not to say that we should not strive to improve our environmental outcomes. Indeed, we must. But we need to do so in a way that is realistic, achievable, and grounded in sound science. The NPS-FM, as it currently stands, fails on all these counts.

What we need is a policy that balances environmental protection with economic sustainability. A policy that recognizes the vital role that farmers play in our society and supports them in adopting practices that protect our freshwater systems without destroying their livelihoods. We need a government that listens to the concerns of those who are on the frontlines of these issues – the farmers, the scientists, and the rural communities who understand the land better than anyone in Wellington ever could.

In short, we need a freshwater policy that works for all New Zealanders, not just those who can afford to ignore the consequences. It is time for the government to go back to the drawing board, to consult with the people who will be most affected by these regulations, and to develop a policy that is based on solid science, not ideological fantasy.

Farmers deserve better. Our country deserves better. And it is up to all of us to demand that our government delivers a fresh water policy that reflects the realities of farming in the 21st century, not some idealized vision of a pre-colonial landscape. We cannot afford to get this wrong – the future of our nation depends on it.

Have a listen to the podcast to hear the full story.

Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.