• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

A Monitoring and Reporting Strategy for the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord

1 Summary

2 Introduction

3 This Project

4 Measuring Progress Towards Meeting the Components of the Accord

5 Measuring the Environmental Outcomes of Implementing the Accord

6 Establishing the Tier 2 Catchments

7 Reporting

8 A Proposed Monitoring and Reporting Strategy

9 Suggestions for Future Best Practice

10 Recommendations

11 Acknowledgements

12 References

Appendix 1: The Project Brief

Appendix 2: Summary of Responses from Regional Authorities

Appendix 3: The Best Practice Dairy Catchments

Appendix 4: Base Information from a Proposed Tier 2 Catchment

4 Measuring Progress Towards Meeting the Components of the Accord

The monitoring strategy has been developed to provide recommendations in two broad ways. These are to:

• outline nationally consistent measures of progress towards meeting the targets of the components of the Accord (or inputs)
• provide means of measuring the environmental outcomes of implementing the Accord.

This present section deals with measuring the inputs of the Accord, and what the environmental outcomes of implementation should be. How the overall outcomes of the Accord may best be measured is discussed in section 5, with further detail provided in section 6.

4.1 Challenges and assessment criteria

In suggesting an agreed approach to measure progress towards meeting Accord targets, there are two main challenges to overcome:

• The Accord is worded in very simple terms and, as a result, it is not precise and open to differences in interpretation. A good example is the definition of what is an Accord stream. It is defined as being a stride wide and a 'red band' deep or larger. Several measures to improve precision are recommended; these can be considered when the Accord is next reviewed by the Accord partners.
• Partly as a result of differing interpretations of the Accord, there are some differences in opinion about progress in meeting the Accord targets. It is recommended that changes be made now to a number of the annual survey questions to ensure a more consistent interpretation of the Accord targets.

These recommendations are detailed below.

4.2 Stock exclusion from streams

4.2.1 Measuring the input

The targets in the Accord relate to stock being excluded from Accord streams. All the RAPs acknowledge that steep banks can exclude stock, and that in these circumstances no fencing is needed.

Presently, the implementation of the fencing of Accord watercourses is measured by Fonterra through farmer self-reporting supported by some auditing. There are some problems with this as follows:

• exactly what constitutes an Accord stream is not defined with any precision
• there is no measure of how steep and/or high banks need to be to exclude stock
• there are no measures of the quality or permanence of the fencing necessary to exclude stock.

Definition of an Accord stream

While the definition of an Accord stream is presently very simple and easy to apply, it is imprecise and a value judgment is often required to determine what is, or is not, an Accord stream. This can potentially lead to different interpretations of progress towards the stock exclusion target.

Suggestions to improve on the existing definition were to specify a particular flow threshold, and to include all streams that were permanently flowing and shown on the NZMS M260 1:50,000 map series.

Although it was generally accepted that the definition needed to become more certain, all of the alternatives explored had benefits and drawbacks over the existing definition. There was little support for including a flow threshold.

The Accord will be reviewed by the Accord partners until 2007. Up until this time the various stream definitions should be compared against one another to determine their workability. This would be particularly relevant while undertaking any independent auditing.

Exclusion via steep or high banks

Some principles are needed to define in which circumstances steep banks exclude stock from streams. The suggestion made was this be in situations where the bank is so steep that a cattle beast would not normally walk down the bank of its own accord.

Standards of fencing

Some interpretation of the type of fencing used to exclude stock from streams is needed. It was suggested this should refer to permanent fencing, as a survey carried out of farmers in the Toenepi catchment showed that many of the fences put up by farmers to keep stock out of streams were single wire and non-permanent.

A suggestion was made, and generally supported, that at some stage this question should be divided into two parts. The first would be 'do you have permanent fencing to exclude stock from an Accord stream?', and secondly, 'if not, are permanent posts in place to allow fencing (such as a hot wire) when stock are present?'

Ideally, stream banks should be planted with native riparian species such as flax, sedges and rushes. While this is not an Accord target, it would be very useful to document the length of stream that has been fully planted and retired. This is because riparian vegetation provides substantially better in-stream habitat, and will help reduce sediment and nutrients entering water courses from overland flow. Farmers are presently asked a yes/no question as to whether any part of a stream has riparian planting.

4.3 Regular crossings

4.3.1 Measuring the input

While it may appear relatively simple to measure whether a regular crossing is bridged or culverted, there is some debate about what constitutes a regular crossing. It was noted, for instance, that stock may be grazed in a paddock for a month or two each year, and that this may involve frequent stream crossings during this period, but that this would not qualify as a regular crossing using the current definition in the Accord.

4.4 Appropriate treatment and discharge of farm effluent

4.4.1 Measuring the input

The target in the Accord is that all farmers comply with their consent conditions all of the time. That target is certainly not being met at present, and is not being reported on nationally.

This target can be measured by annual reporting of the proportion of farmers that comply with their consent conditions. This can be expressed in simple terms, such as the percentages of Fonterra suppliers who comply fully with consent conditions (or permitted activity standards), those with minor or technical non-compliances and those with major non-compliances, and the number of enforcement actions taken against dairy farmers.

Table 2: Recommended reporting format from monitoring of dairy effluent discharges

4.5 Improved nutrient management

4.5.1 Measuring the input

This is the element of the Accord where least progress has been made to date, and where perhaps the greatest long-term benefits could potentially be made.

In carrying out the background research for this Strategy scientists and resource managers consistently said that dairy farmers typically over-fertilise, particularly with phosphate. Indeed, the plant available phosphate (Olsen P) is typically twice what it needs to be for optimum plant production on many dairy farms, and nitrogen levels are also often much higher than necessary. This has several undesirable environmental consequences:

• Phosphate is highly mobile, and when applied over and above what is necessary for plant growth, will eventually enter water courses. As most New Zealand rivers and streams are phosphate-limited, this run-off will result in the elevated growth of macrophytes and algal communities. This reduces the suitability of the water for contact recreation, reduces habitat quality and can result in low nocturnal dissolved oxygen levels due to plant respiration.
• Nitrogen similarly enters streams, and will promote algal and macrophyte growth where the watercourse is nitrate-limited. Most estuaries are believed to be nitrate-limited, so nitrate discharges will accelerate the eutrophication of many estuaries. Elevated nitrate levels in run-off from land use, if not controlled, is predicted to reduce the clarity of Lake Taupo by over a third in the next 20 years. [It is instructive in this case to note this is not due to dairying, which presently covers less than 0.5 percent of the Taupo catchment. Rather, the increasing nitrogen levels entering the lake reflect general intensification of catchment land uses, including forestry and drystock farming. Too often, dairying is portrayed as the 'bad guy' causing declines in surface water quality, but this is not necessarily the case.]
• Many lowland lakes are already eutrophic, and ongoing nutrient run-off accelerates this eutrophication. A particularly notable example is Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora) in Canterbury.
• Nitrate-nitrogen contamination of shallow groundwater is an issue of major concern in some regions. In Canterbury, for example, it is considered the single most adverse effect of intensifying land use. Improved nutrient management on farms should lead to reduced nitrate leaching to groundwater.

Much has been published recently by researchers looking at nutrient management on farms, and how off-site effects can be minimised. If most dairy farmers can get the message that fertiliser applications are generally too high, and that reducing these will lead to both cost savings and environmental benefits, the potential environmental gains would be very significant.

The present measure of this input refers to nutrient budgeting. This measure would be much more meaningful if it referred to active nutrient management with the goal of minimising nitrogen and phosphate leaching and run-off to surface water or groundwater. Preparing a nutrient budget achieves little unless it is accurate and fully implemented.

4.6 Fencing out of wetlands

4.6.1 Measuring the input

This is a reasonably straightforward element of the Accord to monitor progress against. There are some issues about what does or does not constitute a wetland under the Resource Management Act, but this can be resolved by councils on a case by case basis.

Measuring progress relies on regional (or perhaps territorial) authorities having inventories of the regionally significant wetlands either now, or in the near future. Interviews with councils indicated that this was generally the case. Exceptions included Canterbury, Marlborough and Tasman (where those interviewed reported there were few wetlands on dairy farms in any case).

The measure needs to include a description of the quality of the fencing. This could be, for instance, 'permanent fences at least one metre high and comprising at least two wire strands set back at least five metres from the boundary of the permanently wet area in the wetland'. It is more appropriate, however, that this be determined by each council on a case by case basis.

It is much more difficult to provide any generic suggestion as to how to protect the natural water regime of a significant wetland. In some instances, such as Lake Wairarapa, it simply cannot be protected. It is suggested this also be left to councils to address on a case by case basis.

The delivery of this target would be best measured by councils, as they will generally be monitoring the regionally significant wetlands for other biodiversity-related purposes.