Mike Joy Fleming Lecture 2014 Slides

7/26/2019 Mike Joy Fleming Lecture 2014 Slides

1/78

2014 FLEMING LECTURE

The demise of New Zealand's freshwaters;

politics and science

Mike JoyEcology-Institute of Agriculture & EnvironmentMassey University Palmerston North

Canterbury agriculture April 7th, 2011


2/78

My scientific achievements (wont take long)

An update on New Zealand's freshwater crisis

Examples of the politicisation of environmental reporting

A vision for a better future

A plea for some balance from independent scientists


3/78







4/78

Senior Lecturer ecology/environmental scienceMassey University Palmerston North

Authored > 25 peer reviewed scientific papers and book chapters & around 50scientific reports for Regional Councils, MfE, & Southern Ireland Fisheries Board,University of Sibiu Romania.

Supervised ~25 postgrad students masters, honours and PhD.

Past Research Fellow at Lincoln Uni. Biosecurity

Expert witness in consent hearings, Env. Court and EPA commissioner hearings.

Developed bioassessment models used by ~ half NZ Regional Councils


5/78

Developed New Zealand's fish Index of Biotic Integrity IBIJoy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2004). Application of the index of biotic integrity methodology to New Zealand freshwater fishcommunities. Environmental Management, 34(3), 415-428.

First application of predictive RIVPACS type bioassessment tools inNew Zealand.Joy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2000). Development and application of a predictive model of riverine fish community assemblages in theTaranaki region of the North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 34(2), 241-252.Joy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2002). Predictive modelling of freshwater fish as a biomonitoring tool in New Zealand. Freshwater Biology,47(11), 2261-2275.

Joy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2003). Biological assessment of rivers in the Manawatu-Wanganui region of New Zealand using a predictivemacroinvertebrate model. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 33, 367-379.Joy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2005). Neural network modelling of freshwater fish and macro-crustacean assemblages for biologicalassessment in New Zealand. In S. Lek, M. Scardi, P. F. M. Verdonschot, J. P. Descy, & Y. S. Park (Eds.), Modelling community structure infreshwater ecosystems (pp. 518). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

First application of predictive maps of fish occurrence over river

networks in New ZealandJoy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2004). Predictive modelling and spatial mapping of freshwater fish and decapod assemblages using GIS andneural networks. Freshwater Biology, 49(8), 1036-1052. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01248.x


6/78

Defining thenichemathematically

from theenvironmentalvariables fornative fish

species

Temperature

Slope

Native

forest

Rainfall Farming

Shade


7/78

Predictive

model

Shortfin eel

Probability of

species occurring

Spatial mapping, fishmaps for conservation,

management andassessment

Temperature

SlopeNative

forest

Rainfall Farming

Shade


8/78

A career of cataloguing the decline of freshwaters inNew Zealand? Dr Joy to Dr Doom Mainstream now?

When I started < 30% of NZ freshwater native fishthreatened74% now.

Knowledge for all is crucial in a democracy; do NewZealanders have any idea of what was happened totheir environment in the last few decades?

But its not easy getting the truth outthe vestedinterests have all the PR people and resources tomuddy the water (e.g. MBIE has 56 PR staff)


9/78







10/78

Highest % of threatened species in the world

Shore Plover


11/78

68% of named ecosystems threatened

Shoal Bay Auckland


12/78

1834,000 humans contract waterborne diseases/yr NZ now has

the highest frequency per-capita globally of coliform enteritis,

campylobacteriosis, cryptosporidiosis and salmonellosis

E coli at 10000x USDA March 2005


13/78

> 43% lakes polluted

(nearly all lowland lakes)


14/78

32% lakes polluted (64% of lowland lakes)

Omaru Creek June 2014


15/78

> 90% of monitored lowland pastoral and urban rivers and 62% of

all rivers unsafe to swim in (pathogens), and nearly all WQ

declining

Oruarangi Creek October 2013


16/78

Groundwater nitrate levels increasing in most

intensively farmed areas

Friesian cow


17/78

> 90% of wetlands drained & most the remaining

ones stuffed (98% in Manawatu)

Anns (creek) Auckland


18/78

Estuaries and harbours impacted by sediment,

nutrient and pathogen issues (subsequent impacts

on ocean fisheries & shellfish industries)

Browns Island December 2013


19/78

GPP (measure of large river health) on Manawatu

River highest ever measured anywhere

Manawatu River from Te Awahou boardwalk, Pseudopanax 2007


20/78

Soils in intensively farmed areas compacted and suffering heavy

metal build-up from over fertilisationCadmium contamination

now a major food security issue for NZ

Truck spreading fertiliser, New Zealand


21/78

In 2004 160,000 ha of intensively farmed land inWaikato exceeded the 1mg/kg limit meaning itwould be classed as a contaminated site

By 2030 450,000 ha will exceed that limit

Showing up in NZ diets exceeding EU standards

Contaminated offal going to pet food andfertiliser

3040 tonnes Cd added in NZ/year inDenmark health cost estimated ~ 334 for everykg Cd added (10 million or NZ $15 million everyyear)

Cadmium build-up in soils- Waikato example:


22/78

74% of freshwater fish species threatened (highest proportion

measured globally?) as well as only mussel and crayfish (our

freshwater miners canaries gone by 2050)

What kind of fish is this?


23/78

Massive increase in GHG emissions since 1990 mainly from

livestock and mostly dairy

Dairy cows


24/78

NZ ranked 16thbest environmental performer in the world by Yale

(EPI) but they omit water quality, biodiversity loss and non CO2

GHG emissions when you include them we rank around 120thof

180 countries (Bradshaw et al 2010)

http://epi.yale.edu/epi/country-profile/new-zealand


25/78

Obviously there has been a major

failure to protect our most

important assets in favour of shortterm gain.

Much of it has happened in the

last few decades, what has beenthe biggest change in that time?


26/78

46%

87%

195%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Dairy land area Cow numbers Milk production

Changes in dairy 1990 - 2012


27/78

Dairy expansion and amazingincrease in production but how?


28/78

Enormous increase in palm kernel (PKE) imports since 1990 from

virtually nothing to 1.4 million tonnes/yr. Now NZ is the single

biggest Palm kernel user globally

Deforestation in Riau province, Sumatra, to make way for an oil palm plantation (2007)

N


29/78

Highest rate of increase in phosphate use in the OECD. Was from

Pacific Islands like Nauru destroyed to provide phosphate for New

Zealand farming...

Limestone pinnacles remain after phosphate mining removed the guano at one of Nauru's secondary mines 2007 (Lorrie Graham/AusAID)

P


30/78

but now coming from Morocco

Phosphates mining in Togo 2007 (Alexandra Pugachevsky)

P


31/78

> 800% increase in nitrogen fertiliser use in New Zealand in last 25

years now almost all synthetic (from fossil fuels) Taranaki gas fields

~ 30% and the rest from Middle East

Shell Todd Gas 2012 (3 News)

N


32/78

We once used clover

Clover

N


33/78


34/78

In the dairy sector in particular, production processes appear to have becomemuch more input-intensive (greater use of supplementary feed and irrigation)so that higher gross output (gross dairy output rose 35-40 per cent in thedecade from the 2002/03 season) does not translate to similar growth in realvalue-added in that sector Daan Steenkamp, Reserve Bank of New Zealand


35/78

Much of the increased intensity, production and its

impact on the environment not controlled why?


36/78

The impacts on freshwater from

intensification are well known, nonlinearand increasing exponentially

We have failed to control

the intensification


37/78

HILL COUNTRY FARMING SEDIMENT INPUT

BANK COLLAPSE & FAECALCONTAMINATIONFROM STOCK IN STREAM

THE ONLY IMPACTS REQUIRING CONSENT


38/78

A dust storm approaches Stratford, Texas, in 1935 (Public Domain)

Why don't we learn from the mistakes made by past civilisations

and by other countries who went down the same path from

sustainable to unsustainable?


39/78

Is it because dairy is described as our economic saviourbecause

environmental impacts are not economically valuedwe count the

gains but ignore the costs (e.g. NZIER report, 2010)?

Holy Cow


40/78

The perceived value of dairy has put many politicians in denial of

the real costs and true value.

DENIAL

Externalities of intensive dairy


41/78


Add 1kg N03N to 88,496 litres of pure water and it will exceed the

NZ and WHO drinking water standard (11.3mg/l = toxic to humans)

and 5 to 10 times higher than safe levels for ecosystem health insurface water

Average NZ dairy farm leaches ~ 27kgN/Ha/yr so each Ha pollutes2,390 m3water/yr

It costs between 50c and $1.00 m3to clean it back to under thedrinking water standard. So the cost to clean it up is more than the

revenue from the farm.



42/78


All NZ dairy land ~ 2 million Ha, so 54 million kg N leached = 4.8

billion M3water taken from pure to undrinkable

To clean that amount up just to drinking standard at 50c m3

wouldbe $2.4 billion minimummuch more for to protect stream life

Rotorua Lakes example:


43/78

oto ua a es e a p e:

Cost of nitrogen removal

(floating wetlands) range

between $246,000 and $4

million/tonne)

Or reduce N fertiliser use on

dairy farms in catchment

which would reduce N

leaching by 1060% (grossmargin reduction of 323%

= $46 - $428/ha/yr)

Cost of nitrogen reduction

at source $6,620/tN vs.minimum $246,000tN for

removal using floating

wetlands

Risks of more intensification


44/78

Reliant on imported feed and fertiliserIMPORTS

BIOSECURITY

EMISSIONS

BRAND NZ

MORALE

Biosecurity risk (PKE) fungal mycotoxin, foot & mouth)

Climate change - livestock emissions account for >40% ofgrowth in Greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels(mostly from dairy) a very expensive bill coming soon

Endangering what's left of New Zealand's clean greenimage (crucial to all primary producers and tourism)

All the fantastic & expensive environmental gains from allthe improvements made on farms is being swamped bymore intensification so no net gain


45/78







46/78

The government response our environmental disaster:

1. Head in the sand

2. Downplaying

Reality3. Weakening

Regulation

Nathan Guy, Minister for PrimaryIndustries 2013 (TVNZ)

1


47/78

Set-up Land and water forum (LAWF) dominated by industry

Cherry pick from LAWF report for NPS & NOF and end up with a

massive backward step in standards to protect freshwater

Attempt to gut the RMA and Department of Conservation

1.Head in the sand

2


48/78

Set-up Land and water forum (LAWF) dominated by industry

Cherry pick from LAWF report for NPS & NOF and end up with a

massive backward step in standards to protect freshwater

Attempt to gut the RMA and Department of Conservation

2.Downplay the

Reality


49/78

Overall, concentrations of the nutrients and bacteria we

monitor are either stable or improving at most monitored

sites (MfE website and press release 2013)

43% of NZ lakes are pristine (MfE website)

BUT


50/78

BUT:

Not significant does NOT mean stable,basic statistical type 2 error

The freshwater indicators do not showthe appropriateness of different water orland uses

BUT:- QMCI Pasture 61% got worse,- DRP Pasture 79% got worse,- TP Pasture 74% worse

MfE quote NIWAreports but accordingto NIWA webpage:

water quality is

generally declining

and point to dairyfarming being a major

source of theproblem.


51/78

Combining or averaging impact and control sites (NZRWQN)

Latest (2007) Ministry for the Environment State of the Environment Report:


52/78

Latest (2007) Ministry for the Environment State of the Environment Report:

example of politicisation of science reporting?

Chapter 13?

Sacking CRCcommunityinvolvement?

DOC Ruataniwha

3


53/78

3.

Industry and government have a big problem,they want lots more expansion and intensification(the export double agenda)

Weaken Regulation


54/78

But we already at or

exceeding limits

nitrogen example


55/78

Remove agricultural land from cadmium classification and setup

industry staffed working group = tape over the warning light

Dairy growth dilemma leading to deregulation:


56/78

What do you do when you want lots more intensification &

expansion of dairy but already at or exceeding nitrate limits?

(No easy way mitigate N loss)

Need to have more nitrogen head room to permit expansion so

come up with a convenient story to get rid of problem:

Nitrate impacts on rivers are unknown and Nitratelevels dont matter (up to toxic level ~ 5mg/l) because we

can control Phosphate

(Aka. single nutrient management integral to latest proposed

changes to legislation (NPSNOF, Ruataniwha dam proposal and

CWMS)

Government weakening regulation approach:


57/78

Single Nutrient Management was the basis of the recentRuataniwha Dam proposal but an EPA Board of Inquiry draft

decision rejected it.

What does the scientific literature say?Can we predict nutrient limitation in streams and rivers?

The answer is unequivocally NO in this and many other papers:we cannot predict nutrient responses except in extreme

cases(N:P ratios 100:1a review of 382 nutrientenrichment studies) Keck and Lepori Freshwater Biology (2013)


58/78

Manawatu River

N


59/78

The issue the industry PR people, most media

people and government proponents dont seem toget or dont want to admit is the difference between

toxicity and ecosystem effects e.g. dissolved oxygen

fluctuations and algal blanketing of stream beds.



60/78


61/78

The recent changes tothe NPS and NOF will halt

declines in water quality

and even lead toimprovement a fresh-

start for freshwater


62/78

The Ruataniwha irrigation scheme proposal

the Board found the change in positionby these experts difficult to understand

Ruataniwha (2014 Cnes/Spot Image, Digital Globe, Landsat, Map data Google)



63/78

The nitrate levels are based on toxicity

and not ecosystem health

National

Objectives

Framework(NOF) A fresh-

start for

freshwater?



64/78

What is not covered by proposed NOF:

1. Groundwater

2. Estuaries

3. Physical impacts stop-banking channelisation,

barriers to fish migration

4. Dissolved oxygen (except wwtp c.f. Hopelands)

5. Temperature



65/78

What is not covered by proposed NOF:

6. Fish and invertebrates

7. Pathogens

8. Periphyton/cyanobacteria

9. Sediment

Hands off approach to environmental protection


66/78

Decades of minimal regulation of impacts from governmenthas been the major factor contributing to the freshwatercrisiswe now have.

Short term based political decisions, have seen farmerscaught up and become casualties in the process.

Forgotten is the fundamental component of the free marketmodelthat the user (polluter) pays. By not controllingintensification in the past and the weakening of standards

now we have and are effectively incentivised poor practice.

The weakening will inevitably drive more intensification andundermine all the excellent the mitigation and efficiency workbeing done now.


67/78

SOLUTIONS

There I fiixed itrhus C, Arhus, Midtjylland 2010


68/78

The solution for New Zealand, (for humankind) is simple:close the nutrient looprecover and reuse all P, fix N through

clover etc. and stop the leaks.

Sailors practice repairing leaksUnited States Navy 2004 (Public Domain)

Solutions


69/78

Before we see have any chance we must halt dairy

expansion and allow the technology to catch up

We must start to measure farm efficiency by assessing

the amount produced per unit of pollution and

productivity rather than production

At the farm scale low inputlow impact farms are more

profitable

Keep water on farms at farm scalebig irrigation just

leads to more problems


70/78

The Sweet Area Business Indicators

Risk

Profit (ROC)

Cow Liveweight per Hectare (intensity)

Production

Magnitude

SWEET

area


71/78

Environmentaleffects and costs

Production

ProductivityProfit

Inputs

SWEETarea

The way central and local government see it

Magnitude


72/78

SWEET

area

Profit (ROC)

Environmental Effectsand costs

Production

Productivity

Inputs

The Sweet Zone Business Indicators

Magnitude

Solutions


73/78

New Zealand could and should lead the world inproducing clean healthy sustainable food. Gains for

tourism, employment everything NZers treasure.We should be world leaders in sustainability not worldrecord holders for environmental damage

We sorely need leadership and honesty from government

We must start to measure and value the losses as well asthe revenue otherwise just building up debt for future

generations

E.g. Globally the loss of ecosystem services from 1997 to2011 is on the order of $20 Trillion/yr. (Costanza et al.

2014)

When


74/78

Its more than 20 years since RIO earth summit & 25 years of the

RMA how have we done? What would it take for you to call it a

crisis? If we were in the bottom half of global environmental

performance rankings and slipping down?

If most lowland rivers unsafe for swimming?

If most of our lowland rivers and lakes were polluted?

If >90% of wetlands had gone & most remaining ones unwell?

If we had the world record for:

highest % of threatened all species highest proportion of threatened freshwater fish species highest frequency per-capita of Campylobacter,

Cryptosporidium & Giardiasis if we were the worlds biggest user of palm kernel?


75/78

What we are doing with our environment is not clever orinnovative its just plain stupid In the past we could claim

ignorance but not now, now itsjust environmental vandalism.

We are trapped in a commodity led drive to maximiseproduction without any accounting for externalities. So wehave a false economy it looks good to economists but they

cant see we are just running up a huge ecological debt.

But from industry and lobby group scientists we get denialand tobacco science, and a drive to break even more world

records for degradation.

Environment versus economy?

The role of science in an environmental crisis?


76/78

I have seen science in hearings compromised from basicscientific flaws to much more subtle omission

Industry spend a fortune on PR and covering-up the reality andhave associated media reliant on advertisers who are reliant ongrowth

Non commercial media struggle to find anyone independentable or willing to speak so public end up misinformed

The freshwater crisis is not just due to dairy but is the biggestimpact now

The role of science in an environmental crisis?


77/78

What happens if you speak up?

Lose funding? For me yes - more awards less funding

Hard to get into research when know the bigger picture

Can we have independent scientists anymore? Industryfunding of universities and CRIs

Is it time for a union of concerned scientists? Retired no

longer career limited scientists to bring back some balance?


78/78

Thanks to:Royal Society & Charles Fleming

Massey University

Documents

Mike Joy Fleming Lecture 2014 Slides