the bank for strains of stress resistance.
In thinking for the future then there needs to attention as to whether the current short term market
approach will remain to be valid.
Faith in the market as a very important factor may mean a push to commodify the distribution of
water with the intent to allow it as a vehicle for econonic dominance to arise. Drives for that may be
very strong so there need to be stronger ways to make sure they do not sideline some of the
important hopes of the new policy. For the new policy does have some protections for the future.
But by not being expanded on vastly I feel they may be just there as a token to say “we have made
allowances.”
Our knowledge of our environment is growing. Scientist Allan Savory decided he had been wrong
to kill 40,000 elephants to try to reduce desertification. Trampling animals bring plant matter to
where soil organisms/microorganisms may use it to build soil and store water in it and the
organisms in it. Some entities have tried to rubbish him saying that though it may absorb some CO2
it can't absorb as much CO2 as we need to into the soil. Such seem to be the ways of market forces.
But I don't think they dispute so much the anti-desertification picture.
If we do learn to keep more water in the soil then that may mean the water distribution businesses
cannot earn enough to pay for their infrastructure so easily. Will we see a situation as we have with
solar power in some countries being victimised for the central distribution networks?
So this statement needs to be clarified:
“There are also economic benefits from water investments, particularly irrigation infrastructure,
which the Government has a role in facilitating because, for example, irrigation investments that are
commercially viable may still face difficulties in raising finance in capital markets.
In the next few years, there will be a number of desirable investments, beyond what the
Government could fund given competing expenditure priorities. This means that the Government
will need to make choices about where to invest. This is the focus of this chapter.”
Is the commercial viability to the farmers rather than the water distributors? Otherwise why could
not the water distributors raise capital for the project? Is this going to be like the New Zealand
Railways, built at public expense, sold off and stripped and bought back? Or more likely will it be
public money setting up a business then bought by an international corporate which may then have
a means to drive some farming profit down and take over land?
Our knowledge about those matters needs to be stated. I am glad to see Iwi and Hapu involved.
What they bring may be a problem to irrigation interests who may wish to merge water from
different rivers. It is believed by Iwi that that may harm the life of the rivers. We see of course that
can reflect loss of an ecosystem to a more dominant one, as organisms go across. And there may
always be other things that we do not yet undersand that traditional knowledge may protect us/the
future from.
It is good that “Proposals
1.3
Require the use of Macroinvertebrate Community Index as a measure of water quality in the
National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management by making it a mandatory method of
monitoring ecosystem health.
1.4 Work with the Land and Water Forum on the potential benefits of a macroinvertebrate
measure for potential inclusion into the National Objectives Framework as an attribute.”
The measure needs to involve population diversity as it may be possible for individual rivers.
There needs to be clearer definition so that “ a measure,” does not become read as “the (only)
measure,” and it is not universal but, I repeat, individual to the possibilites of each river. So I would
like “a macroinvertebrate measure,” to be changed to “river appropriate macroinvertebrate
measures.” These may change over time if the many threatened fish species increase in varoius
rivers and the macroinvertebrates which accompany them also change. And may it be that a drop in
certain macroinvertebrates may mean its native predator is doing better? There is much science to
know about.
Minister Nick Smith said it may not be practical to get all rivers swimmable. If they are not fit for
humans what other biodiversity may be suffering?
Here is an example of what has been done:
The dissolved reactive phosphorus has been decreased by management: riparian planting, animal
control, and maybe managed phosphate application.
The current water policy should not isolate business from having to implement such measures. It
must be stated explicity in our policy before future corporates invest in NZ so that an investor state
dispute cannot take away public money.
Thank you for listening.