Friday, March 29, 2024

Status quo brigade try to rock residents

Avatar photo
An economic model calculating the cost of the Waikato River clean-up at almost $8 billion has been criticised for its lack of detail and one-sided data output.
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Data from the model put the cost of fulfilling the plan’s objectives enshrined under legislation to restore and protect the Waipa and Waikato rivers’ health at a cost of $7.8b.

Numbers released by the Healthy Rivers project group had dairying taking the greatest hit in the river clean-up, with an estimated present value cost of $3.3b.

However, the figures drew fire from local and national fresh water experts who maintained the model’s method of calculation was poorly debated, lacked transparency and was misguided.

Concern has been raised by environmental groups, academics and locals about the accuracy of the calculations used in the data.

Matamata engineer and clean water advocate Angus Robson said releasing such data in the way it had been would achieve little, other than to scare the region’s residents into believing the Healthy Rivers objective could not be achieved without significant cost.

Robson was critical of the way the data was released and of the model’s means of calculating it.

“Bringing out these numbers in this way suits the business-as-usual brigade in the dairy sector.

“This will buy polluters more time to continue the way they are, as people are scared into believing there is no way we can achieve this.”

He had also had little luck in getting under the hood of the model used by the project’s Collaborative Stakeholder Group (CSG), describing the model as a “black box” which has had two separate requests for local peer review turned down.

CSG chairman Bill Wasley confirmed the economic model used in the far-reaching calculations had to date had a peer review done only by a United States assessor.

He said CSG intended to release a peer review report and the assumptions behind the data next month.

“This will buy polluters more time to continue the way they are, as people are scared into believing there is no way we can achieve this.”

 

Angus Robson

Clean water advocate

Wasley said he could not answer whether there would be any peer review of the model’s accuracy done in New Zealand.

“That is totally within the technical leaders group.”

Technical group head Dr Bryce Cooper said parts of the model had been peer reviewed by both NZ and overseas experts.

But Robson said that was not enough.

“A secret US peer review on a secret model does nothing to improve either transparency or believability. If they have nothing to hide there is nothing to fear.”

Cooper said it had to be appreciated it was a complex model with multiple areas of economics and science requiring different experts to assess it.

Wasley also cautioned the model and its data was but one part of the CSG’s consideration when examining the methods and impacts of the river clean-up.

“There will be more work done next month looking at what impacts there will be across social, cultural and environmental areas.”

But Robson challenged the value of pursuing social and cultural impacts when the economic portion of the model remained a mystery to those most affected, namely Waikato residents.

The data (see separate box) has focused on the cost impacts of mitigation to nitrogen, phosphorous, bacteria and sediment in the river’s catchment.

However, the data set did not allow for any economic upside that might accompany their reduction, including benefits of improved water quality to public health, recreation and tourism spin-offs.

Robson maintained counting every single mitigation in the model as a cost was wrong and counting every loss to dairy as a total loss was not reality, where other economic activity filled any void.

“It also implies that farming has caused $7.8b worth of pollution, which is highly unlikely.

“That would suggest dairying in Waikato has negative value, as the tax-paid profit is definitely lower than this.

“It also suggests we are subsidising farmers on the Waikato and Waipa to the tune of more than $2 million each to pollute the river – how can that be correct? And, if so, why should the public pay?”

Wasley acknowledged the costs in the data were high and data was very “figure focused”.

“We are looking to tease out more to get a wider holistic understanding of the impacts.”

Robson was also concerned at the lack of any timeline or binding declaration to accompany the CSG process.

Wasley confirmed the timeline on the river accord was open ended, with the modelling process intended to provide the public with some concept of the quantum of change the restoration might require.

“We have not yet got to the policy framework and associated with that are timeframes that will mark out what will be achieved.”

He said there could be some goals achieved within 10 years and that sort of information would emerge once the CSG developed rules to incorporate into the council’s regional plan.

The Waikato River Act 2010 required the rivers’ (Waikato and Waipa) water quality to be restored and protected.

This is “Scenario 1” in the modelling. But three other scenarios are also presented, all with lesser cost impacts on the region (see table).

 “That first scenario, having rivers okay for swimming, taking food and healthy biodiversity is the legislated binding requirement.

“The other three are not, so why include them there. It appears to be to highlight just how great the supposed cost will be of the required option,” Robson said.

But Wasley said including the other options was intended to give the CSG some steer on likely costs that the project would incur as it progressed towards the final, legislated requirement of Scenario 1.

Robson’s concerns were echoed by Fish and Game chief executive Bryce Johnson and farm consultant Alison Dewes. 

Wasley said he was aware of the criticisms the model and its numbers were facing.

“When people see the raw numbers I can see why. Hopefully, when the other information is available next month they will be able to look at it and tease out more information. This is only part of the jigsaw.”

Massey University freshwater ecologist Professor Russell Death said he felt the analysis was one-sided and welcomed any extra information to come.

“There are also things we don’t know in there about how numbers were derived, like what milk price was used?

“A lot of people also benefit from having cleaner water and you can still farm for profit and have clean waterways. We have never suggested one excludes the other.”

He was also concerned at the lack of timelines in the CSG process.

“With anything, unless there is a timeline there, it will be hard to judge if you are achieving what you are supposed to be.”

 

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading