Regulation is already used as a policy tool to restrict non-point source discharges from entering water.[1] However, there is no regulation which requires the adoption of mitigation and restoration measures. An amendment could be made to the RMA to prohibit stock from entering streams, rivers, lakes or their banks and to make it an offence under the Act if this provision was breached. This amendment would require all relevant water bodies to be fenced off. A further amendment could be formulated to require farmers within catchments with a high nutrient loading to undertake riparian planting on all streams, rivers and lakes. There could be additional requirements relating to effluent management.
Effectiveness
If the provisions were rigorously enforced then it would be a highly effective policy response. It is highly likely that the mitigation measures would be adopted by the majority of farmers throughout the country and that these would be implemented as soon as the provisions came into force. The penalties for breaching the Act and the social stigma associated with a conviction are likely to be sufficient incentives to ensure action is taken.
However, regulation is unlikely to be effective if there is no enforcement. The current provisions of the RMA which restrict non-point source discharges from entering water are not enforced by Regional Councils. It is unlikely that the Councils will have the political will to enforce the proposed amendments. Therefore this approach is considered to be ineffective.
Equity
Regulation is considered to be an equitable response as all farmers have the same obligations. If some farmers had already fenced streams and undertaken riparian planting then they would have already satisfied the proposed amendments.
Costs
In terms of enacting the proposed amendments there is minimal cost involved as all that is required is legal drafting and time in Parliament to approve the amendments. There would be significant costs involved in enforcing the proposed amendments. It is likely that each Regional Council would need to employ at least one extra staff member to monitor compliance, for an estimated salary of $50,000 per year. There are twelve Regional Councils and five unitary authorities therefore the total cost for extra staff is estimated to be $850,000 per year. [2] There would also be additional enforcement costs if farmers wanted to appeal the decision of the Council. Depending on the numbers that appealed this could easily add an additional $650,000 bringing the total cost to $1,500,000 per year.
Externalities and risks
If this policy response was adopted there is a significant risk that it would lead to a backlash from farmers who felt that such regulation was too burdensome and did not allow for innovation. This could mean that minimal mitigation measures are adopted.