The text reported that in 2021 almost 85 per cent of Europe’s bathing water sites met the European Union’s most stringent “excellent” water quality standards.
The minimum water quality standards were met at 95.2 per cent of sites and only 1.5 per cent of all sites in the EU were considered poor quality – generally the result of short-term pollution.
The headline and the data are in marked contrast to the recent headlines in New Zealand following the release of the Ministry for the Environment and StatsNZ report Our Freshwater 2023.
The EU reassures society and welcomes tourists – “zero pollution” is the soundbite.
New Zealand alarms residents and puts doubt in the minds of people planning to visit.
The UK Times stated that “New Zealand’s reputation as an environmental oasis has been damaged by official findings that show the national ‘religion’ of dairy farming has left almost half of the country’s rivers too polluted to swim in”.
The articles have muddled the various components of water quality, but the main swimmability criterion is bacterial contamination.
The UK has 67 million people in a slightly smaller area than occupied by New Zealand’s 5 million people and has 12.5 million dogs, 9.6 million cattle and calves, and countless birds, rabbits etc. yet it, like the EU, is able to state that “the standard of bathing water quality in England is very high with over 93 per cent of bathing waters rated the highest standards of Good and Excellent”.
The EU and UK monitor bathing sites at intervals of less than a month during the bathing season – from May 15 to the end of September in England.
The EU bathing water directive states that for reporting purposes, samples taken during short-term pollution can be disregarded and replaced with a sample taken within a week.
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth. Photo / Supplied
In contrast, New Zealand’s reporting on swimmability in Our Freshwater 2023, is based on a model for the whole year.
Further, the predicted average infection risk is the “overall average infection to swimmers based on a random exposure on a random day, ignoring any possibility of not swimming during high flows or when a surveillance advisory is in place; actual risk will generally be less if a person does not swim during high flows”.
This means that the “estimated 45 per cent of New Zealand’s total river length not suitable for activities like swimming, covers heavy rain incidents, and non-swimming seasons”.
The EU and UK reports stick to the times when people are swimming.
It is unlikely that visitors will investigate the reason for the differences, hence the own goal.
For New Zealanders, there are other important facts within the Our Freshwater 2023 report.
Almost half (47 per cent) of publicly owned wastewater treatment plants discharge treated wastewater to rivers and lakes, while the remainder discharge it into the sea or onto land.
“Wastewater discharge, including sewage, often from houses, businesses, and industrial processes, must be treated to reduce levels of pathogens and other contaminants before it can be released into freshwater. Wastewater that is discharged is not free of contaminants and can contain high levels when treatment is incomplete, or the systems fail.”
The flags appeared after a rainy Friday; heavy rain is a common cause of faecal contamination at beaches.
Nick Vagar, Auckland Council Head of Planning for Healthy Waters has explained that the main cause of contamination is stormwater, where heavy rain washes the contents of the footpaths and roads, including bird and dog faecal matter, into the sea.
Fixing up stormwater is a major component of Three Waters, and just like Essential Freshwater, everybody is looking for someone else to pay.
Listen to Jamie Mackay’s interview with Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:
Our FreshWater 2023 states that although progress has been made, there are still critical gaps in knowledge.
These include quantifying the benefits of freshwater for multiple values, including social and economic wellbeing, so that trade-offs are better understood.
It reported that people were more concerned about visibility in waterways than swimmability – in fact when given the choice between 20 per cent of rivers being swimmable (with clear visibility) and 40 per cent being swimmable (but being muddy and brown), they chose 20 per cent and clear waters.
Further, only 40 per cent of people were willing to be levied $50 to increase flora and fauna.
For the Government, the challenge is to decide on investment in water versus housing as well as the implications of increasing regulation on sectors which underpin the domestic and export economy.
More research is necessary, involving economics as well as science and social preference... and willingness to pay.
- Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, has a PhD in Soil Science and has been analysing agri-environment interaction for several decades. She is a board member of DairyNZ, Deer IndustryNZ, NZAEL and Ravensdown – three industry good bodies and a farmer co-operative. The analysis and conclusions above are her own. jsrowarth@gmail.com
