Although Koi Carp are mainly only found in the Waikato region at the present time, you can bet on the fact that they will spread across the whole country eventually if they are not controlled in some way.
Waikato koi rarely exceed 9 years of age. Females average 5.2 years and males 4.6 years of age. An average fish weighs 3 kg. Females produce 100 000 eggs per kg of body weight. A typical female can produce 300 000 eggs annually (or more if they spawn11 more than once). Koi carp spawn throughout the summer. As they gather for spawning12 or feeding in the shallow margins of the waterways, koi biomass can reach 4000 kg/ha.
Department of Conservation estimates say that there is approximately 8,000 tonnes of Koi Carp in Lake Waikare alone and if this figure is divided by the average weight of a Koi Carp (3Kg), the total number of Koi comes out at approximately 2,666,666. It is no wonder that the estimate is that there is somewhere between 500,000 and 750,000 tonnes of Koi Carp in the Waikato waterways with most being concentrated in the lower Waikato catchment.
But aside from the possible spread of Koi Carp their current habitat in the waterways of the Waikato Region is still a problem which will affect the nation as a whole.
How can this be you may ask?
And my answer is simple; it will affect the nation as a whole due to the economic effects from Koi Carp.
Currently the Waikato Regional Council is awaiting the final outcome from the Environment Court hearing into the objections around PC1.
PC1 is the proposed change to be made to the operative Waikato Regional Plan that was put forward by the Waikato Regional Council back in 2016.
It is expected PC1 will be operative next year and, depending on the final results of the Environment Court hearing, that farmers might need to get resource consent and or develop a farm environment plan to allow for continued operation of their farms.
As a result of the proposals in PC1 there will be farmers that will have to leave the industry as they will not be able to make a living carrying on farming under the new requirements.
Local Government NZ released a report in approximately 2016 which stated that the Waikato region would lose 68% of dry stock farms and 13% of dairy farms as a result of the new rules in PC1. The claim was made that there was no problem m as those farms could become commercial forestry operations (yeah right).
I don’t know how a farmer is going to afford to transfer to forestry when they will have to find a huge sum of money to develop their property into a commercial forest and then survive for a minimum of twenty five years before they get a return on their investment when the trees are ready for harvest.
Under PC1 rules once the property is downgraded to forestry use then it can never be returned to higher intensity farming as it was prior, therefore the land value will plummet.
PC1 is likely to significantly change how farmers can operate regardless of whether they are arable, dairy, drystock or horticulture.
It is believed that a certified farm environment plan which meets the requirements of PC1 will be needed for all farms and such plans will require farmers to change some practices and/or adopt new mitigations to reduce diffuse discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and E coli. Irrespective of the fact that farmers, growers etc. are currently well on track to limit adverse effects from utilising the farming areas for food production.
Farmers will need to comply with minimum standards for stock exclusion (from permanent and intermittent drains and streams), fertiliser application, cultivation, races/culverts/gates etc.
There is huge concern that many of these standards or timeframes are currently not practical or implementable whilst still maintaining economic viability of the farming operation yet they will be legally enforceable.
Irrespective of whether farming operations are a permitted or consented activity, they will be subject to ongoing scrutiny as council monitors compliance with permitted activity rules and consents, and will need to budget for ongoing costs to implement mitigations as part of any requirements in their farm environment plan or resource consent.
We need to ensure that PC1 is practicable, workable and fit for purpose so we ensure the economic stability of our country and protect the security of our food supply.
In the original proposal the Waikato Regional Council stated that PC1 was the bold first step in an 80-year journey to improve the water quality of the Waikato and Waipa Rivers so they are safe for food gathering along their entire length and meet the requirements of Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato, the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River.
Based on the information that was currently available, the Combined Stakeholders Group concluded full achievement of the Vision and Strategy by 2096 was likely to be costly and difficult. The 80-year timeframe recognised the ‘innovation gap’ that means full achievement of water quality requires technologies or practices that are not yet available or economically feasible.
The V&S clearly states that any plan to improve water quality in the Waikato and Waipa Rivers, must include the social, economic and cultural impacts that plan will have on the region if that plan is implemented.
The V&S has an aspiration to get water quality in those two rivers to historical standards yet at the same time the V&S realizes there must be a compromise and that’s where the social and economic clause fits in.
PC1 has not adequately considered the social and economic effects on the region if the plan was implemented.
Given the known effects of Koi Carp, which cause a huge reduction in the water quality of the region, it is clear that even if farming was eliminated completely from the region there would still not be an improvement in the levels of water quality in the region due to the effects of the Koi Carp.
Yet in all of the time that PC1 has been around (since 2016), the Waikato Regional Council through PC1 has been totally singularly focused on the agricultural industries as being the cause of the reduced water quality in the region, without addressing the effects of Koi Carp.
From the council figures, we know that 39per cent of Nitrogen and 55 per cent of Phosphorus comes from other sources than farming. The facts are that, yes, farming is a contributor, but it is not alone, yet PC1 focuses solely on farming as the source of contaminants in the waterways and yet this is provably wrong.
7 per cent of the N and 18 per cent of the P comes from point sources and the balance (32 per cent N and 37 per cent P) is from natural sources.
Arguably the largest contributor to sediment loading in the rivers is ignored in this plan change – KOI CARP! When they feed they stir up the bottom of ponds, lakes and rivers, muddying the water and destroying native plant and fish habitat. Koi carp are opportunistic omnivores, which means they eat a wide range of food, including insects, fish eggs, juvenile fish of other species and a diverse range of plants and other organic matter.
They feed like a vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything and blowing out what isn’t wanted. Aquatic plants are dislodged in the process and are unlikely to re-establish. Koi carp cause habitat loss for plants, native fish, invertebrates and waterfowl.
When we try to raise the issue of Koi Carp affecting water quality we are commonly told that this is just a regional problem that is Waikato’s problem to deal with.
But in fact this is demonstrably untrue. The effects will be felt severely across the nation as a whole given the impacts that PC1 will have on our agricultural production and consequently our export income from the Waikato region.
It should be emphasised that even though we are talking about the impacts from PC1 in the following economic comments, these impacts will continue due to two things:
Until some method of control is found related to Koi Carp, the water quality will continue to decline and under the requirements of the Waikato Settlement Act, the Waikato Regional Council will still be required to take action to try to improve the water quality which will mean further impacts on the users of the waterways and the land surrounding the waterways.
Currently it is understood that at present the WRC have spent approximately $50 million and the agricultural industries affected have spent approximately the same amount to get to the current position in relation to PC1.
Total $100 million and not one dollar of that has been spent on controlling Koi Carp. Not one Koi Carp has been killed yet if there had been just a quarter of that amount spent on a bounty of one dollar per fish we could have seen the removal of up to 25 million Koi Carp, and consequently a huge increase in the water quality of our water ways.
A description of how the economic impacts on both the Waikato region and our national export income will occur, are set out below:
Total Negative Impact in Waikato region will be billions of dollars with the PC1 documents quoting figures of $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation.
It must be remembered that these figures are from 2016 when PC1 was first proposed and they will be seriously increased given the level of inflation over the past nine years.
Overall it is expected to cost the dairy and drystock industries alone, losses of approximately $2.4 Billion dollars.
This total negative economic impact on the Waikato region comes about even though only 15 of the sub-catchments in the Waikato and Waipa catchments were exceeding the standards proposed to be introduced through the enactment of PC1 at the time it was proposed.
In other words there was going to be significant costs across the Waikato region with flow on effects across the country as a whole, for very little gain.
The impact on the horticulture sector is such that under the rule changes that came into effect in October 2016 when the PC1 was advertised for public submissions, the horticulture sector will over time disappear from the Waikato region.
The impacts on both the security of our food supply and our export incomes from this are going to be huge.
There are many other downstream effects from PC1 which need to be taken into account such as;
If the claims of the decline of small rural towns and consequently the increased growth of the main centres are correct, and exacerbated as expected under the enactment of PC1, then pollution from these other sources (e.g. storm water and effluent discharge from urban areas) are only going to grow as a percentage of the total discharges.
Economic reasons it will happen:
Context on Waikato's dairy sector
For the 2024/2025 season, the total value of the dairy payout for the Waikato Region is estimated to be approximately $4.8 billion.
Other notable statistics about the dairy industry in the Waikato include:
Waikato has about 4200 dairy farms, the most in the country and a 13% reduction in dairy farms means a loss of approximately 546 farms.
The cost to the region in lost GDP from a reduction of 13% in dairying is approximately $3.18 billion with an approximate cost of 2,700 jobs in the industry.
The Waikato region is a major beef-producing area with significant red meat production, with 51% of the Waikato foodshed's land used for red meat production. While Canterbury has the most beef cattle, Waikato has the most beef-producing farms in New Zealand much of which is exported.
While there is variation in the type of livestock run on a sheep and beef farm, most farms are centred around sheep and cattle. Beef + Lamb NZ reported that approximately 1.2 million tonnes of sheep and beef carcass were produced in 2018. 71% of that was exported overseas.
Key points about Waikato's beef production:
For the 2024 calendar year, the total value of beef exports from the wider Waikato region was $1,176.6 million, as part of the total meat and meat product manufacturing exports and given the predicted 68% loss in drystock farms there is likely to be a reduction in this export value of approximately $799,680,000, coupled with a reduction in the number of farms by approximately 1,655 farms.
Summary:
Treasury’s latest fiscal projections show deficits stretching indefinitely into the future. The government is borrowing just to pay the bills.
The cause of our recession is largely inflation fuelled by $50 billion of money printing, and a reckless borrow-and-spend binge under the previous Labour government.
Treasury has warned that expenditure and debt must both be reduced to restore our financial sustainability.
Unless spending growth is restrained and debt begins to fall, we are headed for permanently higher interest costs and a reduced capacity to fund essential services.
Treasury’s long-term fiscal statements show that an ageing population and rising health and superannuation costs will drive debt above 50 per cent of GDP within a generation unless policy changes.
Given the current situation with our heavy debt loading and the need to either cut spending or increase our income, any serious reduction in our ability to export agricultural products has huge potential to cause us to slide further into recession.
The Ministry for Primary Industries reports that for the year ending June 2023, agriculture generated $48.9 billion in export revenue, representing 70% of New Zealand's goods exports, which were $74 billion.
The Government has stated that they want to double our primary exports to allow the income to bolster our financial position yet with the resulting effects of implementation of PC1 we will be looking at a reduction not an increase.
Without implementing some effective method of control for Koi Carp it is inevitable that we will see further reduction in the water quality and this will cause more pressure on our agricultural industries under the current WRC outlook where all the blame is loaded onto the farmers. This will put more pressure on our exporters and on our overseas income.
Given that this plan change is likely to become the benchmark for all regional authorities across the country over time, it is quite likely that the outcome from PC1 may be financial ruin for NZ.
.svg){kind=logo}
By Andy Loader, Poke the Bear