By Alexandra Cain
Calls are growing for better data to underpin how New Zealand manages its freshwater systems.
Industry bodies are calling for a shake-up of the way New Zealand’s freshwater systems are managed after a report called for improved monitoring and data systems to produce a more comprehensive understanding of what’s working.
Stronger legislative support is also needed. A New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society (NZFSS) report suggests that it’s hard to figure out whether existing policies are having the desired effect.
‘We lack clear, measurable objectives; we are not systematically collecting the right data to evaluate what’s working, and models are underused in regulatory decision-making,’ says NZFSS President Joanne Clapcott. ‘On top of that, legislative support for evaluation has weakened.’
Vague objectives that are never checked are a particular problem, with fish passage an example of the current system’s limitations.
‘We report “culverts as mitigated”, but independent checks show only about half are actually working. Counting actions isn’t the same as achieving outcomes. Even at major hydro dams, upstream and downstream fish passage is reported, but without clear, measurable objectives. If we don’t define what success looks like, we can’t tell whether we’re getting there,’ says NZFSS Vice President Richard Allibone.
New Zealand collects a lot of freshwater data, but the real question is whether the right information is being collected.
‘We’re slow to adapt to new tools. Environmental DNA is revealing new incursions and risks, yet much of that information isn’t systematically used, nor are some national databases being updated to incorporate this data. Recent environmental DNA (eDNA) data suggests there might be a European freshwater bivalve across much of the South Island. That should be setting off alarm bells. Traditional monitoring still matters, but we can’t afford to ignore new technologies just because they challenge how we’ve always done things,’ says Allibone.
eDNA is genetic material shed by organisms into their surroundings, such as skin, faeces or mucus, allowing scientists to non-invasively detect a species’ presence by analysing trace DNA fragments.
While there has been some progress at the margins to improve the way freshwater data is gathered since the report’s April 2025 release, step change has not happened.
‘We’ve seen pockets of improvement, particularly where councils have inherited clearly defined limits or targets from earlier processes – for example, legacy catchment plans with explicit nutrient caps. But nationally, objectives are still uneven in how specific, measurable and time-bound they are. Too often, they’re framed as aspirations rather than things we can actually test and track, which makes meaningful evaluation difficult,’ says Clapcott.
Core, state-of-the-environment monitoring is largely in place, but the report was clear that this is not enough for policy evaluation, which requires tools that can link actions to outcomes and test whether policies are working over time.
‘We are still weak on data that shows what was done, where and when, and whether those actions made a real difference. In some areas, compliance and reporting rates have even declined, which undermines our ability to learn what is working,’ says Clapcott.
‘The science has continued to advance, and there are strong examples of models being used to support planning and scenario testing. But the report’s concern still holds. Models are rarely built into formal evaluation, compliance or enforcement processes. Issues of trust, transparency and institutional capability get in the way.’
NZFSS wants built-in evaluation mechanisms that are resourced and legislated for, rather than treating mechanisms as a discretionary add-on.
‘We need clearly articulated objectives with intermediate milestones that reflect ecological realities and time lags,’ says Clapcott.
Alongside environmental monitoring, better information is needed about compliance and behavioural change.
‘Without it, we’re guessing about what’s working. Models should be normalised as tools for learning and accountability, used to test assumptions and explore long-term outcomes, and support transparent decision-making, while being up-front about uncertainty. They complement monitoring, they don’t replace it,’ she adds.
As the sector responds to the report, freshwater management leaders are looking for ways to make better use of data and to expedite policy change.
‘There’s a disconnect around the time it takes to implement change and how quickly we expect to see results. It can take decades for change to happen,’ says Anthony Kirk, Technical Director, Environment, GHD.
An example is Waikato’s regional plan to meet the requirements of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM), which mandates water quality standards. Conditions include national bottom lines for contaminants, mandatory weekly monitoring of Escherichia coli at swimming sites, and managing nitrogen and phosphorus levels to stop further ecosystem degradation.
‘The plan went through consultation [and] hearings, and took years to get to the point where there was something that could be implemented. It takes a while to develop policy, but even when the policy’s there, you can spend 10 years trying to get that policy to land in terms of your regional plan,’ says Kirk.
The rub comes around land use changes, which have very serious economic consequences. For instance, intensive farming and horticulture may lead to high nitrogen and phosphorus levels in nearby waterways, resulting in poor environmental outcomes. But switching the land use to less nutrient-intensive practices, such as sheep or beef farming, or sustainable forestry, comes at significant cost in terms of lost income to regions. According to Waikato Regional Council1, gross domestic product for the region would drop by $623 million if all the changes needed to meet water quality targets are implemented at once.
Balancing the needs of landowners and iwi, who might be advocating for water quality improvement, in addition to the desires of the various lobby groups, plays into it. The political cycle, with an upcoming election, is also pertinent.
With the end of the Resources Management Act and the introduction of the Planning and Natural Environment Bills, there may be government appetite for greater freedom of land use. This is in opposition to improvements required to maintain the environment.
Additionally, reducing the bureaucratic burden to obtain resource consents has a role to play to speed up changes needed to better protect New Zealand’s important freshwater. But any move towards standardisation means there’s less opportunity to assess each situation on its merits and find a solution suitable for the land’s features.
‘The report recognises that there’s a lack of information around environmental conditions and how you track change, and it advocates for models, which is great. But we spend so much more time on policy, models and implementing than we do on data collection. You can get more value from monitoring and investigations, as opposed to building another model. There’s always missing data, and the real value comes, rather than talking about it, from going and getting that data,’ says Kirk.
A good example is the Bay of Plenty, for which GHD has contributed to the development of a freshwater management tool. It’s a region where there are concerns about water supply, which is spring fed, but where there’s no groundwater monitoring relating to these water supplies.
‘We spend a lot of money on models. If we used a fraction of that to drill some more monitoring wells, that would often provide more value than anything. We have a tendency to put up with minimal data and ignore the inherent uncertainty in predictions from models,’ Kirk says.
The good news is that it’s getting easier to collect data – not only because of new technologies, but because communities are more informed, capable and engaged. Looking to the future, it’s imperative to get policy effectiveness right by being clear about goals, and honest about what’s working and what isn’t, setting a precedent for other environmental challenges.
According to Clapcott, ‘That leadership matters, because healthy rivers, lakes and wetlands aren’t just environmental assets – they’re the natural infrastructure that underpins ecosystem resilience and our collective wellbeing.’ 
End note
1 Integrated Assessment Baseline and Scenarios, Waikato Regional Council, p.11. Accessed 3/2/26, https://subsite2.waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/WRC/Council/Policy-and-Plans/HR/Integrated-assessment-baseline-and-scenarios.pdf.