ecolink - eco.org.nz may-june... · greenhouse gas emissions. • excluded over 50% of emissions...

www.eco.org.nz 1 ECOlink May-June 2015

May-JuNE 2015

ecolinkNEwslEttEr of thE ENviroNMENt aNd coNsErvatioN orgaNisatioNs of NEw zEalaNd

IN THIS ISSUE:climate change consultation - targets for Paris 1ECO Conference - Freshwater - Pushing Past the Impasse 3ECO Update 3Shell Todd Maui wells passed “best by” dates 4Fracking - the personal experiences 6Water and health concerns of fracking 8Environment Minister’s budget allocation - trimmed 9Environmental Reporting Bill 10Puriri Dieback Spreading 11What’s on your plate, pet or things you use? Roundup 12Antarctic environment research 14RMA changes still brewing 15In the hills - NZ Indigenous conifers 16New Polar code rules will not protect Antarctic waters 17Antarctic matters 18

Climate change consultation – targets for Paris

The Government has belatedly produced a discus-sion paper on the issues of what commitments New Zealand will make at the Paris meeting in December. This meeting under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol should set the agreed targets to limit global warming below 2oC. These targets are known as intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs).

Globally to achieve the 2oC target it is essential that steps are taken to make major cuts in emissions. Those cuts need to include non-carbon dioxide green-houses gases including methane.

New Zealand should have put forward its INDCs before the end of March but failed to do so. Amongst the targets put forward by comparable countries are:• The EU has put forward a binding target of at

least 40 percent domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 to be fulfilledjointly;

• Norway is committed to a target of an at least 40 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by

2030 compared to 1990 levels• Switzerland has a 50 percent reduction by 2030

compared to 1990 levels.

www.eco.org.nz

ECO Conference

ECO invites you to join us in Christchurch for our Annual

Conference

Fresh Water – Pushing Past the Impasse

28-30 August Conference

Addington Haven, Addington Square, Christchurch

Further information inside

Climate change and absence of action - promoting deep sea oil is climate change issue. (Photo: Greenpeace)

2 www.eco.org.nz ECOlink May-June 2015

Kauri trees and resource Management

The current Government has shown little in the way of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and instead loaded the costs on future generations and future gov-ernments.

Government failures on climate change include:• Withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol and not been

a party to the second commitment period up to 2020.

• Weakened the Emission Trading Scheme to such an extent it will have little meaningful impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

• Excluded over 50% of emissions which represent agriculture (methane and nitrous oxide) from the ETS.

• Excluded action on climate emissions from the EEZ and Continental Shelf Act.

New Zealand has developed no strategy or plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite commitments under the UNFCCC to produce one. Many countries, both Annex I and others, have developed climate strategies. Denmark’s “Climate Policy Plan, Towards a low carbon society” is one example.

There are lots of good ideas on what could be elements on a climate strategy and action plan.

Greenpeace proposals for a real climate action plan would be to:

• Commit to have 100% renewable electricity within 10 years;

• ShutHuntlycoalandgasfiredpowerstationby2020;

• Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels like coal and deep sea oil drilling;

• Ban deep sea drilling and fracking for oil and gas in New Zealand;

• Develop a low carbon action plan to ensure that by 2050 all areas of energy (electricity, heating, transport and industrial use) come from clean energy sources instead of fossil fuels;

• Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access to the grid for renewable power generators;

• Shift the unnecessary $12 billion road building programme to investment in smart rail and public transport infrastructure such as the Auckland City Rail Link;

• Prioritise the import and infrastructure needs (e.g fast charging points) for hybrid and electric vehicles;

• Introduce incentives to harness the enormous potential in plantation wood waste to sustain-able transport fuels. It has been estimated that this could create tens of thousands of jobs in the forestry sector and help reduce our oil imports bill

by $7billion each year;• Make the Emissions Trading Scheme more strin-

gent so that it works, enabling industry to move away from polluting energies;

• Implement policies to incentivise ‘low input’ farm-ing methods that are proven to reduce pollution andincreasefarmingprofits;

• Prioritise geothermal projects to realise enormous export opportunities in our geothermal industry, which could be worth up over $4 billion a year to the economy;

• Promote New Zealand as an international centre of excellence for developing and trialling renew-able ocean energy technologies.

The last ECOLink had a range of articles which in-cluded things that NZ could do to reduce emissions. Now we need the political will to do them.

New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are steadily rising. What the discussion paper on commitments fails to disclose is that most of the reductions will occur through New Zealand buying emission credits from other countries. New Zealand does not propose to do anything about farming emissions or actually cut emissions.

Most of the discussion document and background pa-pers are based on a 10% “reduction” in emissions. The work by Infometric notes that this will have little im-pact on coal emissions because it is assumed NZ will just buy emission credits offshore. Larger cuts were modelled, up to 40% which is the level being adopted by Norway and the EU but below that by Switzerland.

The modelling by Infometric did not consider:• An “allowance for widespread penetration of tech-

nologies such as electric cars, wave power, better batteriesandsoon”;

Targets for Paris (continued from front page)

Huntlypowerstation,NZ’smajorcoalfiredpowerstation-time to be phased out.


climate change

ECO Update

We have just had a mid-year review of our environ-ment and conservation activities. At this stage ECO would like to acknowledge the grant from the Method-ist Church for $4,000 which was made towards en-hancing the production of ECOLink over 2 years.

As well additional copies have been made available to new supporters at our annual summer gathering and other promotional events over summer. ECO wel-comes the new supporters.

In addition, we are developing a weekly e-newsletter, Tieke. This is emailed out to nearly 800 personal and organisational subscribers. It contains listings for environment-related events around New Zealand, news of ECO activities, and of the activities of our members.

Tieke also reports on matters of wider public interest relating to environmental stewardship, and poten-tial impacts to New Zealand’s ability to regulate for environmental and social interests. As an example we publicised the various Regional Council Long Term Plan consultations, and issues relating to the Trans PacificPartnership.

If you want to subscribe to Tieke please send an email [email protected].

ECOLink will continue to be a more in-depth policy and issues analysis while Tieke is a means of more ac-tive communication with updates and ready access to information on a weekly basis.

• “mitigation through forestry and land use has not beenquantifiedorincludedinmodellingestimatespresented”.

Modelling by Landcare didn’t consider action on farm emissions and shows increases in carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide for New Zealand between now and 2030.

One key problem in the Government approach is why should countries which are actually cutting emissions want to trade with New Zealand. New Zealand made no second round commitment under Kyoto Protocol and withdrew from that agreement.

GenerationZerohaveidentifiedsomeotherfeaturesthat New Zealand needs include a clear climate change law similar to the UK Climate Change Act which has clear commitments and responsibilities.

Make a submission on the targets, a cut of 40% or more is needed by 2030, but it must be associated with a creedible plan and clear commitments if New Zealand is to play its part in keeping global average temperature below 2oC.

Submissions close at 5.00pm on Wednesday 3 June 2015. Submissions should be sent to Climate Change Contribution Consultation, Ministry for the Environ-ment, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143 or emailed to [email protected].

Greenpeace (www.greenpeace.org.nz) and the Gen-erationZero(www.fixourfuture.nz)havesubmissionforms that you can use.

ECO invites you to join us in Christchurch

for our Annual Conference

Fresh Water –

Pushing Past the Impasse

28-30 August Conference

Addington Haven, Addington Square, Christchurch

The annual Conference of ECO (Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ) is to have a prima-ry focus on freshwater, and consider water issues that Canterbury is facing and how they are being replicated throughout the country.

The Conference will include national issues like the threats to the RMA and local government, and seek a way forward for the use of water that is not coupled to diminishing rivers, destroyed wetlands, polluted water bodies, and loss of biodiversity and recreation heritage.

There are major initiatives and proposals to take ac-count of including LAWF, health, economic analysis, Maori interests and co-governance, and diverse envi-ronmental and commercial interests. Moves to stop irreversible damage and loss appear to have stalled and this Conference will bring together representatives of these interests to consider updated research, new ap-proachesandhowtofindaneffectivewayforward.

For further information contact the ECO Office - [email protected]. More information will be put on the ECO Website - www.eco.org.nz


Shell Todd Maui Wells Passed ‘Best By’ Dates

By Catherine Cheung

In the next month , Shell Todd Oil Services (STOS) may be granted a marine consent to further drilling and production at the Maui platforms offshore of Taranaki for another 35 years. We at Climate Justice Taranaki (CJT) certainly hope not. During May (6-7 May), CJT members spoke at length at the Environmental Protec-tion Authority (EPA) hearing on STOS’ application around our key concerns and the conditions we sought should the consent be granted.

CJT argued strongly that the application failed to satisfy the purpose and principles of the EEZ Act s10. The proposed drilling and associated contaminant dis-charges would not promote sustainable management of natural resources in the EEZ and continental shelf. WhiletheActs10(a)specificallyexcludesminerals,clauses “(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the environment” and “(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the en-vironment”, must be observed for sustainable manage-ment.

While the EEZ Act s59(5)(b) prevents the EPA from considering the “effects on climate change of discharg-ing greenhouse gas into the air”, it does not preclude consideration of the effects of climate change on the environment, or the effects of emissions on ocean acidification.Bothareputtingincreasingpressureonecosystems, lowering resilience of species against impacts from the proposed activities, and contributing to cumulative effects that must be considered when assessing the application (s59(2a)).

CJT pointed out that the requirement under the EEZ

ActforBestAvailableInformationhasnotbeenmetbySTOS. The independent reviews commissioned by EPA have also highlighted:

• the lack of actual data,

• the vexing issues of shifting baselines and lack of monitoring,

• the reliance on information from overseas,

• use of modelling based on such information, and

• to a large extent, the opinion of hired witnesses.

Without adequate information, the assessment of en-vironmental effects could not be complete. STOS has operated at Maui for over 35 years, there is no excuse fornothavingthisinformation.BasedonEEZActs61(2): “If, in relation to making a decision under this Act, the information available is uncertain or inad-equate, the EPA must favour caution and environmental protection.”

Industry studies have shown that 5% of all new oil and gas wells leak because of integrity issues and in 20years,overhalfofwellsleak(Bruffatoetal.2003).At the hearing, a STOS witness stated that Maui wells were constructed “to make sure that we have an inte-gral structure which is going to support us for 20/30 years, as we’ve got wells today which are that age if not older”. In other words, these 20/30 year old wells at Maui have already passed their ‘best by’ date. There is no guarantee that drilling another 22 side-track wells from these old wells, and attempting to produce from

EEz: Maui platform

Mining and Fishing Threats to Maui’s Dolphins”

Source: Maas, B. 2014. Briefing-FacingExtinc-tion: Maui’s and Hector’s Dolphins. NABU Inter-national Foundation for Nature.


Donate to ECOYou can donate to ECO via our

“givealittle” page www.givealittle.co.nz/org/ECO

or directly via internet banking 38-9016-0185477-00

(donations over $5 are tax deductible)

EEz Maui Platform consents

them for the next 20-35 years, would be safe.

There is also no data from STOS on methane leak-age from the Maui wells and other structures. When methane is released and broken down aerobically by water column bacteria, oxygen is used up and carbon dioxide is produced. Dissolved CO2 forms a weak acid,promotingoceanacidification.Aerobicoxidationmay also cause oxygen depletion.

According to EEZ Act s59(2)(i), EPA must take into account best practice in relation to an industry or activ-ity. STOS has drilled two (possibly four) wells at Maui illegally, quoting from an EPA internal memo (20 June 2014), “The level of non-compliance highlights a need for greater regulatory oversight”. Of the 130 petro-leumdangerousoccurrencenotificationsreceivedbyWorkSafe NZ since 30 June 2013, 89 were attributable to STOS. Such non-compliance and dangerous occur-rences cannot be considered best practice. Stringent conditions must be put in place should a consent be granted.

The Maui’s Dolphin Risk Assessment (MPI and DOC, 2012)noted,“…non-fisheriesthreatsmaybeexpectedto delay or prevent the recovery of the population even ifallfishing-relatedmortalitywaseliminated.The…prospecting, exploration and active mining for petrole-um and minerals have the ability to impact the Maui’s dolphin population … both direct and indirect, through noise,increasedvesseltraffic,pollution,degrada-tion of habitat and trophic interactions.” In 2014, the International Whaling Commission emphasized that the current protection measures for the Maui’s dolphin “fallsignificantlyshort”andrecommendedaprotectedareafromMaunganuiBlufftoWhanganui,offshoreto 20 nautical miles and including harbours (IWC, 2014). STOS’ Maui A platform is approximately 18 nm offshore.

EEZ s59(2)(b) stated that EPA must take into account the effects on the environment or existing interests of other activities, including effects of activities that are not regulated under the EEZ Act. The EPA must there-foreconsidertheeffectsoffishing,seismictesting,exploratory drilling and shipping on marine mammals, especially the critically endangered Maui’s dolphin. These would contribute to cumulative effects which have not been assessed by STOS.

New Zealand has signed up to the precautionary ap-proach in numerous international instruments, notably theRioDeclaration,UNConventionofBiologicalDiversity, UN Convention Law of the Sea and the Lon-don Protocol on marine dumping. NZ must apply the precautionary principle when considering this applica-tion, also consistent with EEZ s 59(2) and 61(2).

Following this principle, CJT asked EPA not to grant consent for drilling of any side-track wells from exist-ingwellsbecauseofsignificantwellintegrityissuesand the associated environmental effects from con-taminant discharges that cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated. CJT also urged EPA to limit the consent durationtofiveyearstoavoidaddingtothecumula-tive effects on endangered marine mammals.

In terms of key conditions, CJT requested:

1. the exclusion of well stimulation technologies (e.g.fracking)fromtheconsent;

2. a Decommissioning Plan with detailed Environ-mentalandCulturalImpactAssessment;

3. a bond to ensure integrity of Maui structures and adequatefinancefordecommissioning;and

4. a liability insurance to cover environmental / eco-logical assessment, restoration and monitoring in the event of a major incident.

References

EPA Shell Todd Oil services Ltd: Application for marine consent. http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/stos/Pages/default_STOS.aspx

Bruffato,C.,J.Cochran,L.C.D.Power,S.Z.A.A.El-Zeghaty,B.Fraboulet,T.Griffin,S.Munk,F.Justus,J.Levine, C. Montgomery, D. Murphy, J. Pfeiffer, T. Pornpoch and L. Rishmani, 2003. From mud to cement-building gas wells, Schlumberger. OilField Review, 62-76, Autumn, 2003

Ministry for Primary Industries and Department of Conser-vation, 2012. A risk assessment of threats to Maui’s dol-phins.

IWC,2014.ReportoftheScientificCommittee.AnnexL:ReportoftheSub-CommitteeonSmallCetaceans.Bled,Slovenia, 12-24 May 2014.


Fracking – the personal experiences – from ECO’s Taranaki Regional Gathering

Oil and natural gas have been extracted in Taranaki and off its coast for many years, but it is only recently that the spotlight has been shone on hydraulic frac-turing or ‘fracking’. Fracking involves a mixture of water, chemicals, and sand being forced at high pres-sure down pipes and then sideways, causing fractures like fungal mycelia, in the base rocks which testing has determined most probably contain gas or oil. Pressure sendsbacktothesurfacemuchofthefrackfluidladenwith harmful chemicals and oil and gas released from the formation rock (or tight sand – as is the case In Taranaki).Thereturnedfrackfluid,drillcuttingsandproduced water (from the formation) all have to be disposed of, either by deepwell injection or spreading onto farmland.

EC0’s 2015 summer Regional Gathering was organ-ised with member groups, Climate Justice Taranaki and Sustainable Whanganui Trust, staying on Muru Raupatu Marae north of New Plymouth. Over 80 participants, including representatives from some 20 organisations, met with locals who wanted to share whatitwasliketoliveonagasfield.

ThefieldtriparoundtheWaitaraareawheremanywells have been set up was a real eye-opener. Until one has been there, you have no idea how many there are. Operations could range from one to sixteen wells on a site. Operations go on day and night, and the leviathan tankers carrying petrochemicals, drilling wastes and heavy equipment to and from the sites travel along the narrow country roads with great regularity. Local road users no longer feel able to ride, cycle or walk

safely along their roads, some parents prefer to drive their children to school rather than risk waiting for the school bus at their gate. We passed by Tikorangi Village School, whose gate is situated right on the road that carries all the tankers and the school is within an emergency management zone.

Aswellasnoise,traffic,soilandwaterpollution,thereare air pollution issues. Volatile organic compounds are released into the air from wastewater or evapora-tionpits,andtheindustrypracticeofflaring(burningexcessgasandwastefluids).

Yet people often cannot object to new wells if not on their land, as they are not considered affected par-ties unless their house is within 300 metres. A Maori farmer spoke of the industry’s impact on the Maori worldview;rangatiratanga,livingasafreepersonwhile allowing others to do so too, is compromised in the present situation. Many rural Maori like to grow vegetable gardens but are worried that contaminants from the nearby drilling sites will be affecting the wa-ter, soil and atmosphere.

Some Taranaki farmers and landowners told us that havinggivenaccessonce,theyfindtheycannotre-tract or have not had implications explained to them. Somearecompensatedandboundbyconfidentialityagreements. Others spoke of losing their heritage, their property rights, their businesses, their property values, and told of neighbours who have been driven out by the invasive effects. The very clear warning we heard was to never go down the slippery road of giving

View overlooking Grey-mouth Petroleum’s gas facility adjacent to Tiko-rangi Pa where Otaraua hapu chairman Rawiri Doorbar spoke about the earlier blockade by hapu which protected the pa from being desecrated by a gas pipeline.

Photo: Catherine Cheung


access. - Lock the gate – as is your right.

Thefieldtripguidetoldushoweasyitwastogetpermits to drill and then frack, and consents were not required until mid-2011. “It’s easier to get a permit to drill for oil and gas than one to build a deck in your back yard.” Very little consultation with local people took place, about which some of the tangata whenua especially feel aggrieved. There is no obligation on the operators to let the local people know what is happen-ing;onedayallmaybequiet,butnextdaysuddenlytankers are on the go again.

There is no doubt that this industry has had a profound effect across a typical rural community, but because it is estimated that there is still twelve to fourteen years’ worth of gas left in Taranaki, both on and offshore, the situation is unlikely to change. There are some jobs that go to locals, and this is very enticing in this still-deprivedarea,butthereismostlyflyin-flyoutemploy-ment with jobs going elsewhere. Economic returns in the province are a fraction of what goes offshore with little “trickle-down” showing up in the census data.

Thefieldtripwasfollowedbypresentationsanddis-cussions on iwi experience, health, legal and economic issues, and the documentary “Lock the Gate” looking at the strong stand taken by the Australian townspeople and farming communities who believe what they have is too precious to lose.

Other speakers worked through the legal framework supportingboththeindustryandthoseaffectedbyit;theplaceoftheRMA(ResourceManagementAct);theglobaloileconomy;communitysustainability;andsustainable energy in the future.

We heard how the UK is promoting repopulation of

Scottish isles by subsidising the establishment of wind farms on them. The money earned by isolated communities selling their surplus energy to the main-land funds scholarships to universities for the young, start-up funding for small businesses, house-building to families to join the community and keep the school going, and so on.

Young participants spoke with some passion about the world we are leaving to them, and the contribution of fossil fuel emission to climate change. They pointed out that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Envi-ronment (PCE) stopped just short of calling for a ban in her June 2014 “Drilling for Oil and Gas: Environ-mental Oversight and Regulation” report, recommend-ing instead a strict regulatory and monitoring regime. (see http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/PCE-OilGas-web.pdf)But,thatshewentontosay:

“…I would not want this report to be interpreted as my giving a big tick to the expansion of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand, because the biggest issue is not a local environmental effect, but the global effect of climate change.”

Of course the use of fossil fuels has brought many benefitstousall,suchastheabilitytotravelwidely,distribution of essential resources, and international exchangeandunderstanding.Buttherearealternativeways to generate energy, and investment in less-dam-aging forms is delayed while we continue with burning fossil fuels and fracking.

This report contributed by Elizabeth Lee with others. Elizabeth was one of two participants from National Council of Women (NCW). The International Council of Women (ICW) is currently discussing updating its policy on fracking.

Impromptu blockade at the Todd McKee Production Station while participants listened to loand-owner Margaret Smith’s griev-ances with the oil/gas facility

Photo: Catherine Cheung


fracking: water and health concerns

Water and health concerns of fracking

The water and health concerns of fracking were discussed during the Summer Gathering in Taranaki.

Water concerns:

The use and contamination of water is a great concern in fracking. The process uses enormous amounts of water. A variable proportion of the contaminated water comes back. Some of it stays deep down – and this carries risk, asitcouldfinditswaytothesurfaceorintogroundwaterat some later time. Contamination is 2-fold: chemicals from deep down eg hydrocarbons (include methane, toluene, benzene), heavy metals (eg arsenic, mercury, lead), naturally oc-curring radioactive substances (eg radon, uranium) – the exact composition would depends on local geology. InTaranaki,because thefirst ‘frack’usuallydoesnotyield all the gas available, the wells are fracked more than once. The industry has permission to take water from neighbouring rivers and streams and to discharge it back into the waterways only partially decontaminated after use. There appears to be a lack of baseline testing to prove contamination.

Health: Concerns

Dr Anne MacLennan from OraTaiao: The New Zea-land Climate & Health Council, discussed the impacts of fracking on health of human beings (and potentially animals) using research material from many sources including the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Australian group Doctors for the Environment. Historically, there has been a lack of hard evidence to connect local illness with the industry, because there was no obligation to disclose what chemicals were be-ing used, and a link between a particular chemical and a diagnosed illness needs to be made. However, studies in the United States have determined that contamination of drinking water in places where contaminated water is discharged into the ground is having an impact on health.

Hundreds of chemicals are used for fracking depending onthecontext.Inonestudyof353identifiedchemi-cals, 75 percent of them had a contact effect on human beings, and 40%-50% have potential internal effects on our health, Fracking also can release toxic chemicals from the ground itself.

DrMacLennanidentifiedanumberofcommunityhealthissues associated with the industry:• Trauma from heavy vehicles, equipment malfunc-

tion,orfrompossibleexplosionsorfire;

• Chemical contamination of water, soil and air con-tributingtoheart,lung,andotherdiseases;

• Land degradation affecting community usage such asrecreationandlocalfoodproduction;

• Social and cultural effects eg accidents, crime rates, alcohol use, and mental health issues

• Unceasing noise and light fromflaring inducingstress that leads to sleep deprivation and high blood pressure.

• Carcinogenic properties of particulate discharges from the diesel fuel used by heavy vehicles and from the fracking process itself.

She discussed some of the substances that pollute the ambient air if they escape ; primarypollutantswhichare released directly into the atmosphere are methane, and the volatile liquid organic compounds toluene and xylenewhich are toxic to living organisms.Benzenehas been found around well heads and in the urine of workers (risk of leukaemia with high exposure). Ground level ozone, a secondary pollutant formed from volatile organic compounds reacting with oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight, causes lung damage.

BackgroundRecommended reading is the report developed by the Social and Environmental division of the Canterbury Anglican diocese which can be accessed via website of Frack Free New Zealand (see http://frackfreenz.org/canterbury_report.php.

TAG Oil’s Cheal C well site and New Zealand Energy Corporation’s Copper-Moki well site. Photo: Sarah Roberts


Budget 2015

Environment Minister’s Budget allocation – trimmed from where?

by Cath Wallace

The Environment Minister, Dr Nick Smith, says that theBudgethasallocated$41.2mforresourcemanage-ment, water reform, EEZ Act and EPA changes, but some of this funding is spread over four years, and he does not say which other programmes have had spend-ing reduced on them to compensate. The alert reader will be aware that claims for “improvement” may often be detrimental to the environment and to public participation, so take care with what is claimed by the Minister.

Smith’spost-Budgetstatementsays“theGovernmentiscommitting$41.2millioninBudget2015todeliveron its priorities for the environment”.

“Budget2015willinvestanadditional$20.4millionover four years to provide greater national direction and support to councils in implementing the resource management reforms.” Decoding this, the Minister plans new National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards, and National Templates which may be helpful in standardizing provisions, but will also be used as a means of directing Councils to include or exclude particular matters in their Plans and rules, under direction from Ministers. Recently, the Minister threatened the Auckland supercity council to do as it was told or be overridden when it came to special housing areas (5 May 2015).

The Minister says ““A key priority in 2015/16 is pro-gressing the Government’s second phase of Resource Management Act reforms,” Dr Smith says. These reforms involve stronger national direction and greater use of National Policy Standards and National Envi-ronment Standards.”

“The funding will also support the development of planning templates to enable a more standardised and

simplifiedapproachtoresourcemanagement.”

Smith says , “A further $4 million will go towards supporting the Environmental Protection Authority’s role to implement the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) legislation in 2015/16.” Again, beware of such ano-dyne language of “Supporting” the EPA, since we have heard that there are moves to pressure the EPA and/or change the law, so that applications such as those turned down for seabed mining may be approved. Smith says “The next step in implementing this new law is the transfer and improvement of regulations relating to the release of pollutants into the ocean environment, and developing a new Marine Protected Areas Act.”

“An additional $16.8 million is allocated to support the Government’s programme of improving the man-agement of freshwater, says Smith. Does “improving the management of freshwater” extend to improving the quality of freshwater? Or does it mean overriding those who stand in the way of dairy expansion and its associated water pollution?

According to Smith, “the additional funding for fresh-water work will enable the Government to progress the next steps in lifting New Zealand’s management of our rivers, lakes and aquifers.” He said “it will help en-able implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the 2014 National Objectives Framework. Key issues to resolve include policyonexceptions,coastallagoons,Māorirightsandinterests, and supporting a new collaborative approach to resolving managing freshwater within councils.”

The Minister’s statement is at https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/412m-resource-management-water-reform

Donate to ECOYou can donate to ECO via our

“givealittle” page www.givealittle.co.nz/org/ECO

or directly via internet banking 38-9016-0185477-00

(donations over $5 are tax deductible)

Public protest protected a kauri tree in Titirangi but RMA changes will make it much harder. The debate abouturbanandothertreeshasidentifiedawidepublic interest in tree protection and the RMA. (See the article on page 15) Photo: George Darroch


state of Environment reporting

The Environmental Reporting Bill by Cath Wallace

Environmental Reporting in New Zealand is at last about to have its own Environmental Reporting law. With the report back of the Environmental Reporting BillbytheLocalGovernmentandEnvironmentSelectCommitteetoParliament,theBillisexpectedtobepassed by early June 2015. This law is long awaited and welcome in principle. The last comprehensive en-vironmental report was 2007. Since then, there have been ad hoc reports only.

Sadly the government majority has not agreed with many submitters and the Opposition parties that the choice of report topics should be determined by inde-pendentofficials.Instead,thegovernmenthasgivenMinistersthefinalsayonwhatshouldbereportedon.

Everysixmonths,undertheprovisionsoftheBill,areportononeoffiveenvironmentaldomainswouldbepublished covering one of air, land, freshwater, marine or atmosphere and climate.

Every 3 years, a synthesis report would analyse the trends across the domains.

The question of independence of the choice of what to report on has been a major matter of debate. The gov-ernment has insisted on the Minister for the Environ-ment and the Minister of Statistics having the power to determine, by regulation, the topics to be covered in theenvironmentalreports[clause18].Theofficials,the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician, are then responsible for the production of the reports.

Centralization of power to Ministers has been a notable feature of this government. Ministerial power to set the agenda and to keep embarrassing matters off the agenda has characterized many of this government’s laws and actions. Such provisions are to be inserted into the Resource Management Act if support parties agree. Other examples are the abolition of the demo-cratically elected Council of Environment Canterbury, and changes in other laws and policy to give Ministers overarching power. Ministers and Cabinet are over-riding local democracy and many of the traditional due process checks and balances.

TheEnvironmentReportingBillwaspresentedwithdissenting reports from both Labour and the Greens, with both opposing the reported back version for its lack of measures to ensure independence and the dominance of political control on what is reported on. Labour provides a view on how the setting of topics should be done: “Our preferred mechanism for the topic is to have the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician, after consultation with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment,

[PCE] the public, iwi, and local authorities, undertake this task.”

The Select Committee made a number of changes to theBillafterpublic,departmentalandothersubmis-sions and its own deliberations, though not as many as ECO would have liked.

Reports are to include the Maori world view, te ao Maori, and a Treaty of Waitangi clause, with te ao Maori an impact category. ECO raised the lack of a Treaty clause or consideration of te ao Maori in our submissions.

ECO is pleased to see that reporting on biodiversity and ecosystems has been added to the listing of the content of the synthesis reports, something we were keen to see. We are disappointed that there is no ex-plicit reference to biosecurity status.

Much needed changes to clauses 7 and 10 and modera-tionoftheeconomicfocusoftheBillarewelcome.ECO objected to the absurdity of requiring that the reportscover“economicbenefitsderivedfromutiliz-ing natural resources” with no comparable coverage of the economic and other costs and losses of doing so. The revised version has been compromised with substituting“theeconomy”fortheone-sidedbenefitsconsideration. Impacts of the state of the environment and changes to it on ecological integrity, public health, the economy, te ao Maori and culture and recreation arecoveredinthereportedbackversionoftheBill.Human well-being and climate impacts are not speci-fiedforconsideration.

State of the Environment Reporting needs to be at arms length from political interference.


Puriri dieback

ECO and many other submitters were (and are) con-cerned by clause 16 which limits disclosure of unpub-lished data drawn on for the Reports. Even the PCE istobedeniedaccesstothesedata,butthemodifiedformoftheBillreducesthescopeforsuchwithhold-ing of data.

Provision is made [clause 17] for the PCE to report on an environmental report and the processes that pro-duced it. This role is important. What is not clear is that the budgetary allocation will be made to enable the PCE to discharge this function. At once stage it was suggested that the PCE do the reports, but the PCE herself, Dr Jan Wright, was concerned at the burden thiswouldputonheroffice.

TheBillislikelytohavebeenpassedbythetimethisECOLink is published. ECO will be interested to see what becomes of Labour MP Megan Wood’s Sup-plementary Order Paper (SOP) amendment proposal. This is designed to remove the ministerial control on the topic and content of reports. It is likely that the government will vote this down, but not if National’s support parties instead support Labour’s SOP, and the Greens can be expected to support that too.

ECO is grateful to those who worked on the changes totheBill,particularlytotheGreenMPEugenieSageand to Megan Woods of Labour.

ForECO’ssubmissionontheBill,seewww.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/50SCLGE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL12994_1_A403093/cddebb1cd3229b5aab8adc9554f85f2513c907fe

ToseetheBillasoriginallyintroducedandasreportedback, and to look at the submissions, Parliamentary debates and reports, see www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/00DBHOH_BILL12994_1/environmental-reporting-bill

Puriri Dieback Spreading

by Cath Wallace

What is happening to our puriri, the super hardwood magnificenttreesofthenorth?OnourCoromandeleast coast farm-cum-conservation reserve, many of our huge puriri trees are losing the bulk of the canopy, the leaves seem to shrink to the branches around the top of the trunk, the upper limb’s foliage thins and then dies, and some of the trees have then died.

In an earlier ECOLink, (Oct-Nov 2014) ECO carried an article by Madaleine van der Poel on puriri die-back. That paper refers to puriri die-back in Northland only. A 1999 DoC publication by Gordon Hosking [http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/casn245.pdf] also refers to puriri dieback but suggests that this is related to pugging and damage by stock. Some of the puriri dying on our place are in areas stock get to, others are in reserves, though wild pigs may walk around and on their roots.

I can look up the coast from our farm north of Tairua and see dead puriri branches to the north, including in bush areas where stock have been excluded for years.

This dieback does not show up like kauri dieback. I haven’t seen any signs of lesions. Inside the branches though, seen when we had to trim one over the house, the branches had a central tunnel with a black sooty substance inside. Is this a fungal or phytophthora in-fection, like the kauri die-back or is it something else?

Puriri trees are wonderful in their own right, part of the warm wet forest canopy, but they also have fruit thatareastapleforkereru,andtheflowersimportantto tui and other birds. Puriri trees also support a huge number of other species – some trees are a veritable cornucopia of tenant plants.

Is there any research going on about this? Do others see this happening?

Puriri die back - is it spreading from North-land


What’s On Your Plate, Pet or things you use? Roundup Questions and Organophosphates

By Betsan Martin Phd.

“Roundup” is one of New Zealand’s most commonly used pesticides but many people don’t realise that it has recently been deemed by the cancer agency of the World Health Organisation, WHO, as probably cancer-causing.Whiletherearesomeconflictsintheevidence about cancer effects in humans, experimen-tal evidence from mice studies suggests it is indeed a problem. Other studies by reputable researchers sug-gest Roundup is toxic and has been linked to increased cases of obesity, autism and diabetes, as well as reduc-ing male sperm count resulting in infertility.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the specialist cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), published its major review in the journal Lancet Oncology in March 2015, as part of a review of a range of organophos-phates, a well-known (and useful) set of pesticides, but with known toxicity. More research is continuing. These are used in applications in agriculture and some in forestry, horticulture, gardening and for veterinary remedies and at low dose for control of pests on hu-mans.

As a group, organophosphates are toxic to the central nervous system. Organophosphates covered by the study included malathion , diazinon, and glyphosate, all of which were given a 2A rating of “probably carcinogenic to humans”, and tetracholovinphos and parathion,whichwereclassified2B,“possiblycarcino-genic to humans”. Diazinon will be familiar to sheep farmersforitsapplicationsinsheepdipsandflystrikesites.

Malathion is known in NZ as Maldison, which the NZ EPA notes is toxic to people and the environment. The EPA recommends using other products without Maldi-son and notes that in New Zealand, “Insecticides on the market that are known to contain Maldison include Fyfanon 440 EW and Malathion 50EC. CRICKOFF PRO,Malathion95insecticideandCricketBaitalso

contain maldison. “ The pathways for the action on thenervoussystemandtheintensificationofpotencyis described by the US National Pesticides Information Centre. Malathion is used in agriculture, public health (eg for mosquito control) and for some applications to the hair (eg in shampoos) and body to control lice, scabiesandotherafflictions.

Wikipedia succuinctly sums up the problem with the biological conversion of Malathion to its products in thebody:“Malathionitselfisoflowtoxicity;however,absorption or ingestion into the human body readily results in its metabolism to malaoxon, which is sub-stantially more toxic. In studies of the effects of long-term exposure to oral ingestion of malaoxon in rats, malaoxon has been shown to be 61 times more toxic than malathion.”

Diazinon is used to kill a variety of insects such as grass grub, leaf eating insects and sucking insects such as lice and ticks. It can persist in soil and travel through water. It was the subject of a New Zealand EPA review in 2011, and banned from domestic use in the USA on 2004.

Glyphosate is a key component of the herbicide Roundup. It targets plant enzymes. Roundup also contains adjuvuncts, or chemicals that enhance the ab-sorption of glyphosate, such as surfactants, penetrants and translocation agents. Roundup and its component glyphosate are widely used in agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, forestry, roadside weed control, parks and reserves and in household gardening.

There are grounds to be extremely worried about the prevalence of Roundup and its widespread use in New Zealand food production and other applications. It kills plants when applied to foliage but also binds to soil and can contaminate water yet testing for Roundup isn’t undertaken in New Zealand rivers, where the emphasis is on testing for nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Roundup is often considered to have mini-

roundup and organophosphates

Roundup (Glyphosate) weed-killer box in New Zealand.


mal toxicity but unfortunately, this public perception is contradicted by several important studies. The New Zealand Environmental Protection Agency, EPA should be asked to review the new WHO information.

The Netherlands has accepted its toxicity and re-cently banned the sale of Roundup for private use. ItisalsoexpectedthatFranceandBrazilwillfollowsuit. Canada is also changing requirements. Germany reviewed glyphosate and decided its toxicity was ac-ceptable – but bear in mind the power of the chemical industry in Germany. Those countries that have taken action made it clear that the dangers to the public are significant.TheEPAshouldreviewglyphosateanditscompanions in the light of the WHO study.

Roundup is closely associated with Genetically Modi-fied(GM)foodproducts.ThisisbecauseRoundupwas seen as a great weedkiller and many industrial foodcropssuchassoyandmaizewerespecficallyen-gineered so that they were resistant to Roundup. That meant that weeds could be killed but not the soy, and the herbicide could be widely applied.

Glyphosate combines with minerals such as iron, sodium, copper, magnesium, potassium. This has a demineralising effect and was utilised and patented in 1964 as a descaler by the pipe cleaning industry.

The demineralising effect of glyphosate removes min-erals from food. 47 tonnes of GM corn was found to be 2 kilograms lighter than non-GM corn, due to loss of mineral content. Since 1940, vegetables have lost a staggering 50 per cent of their mineral content and fruit has lost 20 per cent.

Glyphosate inhibits aromatic amino acid synthesis and in turn does not allow people to smell what they are eating. Physicians and scientists for Global Respon-sibility have described glyphosate as one of the most biologically disruptive chemicals in the human and physical environment.

The second main set of components of Roundup, , adjuvents, are the chemicals that enable the glypho-sate to penetrate the plant. These chemicals were considered to be inert or inactive in people. Research-ers have only recently begun testing their effects on mammals. Results of testing on liver, kidney and pla-cental cells show that adjuvants act as cell membrane disruptors and induce severe mitochondrial alterations.

French professor in molecular biology at the Universi-ty of Caen, Gilles-Éric Séralini researches the correla-tion of diseases such as cancer with the consumption of GM food products. More recently, Professor Séra-linihasfocusedspecificallyontheGMcomponentsfound in Roundup, including glyphosates and adju-

vents.

As part of his research he conducted a two year in-vestigation;feedingratsGMcornwithandwithoutRoundup of quantities of one part per billion, as well as a control group. The results of this testing showed a dramatic effect on both the GM groups. These suf-fered increased tumours, liver and kidney degenera-tion and higher mortality rates after just four months. In contrast, no rats in the control groups developed tumours until at least 14 months of age. These results were strongly criticised by GM company Monsanto that interestingly only test for 90 days.

Further into the investigation it became evident just how much the rats were affected by these chemicals. Bytheendofthetwoyearperiod,30percentofthecontrol group had developed tumours, compared to more than 50 per cent of the rats in the GM group without Roundup. The rats that had been fed GM corn containing Roundup showed a staggering 80 per cent tumour rate.

In Argentina, 95 per cent of its 47 million tonne annual cropproductionofcornhasbeengeneticallymodifiedto be resistant to Roundup. Two years after these crops were planted, birth defects were reported. Similar results have appeared in animals fed Roundup resistant cornintheUnitedKingdom,AmericaandBrazil.

Roundup is a toxic chemical. It is widely used and sprayed onto produce that we eat in New Zealand and many of us handle it and live in environments where it is used. So what can we do? I strongly urge the EPA and other public sector agencies review the controls on the use of Roundup. Such controls are needed whether this is introduced at a national level or through local councils. The Auckland Regional Council has already adopted a non-chemical weed control policy and I urge others to follow suit. I was very pleased to see that Nelson is at least aware of the dangers of us-ingRoundup;apresentationwasmadetotheNelsonCouncil recently urging it to stop using Roundup. I really hope the Council, when making this decision, gives it the weight it deserves.

An alternative

Instead of using Roundup to control weeds in your garden, make a vinegar-based herbicide by mixing one gallon of 10 per cent vinegar with one ounce of or-ange oil or d-limonene and a teaspoon (5ml) of liquid soap.YoucanalsoencourageyourlocalChurch,officeor other gardens to try using this mixture instead of Roundup.




References

For more detail, on Malathion, see also http://www.healthybeing.co.nz/12_on_malathion.html.

This is a common name for (Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)[245T] vinyl dimethyl phosphate. Amongstotherthings,itisusedforthecontrolofflies,fleasandticks.Formoredetail,seetheUSEPAreportat http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/tcvp_red.pdf, and http://www.nrdc.org/living/chemi-calindex/tetrachlorvinphos.asp

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/malatech.pdf

Wikipedia has a detailed list of references too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malathion

For more information on Dizinon, see http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/Diazgen.html but be aware that the more recent information on cancer has become available since this was published. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diazinon

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the specialist cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), published its major review in the journal Lancet Oncology in March 2015 at Guyton KZ, Loomis D, Grosse Y, El Ghis-sassiF,Benbrahim-TallaaL,GuhaNetal.(Mar2015).

“Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate”. The Lancet. On-cology. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8. PMID 25801782

See also the discussion and references at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate/

Mesnage R, Defarge N, Spiroux de Vendômois J, Séra-lini G-E. Major pesticides are more toxic to human cellsthantheirdeclaredactiveprinciples.BiomedicalResearch International, 2014. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/aip/179691/

Mesnagea,R.Bernayc,B.SéraliniG.-E.(2013)Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicol-ogy 313 (2013) 122–128

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility 2014.(http://www.psgr.org.nz/glyphosate/finish/8-uncategorised/16-glyphosate)

Séralini, G , Clair, E., ,Mesnage R. Gress , S., De-farge, N., Malatesta ,M., Hennequin Spiroux de Vendômois M. (2012) Long term toxicity of a Round-up herbicide and a Roundup-toleant genetically modi-fiedmaize.FoodandChemicalToxicology.Volume50, Issue 11, Pages 4221-4231

Hear about Antarctic Research first hand: New Zealand Antarctic Re-search Institute Conference

The NZARI conference is being held From 29 June to 2 July, Christchurch.

The New Zealand Antarctic Research Institute, NZARI, has a conference on science and other matters in Christchurch, beginning on 29 June to 2 July 2015. Registrations for attendees are open until 14 June.

PlenaryaddressesbyProfessorNancyBertler(Victo-ria University of Wellington) providing an update on results from the Roosevelt Island Climate Evolution (RICE) Project and Dr. Richard O’Driscoll (NIWA) on the recently returned Tangaroa Expedition to the Ross Sea.

Oral Presentations on the following nine themes will be of considerable interest:

• Antarctic ice sheets, ice shelves and sea level

• Ice and ocean interactions

• Biologicalindicatorsofchange

• Life on the precipice

• Marine ecosystem structure

• Antarctica’s dynamic geology

• Ross Sea Marine Protection

• Global connections and teleconnections

• Human presence in Antarctica.

For more information about the conference including a link to the registration go to http://nzari.aq/supporting-research/antarctic-science-conference


resource Management act

RMA changes still brewing

by Cath Wallace

Environmentally and democratically detrimental changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) have beenmademoredifficultpoliticallyforthegovern-ment and Environment Minister, Hon Nick Smith. With the election of Winston Peters to the Northland electorate, and his replacement on the NZ First list with a further NZ First list seat MP, the government has lost its ability to push things through Parliament without the support of other parties.

The current budget included a number of references to the Government’s desire to change the RMA. Finance Minister English stated: “the Government is investing an additional $37 million of operating funding over four years to provide greater national direction and support to councils as they implement the Govern-ment’s resource management and freshwater reforms.”. Buttheaimofregulationchangesisverymuchoneconomic activity rather protecting the environment as he stated that the focus is on “the ongoing success of our primary production industries.”

Environment Minister Smith stated that “A key prior-ity in 2015/16 is progressing the Government’s second phase of Resource Management Act reforms. These reforms involve stronger national direction and greater use of National Policy Standards (NPS) and National Environment Standards (NES).”

The current Government has been slow at developing NPS and NES since 2010 with only elements of con-troversial and limited water standards being prepared. TheproposedNPSonBiodiversitydisappearedwith-out trace 3 years ago.

InhisspeechtotheBlue-GreensNationalPartycon-ference on 11 April 2015*, Nick Smith said that the merger of the Principles sections of the RMA, sec-tions 6 and 7 proposed by the previous minister, Amy Adams, would not go ahead. The Prime Minister, John Key, says that the changes to the Principles that would allow economic considerations to prevail over other considerations will not go ahead as planned: but he says they will try to achieve the same goals by other means in the changes to the RMA. We expect that this may be by changing the RMA further to force Councils to accept more Ministerial direction via what is con-tained in national policy templates, Regional Policy, Plans and Standards.

Merging sections 6 and 7 of the RMA are now ruled out by Smith, but he has not foresworn amendments such as proposed by Adams to eliminate environmen-tally protective elements in the Principles, such as the duty to “have particular regard to” the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment”,

protection of amenity values, intrinsic values and the ethic of stewardship.

The insertion of the economic and infrastructure-favouring elements may have been forestalled, thanks to Peter Dunne, the Maori Party and the Opposition parties, but this agenda is certain to be pursued by the Key government by other means.

Smithinhisspeechfloatednewproposals,includingthe separation of town planning from environmental protection. He continues to assert that the RMA is the problem with high house prices in Auckland, a propo-sition asserted often but with little solid evidence to support it, as discussed in the previous ECOLink.

In other respects many of the other proposed changes, many seriously prejudicing the environmental and participatory dimensions of the RMA, remain on Key’s and Smith’s wish list, if they can get support from mi-nor parties. To date, the Maori Party and Peter Dunne, have refused to support the changes Minister Adams proposed to the Principles. Those who care about the environment are very grateful for that. Some of the more damaging process changes have not received the same attention.

Smith suggests that there could be a separation of measures for the urban environment from those for thenaturalenvironment.Thisideaseemstoreflectproposals from planner Professor Philip McDermott, which is that town planning should be separated from environmental protection. Any such change would take us back to the 1970s when there was a Town and Country Planning Act 1977 and the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1968 (and its many amendments). Various other acts covered air, rivers and other aspects of the environment or sectoral industry-focused law.

BothSmithandMcDermottassertthaturbanplan-ning and environmental protection can and should be separated, but neither provides evidence for how that would reduce transactions costs, protect the envi-ronment or speed up decisions. The movement to a “one-stop-shop” with the passage of the RMA with all environmental media covered and with activities cov-ered by reference to their environmental effects has beenoneofthedefiningstrengthsoftheRMA.Thenew proposals would undo those strengths.

Many of strengths of the RMA have already been eroded by the many numerous alterations by succes-sive governments. Clearly the RMA needs to become better at protecting the environment and amenity, and transactions costs of engagement with it need to be reduced. How splitting it into two laws will achieve this is unexplained.


resource Management act

Other changes, such as removal of the right of local government to regulate genetically engineered organ-isms, and hazardous substances controls appear to remain on the government agenda.

Consideration of natural hazards, one of the sensible changes proposed, will also remain.

The insertion of principles to favour economic growth, property owners’ interests, infrastructure and other economic activity over other sources of well being and over environmental quality seem also to remain on the agenda for Smith (and the powerful ministers who set the Cabinet agenda].

Reductions of public participation, curtaining attention to the interests of affected communities and parties and the procedural changes that would make those much harder to exercise and protect also seem to remain on the table. The debate over protection of urban trees in the Waitakere’s and elsewhere in New Zealand shows

public’s desire to be involved in these impoprtant deci-sions.

The arguments and agendas of those driving some of the pressure on the government can be seen in the contributionstotheNationalParty’sBlue-Greens2015conference. Here are some of the references.

References

Smith, Nick, beehive.govt.nz%20%20Speech%20at%20the%2017th%20Bluegreens%20Forum.webarchive

McDermott, Philip, Resource Management for the 21st Century, 31 March 2015. http://www.nzcpr.com/resource-management-for-the-21st-century/

Krupp, Jason, From Red Tape to Green Gold, New Zealand Initative , 23 March 2015 http://nzinitiative.org.nz/shop/Library+by+type/Books+and+reports/From+Red+Tape+to+Green+Gold.html This is the from the formerBusinessRoundtable,andpresentsthepro-industry,

In the hills with Barbara Mitcalfe and Chris Horne of TTC: NZ’s indigenous conifers

Our ancient forests are priceless heritage

Tararua Tramping Club (TTC) members tramp in bush in the Tararua, Rimutaka and Aorangi ranges, in Otari-Wilton’sBush,otherreservesintheWellingtonregion,and beyond, sometimes among majestic, towering, indigenous conifer species that are hundreds of years old, emergent above the canopy. An example is ka-hikatea, which can reach to 60 m in height, and exceed 1000 years of age.

Fossil pollen research has established that kahikatea’s directancestorswereflourishinginGondwanalandinthe Jurassic period, up to c. 175 million years ago. In John Salmon’s The native trees of New Zealand, he de-scribes the unbroken ancestry, the priceless heritage of our NZ indigenous conifer forests. He went on to write that they contain more species with ancient lineages than there are in old forests elsewhere, and are there-fore among the most ancient forests in the world.

NZ’s indigenous conifers

Conifers are plants whose reproductive organs are calledcones.Ourindigenousconifersareclassifiedasgymnosperms,whicharenon-flowering,seed-produc-ing plants. The name is derived from Greek: ‘gymno’ = naked, and ‘sperm’ = seed, because they reproduce by means of seeds that are naked, i.e., not enclosed.

Therefore they differ from angiosperms, which are floweringplantswhoseseedsareenclosedinsideovaries, or inside mature fruit, e.g., apple. Our three families of indigenous NZ conifers are organised into ten genera and twenty-one species. The families are:

• Podocarpaceae (18 species). ‘Podocarp’ is from Greek: ‘podos’ (foot) and ‘karpos’ (fruit).

• Araucariaceae (1 species), and

• Cupressaceae (2 species).

There are no members of Araucariaceae or Cupres-saceae families in the Wellington region.

All our indigenous conifer species are endemic and evergreen. Nineteen of them are trees, e.g., rimu, kauri, mountain cedar, etc. Two of them are low shrubs, e.g., pygmy pine, (rarely more than 30 cm high!).

Keep an eye out for our podocarp family.

Thanks to Tararua Tramping Club newsletter, the Tramper. It runs regular articles on native plants.


antarctic

New Polar Code Rules Will Not Protect Antarctic Waters

The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) hasexpressedconcernoverthelackofanynewsignifi-cant provisions in Part II of the Polar Code that would adequately protect the Antarctic environment from pol-lution. The London-based UN International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted Part II of the Polar Code concerning pollution prevention in May.

Part II of the Code addresses pollution discharges from ships such as oil, chemicals, sewage and rubbish while at sea and is expected to strengthen existing regula-tions particularly in the Arctic. It will compliment Part I, which addresses safety of shipping in polar regions andwasadoptedtowardstheendof2014.BothPartsof the Code are expected to take effect from the begin-ning of 2017.

“If the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopt Part II of the Polar Code focusing on pollution prevention as expected to this week, it will do little to provide any new protection for Antarctic waters”, said Sian Prior, Shipping Advisor to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition.”

Prior continued: “The Polar Code should require ships sailing in Antarctic waters to:

• Completely stop discharging raw sewage. Under Part II, this will continue to be allowed beyond 12nm from land, ice shelf, or fast ice and as far as practicable from areas of ice concentration exceed-ing 1/10 (i.e. 1 in 10) ice cover.

• Prevent the introduction of invasive alien species. Part II guidance on ballast water discharges in the Antarctic and global guidelines on hull fouling, but there no mandatory provisions, which would be possible to enact through the IMO.

• Beadequatelyequippedandcrewstrainedtodealwith minor spills. While this may be carried out on some vessels, it not explicitly spelled out in the Code as has been previously suggested by an IMO memberstate.Inclusionofspecificregulationsinthe Code could have involved tailoring existing requirements to the needs of polar waters”

New Zealand and Norway marine agencies have played an important role in shepherding the measures so far adopted.

The polar regions differ to the rest of the world in how they might be affected by international shipping. In polar regions, there are huge populations of wildlife feeding in concentrated areas due to the high produc-tivity of the oceans, and all are completely dependent

on the living resources in the oceans – there is no food on land for marine mammals and seabirds which can congregate in thousands, tens of thousands, even mil-lions for some seabirds. Even a small oil spill adjacent to a penguin colony could be devastating.

The Code will currently only apply to cargo vessels of 500GT or over and cruise ships, but it is anticipated that further work will be undertaken to identify the needsofothervessels,inparticularfishingvesselsandprivate vessels.

Most of the accidents in the Antarctic in recent years haveinvolvedfishingvesselwhicharenotcoveredbythe current provisions of the polar code.

OneofthemostsignificantincidentsoccurredinNovember 2007, when the cruise ship M/S Explorer was holed by ice and sank. Fortunately all passengers and crew were rescued, however it is recognised in the investigation by Liberian authorities that the sea condi-tions at the time that the vessel sustained the damage until the passengers and crew were safely transferred to another vessel contributed to the successful rescue. If the weather conditions had deteriorated more rapidly it is speculated that the outcome might have been dif-ferent.

The waters south of 60o South (the Antarctic Area) have been designated as an Special Area for the pur-poses of MARPOL (the marine pollution convention) Annex I addressing oil discharges, Annex II addressing noxious liquid discharges, and Annex V on garbage.

A new regulation has been adopted preventing the use or carriage of heavy fuel oil in ships operating in Ant-arctic waters, because of the potential impact on the environment should there be a spill. (MARPOL 73/78 Regulation 43 Special requirements for the use or car-riage of oils in the Antarctic area.)

Guidelines have been adopted on the management of ballast water discharge which has the potential to intro-duce non-native or alien species which could become invasive into the Antarctic (Guidelines for ballast wa-ter exchange in the Antarctic Treaty area (Resolution MEPC.163(56).).

Sofartherehasbeennosignificantconsiderationofthe threat posed by:

• invasive species introduced via ballast discharges orthroughhullfouling;

• of grey water which is produced in large volumes on cruise ships and is currently completely unregu-


antatarctic

(Continued from page 17.)

SUPPORT ECO

Participate in fun online surveys and choose ECO as your charity of choice.

Go to Buzzchannel to sign up.

Buzzchannel.co.nz

latedatagloballevel;or

• of discharges of black carbon from ships’ air emis-sions.

Given the wide range of potential impacts in polar waters and the particular vulnerability of the environ-ment and wildlife, other potential threats from shipping which require appropriate measures include:

• emissionstoair(ofSOxandNOx);

• respondingtooilandcargospills;

• shipstrikesofslowmovingwildlife;and

• antifouling emissions.

ECO is a long-standing member of ASOC and has advocated in support of the development of the IMO Polar Code in New Zealand.

Antarctic Matters - including ATCM

by Cath Wallace

ECO’sBarryWeeberandCathWallacewillbepartofthe annual meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Consulta-tiveMeeting(ATCM),inSofia,BulgariafromJune1-10, 2015.

The Treaty Parties will meet for ten days of science and decision making about management of human impacts in the Antarctic and discussion of compli-ance with the Treaty and its associated Environmental Protocol.

BarryWeeberisjoiningtheNewZealanddelegationasa non-governmental delegate, Cath Wallace will join the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) delegation. ECO is a long-standing member of ASOC, and both people have had long engagement in trying to influencetheAntarcticTreatySystemforbetterenvi-ronmental outcomes.

New Zealand has a delegation led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, with former Antarctica NZ scientist, Neil Gilbert providing the mainstay of the government’s input into the Committee on Environ-mental Protection, CEP. Others, including staff from the Department of Conservation , will provide input to various aspects of the work of the ATCM and CEP.

The discussions will include a wide variety of issues, includingprotectedareas;IMOcontrolsonvesselsunderthePolarCode;proposalsfornewinfrastructuresuch as a proposed airstrip by Italy and the environ-mentalassessmentrelatingtoit;andsearchandrescuearrangementsandnotifications.Controlsonindepend-ent vessels that have been visiting the Ice without

observing protocols developed to protect the environ-ment and to enable search and rescue processes should these be needed is another topic. Compliance with the Environmental Protocol and other agreements will be scrutinized.

Asignificantconcernofthescienceandpolicycom-munity involved with the Antarctic and Southern Ocean is the apparent failure of the climate change talks to understand how climate change means the destabilization of the ice sheets, the melting and changes to the ice sheets and to sea ice, and the huge changes and destabilization of many ocean and atmos-pheric and earth systems globally as a result. The data fromthescientificcommunityclearlyshowstheseprocesses are underway, but the diplomatic and policy community in the climate change talks have failed to act effectively.

Some governments that do not want to act effectively on climate change are likely to try to block the ATCM communicating to the scheduled Paris Climate meeting in December 2015, but others see it as essential that the Antarctic community and especially the science is clearly communicated to the UN Climate talks so in-spire agreements on greenhouse gas emission cutbacks.

The conservation community and many in science also want to see more discussion and establishment of significantprotectedareasonthecontinent.Therearefew so far and these are tiny. This includes both on land and in the marine environment.

For more information on the ATCM, see http://www.ats.aq/e/ats_meetings_atcm.htm


PuBlishEd By ENviroNMENt aNd coNsErvatioN

orgaNisatioNs of NEw zEalaNd

Eco, Po Box 11-057, wellingtonPhone/fax 04 385-7545

e-mail: [email protected] floor, 126 Vivian Street, Wellington

website: www.eco.org.nzISSN: 1174-0671

Printed on 100% recycled Paper

Editing: Barry weeber and Michael Pringlelayout: Barry weeber

Pass it oN!

Why not share info about ECO with a friend or workmate? You could leave ECOlink in the breakroom at work, the doctor’s waiting room, or the bus stop or pass it on to a friend who is interested in the

environment

hElP Eco go arouNd!

disclaimer: while every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of information contained in this publication, Eco, its executive and editorial staff accept no liability for any errors or omissions. views and opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the policy options and views of Eco, its executive or its member organisations.

Individuals - support ECO by:subscribing as a ‘Friend of ECO’–$45 p.a. (gst inc.) ‘Friends of ECO’ receive this quarterly newsletter, mailings and invitations to ECO gatherings.subscribing as a sustaining ‘Friend of ECO’–$120 p.a. (gst inclusive).subscribing as a corporate ‘Friend of ECO’–$500 p.a. (gst inclusive).subscribing as unwaged ‘Friend of ECO’–$25 p.a. (gst inclusive).making a regular automatic payment–see details on opposite page.contributing services or goods:________________________________________________making a donation (donations over $5 are tax deductible) $20 $50 $100 $200

VISA/MASTERCARD PAYMENTCardholder name: __________________________________ Expiry date: _______________________________________

Card number: __________________________________

Name __________________________________address ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________ city ____________________ Postcode ______

Phone __________________________________ E-mail __________________________________

Please place me on your e-mail list for tieke email news or contact us by e-mail [email protected]

groups - Join Eco:

Please send information on becoming a member of ECOMembership is by application for groups involved in the protection of the environment. Subscriptions for member organisations are determined by the size of the organisation:• 1 - 100 members: $85 p.a.• 101 - 1000 members: $130 p.a.• 1001 - 4999 members: $440 p.a. • 5000 + members: $1000 p.a.

ENviroNMENt aNd coNsErvatioN orgaNisatioNs of NEw zEalaNdEco • Po Box 11057 • wellington

TOTAl ENClOSED: $_________________

Other amount $_______

Payroll GivingECO is registered as a charity with IRD. This is a painless way to make regular

payments to ECO and claim tax rebates as you go. Email: [email protected] for

more information

Follow ECO

on Twitter: @ECONewZealand

on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/econz


Sent by ECOPo Box 11057wellingtonaotearoa/New zealand

JOIN US!!!

Eco MEMBEr orgaNisatioNs

appropriate technology for living associationauckland civic trust Bay of islands coastal watchdogBay of islands Maritime Park inc.Baywatch hawkes Bay Environment group Buller conservation groupclean stream waiheke coal action Network aotearoaclimate Justice taranakiconscious consumers coromandel watchdog of haurakiEast harbour Environmental associationEastern Bay of islands Preservation societyEcoMatters Environment trustEngineers for social responsibilityEnvironmental futures friends of golden Bay friends of lewis Pass and hurunui catchmentfriends of Nelson haven and tasman Bayfriends of the Earth NzgE-free Nzgreenpeace Nzguardians of Pauatahanui inlet

Kakariki - canterbury university Environment groupMarlborough Environment centreinitial volco trustKaipatiki ProjectNational council of women of NzNelson Environment centreNorth canterbury Branch forest & Bird orari river Protection group rEsPoNsE trust save the otago Peninsulasoil and health association of Nzsouth coast Environment societysurfbreak Protection societysustainable otautahi christchurch sustainable whanganui trustte aroha Earthwatchthames coast Preservation and Protection society wellington Botanical society west coast Blue Penguin trustwest coast Environment Networkwhaingaroa Environment centrewildlife society, Nzvayellow Eyed Penguin trust

www.eco.org.nz

ecolink - eco.org.nz may-june... · greenhouse gas emissions. • excluded over 50% of emissions...

Documents