newsletter of the environment and conservation ... jan-may 2017 final.pdf · crowdfunding for...

www.eco.org.nz 1 ECOlink Jan-April 2017

January-april 2017

NEWSLETTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION ORGANISATIONS OF NEW ZEALAND

Environmental Responsibilities and Democracy for the Future:Limits, pathways and Actions

ECO Annual Conference 2017 at Stoke Memorial Hall, Saturday and Sunday, 25-26 August

Protecting democracy and the environment are intimately linked. Both involve responsibilities to the future and to the present.

What happens when the focus shifts from rights to responsibilities? Do we need a constitution for New Zealand and if we were to have one, what should it contain? How do we restore democracy to resource management decision making and respect the Treaty of Waitangi and the relationships involved at the same time instead of sacrificing one for the other?

What should we ask of our selves and our politicians for today and for the future? Where do the political parties stand on climate change, biodiversity, and water quality?

ECO’s annual conference in Nelson this year will explore these issues with some fantastic speakers. We will explore the biophysical and political and other limits as we explore which pathways to take and the actions needed to get success in protecting water, bio-diversity and the climate for now and the future.

Young and old will contribute to the discussion.

Keynote speakers include the thoughtful and insight-ful historian and anthropologist, Dame Anne Sal-mond, Sir Geoffrey Palmer who devised the Resource Management Act and is now proposing a constitution for New Zealand, Paul Young from Generation Zero on the Zero Carbon Bill, and others.

The format of the Conference is:

Friday 25 August, afternoon: field trips in the area exploring Nelson’s biodiversity strategy, water matters and river health restoration, and other issues;

Friday evening: We will suggest at least one place such as a pub where people can congregate and socialise.

www.eco.org.nz

IN THIS ISSUE:ECO Conference 2017 1Success coal mining application withdrawn 2ECO Update: ECO Office and Exec activity 3Myrtle rust in Dangerous 4Threatened Species Strategy 6Nothing to Celebrate in orange roughy certification 8OECD Environmental Performance Review 10Mineral Permits and Oceana Gold 12Charting the path of NZ’s decarbonisation 14Murky water standards and Policy 17Whitebait fisheries 18

ecolink

The environment and our responsibility for it will be part of the ECO Conference 2017

2 www.eco.org.nz ECOlink Jan-April 2017

ECO Conference 2017

Food and Special diets:

ECO’s caterer will provide vegetarian, vegan and gluten free food and will try to accommodate other di-etary requirements if informed sufficiently in advance. Make dietary requirements known when you register.

Volunteers:

ECO needs volunteers to help with and during the con-ference. We will all need to lend a hand but we will also waive the registration fee for those who are will-ing to miss sessions to work in the kitchen and else-where. Contact Michael Pringle at [email protected]

Saturday 26 August, Morning: Exploring responsibilities to the future and the present and what we need to do to maintain access to decision- making and environmental justice. What are the limits, pathways and actions needed to keep democracy in environmental decision making healthy?

Saturday afternoon explores these themes in relation to water quality, allocation and the health of aquatic systems and the ways to make progress. The state and limits, pathways and actions to rescue our biodiversity and to widen recovery will be examined.

Saturday Evening: Given this is election year, what do the political par-ties see as the goals, funding, actions and pathways to recovery? Politicians on the environmental spot is an evening session – a democratic process of parties stating where they stand and answering questions. We are non-partisan but we all know that democracy is important at all levels.

Sunday 27 AugustThese sessions explore the climate change limits, path-ways and actions but is also when we have our AGM. It will allow for more discussion on actions, policies, pathways - and no doubt also on limits.

Monday 28 August: We may also have a further field trip on Monday to Takaka. To be confirmed.

ECO regards good company, good coffee and tea, and delicious food as essential elements of a good confer-ence!

Travel and accommodation: People are asked to make their own arrangements for travel and for where they stay, but we are also looking for people who will pro-vide billets.

ECO will also post on the Conference section of the website details of local accommodation options from camping and cabins, motel style accommodation and other possibilities, including a special deal from Sax-ton Lodge which is close to the conference venue.

We will also provide details of transport link websites.

Registration Costs: ECO aims to keep registration costs as low as we can –we are looking for sponsors and have pricing for those who do not have wages or other sources of income beyond the basics.

Registration details can be found on the ECO Website www.eco.org.nz

Success! Panirau Plateau, South Mokau coal mining application in South Waikato has been withdrawn

ECO is happy to report that the combined efforts of many submitters, the Councils, and the dismissive atti-tude of the applicants to ecological harm, have resulted in Mokau Resources withdrawing all resource consent applications for mining coal on the Panirau Plateau.

The application was for strip mining native forest for coal on DoC land, and the destruction of regenerating native forest was assured. It was very likely that the Mokau River valley waterways would have been badly polluted. The ecological assessment had the results of only one water sample, and that was considerably away from where the worst polluting activities were.

The application by the Sampson brothers was a long term goal by them to do coal mining. ECO made submissions against the project as did many others and we celebrate the withdrawal though we know such projects can reappear.

Tim Jones, of Coal Action Network Aotearoa, was eloquent as to the (de)merits of the project in a state-ment on the CANA website:

“It beggars belief that, as the world’s hottest year ends and another hot year begins, anyone would even consider opening a new coal mine. It beggars still more belief that an application that fails to meet so many of the requirements of the Resource Management Act would be allowed to get to the point where it will be seriously considered.”

Oh to be so eloquent! To see his full piece, go to: http://coalaction.org.nz/coal/coal-projects/of-monkeys-mr-burns-mokau-south-and-the-rma


ECO update: ECO Office and Exec Activity

ECO update: ECO Office and Exec Activity

As ever, ECO has been doing a great deal on many issues: water, the resource legislation amendments, biodiversity, marine protection, fisheries management and on the science and monitoring needs for the new Ross Sea protected area in the Southern Ocean. We have made submissions on the kiwi recovery plans, to Parliament on giving submitters and petitioners more of a hearing, and to Councils and others on many issues including proposals for importing new organ-isms, various coal mining proposals and the water national policy statements and standards.

We are also organising our Annual Conference and AGM for Nelson 25-27 August (see front page story), doing our duties of reporting on our work and financ-es, we’ve been fundraising, networking and helping to share information – as those of you who follow Twitter, Facebook, Tieke and of course ECOLink will know.

ECO has also fostered a regional “ECO Hub” in Canterbury. ECO Co-Chair Diana Shand, has been organising with members and like-minded groups in Canterbury.

Interns

We said a sad and grateful goodbye to our wonderful intern from Dresden, Germany, in February. Marie Nestler made a huge contribution to ECO in her five months here, working mainly on the Mapping Sen-sitive Environments project and helping out with numerous tasks around the office, and at various ECO festivals and fairs over the summer.

We are very pleased to welcome Valentin Grabet to work with us until August this year. Valentin is help-ing us to organise our annual conference and is assist-ing Michael in the office with various tasks as well as external work on some water quality projects. Val introduces himself elsewhere in this issue.

Crowdfunding for sensitive environments mapping work

In April we launched a crowd funding campaign to help fund our Mapping Sensitive Environments project. We are most grateful to all those who have so far contributed. We need to raise $10,000 as the public’s contribution to this work, which will mean employing an expert on GIS matters as well making sure we have the most useful hardware and software. Any donations to this campaign are most welcome at our Givealittle site: https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/mappingsensitiveenvironments

Or by making an internet payment to our account: 38 9016 0185477 00

ECO Archives and library

All of ECO’s archives dating back to 1972 are online on the Community Archive. We hold around 400 file boxes of material relating to ECO’s work, so this is a valuable resource for those looking at the history of environmental issues in New Zealand and of the cam-paigns from the 1970s to the 2000s.

Access to the Community Archive is at http://thecom-munityarchive.org.nz

Our Resource Centre also houses an extensive library of books related to conservation and the environmen.To access any materials in the Resource Centre please email [email protected] or phone 04 385 7545

Change of ECO Treasurer

ECO has a new Treasurer, Carol Bourn, who has stepped up to replace Jim Kebbell who resigned from this role last month. We are most grateful to Jim for his huge contribution and hard work, and to Carol for stepping up and agreeing to take on this important role.

Street festivals and fairs

Over the summer ECO has had a presence at two major street fairs, namely the Thorndon Fair and the Newtown Festival in Wellington. These are important ways for us to make ECO visible, spread the word, talk to people, ask for donations and new Friends, and to sign people up to our newsletters. In addition, we’ve sold ECO cream and some books as fundrais-ers. It has been great fun for all involved and a big thank you to the many volunteers who came out to help. If you have a fair coming up in your area and would be willing to help ECO by putting some of ECO’s brochures on your table, please contact [email protected] or 04 385 -7545.

Valentin Grabet - ECO’ s new intern


Myrtle Rust is Dangerous

Myrtle Rust is Dangerous: how we can all help

The discovery first in Kerikeri in early May 2017 of myrtle rust is a huge problem for conservation, for backyard and commercial guava and feijoa trees, for various eucalypts and other exotic shrubs and trees.

It is predicted that the native species likely to be most affected in New Zealand are various species of rata and pohutukawa, kanuka and manuka, ramarama and rohutu (Lophomyrtus bullata and Lophomyrtus obcor-data respectively) and swamp maire. These are likely to be killed by the rust if it spreads to them.

The rust is expected to destroy some of our most important trees and have major impacts on the native forests where these are. as it has done in Australia and Hawai’i and other places it has spread to.

It spreads by wind, physical contact and passage of spores on people or other vectors. It may be impossi-ble to stop – but we can try, and we should also collect seeds now if we can, in case the plants in our areas die.

The impacts on native species is of greatest concern to ECO and DoC, but eucalypts, and a variety of other non-native species including feijoa and guava, bot-tlebrushes and probably others are also at risk of being destroyed by the fungus.

Honey production from manuka and kanuka (and rata and Pohutukawa) would be hit, as well as the fruit crops.

MPI and Doc advise that the myrtle rust attacks par-ticularly the soft new growth and shoots. They say to look out for these symptoms:

• bright yellow/orange powdery patches on leaves;

• brown/grey rust pustules (older spores) on older le-sions;

• leaves that are buckled or twisted and dying off.

The full list of plants likely to be affected, both na-tive and exotic, with their common, Maori and Latin names can be accessed via http://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/biosecurity/myrtle-rust/ and there are pic-tures and updates at that site and at MPI’s biosecurity site too.

Other species may also be attacked than those already identified as at risk, so be vigilant. Look at the images and call the hotline below if you suspect you have seen it - BUT DO NOT TOUCH IT!

History

MPI’s website includes:

“This fungus is indigenous to Central and South America and the Caribbean. It also occurs in Florida. Myrtle rust was found in Hawaii in 2005, where it was initially found on ohia (Metrosideros polymorpha) a species closely related to pohutukawa and rata. It was later found on other hosts (all in the Myrtaceae fam-ily).

It reached Australia in 2010, where it was initially de-tected on a property on the central coast of New South Wales. Since then it has spread across much of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. It has also been found in Tasmania and, most recently Kerikeri in Northland, on the New Zealand offshore island Raoul Island.

The disease initially shows up as yellow pustules and small brown spots on new growth such as shoots and leaves. As the rust matures, the lesions get bigger and produce masses of bright yellow spores, distorting leaves and fruit.

The DoC and MPI guide on what to do and not do:

“If you think you’ve seen the symptoms of myrtle rust, do not touch it.

Call the MPI Exotic Pest and Disease Hotline immedi-ately on 0800 80 99 66.

If you have a camera or phone camera, take clear photos, including the whole plant, the whole affected leaf, and a close-up of the spores/affected area of the plant. But don’t touch it or try to collect samples as this may increase the spread of the disease.

If you accidently come in contact with the affected

Cath Wallace

Leaf showing damage from Myrtle rust.


Myrtle Rust is Dangerous

plant or the rust, bag your clothing and wash clothes, bags and shoes/boots when you get home.”

Collect Seeds now

Officials are collecting seeds of the plants likely to be affected plants. They have established protocols and training for collecting for an official seed bank to maintain the genetic stock should the plants die off.

DoC and/or MPI may also develop guidelines for the

Pohutukawa Steam Cream

Now at half price as a special for ECO Friends and Supporters.

$15 per 80g jar (plus $3 p and p anywhere in NZ).

All proceeds go to ECO.

This excellent moisturising cream contains fresh, natural ingredients: Pohutukawa extract, harakeke extract, Jojoba seed oil, Sweet almond oil, Shea butter, Avocado oil, Rosemary leaf extract, etc. The ingredients are fused with steam instead of chemi-cals.

The manufacturers also manufacture leading brands such as Trilogy and Wildferns.

You can order by emailing ECO at [email protected] and making a payment directly to our bank ac-count: 38 9016 0185477 00 or phone 04 385 7545

Mining to be a permitted activity on the West Coast ?

The West Coast love affair with destroying the environment for the sake of minerals continues.

It has been revealed that Ministers directed the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment to work together to develop a plan for min-ing the Buller, with some areas given environmental protec-tion, the rest sacrificed to new open cast mines.

The startling mining agenda is laid out clearly in the Tai Poutini West Coast Growth Opportunities Report of Septem-ber 2016 which had a range of extractive industry people on the governance board, including at least two minerals peo-ple, Bruce Parkes from DoC and other officials from MBIE and in a support role, MPI.

Three proposals are recommended:

1 Crown owned stewardship land be reviewed and reclassi-fied to allow some to be removed from the DOC stewardship land portfolio and assigned to other uses;

2 Planning process reorganization to help applicants for developments;

3 Setting up a Collaborative Planning Process to “facili-tate mining and environmental protection” – with a view to allowing coal mining on the Buller coalfield with no need to apply for resource consents – the goal would be to make mining a permitted use with economic benefits demonstrated to overwhelm environment concerns and environmental losses compensated for –[Yeah right!]

The idea of logging native forests also re-emerges, and clearly lies behind the desire to reclassify DoC Stewardship land, as well as to continue the logging that was allowed to clear up windthrow from one storm.

The report covers other matters as well, including lots of new ideas for mining – including coal seam gas.

We are astounded that with climate destabilization well under way and environmental services of natural ecosystems well understood that there is still the “dig it, cut it, drain it,

unofficial collection of seeds by those of us who want to save our local plant genetic material.

Further information

Updates on this and other information and guides can be found at http://www.mpi.govt.nz/protection-and-response/responding/alerts/myrtle-rust

Or at http://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/biosecurity/myrtle-rust/

burn it “ mentality alive and well as a growth strategy on the West Coast. What is even more amazing is that the Govern-ment Ministers are lending themselves to this long discred-ited growth model and are prepared to sacrifice the environ-ment for the sake of it. Oh yes, we see the assurances of compensation, but that is nonsense.


Threatened Species Strategy proposed

Threatened Species Strategy proposed but no funding

The Government has released a threatened species strategy for public comment. The strategy has high goals including a predator free NZ but no new funding has been allocated for its implementation.

The purpose of the strategy is:

This Threatened Species Strategy sets out the New Zealand Government’s plan to halt the decline in our threatened species and restore them to healthy populations. Building on existing commitments and programmes, the Strategy identifies further steps we need to take not only to restore those species that are already at risk of extinction, but also to prevent others from becoming threatened. We invite all New Zealand-ers to be a part of that effort.

This Strategy is based on five themes necessary to sig-nificantly progress threatened species conservation:

• Uniting against invaders on a landscape scale

• Managing ecosystems at scale to protect species

• Building our science and knowledge base

• Focusing beyond public conservation land

• Working together in partnerships.

The goals of the strategy are:

• Manage 500 species for protection by 2025 - a 40% increase on today – and 600 species for pro-tection by 2030.

• Enhance the populations of 150 prioritised threat-ened and at risk species by 2025.

• Integrate Te Ao Maori (the Maori world view) and matauranga Maori (Maori knowledge) into species recovery programmes by 2025.

• Support research, particularly through the National Science Challenges, that helps us to better under-

stand data deficient species.

Threatened species

At present, under the DoC threatened species criteria more than 3000 of our native species are classified as ‘threatened’ or ‘at risk’. Around 800 of these are classified as directly threatened and face the risk of extinction. In addition, of the species assessed (about 13,000), approximately 3000 cannot be given a conser-vation status due to a lack of information about their population size or trend.

Species identified as needing action include: marine species Maui dolphin and New Zealand sea lions; marine invertebrates – bubblegum coral; birds – kiwi, kea, rock wren and wrybill; plants – kakabeak and Bartlett’s rata; freshwater fish – longfin eels and giant kokopu; mammals – long-tailed bat; frog – Archey’s frog; invertebrates – robust grasshopper.

Species missing from the list include black petrel (which is the highest ranked seabird in the fisheries risk ranking).

The good part of the strategy is the focus on the landscape scale and not just on individual threatened species. That means that a suite of threatened species should be looked at together. It is unclear how that landscape scale will apply in the marine environment.

The main focus of this strategy is on land managed by the Department of Conservation. There is some action on private land but this mainly relies on sympathetic landowners who want to engage in pest control or measures under the Resource Management Act.


Threatened Species Strategy proposed

For wildlife protection, New Zealand is mainly rely-ing on legislation that was drafted in the 1950s: the Wildlife Act. New Zealand does not have modern bio-diversity protection legislation such as exists over the Tasman in Australia. The report notes that there are no mechanisms to protect threatened plant taxa.

The Department of Conservation is politically and at times legislatively, subservient to MPI in respect of fishing, and to the MBIE in mineral activity. In the marine environment it is the Ministry of Primary Industries which has the legislative tools to protect threatened species - it has but many conflicts of inter-ests which mean that direction is weak. DoC has a limited mandate in the EEZ and continental shelf.

Unlike the Australian approach (eg the Federal Envi-ronment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) there is no focus on tackling the processes that threaten species and other aspects of biodiversity. For example, there is little action in New Zealand to limit the impact on trawling which decimates cold-water corals, sponges and can and does destroy benthic bio-diversity hot spots.

The biggest Achilles heel to the New Zealand Threat-ened Species Strategy is the absence of funding. DoC is also increasingly being pushed into tourism work – and seems to have lost its nature focus by turning nature into “theme park” of nature

The current estimates are that the department has a shortfall of funding for threatened species work and biodiversity protection of over $100 million annually.

Submissions close 5 pm, Friday 31 July 2017 with the Department of Conservation - email to [email protected], or post to: Threatened Species Strategy, Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, Wellington 6143

Top 10 Actions in the Strategy

The following Top 10 actions are needed to achieve the threatened species goals:

1. Achieve the Predator Free 2025 goals including:

► Continuing with Battle for our Birds -monitoring and taking appropriate action when a major mast event occurs

► 1 million additional hectares of predator control Eradicating predators from at least 20,000 hectares of mainland New Zealand without the use of fences

► A predator-free status for all nature reserve islands

► The ability to eradicate at least one mammal predator.

2. Continue to invest in improving tools and technologies for predator control by:

► Focusing the science system through the Conservation and En-vironment Science Roadmap and the Biological Heritage Science Challenge.

► Supporting innovation by the private sector through companies like Goodnature and R&D joint ventures such as ZIP Ltd.

► Continuing to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 1080 as a mission-critical tool for conservation.

3. Identify a priority list of threatened and at risk plant species, and ensure that their seeds are held in a recognized seed storage facility by 2025.

4. Biosecurity 2025

► Strengthening New Zealand’s biosecurity system as outlined in the November 2016 Biosecurity 2025 Direction Statement.

5. Progress key regulatory reforms:

► New marine protection legislation to provide more flexible tools for protecting marine ecosystems.

► The continued development of a National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity by the stakeholder-led Biodiversity Col-laborative Group.

6. Implement freshwater reforms, particularly setting and imple-menting environmental limits; and continue support for freshwater habitat restoration.

7. Identify and publish threatened species ‘hotspots’ both on and off public conservation land to identify the key areas and threat-ened species for potential protection.

8. Select 500 of the data deficient species to focus researchers on further scientific work.

9. Ensure that national recovery planning systems and processes are fit for purpose, efficient and integrate matauranga Maori.

► Incorporate Maori principles and knowledge

10. Develop and implement a comprehensive monitoring regime that can be used by all those involved in species management that:

► Provides timely useful information on threatened species

► Specifies a trigger for intervention to avoid extinction or in-crease the threat status of a species.

It is unclear how the strategy will protect marine species like endemic NZ sea lions from fishing or mining impacts.


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)

Nothing to celebrate in orange roughy certification


Orange roughy – the long-lived, slow breeding and vulnerable fish species that provided a cautionary tale on the dangers of over-fishing – can now, we are told, go back on the menu of the eco-minded. Last Decem-ber, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) proudly ruled that New Zealand’s three of the main orange roughy fisheries have been certified as meeting the international standard for sustainable fishing.

Catches of orange roughy plummeted after 1990 as a result of over-exploitation, and by 2006 the fish was listed as a threatened species in Australia and two New Zealand fisheries had been closed. Yet now we are be-ing led to believe that a supposed “turnaround” in New Zealand orange roughy stocks is a cause for optimism and rejoicing. Australians have been encouraged to eat orange roughy on the Marine Stewardship Council’s “Sustainable Seafood Day”, 31st March. And on 11th April, the seafood industry body Seafood New Zealand held a “celebration” of the Marine Stewardship Coun-cil certification of orange roughy.

But there is nothing to celebrate. The story of orange roughy fishing remains bleak. And the MSC’s tale of sudden success is disturbingly misleading. The MSC’s certification was opposed by Greenpeace, the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC), ECO, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and two European organisa-tions, Seas At Risk and Bloom.

The New Zealand orange roughy fishery history has been one of serial depletion and repeated stock crashes. The unsustainability of orange roughy fish stocks is a crucial concern.

“It is a travesty that this obviously unsustainable fish-ery, which has been demonstrably overfished for many years, has been certified by MSC,” said Oliver Know-les, Oceans Campaigner for Greenpeace New Zealand. Controversy over the certification also involved the use of the old MSC standard which gives less weight to

impacts on the environment and the failure to include information which was circulating prior to the decision to certify the fishery. More on these problems as you need to know some facts before believing that orange roughy is a sustainable fish.

Built in incentives to certify

The first is that, although the MSC is a not-for-profit body, the way in which it is funded provides an incen-tive to keep the fishing industry happy. The system is set up so that fisheries bear the cost of being assessed for sustainability by the MSC. The MSC also receives income from its logo licensing fees. In other words, the more fish that have MSC certified-sustainable stickers in the shops, the more income the MSC receives. There is a built-in incentive to certify fisheries.

The credibility of this MSC sustainability certification takes another major blow because it failed to describe in the certification, and does not require labelling of, the means by which orange roughy are fished. They are scooped off the ocean floor by bottom trawling – a highly destructive technique where heavy metal rollers and nets are dragged over undersea mountains (seamounts), smashing every lifeform – including endangered corals and sponges – in their path. The practice has been likened to clear-felling forests to catch a flock of birds.

Bottom trawling is so destructive that the United Na-tions has passed a series of resolutions attempting to prevent significant adverse impacts on these vulnerable marine ecosystems. Yet a highly detailed promotional story on the MSC website praising the new NZ orange roughy certification makes no mention of the fishing technique, let alone its possible consequences.

The independent assessor of the certification decision was given very limited freedom to challenge it, and up-held the certifier’s view that, while trawl contact might destroy coral, the “reasonably low proportion of the area trawled” meant that “a reasonably low proportion of the area is impacted.” In other words, yes, orange roughy fisheries destroy coral, but it doesn’t matter because it’s a big ocean. This flies in the face of the

The shape of a “sustainable” fishery - North-East and South Chatham Rise



United Nations requirement that no significant impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems is caused.

The Ministry of Primary Industry and its predecessor agencies (MFish and MAF) after 20 years have not worked out what it means to protect “habitat of par-ticular significance to fisheries management” So very little orange roughy habitat is protected from bottom fishing.

Documents excluded

The third fact to know is that the MSC excluded from consideration a large number of documents from its decision. This included a damning report by Universi-ty of British Columbia, Auckland University and other researchers which provided evidence that the New Zealand fishing industry has been under-reporting and mis-reporting numbers of fish caught, and also dump-ing large numbers of the fish.

It also excluded a New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries memo stating that it had been aware of the fish dumping and discarding issues for many years. Misreporting and fish dumping is important because it results in under-reporting of fishing and undermines fisheries management.

Basic Facts

The basic facts about orange roughy remain, wherever they are fished. This is a species that takes 30 years to reach sexual maturity, and this makes them effectively a non-renewable resource. The process of fishing them is devastating to the environment. As Clair Nouvian of the conservation association Bloom said of the MSC New Zealand decision: “The conclusion that fisheries would continue to be fished along existing tow lines is simply wrong. This is a serial depletion fishery which relies on continuing to find new fisher-ies to deplete.”

So no, there is nothing to celebrate in orange roughy certification. In New Zealand orange roughy fisheries are still closed, others overfished, and still others are

being fished without any agreed stock assessment of sustainability.

The New Zealand fishing industry should hang its head in shame that it is “greenwashing” a damag-ing fishery and undermining confidence in the MSC branding. No longer can the public have confidence that a MSC certified fishery is, as the MSC website describes it, “responsibly caught fish” “traced back to a sustainable source”.

Shape of an unsustainable fishery - East Coast North Island orange roughy. ECOs Open Government Working Group

The Open Government Partnership’s (OGP) Independent Reporting Mechanism published an ‘End-of-Term Progress Report’ for New Zealands first Open Government Action Plan (2014-16) 1. The report summarises that the “govern-ment process falls short of OGP’s co-creation guidelines, the commitments lacked clear activities for implementation, and the gains were marginal” .

New Zealand’s second OGP Action Plan (2016-18) was pub-lished by the government on 20 October 2016. In a hastened attempt by the State Services Commission (SSC) to col-laborate with the public on the commitments in should sign up to, a public co-creation worshop was held less than eight weeks before publication. ECO’s Open Government Work-ing Group attended the workshop. Members raised concern that a lack of public participation in, and sense of ownership of, the open government action plan would result in low-ambition commitments.

The government New Zealand government has pledged to the following commitments: Commitment 1: Open Budget Commitment 2: Improving official information practices Commitment 3: Improving open data access and principles Commitment 4: Tracking progress and outcomes of open government data release Commitment 5: Ongoing engagement for OGP Commitment 6: Improving access to legislation Commitment 7: Improving policy practices

Despite an increase in commitiments from four in 2014-16 to seven in 2016-18, New Zealand still lags behind other countries such as UK (13 commitments) and Canada (22 commitments). ECO values a free and open society, without which, members of the public would not be able to partici-pate in decisions or to challenge abuses to the environment. The commitments above fail to address a list of major open government issues which includes, but is not exhausted by, a lack of transparency and public participation within major trade negotiations; non-transparency of Ministerial activities, a lack of transparency of how surveillence data is gathered and used by intelligence agencies; and whistle-blower protection.

The ECO Working Group plans to launch a report of the results from its open government survey conducted last year.


OECD Environmental Performance Review

OECD Environmental Performance Report – Pathways for improvement

The international peer review of New Zealand’s environmental performance shows New Zealand to be doing much less than it could to improve the environ-ment, and gives some valuable advice about how to do better.

The OECD is diplomatically polite and conservative, but makes it clear that the government’s growth strat-egy is faulty and should be abandoned”, says Wallace, herself an economist and public policy expert.

The Review is clear that policy of expanding primary production and largely disregarding the impacts of agriculture and irrigation on water quality, on climate change and on biodiversity is misdirected, inadequate and environmentally damaging.

The OECD recommends decoupling economic growth from increasing resource use: an idea that has been accepted elsewhere for decades, and is much more inclusive of the recognition of the environmental and economic costs of pollution and biodiversity loss than New Zealand’s approach.

An important recommendation is that biodiversity protection should move to whole of ecosystem and habitat protection and that individual species protec-tion makes protection of biodiversity more difficult. ECO recently made this point in submissions on the

proposed Kiwi Recovery Plan.

The government’s roading fixation is also criticised as misdirected – something most of us already know. The lack of attention to public transport and the failure to charge or price greenhouse gas and environmental harms of transport and agriculture is underscored by the OECD.

The need to support local government and to restore public participation in resource management are both highlighted in the Review. The Review notes the tiny 4% of resource consents that are publicly notified and clearly finds this unfortunately small.

The government’s contradictory and environmentally lax approach to water and air pollution control, to waste management, and to greenhouse gas emissions are noted.

Suggestions include pricing pollution and resource use but also regulations, for instance of fine air particle emissions. Higher standards for many aspects of our environmental limits are recommended. This Review does not comment on Nick Smith’s recent debasement of water quality definitions and measurement – it was clearly written prior to that.

The Review for some reason says little about our

OECD Environmental Performance Review for New Zea-land.

OECD Review recommendation’s include:

Climate Change

• Develop a strategic plan to achieve the 2030 climate mitigation target. This plan should identify how mitigating domestic emissions and international carbon markets would contribute to achieving the target.

• Design and put into action a comprehensive package of GHG emission mitigation measures to complement the ETS.

• Address barriers to investment in low-carbon technology and practices in energy, industry, building and transport.

Biodiversity

• Speed up adoption of a National Policy Statement on Biodiversity.

• Continue integrating biodiversity protection into land-use planning, particularly on private land.

Air Quality and Waste

• Set a standard for maximum PM2.5 concentrations and strengthen the monitoring and reporting of air quality data


OECD Review Recommendations

fisheries management – but many of the criticisms of the disregard for environmental consequences in New Zealand primary production management apply there too.

The government’s policy failures identified also include subsidies to irrigation and the failure of the government to implement most of the Land and Water Forum’s recommendations. The government’s lack of commitment and policies of subsidising irriga-tion were important reasons that ECO withdrew from LAWF last, and other groups including Fish and Game, Forest and Bird and Federated Mountain Clubs have withdrawn from the LAWF process.

ECO says that this OECD Review is important for its attention to problems of the government’s growth strategy and policies and particularly welcome are its suggestions of how to tackle these.

We see here a call for a rethink of our economic growth strategy of more primary production and disre-gard of environmental costs and the erosion of public participation. The call gives very explicit advice for controlling environmental harms. Central to this is reversing the incentives so that environmental harms have to be faced by those who do them.

• Extend the waste disposal levy and encourage local authorities to introduce quantity- or volume-based waste charges to help minimise waste, foster recycling and recover costs of waste service.

• Improve collection of data on the generation, disposal and treatment of waste.

Governance

• Undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the resource management act and its implementation at the local level.

• Establish nationally standardised requirements for air and water discharge permits, and waste generation and manage-ment.

• Provide better nationwide guidance, support and training to local authorities on permitting, compliance monitoring and enforcement.

• Build capacity of maori communities to ensure their ad-equate participation in resource management planning.

• Establish a pollutant release and transfer register to collect data on environmental impacts of private companies and to help the public access this information.

Green growth

• Develop a long-term vision to move towards a low-car-bon, greener economy, taking into account opportunities to reduce the economy’s reliance on natural resources.

• Strengthen the Emissions Trading Scheme to ensure the price of carbon promotes a transition to a low- carbon economy.

• Set a clear date for the inclusion of biological emissions from agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme or intro-duce alternative pricing and regulatory measures.

• Introduce an excise duty on diesel and ensure that petrol and diesel tax/charge rates consider the environmental costs of transport.

• Ensure that investment priorities for land transport infra-structure are consistent with long-term climate and environ-mental objectives.

• Introduce fuel efficiency and air emission standards for new and imported used vehicles.

Water

• Develop a whole-of-government long-term strategy to increase the added value of export products within climate and freshwater quality and quantity objectives.

• Increase financial support and capacity for regional coun-cils to deliver on the National Policy Statement for Fresh-water Management.

• Ensure that water quantity and quality limits set locally are ambitious and comprehensive.

• Review government support for irrigation to ensure that funding is only provided for projects that would not proceed otherwise, and that have net community-wide benefits

• Expand the use of economic instruments to internalise en-vironmental and opportunity costs, promote innovation and encourage efficient use of water (quantity and quality).

Urban

• Make it simpler to integrate land use, infrastructure and transport planning. Give greater recognition to spatial plan-ning and consider making it mandatory for major cities.

• Provide more extensive national guidance to ensure that local planning encourages good urban design outcomes, ap-propriately manages environmental systems, and considers climate change mitigation and adaptation goals.

• Remove barriers to road pricing. Encourage cities to use economic instruments to manage and finance water and waste services.


Mineral Permits & Oceana Gold

Stonearrow Jewellery

Nick Feint of Stonearrow in Takaka makes beautiful jewellery from glass taken from the waste stream.

By using the code ECO2017 when you shop via the online store, 20% of your purchase price will go to

ECO.

Shown are the beautiful harakeke flax earrings. Take a look at Nick’s website to view the jewellery and to

make an online order: http://stonearrow.co.nz/

Mineral Permits granted on the Coromandel Peninsula: Beware

Further mineral permits have been granted on the Coromandel Peninsula to gold miner Oceana Gold. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employ-ment has granted two exploration permits (the stage before mining) in the wider Whitianga area and there are many more. One of the latest covers nearly 7000 ha from just south of Whitianga across to Kuaotunu, Otama and Whangapoua. The other covers 9600ha across the Whenuakite area from Cooks Beach to the Tairua Hill. The area covered includes native forests and wetlands, farmland and exotic forests.

The minerals exploration permits have been granted without public consultation for an initial period of 5 years (from 01/05/2017) under the Crown Miner-als Act by New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals, a division of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, (MBIE). The permits pave the way for Canadian/Australian gold mining company Oceana Gold to begin to explore for minerals including gold, silver and 21 others, much to the dismay of many in the local community.

Oceana has a total of 25 minerals permits and appli-cations around New Zealand, many in the Waikato-Coromandel (including the Martha and Favona mines) and on the West Coast and Otago regions, including the Reefton Globe Hill four mines, Sam’s Creek and Macraes mine in Otago. To examine the location of the permits, for Oceana and elsewhere, go to the maps at the url below, and you will see the location and

number of the minerals permits. Click on the number of the permit to find out more about the permit: http://data.nzpam.govt.nz/permitwebmaps?commodity=minerals

Coromandel local environmentalist and spokesperson for the Greenspot Guardians Augusta Macassey-Pick-ard is not happy to hear the news of the new explora-tion permits. “Mining is just not right for our area” she says “ We have thriving fisheries, tourism, farming and even a growing film industry here, why would we want to threaten all of that, and our lifestyles, so that some foreign company can get rich?

“We only need to look down the road at Waihi to see that it won’t do anything for us.” Waihi has a far higher unemployment rate, and lower median income than Whitianga, or the Waikato Region.

The permits in both areas cover a majority of privately owned land, and Mrs Macassey-Pickard says that there are still many affected property owners who do not know that their land is subject to such a permit. “One thing that concerns us is that many property own-ers and occupiers are not advised of this, and it is not registered on a LIM report, so some buyers could get a rude surprise.” Mining companies tend to minimise the likely impact of their acitivites if and when they do ask for permission at this stage.

Now that it is at the exploration stage, the company will be looking to negotiate access arrangements with landowners.

Landowners and occupiers need to be extremely care-ful not to give permission for entry. They have the right in law to refuse permission for entry, but, once given, the permission cannot be retracted and binds subsequent owners. Even worse, permission given for exploration – which in itself can have very high impacts – gives the mining company entitlement to move on to a mining permit. Our advice is that no one should give such permission. You could be allowing your land to be completely destroyed under open pit mining or, if underground mining is allowed, it is very likely to cave in. Valleys may also be buried in waste rock, or in the chemically, biologically and physically unstable tailings dams, dewatering ponds, haul roads and other ancillary work. The ancillary works are also covered by the definition of mining.

Mrs Macassey-Pickard says that the secrecy surround-ing these activities is indicative of things not being quite what they seem. “If it was all profit for the whole community, with little or no environmental impact, then why didn’t they ask us if we wanted it here?” The long history of mining in Waihi demonstrates just how these permits can be extended, conditions changed and

by Cath Wallace


Mineral Permits & Oceana Gold

people feel tricked. “They mine underneath peoples’ actual homes there now, and they have shelved the lake that was promised.”

In addition to this, she says, Oceana has just lost a suit that they brought against the government of El Salvador. “The El Salvadorian Government wouldn’t grant them mining rights, partly to do with needing to preserve access to freshwater, so these guys sued the Government in international trade courts and lost.

The mining company will probably have to apply for resource consents under the RMA if they want to mine, but there is no guarantee that those applications would be publicly notified by the councils.

Well known concerns of locals are the impacts of drill-ing, site clearance and the enormous amount of land disturbance that could occur – bulk sampling would allow huge cuts the size of a motorway cutting, as well as other activities with substantial displacement of and impacts on local fauna and flora and water and of course to cultural values. The exploration activ-ity is a high risk activity for spreading or introducing kauri dieback disease and other biosecurity risks to the area.

Mrs Macassey-Pickard says that so much of our wild spaces are already fragmented, and under stress from development and industry. “People are concerned for our environment – we are all lucky to have access to these beautiful places, but we are concerned for other things too; more heavy trucks on our roads, down turn in property prices as people might not want a bach at the mine, noise and dust, and if they did start mining, a big toxic dam up behind us like Waihi. This is not what the Coromandel needs.”

In the Coromandel-Waikato region Oceana Gold has huge tracks under permit for exploration. As well as the newly exploration permitted areas from Whitianga to just north of Tairua, they have other permits from just south of the Tairua estuary and Pauanui west of Ohui and nearly to Oputere. They have a further ex-ploration permit “white Bluffs” west of Onemana and SE of Wharekawa and bounded by a stretch of State Highway 25. They have an exploration permit in Waihi North, as well as the actual Martha and Favona mine sites and the huge area of the ever-increasing tailings dam to the east of Waihi.

To examine the maps of where these are and to learn more about the particular permits they have or are ap-plying for, go to http://data.nzpam.govt.nz/permitwebmaps?commodity=minerals And enter “Oceana” and click on each application to see some of the details.

Who is Oceana Gold?

Oceana Gold is headquartered in Melbourne and is Australian-Canadian. As well as its extensive inter-ests in mines and exploration in New Zealand, with mines usually bought from others companies who established them, Oceana has an operting gold mine in the Philippines, and another, the Haile mine, that has just begun or is due to begin production in early 2017 in the USA.

The Philippines Human Rights Commission recom-mended that the government there suspend production at the mine because of poor treatment of indigenous people – houses were demolished and other abuses documented. The environment and natural resources ministry in the Philippines in late 2016 named Oceana’s Didipio mine in the Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya region, as one that it was investigating with a view to suspension for environmental and human rights viola-tions. The abuse of the Bugkalot people who owned the land was one contentious issue.

Oceana wanted to mine in El Salvador which it sued for US$250m for loss of expected profits in a World Bank Tribunal in 2009 after the government of that country refused it a mining permit. To the relief of the government and of the community and environmental groups who stood up to this bullying, the World Bank Tribunal ruled against Oceana in October 2016 and ordered it pay US$8m in costs to El Salvador. Oceana was told its case was without merit.

El Salvador, small and poor, spent US$12m on the case, and civil society groups had spent years oppos-ing the mining plans. El Salvador told the Tribunal that the company failed to comply with several crucial requirements for a mining licence and did not supply required assessment documents and plans.

New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals, part of MBIE, has long promoted minerals activity and has never seemed to see itself as the guardian of the public inter-est. Meanwhile in El Salvador, they now have a role model. The national cry became “No to mining, Yes to life”.






Charting the path for New Zealand’s Decarbonisation


Given the now widespread acceptance of the need for New Zealand to reduce our Carbon emissions to net zero, attention is now on how we do this and how quickly. Because of the many denials and delays until now, we are now going to have to do this more quickly and more expensively than had we taken action ear-lier - like when we signed the Kyoto agreement 1997, or when we were on the verge of introducing regula-tions, or indeed when Labour was about to introduce a carbon charge back in the mid 2000s.

New Zealand has made precious little progress, thanks to the agricultural and fossil fuel and other industry lobbyists, and more recently a Cabinet that thought we could free-load on the rest of the world. If that was not possible, then agriculture intended to free load on the rest of us.

The ECO annual conference in Nelson 25-27 August 2017 at the Stoke Memorial Hall will hear where par-ties stand on all this. To make it easy for us all, we will have a good session on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limits, the rates at which we must now reduce our emissions, and most importantly, how to do this and with what institutions.

As with other signatories to the Paris Agreement, New Zealand has commitments to provide our country emissions reduction plan in accordance with the Paris Agreement globally to reduce emissions so that tem-perature rise is limited to less than 2 degrees C and down to 1.5 degrees.

Up until recently, ministers had seemed to fiddle and do little. Agriculture is still exempt from the Emis-sions Trading Scheme which, with a bit of political will could help to reduce emissions. That is if all the gases were included and if the “hot air” from the Ukraine and other sources stay barred from acceptabil-ity as emissions reduction units.

Zero Carbon Bill

Generation Zero, in consultation with many others, in-cluding Wise Response and ECO, proposes a new draft law to embed the goal of zero net carbon emissions by 2050. Paul Young from Gen Zero has been invited to speak to the ECO conference.

In their draft law, Gen Zero sets up the institutions and reporting that governments would have to estab-lish. The major suggestion is of a climate commission which is independent of ministers. The Commission would suggest how to reduce emissions. Emission re-duction mile stones and mandatory emissions account-ing and public reporting is part of their plan.

Gen Zero is seeking support from many quarters in an attempt to gain non-partisan widespread acceptance for their proposal.

Some have criticized the plan for its lack of charting exactly how emissions reductions would be achieved and instead to kick that question to the Climate Commission. That takes us to the GLOBE –NZ- commissioned report, discussed below.

Pathways to Net Zero Emissions in NZ

GLOBE is a network of legislators – and stands for Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment. In New Zealand, Dr Kennedy Graham chairs a group of 35 MPs from five parties who have agreed to work to-gether in a cooperative cross-disciplinary framework in which they aim to reduce emissions and tackle climate change. They reserve their rights to differ on aspects of this, but agree on the goal.

This cross-party group commissioned Vivid Econom-ics of London to provide analysis of how New Zealand could reduce our emissions.

Vivid Economics presents three scenarios for New Zealand to achieve zero net emissions in the second half of the 21st Century. Published in March 2017, and made available publicly in scenario summary form and with a technical report, the scenarios allow us to explore how we can reduce emissions – and what is needed to do that.

All require significant use of opportunities to reduce emissions that are largely economic – so barriers are explored. All also require change in technologies. Those that are successful also require land use change.

The three scenarios include Off Track New Zealand, Innovative New Zealand and Resourceful New Zea-land.



As the name suggests, Off Track New Zealand doesn’t get us where we want to go but does involve efficien-cies and switches in form and use of energy, electrifi-cation of the passenger vehicle fleet, some changes in agricultural efficiencies and practices but not land use changes. We would reduce emissions by 10-25% on 2014 by 2050 but not enough to get to zero net emis-sions.

Innovative New Zealand does the above and more within the transport and heating fields but also envis-ages structural changes and reduction in methane emissions from ruminants and a reduction of livestock numbers of 20-35% on 2014 levels. Horticulture and crops, extensive afforestation (especially of exotics) covering an extra one million ha than now would use the land where some of the ruminants used to be. Technological changes – and their adoption – are as-sumed to achieve 70-80% reductions of emissions and an annual reduction of 3.3-4.3% in CO2 equivalent from now to 2050 – a substantial adjustment.

Resourceful New Zealand does not rely on decar-bonisation of the energy sector beyond the Off Track scenario because technological development it is too slow. Instead, exotic plantation afforestation is hugely ramped up to offset emissions. By 2050, 1.6m extra hectares are established. This would cause significant upheavals in rural communities and significant losses of native biodiversity.

The work stresses that there are many opportunities already available to make much more progress than New Zealand has to date.. It also stresses the need for a range of measures to support the changes required, including government commitment.

The price of carbon needed to induce required efficien-cies and changes of production and land use are ranked as “low”, less than $50/carbon equivalent; $50-100/t CO2e as moderate, and greater than $100/t as high. This accords with other work done elsewhere, but it is much more than the up to $20/t or so that has seemed to be the maximum that the New Zealand carbon trad-ing has achieved. The current system is being crippled by the exclusions of agriculture from coverage, the two units for one paid for rule, the emissions respon-sibility holidays and the policy instability that New Zealand’s policy and Emissions Trading Scheme has suffered from.





KIWI KARMA

Do you travel for business or pleasure? Book your accommodation with Kiwi

Karma and up to 8% of your spend will support our work at ECO.

It’s an easy way to support us, simply by doing what you were going to do

anyway.

Book now with Kiwi Karma and use the promo code from your booking con-

firmation to sign up to Uber. They will give you a free first ride of up to $25.

http://kiwikarma.co.nz/

Predictability and durability of policy and price set-tings are stressed in the report as essential for the pri-vate sector to make sensible investment decisions and to arrest the problem we now have of very poor price signals leading to systematically wrong investments and people then invest in lobbying to avoid losses and “stranded assets”. That term means investments that become obsolete or uneconomic because the price or other conditions change. Investing in coal mine devel-opment would be a case in point.

The report stresses the “co-benefits” from reducing emissions with health bonuses from home insulation and reduction in particulate inhalation an example. Reduction in ruminant animals, especially cattle would allow water ways to recover and reduce pollution, sedimentation and erosion.

ECO observes though that the impacts of massive in-creases in exotic forestry would be considerable, with potential biodiversity losses and spasmodic floods and damage from slash and sedimentation highly likely.

As the paper explains, there are many market failures and human behaviour problems that would also need



SUPPORT ECO

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

Go to Buzzchannel to sign up.

to be tackled: they are under no illusion that simply fixing the price signals would be enough.

The social impacts also need to be better studied – and the report laments the dearth of good evidence on a number of fronts. ECO observes though that earlier work by Creedy and Sleeman on impacts on different household types and incomes can vary a good deal: those in the lowest 20% are by no means evenly af-fected.

The Report provides a range of recommendations – for instance about reducing the emissions from land. As progressive practitioners and advisors in agriculture have already demonstrated, low input, lower intensity dairying is superior both financially and environmen-tally.

The environmental consequences of increased indig-enous forest recovery and reversion are noted, but the mechanisms for inducing this would have to be fos-tered since the direct financial benefits would be much less unless other forms of income can be found.

The Summary paper and the Technical paper give much more depth than this account can convey. As Paul Young from Gen Zero and the Morgan Founda-tion observes, there are other strategies and scenarios that are not covered in the Vivid economics study – and we agree. It is however a very useful demonstra-tion of the achievability of net zero emissions by 2050 and of the absolute urgency of getting moving to get there.

The limitations of the study are canvassed by the au-thors themselves – and these include the exclusion of maritime and aircraft emissions.

The prospect of highly conflicting government policies is referred to obliquely.

Most of us know about climate damaging policies such as the government allowing more coal mines to open, subsidizing irrigation and the intensification of dairy-ing, making endless roads while under-investing in public transport and urban form, neglecting conserva-tion of soils and inadequate biodiversity protection, and its promotion of oil and gas exploitation.

We will have also to be vigilant to prevent methane hydrates being released from the sea, and to press for aircraft and off-shore transport, marine mining and other greenhouse gas emitting activities not covered to be brought into policy focus and greenhouse gas accounting.

We must expose climate destabilising projects and measures and point out that they would make the costs to the economy, society and the climate even higher and generate irreversible harms. It is also essential that consideration of greenhouse gas emissions from activities is restored to the Resource Management Act and inserted into the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act.

The ECO conference in August in Nelson will allow further discussion of all this.

Links

About the GLOBE-NZ climate emissions project

https://www.bec.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/120803/Brochure-GLOBE-NZ-Study.pdf

The explanation of the NZ study by Vivid Economics:

http://www.vivideconomics.com/publications/net-zero-in-new-zealand

The Summary Report is here:

http://www.vivideconomics.com/wp-content/up-loads/2017/04/Net-Zero-in-New-Zealand-Summary-Report-Vivid-Economics.pdf

The Vivid Technical Report is here:

http://www.vivideconomics.com/wp-content/up-loads/2017/04/Net-Zero-in-New-Zealand-Technical-Report-Vivid-Economics.pdf

Paul Young’s blogs re the study at the Morgan Founda-tion:

http://morganfoundation.org.nz/report-shows-paths-zero-emissions-nz/

http://morganfoundation.org.nz/yes-zero-carbon-new-zealand-possible/


Murky Water Standards and Policy


Great controversy ensued when the Minister for the Environment, Hon Nick Smith, released a suite of poli-cies and standards for fresh water called “Clean Water 2017’. In part, there was confusion because what the Minister said did not match the material and policies or standards published on the Ministry for the Enviorn-ment Website. But that was not all.

To the casual observer, the policies seemed designed to tighten the standards for fresh water from “wadeable” to “swimmable”, and that seemed to be an improve-ment. The catch was that the definition of “swimma-ble” and limits for contamination were also changed, so that what previously had been deemed unswimma-ble by dint of relaxed standards, became “swimmable”, The Minister announced that many fresh water bodies and rivers were now improved or soon would be.

When scientists and closely observant environmental groups called foul, the Minister derided them and ac-cused them of “fake science”. He denounced his crit-ics and assured the public they were wrong and water was and would be cleaner.

Just a day or two prior to the close of submissions on the water policy package and the standards and proto-cols to be followed, the Ministry for the Enviornment produced its state of the environment summary report on water. This was too late for most submitters.

The Prime Minister’s Science Advisor, Peter Gluck-man, produced a report last month which confirmed deterioration in many areas of water quality and aquatic ecosystem health and blamed intensified farm-ing and impacts from urban areas for this deterioration.

http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/PMC-SA-Freshwater-Report.pdf

Gluckman’s report had been in preparation for a year but was sped up to contribute to the debate.

His report followed a critical report from the OECD Environmental Performance Review of New Zealand (see separate article in this issue) that raised concerns about intensification of farming and declining water quality.

Fish and Game, ECO, Choose Fresh Water Campaign, Forest and Bird and EDS and notably, freshwater ecologist Mike Joy have for years campaigned to have dairying take responsibility for their E.coli, nitrogen, nutrient, and sediment contamination of waterways.

Marnie Prickett for the Choose Clean Water group in March 2016, along with Hīkoi Wai Tapu who had walked from Turangi to Wellington, organised a national tour about fresh water and a march on par-

liament with a 13,000-signature petition calling for a swimmable bottom line for rivers and lakes.

The debate on the Government’s proposed changes to water standards took a new turn when an especially- commissioned NIWA report to clarify the standards issue in May confirmed that the standards redefini-tions proposed by the Minister would indeed weaken the “swimable” standard for lakes and rivers – finding Minister Smith was wrong.

Critics have also observed that the standards relate only to human use, not ecological health, and that the larger water bodies and not to the smaller headwater creeks and rivers that have high biodiversity vulner-ability.

Choose Clean Water said the report is evidence that the Government’s water policy has weakened swimming standards as they and scientists suspected. Higher levels of faecal contamination in the rivers where New Zealanders swim would be permitted.

The NIWA report was released nearly 2 weeks after submissions closed on the original “Clean Water 2017 proposals.

NIWA report was released in mid-May. Submissions on the proposals have now been extended until 5:00pm on 25 May 2017. The proposals are outlined in the NIWA technical background report for MfE “Clean Water” Swimmability Proposals for Rivers.

ECO submitted that the standards for water should focus on the quality of wetlands, water and waterways and biodiversity within, with the primary goal being the ecological health of water and waterways and that human health indicators must also be the subject of standards.

Further these standards for monitoring and reporting should include:







a) The Macro Invertebrate Index, and

b) Hydrocarbons and any damaging and/or durable pollutants such as persistent or bio-accumulative pol-lutants, or pollutants of acute eco- toxicity.

Freshwater in New Zealand

The Ministry for the Environment also released a Summary Report on the state of Fresh Water in New Zealand. This was release just a few days before the Standards and National Policy Statement consultation closed.

Four principles articulated in the Summary report include the impact and the scale of change. The report depicts the top findings within three major key themes: “Water Quality”, “Water Quantity and “Flows” and “Ecosystems, Habitats and Species”.

On Water Quality the data showed that in monitored rivers Nitrate-Nitrogen concentrations were worsening rather than improving. E.coli concentrations (directly related to faecal matter) were increasing the risk of illness for swimmers and affect the ability to swim in some rivers.

Regarding Water Management:, more than half the water allocated (or consented for use) by councils is for irrigation, but they do not know how much of this is actually used. From November 2016, legislation re-quires most water users to provide continuous records of water takes each year. The aim is to provide a more complete national picture of how much water is actu-ally used in the future reports.

In a third section the document reports on the pres-sures faced by the freshwater Ecosystems, Habitats and Species. The main conclusion is that: of the main na-

tive species reported on, around three quarters of fish, one-third of invertebrates and one-third of plants are threatened with, or at risk of, extinction.

Other conclusions are that some water bodies have been physically changed, and the report warns about the consequences on flood pulses, river erosion and damage to ecosystems. In addition, fine sediment deposited on riverbeds is estimated to have increased. Such sediment can severely degrade streambed habitat (if sediment levels are greater than 20%) but there is not enough information on the national extent or pre-cise impact this is having. Wetland extent has greatly reduced and losses continue. At the same time, cultural health is rated moderate at most tested freshwater sites.

Source : http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/me-dia/our-fresh-water-2017-executive-summary.pdf

Better whitebait management and conservation promoted

The New Zealand Conservation Authority is promoting better management of whitebait in a recent report to the Department of Conservation.

Four of the five galaxids that make up the whitebait fishery are listed as threatened species and one is listed in as a priority species in the Threatened Species strat-egy.

The commercial white bait fishery is managed by DoC but there is no catch limits. assessment of the sustain-able yield or monitoring of make-up of the fishery. The fishery clearly needs rules,catch limits, tougher enforcement and measures to protect the threatened species.

ECO will be watching to see what changes DoC and the Minister agree to in the management of these im-portant freshwater species.


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, Cath Wallace and Michael Pringle

Layout: 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 ECO -Membership 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: $60 p.a.• 101 - 1000 members: $120 p.a.• 1001 - 4999 members: $400 p.a. • 5000 + members: $1000 p.a. • Student Groups (1-100): $20 p.a. (all GST inclusive)

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 AssociationCivic Trust AucklandClean Earth League New Zealand Buller Conservation GroupCoal Action Network AotearoaClimate Justice TaranakiConscious Consumers Conservation Volunteers NZCoromandel Watchdog of HaurakiEast Harbour Environmental AssociationEastern Bay of Islands Preservation SocietyEcoMatters Environment TrustEngineers for Social ResponsibilityEnvironmental Futures Environment Network ManawatuFar North Environment CentreFriends 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 Initial Volco Trust

Kaipatiki Ecological Restoration ProjectKiwis Against Seabed MiningNational Council of Women of NZNelson Environment CentreNorth Canterbury Branch Forest & Bird NZ Sea Lion TrustOrari 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 Water Action InitiativeWaiheke Sustainability CentreWellington Botanical Society West Coast Blue Penguin TrustWest Coast Environment NetworkWildlife Conservation TrustYellow Eyed Penguin Trust

www.eco.org.nz