
Weak Environmental Standards Threaten Nature And Communities
Press Release – Forest And Bird
The Government has announced proposals for new national environmental standards and national policy statements. This is just the latest blow in the Governments dismantling of environmental protections, says Richard Capie, Forest & Birds …
New Zealand's environment and communities will face greater pollution, increased biodiversity loss and environmental damage, with a long-term cost to the economy, if today's Government rollbacks come into effect.
The Government has announced proposals for new national environmental standards and national policy statements.
These proposed changes – which include weakening protections for freshwater, coastal areas, wetlands, and native species – will put nature at increased risk from things such as water pollution under the Resource Management Act.
'This is just the latest blow in the Government's dismantling of environmental protections,' says Richard Capie, Forest & Bird's group manager, Conservation Advocacy and Policy.
'It feels like a century of evidence about how much we rely on the environment and how degraded it is becoming, has just drifted past this Government.
'Without a healthy, well-functioning natural environment, our homes, towns, farms, and infrastructure are at risk in the face of a changing climate.
'The Government seems determined to strip away protections for nature, yet most New Zealanders just want clean, healthy ecosystems and thriving communities. They have consistently said that they want to be able to swim in their local rivers and beaches, have safe drinkable water, and for our wildlife and wild places to flourish.
'Instead, these proposals pave the way for weak environmental standards that will mean more pollution and put more pressure on our already endangered species and vulnerable habitats.
'Our export economy runs on clean water, a liveable climate, low pollution, and a breathtaking natural world. Our EU and UK trading relationships are based on the promise that we will raise environmental standards, not lower them. Weakening environmental standards will harm us and our international reputation.'
The proposed changes include:
Making it much easier to mine and quarry in areas that contain significant indigenous biodiversity, as well as wetlands, by removing existing requirements that protect nature.
Introducing a new national direction for infrastructure and amended direction on electricity generation projects, which is likely to mean a reduction in protections for biodiversity, natural landscapes, and seascapes.
Amending the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 to make it easier to consent activities in the vulnerable coastal and inshore environment, including in areas with important coastal value (which are already faced with significant pressures).
Removing 'Te Mana o te Wai', our overarching freshwater guiding concept which currently prioritises looking after the environment and human needs. This change will result in the weakening of freshwater protections, enabling more pollution in waterways, increased loss of essential wetlands, overallocation issues, and more.
Removing the requirement to exclude grazed beef cattle and deer in low intensity farm systems from wetlands; wetlands are essential in supporting biodiversity and a haven for our threatened species.
Forest & Bird will be calling for urgent improvements to the national standards and policy statements to ensure nature and communities are better protected. We urge the Government to:
Prioritise nature-based solutions for managing natural hazards and infrastructure. Working with nature – rather than against it – allows local and regional government to protect nature, reduce costs, and create more resilient communities.
Strengthen freshwater rules by retaining Te Mana o te Wai, seeking swimmable rivers and strengthening bottom lines for pollution and the health of freshwater.
Protect biodiversity on private land by supporting and encouraging landowners to look after significant ecological areas and penalising the destruction of important habitats.
Protect and restore wetlands so we can increase critical habitat for endangered species and support carbon sinks to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Safeguard our delicate coastal and inshore marine environments so that they are protected from further degradation and biodiversity loss.
'National environmental standards and national policy statements must serve future generations – our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,' says Mr Capie. 'They need to be enduring, not focused on short-term interests.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.

1News
an hour ago
- 1News
Environmentalists see forestry changes as dangerous step for Tairāwhiti
Tairāwhiti environmentalists have called changes for commercial forestry under proposed Resource Management Act reforms "a slap in the face" and a return to weaker forestry regulations. Local groups are preparing to make submissions on proposed changes to the way forestry is managed after consultation on the Resource Management Act opened on Thursday. The proposals would make it harder for councils to have their own discretion in setting stricter rules to control tree planting. Gisborne District Council said the proposed changes grant both "real opportunities" and "some challenges". The Eastland Wood Council is still considering its options around submitting. ADVERTISEMENT Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti (MTT), the group behind a 12,000-signature petition that triggered the Ministerial Inquiry into Land Use (MILU) in Tairāwhiti and Wairoa, claimed the Government was relaxing "already permissive forestry rules". The inquiry, published in May 2023, followed the destruction caused by Cyclone Gabrielle and other major storms, when woody debris, forestry slash and sedimentation flooded the region's land, waterways and infrastructure. At the time of the inquiry's findings, the previous Government announced actions to reduce the risk of a Gabrielle repeat. MTT spokeswoman and Ruatōria resident Tui Warmenhoven said, "We were promised stronger protections – what we're getting is deregulation dressed as reform". The proposed changes were "a slap in the face to the hundreds of whānau who've already paid the price for poor forestry regulations," said Warmenhoven in a group statement. Another part of the proposed changes will require a Slash Mobilisation Risk Assessment as part of all harvest management plans. It would also consider refining requirements to remove all slash above a certain size from forest cutovers. ADVERTISEMENT MTT welcomed the proposed requirement for Slash Mobilisation Risk Assessments, however, it warned "this would be ineffective without enforceable planning requirements and local oversight". "A slash assessment without an afforestation plan is meaningless – it's a partial fix that ignores the root of the problem," said Warmenhoven. "We've already seen what happens when forestry is left to regulate itself and the problems with planting shallow-rooting pine on erosion-prone slopes. We are also concerned about the removal of references to woody debris, given that whole pine plantations collapsed during Cyclone Gabrielle and still line many waterways in the region." Last September, Eastland Wood Council chairman Julian Kohn said forestry firms were "bleeding money," with many companies finding Gisborne too costly to invest in. Speaking with Local Democracy Reporting, Kohn said Eastland Wood Council was still considering whether to submit its own response or work with other council members to make submissions. "We've been working closely with the minister and advocating for what we see needs to be real change in respect of some of the causes in the NES-CF [National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry]," said Kohn. "Our real concern is that the way the council is treating many of these consents and these enforcement orders are literally sending these forest companies to the wall." ADVERTISEMENT He said forestry companies would close if things continued the way they were, which would leave forests unmanaged and unharvested. "Next time we have a rain event, then some of those trees which have been locked up are going to come down the waterways, which is exactly what everybody wants to try to prevent." Gisborne District Councils director of sustainable futures, Jocelyne Allen, said the consultation documents came "as no surprise" as they were broad and aligned with what the council had seen in the Cabinet paper and Expert Advisory Group report. "The packages cover infrastructure, the primary sector, freshwater, and urban growth, all areas that matter deeply to our region. "There are real opportunities here, but also some challenges, and we're taking the time to work through both carefully," Allen said. The council intends to submit a response and will be taking a strategic and collaborative approach to doing so, including engaging with tangata whenua, whānau, hapū and iwi across the region and working through its sector networks, particularly the Local Government Special Interest Groups and Te Uru Kahika, said Allen. Before the announcement of the proposed changes, in an email to Local Democracy Reporting on Monday, Primary Industries and Forestry Minister Todd McClay said forestry played an important role in the economy and provided many jobs on the East Coast. ADVERTISEMENT "The Government is working closely with the Gisborne District Council and respected members of the forestry industry, farming and iwi to manage and reduce risk through better and more practical rules rather than blanket restrictions or bans." He said they are reviewing slash management practices and will amend the NES-CF so councils can focus on the most at-risk areas, lower costs and deliver better social and environmental outcomes. "We want them to focus on high-risk areas, which is what Gisborne District Council is currently doing, rather than suggesting that there should no longer be any forestry in the Tairāwhiti region," he said. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.


Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.