Environment Court case highlights wetland protection challenges in Northland
A recent Environment Court case in Northland has underscored the legal and ecological complexities of wetland protection.
The case comes amid a national debate over wetland definitions as the Government pushes ahead with controversial changes to how wetlands are defined under the Resource Management Act.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 – It's Back
Press Release – Primary Land Users Group With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election, says Andy Loader, P.L.U.G. Plan Change One (PC1) INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT is now ready for Council input and consideration. (813) Farming in Whangamarino Wetland catchment is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in both the Decisions Version and WRC's Final Proposal and effects on the Whangamarino Wetland is a matter over which WRC restricts its discretion in both cases. Rule 3.11.4.6 5.v in WRC's Final Proposal reinforces this by requiring FEPs to provide evidence that the significance and sensitivity of the Whangamarino Wetland has been considered in development of the FEP. Does this mean that farmers in the large Whangamarino Catchment will have to apply for a Restricted Discretionary Consent which may impact adversely on their decision-making ability? In the years since PC1 was first proposed up to the present time, farmers in the Waikato Region have continued making improvements to their management practices. Evidence of this can be seen in the requirements dairy farmers now face just to supply milk to the Milk Companies and that dry stock farmers must meet to supply stock to processors. Many of the proposed PC1 requirements are already being complied with by farmers, to enable them to meet their supplier requirements. For instance, stream fencing on dairy farms is mandatory practice, nutrient management, e.g. Fertiliser is strategically used with increased use of speciality mixes designed to limit runoff. Dry stock farmers have not been stationary either with much planting along stream banks; ensuring that cattle are kept well away from critical source areas, and managing stocking rates to suit land type while vegetable growers too have had to meet stringently imposed market audits. In the Whangamarino catchment it appears that farming will be a Restricted Discretionary Consent activity, which will require the use of Farm Environment Plans to ensure compliance. The hope is that these will not require expensive external audit requirements, particularly given the improvements to farming practices that are ongoing and in light of the current economic climate. The imposition of restrictive regulatory burdens and expensive compliance costs for farmers in this catchment will most likely lead to increased loss of productive land eventually resulting in upward costs of food produced within the catchment which is one of the country's main vegetable production areas and provides most of the fresh vegetable production for the Auckland population. This is nearly a quarter of the total NZ population. The proposed rules would appear to add to production costs rather than add to measurable outcomes. This is particularly true when you read the interim report from the Environment Court and find that there is no mention anywhere in the report of controlling/eradicating koi carp- the number one enemy. When it comes to making a discernible impact on improving water quality in the catchment then the effects from Koi Carp must be taken into consideration. The true fact is that without an achievable eradication/control plan for Koi Carp then reduction in sediment and erosion effects will never be realised and in fact the levels of both sedimentation and erosion of the waterways and watercourses will only get worse. Failure to control or eradicate Koi Carp will also lead to a reduction in the levels of indigenous flora and fauna and over time will more than likely lead to mass extinction of native species of both flora and fauna in, and on the margins of, the waterways. The eventual outcome will be that the deleterious effects from Koi Carp will far outweigh any benefits that may be gained from the farming sectors under these new rules. Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of their proposed new rules (which are very similar to PC1) on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation according to that report was that 68% of Sheep & Beef farmers and 13% of Dairy farmers would leave the agricultural sector. WRC in their initial costing of the implementation of PC1 which has virtually the same rules, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation. The worst part of this whole debate around the costs of the implementation of these new rules is that all of the costs are non-productive and will only serve to increase the size of the non-productive bureaucracy. It is claimed that the new rules will result in improved human health from better quality water, reduced sediment and less erosion, but what is not being said is that they could cost rural jobs and community services and the uncertainty is already causing increased mental health issues among farmers. It has also been claimed that the significant and lasting benefits of the policy will, over the long term, exceed the costs of transition and implementation, but this claim is just not supported in any way by the facts. The proposed PCI rules even stop agriculture making sensible decisions such as changing land use to better suit the needs of the region. In relation to improved water quality in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments, the overall levels of sediment and erosion will never be controlled or even reduced until the noxious pest fish, Koi Carp, is eradicated/controlled. Koi Carp must be addressed as they have a huge effect on the waterways and along with Catfish they are one of the most rapidly multiplying invasive pests that have been released into the New Zealand environment. In this post Covid economy NZ is looking to strategies to improve the nation's economy and the main way that this is going to be possible is through export earnings from agricultural production. The last thing that we need is an accelerated implementation of the new rules that is going to negatively impact on the productive agricultural sector which provides a means of income and also security of food supply for our country. A responsible approach would I believe see Council recommending 'Permitted Status' as at present to continue and alongside this status, Council should increase support for Catchment led groups who do make a measurable difference. Many excellent examples are springing up within our region, where measurable impacts are documented. New Zealand farmers are World leaders in picking up and embracing new technology that leads to better long-term sustainability but will not do so if held down with unnecessary regulatory burdens. With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election.
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
Fast track or slow track? The data problem that could hurt development
"I think inevitably the lack of information does mean a slow track," Simon Upton says. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins The government's fast track for building big infrastructure will be a slow track if New Zealand does not get its head around its hotchpotch of datasets about what is all around us. This warning about "globs" of siloed data hurting development is coming from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. It follows years of failed attempts to unlock billions of dollars of growth from getting a better grasp on everything geospatial - that is, what is in the physical environment and how it interacts. "It's a place-based thing", said commissioner Simon Upton. "If you want to know about where you're going to farm something or where you're going to build something, you need to put together a whole lot of place-spaced or geospatial information, and that's currently held in all sorts of dispersed places." The three-decade struggle with the Resource Management Act had showed up what was at stake. But though this law was in for another overhaul, the key data piece was still missing. "The reason I think that the current moment really is a critical, is that this government is the second government in a row that's trying to completely upend the resource management system and do it all differently." The gap would bog down the government's controversial fast-tracking of big projects, Upton said. "From what I can see, the fast-track process still requires people to pull all the information together and so the panels that are looking at this, they're going to have to give people the time to pull that together and then analyse it. "I think inevitably the lack of information does mean a slow track. "The time has come when we need to be able to 'federate' or pull together that dispersed information so that people can make good decisions." His new report lists a whole raft of shortcomings in the geospatial system: It was "plagued" by duplication, overlaps and significant gaps, was poorly accessible, lacked leadership and was dispersed across scores of councils, agencies, catchment groups and other community bodies. "Without robust environmental information we won't be able to judge if costly actions and mitigations undertaken are making a difference," the 19-page report said. Upton has campaigned for a joined-up - or "federated" - system for years. In a 2022 report, he pointed out how the info gaps around land use, and water quality and use - at many of the 1500 water monitoring sites, for example, only a few types of measurements were made. "Compared with surface water, groundwater is even less well understood." In the marine ecosystem, "luck has driven much of what we know. For example, the early discovery of large submarine volcanoes in the Kermadec Arc, north of New Zealand, was largely the result of serendipitous mapping". The country has tried to get serious about geospatial before, with little to show for it. Over 15 years ago, the first national geospatial review said a massive jigsaw of joined-up datasets constantly being added to, would be worth billions to the economy. So the government set up a geospatial office, its job was to set up the technology, policies, standards and human resources for networks of "open, accessible and interoperable" data. But by 2014, the office (NZGO) was writing a 40-page report about the bureaucratic indifference and fragmentation that had derailed attempts to set up a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) framework by 2014. RNZ got the report under the OIA. "Despite a review and reset in July 2013, low attendance and low engagement in ... governance groups was ongoing and meetings were frequently cancelled," Land Information NZ told RNZ in an OIA response to questions about the fate of a system that was promised to deliver billions in benefits. The geospatial effort dragged its feet for a host of reasons. "Organisations tended to participate in the national SDI for their own ends rather than because Cabinet has directed them to, or to deliver a public good", agencies "didn't have the resources to participate if they didn't get direct benefit"; or they found it "difficult to understand let alone explain to others" so could not get a budget for it. It did not help that it lacked "identifiable measures towards a defined 'end game'". By 2017 the NZGO "was effectively disestablished". The geospatial strategy still exists, but orphaned and without a champion, multiple geospatial industry players told RNZ. Simon Upton put his shoulder to the uphill push years after this drawn-out (2006-17) and failed attempt - he was not in the country at the time it was going on. "But I'd make this observation," Upton said. "This is not sexy stuff. This is scarcely a vote-winning territory, talking about data. "It is not something that is likely to enliven government officials or politicians. "This is really the the engine room stuff." But the government wanted to do spatial planning, so a big job was there to be done, he said. "If you want to do it differently and do it successfully, you are going to need much better information."
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Backs Voluntary Nature Credits
Press Release – New Zealand Government The development of a nature credit market is important to investors and New Zealands reputation. Associate Minister for the Environment The Government is supporting the expansion of a voluntary credits nature market through the running of pilot projects across New Zealand. Establishing a market that is durable, measurable and transparent will help farmers, landowners, iwi, and conservation groups unlock new income streams for looking after nature on their land, Associate Minister for the Environment Andrew Hoggard announced today at Fieldays. 'We want to connect those caring for the land with investors who support conservation. Nature credit markets help fund trusted environmental projects that actively protect and restore ecosystems.' Mr Hoggard said international and domestic investors—including corporates, banks, and philanthropists—are seeking high-quality nature and carbon credits that meet global standards. The development of a nature credit market is important to investors and New Zealand's reputation. 'New Zealand companies spent millions on carbon and nature credits mainly offshore last year. With the right framework, we can keep more of that investment at home.' The Government moved quickly to repeal the previous Government's direction to Councils to identify and map Significant Natural Areas (SNA) by suspending parts of the National Policy Statement – Indigenous Biodiversity. 'Farmers and other private landowners are doing their part to protect native biodiversity and want to do more. Supporting voluntary natural credits markets is a chance for the Government to show them the carrot, not just the stick. Privately funded pilot projects are underway to test how nature credit markets can work in the New Zealand context. As part of these pilots, we will test the role for Government which may include setting principles, and a framework for standards, to build market confidence and ensure quality.' Further details on the Government's role and the design of the expanded market will be announced in the coming months. Information about voluntary nature credits market pilots The pilots represent different land conditions, locations, types of market participants, and activities. They will help the Government understand how to meet the high standards of international markets, the role of Government, and what works best in New Zealand. This real-life experience will provide valuable insights as we move to the next stage of market design. Te Toa Whenua Northland, led by Reconnecting Northland. Transitioning around 100 ha from exotic forestry to native including pest control on iwi-owned land. Waituna Nature Credits Prototype Southland, led by Whakamana te Waituna Charitable Trust (Awarua Rūnunga, Ngai Tahu, Fonterra, Southland District Council, Environment Southland, and Department of Conservation). Restoring 400 ha of farmland at lagoon margins to lowland forest & wetlands (RAMSAR protected site). Waimanu Forest Gisborne Led by Aratu Forests. Converting a commercial forestry block to 50 ha of natives for biodiversity uplift and increased recreational and educational values. Scope to expand to up to 5,000 ha. Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari insights Waikato, led by Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari. Observing the current process of issuing credits for conservation and protection activities within the 3,360 ha inland ecological sanctuary. Existing Biodiversity Credits Market (BCM) project standard insights Led by Ekos. Offering market insights from an existing BCM provider. Includes understanding the journey of Reconnecting Northland's proof-of-concept project through this process. Adapted nature credits international standards Led by Boffa Miskell. Testing at-place an additional NZ BCM project standard that is adapting UK methodology to NZ environments as a competitor to domestic or international project standard/certification providers. Voluntary carbon market standard with biodiversity safeguards insights Led by AsureQuality. Testing its carbon project standard, which requires native revegetation, designed to be more applicable and affordable for the New Zealand context. Nature positive credit programme pilot Led by Silver Fern Farms. Testing a processor-led programme for market attraction, and potentially third-party investment, in on-farm nature restoration and enhancement activities that support commercial 'nature positive' claims. Nature-based markets pilots for rural landowners Led by Pāmu Farms. Exploring pathways to make nature-based markets accessible to a range of New Zealand farmers and landholders.
