web analytics

100% PURE…going…going…gone…

Written By: - Date published: 12:00 pm, October 12th, 2010 - 25 comments
Categories: Environment, farming - Tags: ,

When the 2009 ‘streamlining and simplifying’ amendment to the RMA was rushed through parliament last year, many concerns were raised about new abilities for the Minister for the Environment to use National Environmental Standards (NES) to override local government regulations, and how these could be abused to pave the way for political interest groups.

We’re now one step closer to that becoming a reality. The Minister is consulting on his pet project, a NES for Forestry. Seems a pretty benign topic at first, and logical that the forestry industry is subject to the same standards throughout the country. However, a quick read of the proposed NES raises a number of big concerns for those of us who enjoy clean waterways, rural landscapes, and biodiversity.

The proposed NES for Forestry could more aptly be called the ‘let the farmers do what they want’ standard. Not only does it enable just about anything to do with harvesting plantation forest, it also makes any earthworks or quarrying within the rural environment a permitted activity (not subject to the resource consent process), except when it is in an area prone to erosion. This would mean all farmers can use the NES to bypass earthworks controls aimed at protecting landscapes and water quality, regardless of whether or not the earthworks or quarrying is for forestry purposes. There are a heap of other issues as well, just read the part of the standard called ‘permitted baseline’ to get an idea of the licence the NES gives to farmers and foresters to do what they like.

And it gets worse. The NES also proposes that local government will have no ability to monitor these activities. Instead, it requires the industry to audit its own performance, and to provide this audit information to local government (and the community it represents) after the fact. This pretty much removes any ability for Councils and communities to hold foresters to account for the large impacts they can potentially have on water quality, etc.

Obviously, Nick Smith knew that this wouldn’t go down well with Councils who regulate forestry activities with the aim of protecting water quality, biodiversity, and landscape values. So guess what, the consultation period for the new NES is during the local government elections recess period, i.e. the NES was proposed after Councils could formally consider it, and submissions close in mid October, before any new Councils have had their first meeting of the new triennium.

So what’s the reason for all this? According to the cost benefit analysis, the forestry sector would save $4million a year in compliance costs, and the Ministry for the Environment wouldn’t have to listen to forestry lobby groups anymore (this is actually listed as a benefit!!). The cost is a complete loss of control over earthworks, quarrying and forestry activities in all of New Zealand’s rural areas.

25 comments on “100% PURE…going…going…gone… ”

  1. Bill 1

    So I could quarry gold bearing rock from ‘my’ farmland? Including from an area of historic significance? Just recently, a couple of farmers who sold land removed tailings from an old (historical) gold dig. They were fined.

    But under the proposition above, could they remove all tailings as long as the area wasn’t prone to erosion, thereby effectively destroying aspects of NZ’s heritage?

  2. Astounding. Think of what they could do to the private land in the Waitakere Ranges.

    Capcha leaves, how appropriate.

  3. r0b 3

    the consultation period for the new NES is during the local government elections recess period, i.e. the NES was proposed after Councils could formally consider it, and submissions close in mid October, before any new Councils have had their first meeting of the new triennium.

    Pricks.

  4. NickS 4

    And it gets worse. The NES also proposes that local government will have no ability to monitor these activities. Instead, it requires the industry to audit its own performance, and to provide this audit information to local government (and the community it represents) after the fact. This pretty much removes any ability for Councils and communities to hold foresters to account for the large impacts they can potentially have on water quality, etc.

    Since when has industry self-reporting ever worked? There’s a very large incentive for those who are self-reporting on things which will cause them economic costs or benefits to distort or lie, which is why it’s generally best practice to have external, fairly independent audits.

    Ironically however, this might end up resulting in court cases against forestry owners that ended up costing more than the individual savings they make from this. Of course though, it’s unlikely Nick Smith of the forestry groups have even taken this into account, despite what’s happen in the USA. Let alone the basic spirit of environmental regulations, which is to reduce long term clean up or litigation costs that are typically socialised and thus reducing costs for all parties involved. But I guess history is for arts students, and so not worth anyone else bothering to take head of.

    Hmm. Next you know we’ll hear someone spinning dairy effluent run-off as “not so bad, and so not worth councils bothering to deal with”, irrespective of the increased water processing costs, and other fun-tastic environmental costs.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1

      Since when has industry self-reporting ever worked?

      It hasn’t which is why NACT like it.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5

    NACT, implementing fascist/corporatist policies and control of the community for their corporate overlords.

  6. hateatea 6

    The Resource Management Act has always been a thorn in the side of those who see the natural environment as merely a money making asset. As such, it has not surprised me that it has been under constant attack from National and their cronies.

    It is difficult to know quite what might be done to stop this particular juggernaut but perhaps DOC, Forest & Bird, iwi groups etc may be the groups leading the opposition and lodging the submissions.

  7. Red Rosa 7

    Very likely the National standards for water will work similarly – dumbed down to the level of the Manawatu. And the farmers aren’t even happy with that!

  8. tc 8

    The only waterway this lot are concerned about is the one sitting outside their beachouses…in sideshows case that’s the pacific waterway experienced from the Omaha or hawaii end.

  9. Jim MacDonald 9

    Might this be yet another example of the DonKey policy approach – gone by lunchtime?
    When the duplicity is exposed, then mouth something vacuous.

  10. salsy 10

    I really think its time to adopt Mnact as the new NACT. I think its time the Maori party shared responsibility for the desicration of the NZ environment under this govt.

    • KJT 10.1

      Probably right as the Maori party initial reason for being was to demand equal rights to put fish farms all over the sounds. Makes them a good fit with NACT.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1

        Why do you think I’ve always opposed Maori ownership of the seabed. I got told by a Maori activist a long time ago that Maori “environmental concerns” and land ownership had absolutely nothing to do with preserving the environment and everything to do with making money. They wanted to be like the rich white pricks that destroy everything that they touch.

        • hateatea 10.1.1.1

          That particular activist may have only been interested in commercial opportunities bit many iwi members, including me, have worked many long hours, paid and unpaid, to fight for environmental protection, species conservation and recovery and other ‘not for profit’ causes.

          Of course we want to own land, especially that that we never sold, but that is not unique to Māori. Why beat us up for that. Isn’t it every New Zealander’s dream – to own a share of paradise?

          I am sad to see that a dialogue about a rort of environmental protection promoted by Nick Smith should deteriorate into promoting hearsay mythology about recent iwi conservation and environmental activism

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1.1

            Isn’t it every New Zealander’s dream – to own a share of paradise?

            Nope – especially when you realise that such dreams are pathological which itself is the result of a society that is impaired. The land, seas and sky “belong” to all of us – we are its caretakers. None of these can be removed from the commons no matter how much some want to fence off everything.

        • KJT 10.1.1.2

          I’ve long advocated that ALL foreshore and seabed be returned to the commons.
          http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/search/label/Foreshore%20and%20seabed

          This is in accordance with Maori concepts of land as under guardianship as well as most NZ Pakeha and Maori ideals about common access to the foreshore.

          As Maori have a justified inherited property right they should be compensated along with any other legal owners of the foreshore and seabed as we progressively take it back as commons for everyone in NZ.

          Not to be raped by Pakeha rich pricks or the Maori aristocracy, Who have learn’t their lesson well from the same rich pricks..

      • hateatea 10.1.2

        That was not the reason why the Māori Party was formed and repeating it over and over will never make it so.

  11. freedom 11

    Based upon various responses to the widespread linking of this article I think a lot of people are genuinely startled by what this move represents, yet are so lost in the recent weeks’ quagmire that they are unable to define exactly why this latest action by the National government causes such heartfelt reaction

    Could it be that they actually remember what it is to be a New Zealander
    that without our land we are nothing

  12. Swampy 12

    As you can see for such a small measure the above posting is light on content, that is because a read of the actual NES proposal shows that this posting is at best a creative interpretation and at worst a load of unmitigated scaremongering bollocks.

    For example while there may not need to be a resource consent applied for there has to be notice given of activities such as earthworks (20 days is the typical period mentioned so far) and the regional/district council has the ability to monitor the work being done and can also impose more stringent conditions than the NES in a number of important areas of environmental impact. As stated for example in this section:
    “4.8.3 Terms and conditions for quarrying being a permitted activity
    General conditions

    Notification

    It is proposed that notice be given to the local authority 20 working days prior to commencement of quarrying activities. This gives councils an opportunity to monitor the activity properly.”

    The claim there is no requirement for resource consents is rubbish as this paragraph makes clear:
    [5.2]
    “There may also be cases where councils apply more stringent conditions for activities. The result of this situation may be that activities that are subject to more stringent tests and certain activities may default to requiring a resource consent.”

    The claim that the NES also proposes that local government will have no ability to monitor these activities is wrong. The NES states that in some circumstances the need for monitoring may be reduced, in other situations the need for monitoring may be increased.

    To sum up: the claim that the cost is a complete loss of control over earthworks, quarrying and forestry activities in all of New Zealand’s rural areas, is inaccurate and misleading. The author of this post should qualify their objectivity by stating which environmental lobby group they are representing with this message.

    • BLiP 12.1

      You could always tell us which business interests you are seeking to protect.

    • lprent 12.2

      I would have to agree with James rather than your good self.

      I can see an awful lot of scope within the regs you pointed out for some of the more impatient and less neighbourly amongst the rural (and there are a significiant minority of both) to cause a lot of downstream damage. As far as I can see they might have to put up a notice, but they don’t have to have public plans – so that is a completely meaningless gesture. How are the council or for that matter the neighbors going to know what is going to happen from a bald statement of notice.

      Sure a council can monitor but that will always be after the fact, and from the look of these regs there will be absolutely nothing that the council can do if someone drops a hill into a stream.

    • SjS 12.3

      Swampy, there is a bit difference between something being permitted and having conditions attached to it, or automatically requiring resource consent as a matter of fact (such as something with discretionary status, which quarries usually are in a rural environment)

      By making activities like quarries, large scale earthworks, tracking, etc, permitted, the NES is changing the presumption from a test as to whether the activity should occur at all (i.e. a discretionary activity) to a test about whether the conditions put on the activity are appropraite (permitted activity).

      Basically, it means that local councils will have no ability to say no to such activities, and will have a limited ability to control them. Anyone who has seen a silt/sediment dam failure (as I have – it happens a lot in NZ) can tell you that water control associated with earthworks is difficult, hence why it is usually subjected to a resource consent process to make sure it is done properly.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Fast-tracked Northland water project will accelerate economic recovery
    The Government has welcomed the decision to approve a new water storage reservoir in Northland, the first of a number of infrastructure projects earmarked for a speedy consenting process that aims to accelerate New Zealand’s economic recovery from Covid-19.  The Matawii Water Storage Reservoir will provide drinking water for Kaikohe, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Tokelau Language Week reminds us to stay united and strong
    Staying strong in the face of challenges and being true to our heritage and languages are key to preserving our cultural identity and wellbeing, is the focus of the 2020 Tokelau Language Week. Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, says this year’s theme, ‘Apoapo tau foe, i nā tāfea ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
    Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Securing a pipeline of teachers
    The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
    The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
    The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
    We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
    The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020
    New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020 Hon David Parker’s response following Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever in the world you might be. I first acknowledge the excellent thought provoking speeches of Thomas Piketty and Esther ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Kaipara Moana restoration takes next step
    A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed today at Waihāua Marae between the Crown, local iwi and councils to protect, restore and enhance the mauri of Kaipara Moana in Northland. Environment Minister David Parker signed the document on behalf of the Crown along with representatives from Ngā Maunga Whakahī, Ngāti ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • New Zealand and Uruguay unite on reducing livestock production emissions
    Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor and Uruguayan Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries Carlos María Uriarte have welcomed the launch of a three-year project that will underpin sustainable livestock production in Uruguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica.  The project called ‘Innovation for pasture management’ is led by Uruguay’s National Institute of Agricultural ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • 3100 jobs created through marae upgrades
    Hundreds of marae throughout the country will be upgraded through investments from the Provincial Growth Fund’s refocused post COVID-19 funding to create jobs and put money into the pockets of local tradespeople and businesses, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta have announced. “A total ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Health volunteers recognised in annual awards
    Health Minister Chris Hipkins has announced 9 teams and 14 individuals are the recipients of this year’s Minister of Health Volunteer Awards.  “The health volunteer awards celebrate and recognise the thousands of dedicated health sector volunteers who give many hours of their time to help other New Zealanders,” Mr Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago