ANALYIS
Outrage over a raft of policy shifts in the environment space recently drew more than 20,000 marchers onto the streets of Auckland. What’s the furore over? Jamie Morton explains.
An assault. An “all-out war”.
That’s how leading green groups are labelling the coalition Government’s approach toward the environment, following a series of contentious policy changes.
The Environment Defence Society’s long-serving chief executive Gary Taylor has called them the “worst policy mix of any Government in my experience”.
“This Government can fairly be described as waging a war on nature.”
Taylor and others argue the Government’s policy agenda is undemocratic, balanced too heavily toward industry, and will only lead to further destruction of our natural assets.
But ministers are defending the changes, citing the need to balance the economy with protecting the environment, and pointing out that most of them are still being worked through.
Here’s where some of the main fault lines lie.
The recently-introduced Fast-track Approval Bill, or the “One-Stop Shop” Approvals Bill as it’s been rebranded, aims to speed up the process of consenting major projects with “significant regional or national benefits”.
It would supersede otherwise disparate requirements for consenting under a host of laws and regulations – including the lynchpin Resource Management Act (RMA).
Moreover, it would give three ministers – Chris Bishop, Shane Jones and Simeon Brown – the power to make the final decisions on scheduled projects.
Greenpeace executive director Russel Norman argued the bill risked putting profits ahead of environmental protection, lacked transparency and undermined Treaty principles.
“The combination of concentration of power in the hands of just three ministers, broad discretions and the absence of transparent process in decision-making creates fertile ground for the corruption of decision-making.”
Taylor saw no need for the bill and said it should be repealed, or at least overhauled to drop its scheduled projects and shift decision-making to expert panels.
Penny Simmonds, the acting minister responsible for RMA reforms, said the bill would cut red tape and make it easier to build infrastructure, while protecting the environment and upholding Treaty settlements.
She said any project picked for fast-track would still go to an expert panel to attach environmental conditions and rules.
“The bill is currently before the Environment Committee, and as we have said, we are open to sensible changes.”
Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) are parcels of land, like remnants of native forest, that are deemed important for preserving indigenous biodiversity.
Last year, the former Labour-led government required councils to map these areas within five years.
That change - which came with the introduction of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity - quickly became controversial.
Some landowners cited concerns such as losing the land or facing restrictions, even though they would only apply if they wanted to use the land for a new activity.
The new Government has since told councils not to bother continuing to map SNAs – the National-Act coalition agreement commits to halting new ones – while it carried out a review of the rules.
Taylor said the move ran counter to a “consensus” between groups that led to the new policy statement and feared it could be a first step toward removing the protections altogether.
Norman noted that New Zealand had the highest proportion of species at risk of extinction – and that a large part of our remaining biodiversity was on private land, with little legal protection.
He argued the change would mean biodiversity on private land would “not even be identified, let alone protected”.
Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard said he didn’t want to pre-determine the review’s outcome.
“But one of the things that I will be looking at is if we are restricting private property rights under then I want to make sure what we are protecting is truly special, and not just a bit of undeveloped land.”
He said there were many other ways for landowners to protect biodiversity on private land, such as through QEII covenants, and disagreed there was a strong consensus for the recent SNA requirements for councils.
In March, Bishop told RNZ he couldn’t guarantee a ban on new mining projects on conservation land, or new coal mining elsewhere, as part of the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
Meanwhile, Jones has released a draft strategy for mineral mining, which aimed to double the sector’s export value by 2035, and would clarify where mining could occur.
He said that Schedule 4 land – such as national parks, nature reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, and marine reserves – would be “off the table under my watch, but not all conservation land is equal”.
While national parks have long been no-go areas for mining, not all conservation land has been out of bounds for applicants – and an outright ban once pitched by the former Labour-led Government never went ahead.
Forest and Bird was against mining of any sort on public conservation land – including “stewardship” land which hadn’t yet had its value fully assessed and made up about a third of Department of Conservation-managed areas.
Forest and Bird’s advocacy manager Richard Capie said all conservation land was held on behalf of Kiwis for its environmental, social and cultural value – and that mining it didn’t align with global standards.
“In particular, we would argue that given the biodiversity and climate crisis we face, we need to look after what natural environment we have left and invest in this as a natural asset.”
Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said mining was presently prohibited on a third of conservation land, and that the Government had made it clear it didn’t intend to change this.
“We must ensure that when mining does happen on public conservation land where this is allowed, it is done according to robust regulatory standards.”
After the former Labour-led Government pushed through a sweeping package of freshwater reforms four years ago, the coalition Government is pursuing its own overhaul.
That included replacing the centre-piece National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) – requiring councils to set “bottom lines” for various pollutants – and to work with tangata whenua through Te Mana o te Wai provisions.
The Government has pushed out the period for councils to notify their freshwater plans and policy statements by three years, and introduced a bill that’d mean councils don’t need to abide by the currently-set “hierarchy” of priorities when issuing consents.
The groups have also expressed alarm at changes that would relax rules for keeping farm animals out of waterways – as well as a new review of Labour-era farm freshwater plans that could halt work under way in some regions.
Taylor described the policy shifts as a “hot tragic mess of reactionary reversals” that could lead to more river pollution, arguing the Te Mana o te Wai approach worked better to protect ecosystems.
Capie said it was critical that farm plans were connected to clear limits and targets for freshwater at a regional level – and that councils were informed by farmers of their fertiliser use, stocking rates and land use.
The country’s rivers and lakes were already in a dire state, he said, with most native fish species threatened or at risk of extinction.
Simmonds said any consents would still need to follow limits set by councils to protect the environment.
The Government had a programme under way “reviewing, rebalancing and replacing” the NPS-FM, but decisions were yet to be taken.
New Zealand has the fourth largest marine estate in the world – yet less than 1% of it is safeguarded by reserves like marine protected areas (MPAs).
The area protected around our coastlines will be increased by the passing on the Hauraki Gulf Protection Bill, creating 19 new MPAs in Auckland’s big blue backyard.
But another bill that would have created a 620,000sq km sanctuary in the Kermadec Islands – a bid first announced by Sir John Key in 2015 – was scrapped in March.
Jones said at the time that locking away 15% of our marine estate a no-go area for Kiwis making their living from the sea – including iwi with treaty-given fishing quota – made “absolutely no sense”.
The groups reacted with disappointment at the decision, and also to a recent move that’d extend consents on some 1200 marine farms by up to two decades.
In the Marlborough Sounds, Taylor worried this could lead to some being entrenched in the wrong place.
The groups were also critical of the Government pulling New Zealand out of an internationally agreed move restricting bottom trawling activity in the high seas of the South Pacific.
WWF-New Zealand chief executive Kayla Kingdon-Bebb said it was similarly “bizarre” that Jones had scrapped a cross-departmental Oceans Secretariat, just three years after it had been set up to improve management.
As well, the groups were alarmed Jones had asked for a review of further rollout of cameras on commercial fishing boats.
Norman said the rollout of cameras on boats had public support and had led to big jumps in the reporting of dolphins and seabirds being killed, and fish being dumped.
Jones said the move to extend the marine farm consents had come after long-standing and widespread concerns about costs and uncertainty in the aquaculture sector.
“Aquaculture has huge potential for sustainable growth, and those issues are hindering that growth.”
Those cameras onboard boats now would continue to operate, but “beyond that, we first want to look at some of the programme’s issues, including those of privacy and cost”.
On the potential for allowing seabed mining in our oceans, Jones said he couldn’t comment on potential projects – but that as introduced, the Fast-Track Approvals Bill would allow consideration of those previously declined approvals.
“This aligns with current practice where projects declined under the Exclusive Economic Zone Act or Resource Management Act regimes are eligible to reapply for approvals.”
The Government has pledged to stick by New Zealand’s ultimate set goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, which would be reached by a series of five-year budgets.
But some of its policy moves in the climate space have drawn criticism from advocacy groups.
They include scrapping the Clean Car Discount and public transport subsidies, watering down emissions standards for imported vehicles, moving to reverse the ban on oil and gas exploration and removing a ring-fence around a multibillion-dollar, polluter-paid fund earlier earmarked only for climate change initiatives.
The Government has signalled that agriculture, which contributes nearly half of our greenhouse gas emissions, will remain outside the Emissions Trading Scheme.
It’s also moved to review current methane targets, has replaced the government-sector partnership He Waka Eke Noa with another working group and removed a 2025 deadline for farmers to start paying for emissions.
At the same time, it’s pushing ahead with policy to prepare for worsening climate impacts with a National Adaptation Framework.
Taylor said that National’s commitment to climate targets was welcome, “but it’s not clear how we’ll get there”.
“Reversing the range of complementary policies – and raiding hypothecated climate funds for tax relief – is unprincipled,” he said.
“Kicking methane [reduction policies] down the road also means households and businesses will be subisiding farmers yet again.”
Norman argued that policy changes in the country’s land transport sector would only increase its pollution – and that the move to allow new oil and gas exploration ran counter to warnings from the International Energy Agency itself.
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said it had been shown the Government’s first and second five-year emissions budgets could be met even with the new policy changes.
On methane targets and science, which an independent panel had been appointed to review, Watts said it was important that domestic efforts to cut emissions didn’t drive a drop in economically vital agricultural production.
“It’s important we don’t get ahead of the process and pre-determine the outcomes of the review,” he said.
“Every sector is expected to play its part in lowering our emissions, including the agriculture sector.”
Jamie Morton is a specialist in science and environmental reporting. He joined the Herald in 2011 and writes about everything from conservation and climate change to natural hazards and new technology.
Jason Te Brake, Peter Newbold, Chris Russell, Jo Luxton, Mike Petersen.