Eroding New Zealand's clean, green image one statistic at a time

OPINION: How clean is New Zealand? Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright on why we need a formal report card on the ecosystems around us.

Albert Einstein once said that not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted. That's a very sensible comment to bear in mind when it comes to environmental reporting as there is no end to what we can measure in our natural world or of ways we could measure it.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to apply the best measures possible in the best way possible. In fact, if we don't we risk the erosion of the clean, green image we trade on as a country because, after all, how clean and green can we claim to be when we have no accurate measure of the state of our environment?

Importantly, measuring and reporting on the state of our environment promotes shared stewardship.

If we can take a measure of the health of our water, land and air, as well as our native species and ecosystems, we can make good decisions for our environment and, indeed, for our economy.

Yesterday, my review of environmental reporting was tabled in Parliament and it recommends the Government establish a National Environment Reporting Act to ensure we do just that. I have done so because I believe the matter is becoming more urgent.

Even from an economic perspective, it is important as the international focus on the environment starts to have a significant effect on consumer choice and as our trading partners test us in terms of their environmental accounting and begin to ask whether New Zealand can truly justify its sales pitch.

It may come as a surprise to many New Zealanders to find out we have no regular system for reporting on the state of our environment. It would probably be even more surprising to them to discover that not only are we not bringing environmental data together systematically but we also have few consistent measurements taken nationwide.

That's not to say attempts haven't been made to report on the state of our environment before. As early as 1981, the OECD called for organised and mandated national environment reporting in New Zealand. That advice has never been implemented and the two state of environment reports since (in 1997 and 2007) suffered because of the lack of good data and good centralised processes.

Both these reports were prepared in some haste, with the authors forced to rely on whatever data was available. The 2007 report contained a great deal of information, yet drew significant criticism.

For instance, the freshwater chapter contains two graphs of phosphorus concentration in rivers, yet it is impossible to tell whether this important problem is getting better or worse. Such inadequacies are not solely the fault of those who wrote the report, but illustrate a fundamental failure of our system (or lack thereof) of environmental statistics.

There were also questions raised by some about the independence of the second report which, whether founded or not, show the importance of avoiding any perceptions of political interference. I should note that the Government has indicated it should be done by my office and that this is a suggestion I am reserving judgment on.

We are not starting with a blank page. A great deal of information exists, although this is not to say that what can or is being measured is what should be measured. A logical process of prioritisation of environmental problems is required.

We should ask questions such as whether the problem is cumulative, is it reversible, is it widespread and pervasive, or confined, is it accelerating, and is it reaching a tipping point? These criteria could be used to provide a high-level view of the emphasis to place on different kinds of environmental damage.

Sir Peter Gluckman, chief science adviser to the prime minister, has spoken publicly about his concern that in New Zealand we too often develop policy without a proper evaluation of the evidence.

Fortunately, the remedy is within easy reach. My recommendations have been for the Government to legislate for regular state of the environment reporting, to review the indicators used and improve the underlying environmental statistics, and to move the responsibility for reporting from the Environment Ministry to provide for independence. I've also recommended that data is made freely available via the internet.

New Zealand needs a National Environmental Reporting Act. It is extraordinary that the country in the OECD that brands itself as "clean and green" is the only one that has not made an ongoing commitment to assessing the state of its environment.

If we do not develop one we may well find, if I may rearrange Einstein's comment a little, that our lack of counting ultimately counts against both our environment and our economy.