Editorial: Fresh call for action

OPINION: More negative attention on New Zealand's clean, green image has come from a visiting wildlife expert.

Barbara Maas, who is based in Germany and heads an international species protection initiative, describes this country's record on a range of conservation measures as shocking.

She is not the first to say we are failing to live up to our 100% Pure brand, and adds that our green credentials are "starting to rot from beneath".

Dr Maas points to a "shocking" record on species extinction and river pollution, along with possible mining of high-value conservation land, as ways in which this country's conservation ethos is being compromised.

Environment Minister Nick Smith says her criticism is poorly informed, and New Zealand's environmental performance stacks up well internationally. Compared with many other countries, he has a point – even this is in part thanks to our still relatively sparse population. However, his dismissal of Dr Maas' concerns will raise questions in some minds about whether Dr Smith is more concerned by political considerations than protecting the environment – which ought to be the primary focus of his portfolio.

New Zealand has been responsible for the extinction of numerous species – many of them unique to this country. The vast majority of our environmentally critical wetlands areas has been squeezed out by developments, both urban and rural.

The Department of Conservation is poorly funded given its responsibilities. Farming practices have brought environmental imbalances that, while providing short-term profit for individuals and economic growth, have also created toxic legacies that governments, both local and central, struggle to adequately deal with. And, as Dr Maas points out, two years after a national inquiry proposed changes aimed at cleaning our rivers, pollutants continue to leach – and in some cases pour – into them.

In 2008, a board of inquiry publicly notified a national policy statement aimed at improving freshwater management and, after considering submissions, gave its report to Dr Smith in January. It recommends tough new rules to protect our waterways. The country's various regional councils – along with unitary authorities such as Nelson city and Tasman district – are responsible for the state of New Zealand's rivers. Not all of them could be said to have treated this obligation with enthusiasm.

Dr Smith has asked an umbrella group, the Land and Water Forum, to consider the report and get back to him by August. The recommended new policy has been strongly opposed by Federated Farmers, which says voluntary and innovative approaches already under way need to be given more time.

That should be seen for the self-serving sop that it is. Surely the only way to ensure that rivers are restored and protected is to impose sweeping national standards, administered by a central regulatory authority with appropriate powers to identify and penalise polluters.

Nelson people wondering who is right, the minister or the greenie, might find an answer through a once plentiful local: the Tasman Bay scallop – if they are lucky enough to find one, that is. Pollution "plumes", primarily from the Motueka River, are the most likely reason for the catastrophic decline over the past decade of a once treasured fishery.

The consequences of slack environmental protection are clear.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First

John B   #1   06:27 pm Jun 28 2010

"New Zealand's environmental performance stacks up well internationally" says Nick Smith.

Maybe, Nick, but just how many countries have a tourist brand built around "100% Pure"? And how many countries who DON'T boast "100% Pure" have quietly and significantly improved river health to the extent that fish are repopulating their once-lost habitats? (Hint: most Western European countries)

Wait for the first parody on the "100% Pure" brand and you'll know that you'll need a new advertising slogan

Ad Feedback