Picture imperfect

BY KIM KNIGHT

THE QUEEN won't eat our fish. Johnny Rotten is bad-mouthing our butter. Our dairy cows have been chomping palm kernel grown where orang-utans used to live. A consortium of 2000 scientists from 60 countries has written to the Prime Minister very worried about our sea lions.

How many nails does it take to close the lid on the coffin marked Clean Green New Zealand?

For years, we've been reading stories quoting greenies who say our environmental image is at risk. In the past two months, however, that risk could be tangibly measured in column centimetres – or inches, depending which country's newspapers you were reading.

Two of the world's most influential media organisations have taken us to task on environmental issues. In September, the New York Times ran a front-page story questioning the sustainability of our hoki fishery. And then, late last month, the big one: London's Guardian newspaper said Kiwis were living in a "green mirage". Writer Fred Pearce reported this country's greenhouse gas emissions had risen 22% since 1990.

"My prize for the most shameless two fingers to the global community goes to New Zealand, a country that sells itself around the world as 'clean and green'," wrote Pearce.

How did the world's environmentally-friendly darling fall so far, so fast?

"Thanks to the internet, people can look in your back yard and see what your dirty laundry really does look like," says business leader and former 42 Below head, Geoff Ross. "I think we still stand, worldwide, for clean and green, but I think our brand has been damaged, and the soul of this country, our unique selling point, has taken a hit. If I was CEO of this country, I'd be really pissed off. I would be fuming at that Guardian article."

But it's not just that single article. Commentators the Sunday Star-Times spoke to believed that this year, more than any other, our environmental credibility has come under sustained attack (see The Environmental Year in Review, right).

"There's been more negative publicity this year than I can remember," says Russel Norman, Green Party co-leader.

Jan Wright, parliamentary commissioner for the environment, says: "Some countries are strongly motivated to undermine our export market by attacking our clean, green brand."

According to Greenpeace NZ's executive director, Bunny McDiarmid, "the thing that's changed this year is that people are seeing a gap between what we say and what we do. And I think that's the biggest risk."

McDiarmid says plenty of people will say that, "relatively speaking", New Zealand has the cleanest air, the cleanest water and the best fisheries quota management system in the world.

"But there's a complacency in that statement. Does that mean that everybody else is so bad, that it's not very hard to be at the top of the poll?"

The last major government study of the value of our clean green brand was in 2000. Back then, the Ministry for the Environment found that if New Zealand's environment was perceived as being degraded, international consumers would purchase 54% less dairy products; Australian tourists would reduce the length of their stay by 48%, and Japanese visitors by 79%. The report said there was a crucial link between image and export value, "and that image is separate from the reality of the state of our environment. That means we have a buffer, a period during which our environment could degrade without it necessarily affecting our image and therefore our exports".

Crucially: "All the indications are that in a world of increasingly health-conscious consumers, sooner or later we would lose our clean green image if the environmental reality were to fall behind. And it would be very hard to regain – harder, perhaps, than restoring the environment itself."

How many strikes before we're out?

Jill Caldwell, director of research company Windshift and co-author of the local 8 Tribes study, says one negative story can be combated. "It's when you get three stories, or more, that's a tipping point."

She warns of a looming reality check – hordes of Rugby World Cup fans, from countries where the science that says climate change is caused by humans is accepted; where people are already running scared of their food.

"We're sitting in a myopic daze and the chance of exposure is growing."

She points to recent focus group work in the United Kingdom. When presented with New Zealand's record on greenhouse gas emissions (we are one of the developed world's fifth-worst emitters, on a per-capita basis), participants were shocked.

A typical response? "To know that there is no haven out there, there's no hope almost, if they're not doing it, if they're not prepared to...there's nobody else...they were the one shining light".

These days, bad news travels fast. Jane Dodd, incoming president of the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand, says the interconnectedness of global media via the web means a bad news story can go further and do more harm faster than ever before. But good news can travel just as fast.

She says any harm generated by recent negative press will be down-stream and cumulative. "A successful brand that builds `environment' into the brand can expect to be held to account at some time...smart organisations will have a solid issues management programme."

The Government understands the importance of public perception. In a recent speech to Federated Farmers, Prime Minister John Key referenced both the United Kingdom supermarket ban on our hoki and the Guardian article.

"Regardless of your view about the environment or climate change, the opinions of your consumers will ultimately decide how well your products sell. This is what my Minister of Trade calls `the customer as the new regulator'.

"As trade barriers fall around the world, the key to selling what we grow won't be the demands or regulations of governments. It will increasingly be the demands and requirements of consumers concerned about what they eat, where their food came from and the impacts the growing of that food has on the environment."

There was collective applause last Thursday when Key decided to attend the climate change talks in Copenhagen he had previously dismissed as a photo opportunity.

Earlier, Geoff Ross – who says he sold his vodka company for $138 million largely on the strength of New Zealand's environmentally pure branding – had told the Star-Times the stated position on climate change ("we want to follow, not lead") was the single biggest blow to the country's environmental image.

Attending Copenhagen, he said, would give Key "an opportunity like David Lange had in the UK when he stood up on the nuclear issue. Here is a forum on a public stage that earns New Zealand a massive amount of credibility and goodwill".

Nick Smith, Minister for the Environment and Climate Change Issues, says the Guardian's grilling of New Zealand was "fair" – but he isn't losing sleep over the story.

"If you look at the overall publicity that we attract internationally around environmental issues, it would run 10 to 1 in our favour."

When asked to grade New Zealand's recent environmental performance out of 10, he doesn't hesitate: "Nine."

Jan Wright is less charitable. She scores this year's performance a four – saying the new Emissions Trading Scheme was a backwards step, but at least water quality was now being taken seriously.

"Our tourism industry relies heavily on our clean, green brand, but there are some very tangible risks. Lake Rotorua – at the centre of one of our major tourist destinations – is murky and infested with algae.

"We should be grateful Environment Bay of Plenty is working to stop this happening to 11 lakes in the area."

She praised Environment Waikato's efforts to save Lake Taupo and the Taranaki Regional Council's stream-side planting.

"In contrast, the South Island high country is becoming increasingly infested with wilding pines, destroying treasured iconic landscapes."

Wright says New Zealand's clean, green brand is based on good fortune, "more than our actions".

"We are a country recently colonised, the density of our population is low, and earlier generations were farsighted enough to put much of the country's natural beauty in national parks. We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking we are especially good environmental managers."

New Zealand – 99% Pure?

The clean, green brand might be under scrutiny, but no one the Star-Times spoke to was totally pessimistic.

"We've got to love this place," says Russel Norman.

"Whether you're a migrant, born here, tangata whenua or Pakeha, we've got to love this place Aotearoa...that creates the values that underpin the brand and that's where we've got to start."

THE ENVIRONMENTAL YEAR IN REVIEW

FISHERIES

WAITROSE, THE Queen's grocer, refused to stock fish caught by bottom trawling. That knocked New Zealand hoki off the shelves – despite its certification from the Marine Stewardship Council. The New York Times then ran a critique of the fishery on its front page, under the headline "From Deep Pacific, ugly and tasty, with a catch". The Seafood Industry Council went on the offensive, demanding an apology (it got a single concession for the unauthorised use of a photograph of hoki) and taking out Google ads for keywords such as "hoki New York Times" that linked back to the council's own page on the fishery.

One American journalism professor called the strategy novel, and "far more effective than a letter to the editor". Meanwhile, Waitrose's market share rose as customers applauded its eco-friendly stance. More criticism of our fisheries came in the form of a letter from the Society of Marine Mammalogy, representing 2000 international scientists concerned at a decision to raise the allowed southern squid fishery by-catch of the New Zealand sea lion from 81 to 113.

PALM KERNEL

THE SUNDAY STAR-TIMES broke the story that, last year, New Zealand imported one-quarter of the world's total supply of palm kernel, as supplementary feed for its drought-stricken dairy herd. "Very little" of that could have been considered sustainably certified, said the secretary-general of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. The kernel came mostly from Malaysia and Indonesia – where the palm industry has been blamed for the loss of village livelihoods and the destruction of orang-utan habitat. The story went international. Nature Alert UK (readership, approximately 500,000) issued a bulletin calling on consumers to write to Dairy NZ and NZ embassies. "If you eat any product from New Zealand containing milk...you could also be helping orang-utan become extinct." Former Sex Pistol John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) launched a campaign to educate Brits that Anchor butter was from New Zealand. Although it wasn't directly linked to environmental concerns (notwithstanding media speculation that a food miles argument might erupt), it was more bad press for the kiwi dairy industry, which earns us $9 billion plus annually.

MINING

IT'S JUST a stock-take of mineral resources, insists Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Energy and Resources. But the August announcement of a review of the schedule that prohibits mining and exploration in our national parks raised international hackles.

The 9th World Wilderness Conference (1500 delegates from 52 countries) in Mexico last month passed a resolution asking our government to retain the no-mining status quo measures of protection in relation to public conservation land within protected areas.

The government had already received a letter from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, after 200 delegates met in Korea: "The news that a modern, comparatively wealthy nation such as New Zealand is prepared to exploit its resources in lands set aside for biodiversity sends a disturbing message to more populous countries," the IUCN said.

CLIMATE CHANGE

EVERYONE THE Star-Times spoke to said this was the biggie for 2009. The Guardian story, criticising a 22% rise in greenhouse gas emissions despite our Kyoto Protocol target of a zero rise, was headlined: "New Zealand was a friend to Middle Earth, but it's no friend of the earth".

It noted our emissions per head of population were 60% higher than those of Britain, and said our latest promise – a 50% reduction by 2050 – was something even the US could trump. "In recent years a lot of Brits have headed for Christchurch and Wellington in the hope of a green life in a country where they filmed Lord of the Rings. But it's a green mirage," wrote Fred Pearce.

When the story appeared on local website Stuff, Joe Average noticed. Typical response: "Visitors to this country ... generally are dumbfounded at our lack of litter control, poor recycling habits, non-existent vehicle emissions and general `out of sight, out of mind' attitude and now other countries are catching us in the lie."

Footnote: late last week, the Guardian took a swipe at Canada, saying "it is now to climate what Japan is to whaling".

THE GOOD NEWS

9/10. THAT'S the score Environment Minister Nick Smith is giving New Zealand's environmental performance over the past year. And here's why: "We're the only country outside of Europe to have an emissions trading scheme. We've created a new environmental protection authority and launched the new centre for agricultural greenhouse gas research. The biggest item in the Budget was $323 million for home insulation; we've installed more solar water systems than the previous government did in nine years. We've introduced road user charge exemptions for electric cars, more than doubled the fines for breaches of the Resource Management Act and made provision to make the Crown accountable for RMA breaches. Parliament has spent more time on environmental issues than any other area." You can always argue perception, says Smith. "I'm interested in reality."

- © Fairfax NZ News