Help Protect the Southern Ocean and the Ross Sea A special place requiring special protection The Ross Sea is a special place which is at risk from the impacts of fishing and the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification. ECO is supporting the protection of this special area. It is described as the last ocean as it is widely recognised as the only large ocean region on the earth which is the ecosystem is structured by natural rather than human forces. It has a rich biodiversity and it so far a relatively undisturbed place. The Ross Sea slope and shelf and associated waters comprise just 2 percent of the Southern Ocean, they are home to an estimated:

• 38 percent of the world Adelie penguin population
• 26 percent of the world Emperor penguin population
• 30 percent of the world Antarctic petrel population
• 6 percent of the world Antarctic minke whale population
• 45 percent of the world South Pacific Weddell seal population
• Over 40 species are found nowhere else

While New Zealand claims the Ross Sea as part of the Ross Dependency this claim is on hold due the agreements of the Antarctic Treaty. This means that the Ross Sea is high seas and subject to the rules under Antarctic Treaty system including the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. The Ross Sea slope and shelf is deserving of full protection as a no-take marine reserve. This call has been endorsed by over 450 scientists from around the world. For more information

Changes to aquaculture or marine farming legislation are like a repeat of a bad movie with Government Ministers failing to remember the mistakes of the past.

The current legislative framework was passed to control aquaculture after a gold rush of applications during the 1990s around the country. Local government couldn’t cope which was further exacerbated by the absence of resource rentals or rates which meant the aquaculture industry was getting marine space for free.

The Government rhetoric is that there has not been agreement to new space for 10 years but this ignores the huge increase in space that occurred between 1993 and 2003. Further much of the new areas consented, especially large new offshore areas (thousands of hectares), have only been partly used and it also unclear whether these new areas are economic.

The aquaculture industry has a goal of getting to $1 billion in exports by 2025, currently the exports are about $370 million. There has been no independent analysis to indicate whether this is possible or practical. There are only so much mussels that can be sold globally without depressing the price, there are competing salmon producers globally, and new fish species have yet to be shown to be economic and rely on fish feed coming from overseas wild fisheries, particularly Peru. The footprint of a finfish farm is much larger than a mussel or oyster farm and includes the fish and other feed used..

In a sneaky move the Government is to over-ride agreed coastal plans and allow marine farming consent holders in the Waikato and Marlborough to move from mussel farming to finfish farming without considering the additional environmental effects imposed. While fin fish farms involve the discharge of thousands of tonnes of fish food, no such impact occurs with mussel or oyster farming. This change in activity should be assessed like any other major change in activity through a resource consent process – it is like the Government removing discharge consent requirements from factory farms on land. The addition of the Minister of Aquaculture to the RMA is an ad hoc proposal which is not required for the sustainable management of the seas. This addition just panders to one industry without a solid justification and could lead to calls from other industries to have powers to over-ride conservation measures. The proposed Ministers powers are wide reaching and could result in the over-turning of publicly agreed measures and prohibitions on aquaculture. This addition means the Government does not trust the Minister of Conservation and regional councils to consider wider resource management issues. The Minister of Conservation currently has the role of approving regional coastal plans.

There currrently over 8,000 hectares of marine farming space which resource consent process is frozen and will be opened up under the Bill. ECO has requested further information on these areas.

Legislation to implement these changes was introduced by then Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, at the end of 2010 and were passed in 2011.

As part of these changes the Government has appointed a Minister of Aquaculture. The Ministry of Fisheries (now Ministry of Primary Industry) has established a new aquaculture unit to promote aquaculture which will be separate from the functions to process new aquaculture applications to determine whether there is an “undue adverse effects” on fishing.

Changes to aquaculture or marine farming legislation are like a repeat of a bad movie with Government Ministers failing to remember the mistakes of the past.

The current legislative framework was passed to control aquaculture after a gold rush of applications during the 1990s around the country. Local government couldn’t cope which was further exacerbated by the absence of resource rentals or rates which meant the aquaculture industry was getting marine space for free.

The Government rhetoric is that there has not been agreement to new space for 10 years but this ignores the huge increase in space that occurred between 1993 and 2003. Further much of the new areas consented, especially large new offshore areas (thousands of hectares), have only been partly used and it also unclear whether these new areas are economic.

The aquaculture industry has a goal of getting to $1 billion in exports by 2025, currently the exports are about $370 million. There has been no independent analysis to indicate whether this is possible or practical. There are only so much mussels that can be sold globally without depressing the price, there are competing salmon producers globally, and new fish species have yet to be shown to be economic and rely on fish feed coming from overseas wild fisheries, particularly Peru. The footprint of a finfish farm is much larger than a mussel or oyster farm and includes the fish and other feed used..

In a sneaky move the Government is to over-ride agreed coastal plans and allow marine farming consent holders in the Waikato and Marlborough to move from mussel farming to finfish farming without considering the additional environmental effects imposed. While fin fish farms involve the discharge of thousands of tonnes of fish food, no such impact occurs with mussel or oyster farming. This change in activity should be assessed like any other major change in activity through a resource consent process – it is like the Government removing discharge consent requirements from factory farms on land. The addition of the Minister of Aquaculture to the RMA is an ad hoc proposal which is not required for the sustainable management of the seas. This addition just panders to one industry without a solid justification and could lead to calls from other industries to have powers to over-ride conservation measures. The proposed Ministers powers are wide reaching and could result in the over-turning of publicly agreed measures and prohibitions on aquaculture. This addition means the Government does not trust the Minister of Conservation and regional councils to consider wider resource management issues. The Minister of Conservation currently has the role of approving regional coastal plans.

There currrently over 8,000 hectares of marine farming space which resource consent process is frozen and will be opened up under the Bill. ECO has requested further information on these areas.

Legislation to implement these changes was introduced by then Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, at the end of 2010 and were passed in 2011.

As part of these changes the Government has appointed a Minister of Aquaculture. The Ministry of Fisheries (now Ministry of Primary Industry) has established a new aquaculture unit to promote aquaculture which will be separate from the functions to process new aquaculture applications to determine whether there is an “undue adverse effects” on fishing.

Changes to aquaculture or marine farming legislation are like a repeat of a bad movie with Government Ministers failing to remember the mistakes of the past.

The current legislative framework was passed to control aquaculture after a gold rush of applications during the 1990s around the country. Local government couldn’t cope which was further exacerbated by the absence of resource rentals or rates which meant the aquaculture industry was getting marine space for free.

The Government rhetoric is that there has not been agreement to new space for 10 years but this ignores the huge increase in space that occurred between 1993 and 2003. Further much of the new areas consented, especially large new offshore areas (thousands of hectares), have only been partly used and it also unclear whether these new areas are economic.

The aquaculture industry has a goal of getting to $1 billion in exports by 2025, currently the exports are about $370 million. There has been no independent analysis to indicate whether this is possible or practical. There are only so much mussels that can be sold globally without depressing the price, there are competing salmon producers globally, and new fish species have yet to be shown to be economic and rely on fish feed coming from overseas wild fisheries, particularly Peru. The footprint of a finfish farm is much larger than a mussel or oyster farm and includes the fish and other feed used..

In a sneaky move the Government is to over-ride agreed coastal plans and allow marine farming consent holders in the Waikato and Marlborough to move from mussel farming to finfish farming without considering the additional environmental effects imposed. While fin fish farms involve the discharge of thousands of tonnes of fish food, no such impact occurs with mussel or oyster farming. This change in activity should be assessed like any other major change in activity through a resource consent process – it is like the Government removing discharge consent requirements from factory farms on land. The addition of the Minister of Aquaculture to the RMA is an ad hoc proposal which is not required for the sustainable management of the seas. This addition just panders to one industry without a solid justification and could lead to calls from other industries to have powers to over-ride conservation measures. The proposed Ministers powers are wide reaching and could result in the over-turning of publicly agreed measures and prohibitions on aquaculture. This addition means the Government does not trust the Minister of Conservation and regional councils to consider wider resource management issues. The Minister of Conservation currently has the role of approving regional coastal plans.

There currrently over 8,000 hectares of marine farming space which resource consent process is frozen and will be opened up under the Bill. ECO has requested further information on these areas.

Legislation to implement these changes was introduced by then Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, at the end of 2010 and were passed in 2011.

As part of these changes the Government has appointed a Minister of Aquaculture. The Ministry of Fisheries (now Ministry of Primary Industry) has established a new aquaculture unit to promote aquaculture which will be separate from the functions to process new aquaculture applications to determine whether there is an “undue adverse effects” on fishing.

Meridian had planned to build an 85 metre high dam on the West Coast’s largest river. More than 330 hectares of river gorge and forest will disappear under a 14 kilometre long artificial lake.

Forest and Bird’s Top of the South Field Officer, Debs Martin, described the proposal as”the greatest inundation of conservation land for a hydro scheme that New Zealand has ever seen. It is a tragedy for the native blue ducks, giant land snails, long fin eels and other creatures that live in or beside the Mokihinui. They will be wiped out by Meridian Energy’s massive hydro dam flooding their homes.”

Meridian also needed the approval of the Minister of Conservation, Hon. Kate Wilkinson to build the dam because the river is on public conservation land. Meridian has offered to swap other land for that needed for the Mokihinui project. This land would need to be of equivalent (or greater) ecological value and the

Department of Conservation has indicated that it would decline such an offer due to the irreplaceable value of the river.

Documents obtained under the Official Information Act have revealed that DOC was intending to turn down Meridian and believed “the public conservation land within the Mokihinui River has such high value that it is most unlikely to be suitable for exchange at all.”

Forest & Bird ran a successful campaign to give New Zealanders the chance to urge Meridian Energy to withdraw its proposal.

One irony was that Meridian was a recent sponsor of Project Crimson but the Mokihinui project would have drowned the very rata forests it pledged to protect.

Although water may be renewable a wild river is definitely not.

The argument of proponents for the project is that the Mokihinui project is required to provide a growing demand for power on the West Coast. Such a demand, perceived or real, could be satisfied by newly approved and more environmentally-friendly hydro projects. Solid Energy withdrew its appeal in October 2010 to Hydro Developments Limited’s Stockton scheme. This project aims to generate power using polluted water from the acid drainage of the Stockton coal mining area and will actually enhance the water quality of the Ngakawau River.

Together with Westpower’s Amethyst scheme (south of Hokitika) and Trust Power’s Arnold scheme (near Greymouth) this would provide three consented and largely unopposed energy projects located in already-modified landscapes, unlike Meridian’s competing proposal in a pristine wilderness.

The current West Coast peak demand is about 90MW at present, and is projected to grow to 111MW by 2020. The West Coast annual consumption is 317GWh (year of March 2009).

Current proposal of consented new supply of 46MW (190-220GWh) from the Arnold Scheme, 8MW (35GWh) from The Amethyst Scheme and 25MW (240GWh) from the Stockton, the West Coast would all but meet peak demand and exceed annual consumption to 2020. This meant that the West Coast did not need the Mohikinui dam.

Together with efficiency, conservation and co-generation initiatives to reduce demand we could look to a 21st century solution: localized, small-scale and genuinely renewable.

The decision by Meridian to withdraw this project could signal the end of large new hydro developments in New Zealand. Earlier Contact Energy announced it was not proceeding with investigations for new power schemes on the Clutha River.

A combination of new geothermal projects in the North Island and wind power developments together with a decline in energy demand per capita means new renewables and energy efficiency should meet demand in the future.

This document has since gone out for public consultation and all of the submissions received are now available to the public on the MfE website at:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/standards/forestry/submissions/index.html

ECO and many other submitters found that the discussion document dwelt on the desirability of efficiency and consistency in the treatment of plantation forestry, but tended to neglect environmental considerations which ought to be central to any improvements in the status quo under the RMA. The discussion document is aimed at a range of forestry activities including mechanical land preparation, afforestation, earthworks, the operation of quarries for the sake of forestry operations, and harvesting. The proposed NES in the discussion document suggested that many of the controls on these actvities could be done as nationally “Permitted Activities” with prescribed conditions and standards. This is in contrast to, rather than being subject to, differing rules and processes that currently occur under various regional and district plans and resource consents as is the status quo. On the positive side, regional and local councils could increase the standard’s stringency if they want to, but only in relation to a defined list of activities.

ECO made a substantive submission on this Proposed NES, and Co-chair Cath Wallace has met with and discussed issues of concern with the Ministry for the Environment and with the Forest Owners Association and the Institute of Forestry. Of major concern are the lack of alignment of the purpose of the NES with the Purpose and Principles of the Resource Management Act, and the lack of attention to biodiversity, pest control, and downstream effects especially on aquatic ecosystems and social effects. These are difficult to address using a NES tool due to its reliance on a prescriptive approach, which is in turn reliant on a high level of existing information, and on very tight definitions of rules in order to be effective. Many of the proposed definitions are considered problematic and would lead to substantial opportunity for ‘gaming’ the system, with a high likelihood of counter-productive environmental results.

ECO, like many other submitters, has raised questions as to how an activity-based NES would fit within an effects -based Act, and how the degree of specification could be achieved that would work for the variation of local conditions – even with an ability to increase the stringency of conditions for specified activities. ECO is particularly concerned that permissive conditions around “permitted activities” could result in creep of “permitted baselines” for other industries and their activities as well – though we recognise that these rules could also raise expectations on other industries in some aspects of their operation. Any ambiguity in the definition of activities covered by a new NES would produce a major risk factor in this regard, and there are many loose definitions in the discussion document. An example is that of “cultivation” which “includes drainage, felling bush, clearing land for cropping, and clearing land for planting” (p128).

On a positive note, Exec member Shane Orchard was amongst the participants attending a series of workshops convened by the Ministry for the Environment to address feedback from submitters and consider the range of approaches available to best address the issues. The workshops were held in November/early December 2010 and covered topics such as erosion and plant invasion (wilding trees) More information and updates can be found here: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/standards/forestry/index.html

There has been no further progress on the national standards as at mid-2012.

This article has been edited from the original article that appeared in the December 2010 ECOlink.

Land and Water Forum Report a brave start, which is yet to be proved ECO welcomed elements of the Land and Water Forum report when it was release in September 2010.

The unequivocal call for a National Policy Statement for Freshwater and National Environmental Standards is supported, but these standards and policies must be strict. ECO is cautious as to how other recommendations will be realised.

ECO was involved in the Land and Water Forum (LAWF - previously the Sustainable Land Use Forum) since it was established in June 2009. This Forum was run in parallel with the Government’s new strategy New Start for Fresh Water. ECO was a member of the LAWF Plenary meetings that received reports of process from an inner group which discussed the issues and negotiated principles but was mostly excluded from drafting and viewing documents.

The forum to explore a new process of collaboration within water management planning was an admirable concept but was inadequately implemented and so is still to be proved, with many interested parties not properly involved. The collaborative approach has been inspired by Scandinavian models and this was very much a pilot approach. To have integrity, a collaborative system has to work within a framework that guarantees genuine across-the-board consultation and a genuine shared vision of protecting our biodiversity, restoring our rivers and preventing on-going pollution.

The Government charged LAWF to:
conduct a stakeholder-led collaborative governance process to recommend reform of New Zealand’s fresh water management;
through a consensus process, identify shared outcomes and goals for fresh water and related land management;
identify options to achieve these outcomes and goals;
produce a written report which recommends shared outcomes, goals and long-term strategies for fresh water in New Zealand.

Overall there were 58 participating members included a range of industry (eg Fonterra and Federated Farmers), recreational and environmental, and local government, with observers from key government departments. The operating process focused mainly on water issues and ran a two tier process with an internal group (Small Group) comprising 21 stakeholders which were to report regularly to the external plenary group ( which included ECO).

ECO supported the Forum intentions to find ways for the community to avoid some aggressive and costly RMA court processes. Too often the community defending the environment for future generations is up against those with long pockets and profit to be made by over-extracting from our rivers and wetlands. ECO supported looking for less confrontational ways to discuss these serious issues and develop sound water strategies.

Environmental management requires a very strong legislative base like the RMA, because such significant profits can be made at the expense of the environment. Exploitation of the environment is why our lowland rivers and systems are being depleted and polluted by current practices.

The report has been mainly the production of the inner group with limited input from the plenary group. There was limited time or collaboration with plenary groups and little robust discussion in the plenary which was more a question and answer session than a process of engagement. This created significant problem for ECO Executive given some of the recommendations in the report. The ECO Executive considers that the problems with the process could have been resolved if there was sufficient time, modern electronic processes in consultation were used, and there was robust engagement with plenary members.

ECO said the report falls short of finding the formula to spell out to government. It remains to be seen whether the Government is committed to that vision and integrity. ECO supports attempts, but not the exact process used this time.

ECO believes that a range of issues remain and have not been resolved. These include:

Reaffirmation of Water Conservation Orders “for the purpose of recognising and sustaining outstanding amenity or intrinsic values of waters – including quality– in either a natural or modified state…”.

Avoiding extra-ordinary long-term consenting of major infrastructure, which will bind the hands of future generations and avoid periodic checks. The RMA allows consents up to 35 years and there is no reason why shorter consents and stronger review periods could not be used to provide greater environmental certainty.

Acknowledging hydro generation and dams on rivers as being a consumptive use of water.

Ensuring a more environmentally precautionary approach which acknowledges that current polluting practices can take decades to surface and will cost future generations dearly.

That future collaborative processes must be truly inclusive and collaborative of interested parties, with circulation of papers in development to interested parties, with much less secrecy in their development. Many organizations with an interest in these matters have been excluded from even seeing the papers – so the process used for this Land and Water Forum will need a major overhaul if it is to be adapted to other areas. This includes giving sufficient time and using modern electronic processes in consultation.

ther important issues include:
The focus of the report is on water and real consideration of sustainable land use is missing. This includes discussion on water requirement ratios of various forms/uses of food production or industry (agricultural or economic water use intensity).

The need for focus on reducing water demand as well as improving the efficiency of water use. For example recognising the extensive costs of intensive agriculture in terms of water quality and quantity and energy use, much greater research is needed into least-water-intensive and least-energy intensive food production.

Research should also be recommended for strategies to incentivise and support these future low-water-intensity food production industries.

For further details on the meetings and the report see http://www.landandwater.org.nz/.

This article has been taken from the December 2010 issue of ECOlink.

WETLANDS
There will be a symposium on National Wetland Restoration in March 2012.

Crown Minerals Bill Critically Compromises Conservation

The Cabinet not the Minister of Conservation will decide on the classification of conservation land and waters if a little-noticed amendment to the Crown Minerals Bill is passed. The Cabinet, via an Order in Council, will thus be able to remove land from National Parks, reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and virtually every other area with protected area. It gives an unprecedented degree of control over conservation to economic ministers who almost always out-rank the Minister of Conservation.

The Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is before the Commerce Select Committee which is hearing submissions. ECO presented its submission on the Bill in November.

The provisions to allow non-conservation ministers to determine and remove conservation designations is extra ordinarily damaging to conservation. Clearly designed to allow designation changes to permit minerals exploration and mining, it could and almost certainly will be used for many purposes by the economic ministers.

The Bill compromises conservation fundamentally and in many ways. The Minister of Conservation’s powers to decide on whether to allow specific minerals consents on Conservation land, are also eroded by an amendment to make the Minister in charge of Crown Minerals a joint decision maker. Conservation values are sure to be damaged by this provision.

Schedule 4 which puts some protected areas and classifications off limits to minerals activity, is preserved intact as promised by the government after the public rebelled against the government’s earlier plans to allow exploration and mining in these areas. Readers may recall that John Key promised not to allow mining on World Heritage areas and National Parks. This Bill will allow the Cabinet to reclassify minerals prospective areas so that they no longer have such conservation designations. That was the device that the Australian government used to allow a uranium mine in the middle of the Kakadu World Heritage Area: they simply defined it out of the Area.

“The Bill is a slap in the face for all the people who care about conservation, and it is sneaky in also changing the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, the Continental Shelf Act, the Forests Act and others,” ECO Co-Chairperson, Cath Wallace said.

The Bill also removes the power to create a whole range of reserves from Forests Act lands. The provision in the Forests Act that recreation reserves, historic reserves, scenic, scientific or nature reserves can be created from Forest land is being removed (Cl 64)

The Bill adds a purpose to “promote” minerals activity, rather than to “regulate” or “manage” minerals activity. This change sets the scene for numerous provisions that disadvantage all other interests than those of the exploration and mining industry. It gives MoBIE a massive conflict of interest between its promotion and regulatory functions.

Instead of using the same grounds applied to consenting for tourism, recreation and filmmaking activities in protected areas, mining is given a super soft deal in the conservation estate. Yet exploration and mining are inconsistent with conservation purposes.

For all the other activities, the Conservation Act applies and the Minister of Conservation may not allow them if they are incompatible with the conservation or reserve purpose of the land, yet for exploration and mining this test is to be waived.

A matter of particular concern is that applications for minerals permits do not have to be kept in a public register. This requirement was introduced as long ago as 1983 but has been since quietly dropped.

The length of the term of minerals permits is being extended. Holders of prospecting and exploration permits already have an automatic right to renew their permits or to exchange them for exploration or mining permits (s32 of the CMA) with no change to the conditions. Mining permits may have a 40 year term (s35) with a further right to renew for another 40 years.

The Bill proposes that a holder of a prospecting permit may have successive rights to permits which in total may last for 118 years with no ability to change the conditions! Existing permits from almost 80 years ago can continue under the old rules.

Overall, ECO strongly objects to the undermining of conservation principles and the subjugation of intrinsic and non-extractive values and functions of the environment by this Bill as it allows economic ministers to decide conservation classifications and make other conservation-critical decisions.

Mining Conservation Land and World Heritage

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has called on all Governments to stop mining in World Heritage Areas. IUCN is an organisation of 200 government and 800 non-governmental organisations.

Under the 4th Schedule of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 not all high conservation value land is protected from minerals activity. Schedule 4 protected land does not prevent mining in some World Heritage Areas and other specially protected areas like ecological areas,marine mammal sanctuaries, conservation parks. This Schedule does not prevent miners operating mines under, for example national parks, or clearing native vegetation for service or emergency adits.

World Heritage areas not specifically covered by the 4th Schedule. The areas not protected include over 320,000 hectares on land in the West Coast and Southland in Te Wāhiponamu World Heritage Area and most of the marine areas in the Sub-Antarctic World Heritage Area apart from the area covered by the Auckland Islands marine reserve.

The Fourth Schedule of the Crown Minerals Act was passed by a National Party Government in 1997 under section 3 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act (No 2) 1997. This prohibits mineral activity on conservation land gazetted as national parks, nature reserves, scientific reserves, wilderness areas, marine reserves, forest sanctuaries, wildlife sanctuaries, wetlands of international importance, and the Coromandel Peninsula, Hauraki Gulf, and associated offshore islands.

IUCN has called on the mining, oil and gas industries, as well as governments who licence mineral extraction, to follow the example of business leaders who have already committed not to undertake mining and oil/gas projects within World Heritage sites.

The IUCN statement was made at the latest World Heritage Meeting in Paris. New Zealand has international obligations as a member of the World Heritage Convention.

IUCN’s position was that ‘mineral and oil/gas exploration and exploitation should not be permitted within natural World Heritage Sites. Further, Mining and oil/gas projects that are located outside World Heritage Sites should not, under any circumstances, have negative impacts on these exceptional places. Moreover, boundary changes to these sites should not be used as an easy way to facilitate mining activities.’

Proposals to include some World Heritage areas in exploration, prospecting or mining will further alarm the international conservation community. Crown Minerals has already granted or has applications for prospecting and exploration licences for coal and gold which cover Te Wāhiponamu World Heritage Area. Licences granted include the state owned miner Solid Energy.” Examples of minerals permits which include World Heritage

Areas include:
Solid Energy’s exploration permit application for coal in Southland. Permit number 52362. Waiau Gold Prospecting permit for gold in Southland. Permit 52409 granted 23/11/2010. ZeaEx Petroleum Exploration licence application, Solander Basin, permit no 53599. Solid Energy Petroleum Exploration licence, Solander Basin, permit no 52359, granted 20/11/2010. Currently in New Zealand mineral activity has a privileged status and is not subject to the usual provisions that apply to other activity in Conservation areas. That must be changed so all activities are judged by the same standards and to allow public input.

Tourism activity, hut building, and roading is subject to the concessions provisions of the Conservation Act, which includes environmental impact assessment and public processes, but miners currently gain access under the weaker and secretive provisions of the Crown Minerals Act.

IUCNs statement at the latest World Heritage Meeting in Paris can be found here.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, a body of 200 governmental agencies and 800 non-governmental organisations, has passed resolutions calling on all countries to stop mining on category I to IV protected areas, which applies to nearly all categories conservation land.

According to IUCN companies such as Shell and the financial services firm JP Morgan, as well as the International Council on Mining and Metals, which brings together many of the world’s major mining companies, have recognized the importance of conserving World Heritage Sites and have committed not to undertake activities that would damage them.

Around 8% of the world’s protected areas are World Heritage Sites—places recognized as having ‘outstanding universal value’ because of their natural or cultural significance.

There are:

• 911 places are listed as World Heritage sites
• 34 sites are included on the ‘World Heritage in Danger’ list
• The Great Barrier Reef is the largest natural World Heritage site
• New Zealand has three world heritage areas – Tongariro, Te Wāhiponamu and Sub-Antarctic

New Zealand must fill ocean law gaps The Government needs to urgently fill gaps in maritime law so it has measures in place to control oil exploration and mining on the continental shelf.

Frankly it’s wrong to claim New Zealand has the environmental laws and regulations to control oil and gas development on the continental shelf. There is no equivalent of the Resource Management Act to control oil and gas activity outside of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles offshore).

The Maritime Transport Act covers some aspects of safety and environmental provisions for oil and gas activity on the Exclusive Economic Zone (from 12 to 200 nautical miles offshore) and the continental shelf but this did not include key environmental controls which led to the adoption of some unenforceable voluntary codes.

The Government had long recognised gaps in environmental law and as part of the Ocean’s policy process had proposed in 2007 to fill “key gaps in EEZ environmental regulation and promote a consistent approach to environmental management across different statutes.” The gaps in oceans management and the need for oceans policy was first recognised by the National Government in 1999 by the Minister for the Environment, Simon Upton and then Minister of Conservation Nick Smith.

The gaps includes environmental assessment procedures and public participation and the impacts of climate change.

The Maui gasfield, the Tui oil field, and the Kupe gas field are found offshore Taranaki outside the area managed by the Resource Management Act in relatively shallow water. The Tui field is located about 50km offshore at a water depth of about 120m. Kupe is a gas and light oil field about 30km offshore at water depth of about 35m.

The new areas being promoted by the Government are in much deeper water. The Petrobras permit is in water up to 3000m deep which is much deeper than current operating fields and, as shown by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, would be very challenging if not impossible to deal with any spill. The Canterbury Basin exploration area offshore from Dunedin and the Great South Basin, south of Invercargill, are in deep water of more than 1000 metres. Any response to a spill would take many months.

Putting aside the climate change arguments that New Zealand should be calling a halt to new oil and gas exploration the current rules are inadequate. Relying on the Maritime Transport Act and voluntary codes or practice is not sufficient and the oil industry itself has recognised the need for change.

The current voluntary guidelines for environmental assessment and impacts on marine mammals are not sufficient for the management of the environmental aspects of oil and gas exploration and development. The voluntary guidelines which have no legislative force include:

Environmental Best Practice Guidelines for the Offshore Petroleum Industry;

Department of Conservation guidelines to minimise disturbance on marine mammals of mineral seismic surveys. These guidelines are being reviewed. The review has shown that other countries considered –(Australia, Brazil, Canada, US, and the UK) have legal requirements to avoid impacts on marine mammals which are known to be sensitive to seismic activity.

Other species affected by seismic surveys include squid, octopus and cuttlefish. Research by Michel Andre of the Technical University of Catalonia in Barcelona, and colleagues in Spain and Franceshowed damage in these creatures after just two hours exposure to low frequency noise from 50-400 hertz, noise described as an “acoustic smog” typical of oil and gas exploration and shipping. The research followed death events of giant squid washed up on Spanish beaches in 2001 and 2003 caused by nearby oil and gas seismic surveys.

The scientists found that the organ that allows squid, octopus and cuttlefish to regulate their positions, to balance and direct how and where they swim, was damaged leaving the animals unable to move or to feed, and vulnerable to predators.

The previous government was drafting oceans law prior to the 2009 election to fill the current gaps and ratify international agreements but this had not been taken up by the current government.

The proposals to develop gap filling legislation were consulted on in 2007 and 2008. Information can be found on the Ministry for the Environment website.

While the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, has recognised the need for change, the Government has yet to introduce new oceans law or ratify important international maritime law. The Ministry for the Environment in its latest Statement of Intent (May 2010) acknowledges that the Government has yet to decide on oceans policy and gap filling legislation.

New Zealand has not ratified a number of international agreements on maritime law including the Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (Fund Protocol) and the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 (Bunkers Convention). New Zealand has still to ratify Annex IV and VI of the Marine Pollution Convention which Australia has already ratified.

ECO urges the Government to give greater priority to sort out these legislative flaws before we have a disaster exacerbated by legislative failure.

Latest news:

There will be a worldwide March Against Monsanto on 25th May, for more information see:

If you would like to organise an event please contact the facebook page above.

ECO Member Groups
There are three member groups working on Organics and GE issues - see their websites for the latest news.

Resources:
Alternatives to glyphosate and other chemical sprays for your garden
The GE-Free Food guide - from Greenpeace
The Trans-Pacific Partnership and GMOs - factsheet (PDF file). More about the TPP here

Events:

Localising Food workshops (nationwide) organised by Earthcare Aotearoa and GE Free NZ

The rules:
Attempt to consume no single-use plastic during July.

Remember it’s not going to be easy! It is a challenge, not a competition so don’t worry about being perfect.

Resources for plastic-free living can be found on the Plastic Free July website here: http://www.plasticfreejuly.org/living-plastic-free.html

Collect any unavoidable single-use plastic you buy.

Register on the website Plastic Free July and update your progress as you go. Why you should participate

Plastic, in many areas of the world, has become a significant and deadly part of the food chain. Humans have a heavy reliance on the plastics industry; it’s a cheap product that is incredibly versatile. Plastics manufacturing and use has grown exponentially over the last decade, as has our plastic waste. 225 million tonnes of plastic is produced each year and unfortunately a significant amount of that ends up in our oceans. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch has a huge amount of plastic waste which has a detrimental effect on marine life.

Why use something for a few seconds that is going to spend the rest of your life trying to break down in landfill? We really need to change our habits.

E-WASTE
Check here for how to dispose of old computers and other e-waste: http://www.sustaintrust.org.nz/ecycle/ Household batteries can also be disposed of and recycled at the Sustainability Trust in Wellington and at

Environment Centres around New Zealand.

SMOKING’S IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
According to the WHO there are currently over 1 billion smokers globally. 6 Million of those smokers will die each year from a smoking related illness.

The negative consequences of smoking range far from just the health effects on the individual. The environmental impact caused by improper disposal of cigarette butts is as large as it is concerning.

Each year 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are discarded improperly around the world. They are the single most littered item in existence, ever.

It is in our towns and cities that the vast majority of cigarette ends are discarded improperly. With the help of wind and rain they are often blown or washed into our waterways. They then either remain in our lakes and rivers, make their way to the ocean, or get washed up in our natural spaces.

While in our waterways cigarette butts can often be mistaken for food by aquatic life. If a human adult ingests a cigarette butt they are likely to have some mild health consequences such as vomiting and a upset stomach. Imagine the pain and suffering ingesting a cigarette butt would cause to an animal the size of a fish. (Symptoms include vomiting, respiratory failure, and often death.)

If the cigarette butt gets washed out of our waterways onto a riverbank or onto the beach, non marine life faces the same issue. Land animals will also mistake it for food, ingest it, and receive the same potentially lethal consequences as aquatic life.

To make matters worse, (contrary to popular belief) cigarette butts are not biodegradable. They can take up to 25 years to fully degrade. While they do so they are releasing over 4000 toxins into the soil or water that surrounds them

It would be tempting to discount this issue due to the small size of a cigarette butt. However a study conducted by SDSU found that a single cigarette butt placed in a 1 litre tank of water killed half the fish in the tank.

When we remember our initial statistic of 4.3 trillion improperly discarded cigarettes butts each year, the cause for concern arising from these toxic chemicals entering our ecosystem becomes apparent.

So what can we do to reduce the amount of harm caused to our environment by cigarette litter?

Various research organizations and public health bodies around the world have proposed a variety of solutions to this issue. However one main common solution to the issue is commonly agreed upon.

Many people are simply unaware of just how large the problem of improperly disposed cigarette litter is. They are unaware of how harmful it is to the environment.

Through education and awareness campaigns it is possible to reduce the amount of cigarette litter that is improperly disposed of, reducing the scale of the problem.

It’s time to start treating cigarette butts like the toxic waste they actually are.

The organisation Quitza is a non profit where users from all over the world support each other while quitting smoking using Quitza’s custom made social support network. Quitza combines the social support with real time progress tracking technologies where users earn awards when they reach milestones throughout their quit. These are then shared with the community for further support.