Wed, Sep 05 2012
Judge Craig Thompson of the Environment Court handed down a landmark decision on Tuesday … one that will reverberate
throughout New Zealand as a firm ruling that NZ’s freshwater needs far more serious protection.
“Too hard” is no longer good enough.
“Voluntary” is no longer good enough.
“Grandfathering” current practices and practitioners is no longer good enough.
Judge Thompson issued a decision that essentially endorsed all of the objectives and methods environmentalists have
argued for to protect the nation’s waterways.
His ruling applies specifically to the so-called ‘One Plan’ promulgated by the Horizons Regional Council in
Manawatu-Wanganui, but it establishes crucial case law that all regional councils will need to take into account.
And not a moment too soon, given that the HB Regional Council is about to re-write Hawke’s Bay’s water management rules,
starting with the Tukituki catchment.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the midnight oil will be burning at the HBRC for more than a few nights, as staff
tries to figure out the implications of this decision for the new regime they’ve just this week floated to the public in
their “Tukituki Choices” public consultation document.
Local environmentalists believe our Regional Council is planning to move far too timidly in its new regime in terms of
demanding cleaner practices by farmers. It appears that Judge Thompson would have none of that. So perhaps the HB
Regional Council will give a fresh listen to environmental concerns.
Below is the media release issued by Fish & Game NZ, an appellant to the Environment Court case.
As they say, “a win for all New Zealand”.
You can learn more about the Tukituki issues at the upcoming water forum EIT and BayBuzz are hosting on 18 September,
5:30-7:30pm at EIT … Managing the Tukituki: Can Farmers and Environmentalists Both Win? Details to follow.
Tom Belford
One Plan ruling a win for all NZ
Fish & Game NZ says an Environment Court ruling on the Manawatu-Wanganui region’s One Plan sets a precedent for resource
management that will be far reaching.
Declining water quality and historically poor management of this most precious natural resource in New Zealand has
become one of the defining environmental issues of our time.
Intensification of land use is the greatest threat to water quality and has been the least likely to be addressed by
regional councils.
The ruling was yesterday handed down on areas of the Horizons Regional Council’s regional policy, the One Plan, under
appeal from groups such as Fish & Game, the Department of Conservation, Federated Farmers, Fonterra, the energy sector and private parties.
“The Environment Court has provided an unequivocal judgement on a significant environmental matter,” says Wellington
Fish & Game manager Phil Teal.
“For too long there has been a flagrant disregard for how land use impacts on water quality, with unsustainable land
development and agricultural intensification exacting a huge toll on our most precious resource.
“This decision represents a seismic shift in natural resource and freshwater management in New Zealand. While
recognising the importance of the primary industry, it also mandates the necessity of concrete action through a
rules-based planning approach to protect and improve the environment and particularly our freshwater resource, which is
so crucial to our national identity and ‘100% Pure, clean green’ brand.
“It’s a good decision for all New Zealand creating much better balance which has been long overdue – a win-win, putting
New Zealand agriculture on an environmentally sustainable footing and setting in train a requirement to clean up its
tarnished image.”
As the first regional plan to tackle nutrient management on a catchment basis, formation of the One Plan – and the
subsequent appeal – has been closely watched around the country as an opportunity to develop a blueprint for the rest of
New Zealand.
Among other key rulings, the decision means irrigated sheep and beef farming, as well as the horticulture sector, will
be classed as intensive land use, and therefore will be brought into a nutrient and sediment management regime to reduce
losses to waterways.
The Environment Court found the arguments put forward by Fonterra, Federated Farmers and Horticulture New Zealand on the
One Plan were deficient, with the Court ruling that those parties did not represent “sustainable management”.
In summing up the Court stated: “We have little sympathy for the line of argument that we should defer taking decisive
action in the field of improving water quality… to fail to take available and appropriate steps within the terms of the
legislation just cited would be inexcusable.”
Mr Teal says the ruling now provides certainty for all parties – “It’s good for the environment and good for industry
and development because we all know where we’re heading.”
Fish & Game chief executive Bryce Johnson says: “The judgment is a major step towards mandatory environmentally sustainable
best on-farm practice, which can only be good for our agriculture sector in the international market.
“New Zealanders want their waterways restored to being swimmable, fishable and safe for food gathering – this decision
delivers on that.”
Fish & Game appealed the One Plan to ensure there were adequate provisions for dealing with water quality issues and provided
evidence to complement New Zealand’s best technical experts on these issues.
Key points:
• Developed by New Zealand’s leading experts across sustainable land use, agriculture, freshwater ecology,
biodiversity, landscape, planning and law, the One Plan sets a blueprint for integrated catchment management to protect freshwater and its values in New Zealand.
•
• Water quality and quantity numerical limits have been set by leading independent experts with robust scrutiny so they weren’t influenced by advocacy of self-interest or political influence groups.
•
• Endorsement that agricultural land use is a significant contributor to the degraded state of the region’s freshwater ecosystems and as such should be regulated to measurable performance standards, best management practices and leaching targets.
•
• Leaching targets should not be based on ‘grand-parenting’ but set on the natural capital of land and that these
leaching targets should reduce over time, ramping down leaching allowances.
•
• The court ruled that in regards to farming there cannot be a reliance on voluntary approaches alone. Even if those programs exist such as the clean streams accord, they need the reinforcement of a regulatory regime to set measureable standards and to enforce compliance with them. Permitted activity is not appropriate.
•
•
Related Stories
•
•
•
•
More Recent Articles
•
•
•
•
ENDS