From the Commissioner

Fracking presentation to MPs 27th November, 2012

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +1300

Dr Jan Wright presents the findings of her interim report on fracking to Members of Parliament.

&amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;gt;

Getting a better deal for conservation - speech to Forest and Bird Conference 2012

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +1200

Getting a better deal for conservation

Before I begin, I want to explain my role briefly and what it is that I do.

Like the Auditor-General and the Ombudsmen I am what is known as an Officer of Parliament.

This means that while I am a public servant, I do not work for the Government, but for Parliament as a whole, and am not bound to follow the policies of any party.

This means that I am politically independent.

In my role I provide advice to MPs through investigations that result in written reports.

And through other mechanisms such as submissions to select committees.

A report will generally contain recommendations to specific Ministers.

And I aim to make those recommendations well reasoned and pragmatic.

I have no power beyond the ability to persuade and it is up to the Government of the day as to whether or not those recommendations are taken up.

But I do follow up and keep track of on whether progress is being made or not.

What I am talking about today is based on three completed investigations – there are copies here if you would like them.

One investigation underway in my office is on the commercial use of the DOC estate.

It’s about a year since I announced at the AGM of the Federated Mountain Clubs that I had decided to begin such an investigation.

A large part of New Zealand is in the conservation estate -- about a third.

There is a clear intent for it to be used to play a much greater role in the economy.

You need look no further than DOC’s new brand -- “Conservation for prosperity”.

Conservation for prosperity is fine, but we need conservation for posterity – for our children and grandchildren - as well.

The commercial use investigation is taking some time as all our investigations do – and sometimes some need to be slowed down because investigating other matters must take priority.

Other matters such as fracking.

But I have just released a report which raises some important issues about commercial use of our conservation lands.

That report is called:

Hydroelectricity or wild rivers: Climate change versus natural heritage.

It had its genesis in letters of complaint written into the office about the Mokihinui.

The Mokihinui caught my interest because it was a classic case of two things that are good for the environment.

Hydroelectricity because it helps in the fight against climate change.

The protection of a river because it is wild and scenic – and indeed beautiful.

This report uses the Mokihinui case to illustrate some of the problems that are wrong with the system within which such choices are made.

The system of laws, policies and institutions.

Hydroelectricity is valuable and will continue to be so because climate change is the most important environmental issue we face.

So these are not simple choices.

But I’m not going to talk about hydroelectricity today.

My main conclusion was that our wild and scenic rivers deserve more and better protection than they currently have.

What does this mean for commercial use?

In the case of the Mokihinui, the commercial use of the river for a hydroelectric dam was a step too far.

Meridian’s proposal for pest control over a large portion of the Mokihinui catchment in exchange for the loss of this beautiful wild river was not a good deal for conservation.

The damming of this particular wild and scenic river that runs from its headwaters to the sea for some pest control would have been too great a loss.

Last year I was fortunate enough to walk some distance up the Mokihinui gorge.

As I left I pondered what if anything I would trade away for keeping that river as it is.

And if, as I realized, there might be something so valuable as to make the trade worthwhile, then you have to ask – what could it be?

So a question for you to ponder:

Would you trade the Mokihinui for long term pest control over the whole of New Zealand?

What about if it was just all of the South Island?

It’s a difficult question to confront.

But where such deals are to be made, I want them to be good ones – good for conservation and that have a lasting result in the long term.

I hope my upcoming report on commercial use on conservation land will be able to make a contribution here.

Aside from this big question, the wild rivers investigation threw up some big problems with how commercial use on conservation land is managed.

Wild and scenic rivers can be protected in two ways.

First, by virtue of flowing through conservation land.

Second, with water conservation orders.

I’m just going to talk about the first – the wild rivers that flow through conservation land.

Because we learned things from this that are informing the current more general investigation into commercial use.

So what did we learn from the Wild Rivers investigation that is relevant to our speaking topic today of Whose business is conservation?

First -- stewardship land.

When DOC was created much of the land owned by the Crown was split two ways.

Land for production and land for conservation.

But there was a lot of land that for whatever reason was left with DOC although its conservation value had not been assessed.

It is called stewardship land.

There are many areas of stewardship land – some tiny, some really big.

The plan was to assess the conservation value of these many areas.

Some might go into National Parks, some into conservation parks, and so on.

DOC has many categories of conservation land.

And that with low conservation value would be sold.

The plan was to be completed within 20 years, but only a little stewardship land has been dealt with.

The remainder languishes in what Phillip Woollaston has called a statutory holding pen.

The conservation estate is 30% of the area of NZ.

Stewardship land is 30% of the conservation estate.

So 9% of the entire area of NZ is stewardship land – that’s an enormous holding pen.

And since so little has been done about it, stewardship land can be taken to be of little value for conservation.

For example this is a quote from the Meridian Project Manager talking about the Mokihinui.

“An important fact of this project is that the area affected by the scheme is stewardship land … [it’s not in a national park, it’s not in an ecological reserve or specially protected area. The river doesn’t have a water conservation order on it. Given all the hoo-ha about national parks recently, I think it’s quite an important point.”

Usually getting permission from DOC to run a business on the conservation estate is through a concession.

But stewardship land is different.

There’s another option for how it’s treated and that’s a land swap.

That is, trading a piece of publicly owned stewardship land for a piece of privately owned land.

Meridian tried to do this with the Mokihinui.

And here’s the important thing to understand, that isn’t widely understood.

A land swap is easier to get than a concession.

The test is lower.

This is what makes stewardship land vulnerable to commercial development even when the land is highly valuable for conservation.

So in the case of the Mokihinui we had:

On the one hand:

DOC appealing the resource consents granted to Meridian because they regarded the river and the land it flows through to be of high conservation value.

On the other hand:

The land being left as stewardship land signalling that it was of low conservation value.

But wait there’s more.

Meridian proposed a land swap.

This meant the conservation value of what they were offering had to be compared with the conservation value of what they wanted.

But the river itself was left out of that comparison.

Why?

Because of a legal relic involving the Coal Mines Act and navigable rivers, the riverbed of the Mokihinui is administered by Land Information New Zealand – LINZ.

And LINZ has no conservation mandate.

So the conservation value of the Mokihinui is only that on the land on either side of the river.

Really? I don’t think so.

I apologise if some of this seems a bit tedious.

But this kind of obscure rather dry stuff really matters when it comes to what actually happens on the ground.

So in thinking about commercial use you have to take land status into account.

And you have to think about what is the gain that DoC can get out of it.

A year ago I produced a report on 1080 – subtitled Predators, poisons and silent forests.

What did we learn from this investigation?

First, how good 1080 actually is.

Not just for killing possums, but for killing possums and rats and stoats.

Most of you are probably aware that I ended up saying that not only should we continue to use 1080, but that we should use more of it.

It does not do 1080 justice to describe it as a necessary evil.

But what haunts me from that investigation is the discovery that only on 1/8^th of the conservation estate is there any control of these pests which I came to think of as the evil triumverate.

On huge tracts of native forests, there is no rearguard battle underway – the invasion of pests has been met with only very limited resistance.

And the result is that those pests are largely winning.

We assume too easily that when land is put into the conservation estate, it is looked after.

My current thinking for an ideal use of revenue gained from commercial use of the conservation estate is to use it for pest control.

It’s got to be a lot easier to motivate staff to be hard-headed negotiators if they are fighting for plants and animals than if they are fighting for the Crown accounts.

I’d want to put revenue from commercial users into a trust fund so that the pest control can go on into the future -- in perpetuity.

I’m hoping that Gareth might have some ideas about keeping it out of Treasury’s hands.

And I’d want to spend most of the money for pest control on 1080 drops.

You’ll see why if you read the 1080 report.

But companies that wish to undertake commercial activities on the conservation estate would probably much rather put money toward ground control of pests to save particular iconic species.

Much better for PR, but not necessarily for ecosystems.

But a word of praise for Meridian.

As part of the Mokihinui proposal Meridian first offered to protect whio -- blue duck – along some of the streams in the area.

After the 1080 report came out, I was very pleased to see that offer changed to controlling pests on a much larger area -- 35,000 ha of the river catchment – presumably using 1080 drops.

Good on Meridian for offering to go beyond safe PR to pest control that would have a much bigger impact.

Even if I’d hazard that it was nowhere near enough.

At this point I’d like to quickly reflect about mining on conservation land.

I doubt I need to remind anyone here of the proposal to remove some conservation land out of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act – and the public outcry that followed.

When conducting our investigation into mining on conservation land in the wake of that public concern, it surprised us how little money appeared to be paid by companies that were digging up gold and coal and other minerals on conservation land.

Miners with access to many hectares of land are paying access fees in the low thousands.

My staff had a look at some of the access agreements for mines and found a confusing mish mash of different kinds of payments.

So this needs sorting.

But we should always think about what matters most.

It is my view that the greatest threat to the conservation estate is not mining but the onslaught of introduced pests – both plants and animals.

So in conclusion:

The challenge I hope to address with my investigation is this.

If we are to continue to undertake and expand commercial use on conservation land, how can we do it wisely and well?

I expect my findings will generate debate as this area of tradeoffs is difficult stuff.

Hopefully by this time next year that conversation will be underway.

And by the way I’m really happy about the Mokihinui decision.

Thank you.

Speech to Otago University Symposium Public Conservation Lands 2040

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +1300

Prosperity or Posterity? The Future of Conservation Land

Thank you very much for the invitation to come and speak today. I always like coming back to my home island. I am sorry that I cannot be here for the whole symposium. But Karl from my office is here and hopefully wide awake and taking copious notes.

In June I spoke to the AGM of the Federated Mountain Clubs and announced that I had decided to undertake an investigation into commercial use of conservation land.
Although this investigation is in its infancy, I will share some thoughts on this subject with you today.

The commercial use of conservation land is I believe highly relevant to your theme of Public Conservation Lands in 2040.

A large part of New Zealand is in the conservation estate -- about a third.
There is a clear intent for it to be used to play a much greater role in the economy.
You need look no further than DOC’s new brand -- “Conservation for prosperity”.

I have called this address “Prosperity or Posterity?”
Admittedly it’s a dreadful tongue-twister and my Communications Adviser was rather cross about me using it.
Prosperity is great but we also need conservation for posterity -- for our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.
To 2040 and beyond.

But before I begin, I want to explain my role briefly and what it is that I do.

Like the Auditor-General and the Ombudsmen I am what is known as an Officer of Parliament.
This means that while I am a public servant, I do not work for the Government, but for Parliament as a whole, and am not bound to follow the policies of any party.

This means that I am politically independent.
In my role I provide advice to MPs through investigations that result in written reports.
And through other mechanisms such as submissions to select committees.
A report will generally contain recommendations to specific Ministers.
And I aim to make those recommendations well reasoned and pragmatic.
I have no power beyond the ability to persuade and it is up to the Government of the day as to whether or not those recommendations are taken up.

But I do follow up and keep track of on whether progress is being made or not.

I am looking forward to reading the book being launched here – the possibility of wilderness.
Wilderness means different things to different people.
One thing that comes quickly to my mind is that wilderness is becoming more and more scarce globally – and is likely to continue doing so.
Increasing scarcity means increasing value.
When I say value in this context, I’m not thinking of dollar value – of hocking it off and seeing what it will fetch in the marketplace.
I am thinking of people around the world – and their children and grandchildren – increasingly seeing wilderness as something rare and wonderful.

We have of course some parts of New Zealand that are specially designated as “wilderness areas”.
There are 11 of these – 4 in the North Island and 7 in the South Island.
I’ve got a gammy knee – not much chance of my tramping into these remote places.
So there’s not much possibility of me experiencing these wilderness areas directly.
But I’m very glad they are there.

But returning to my topic of commercial use of conservation land.

There is clearly growing interest in gaining revenue from the conservation estate.
Conservation for prosperity signals this.
So does the increasing effort to raise funds for protecting iconic species through sponsorship by private companies.

The standard way in which commercial use of conservation land occurs is through the granting of concessions.
When private companies gain permission to conduct businesses on conservation land, the usual procedure is that they are given concessions and pay concession fees.
The word “concession” comes from the Conservation Act.
It implies reluctance.
As in you can do this, but I don’t really like it.

That reluctance seems to be fading.
It’s not just DOC.
The Ministry for the Environment now sees its role as:
“Environmental stewardship for a prosperous New Zealand”.

Can the conservation estate be used to make us more prosperous?
Without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Without wrecking the natural heritage we hold in trust for future generations – for posterity.

You will recall well the furore last year over mining on conservation land that was on Schedule 4.
When 20,000 people marched up Queen Street.

I made a submission on the proposal – as some of you may have -- and subsequently we wrote a report on mining on conservation land that is not on Schedule 4.
We have some copies here if you wish to pick one up.
If you read that report you will see that I certainly have some concerns about mining – about this particular commercial use.

But mining or any other commercial use is not my biggest worry.

It is my view that the biggest danger to the conservation estate is the onslaught of pests.
By far.

In June I released a report into our investigation into 1080.
We have some copies of the 1080 report here.
The great majority of New Zealanders think of possums as the pests destroying our bush.
But of course, it’s not.
It’s possums and rats and stoats.

And only on 1/8th of the land managed by DOC is there any control of these pests which I have come to think of as the evil triumverate.
I have developed a particularly visceral hatred of stoats.

On huge tracts of native forests, there is no rearguard battle underway – the invasion of pests has been met with only very limited resistance.
And the result is that those pests are largely winning.
In the main, our native forests and the creatures that live within them are in retreat.

Given the controversy over 1080, I was really surprised by how good 1080 actually is.
How good it is when you step back and test it against the job it is intended to do, and what else you might use instead.
One of its big pluses is that aerial 1080, used well, can deal to all three – possums and rats and stoats.

But what does this have to do with commercial use of the conservation estate?
Well simply that more commercial activity could generate more revenue which could be used to control pests and lead to a net conservation benefit.

So let me elaborate – by sharing some thoughts and questions with you.

The conservation estate already plays a large role in our economy.

When you look at a map of New Zealand, there’s an awful lot of land in National Parks – and National Parks are only 40% of the land managed by DOC.

It is one aspect of our environment, where our “clean green” image meshes pretty well with reality - and that really helps us market ourselves abroad.

Not all tourists actually set foot in National Parks.
But photos of our stunning landscapes must be a major reason why virtually all of them come to our country.
And the direct spending of tourists is a crucial part of some of our small regional economies.

But stepping from the economy to commerce.
From the more general role that our conservation estate plays in the economy to its direct commercial use.

It is all too easy to muddle these two, when they are quite different.
And if economy and commerce are muddled, debate on this very important new direction for DOC will become confused.

Focusing then on commerce and the commercial use of conservation land, I mean activities that:
•   Create profit for commercial users.
•   Generate income for the Crown.
•   And of course lead to jobs and other spin-off benefits.

I have no quarrel – in principle – with commercial use of the conservation estate.
It is an enormous asset and there is no reason why there should not be a monetary return on that asset.

In fact there is every reason to get a monetary return where there could be an overall benefit to conservation.

I referred earlier to the evil triumverate of possums, rats and stoats.
They are chewing the life out of our forests.
And on only a small fraction of the areas where they thrive is there any control at all.
These pests are not going to pack their bags and go back to where they came from.

Yes – we are saving our special plants and animals on offshore islands – mostly not open to the public.
And in fenced sanctuaries and intensively managed reserves.
But if we are to restore the dawn chorus to our mainland, we need a lot more money.
And most of that is not going to come from taxpayers.

So earning revenue from conservation land and using that money to fund more pest control – and not just control of mammal pests -- is very appealing to me.

Because it provides a way ahead.

But – and this is a big but – it must be done well.
It should be based on principles, not done in an ad hoc way.

I suggest one fundamental principle:
Conservation is the priority – therefore – at a minimum -- there should be no net damage to conservation.

Easy to say – far from straightforward to apply.

But that’s the nature of principles.

So what revenue is currently earned from commercial activity?

There are nearly 5000 concessions that have been given to various companies.

DOC earns about $13 million per year from these concessions.
That’s about 3% of DOC’s funding.

And if “conservation for prosperity” is signalling more commercial use to supplement DOC’s funding, we could see a great many more private businesses operating on the conservation estate.
Because the current revenue from concessions is a bit more than a drop in the bucket, but not a lot more.

Actually the $13 million paid for concessions is not all the revenue from commercial use – there is also money coming in from mining.

Mines do not appear to be dealt with in the standard concessions system.

I took an interest in this in my investigation into mining on conservation land that was not on Schedule 4.
And I was really surprised how little money appeared to be paid by companies that were digging up gold and coal and other minerals on conservation land.

Miners with access to many hectares are paying access fees in the low thousands.

My staff have had a look at some of the access agreements for mines.

I am concerned because there is a confusing mish mash of different kinds of payments:
•   one-off payments
•   $s per year
•   $s per hectare
•   administration cost recovery
•   $s per mature tree killed
•   $s per square metre of vegetation removed
•   bonds
•   in-kind payments such as track maintenance.

Maybe there are good reasons for this mish mash.
But maybe there aren’t.

In our investigation into commercial use of conservation land, we will look more closely into this and other commercial uses.

I’m particularly interested in what the principles are that underlie the payments made by commercial users.

And are the principles used as a basis for mining payments different from those used as a basis for setting payments for other activities?
Different from payments for tourism, for telecommunications, for guiding?
And if so why?

I’m not picking on mining here – it’s just seems to be different from the others and I’m curious.

Now another question.
What form should revenue from commercial uses take?

Revenue can be money or it can be paid in-kind – pest control, track provision, track maintenance, hut use…

Money is very attractive because it preserves flexibility – it can be spent in different ways as priorities change.
But Treasury will take it back if you haven’t spent it at the end of the financial year.
And in these straitened economic times, it will inevitably be used to offset cuts in base funding.
If I worked for Treasury, that’s what I would probably be recommending.

So I think there may be a great deal of merit in in-kind payments.
And the kind I’m interested in is pest control.

Let me repeat my mantra – pests are the greatest threat to the conservation estate.

But in-kind payments can be tricky.

My thinking is that DOC should get on the front foot – take control of the negotiation, not just respond to an offer made by the company applying for a concession.

With in-kind payments there are two issues – the size of the payment and the nature of the payment.

On the size of the payment:
When it comes to pest control, go for all you can get.
We’ve got a war to win here.
And it’s got to be a lot easier to motivate staff to be hard-headed negotiators if they are fighting for plants and animals than if they are fighting for the Crown accounts.

On the nature of the offer:
Personally I’d probably hold out for 1080 drops – if you read my 1080 report, you’ll see why.
A company may prefer much less controversial ground control of an iconic species.
Much better for PR – even though the bang for the buck is likely to be much less.

Then – one thing I’ve learned about pests – we can’t exterminate them except on offshore islands.
Even then, constant vigilance is required.
Rats swam back to Ulva Island.
And recently and distressingly -- stoats have swum back to Kapiti Island.

We can’t exterminate these pests on the mainland, but what we can do is to periodically knock down their populations.
So I would want in-kind payments in the form of pest control to go on – in perpetuity.
And this could be done by putting revenue from commercial uses into a trust.

I’m now going to shift gears again – this time to look at the category of conservation land known as “stewardship land”.

Stewardship land is very different from all the other categories.
The difference between stewardship land and other categories is much greater than the difference between Schedule 4 land and land that is not on Schedule 4.

Stewardship land has a different status under legislation.
Stewardship land is the only land that can be swapped.

A case recently is the swapping of a mountain side to allow its development into a ski field for a piece of coastal land with a struggling podocarp forest.
I’m not commenting on the merits of that particular swap – just using it as an illustration.

And really the term “land swap” is very unsatisfactory.
The conservation estate is not just land – it is trees and birds and tussocks and snails and eels and geckos and mosses.
And it’s tramping and camping and kayaking and climbing mountains and just sitting and looking.

Let’s roll back time to the reforms of the eighties.

Public lands – it was decreed – were to be for either production or conservation – and never the twain shall meet.
No more mixed use.
Production land is to go to Landcorp and Forestcorp.
Conservation land is to go to DOC.
But wait – there’s a problem.
There’s a whole lot of land that we’re not sure what to do with.
So let’s call it “stewardship land”.
And DOC can mind it, be the steward of it.

But that arrangement was meant to be only temporary.
Phillip Woollaston who was Minister of Conservation at the time describes stewardship land as a “statutory holding pen”.
Most of that stewardship land is still in that holding pen.

Examples are Big Bay near the Hollyford, much of the Southern Alps between Aoraki and Arthur’s Pass, the Mokihinui gorge, a large tract of land east of the Urewera, and most of Great Barrier Island.

I have heard stewardship land described as an invitation for not just commercial use, but for any kind of development.
It is not legislatively protected in the same way as other land managed by DOC.

And some of that stewardship land may well have greater conservation value than much of the land in National Parks.
It’s time to have a good look at what’s in Phillip Woollaston’s holding pen.

In summary – my thoughts – not set in concrete.

•   Commercial use of conservation land can generate greatly needed revenue.
•   It will be a good thing provided it’s done well.
•   The approach should be based on principles applied consistently to all forms of commercial use.
•   The proceeds should not be used to cut baseline funding.
•   A lot more resource is needed to control pests – otherwise the great bulk of conservation land will deteriorate.
•   The best form of payment from commercial users is probably pest control.
•   But to ensure the pest control is done well and continues into the future, a trust to manage both the funds and the pest control operations could be set up.
•   Recognise stewardship land invites development, so it needs checking and some possible recategorisation.

I said earlier that I have no quarrel in principle with commercial use of conservation land.
But the devil is in the detail – as is usually the case.

Here’s one of the things we will be thinking about.
It’s to do with wilderness – the subject of this new book being released here.

As I mentioned earlier, there are eleven specially designated wilderness areas on land managed by DOC.
It’s not easy to get to them – on purpose.
They have no tracks and no huts.
Those intrepid souls who go there have to tramp for days from the end of a track to get to them.
You are not allowed to get a helicopter to fly you into a wilderness area.

But sometimes helicopters are allowed to, and do, land in wilderness areas.
Occasionally for search and rescue.
But if the experience of being in a wilderness area is interrupted by the thud thud thud of a helicopter, it is probably heli-hunting.

Heli-hunting for those of you who don’t know is the pursuit of an animal to the point of exhaustion, then shooting it.
Usually chamois or thar – in order to get a fine trophy head.

Shades of red jackets and hunting to hounds.

So why is heli-hunting allowed in wilderness areas?
It’s because it is considered to be pest control under the Wild Animal Control Act.
You couldn’t get a concession to film a movie in a wilderness area but you can chase an animal – noisily for miles – and shoot it.

And even putting animal welfare concerns to one side, something doesn’t seem right here.

So heli-hunting is one issue we will be looking into in our investigation into commercial uses of conservation land.

So in conclusion.

“Conservation for prosperity” – DOC’s new branding - should not come at the expense of “conservation for posterity”.
But “conservation for posterity” – conservation for our children and grandchildren - is already at risk.

The main threat to the conservation estate is not from more commercial use, but from predators that were introduced deliberately or accidentally.

David Attenborough says it beautifully:
“Most of New Zealand’s birds have still not learned that mammals can be dangerous”.
They don’t have time to learn – it’s up to us.

Just because land is added to the conservation estate doesn’t mean it is looked after.

For me the wake-up call in the investigation into 1080 was the discovery that pests are not controlled at all on the great majority of conservation land.

This is the big challenge for Public Conservation Lands 2040.
What condition will these lands be in 30 years from now?

Let me repeat – mining isn’t the biggest problem.
It will be a great day for New Zealand when 20,000 people march down Queen Street with banners saying “Save our forests -- death to stoats”.

We grieve over the death of thousands of sea birds in the Bay of Plenty.
How many more birds are we losing in our forests?

Commercial use of conservation land can potentially help in this great battle by providing revenue for battling these invaders.
But we’ve got to get it right, we need to figure out the “whats” and “hows”.
What should the guiding principles be – and how should they be applied?

That’s why I hope to release a report on commercial use of conservation land next year.

We have to make sure that prosperity benefits posterity.

Parliamentary Update August 2011

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +1200

Parliamentary update

Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissoner for the Environment

Tēnā koe

August 2011

The first quarter century

This coming Thursday (18th) there is a function at Parliament to mark 25 years since the Environment Act made its way through the House, and established the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment.

In the course of preparing for this celebration I looked back over the history of the office and the parliamentary debate surrounding the legislation creating it. I was particularly struck by the strength of the political consensus it drew. Phrases used in debate as it progressed illustrate how that legislation still operates today: “watchdog”, “environmental auditor”, “independence”, “Parliament’s person”, and “without fear or favour.” All Members of Parliament are invited to join me, my staff and other guests from 5pm on 18th August in Parliament’s Grand Hall. I hope you can make it and I look forward to seeing you there.

1080

As you may know, I released my report on 1080 in June. The report was nearly a year in the making and concludes that stopping the use of 1080 would result in tragedy for many of our native species.

During the course of my investigation my staff and I met with many people from both sides of the 1080 debate. I was determined to get to grips with the science around 1080, the way it is used, and the issues this use has created. I decided that the best approach was to ask the question “what would a (almost) perfect pest control method be like?” against which 1080 and other pest control methods could be tested.

As I have frequently remarked, I was surprised at how well 1080 could control the possums, rats and stoats that are doing such damage to our great forests. There may be an alternative to 1080 at some time in the future, but until then we must continue to use, and indeed increase the use of, 1080. Our birds and bush do not have time on their side.

The full report is available here.

Smart Meters and the smart grid

Last week I told the Commerce Committee that an ongoing failure to be smarter with how we manage electricity will have significant costs for the environment, consumers and the economy. I had been invited back to the Committee to give an update on developments since the June 2009 report on smart electricity meters.

My main concern is that although smart meters don’t need to be identical in every respect, some standardisation is urgently required. But with current developments we will have households in some parts of the country with really smart meters and households elsewhere left with dumb meters.

We standardised electricity voltage, frequency and the three pin plug for obvious reasons and we need to see standardisation of smart meters.

With electric cars coming on to the market and more generation of renewable energy, our entire electricity grid needs to be a lot smarter. Smart meters are one important component of a smart grid.

My full submission to select committee is available here

Lignite – mining brown coal

In my last email update I anticipated briefing the Local Government and Environment Committee on my lignite report. That is now due on Thursday 18th August. In the meantime I have spoken on the matter several times including at the Victoria University Coal Symposium – the video of this speech is available here.

Speech to 2011 Coal Symposium

Tue, 17 May 2011 00:00:00 +1200

Lignite and Climate Change: The High Cost of Low Grade Coal

Victoria University Symposium - The Future of Coal

(scroll down for video)

Thank you Jonathan for the opportunity to speak at this very important symposium.

It is indeed a privilege to be speaking at the same event as James Hansen, and of course all the other speakers.

The title of this talk is Lignite and Climate Change: The High Cost of Low Grade Coal.

It’s the title of my last report to Parliament.

I am going to spend some time putting this report into a historical perspective.

But I will begin by saying a few words about my role because it’s important to know where I am coming from.

Like the Auditor-General and the Ombudsmen I am what is known as an Officer of Parliament.

This means that while I am a public servant, I do not work for the Government, but for Parliament as a whole, and am not bound to follow the policies of any party.

This means that I am politically independent.

In my role I provide advice to MPs through investigations that result in written reports.

And through other mechanisms such as submissions to select committees.

A report will generally contain recommendations to specific Ministers, and

I aim to make those recommendations well reasoned and pragmatic.

I have no power beyond the ability to persuade and it is up to the Government of the day as to whether or not those recommendations are taken up.

My lignite report was tabled in Parliament last December, before being released publically.

We have copies here if you’d like to pick one up.

That report was the outcome of an investigation into the potential large scale conversion of lignite – poor quality coal – into a variety of products.

And what the greenhouse gas consequences of that path of action would be.

My interest in lignite goes back through much of my working life.

So I am going to spend a little time explaining this in the context of the last 30 or 40 years.

Because when you get to my age – and I hasten to add that I’ve a way to go before I’m on the pension…

When you get to my age, the historical context becomes very important for putting things into perspective.

Let me take you back to the 1970s.

To the formation of OPEC, the oil price shocks, the energy crisis, the first talk about renewable energy and non-renewable energy.

I don’t recall the phrase “peak oil” kicking around then – we spoke of Hubbert’s pimple.

The blip in geological time when the fossil fuels are burned.

My first degree was in physics.

Physics is of course, fundamentally about matter and energy - and I got this idea that maybe I could make a career in energy.

So off I went to the University of California at Berkeley to do a masters degree in energy and worked at Laurence Berkeley Laboratory on the economics of increasing the efficiency with which we use energy.

At the time we were pioneers.

People almost always thought about finding a way through the energy crisis – as it was called - by increasing the supply of energy in order to meet the rising demand for it.

We turned this on its head – you would not need supply to increase if you could get demand to fall.

And you can get demand for energy to fall by using it more efficiently.

Supplying energy through greater efficiency.

It’s a very familiar concept now but it was radical then.

Of course, the lignite plans are very much about increasing supply – very old school.

Fast forward a few years to the big new kid on the block – climate change.

I first learned about climate change when I was at Berkeley in the late 70s from Professor John Holdren, who is now President Obama’s science advisor.

At that time climate change had not made any inroads into public consciousness or into public policy.

I remember John saying he expected the environmental impacts that accompanied energy use to be more of a problem than limits on those resources.

And that to me is the nub of the problem with lignite.

We make petrol, diesel, plastics and so on out of oil.

The good oil – such as the most sought after light sweet crude -- is becoming scarce.

And no new giant oilfields are being discovered.

We can also make petrol, diesel, plastics out of poor quality fossil fuels like lignite.

And the world is not short of lignite.

Indeed no one is worrying about peak lignite.

Or peaks in other low quality fossil fuels such as tar sands and oil shale.

So to me, the term “peak oil” misses the point somewhat.

As we slide down the far side of the oil peak, subsititutes will kick in.

And if those substitutes are lignite, tar sands and oil shale, then we are in big trouble.

It’s not peak oil that worries me.

It’s the carbon footprints of the substitutes for oil that worry me.

The oil price shocks of the 70s led to self-sufficiency energy policies in many countries.

And New Zealand was no exception.

At least some of you will remember the carless days in 1979.

At around the same time the Liquid Fuels Trust Board was created here and charged with figuring out how we could be self-sufficient in liquid fuels, meaning, really, transport fuels.

The Board had a lot of money and funded a great range of research projects.

At one stage I did a small project for them.

It really was a different time then.

I recall hammering out a report on my Olivetti typewriter.

And women working on energy issues were a scarcity.

In the end the Liquid Fuels Trust Board came down to Maui gas in the interim –

and that meant the Motunui Synthetic Petrol Plant and other Think Big projects in Taranaki

Maui gas in the interim.

And then in the long run -- lignite.

The Board spent a lot of money on characterising the lignite reserves in Southland and Otago.

It’s that expenditure of public money in the 80s that has provided critical information for large scale development of lignite now.

It was in 1990, 20 years ago I wrote a report titled Transport fuels after Maui – lignite on the back burner.

Lignite is not on the back burner now – there are plans to – speaking figuratively -- burn huge amounts of it on the front burner and in so doing release huge amounts of carbon dioxide.

And so the plans for using lignite on a very large scale were hatched during a time when only a few scientists were concerned about climate change.

We’ve already had James Hansen talking earlier in the day, who is, of course, much more qualified to speak about climate change than I am.

But over the time that I’ve been interested in it, I see two trends.

First -- the predictions have become increasingly gloomy.

Second -- the consensus has become stronger and stronger.

Personally I would much rather not believe in climate change.

I can never quite understand this idea that people somehow get their kicks out of believing in it for some strange environmental doomsday reasons.

I have this picture in my mind of a lignite train.

It started running as I said when only a few scientists were concerned about climate change.

And it continues to run as if this still were the case.

There is no sign of it being derailed.

Lignite – or brown coal as it is called in most countries -- of course is a very poor quality form of coal.

I’ve actually heard it described as having the energy content of cow dung.

You could call it young immature coal or old petrified wood.

Here’s a bit I picked up down a hole in Southland.

Courtesy of Solid Energy, thank you Don.

As many of you will know, the core of this report is a set of carbon footprint calculations.

For diesel, for urea (nitrogen fertiliser), and for briquettes made out of lignite.

The basis for these calculations and the results are in my report.

And the details are available in an appendix on our website.

The way in which we have done these calculations is very conservative – likely too conservative.

I didn’t want anyone – Solid Energy or anyone else - coming out and saying we had exaggerated.

And I am pleased that Solid Energy at least has publicly accepted the results of the calculations.

I am particularly concerned about diesel – about the carbon intensity of diesel made from lignite.

Our state owned enterprise Solid Energy is not the only player here of course but was early off the blocks.

There is L & M Mining.

L & M originally stood for Lime & Marble – so the L is for lime not lignite.

There are other interested parties – for instance

Greywolf Goldmining – an Australian company acting for a large Chinese group.

So my conclusions are not directed at any one company.

I’m now going to talk briefly about New Zealand’s international commitments on climate change.

The first Kyoto period.
The Copenhagen commitment.
Our target for 2050.

We are now almost at the end of the first commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol.

New Zealand is expected to be in the black, as it were, not the red, because a lot of forest was planted in the 1990s.

At Copenhagen, we made a commitment about greenhouse gases for the year 2020.

We are on track to miss that commitment by a country mile.

Those forests planted in the 1990s that are seeing us meet our Kyoto commitment at the end of next year will be harvested by 2020.

In 2020 we will be in the red.

Our commitment at Copenhagen was 10% to 20% below 1990 emissions.

Instead of 10 to 20% below, we are expected to be 30% above 1990.

That’s a gap of about 27 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent a year.

And that is without large scale development of lignite.

Bear with me while I repeat that – it’s so important.

This huge gap between what we have promised and what we are on track to achieve is without large scale development of lignite.

The lignite to diesel plant planned by Solid Energy would increase the size of that gap by 20%.

The lignite to diesel plant that L & M Mining has spoken of would add another 30%.

That’s a 50% increase in the gap.

Yes – we can buy carbon credits offshore to make up the difference.

But being so dependent on carbon reductions in other countries is a poor look for a country that brands itself internationally as clean and green.

And yes – the Copenhagen promise is only “politically binding” – and is contingent on what other countries do.

This of course is the great problem we are all faced with – a problem of collective action – I will if you will.

Beyond 2020 New Zealand has recently set a target of 50 by 50

– 50% less than 1990 emissions by 2050.

But we have no plan to get there – indeed the lignite developments take us into a high carbon future, not a low carbon future.

The Emissions Trading Scheme isn’t going to do it alone – certainly not in its current form with free allocation of far too many carbon credits.

With taxpayers, small businesses, consumers and foresters subsidising carbon-intensive industry.

By subsidising, I mean paying much of the carbon cost for them.

The first session this afternoon was on carbon capture and storage.

I really really hope that the world can get carbon capture and storage to work.

To not be hopelessly costly.

And for the CO₂ to stay put and not leak.

But where are the reservoirs in the south of the country?

Southland is not Taranaki.

The only commercially proven process for converting diesel to lignite is the Fischer-Tropsch process.

I understand there are others under development but they are not there yet.

Will they get there?

And how much better would they really be?

Fischer-Tropsch was developed in Germany in the 1920s – that’s 80 to 90 years ago.

So looking at the timing of plans to develop and process lignite, it seems to me that we have a 1920s technology for making carbon dioxide.

And with luck a 2020s or 2030s technology for getting rid of it.

It’s also possible, of course, to plant a whole lot of trees to suck up carbon dioxide.

But that would be a forest that would have to get larger and larger as more carbon dioxide was emitted.

A continually expanding permanent forest.

Solid Energy press releases have spoken about taking “full responsibility” for carbon emissions.

I applaud the sentiment but am puzzled as to what this actually means.

At a minimum it could be simply complying with the regulations in the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Or it could be refusing to accept any free carbon credits.

Or it could be sequestering all the carbon dioxide emissions associated with these projects.

I cannot see that it can be anything other than complying with the law.

Surely going further than your competitors would put you at a disadvantage.

I would be pleased to be corrected on this.

L&M have been silent on what they would do – to the best of my knowledge.

I have also seen claims in the media that producing diesel and urea from lignite will mean lower prices for New Zealanders.

Cheaper diesel and cheaper fertiliser.

I find this odd.

Diesel, urea and briquettes are all commodities that are traded internationally.

And that means trading at world prices.

Of course, things produced here might be a little cheaper because transport costs are lower.

I said “might be”.

We produce huge amounts of cheese here.

But it’s not cheap.

Isn’t the cheese we send to Australia cheaper there than it is here?

Then there is the jobs argument.

Southland has the highest employment in the country.

We need to bring people from other countries to milk the cows down there.

And then there is the energy security argument.

I’m not really sure what this means either.

There is energy security in the short term – stockpiling enough fuel to get us through glitches in supply.

But longer term surely it can only mean self-sufficiency.

Or at least a fair measure of self-sufficiency.

This may well be a good thing but it is completely out of step with current policy.

Indeed New Zealand has not had policies of this kind for a very long time.

Since the reforms of the 80s and 90s we are very much an open economy.

If these policy settings are to change this should be done deliberately and democratically – with real discussion about what it means, rather than just letting it happen by default through granting of mineral permits and non-notified resource consents.

At the end of my report I make three recommendations – two about the Emissions Trading Scheme and one about green growth.

I wanted to draw attention to the ETS because it is entirely possible under current rules that taxpayers could end up paying some of the carbon costs of lignite projects.

Entirely possible that taxpayers would subsidise a high carbon future for this country.

Do I think full carbon pricing would stop these lignite projects?

Probably not because I expect the price of oil to rise faster than the price of carbon.

I was pleased to see the recent OECD report on New Zealand stating that energy policy may still work at cross-purposes with Kyoto objectives.

Citing my report, the chapter on Green growth and climate change policies went on to say “A case in point is the proposed development of two lignite plants….”

I look at a world where the population continues to grow fast.

It is already 77% bigger than it was when the first oil price shock hit.

The aspirations of people in developing world countries follow those of the developed world.

So demand for transport fuels will continue to grow.

It will not stop when oil production peaks.

The world is not short of lignite.

We are not unique in having lots of it.

If the world turns to making transport fuels out of low quality fossil fuels like lignite, then it seems to me that the party may well be over.

This, above all else is the issue that keeps me awake at night.

Parliamentary Update April 2011

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +1200

Parliamentary update

Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissoner for the Environment

Tēnā koe

April 2011

The Christchurch Earthquake

I grew up in Christchurch and still have strong ties to the city. Like so many others around the country, I am deeply concerned for the people of Christchurch.

It will be a long road to recovery but I know the strength, resilience and humour of Cantabrians will carry them through, with the support and assistance that we all offer.

First update

This is the first of my quarterly updates to Parliament. I'm hoping they will help keep you up to date with the work of my my office and provide you with another avenue for feedback on matters environmental.

Please feel free to find out more at www.pce.parliament.nz.

Lignite

On 12th May I expect to be presenting my report on lignite to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.

The report, Lignite and climate change: the high cost of low grade coal, was tabled in the House late last year and examines the significant environmental and economic risks associated with plans to significantly increase the use of this low grade coal.

You can read a summary of the report here, watch a short video in which I cover off the basics of the report here, download the full version here [3.5MB PDF] or request a hard copy here.

ETS submission and climate change target

Last week I sent in my submission to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Panel.

The ETS is the right framework for pricing carbon but I have serious concerns about a number of aspects of the legislation.

In particular, the subsidies to big emitters will mean significant costs for the taxpayer and distort the carbon market. The full submission is available here.

I also provided feedback on the 2050 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Government's proposed emission reduction target for 2050 is of critical importance and should be welcomed.However, a target is only a beginning.

A credible plan for reducing emissions must be developed and clearly articulated. The full submission is available here.

1080 investigation

As you may know from recent media reports or my select committee briefings, I am currently investigating the use of 1080 and its alternatives in the control of possums, rats and stoats.

Sadly native birds, and other animals such as geckos, are disappearing from large parts of New Zealand. For instance, kiwi populations on conservation land with no pest control are declining at an average rate of 6 percent a year.

1080 is the major weapon currently used against these pests. I expect my report will be tabled in June.

Historical reports online

After many hours of work the majority of historical PCE reports is now online. Previously reports prior to August 1997 were available as hardcopy and by request only.

Most reports going back to the inception of the office in 1987 are now available to download here.

Water quality presentation to Parliament

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +1200

Schedule 4 and State of the Environment Reporting

Wed, 12 May 2010 00:00:00 +1200

It’s been a couple of months in which environmental issues have taken centre stage in the news with the Government moving to open conservation land for mining, business lobbying for the Emissions Trading Scheme to be held back, and the appointment of Commissioners in Canterbury to manage water.

I’ve been focused on the Government’s proposal to open some Schedule 4 conservation land for mining and released my submission on the matter on the 27^th of April at a forum in Nelson. My speech is available here and TVNZ’s coverage of the story is here.

The addition of Schedule 4 to the Crown Minerals Act in 1997 was a political pact across Parliament. A very strong case for taking any land out of Schedule 4 would have to be made and that case has certainly not been made in the Government’s discussion paper.

Earlier in the month I expressed my concerns [RNZ streaming audio] about the lack of time allowed for submissions on schedule 4 mining. Since then the submission period has been extended.

I expect to release my report on mining conservation land in the near future.

On the 22^nd of April my review of State of the Environment reporting was released. 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. The Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, has announced he will be carefully considering the advice in this report. You can download a copy here.

In March I met with the Western Hutt Rotary Club to discuss climate change. It was great to see the Rotary Club members showing such an interest – so much that security had to remind us our time at the venue was up!

Similarly pleasing was an engagement on climate change with the members of a European Parliament delegation. They were extremely concerned about how to moderate the environmental and economic effects climate change will have.

And of course smart meters and smart grids are also still on the radar. I spoke to a very attentive audience at Grey Power’s AGM in Christchurch early this month and received an appreciative response. I note that since my last update Green MP David Clendon’s private members bill on smart meters has failed to pass its first reading in the House.

I had the pleasure of visiting Nelson in late April and was particularly taken with the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary – a 14 kilometre section of native bush that is already home to many native birds and has the potential, if cleared of predators, to become one of the best easily accessible sanctuaries in New Zealand.

The sanctuary is run by a trust that is working to raise six million dollars for predator fencing and pest eradication.

Ongoing pest eradication has already led to the sanctuary becoming a significant environment for many native birds but a predator fence would allow for rarer species such as kiwi and saddleback to be established and invertebrates and reptiles to flourish. It’s also likely that seabirds would return to the sanctuary.

I believe it is vital that there are places like the Brook Waimarama sanctuary close to urban centres so that many New Zealanders can easily experience our unique ecosystems free of predators. I would recommend you visit the sanctuary if you are in the Nelson area and make a donation if you are able.

Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce

Tue, 04 May 2010 00:00:00 +1200

On 27 April the Commissioner gave a keynote address at a Blue Skies forum organised by the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce.

Greypower visit

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +1300

As we move into the first days of autumn I realise that the year is well and truly underway. We have some good work underway already, with much more to come as the months unfold.

Early last month I had the privilege of travelling to Auckland to meet with the national executive of Grey Power regarding their concerns on smart meters. In an article last December Grey Power national president Les Howard highlighted his unease when he said the meters were "really dumb. It's a meter that's more sympathetic to the retailer than it is to the customer." (Timaru Herald, 12 Dec 2009). I look forward to addressing Grey Power’s AGM on the matter in April.

Another highlight of my trip was visiting the Greenpeace offices in Mt Eden. We had a very worthwhile and thought provoking discussion around climate change – a topic we both regard as hugely important for New Zealand, and indeed the world. I was also interested to hear in what they had to say about their work on oceans. Their focus on illegal and over-fishing in the Pacific will be a welcome addition to public debate.

Last week I made a submission on the Electricity Industry Bill, which aims to improve competition in the electricity market and improve security of supply. My advice focused on one key aspect that will help - the development of a smart electricity grid. This will also provide for significant environmental benefits.

Allocation of free carbon credits is a major feature of the Emissions Trading Scheme, and is critically important in determining how effective the ETS will be in reducing New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. This month I gave feedback on the proposed allocation regulations for industry, seeking to make them more stringent.

Finally, during the last session of the House a members bill in the name of David Clendon, Green Party MP, was drawn from the ballot. This bill addresses some of the issues I raised in my Smart Meters report last year. Since the release of the report, my staff and I have learned a great deal more about the subject. This new information adds weight to the recommendations I made in my report. I believe it is very much in the public interest to have this bill considered in detail at select committee, and have written to party leaders seeking their support for this to happen.

Mackenzie call in

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +1300

Welcome to 2010. I hope everyone has had the chance for something of a summer break, and you’re feeling as refreshed and ready for 2010 as I am.

I’ve had a great time away, getting around various parts of the country, including Takaka, Hawke’s Bay, and Gisborne. We live in a truly magnificent country and it’s part of what motivates me in my position as Commissioner.

The year is already well underway. Three dairy companies have asked for discharge consents in the Mackenzie Basin that would see effluent from a city nearly the size of Christchurch being discharged. I am very pleased to see that the Minister for the Environment has recognised that the scale of proposed discharges is an issue of national importance and merited to be called in.

As I recommended in my report Change in the High Country, any developments of national significance, like this, must be considered on a national scale. I shall watch with interest as the high calibre panel of inquiry consider the consents.

I have a busy schedule for first half of the year, with reports planned on state of the environment monitoring, the new environmental protection authority, lignite, and biofuels. We continue to follow the roll out of smart meters for measuring electricity use. Legislation on aquaculture, electricity reforms and potentially other RMA issues are also either active or on the horizon.

Finally I would like to offer my congratulations to the team at BRANZ who have achieved the Diamond Enviro-Mark NZ Certification, equivalentthe ISO 14001, the International Environmental standard for environmental performance. I was very happy to present them with their award at the end of last year.

Soil use in Tauranga

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +1300

An important and exciting part of my role is getting out of the office to meet with people around the country. It is particularly interesting finding out about the different ways in which different councils address environmental problems.
On a recent visit to Tauranga (pictured right with Robyn Skelton of Environment Bay of Plenty and Jennie Francke, Office of the PCE), I was particularly pleased to learn that the ‘SmartGrowth’ project used information about soil versatility in setting urban limits.

SmartGrowth is aimed at developing and implementing a plan for managing urban growth in the western Bay of Plenty. The programme is being led by Environment Bay of Plenty, Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and Tangata Whenua, on behalf of the community.

Local soils were assessed for their versatility to help determine which land is suitable for urban development or and which land is suitable for food and fibre production. These results have been used to assist in the setting of proposed urban limits for the fast-growing city of Tauranga.

In my view, soils should be listed in section 6 of the Resource Management Act as a matter of national importance.

As always, if you have any feedback or comments, please email me at pce@pce.parliament.nz. I would also like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Season's Greetings

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +1300

As the Christmas holidays approach, many of us will start planning an escape into the great outdoors - to the bush, the beach, or our lakes or rivers. It’s a time to remember how fortunate we are to live in such a beautiful country – and why we need to ensure we protect it for our children and grandchildren.

Climate change dwarfs all other environmental issues. Many of us have been anxiously following what is happening in Copenhagen. A key tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). I am unhappy about most of the recent changes to our ETS, because they shift much of the cost of emitting greenhouse gases from polluters to taxpayers. This means that the ETS will have little effect on our emissions of greenhouse gases. However, it is good that we are one of the few countries to have such a mechanism in place.

In December I also met with both the International Energy Agency and the Commerce Select Committee, where I talked about my report on smart meters. Consumers and the environment are missing out on the key benefits of this new technology for managing electricity use. Really smart meters can help consumers reduce their electricity use, saving money and benefiting the environment. I suspect I will be saying more on this topic in 2010.

We have a busy year ahead with the first priority to finish reports on transport fuels including a strategy for biofuels, how we measure and report on the health of our environment, and the role that the new Environmental Protection Authority could play.

Let me finish by thanking all those who have assisted me and my staff through the year - from hosting me when visiting your region to answering curly research questions. It has been a very rewarding year, one which I have enjoyed immensely.

I wish everyone Season’s Greetings and best wishes for 2010.

Stockton and ETS

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +1300

Welcome to our new website – I hope you find it easier to navigate around and find the information you are seeking. We will continue to add new functions and features. In addition, we are inviting you to submit photos you think worthy of featuring as a banner. Just send in your suggestions via email.

The first report to be given our ‘new look’ web treatment is Stockton revisted: The mine and the regulatory minefield. The investigation began as a review of the recent environmental performance at the Stockton mine on the West Coast. I am pleased to report that Solid Energy has made significant progress.

During the writing of the report I discovered that there are over a hundred ‘old’ mining licences with weak environmental protection dating from an era when we thought children didn’t need to ‘buckle-up’ in a car. Over time our values about the environment have shifted as have our concerns about child safety, yet the environmental regime of these old licences still dates back to that former time. Some of these old licences will not expire for more than 20 years. I have asked Ministers to respond to my concerns.

Other important work has also been underway. Last week I made a submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation. While there are a few proposed changes that I regard as improvements, overall the bill weakens the scheme. I have made several practical recommendations to help improve the amendments put forward by the Government. You can read our media release here, and our submission here.

ETS and Biofuels

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +1300

Daylight saving is a welcome reminder that spring is finally here after a busy winter. Lately my office has been working on a variety of different projects. These include the enormously challenging task of providing advice to the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) Review Select Committee, following up the release of the report on smart electricity meters with a submission to the Ministerial Review on Electricity Market Performance, and preparing a submission on the Sustainable Biofuel Bill.

In the advice I gave to the ETS Review Select Committee, I covered a range of topics, including climate change science, the 2020 target, complementary measures, the need for independence, agriculture, forestry, economic models, and research capability. To view my submission to the Committee click here

An ETS Bill that amends the scheme established by the last Government has now been introduced to Parliament. Submissions on the Bill closed on Tuesday 13 October. Climate change is the most important environmental issue of our time and my submission to the Finance and Expenditure committee is available here.

For those of you who have been following the debate around electricity and the use of smart meters, I went one step further in my submission to the group currently reviewing the electricity market. Because the public debate has been so confusing with conflicting information continuing to emerge, I have called for a moratorium on the roll-out of advanced electricity meters. If you would like to read my submission, click here [add link].

Also in September, my Annual Report 2009 was presented to the House of Representatives. This report contains an overview of the work of the office for the previous 12 months, as well as giving an indication of what lies ahead.

Looking ahead, the next report I will be releasing is concerned with mining. This report has two parts. The first part honours a commitment made by my predecessor, Dr Morgan Williams in his report on Solid Energy’s large opencast coal mine at Stockton on the West Coast of the South Island. Dr Williams undertook to return to assess whether the environmental management of the mine had improved. The second part of the report deals with some serious shortcomings in mining regulation.

The next reports that I will release are likely to be one on state of the environment reporting and a thinkpiece on the newly launched Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). I had planned to release a report in November on the potential conversion of lignite from Southland to transport fuel. However, due to the scope of the issue, it looks like this report will be delayed until early 2010.

In October, I will be speaking at the Biosecurity Institute Conference in Queenstown and look forward to learning more about this difficult and important area from fellow attendees. Late in the month I will be speaking on climate change to Executive Fellows at the Australian and New Zealand School of Government. Engagements in November include addressing MPs from Australia and the Pacific on climate change at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seminar, discussing water quality with South Island high country farmers, and visiting Waikato to speak at a forestry conference. I look forward to reporting back on my experiences when I next write.