Fish & Game: 'RMA moves raise questions for lakes protection'

Eastern Fish & Game says some of the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) raise serious questions about the future protection of Rotorua’s lakes and their water quality.

In the most recent development, Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC, in his report for the New Zealand Fish and Game Council, says the proposed changes will ‘significantly weaken the ability of the RMA to protect the natural environment and its recreational enjoyment by all New Zealanders.’

Eastern Fish & Game Manager Rob Pitkethley says he hopes that Bay of Plenty people take time to consider the implications of the changes to the RMA that have been proposed.

Mr Pitkethley says the RMA in its present form was set up to protect the environment but allow development “as long as it’s environmentally sustainable, and the effects are no more than minor.” The reforms proposed include shortening timeframes, improving planning processes and simplifying planning documents – all of which Fish & Game supports. But there are also significant proposed changes to Part 2 of the Act that lays down its founding principles that are of concern.

“The RMA reforms would change the whole principle of the Act,” he says. “You could do developments that affect the environment as long as the economic benefits outweigh the environmental costs.”

The reforms would change the “tests” on any development to cost-benefit ones, he adds. Twenty years of case law has been built up allowing certain tests to be applied to a developer’s proposals, but these will become “potentially invalid.”

“The whole premise behind the proposed reforms is that people’s values have changed – but our contention is that people are probably more environmentally aware now than they were before – yet the reforms weaken environmental protection.”

Mr Pitkethley says there are now some major questions over how the RMA will be interpreted and what developments are permitted, ranging from lakeside high rise buildings to dams or other developments affecting waterways, or even more widespread and intensified dairying.

Mr Pitkethley says that under the proposed reforms, the protection which the RMA gives to all aquatic habitats could be changed to focus on protection for only “significant habitats.”

“We don’t know how the reformed Act is going to be used by councils so there is a real uncertainty for us. What is ‘significant?’ Who knows? It’s going to be very subjective.”

“People might feel that say, five or six of our thirteen Rotorua lakes are ‘significant aquatic habitats’ and the remainder are not, so there would be little argument against lakeside high rise developments or dairy industry expansion in any area not considered significant.”

An intensification of land use say through dairy conversion that generated $5 million may be deemed to be more beneficial than the environmental costs to the lake.

“The other side of the argument is the local (and wider?) community who use the lake for swimming, fishing, water skiing and other recreations, and the risk is deciding the five million is worth more than the intangible amenity benefits the lake provides to the locals.”

The RMA reforms will potentially strengthen such pro-development arguments against “intangibles” which are hard to measure and put a monetary value on.

The reforms could also weaken the status accorded to the Motu River under the Water Conservation Order legislation. The WCO granted over the river provides National Park-type protection, but the reforms could jeopardise this.

Mr Pitkethley says Fish & Game has already pointed out that because a WCO affords water bodies this National Park level protection status, it is the only statutory tool that puts serious integrity behind freshwater in the ‘100% Pure’ Kiwi brand.

“This 100% Pure brand is also especially important in the Rotorua lakes district where tourism is a major contributor to the local economy – an industry underpinned by extraordinary natural and scenic resources including lakes and rivers.”

Anglers as individuals, groups or families, are a key contributor to this tourism, “people who spend on accommodation, boats, fishing guides and gear and much more.”

Mr Pitkethley says that any legislative changes which weaken environmental protection could have a serious impact on tourism and the region’s economy.

“If this Government is genuinely concerned about economic growth, it must also consider the potential damage to revenue from lost tourism which could follow on from weakening environmental protections.”

The proposed changes to the RMA also go against the recommendations made to the Government through the Land and Water Forum’s (LWF) so-called “collaborative process.”

The worst case scenario is one where a lot more development impacts on the environment and “people’s use and enjoyment of it.”

And for such potentially major and far-reaching changes, the consultation period has been inadequate so the only way to now influence Government is through the public clearly letting them know that environmental protection must not be weakened through any change to the RMA.

ends

© Scoop Media