The origin for this project lay in our second Green New Deal package released last year. We always said that we would welcome the Government picking up our ideas, and we are delighted that they have done so in this case.

The world is in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, nowhere more so than here where animal predation is overwhelming our native flora and fauna. Animal predators directly kill indigenous animal species, but also contribute to their loss through habitat destruction.

Only a small proportion of our biodiversity — about 6% of the threatened species — is currently under active protection, so the introduction of a new technology that could dramatically increase the area that pests are controlled is potentially a very major advance.

There are other reasons to want to control possums specifically too. Possums carry bovine TB which threatens our dairy and meat industries. And possums eat such large volumes of our native forests, that they compromise their ability to capture and store carbon for climate change purposes.

So what is being funded here? It’s new money for DOC to substantially accelerate and expand the testing of the new trapping technology to make sure that it is going to work in the places we need it to. It’s a scientific process so want to make sure that while we keep some pressure on the scientists to deliver results, it’s very important to ensure that the process and the results are robust.

I finally want to acknowledge the kiwi ingenuity behind the Goodnature company. I will be using some of their traps myself in my back yard on the West Coast. I’ll keep you posted on how my own small trial works out.

The Wild Rivers campaign was stoked to hear it – they’ve only just launched and the Mokihinui is a prominent precedent-setting proposal to destroy a river ranked seven in the country for natural values.

Metiria rafting the Mokihinui

Here at the Greens we’ve certainly done heaps in and out of Parliament to tackle the threat to this premiere wild river. Our Co-leader Metiria Turei rafted it last year to check it out first hand. The Greens firmly oppose damming irreplaceable wild rivers like the Mokihinui – it’s unnecessary for energy supply, and it’s conservation sacrilege.

Peter Dunne welcomed Brownlee’s ‘burp’, perhaps inspired by the hunting lobby being members of the Wild River campaign. Labour slapped Brownlee down for his indiscretion. However, Charles Chauvel seemed to imply that Brownlee should be damming the river, without actually saying as much – or at least that’s how I interpret his three paragraph “secondly” point. Well Mr Chauvel, I recommend you read the Wild Rivers campaign information – it’s clear we don’t need to dam rivers to have a renewable energy future. Maybe I’ve misread him.

Mokihinui from the air

Anyway, I digress. So what does Brownlee know? While most media and comments have focused on the fact he shouldn’t interfere in the RMA consenting process – for which a decision is imminent, and will probably be appealed to the Environment Court either way – they’ve overlooked that there are two ticks required for this terrible project. Apart from the RMA, the dam requires a concession under the Conservation Act because it is on public conservation land.

And in this case, Meridian has offered a dodgy land-swap as I wrote here earlier this week.

Brownlee sits around the Cabinet table with Groser – indeed they’re holding hands in the rush to mine National Parks – and may well know something about the concession and landswap. I guess we’ll find out one day. Here’s hoping they’ve seen the dam proposal for what it is, a sacrifice of permanent, public natural capital for temporary, private physical capital – irreversible and not renewable at all.

If the dam does get approved contrary to Brownlee’s brain-burp, I’ll be the first to hop down to the river to stare down a bulldozer, if my minders will let me…

We recently asked Landcorp how it was doing with compliance on effluent consents.  Their General Secretary informs us that they had one infringement notice in 2008 and two in 2007. Landcorp has 37 dairy farms, so its non-compliance rate in 2008 was 3%. They have also ensured that the earlier breaches are not repeated.

That is significantly better than the 11% nationwide non-compliance rate amongst the 10,000 Fonterra dairy farms as reported in the Clean Streams Accord report. The compliance rate of other companies’ suppliers, such as Westland Dairy, Tatua and Synlait, are unknown, but frog readers may wish to write to them and ask. Compliance by itself is not enough to clean up our polluted waterways, but it is an important baby-step to a grown-up solution.

I’d also note that other Landcorp efforts to protect waterways and wetlands have drawn praise from DoC in Southland. So, well done farmers at Landcorp.

So this is a nod to what is possible, and proof positive that we can do better.  There’s a significant minority of farmers who are irresponsible. These farmers aren’t pulling their weight, these farmers give the diary industry a bad name, these farmers pollute the waterways so that cattle downstream can’t drink the water and our kids can’t swim in our rivers. They need to be prodded into action and that’s a role for government.

We also need to remember two other factors in this equation, the first is that our regional councils are charged with keeping up standards.  They often struggle for the will and resources to do the job thoroughly, but some are leading the way – the Horizon’s One Plan in particular.

Unfortunately, the new Government seems set on weakening the laws on which the councils’ and responsible farmers’ efforts are based.  The idea that we have ‘too much’ regulation misrepresents the issue. The question is not how much or how little government we have, but ‘does it work?’

Landcorp is showing it can work. We just need Government to require the others to follow.

Back in 2004, when the Labour Government began ‘Whole-of-Government’ (WOG) approaches to selective resource consents – the idea that the all Government agencies submit a single and coherent view – the Greens sought an assurance that this would not result in the Department of Conservation being prevented from submitting evidence and advocating for conservation and recreation. The unequivocal answer from Environment Minister Marian Hobbs was that it would not.

DOC has a statutory function under the Conservation Act (6b) “to advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources generally”. You see, DOC is the the owner-in-trust of our flora and fauna on behalf of all New Zealanders, and on both public and private land or sea. It is also a massive land owner/manager itself, again on our behalf. As Metiria stated yesterday, the law requires them to able to stick up for it.

But the WOG approach has sometimes meant that DOC is prevented from submitting (and appealing) proposals that have obvious conservation impacts – examples include Meridian’ s North Bank hydro and Central Wind projects, as well as Project Hayes. In the case of the Mokihinui hydro dam, DOC was thankfully allowed to submit (strongly opposed).

The Prime Minister said at yesterday’s post-cabinet press conference that while he supported a WOG approach where the Government has a clear policy, he also does not wish to see agencies with particular objections prevented from submitting them. For that to happen he needs to issue an instruction that DOC is to sit outside WOGs. He also has to be careful: the whole idea of the RMA is that decision-making is not vested in the Government, but in Councils and Courts, so the Government needs to participate but not interfere.

John Key also said he is “hopeful that the changes to the RMA will improve this”, yet it is National’s policy to explicitly REMOVE DOC’s advocacy function. How on earth can removing advocacy powers improve them!

The RMA Amendment Bill to be tabled this week will take the first step in doing this - a Cabinet paper leaked yesterday states the Bill will “remove the Minister of Conservation’s powers in respect to decision making on restricted coastal activities”. The Greens insist that the Minister of Conservation must have the power to protect our coastal flora and fauna.

On the funny side, I like this statement from Baldock’s release (with the conflicting release dates on it) is:

The conflict [within DOC between conservation and recreation] arose because some DOC managers believe deer and trout for example, are introduced species and should not be encouraged and even eradicated.

How dare DOC managers believe deer and trout are introduced species. Outrageous!

I’m big into outdoor recreation, and love tramping in our wonderful conservation lands. So I take offence when Peter Dunne states in his releaseon Friday that:

For too long hunters and other backcountry users [i.e. me] have been marginalized and treated with disdain [by DOC], as if they are unwanted invaders of our wilderness areas.

I reject the notion that as a backcountry user (some would say resident!), I am “marginalized and treated with disdain” by DOC. DOC does a great job most of the time, with limited resources, a massive land area and heaps of major issues to control and juggle.

The Minister says it was “unusual to have such a high number of reported incidental deaths in just one month”, however a DOC scientific report shows that it has happened before, and a large bycatch is an annual occurence. Indeed, ONE trawl boat on ONE trip in the 2002/3 season caught 20 common dolphins in the same area as December’s slaughter by just four boats (the west coast of the north island)! Hell, if a car driver hit 20 sheep on a country road on one trip, do you think the farmer and police may have a few questions about their driving ability? When one considers that only 4% of trips in this area were observed that season, the total dolphin bycatch is probably way higher. The report shows 21 deaths observed in 02/03; 17 in 03/04; 17 in 04/05. The DOC report states that the sustainable level of by-catch for Common dolphins is as yet unknown.

The Government’s mealy-mouthed “working closely with fishers on improving dolphin-safe fishing practices“, “investigat[ing] why so many dolphins died in this short time, and how dolphin-safe fishing practices can be improved” [release today not online yet] and weak “voluntary Marine Mammal Operating Procedure” is simply not enough – they’ve been doing that for ages to little effect.

There are known mitigation methods to prevent much of this toll, but it costs money. The fishing industry doesn’t voluntarily protect dolphins – Government has to set high standards and enforce them! Dolphins are worth it – end of story.

Question 4 – Gordon Copeland to the Minister of Conservation: Is the Department of Conservation still proposing to proceed with a cull to control the goats on Arapawa Island in the Marlborough Sounds; if so, when and how?

It seems DOC wants to cull the goats on Arapawa Island, in the Marlborough Sounds because they are destroying the unique native plant species on the island.  But several breeders groups are opposed to the cull because the Arapawa Island Goats are a recognised unique breed, probably brought here by very early European settlers.  So we have an interesting microcosm of pakeha heritage and native conservation issues. It will be interesting to see where the debate  goes.