Skip to main content.

Palmerston North community meeting

21 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Air quality

  • There is general support for the National Environmental Standards.
  • Air quality is not an issue in Palmerston North, rather in Taihape
  • Coal and open fires are often worse than wood burners and should be addressed as well.
  • The storage facility for LPG needs resource consents but this is too expensive. As a consequence people would rather use wood burners.
  • There is a contradiction between Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and Air Quality National Environmental Standards.
  • Wood suppliers need to make sure that they are supplying dry wood to improve heating efficiency.
  • How does the increase in biosolids contribute to air pollution?
  • Pine pollen is a huge issue in terms of toxic residues in this region.
  • What is the purpose of the Standard if the population is not forced to shift their attitudes (e.g. cleaner vehicle fleet in Auckland)? Regional councils need to have more control over people’s behaviour.
  • We need mechanisms for the regional councils to get involved and control gas emissions.

Drinking water

Do issues surrounding nitrates and phosphates in water fall under the Drinking Water National Environmental Standards? Farmers are getting mixed messages about what amount of fertilisers to use. We need to investigate if standards can be developed to reduce fertiliser use and solve problems for nitrates and phosphates overloading. We need to seek independent advice (apart from fertiliser companies).

Resource Management Act

Hearing process

  • There needs to be greater Māori representation on all hearing panels.
  • Members of consent hearing panels need to be impartial.

Capacity building

  • There needs to be more education for people concerning the nature of consent applications and the increase in cost of lodging appeals.
  • RMA is about delegating to local authorities. The capacity of local authorities to undertake their RMA responsibilities may be an issue especially in terms of consistency and implementation.
  • Councils not having a consistent approach makes the process costly for industry.
  • There are concerns that we are limiting consultation through changes. We need to protect and promote consultation.
  • Environmental Legal Aid funding is supported.
  • The RMA should let people operate at their own risk but the problem is enabling people to understand their risk. The criticism of the RMA would be reduced if this freedom was introduced.

General comments

  • The duration of consent needs to be looked at for future generations.
  • Public notification of the consultation process is insufficient, as well as the information available to the public about RMA appeal processes.
  • A farming representative from their community raised concerns about existing and rising compliance costs associated with the RMA. Emphasis was placed on the costs involved with monitoring various standards, especially for self employed workers, (i.e. farmers).
  • One request was that there should be more access and monitoring of information during consent processes.
  • What is the scale to which Joint Management Agreements apply (i.e. local/ regional/ national)?

Waste

Waste minimisation

  • Waste management was initially owned by the US but was bought by New Zealand about 9 years ago.
  • There needs to be local and central government input into waste management plans. There is a trend towards the centralisation of landfills, specialised treatment of intractable waste and incentives. Increased prices at landfills lead to rural alternatives (e.g. digging holes and dumping).
  • Waste to landfill levies should be included within the rates. Developing the required infrastructure needs funding.
  • The waste issue is important as New Zealand is viewed as ‘clean and green.’
  • We need to target people about waste to encourage less waste going to landfill

Recycling, reuse and community

  • Farm plastics are a concern. 12m of plastic wrap is used for every bale of silage. This creates 500 tonnes of plastic waste in the Manawatu region alone. Plastic is currently burned or stored in the ground, not recycled.
  • Recycling needs to be made more cost effective particularly in smaller communities. Central government should provide more funding or at least subsidise more recycling initiatives (e.g. mixed plastic processing). The crux of the problem is
    • 1. Built in obsolescence of material goods (particularly targeting the younger generation) and
    • 2. The concept of ‘continual growth’. Specific waste materials that are of most concern include computer components, polystyrene (inert and bulky) and car tyres.
  • Ideas for improving recycling of car tyres included central government funding a mobile tyre shredder that could help service smaller communities (although we would need to make sure that there is sufficient demand for by-product of shredded tyres). Also ‘cyro-grinding’ has been suggested, a process involving freezing then shattering.
  • We need to tackle the ‘at source’ point in the waste process (e.g. packaging and non plastic products).
  • More thought needs to go into the packaging being used.
  • Education of younger people is needed.

Product stewardship

Product stewardship should help to deal with the ‘cradle to the grave’ responsibility of difficult to dispose of waste.

Education and information

Companies and cafes are replacing plastic and polystyrene cups in exchange for washable cups.

General comments

  • There should be landfills with the capacity for all types of waste.
  • Fonterra has put the pressure back on farmers regarding the responsibility for wastewater.
  • The glass issue is a major problem. There has been an oversupply in the quantities of imported glass.
  • The sorting of rubbish is a problem (i.e. waste streams, recycling collections, wastewater plants and time restraints). The time issue leads to a lack of sorting and the general dumping of everything. Also the economy of ‘user pays’ promotes fly tipping.
  • Litter budgets need to be measured in the regions.
  • There should be initiatives to save energy (e.g. reductions in the use of fossil fuels and composting toilets).
  • There are trade-offs between cost and convenience versus doing the right thing. There needs to be incentives for all New Zealanders to do the right thing. The transportation of rubbish across long distances to a central collection station is not satisfactory. There should be local accessibility for all New Zealanders.

General topics

Flooding

  • The floodway has opened more frequently in recent years.
  • The issue of flooding is in the plan. Who is checking that it is being implemented?
  • New Zealand development history shows that catchments are changing through development and more flooding is happening.
  • The Ministry needs to give guidance on the risk of flooding.
  • We need to take ownership of the flooding issue and risks associated with it. (particularly in lower areas).
  • More technical details could be provided with little cost.
  • We need to look at land management at the top of the catchment and what is being done there. There needs to be some national policy on this issue.
  • The top of the catchment may be in Department of Conservation ownership.
  • The pressure is on to extend development out to the west in the flood zone areas.

Soil protection and erosion control

  • Māori incorporations are taking a proactive approach to erosion and sediment control.
  • Class 1 and 2 soils are being destroyed for development. Soils are under pressure and are being built on. Where is it going to end? Soil is not considered first when development is proposed. Weighting given to soil resource is not high. Productive depletion of top quality soil is a national issue. Biodiversity and soil conservation is important.
  • There needs to be consistent enforcement across councils in relation to sediment and erosion control (e.g. controls are required in Auckland but are not required here). MFE should co-ordinate a consistent approach including education and standards.
  • How do we manage the effects of urban growth (particularly spill over onto highly productive land)?
  • There is no leadership from central government even though planting is affordable.

General comments

  • National intervention is required for all rivers. There needs to be greater reliance on local knowledge to inform national decisions on call-ins.
  • We need to identify and explore new ways of addressing the effects of moving forwards (e.g. electricity generation).
  • Changing the behaviour of people especially farmers is difficult. Farmers are leaving environmental issues for the government to deal with. A centrally led approach is needed to assist behaviour change.
  • Are farmers ‘business operators’ or ‘stewards of the land’? We need to change our approach and give the right incentives to encourage them to be stewards of the land.
  • The health sector is highly regulated but not the farming sector. There is no reason why the Manawatu River cannot run clean. With the right incentives farmers can be changed.
  • There is concern over resource consents for sewage disposal into rivers and the non compliance with resource consent conditions. What can the citizens in the lower regions of the river do to tackle this issue?
  • There are concerns over the trade and industrial discharges and not knowing what is in the discharge even though it is being discharged.
  • There is a perception that the public does not care about the environment and will not pay to protect it but that is not true.
  • People in councils need to have a historical and broader knowledge of issues in a district or region.
  • Legal roads on beaches need to be reassessed in light of the environmental impacts.
  • There needs to be funding for a salary for an environmental co-ordinator with a focus on individual people rather than a project to include communities identifying their own goals and outcomes.
  • Consistent support for Environment Centres is lacking.
  • Transporting waste long distances wastes energy and creates inefficiency.
  • Power cuts mean prices increase.
  • A lot of MFE programmes are 3-4 months and are not ongoing. Advertising, promotion and communication are lacking at times.
  • MFE needs to be braver and less risk averse.
  • More challenging targets are required.
  • There needs to be better integration of MFE with other government agencies and local government.
  • Policy alignment across district councils is necessary.
  • Urban Design Protocol needs to be brought down to local level. Transport and energy issues need to be considered in urban design.
  • Approving Marsden B and new coal mines when we have signed up to Kyoto seems to be the wrong approach.
  • The emergence of ‘peak oil’ is an environmental issue. Central government and local government are a bit behind in recognising the imminent decline in oil and petrol reserves. Central government should publicly recognise the issue as distinct from normal energy conservation. It needs to be addressed as an emergency. We need to communicate the thinking that has gone into managing peak oil.
  • Though an alternative view is that ‘peak oil’ is a propaganda issue in which the oil price is driven by big business and China has more oil that it knows what to do with.
  • We need to consider applying ‘soft’ engineering solutions to coping with natural hazards (e.g. floods) rather than traditional ‘hard’ engineering.
  • Big business will always find loop holes in legislation designed to protect the environment.
  • The key is communication and education, especially from an early age.

Last updated: 17 September 2007