Amy Adams27 September,
2012
Good morning.
Thank you Margaret for
your introduction, and thank you to Water
New Zealand for the invitation to join you
at your conference today.
The size of your membership
and the attendance at this event puts some
perspective around the critical importance
of freshwater to our country, and the role
your organisation plays.
In front of this audience
it almost goes without saying that freshwater
is a key strategic and productive asset
for New Zealand, and that our relative abundance
of freshwater provides us with a strong
comparative advantage.
Australia has often
been called the lucky country, largely in
relation to its mineral wealth. In fact
our freshwater resource makes New Zealand
a far luckier country and managed wisely,
that resource will be available for generations
to come.
Water is crucial to
growth in our economy, particularly in the
agriculture, food and forestry sectors,
which generate more than 70 per cent of
New Zealand’s merchandise export earnings
and about 12 per cent of gross domestic
product.
But, freshwater is so
much more than just a commodity. It is also
what makes our great Kiwi locations and
lifestyle – the fishing, swimming, kayaking
and rafting. And, our tourism brand is heavily
dependent on environmental values.
To me there is no doubt
that we have been too casual about how we
manage our freshwater both as to quantity
and quality.
The current management
system has serious shortcomings. We face
risks to the economy and the environment,
and maintaining the status quo carries significant
and increasing costs.
More effective management
is needed to achieve the current and future
potential of freshwater and to ensure that
we continue to have the support of wider
New Zealand for the way we utilise the resource.
So, while water is a
key ingredient of economic growth, we need
to make some changes to get the most value
out of it and to continue to have the benefit
of it for years and generations to come.
It seems to me that
all too often the focus of debate on environmental
issues, such as water management, centre
on the competing pressures which divide
us, while ignoring the values and outcomes
most of us would share.
The legacy of water
management has increasingly been one of
contentious, divisive and litigious approaches
where there must be a winner and a loser
Sector groups, both
industry and environmental, have often tended
to take extreme positions in the hope that
it will move the balance their way and perhaps
out of concern that if they start in a moderate
position and their opponents do not then
they will miss out.
This cannot continue
as a way forward for New Zealand. We must
recognise both the economic potential of
water use and agricultural production and
the rare and valuable asset our abundant
clean waterways are, and find solutions
that protect both.
Economically, we know
that managing water more efficiently through
irrigation has the potential to increase
agricultural exports by as much as $4 billion
per year by 2026.
There is also significant
potential for further irrigation area, with
a number of major schemes in development.
If all of these schemes proceed, it would
deliver new irrigation to nearly 400,000
hectares, adding to about 620,000 existing
hectares.
The value of allocating
water more efficiently in water-scarce catchments
has been estimated to be $12.7 million for
each one per cent improvement.
Water use cannot, however,
be considered in isolation from water quality,
and while New Zealand’s water quality is
amongst the very best internationally, there
is increasing evidence of deterioration.
Lowland streams and
lakes are being increasingly polluted, and
the taxpayer is having to fund substantial
clean-up initiatives. More than $450 million
has been committed to Lake Taupo, Rotorua
Lakes and the Waikato River over the next
two decades.
The underlying issue
is that we are hitting resource limits.
And in some parts of New Zealand we are
already exceeding the amount of water that
can be taken from our rivers, lakes and
groundwater.
To deal with these challenges,
we need to make difficult balancing decisions
between environment and economic potential.
This is going to involve considering and
balancing the many values we hold around
water.
The work around fresh
water management at present is essentially
focused on two broad questions: How do we
determine what water is properly available
to be used and then what water quality objectives
do communities want and what limits should
be in place to move toward those objectives?
All that sounds straight
forward enough but for anyone involved in
the area, they are without doubt some of
the most complex policy issues currently
facing us. They will involve some hard trade-offs
being made at all levels of decision-making.
In respect of the first
area of water quantity, the challenges at
their most basic level are around determining
what water can be taken from any given source
(either for immediate use or storage) whilst
maintaining the minimum flow levels needed
to protect healthy ecosystems.
Once we know what those
volumes are, the issue becomes how do we
make decisions around how it is allocated.
Among the areas to consider is our current
first-in-first-served system and whether
that is the best way to ensure that we get
the most value, in a broad sense, from the
water we use.
Developing and moving
to an alternative system would require change,
and it is going to be challenging. But we
should not be afraid to have a debate about
the issue. The consequences from shying
away from this are too great.
Paradoxically water
is both a renewable, and at any point in
time, a finite resource. We need better
tools to manage it, and we need to consider
whether decisions around water management
are being made at the right level and with
the right community inputs.
New Zealand’s highly-devolved
resource management frameworks mean that
regional councils currently make almost
all technically and politically-difficult
decisions on water.
We are now starting
to see how various Councils are approaching
the issue of setting such quantity and quality
limits and I'm aware that it is generating
significant levels of concern and debate.
My own view is that more central guidance
on that process would be beneficial and
a significant piece of work is underway
on that now.
Of the things we need
to consider, we must include investor certainty,
community buy-in for the way water is managed,
and an inter-generational perspective. Of
course, all these things are pinned on having
the right people making the right decisions
at the right time informed by the right
information.
We need processes in
place which encourage robust, front-end
decision-making and that avoid duplication,
delays and cross-boundary conflicts.
Without doubt, these
issues are politically challenging but equally
it is our view that the cost of not dealing
with them over many years has been significant.
That's why this Government is tackling this
work head-on under our fresh start for fresh
water programmes, taking a systemic and
holistic view of water and resource management
policy.
Core parts of that work
have been the creation of New Zealand's
first national policy statement on fresh
water, the fresh start clean-up fund and
irrigation acceleration fund and of course
the establishment of the Land and Water
forum.< /p>
In our view the collaborative
approach by the Land and Water Forum is
a critical cornerstone of the Government’s
moves to reform the way we manage water
in New Zealand.
The challenges the forum
has set themselves are considerable and
I would like to take this opportunity to
acknowledge Water New Zealand, and in particular
Peter Whitehouse, for the part you have
played in the work of the Forum. Your perspective
and expertise has been invaluable.
More than 60 diverse
groups with an interest in water management
have been able to work together constructively
through the Land and Water Forum.
The Forum’s success
has provided us with a unique opportunity
to advance water reform that has all those
essential ingredients of economic development
and environmental safeguards that I mentioned
earlier.
I believe we are on
the point of being able to advance reforms
that have wide buy-in, that consider the
long term impacts of the way we manage our
freshwater resource in New Zealand, and
that provide greater certainty for businesses
which need reliable access to water.
The Forum’s third and
final report is due with the Government
shortly. As you will be aware, this builds
on the governance and limit-setting work
of the second report by focusing on water
allocation and managing land use and its
effects on water quality.
The setting limits aspect
of the work programme is particularly challenging.
In respect of quantity,
it requires a good level of knowledge about
the availability of water, including understanding
how much water is actually there, how much
variability there is in how it gets replenished,
and how it links with other water bodies,
including tributaries and ground water.
When considering the
current level of use, we need to look at
where, when and how much water is being
taken out of the waterbody, either through
consented takes, takes permitted without
a consent, and takes that are technically
unlawful, but common practice and consider
climatic and other variabilities.
And if that isn't hard
enough when it comes to setting quality
limits for waterbodies, we have to have
an understanding of all the component parts
of the contaminant inflows and the mechanisms
we have to reduce or control them.
This includes understanding
soil types, where, when and how much pollution
is entering the waterbody, how much is from
naturally occurring baselines, how much
represents historical issues, what the sensitivity
is of the receiving environment to pollution,
and the tipping points at which objectives
will no longer be achievable.
Once we understand that
for each catchment we can begin to model
various options for change to current land
use practices and consider them against
the rate at which they will see improvements
in the waterbody, versus the economic cost
in terms of lost local jobs and productivity.
This is the harsh reality
and we shouldn't shy away from the fact
that both sides of that equation need to
be understood and factored in.
I have no doubt that
if you pose the question to any group of
New Zealanders "do you want lake X
to be cleaner or dirtier" in isolation,
they will all say "cleaner". Of
course. So would I.
If, though, we say we
can achieve X gains in water quality over
10 years at the cost of 200 local jobs or
the same over 20 years at the cost of 50
jobs or over 30 years with no job losses
then the debate becomes more meaningful.
Particularly for those whose jobs are on
the line.
I have no doubt someone
will hear this and say "you can't measure
it all in terms of money" and that
is right, but it would be intellectually
dishonest to also refuse to acknowledge
that all decisions we make have consequences.
In the end I think New
Zealand is mature enough to have that debate
and make informed and sensible choices but
we must ensure we do so with our eyes open
to the impact of the decisions we make.
The reality is that
everything we do involves trade-offs, and
they are inevitable at every level.
Unfortunately in New
Zealand, too much discussion has been prefaced
on the basis that trade-offs can be avoided
or that things can be changed without trade-offs.
Sadly, we have a relatively
high level of difference between what we
know and what we accept – sometimes to our
cost.
A much more robust discussion
is needed, and science and technology are
essential in devising and informing the
appropriate solutions.
Given time and the right
support, I have little doubt that innovation
will help us find ways to use resources
more efficiently and with a reduced environmental
footprint. Examples of this are everywhere
and many more exciting possibilities are
being talked about and developed as we speak.
There is no doubt there
can be a win-win of some degree for both
the economy and the environment if we expand
the debate from one of simply how to use
more and more of the resource and instead
focus equally on increasingly how we can
maximise returns for the resource we do
use.
A system that delivers
in these areas will support decision-makers
to confront critical issues and trade-offs
at the planning stage and will not leave
the hard decisions for the consenting process
and – inevitably – the Courts.
We need to shift the
culture around resource management planning
from its current focus on negative effects,
towards a more forward looking and balanced
approach. In that environment the limits
and restrictions we do need to impose are
more likely to be accepted.
This scale of culture
shift requires bold systemic change to the
resource management system, in a way that
integrates with related reforms. This is
one of the key benefits of the cross-agency
approach we have been taking with the fresh
water management reforms.
This year is an exciting
one for all parties interested in freshwater
management reform.
As I have stated throughout
this process, while the Government will
work at pace to formulate durable solutions,
we recognise that these issues are too important
to rush.
The Government is committed
to robust reform of freshwater management
and we look forward to continuing working
with you all as that work progresses.
+ More
Television recycling
scheme announced
Amy Adams30 September,
2012 - Environment Minister Amy Adams has
today announced a national scheme to encourage
the recycling of unwanted televisions and
raise investment in New Zealand’s electronic
recycling capacity.
The TV TakeBack programme
aims to divert up to 500,000 televisions
from going to landfill in an initiative
that involves the Government partnering
with a range of recyclers and retailers
to provide a nationwide network of subsidised
options.
The programme will also
help educate people about the benefits of
recycling and lay the foundation for a more
permanent solution for electronic waste.
“As we go digital I
am asking New Zealanders to play their part
in caring for the environment by making
sure their unwanted televisions are recycled,”
Ms Adams says.
With Hawke's Bay and
the West Coast today becoming the first
regions to go digital, they will be the
first involved in the programme’s implementation.
The programme will then be rolled out around
the rest of New Zealand to coincide with
the digital switch over in each region.
From tomorrow until
March, the cost to recycle unwanted televisions
in Hawke’s Bay and the West Coast will be
subsidised, however there will be a free
period in those regions between October
13-28 where no drop off fees will apply.
Residents in each region
will be advised of the various recycling
options via a local promotional campaign
in newspapers, radio and online.
The TV TakeBack programme
will significantly expand television recycling
services across New Zealand, Ms Adams says.
“Increasing recycling
infrastructure will ensure recyclers have
the capacity and capability to deal with
increased volumes of televisions.
“A greater understanding
of the need to recycle unwanted televisions
and how to go about it is essential. Televisions
pose a threat to the environment if they
are disposed of in landfills or dumped elsewhere,
so the Government wants to make sure New
Zealanders can access affordable electronic
recycling services.
“The recycled material
has a variety of uses. For example, glass
from a television screen can be transformed
into bunker sand for golf courses.”
A part of the programme
the Government is also investigating options
for long term improvements in the management
of all electronic waste, not just televisions.
The programme is being
funded via the Government’s Waste Minimisation
Fund. Money for the Waste Minimisation Fund
comes from a waste levy charged on material
disposed of at landfills.
For more information
about the programme, including where to
find recycling drop-off points, go to: www.tvtakeback.govt.nz.
What is TV TakeBack?
TV TakeBack is a programme
supported by the Government’s Waste Minimisation
Fund. It is designed to encourage the recycling
of televisions and raise investment in New
Zealand’s recycling capacity.
It is expected that
disposal of old unwanted televisions during
and after the Going Digital programme will
increase opportunities for recycling so
locations are being arranged where people
can drop off their unwanted televisions
at low cost.
Is this a national programme?
Yes, but it will be
phased. The first phase of TV TakeBack starts
on October 1 in Hawke’s Bay and the West
Coast. These regions have been chosen to
lead the programme as they are the first
where the old analogue television signal
has been turned off as part of the Going
Digital programme.
The public roll out
of the initiative around the rest of New
Zealand will coincide with the digital switch
over in each region.
Where can I take my
television to be recycled?
The Environment Ministry
has been working with recyclers, Councils
and retailers to provide convenient drop
off locations. Go to www.tvtakeback.govt.nz
for information on recycling locations in
Hawke’s Bay and West Coast.
As each region gets
closer to going digital, the website will
have more details about collection sites
in each region.
In the meantime, people
can contact their local Council or electronic
waste recycler to find out what recycling
services are available in their region.
Why is it important
to recycle unwanted televisions?
Televisions contain
materials that can be harmful if released
into soil or waterways, such as lead, mercury
and phosphorus. Safe recycling takes away
risk of contamination and reduces waste
going to landfill.
What happens when I
drop off my television to be recycled?
Televisions dropped
off for recycling are taken to national
recycling facilities where they are taken
apart. Components are recycled locally or
sent to specialist facilities overseas.
Where do the components
from my old TV end up?
• Glass is recycled
in New Zealand and used in roading aggregate.
• Glass funnel is also
recycled overseas into new products containing
glass.
• Metals such as steel
are melted down and made into new products
such as construction material
• Copper wire is removed
and recycled in New Zealand.
• Circuit boards are
recycled overseas.
• Aluminium is removed
and recycled in New Zealand.
The recycled material
has a variety of uses. For example, glass
from the screen can be transformed into
bunker sand for golf courses. Copper around
the electron gun can be recycled into new
cabling. Degaussing wire that sits around
the front of the screen is high grade iron
that can be recycled into metal goods, such
as nails, nuts and bolts.
How much will it cost
me to drop off my television for recycling?
The cost will vary in
each region and is dependent on a number
of factors, including the cost to transport,
dismantle and store a television.
However to kick off
TV TakeBack, a special promotion in Hawke’s
Bay and the West Coast has been arranged.
From 13-28 October, dropping off a television
for recycling at a TV TakeBack location
will be free in those regions.
Why do I get charged
for taking a television to be recycled?
Although many components
from an unwanted television can be recycled,
the value of the material that can be recovered
is currently less than the cost of transport
and recycling.
Is TV TakeBack just
about unwanted televisions?
This programme provides
money to reduce public charges for recycling,
to improve recycling infrastructure and
raise public awareness.
Increasing recycling
infrastructure will ensure recyclers have
capacity and capability to deal with increased
volumes of televisions. The Government is
also investigating options for long term
improvements in the management of all electronic
waste, not just televisions. This will reduce
landfill waste and help the environment.
