The Future of New Zealand and its Environment Jacqueline Rowarth - - PDF document

The Future of New Zealand and its Environment

Jacqueline Rowarth Chief Scientist, Environmental Protection Authority This article is based on the talk she gave at the Royal Agricultural Society Conference in Wanaka in June 2017 Prosperity The Legatum Global Prosperity Index 2016 ranks New Zealand number one of 149 countries with the words: ‘New Zealand is the best deliverer of prosperity in the world – the best at turning its resources and the skills of its people into prosperity’. Other indices support what New Zealand has achieved: 8th in the World Happiness Index (using information from the Gallup World Poll), 7th in the OECD’s Better Life index, and Mercer ranks Auckland as the 6th best city in which to live globally but not even in the top 50 most expensive cities. And though Auckland appears to have expensive housing, it should be remembered that the average ‘new build’ expectation is 214m2 – three times more area than in the UK and over four times more than Hong Kong, exceeded by Australia at 221m2. These good rankings and high expectations might be linked to the low taxation rate (at 16.9% for the average worker, we have the second lowest taxation in the developed world, not including GST or VAT in the comparisons; the OECD average is 35.9%). But despite the low tax take, New Zealand maintains 30% of land in the Department of Conservation Estate and 10% of the Exclusive Economic Zone in marine reserves. In addition, 10% of government research and development funding is directed towards the environment. The lifestyle enjoyed by 4.8 million New Zealanders has been enabled by the export economy based largely on natural resources and the skills of the managers – the farmers, growers and foresters, supported by scientists, researchers and rural professionals, plus a cohort of people in processing and marketing. Chemophobia in the twittersphere The facts, evidence and data are clear, but a global shift to ‘feelings, emotion and diatribe’ plus the effect of Facebook and the twittersphere, have allowed myths to flourish. Not the least is chemophobia. Defined as a ‘fear of chemicals’ it refers to the increasing tendency for the public to be suspicious and critical of the presence of any synthetic chemicals in foods or products. Recent advice is a case in point: ‘eat foods with ingredients you would find in nature. If a food item has ingredients or additives that you cannot pronounce, your body likely cannot deal with it either’. A rebuttal to this listed the ingredients in bananas, which include 3-methylbut-1-yl ethanoate – a chemical which does not trip off the tongue easily, but does occur naturally in bananas. It can also be created synthetically. The point is that whether a chemical is natural or synthetic indicates nothing about its

• toxicity. Ricin is natural, botulinum is natural, cyanide is natural. And all chemicals have the

potential to cause harm if ingested at high enough doses. Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) for instance, is a major component of acid rain, causes death via accidental inhalation, tissue damage after prolonged exposure, and severe burns when in the gaseous form. It is also found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumours and lesions. DHMO is water.

Emotion v evidence ‘Environmentalists sell fear by playing to public perception and emotion rather than science.’ Randy Oliver, a bee keeper and information analyst from USA, made this statement in relation to chemical use. It applies to sensational comments about the New Zealand environment in general – which is in a good state in comparison with most other countries. The Legatum index ranks New Zealand’s economic performance 1st in 149 countries, and environmental performance 13th; second place holder in the economic component, the Netherlands, ranks 36th in environmental performance. In terms of natural capital, the World Bank estimated in 2011 that New Zealand ranked second out of OECD countries and eighth

• ut of 120 countries, outranked only by petroleum-exporting countries.

The latest information in the report was dated 2005, but although pressures on the environment have increased, Treasury still affirms that New Zealand has plentiful, clean water; clean air; productive soil and a climate well-suited to humans, trees, livestock, and agriculture; long coastlines and significant aquaculture resources; significant mineral and petroleum reserves; and extraordinary biodiversity on our land and in our water bodies. Concerns about the environment tend to reflect a ‘change’ rather than an absolute. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has reported on the fact that the New Zealand managed environment has experienced a change with urbanisation and agriculture. However in comparison with other developed countries, the impact has still been small, and most people responding to Lincoln University’s Public Perception of the Environment survey affirm that New Zealand is in a better state than other developed countries. In addition, NIWA (the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) states that “people’s recollections are often correct, but they sometimes have rose-tinted glasses”. The work of people on the land, including the Department of Conservation rangers, the Regional Councils, various ministries and agencies, and in food and fibre production, maintains the balance between ‘protection and production’ that is at the heart of

• sustainability. For the Environmental Protection Authority, ‘an environment protected,

enhancing our way of life and the economy’, is both a vision for New Zealand and a goal. The Environmental Protection Authority Much of the EPA’s work involves: 1. facilitating the decision-making process for proposals from applicants for nationally significant resource management proposals under the Resource Management Act (RMA) and 2. administering proposals for new applications under the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical

• resources. This means that the EPA has to assess whether an application for a development

will also enable protection of natural and physical resources in a way or at a rate that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing. The decision process is similar to that made by businesses every day in terms of balance of benefits, but the EPA has national good to consider, as well as the social and cultural components.

In addition to the RMA and HSNO directly affecting the agri-sector, there are another four Acts administered by the EPA, with a considerable number of associated activities. The EPA covers shampoo to petrol, rubber tyres to paints, new animals in the zoo or plants in the garden centre; we approve and monitor the chemicals in the hardware shop and on the farms, from paint-stripper to pesticides. We’re working to protect the environment and the people, through analysis of scientific research and the development of regulatory science. Regulatory Science Regulatory science differs from conventional science in that decisions are based on analysis and interpretation of existing scientific research which has created knowledge; new lines of research are not generated or undertaken in order to answer questions The goal is to use the best possible evidence for the best possible outcome for the public. Sometimes, however, the public doesn’t understand the issues, nor the risks and inclusion during consultation has not resulted in the expected consensus of decision. A report on science communication and engagement released this year by the UK Science and Technology Committee suggested that public consultation ‘unhelpfully pitches science and other factors together which makes it difficult for a clear foundation of scientific understanding to be established without being co-

• pted – and misinterpreted – by the public debate’.

The recommendation was to adjust the process of consultation to address scientific issues separately from the political and other trade-offs. The recommendation didn’t devalue involvement, but made it clear that science and opinion are not the same, even in a post-truth world. The Future The future relies on having great people in the primary sector, but increasingly the young are taking options that do not to lead to agriculture and horticulture. They are also avoiding the sciences which would help give options of careers in the future. In the UK, the top universities are promoting the concept of facilitating subjects: Maths and further maths, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, History, Geography, Modern and classical languages, English

• Literature. They are also publishing lists of subjects that they do not consider useful as a

platform for further study – many of the subjects that NCEA includes are amongst them. Part of the subject decision that students make is based on rewards, which include the kudos associated with a role (salary, status and security are the perennial ‘wants’ for new job- seekers). Improving the ‘kudos’ associated with food production is vital to attract people with knowledge, ability and the innovation streak to adopt and adapt new technologies. Julian Cribbs, author of The Coming Famine, has suggested that every subject at school should be taught through the lens of food. And the point needs remaking that people these days need a farmer not three times a day, but six… Changing the value proposition means changing the stories and counteracting the myths – and that depends on the work of each and every one of us.