SUBMITTER DETAILS. FULL NAME: Environmental Defence Society Incorporated. DATE: 23 February A. Summary of submission

Transcription

1 SUBMISSION TO THE GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL & HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL MANGROVE MANAGEMENT BILL 2017 SUBMITTER DETAILS FULL NAME: Environmental Defence Society Incorporated DATE: 23 February 2018 A. Summary of submission 1. The purpose of the Mangrove Management Bill (Bill) is biased towards mangrove removal. The Bill proposes to allow councils in the Hauraki and Thames-Coromandel Districts to ignore the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and its subordinate legislation, including the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS). This is unacceptable and short-sited. It ignores the ecological, natural character, and landscape value of mangroves. It also ignores the extensive ecosystem service benefits that occur as a result of mangrove ecosystem function, for example erosion prevention, carbon sequestration, and juvenile fish habitat necessary for population stability which is important for future fishing. It is well established their removal has no ecological benefit. 2. The Bill is a knee-jerk reaction to local complaints around the aesthetics of mangroves, dressed up as a Bill to support retention of habitat for seabirds a proposition which as (a) been disproved in the past and (b) is more appropriately dealt with under the RMA and the NZCPS. The Bill is not strategic, it is not based on good science, and it will result in poor outcomes for the environment and for the Hauraki and Thames-Coromandel Districts communities. 3. The Waikato Regional Coastal Plan (WRCP) is being reviewed at present. That is the appropriate forum for the district councils to have input into mangrove management. There is opportunity under the WRCP to provide for more relaxed controls on clearance where appropriate, and conversely to provide for more stringent controls on clearance where appropriate. But the process of determining the proper framework will rest properly under the RMA. 4. Those RMA-based processes make for lasting policy with community buy- in which will not be achieved by the Local Government Act process proposed in this Bill. The RMA is also the tool through which New Zealand fulfils its obligations under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Convention). The removal of mangroves as coastal wetlands conflicts with those obligations. 5. EDS opposes the Bill in its entirety. It wishes to be heard in support of this submission. B. EDS s interest in mangrove management 6. EDS is a public interest environmental group, formed in The focus of its work is on achieving positive environmental outcomes through improving the quality of Aotearoa New Zealand s legal and policy frameworks and statutory decision-making processes. 7. It has a particular focus on the coastal environment, its protection, and strategic and sustainable development in coastal areas. It has released a number of relevant publications including:

2 a. Castles in the Sand. b. Sustainable Seas. c. Vanishing Nature: facing New Zealand s biodiversity crisis. C. Mangroves values 8. Mangroves have high ecological, natural character, landscape, and ecosystem service value. 9. Mangroves only establish in areas that have appropriate growing conditions. They are a response to sedimentation and need relatively calm waters and the right depth of water They play a critical role in preventing rising sea levels from eating away at vulnerable parts of the coast, and they are part of the natural character of the coastline. Mangroves also reduce suspended sediment and thereby improve water quality. 11. Mangroves can also have very high ecological values. This has been established before Environment Court and the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearing Panel, following careful consideration of evidence from both parties that support mangrove removal and those that support mangrove retention. In a Bay of Plenty case about mangrove management rules, the Environment Court found that: 2 The ecological evidence before us was clear. Mangroves have ecological value and their removal has no ecological benefit. Although it may lead to change to another habitat, it is not possible to say whether the new habitat is better or worse than the old, they are simply different habitats. 12. The Court did not accept that mangrove removal was needed to protect shorebird habitat, or that this was achievable: 3 the removal of mangrove habitat and a replacement with sandy habitat, even if achieved, would serve little benefit for the number of wading birds already present in Tauranga. 13. In another Bay of Plenty case the Court held that mangroves: 4 not only stabilise substrate sediments, but generally protect and prograde shoreline. They also provide valuable habitats for juvenile aquatic species, including fish, and habitat for some important and threatened bird life. Of these, one of the most important is the banded rail, a threatened at-risk bird species, often marginalised now to coastal areas. Although this species at one time occupied far greater habitat areas within New Zealand, competition and predation have led to them being more commonly associated with the mangrove and intertidal areas of harbours. 14. Mangroves across New Zealand, including in the Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki Districts, exhibit the values discussed above. D. Mangrove management 15. Where mangrove management has been specifically addressed in regional coastal plans, the outcome has been a policy and rule framework that provides for small-scale mangrove removal 1 Mangrove Protection Society v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2016] NZEnvC 239 at [17]. 2 Graeme v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2013] NZEnvC 173 at [50]. 3 At [52] 4 Mangrove Management Society at [19].

3 with appropriate controls, while recognising and providing for protection of mangroves values. Other important features include: a. Distinctions are usually made between removal of mangroves from significant ecological areas and other parts of the coast. b. Distinctions between seedlings and mature mangroves. c. Controls around the method of mangrove removal (clearance of mangroves as a permitted activity is usually limited to clearance by hand or hand-held tools). d. An integrated approach which assesses sedimentation drivers (the cause) as well as mangroves (the effect) is usually provided for. e. A requirement for long-term maintenance of cleared areas. 16. Attached as Appendix 1 are the Auckland Unitary Plan objectives, policies and rules for mangrove management. The multiple values of mangroves mean that they should only be removed where the effects of clearance have been carefully assessed. The Auckland Unitary Plan hearing panel found that mangrove removal in the Auckland region should be a discretionary activity requiring resource consent, because of: 5 the complexity of the resource management issues of mangroves (and their removal) and the need to assess the competing values including; ecological, biological, natural character, landscape and visual amenity, cultural values as well as public access and use of the coastal environment. 17. The panel stressed the importance of a case-by-case assessment of particular mangrove removal proposals The operative Waikato Regional Coastal Plan does not have specific objectives, policies and methods for mangrove management (unlike other regional coastal plans such as the Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan) but the replacement plan, in EDS s view, is likely to and is the appropriate place for those controls to be debated and ultimately reside. E. International obligations Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 19. New Zealand is a signatory to the Convention. Mangroves are a coastal wetland type, and New Zealand s obligations under the Convention apply to mangrove forest. The obligations under the Convention include protection if internationally important wetlands and the wise use of all wetlands. 20. The Convention sets out criteria for determining whether a wetland is internationally important. The mangrove forests in the coastal marine area adjacent to the Hauraki and Thames- Coromandel Districts are likely to meet several of those criteria: a. Criterion 2: Supports vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species, or threatened ecological communities. b. Criterion 3: Supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region. 5 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Report on Topic 33 and 34: General Coastal Marine Zone and Other Coastal Zones, p Page 10.

4 c. Criterion 4: Supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions. 21. The Convention also requires the wise use of wetlands. Wise use means the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development where ecological character is the combination of the ecosystem components, processes and benefits/services that characterise the wetland at a given point In time. Resolution IX clarifies that the wise use provisions apply, as far as possible, to all wetland ecosystems. 22. It does not appear the Convention has been considered by the Bill s drafters. EDS considers the Bill is inconsistent with New Zealand s obligations under the Convention. F. Integrated coastal management 23. Under the RMA, authority for management of the coastal marine area is devolved to regional councils. The NZCPS guides and directs integrated management of New Zealand s coastal environment. Regional coastal plans are created in accordance with the framework of the RMA, including the NZCPS, and must contain objectives, policies and methods to achieve sustainable management of the coast in an integrated way. 24. Regional councils are well placed to address mangrove management because they have primary responsibility for the drivers of mangrove expansion (ie land-based activities that cause sedimentation of waterways and ultimately the coast), and because they have primary responsibility for management of the foreshore and sea bed and activities that take place there. Regional plans also provide for public participation in planning and consenting decisions more effectively than the local government special consultative procedure can. The RMA s compliance, monitoring, and enforcement framework is a crucial element to the achievement of good environmental outcomes. The Bill includes none of those elements. 25. Regional planning processes are very good at enabling all interested parties to have input into mangrove protection and management rules, within a framework that ensures ecological, landscape, recreational and infrastructure considerations are all taken into account while providing for low impact mangrove removal. These processes encourage people with disparate interests to reach agreement, with a framework that ensures environmental bottom lines are met. G. Commentary on the Bill 26. In addition to the points raised above, key reasons for EDS s opposition to the Bill are: a. The purposes of the Bill are entirely focussed on facilitating mangrove removal and enhancing amenity and ecosystems of the area from which mangrove vegetation is removed. It does not recognise and provide for protection of the ecological, natural character, landscape, or ecosystem service values of mangroves. b. It is premised on protection of shorebird feeding habitat. The explanatory note asserts that the seaward advance of mangroves since the 1940s has considerably reduced the feeding habitat available to wading birds in the Firth of Thames. But no evidence is provided. The Court has previously rejected a similar contention. c. No adequate justification has been provided for why these two Councils should be able to carry out an activity without the RMA applying for that purpose. The RMA provides for integrated management of the coastal environment, through a hierarchy of management plans from national (NZCPS) to regional. Ad hoc management plans created under the

5 Local Government Act pursuant to this Bill will not be consistent or integrated with those provisions. Mangrove removal to protect seabird habitat falls squarely within the ambit of the RMA. Removal that is not carried out in accordance with the RMA and the NZCPS is likely to undermine regional councils ability to protect significant habitat and maintain indigenous biodiversity in their regions. d. There are better alternatives to a local bill for the District Councils to have input into mangrove management. The main opportunity is participation in the Waikato Regional Plan development. The regional plan review is the appropriate forum for the Hauraki and Thames-Coromandel District Councils to influence mangrove management rather than by exempting themselves from New Zealand s environmental management regime. e. The Bill sets up the potential for a direct conflict between regional and district authorities under its regime and the RMA. f. Its process for development of a mangrove management plan allocates unacceptable power to the District Councils with limited public in-put, and no checks and balances to ensure decisions are evidence based or can be reviewed. In short, decisions made under it are purely political. The Bill smacks of a short-sighted and ill-informed political initiative rather than any properly considered proposition. a. Overlap with and the requirements of other relevant legislation (additional to the RMA) have been ignored. For example: The Local Government Act. The Health and Safety at Work Act The Conservation Act The Wildlife Act Marine Reserves Act. Biosecurity Act Maritime Transport Act Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

6 Appendix 1 Auckland Unitary Plan mangrove management provisions Chapter D9 Significant Ecological Areas (15) Avoid mangrove removal within Significant Ecological Areas Marine where it will threaten the viability or significance of the ecological values identified. (16) Avoid mangrove removal within Significant Ecological (16) Areas Marine 1 (SEAM1) unless the removal is for any of the following purposes: (a) to maintain or enhance the ecological values of the significant ecological marine area, where it is demonstrated these values are being adversely affected by mangrove colonisation; (b) to maintain or restore the open nature of the wading bird feeding and roosting areas identified in Appendix 5 Wading bird areas; (c) to enable the reasonable operation, maintenance and use of lawful structures and/or to allow for the efficient functioning of drainage systems; or (d) to enable the provision, maintenance and use of public infrastructure, such as roads, walkways and drainage systems, and any associated public health and safety requirements, where there is no practicable alternative location outside the significant ecological area that would achieve a better environmental outcome. (17) Enable mangrove seedling removal in Significant Ecological Areas Marine 1 (SEA-M1) that do not have significant values associated with mangroves and that are identified in Schedule 5 Significant Ecological Areas Marine where mangroves are a minor component or absent. Chapter F2 - Coastal F2.7. Vegetation: Mangrove Management F2.7.1 Background Mangroves are a native plant species and a valuable part of some coastal ecosystems. They may also perform an important role in trapping sediment and contaminants and in mitigating coastal erosion. However mangroves and their spread is causing concern to some people and communities, in particular changing the natural character, landscape and amenity values of an area as well as effects on public access, navigation and the ongoing use and function of structures and infrastructure. While the removal of mangroves may be appropriate to address these concerns, this must be weighed with the important ecological and biological values of mangroves. As the coast is predominantly a public resource, mangrove removal should be for the purpose of maintaining or restoring biodiversity or to provide for public use and benefit, rather than for private property gain or enhancement. Removal activities may disturb and damage the foreshore and seabed and can have adverse effects on water quality from the release of sediment and contaminants. Removal can also affect ecological values, including effects on native and migratory bird species, particularly during breeding and feeding times. At the same time mangrove spread can reduce wading bird feeding and roosting areas and removal may be appropriate to retain these areas. As areas have different use and values, and are subject to varying natural processes of wind, wave and tide, the effects of mangrove removal will differ between locations. The most appropriate method for the

7 removal of mangroves and the disposal of removed mangroves will also differ between sites and this can be determined on a case by case basis when applications are received for mangrove removal. In some circumstances it may be appropriate for mangrove removal to be accompanied by initiatives to address the long-term issue of mangrove spread by reducing the amount of sediment entering the coastal marine area, as sediment that settles in upper estuaries and harbours creates an environment where mangroves can successfully establish and spread. The long-term maintenance of cleared areas needs to be provided for if they are to remain free of mangroves in the long term. Mangrove seedlings can quickly re-colonise areas if they are not removed on an ongoing basis. Sediment may also move from cleared areas over time and result in mangrove stumps needing to be cut back to the new seabed level to maintain the safe use of cleared areas. F Objectives (1) The ecological value of mangroves is recognised and mangroves are retained in areas where they have significant ecological value. (2) Mangroves are retained in areas where they perform an important role in mitigating coastal hazards. (3) Restore or maintain natural character and ecological values including significant wading bird areas, public access, navigation, riparian access and amenity values. (4) Sediment deposition within the coastal marine area, that facilitates ongoing mangrove colonisation and spread, is reduced. (5) Mana Whenua values, mātauranga and tikanga are recognised and reflected (5)in mangrove management. F2.7.3.Policies (1) Avoid the removal of mangroves from any of the following: (a) areas having significant ecological or natural character values of which mangroves are an important component, or in other areas where mangroves can provide significant ecological values; (b) areas of active coastal erosion where mangroves have historically provided a buffer against coastal processes causing erosion; or areas where the sediments contain high levels of contaminants at risk of being re-suspended. (2) Encourage an assessment of sediment inputs in the area and promote catchment initiatives to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs when mangrove removal activities are proposed. (3) Provide for mangrove removal where mangroves have spread and the (3)proposed removal is necessary to maintain, restore or enhance any of the following: (a) natural character, biodiversity and ecological values, including significant wading bird feeding or roosting areas, that existed prior to the spread of the mangroves; (b) public access to or along the coastal marine area; (c) connections with reserves or publicly owned land and the sea; (d) public use and amenity values; (e)water access for vessels and navigation, including waka portage routes; (f) public health and safety, including sightlines and traffic safety; (g)mahinga mātaitai, access to the coast from marae, or to areas of traditional use; (h)scheduled historic heritage places or natural features; or (i) operation and development of infrastructure. (4) Require mangrove removal operations to meet all of the following:

8 (a)minimise the disturbance of the foreshore and seabed and to shorebird breeding and feeding, including migratory species; (b) minimise sediment and contaminant discharges; (c)avoid the burning of removed mangroves as the method of disposal in the coastal marine area and require that disposal of removed mangroves outside the coastal marine area, unless Policy F2.7.3(4)(d) applies (other than for burning); (d) provide evidence that the disposal method will not result in more than minor adverse effects on the coastal marine area where landward disposal is not proposed; (e) take an adaptive management approach for mangrove removal and disposal where a significant area of removal is proposed and there is uncertainty over the extent of adverse effects; and (f) provide for the long-term maintenance of cleared areas. F2.7 Rules