New Zealand’s environmental reporting system should not simply document environmental decline, it should require the Government to say what it will do about it, says the Environmental Defence Society (EDS).
EDS has today lodged its submission on the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill.
“The Bill contains some genuinely useful improvements, but there are a few missing requirements,” says EDS Reform Director Dr Greg Severinsen.
“We can produce excellent reports showing that freshwater is declining, biodiversity is being lost or environmental limits are being breached. But unless someone is required to respond to those findings, reporting can become an exercise in documenting decline.
“We think the responsible Minister should be required to respond to each major environmental report with an action plan setting out what will be done, by when, and what results are expected.
“EDS is also calling for much stronger reporting on environmental limits proposed under new resource management legislation.
“At the moment, the Bill says environmental reports may compare the state of the environment with limits and goals. That should be a core part of the reporting system.
“The public should be able to see where environmental limits have been set under resource management law, whether they are being approached or breached, what caused any breach, and what is being done to fix it.
“That would tell us much more than whether the environment is simply getting better or worse. It would tell us whether the new resource management system is actually working to protect the environment.
“EDS supports a number of other changes in the Bill, including requiring reports to examine the drivers of environmental decline rather than simply describing pressures and impacts, establishing an independent Strategic Evidence Panel, and requiring greater attention to gaps in environmental data.
“We also support moving full state of the environment reports from a three-year to a six-year cycle, provided environmental information continues to be regularly collected, commented on and published between reports.
“A three yearly cycle creates a treadmill of reporting that does not necessarily improve transparency or public understanding.
“Ultimately, environmental reporting needs to be about accountability. We should know what is causing environmental decline, whether the legal limits intended to protect nature are working, and what the Government intends to do when they are not,” concluded Dr Severinsen.
EDS’s submission is available here.