By Matthew Paetz*
The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) has many positive attributes. The push for intensification is an essential component of providing for the city’s growing population. At the same time, the AUP provides for planned urban expansion. However, a third urban planning approach is missing: utilising the vast rural hinterland of Auckland region as a resource to provide ecologically-focused communities.
My proposal is that a maximum of 20% of Auckland’s rural hinterland (which comprises nearly 400,000ha, the majority of which is not used for farming) is utilised for "cluster housing" zoning. This approach, quite widely employed in the US and to a lesser extent in Australia, enables clusters of housing within rural properties.
More than 70% of the land area of a site must be retained as open space in perpetuity – to help maintain rural character – and ecological restoration (on or off the site) is mandated. Minimum requirements in terms of tree planting and revegetation apply. High design and environmental standards are demanded. Smaller rural properties might only provide one cluster of 20 houses; large properties may comprise hundreds of houses in several clusters.
A major benefit of this approach is that the cluster housing can be developed utilising on-site approaches to wastewater disposal, water supply and stormwater, which are becoming more and more effective and efficient. This avoids a major issue that is a barrier to the future delivery of greenfield housing in Auckland – the cost of trunk infrastructure, and the time it takes to fund and construct that infrastructure.
Energy self-sufficiency
Furthermore, given that the cost and efficiency of solar technology is predicted to plummet after 2018, such communities could also be largely self sufficient in terms of energy.
I propose between eight and 10 broad zones across the Auckland region that would enable cluster housing. The zones would avoid the most productive farming areas and sensitive ecological areas. They would typically be located in high amenity areas near Auckland’s coast, near rural towns, or close to existing urban areas.
I estimate these zones could collectively enable 50,000 houses over the next 30 years. But they could be particularly useful in addressing Auckland’s short to medium term housing needs, given their lack of reliance on large scale infrastructure funding and delivery. With wide distribution across the region, impacts on traffic infrastructure would not be concentrated, but rather dispersed.
Each zone would be governed by a high level and flexible masterplan, which would provide some structure to a planning approach that is otherwise quite organic and ad hoc.
This approach does not replace plans for urban intensification and planned greenfield expansion in Auckland. Rather, it complements and strengthens that approach. By helping to limit urban land price escalation, the approach would actively incentivise the redevelopment of urban properties (as opposed to land banking which is only incentivised by urban land value escalation).
It also addresses the fact that the AUP is predicated on unrealistic assumptions around development potential and feasibility in terms of urban intensification. I for one will be very surprised if we see any more than 50% of the housing the AUP assumes will be achieved through intensification over the next five years actually built.
If I am right, Auckland will fall even further behind in terms of its housing needs, without alternative approaches.
*Matthew Paetz is the Auckland planning manager of The Property Group. This article was first published on NBR Online at www.nbr.co.nz
110 Comments
"given that the cost and efficiency of solar technology is predicted to plummet after 2018, such communities could also be largely self sufficient in terms of energy.."
Wow. A seriously naive statement. So if i install a couple of solar panels on the roof (which are pretty much a net energy sink anyway) ... you conclude i'm energy neutral? You might want to consider where the energy comes from for these people's food, roads, plastics, waste, water supply, metals, supply chains, travel, building materials, ongoing consumption etc etc etc
Yeah ham n eggs, I totally agree.
The growth growth growth mantra, is so yesterday and unsustainable.
We need to think about a future where there isn't unlimited energy and consider the true cost of supporting our current population and how we can do that when fossil fuels become unavailable due to war or embargo or availability.
Given the advances and lower cost distributed generation is quite viable. You still have a network but electrical energy is generated all over the place usually on your own roof or your neighbours roof.
Schemes like Benmore and Clyde, and then transferring the power to Auckland are such a 1950s idea which is when they were planned.
I agree, it does seem fanciful.
If you were in the market for a new car anyway (so can do a straight compare petrol to electricity) and live in an area with 2000+ annual sunshine hours it may be possible to get that. But most of my numbers, show NZ is still in negative payback. i.e. you will need to replace the batteries and/or panels before you recoup your initial investment.
Battery prices will drop eventually. But the batteries and panels still require a whole lot of REE. So to claim true carbon neutrality, you would have to stop buying these from China.
Also on the energy side, NZ peak electricity is still winter. We don't get enough sun in winter. Most people "off the grid" still have some dependency on the grid for peak usage times.
NZ as a whole has excellent renewable power at the moment (Hydro, Geothermal, and wind). I don't see why anyone would be in a rush to get solar in the foreseeable future.
This 33% return is for Christchurch (where 1kW installed will only generate about 1300kWh/year). Assumptions are panels lose 1%/year, battery loses 2%/year, excess energy first recharges battery then sold back to grid. Electricity use is first from the battery then the grid. The 14kWh battery provides enough power to run the house in mid-winter and charge the car for normal around town use.
The time-shifting the battery allows means that electricity generated during the day can be used at night as opposed to it being sold to the grid at 7c/kWh and buying It back at 25c/kWh (net 18c/kWh gain). Charging the car saves petrol at 16c/mile.
Assuming all purchased on a mortgage at 5% over their useful life of 20 years, total cost is $42,315 and total savings is $56,311 - a net 33% gain. Every year shows a positive return with returns increasing over time due to rising electricity. Car capital cost not included as a Nissan Leaf can be bought second hand for the same price as an equivalent petrol car. Savings from less servicing and parts not included.
Note the modelling of this is difficult as you have to model insolation by hour, use by hour, use between direct/battery/grid, variance by day throughout the year, degradation of panels and batteries over years, increase in electric costs over years.
Thanks for the reply - very interesting.
Do you have any good links?
I agree; it fast becomes a very complex optimisation problem. And even more so with uptake and agent competition. Thus the potential for arbitrage decreases significantly.
I remember seeing a couple of years ago some modelling from Transpower which integrated this technology and showed a substantial smoothing of the daily demand/supply trend. I think it was projected at 2025 or so - so understanding the length of time arbitrage is possible (i.e. produce/sell spread) is a big factor.
Yes, if you can smooth and optimise for minimal grid sellback/grid buying, then you get the greatest return. My model shows that the net selling to the grid after the battery is charged will only generate around $100/year in the first year from excess summer generation. The model I have built is specific for my house, use and location. In my case, it helps that I have a very low energy demand house (a Passive House with no heating load in winter).
5kWhp solar array and 14kWh battery storage, 20km of electric car driving/day which needs 4kWh charging/night leaving 10kWh for each night. Water heating via heat pump is set to run during daylight hours to expected night load is 4kWh-6kWh for the house. Note that this does not vary much throughout the year due to the house not needing heating or cooling - the main change is caused by having more dark hours.
Hi - Matt Paetz here. Thanks for the comments.
I never mentioned energy neutrality *at all*, nor was I implying it . You have misrepresented my viewpoint.
I'm talking about a development model that has a degree of self sufficiency and is 'better' environmentally than conventional greenfield housing development.
I would be interested in knowing how you think Auckland's housing should be addressed if you disagree with my proposal.
To those questioning the economic viability - I'm actually working on a (confidential) project under this scenario and it would deliver 3 bedroom homes on small clustered sections for circa 550K. The price of a new one bedroom apartment in Auckland. And within a 45-50 minute commute of central Auckland.
And by the way, the 45-50 minute commute is almost irrelevant for retirees, work from home consultants ,or those who may work much closer than the CBD (a quite large proportion of workers in Auckland do not work in the CBD). Cheers
Is that 45 minute commute like the supposed 15 minute commute from hobsonville point that the ads on the radio suggest? The commute you only get if you start work at midnight?
I can't think of anywhere outside the urban limit that would be a 45 minute commute in rush hour.
Im sorry but the degree of self sufficiency you are hinting at is laughably low - to the point where i dont think you understand what self sufficiency would entail .. Try turning off the power and avoiding the supermarket for a week ... Energy wise, the average person effectively operates with 100 + free energy slaves courtesy of fossil fuels currently... a long way from self sufficiency.
Aucklands housing crisis will solve itself as soon as the next financial crisis / energy crisis / supply chain crisis hits. At this point, any city on earth will be the last place to be.
Intensive housing units like 4 storey with basement apartment buildings are excellent in areas with large woods and greens. What does tend to happen in larger countries is as they prove successful in later years
immense pressure comes on town planners to allow higher density and so those nice woods and greens become smaller. However there is no need for everybody to live in a detached house. I can rent a new 1670sqft apartment for $1850permonth all water and aircon & a underground carpark included & one more park outside all in a 4.5 star quality building. Better yet no fly by night kiwi landlords but professional building owners who keep & manage the buildings very long term never selling.
As for photovoltaic panels I think he is optimistic for 2018. There is a lot of that done especially in Aus but even with govt subsidies it proved uneconomic. Treating sewerage isn't cheap to do on site either. Hence the reason we pipe it to a centralised location called a sewerage treatment plant. Sometimes the planners let their dreams run away with them. Half of what he says I agree with. He is on the right track. Who want to live in congestion like Auckland anyway now ? Key legacy not a flag but congestion
Sorry i can not agree with you.
Local generation and micro networks are sustainable now.
That doesn't mean a couple of solar panels on the roof however. There are a number of good examples which you can research where communities have become energy neutral, with no local use of fossil fuels, imported goods are typically not included in the calculation but in the future you may well be able to source all your goods from energy neutral sources.
Someone has to start, it might as well be NZ since we already have the benefit of hydro and plenty of sunshine and wind to harvest.
Considering your list, many of those industries are already actively working towards eliminating fossil fuel use in their production and logistics. it will only increase.
We should certainly protect our productive sector, we all need to eat after all.
I like the idea of living in a more balance environment, with farm land and open spaces close to dense housing. With all the best services that dense living can afford coupled with clean air and food source close by, if we can also generate the energy locally it starts to sound like a fantasy, but perhaps its an achievable one.
For sure - basic local food / economy is the only possible future scenario when energy & resource limits really kick in - the environment will balance human populations out regardless.
Cities are the exact opposite of where we are heading - they are energy intensive & totally fossil fuel /supply chain dependent
Melbourne is surrounded with satellite cluster new subdivisions where land and house packages are under 500k new. At least give ppl this option up there at present they're picking Huntley or Hamilton for this sort of living, unable to afford a full lifestyle block anywhere in between
This will never fly .
Rural sections land north of Auckland within commutable distance from Auckland are already so expensive they are unaffordable .
The other issue is that it costs $2,500 per square metre to build in Aucks and it increases out of town due to logistical costs
So a 200m2 3 bed house costs $500k , plus say $400 k for the land (vs $600k on the North Shore) and you are already at nearly $1,0 million .
For the hassle of commuting , there is no advantage
You could be right Simon , but my reading is that retiring Boomers are going to Tauranga or the Coromandel already , or into the massive number of retirement villages springing up .
Besides , when I retire I want to be in Auckland , I dont want to live in the Wop-wops miles from everything
Boatman,
I live in Mt Maunganui and my golf course is filling up with ex Aucklanders and I guess that a good few have moved into the ever increasing number of retirement villages.
Personally,I think we should start sending them back,as it's getting harder and harder to drive down to the Mount,park,walk round and go for a coffee.The fact that my home has apparently risen greatly in value,is no compensation.
We used to live in Kapiti (Paraparaumu Beach) 10 years ago. Going back now is just so depressing - the traffic congestion and wholesale commercial and residential development is unbelievable. For old timers - it has ruined the once delightful seaside village-like environment that it once was - for new residents, they know no difference. I imagine it is very similar to what is happening to the Mount.
I recall a Council meeting many years ago (probably about 25 years ago) when rezoning from rural to residential to accommodate urban growtrh was being discussed. Various planners and consultants were saying that much of the different plots of rural land that were raised for consideration were unsuitable for residential/intensive development because of soil-type and subsequent strormwater/runoff development issues. The then Mayor became increasingly frustrated as area by area the planners and consultants were giving each proposal a thumbs down-type response. He eventually banged his fist on the table and in a terse voice said - where then do YOU LOT suggest we develop? The funny thing is, the answer was effectively that all/most of the suitable land had already been developed. But of course, that wasn't good enough... and there was a suggestion by the Mayor that: grow we must as "we can't stop people from wanting to live here".
And I thought to myself - yes, you can stop them by simply not changing your district plan to accommodate development in places not suited to it - OR, you go up not out.
Anyway, all hindsight now - the rezoning went ahead (in many cases) via private plan changes - and slowly, slowly, slowly it's character was eroded away and the stormwater/surface flooding issues built up and up and up, along with the water supply reaching beyond capacity etc. etc.
Folks often blame planners for the mess places become, but in my experience when planners try to speak truth to power - power usually tells them to get stuffed and just get on with it. "It" being unsustainable growth.
Well I checked back the time frame and it would have been around 15, not 25, years ago that this particular meeting took place. Surprised myself that the change has been so rapid. No idea about gangs in the area - then or now - but then aren't gangs of some description or other a part of NZ communities everywhere?
Refer my comment above. Many of the residents may not be 'commuters' or 'long' commuters.
Again, I never said this was a perfect solution from an environmental perspective. But nothing is perfect.
It is one option that can mitigate environmental impacts whilst providing - by Auckland standards - a relatively affordable housing option.
Several studies have questioned whether urban intensification is significantly better than ex-urban development from an environmental perspective - you may be surprised that the outcome of some of these studies was that urban intensification is not conclusively 'better'.
Hi Matthew, ignore the negative comments above - they seem particularly grumpy today. Also, don't mention solar panels - that really gets them started.... (personally, I think everyone should have some solar panels...)
Serious question, why not make all the rural land around Auckland available for housing i.e. everything either side of the motorways in and out of Auckland?
From what I can see, Auckland needs developments the size of Millwater all along the motorways north and south where the land can be easily developed.
If we're not willing to build high speed railways between Whangarei, Hamilton and Tauranga, then Auckland will always have over-inflated prices in housing.
As you may know, the UK is re-opening all the railway lines Beeching closed down and building or allowing 'housing hubs' around railway stations.
Aside: from some strange reason a lot of people in NZ are against railways and maybe they hope for autonomous cars or something out of The Jetsons to save us from congested motorways, but other than people working from home, I can't see any solution other than significant investment in railways to save us from our housing crisis and motorways congestion.
Do you also have any thoughts on planning for the demand in transport over the next 30 years?
Have a look at cities around the world with similar populations. It's possible for them, why not us? For example, Manchester has a population of ~500k and yet very good public transport. And don't say it's 'cause they're an easier land mass etc etc. I'm only talking about laying track in roughly a straight line - we managed to fit in bus lanes along the motorway north of Auckland.
It would cost billions and many people would use it if it was a decent service. There could be housing around railway stations such as Pokeno, Huntly.... People could ride their electric bikes or use autonomous uber type services to get from home to the railway station.
High Speed trains do not have to be bullet trains -anything from 100 to 160km/h would work.
Finland would be a good example of what Auckland/Hamilton could afford. Helsinki(pop 1.4 m) to Lahti (pop 100,000) is 104 km and can be done in 1 hour or less by regular hourly train services.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Lahti
Not saying we won't still need the grid. In fact, I believe in both. Most houses probably can't fit more than 5kWs on their roof (facing ~north) anyway. I just don't think we should be so reliant on oil for one.... Imagine if we had a city that didn't have power cuts like Auckland seems to have on a regular basis, or imagine if we didn't rely on so much natural gas, or imagine if we had cars that didn't rely on petrol.... I'm suggesting we might have to think up ways of not having to keep upgrading/expanding all this infrastructure that we can't afford already. I know, I'm dreaming. We'll never do it.
"Imagine if we had a city that didn't have power cuts like Auckland seems to have on a regular basis"
Regular? Imagine the carnage if your solar went out. It could be days/weeks to get the right tech in to fix it.
The more people who try and go "off grid" the less money goes into the grid. I doubt you could find a stable number where both co-exist well.
You need the grid more than you need your own solar panels.
Hobo - what you are suggesting is a far more expensive option
ie maintain a central grid AND have personal power - it is completely illogical in a world with finite resources - ie its greenwash.
My personal opinion; Solar panels are only good if/when the grid collapses - but they arent green or cost beneficial to the system as a whole. That is, they are a good exercise in self preservation.
The national grid is an efficiency in the system as it allows you to move excess generation to a place where it can be used rather than wasted. It is excessive for individuals to all become independent. Community-independence is a better level with each community connected to the grid so each community is a backup to the others.
Battery need per household is reduced at this level and it can be possible to charge a national battery such as pumping water into hydro dams with energy that would otherwise be wasted.
We have a little cluster that spung up near us, about 150 houses, mostly young families that commute. Not very "green", or at least not as green as the rolling fields they scraped and bulldozed. The quiet one horse town that was so peaceful, is not so much.. seems we are hellbent on squeezing as much humanity as we can into New Zealands beautiful spaces. Its just a shame thats all.
Kate - interesting points.
One of the main thrusts of my proposal is that unless we regulate for ex-urban development as 'green' as we possibly can now, ahead of the eight ball, then we really risk getting really bad reactive urban sprawl in the future (say 10 years) when Auckland realises that it's not going to get as many apartments as it had hoped.
You'll also see from my article that I also very much support intensification, done well, as well, But no one approach is going to address Auckland's needs. We need 'up' and 'out'. But we need to ensure the 'out' is as green as it can possibly be.
Yes, I appreciate your intentions are good - but what's wrong with accepting a proposition that "Auckland is full"? It is after all an isthmus. From my perspective, until there is excess capacity on mass transit systems - the only sustainable solution is to ban/not permit new development other than at the center. In other words, new development should only be intensification at the present time and this new development should be within a very limited (i.e., walking/biking) radius to the main centers of employment.
I have previously also proposed a new method of rating that would encourage intensification via a price mechanism in areas that are within those defined radius' to centers of employment. Basically it would allow for all zoning to be dropped - in other words, just one-category of residential zone but differential rating based on proximity to centers of employment. Far simpler from a planning perspective - as the price mechanism (as an incentive) replaces all requirements for the sub-zoning and/or precinct-zoning that plagues urban plans these days.
Point is - we have to be up front and honest about Auckland in particular - from a transport/infrastructure perspective - it's full. That is the only sustainable conclusion to my mind. Once we accept that - we can then start addressing the problem more rationally, in my opinion.
.
Yes, worse than full - literally, full of ...
Dirty water: Raw sewage flowing into Auckland Harbour will increase with new housing projects
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11785299&…
Read the Herald article slowly
"combined stormwater/sewer pipes are now more than a century old"
The increase in "hard ground cover" due to the volume of infill housing over the last decade exposes not only the need for further spending on infrastructure to enable purpose-stormwater system to cope with demands never foreseen but the replacement of 100 year-old inadequate combined systems
it's going to take at least 10 years to expand and "gold plate" the water supply and sewerage sytems that we "gold plated" just last decade .. and by the way we are going to increase your property rates from $4,000 pa to $10,000 pa for every property owner in Ponsonby and Herne Bay and Freemans Bay
Auckland is not full...in London they have 8 million people in the same area...intensification. Auckland needs to build decent quality, well designed and sustainable apartment blocks...and lots of them in the right places (transport hubs, community facilities etc).
My point is, it is full "until there is excess capacity on mass transit systems" - as per the point made above. The London Underground handles around 5 million passengers a day. And yes, Auckland needs to go up... so my thought is use a price mechanism to incentivise single-home residential dwellers within walking/biking distance of the main center of employment to sell up and move up (i.e., to embrace the high rise lifestyle as well!). :-).
So true. Auckland with a population of 1.6 million people has less high rise skyscrapers,apartments than the Gold Coast with a population of 500,000+.
The major problem is Auckland has Los Angeles-style urban sprawl & that needs to change with a huge intensification across the entire city. Auckland is just mostly houses.
More people live in Sydney than in New Zealand.
yes lets be like London and all walk around with face masks on, why do we want to copy crowded smoggy cities from around the world, ironically many of the places our immigrants are escaping from for a better lifestyle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4131994/London-alert-smog-warni…
The whole world must look at the issue of human overpopulation of the planet. It will not sustain 11 billion of us, it'll be a barren world if we allow ourselves to reach that number, we are still flattening rain forests, killing off other species, enough already.
Auckland and New Zealand are part of the world, and we have to address this issue along with the rest of the world, and we may even need to accept that we need to DE-populate to some degree. Me, I would rather we did this in an orderly fashion, mostly through education and the emancipation of women everywhere (as that is the number one way the human race stops over breeding) and using the technology we have come up with to support us in the same way we have used numerous children to secure our future in our dotage.
We need desperately to stop thinking "more".
If you think you need more people in Auckland there is one answer only, and that is intensification close to the city, not more and more people further and further out needing to transport themselves into the city. Until that changes intensification is the only sensible solution. Personally I would rather we started looking to a no growth future and solving the obvious challenges that will bring.
Matthew, here's a few youtube video's on "Village Homes" in DAVIS, CALIFORNIA that may interest. Village Homes is a cluster of 250 plus homes built on a flat 60 acres. Built on permaculture principles it is probably the most ecologically sustainable village known and an excellent example of a development that can meet our future needs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbCkwHbuYJE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI3XXbsTizQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmFVxPjG2JI
Electric power self sufficiency is already obtainable...for example great barrier island. A mix of wind/solar battery should be quite obtainable. And the technology keeps getting cheaper, substantially cheaper also factor in its going to take 5 years to build a community. You can also have a central larger plant providing for the community (e.g. larger wind turbines or solar farm), overseas you have community owned generation assets exporting to the grid as well as providing for the community owners. Though govt policy doesn't encourage private power generation apart from the big players (I wonder why?).
Not sure of the other utilities but houses or groups of houses should be able to capture their own water and deal with their waste water. Instead of 10 houses on 10x 10 acre blocks why note 100 houses grouped on 100 acres, power,water and waste water self sufficient, also farming the majority of the 100 acres...they could even eat some of the produce. If they don't commute into the city even better.
Sounds a bit like the vision proposed by Frank Lloyd Wright for the urbanisation of America - called "Broadacre City" - described briefly below;
Auckland needs a major intensification plan with much more higher density. A city such as Auckland which has a limited land supply to build on can't keep expanding outwards with much more urban sprawl similar to Los Angeles.
So the concentration of the Auckland council,NZ Government should be on building much more apartment blocks & less regular houses in Auckland as it has no other choice.
We could always stop the immigration population growth. More people in NZ hasn't increased our productivity, its just given us more people for our productivity to support. It has also given us a deficit of infrastructure that now needs to be built and paid for, to support these people.
But yeah that is my standard rant mostly lost on deaf ears.
A lot of the above posts mention batteries as a cost for these suggested villages, you only need batteries if you can't access the grid. Urban solar installations use the grid as the battery.
Deaf Ears, and migration policy, and democracy as practiced in New Zealand
And why this subject and many solutions have been going around on here for 10 years
Professor Dr Ranginui Walker's 1991 article is cause for much pause and thought
Government Working Party on Immigration recommended to the Minister of Immigration the adoption of a points system for the selection of immigrants with skills and money for business investment in New Zealand. The Minister called meetings with a limited selection of thirteen Maori leaders in Auckland and fourteen in Wellington to consider the report. They were mainly leaders of voluntary organizations. Few represented tribal groups. Although many speakers spoke against the immigration proposals, they were ignored. When the Minister was questioned in Parliament during the debate on the Immigration Amendment Bill, he cited all those in attendance at the Maori meetings as being 'broadly positive' towards his immigration scheme. This glossing over of Maori opposition is consistent with the procedure of elites generating policy from above and imposing it on the people below. The report was a fait accompli, and the Minister's restricted discourse with Maori leaders after the fact, gave an illusion of democratic consultation. The select committee hearings on the Bill were also a charade. Of the 75 submissions made to the committee, 73 were opposed to the Bill. The two submissions in favor were made by immigration consultants, the people who earned substantial fees from processing immigration papers for clients wanting to get into New Zealand.
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_316.sh…
One of the more readable comments pages, probably because it appears very black and white.
Growth is the answer vs growth is the problem. No doubts in my mind growth is the problem and the above articles solution is set only to exacerbate it. Our current consumerist lifestyle is simply not sustainable on a world scale, only sustainable regionally by having slaves in other regions. And yes I am a big part of the problem and no I'm not prepared to give it up, I'm entitled.
On the not saleable to joe public. Just read TOPs enviro policy, while I pretty much agree with it totaly, it's selling to joe and Josephine is all based on farmers are the bogey men with no accountability mentioned for urbanites. Doesn't mean there won't be its just not saleable.
Just had a look myself. It does have this ambiguous answer in the Q&A regarding urban polluters:
For sure, but it’s a question of extent. Around 1% of our waterways run through urban areas, compared to almost half in pasture. Agriculture is our biggest problem area, but certainly not the only area where progress must be made. Our policy is neutral in terms of which sectors have to adjust the most. All polluters have to pay for that “privilege” and over time that cost will become prohibitive to ensure behavioural change happens.
Very disappointed with TOP. Problem with many of their policies (this one included) is that there isn't proper detail. They sound to me to be more a set of objectives (i.e., swimmable rivers and polluter pays) but just how much the polluter will pay and via what charging mechanism isn't specified.
In my read, all they have said is that commercial users of water will pay for that water - but that actually makes no bloody difference in terms of effluent treatment and nitrate (non-point source) leaching.
Effectively, if you want to reduce agricultural pollutants, I assume a basic premise of doing so is to change/de-intensify land use - i.e., place locally appropriate planning restrictions on appropriate land uses (i.e., animal and/or cropping type - for example ban various uses, i.e. feedlots in certain areas) and restrict animal numbers per hectare of land depending on the location/topography/soil type etc. of that land.
One could go so far as requiring land use rotations over specific periods in order to ensure soils remain productive over long timeframes.
We have the science and knowledge to know what is good for our land and water - we just simply allow private property rights to trump common sense and common good.
Polluter pays (i.e., a tax on pollution) isn't the answer to everything when folks find ways to afford to pay to pollute!!!!
Yes. With smokes, they'd have been better off leaving the cost of smokes low and requiring changes to the composition of the smokes themselves over time... such that eventually people are puffing on non-addictive (i.e., nicotine free) substances.
And yes, get rid of irrigation subsidies - it's a no brainer, but from TOPs perspective, nothing revolutionary. I often think about the fact that Fonterra collects milk at the same charge no matter where in the countryside a producer lives. To me this makes no sense, either economically or environmentally - and it must be part of the reason that we continue to farm (and convert) highly marginal land. Surely if that collection was based on user-pay then we'd have a great deal of sheep (or bush) conversions overnight :-). And, speaking of bush - why aren't native forests part of the ETS credit scheme?
But they do get credits for their exotic plantations (i.e., pines). Farming carbon ought to be the most viable proposition for much of our land going forward. It's a biodiversity win-win - whereas encouraging pine is pretty much a lose-lose from a biodiversity perspective. Sure, it may prevent run off but does harm to native fauna and flora.
Yes, I agree it should be included, but how likely are farmers to let their land revert to native bush? And how long to you pay ETS credits for (from the government's perspective)?
Bearing in mind that trees only net absorb carbon while they are growing. Once they are mature they exhale just as much carbon during the night that they inhale during the day. So there's no net carbon benefit.
.
I think land of a certain gradient should already be clad in native bush just to try and contain erosion and landslips...
Encouraging pine over pastoral ag is pretty much a win-win from a biodiversity viewpoint. The next best land use to native forest. Hard to see it as a lose-lose or harm compaed to the alternatives.
You assume that private property rights are incompatible with good environmental management.
Why would you assume that if somebody is free to do as they wish with their own property, they are likely to use that freedom to trash the property and so destroy its productive value?
The problem is not that farmers (and others) are damaging their own property. Some of them may be, but that is nobody's problem and nobody's business but theirs.
The problem is where they are damaging other people's property. They should face the full costs of that.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.