Improving Aotearoa New Zealand's environmental reporting system

NMH considers Issue 2 (New Zealand does not have a fit-for-purpose designed national environmental reporting system) and Issue 4 (Under-recognition of the Crown’s Tiriti responsibilities, te ao Māori, and mātauranga Māori) as the most important issues to address.
In regards to Issue 2: NMH agrees that the current reporting system does not acknowledge the complexity of the environment, how it affects wellbeing and impacts of anthropogenic influence on the environment. This could be resolved by introducing more environmental health indicators such as those related to air quality and health impacts . This type of reporting approach gives us a better understanding of what environmental indicators mean in terms of the impacts on our health and wellbeing.
For Issue 4 NMH strongly agrees that te ao Māori (Māori world view) should be adopted in the environmental reporting as this holistic approach comes from the interconnectivity concept . Moreover, the use of quantitative approaches in environmental data collection may limit the scope of our knowledge of Māori perspectives on the environment. In some situations where no quantitative data is available, or quantitative research is not suitable, qualitative data (such as oral histories ) should be included for reporting. Qualitative methods have been used in community environmental health research to produce ‘community narratives’ as individuals are given voice to ‘characterise the community in full and complex fashion’ .

The complete DPSIR framework (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) developed by the OECD ‘provides a structure within which to present the indicators needed to enable feedback to policy makers on environmental quality and the resulting impact of the political choices made, or to be made in the future’ . However, there have been discrepancies and inconsistencies in its definition and application across many organisations around the world . For New Zealand’s environmental reporting so far, generally only the PSI (pressure-state-impact) has been applied which has resulted in an incomplete picture of the state of the environment. NMH therefore agrees with the proposal to include the Driver component (and/or outlooks or trends) to this reporting framework as driving forces and consequences need to be understood as well as how effectively the environment is managed. Then the response (R) component can be recommended to Government to act on or propose appropriate policies and action plans to solve specific environmental problems.

The complete DPSIR framework (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) developed by the OECD ‘provides a structure within which to present the indicators needed to enable feedback to policy makers on environmental quality and the resulting impact of the political choices made, or to be made in the future’ . However, there have been discrepancies and inconsistencies in its definition and application across many organisations around the world . For New Zealand’s environmental reporting so far, generally only the PSI (pressure-state-impact) has been applied which has resulted in an incomplete picture of the state of the environment. NMH therefore agrees with the proposal to include the Driver component (and/or outlooks or trends) to this reporting framework as driving forces and consequences need to be understood as well as how effectively the environment is managed. Then the response (R) component can be recommended to Government to act on or propose appropriate policies and action plans to solve specific environmental problems.

Kaitiakitanga can be defined as people having a reciprocal care for the land by looking after it and everything associated with it being taonga (treasure or important) to their wellbeing. Consideration should be given to integrating this concept into the reporting framework. Kaitiakitanga is evident in many Māori organisations’ efforts in environmental sustainability and conservation projects around Aoteoroa. In Whakatu (Nelson), there have been successful Māori-led projects such as those of Tiakina Te Taiao Limited and Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu Trust .
To include this perspective, the outlooks based on integrated environmental assessments should include indicators that cover freshwater, groundwater, marine and terrestrial environments. These may include wai (water) quality trends, ngahere (forest) biodiversity and pests (freshwater, marine and terrestrial). Furthermore, as the main causes of environmental degradation, the drivers should be included in the State of Environment reports. These should include major sectors such as industry, agriculture, tourism, fisheries, forestry and urban development as well as climate change.

To better understand and communicate the impacts of environmental degradation, the range of perspectives should include aspects of both public health and environmental economics. For example, these should include efforts to estimate the true costs of environmental damage to public health and the economy or the impacts of climate change on human health . Public Health’s purpose is to protect against community health risks and threats, prevent illness, promote health and wellbeing across the whole population. This purpose aligns with the objectives of this strategy to have a clear purpose for environmental reporting that drives a focus on key issues and the desired outcomes which include creating a holistic approach that covers wellbeing. Therefore NMH would like to see more explicit recognition of public health’s role in environmental monitoring

NMH understands that the current reporting schedule is time and resource consuming and ineffective in term of data sufficiency to best illustrate changes over time. As long as there is an annual commentary report, six-yearly full state of environment (SoE) reporting should be more efficient as long as each synthesis report is comprehensive and more specific to each region, and illustrates the connectivity across environmental domains in depth. NMH notes that many OECD countries have adopted a five-yearly reporting cycle rather than six. Consideration should be given to aligning with the international reporting cycles. More emphasis should be placed upon data collection and especially those measures which are related to human health as it is important that the impacts of environmental degradation on public health are well-understood. This environmental health aspect has not been well-documented in previous reports.

Additional reporting of indicators is important to consider specific significant events such as major forest fires or marine pollution spills from shipping accidents . The impacts of such incidents on the environment, biodiversity and health may be substantial and need to be assessed and reported.

See Q18. NMH would also like to stress the fact that environmental health indicators have not yet been well developed for Aoteoroa. Statistics New Zealand has produced data summaries of a range of environmental indicators13, however, there were only two that illustrate an environment-human health connection. These are the Health Impacts of PM10 (2016) and the Occurrence of Food- and Water-borne diseases (2016). There is a need to draw a connection between the impacts of pollution and climate change on human health and its potential effects on vulnerable communities such as the elderly, Māori or Pasifika. The Royal Society Te Apārangi (2017) stated that climate change increases the risk of some mosquito-borne and tick-borne communicable diseases (such as West Nile virus, dengue fever, and Japanese encephalitis ) emerging in New Zealand.

The Government should include data provisions in the Environmental Reporting Act (ERA) so that work on data collection is not replicated unnecessarily. Like other developed countries, New Zealand does not have a shortage of data in many areas, but there may be a need to invest in better standardisation of data collection methods (and its coordinated compilation) among government agencies, research institutes and the private sector to facilitate a comprehensive data analysis. This will require the development of a system of data sharing among these stakeholders.

See Q2 answer

For Issue 4 NMH strongly agrees that te ao Māori (Māori world view) should be adopted in the environmental reporting as this holistic approach comes from the interconnectivity concept . Moreover, the use of quantitative approaches in environmental data collection may limit the scope of our knowledge of Māori perspectives on the environment. In some situations where no quantitative data is available, or quantitative research is not suitable, qualitative data (such as oral histories ) should be included for reporting. Qualitative methods have been used in community environmental health research to produce ‘community narratives’ as individuals are given voice to ‘characterise the community in full and complex fashion’ .

It is important that the Science Advisory Panel maintains a substantial multi-disciplinary team of analysts that are capable of turning data into meaningful information. As already mentioned, New Zealand is not always short of data but more effort should be made in coordinating data for analysis and interpretation for State of Environment reporting. Prof. Barry Borman (Environmental Health Intelligence New Zealand) stated that:

Across the globe there is a common belief that faster computers and better software will result in more information, but analysts are best at making sense of, and understanding the implications and meanings of data. The machines can crunch the numbers, but they can’t translate them or assess them in a broader social, economic and policy context .

Resources should be allocated to:
i. standardisation of data collection methods;
ii. compilation and interpretation of data that have been collected by different agencies across the country;
iii. maintaining a team of data analysts covering key environmental and health indicators.

NMH supports the Ministry’s desire to improve Aotearoa New Zealand's environmental reporting system creating a robust evidence-based national environmental reporting system which better reflects Māori data sovereignty.
NMH supports the intention of the proposal to give a stronger voice to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, te ao Māori and mātauranga Māori. It is important that Māori aspirations and values are included to ensure that the indigenous relationship to the environment is acknowledged and the connection of people’s wellbeing to environmental wellbeing is affirmed.