Doc's public guardian role queried

Marian van der GoesOtago conservator Marian van der Goes fielded criticism yesterday that the Department of Conservation had "sold out" in regard to the Project Hayes wind farm.

"Who is the public guardian of our landscapes if Doc isn't," Central Otago Environmental Society and Save Central spokesman Graye Shattky said.

Speaking during the public forum of the Otago Conservation Board meeting at St Bathans, Mr Shattky thanked the board for backing the environmental groups' successful appeal against the wind farm.

Last week, the Environment Court announced it had upheld the appeal and declined consents for Meridian Energy's planned $2 billion wind farm on the Lammermoor Range.

One of the issues raised during the hearing was the public perception that it could no longer rely on Doc as the public guardian of the area's landscapes, Mr Shattky said.

"The wider public perception is that Doc sold us out in regard to Project Hayes."

"The question that remains is to what extent can the public rely on Doc in the future to provide the assessment and evaluation of the benefits in the landscape and to advocate and provide us with an assessment of these intrinsic values," he said.

Ms van der Goes said the department was not an expert on landscapes.

"We don't employ a wall of landscape architects. We are experts on biodiversity and that's our strong area of expertise."

The community was responsible for protecting the landscapes that were special to it, she said.

"We could continue to debate this back and forth, but I won't, " Mr Shattky said.

"But if there is no watchdog, apart from the community, how can small communities take on the likes of Meridian?"

Board chairman Hoani Langsbury said the court decision noted it was the first "whole of government" submission in support of an electricity project under the Resource Management Act as a project of national significance.

"That does not reflect the commitment of the local conservancy; their hands were tied by central government," he said.

The conservation board was an independent body and would always stand up for landscape values, he said.

Mr Shattky said the board's submission played a significant role in the Project Hayes decision.

Board member Garry Nixon said the ruling confirmed the board's stance that the landscape involved was outstanding.

The fact that it was surrounded by conservation land was also seen as significant.

lynda.van.kempen@odt.co.nz

Environment Court and Project Hayes

The decision by the Environment Court to reject Project Hayes simply displays an ignorance of the ecological environment. There is a major difference between what is ecologically environmentally sound and aesthetics. Meridian chose this location because of the wind resource and comparatively close location to the existing hydro infrastructure. What the Environment Court is actually stating by rejecting Project Hayes is that wind farms should not be located in the best location from an environmental perspective but what is aesthetically pleasing to some people is far more important. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. From an environmental perspective this does not stack up. The farming practices over the last hundred years have destroyed the original flora of the Lammermoor Range - it is not as if it is untouched virgin land.
So construction of the wind farm would not destroy the original flora it is already destroyed. To build a wind farm where the wind resource is not maximised is both ecologically and economically unsound. It is imperative to maximise the embodied energy used to construct the windmills for ecological reasons and it makes economic sense to maximise their generating capacity.
The less power they generate the more the generated electricity will cost. We will all pay more in our electricity bills if wind farms are not located in the best possible location. Other countries such as Denmark have had to work through the issue of wind farm aesthetics. They along with Victoria in Australia separate the issues of the environment and aesthetics because they realise that they are two distinct issues. As Fred Pearce's article in the English Guardian newspaper highlights, New Zealand's environmental decisions and issues are now reviewed in an international context..

The inertia of bureaucratic peril ..

In bureaucratic organisations there is a decided inertia in terms of "New ideas" and "Dynamic development". To have an original and dynamic idea in a Government department is a very perilous position to be in, lest you usurp the entrenched power of those further up the ladder. The result of very high salaries, and entrenched power is that we had Government department advocacy for an archaic and geographically unacceptable technology. Nobody in DOC had any desire to risk their position and livelihood by actually having an original, dynamic and up to the minute idea, and actually question the DOC position of support. Much better to duck for cover than risk being "moved on".