Post here to discuss NZFSS response to NPS Objective 1
0 Kudo
NPS Objective 1: Enabling well-being of people and communities
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Marc Schallenberg |
NPS Objective 1: Enabling well-being of people and communities |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 45 24 Nov, 2008 21:54 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Dspeirs |
#1 | |||
|
Posts: 5 5 Dec, 2008 14:19 |
Not sure who is supposed to be writing the entry for this BUT my 5 cents worth on this Objective is that it should be removed altogether as it is just a repeat
of the purpose of the RMA but without the bits that include protecting the environment. In this context it is totally inappropriate in that is clearly
indicates a desire to move away from "sustainable management" to a regime of managing for human benefit only.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Deleatidium |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 17 9 Dec, 2008 13:59 |
This objective is impossible since some of the actions that are required to attain the goals of the NPS (e.g. limiting stock densities, fertiliser application and discharge limits) will often be in direct conflict with the "economic" well-being of those who face such limits. This objective may as well read "Keep everyone happy", which is obviously impossible. The fact is some people are going to face significant costs (in the short-term at least) as they change their land use practices (either voluntarily or by force). This objective is PC wiffle waffle and I agree with the previous post that it just repeats the purpose of the RMA and should be deleted. What the does "well-being" mean anyway? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
LimnoloGuy |
#3 | |||
|
Posts: 15 11 Dec, 2008 19:03 |
This Objective is an interesting way to lead the freshwater NPS - start it off with an objective which immediately subordinates freshwater issues to social, cultural and economic considerations. Well, that's how I read it anyway. I agree that it's not very helpful/useful, except maybe to placate the reader who might be worried that the NPS is actually serious about protecting freshwaters. |
|||
|
|
||||
