The Government is consulting on a new Aotearoa NZ Biodiversity Strategy and a summary of the nearly 3000 submissions compiled by the Department of Conservation (DOC) makes its intent clear that it must address what is being called a “biodiversity crisis.”
“This is a critical time, with recognition of the increasing number of threatened or endangered species and ecosystems, rising awareness of the importance of biodiversity and growing action in the area of nature conservation,” the summary authors said.
But finding a way to determine, monitor and protect biodiversity on private land has polarised opinions judging by a summary of submissions compiled and released by DOC.
Individual submitters and many councils stated that those goals can only be achieved with buy-in from landowners and that industry is seen as part of the solution.
The complexity of the problem was illustrated by one submission, which stated that in the Auckland region 40% of indigenous ecosystems are identified as critically endangered, with 68% of those that remain found on private land.
Respecting property rights was supported by industry and councils as a way to secure the cooperation of property owners, a view that was not universally shared by conservationists.
“While some consider this principle key to obtaining buy-in from property owners and rights holders, a few said it would constrain the Aotearoa NZ Biodiversity Strategy,” they said.
“One submitter said it must be balanced with another principle that prioritises nature over economic interests.”
A contentious proposal in the strategy is the mapping of significant natural areas on private land which require councils to identify, monitor and manage areas with significant indigenous biodiversity.
Farmers fear this could see councils restrict land use and farm practices, broaden activities requiring resource consent and require the restoration of biodiversity.
This increased role for councils and potential imposition on landowners had some support even though it was noted it would be complex, lengthy and expensive.
“A few councils said it is important to identify priority species, ecosystems, and under-protected environments through this process, because many ecosystems can be impossible to restore once they have been damaged,” they said.
“One council said the idea of priority areas regardless of land tenure is critical, or New Zealand risks being unable to manage the areas that most need to be managed.”
One submitter noted that mapping or defining sites has not prevented biodiversity loss in the past.
“Rather, it is the ability to actively enforce the protection provided through regulatory measures in district plans, or to develop community understanding on why these areas are so important,” they said.
Other measures can be more effective but require the willing engagement and involvement of landowners.
“The same local government submitter said while there is broad agreement that the inventory of sites is a critical first step in prioritising where resources should be directed, it must be recognised that mapping is expensive and beyond the ability of some territorial authorities and regional councils to fund and undertake in the required timeframe,” the summary authors said.
Landowners pointed out that having rules that were too prescriptive could have a perverse outcome.
“Many land-based submitters said that, in some cases, restricting land use development may increase the decline in biodiversity, as there will be reduced income from farm operations to spend on weed and pest control,” they said.
Some submitters believed access to private property should be permitted where there is threatened biodiversity, but this was not universally supported.
“Some submitters, including many councils, said property rights need to be respected, and they support incentives to private landowners for the protection of biodiversity on private property where there is significant benefit for the wider community,” they said.
Some submitters, including many councils, believed the focus should be on working together rather than imposing rules and regulations.
“One council observed (the) DOC needs to be careful about placing obligations on private landowners, so existing and future grassroot initiatives are not alienated. This sentiment was generally supported by land-based industry submitters,” they said.
Of the nearly 3000 submissions, close to two-thirds (1846) were from Forest and Bird supporters.
Submissions highlighted debate about whether the strategy should include non-indigenous species such as pinus radiata, which provide habitat for kiwi and karearea, salmon, trout, game birds and game animals.
