Friday, March 29, 2024

Feds weigh reactions to new biodiversity rules

Neal Wallace
A farming leader is advising farmers not to lose sleep over pending new biodiversity rules. Federated Farmers board member Chris Allen, who was part of the group that prepared the strategy’s draft policy statement, says it formalises and clarifies a process that has existed since 1992.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

He says the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) creates a regulated framework to guide councils on the management of biodiversity.

It will apply across public and private land, including terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands, along with the management of biodiversity on private land.

The Government expects to announce policy details in July.

The proposed policy requiring councils to identify significant natural areas (SNA) on private land has provoked claims of land and property right theft, and fears the cost of implementation and managing these areas will be prohibitive.

But Allen sees positives from providing a uniform definition of SNAs and council responsibilities.

“These SNAs have been there for 150 years and they are still there,” Allen said.

“If you have been grazing the land deemed to have SNAs, then you should be allowed to continue to do so, but if you have been lightly grazing these areas and want to do something different such as strip grazing, then that is a different story.”

Allen says critics have been “winding up farmers needlessly”, ignoring the fact that the plan was a two-year collaborative process and that the final document has not been finalised.

“I’m saying to farmers they need to chill, wait until they see the final document, have a good read and then decide if it is good, bad or ugly,” he said.

Allen believes farmers have and want to continue protecting SNAs, but accepts there is some disquiet about being required by law to do what they have been doing.

Westland Mayor Bruce Smith says the policy is contentious on the West Coast, given 87% of land in the region is in the conservation estate and protects biodiversity and fauna.

A committee representing Westland and Grey district councils and the West Coast Regional Council is implementing a single district and region-wide plan, and Smith says that committee is united in opposition to SNAs.

“At the end of the day SNAs will not appear in the district plan unless the One Plan Committee approves it, and it is a real stretch for anyone to say it is going to be approved,” Smith said.

“We are united against the theft of private property.”

He says if an SNA is so valuable, then the Government should offer to buy the land on which it is on.

The Waimakariri District Council acknowledges many SNAs exist and continue to survive due to the efforts of generations of landowners.

“We’ll be phoning all landowners of existing and potential new SNAs and offering them a visit in person to discuss their SNAs,” the council said in a statement.

“We can explain the reasons for why the site is proposed to be listed, the implications of the proposed listing, the ecological report (if available), map, ecosystem summary and the process for resolving any concerns.”

The Far North District Council has contacted 9000 landowners with SNAs on their land following a survey which revealed 42% of the district has SNAs, but about half are on conservation land.

“The proposed district plan will have rules for SNAs related to clearing vegetation or when subdividing your land,” a council newsletter stated. 

“This is when you may need to apply for a resource consent. There is no requirement to protect the SNA through fencing, covenants or other methods, unless you intend to develop or subdivide the land.”

A Ministry for the Environment (MfE) summary of the 7305 public submissions on this policy revealed 6575 (90%) were submissions using a template from the environmental group Forest & Bird.

Those submitting in support of the policy saw it as addressing declining indigenous biodiversity, clarifying council’s responsibility and increasing the ability of Māori to exercise their rights.

Those opposed were concerned at the risk of unintended consequences and perverse outcomes – that it may prevent farming, forestry, infrastructure and energy activities – and that the policy will be too complicated and costly to implement.

They were also worried it would not allow for regional variation in management or council resources, it could breach property rights and the rules went beyond the purpose of the Resource Management Act (RMA) by requiring restoration as well as protection.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading