NZ's handbrake
OPINION: Your old mate gets the sinking feeling that no matter who we vote into power in the hope they will reverse the terminal slide the country is in, there will always be a cohort of naysayers determined to hold us back.
This time it is the hundreds of landowners in New Plymouth district who have retained native bush on their land who are bearing the brunt of Forest & Birds actions. Many of these landowners will have been unaware that the local council had mapped 363 potential significant natural areas [SNAs] on their land.
Unfortunately these landowners will now be dragged into the costly and time consuming Resource Management Act process. This is through no fault of their own; they have committed no crime, but will be ‘penalised’ simply for choosing to leave native bush on their land. This appalling situation is allowed to happen because of the Resource Management Act.
Putting my views into context, I am an active conservationist and long-time member of Forest & Bird. My business is an environmental consultant/restoration specialist and I have helped hundreds of landowners over the past 20 years with environmental projects, mostly protecting or restoring areas of native bush, wetlands and streams. Through this experience I have gained an appreciation of how critical it is to have the support of landowners when protecting areas on private land.
So when I read that Forest & Bird is taking an enforcement order against the New Plymouth District Council and landowners I despair. The leadership of Forest & Bird has no recognition of the need to encourage and work with landowners when protecting biodiversity on private land. Forest & Bird is driven by the belief that the way to protect biodiversity on private land is through regulation.
The 24-year history of the Resource Management Act has shown that using regulation to try to protect biodiversity on private land doesn’t work. Even the Ministry for the Environment acknowledged this when stating in 2000 that “…regulation [of biodiversity on private land] is likely to be counterproductive and risks losing many private ‘conservators’ across the country.”
What is particularly disappointing about the enforcement order is that Forest & Bird is seeking that district plan rules override voluntary initiatives such as QEII Trust covenants. This action will only serve to undermine the successful voluntary system that is widely trusted and supported by landowners.
The Forest & Bird enforcement order court case will have repercussions for landowners and councils throughout New Zealand. Based on previous case law, it is likely that Forest & Bird’s case will be successful. This is not because its case is the best option, but it is a reflection of how the Environment Court interprets the Resource Management Act.
That is a theoretical interpretation of the law rather than what is practical or the most effective option. Typically this involves looking backwards at what biodiversity has been lost and opting for regulation to stop the loss of any more. Rather than looking forward by celebrating what is left and building on the goodwill and generosity shown by those landowners who have chosen to leave native bush/wetlands on their land.
What is likely to now happen to the landowners in the New Plymouth area is that they will be ‘encouraged’ to allow surveys to confirm the presence of ‘significant’ vegetation or habitats and to establish accurate boundaries. On face value this may seem advantageous, but based on the experience of landowners in my area of Canterbury it is not safe in the current RMA regulatory climate to allow any surveys on your land.
The RMA is in urgent need of major reform as it is failing to achieve its purpose of sustainable management. In fact it is doing the opposite – turning biodiversity into a liability and penalising our most conservation minded landowners.
• Jamie McFadden is a North Canterbury conservationist.
