The Erosion of NZ Property Rights: Part Three

The Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB)

The NZ inspiration for the GWRC’s Policy Statement appears to be the Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (2011), which has no legal effect: it was announced by the Minister for the Environment in early 2011, but ‘was not progressed due to a lack of stakeholder agreement on its content […]’

The statement recommended:

• the retention of as many ‘elements’ as possible
• the retention of existing vegetation, whether indigenous or not (but not including recognised pest plants), that provides habitat for indigenous species or seasonal food sources for indigenous species (i.e. every tree in Wellington)
• buffer zones
• corridors (‘ecological linkage’)
• ways to address the problem of private property.

The proposal was developed by the Biodiversity Collaborative Group, an environmentalist lobby group whose core members are all non-government organisations.

That proposal may have been rejected, but now an updated version has been presented for consideration. The new National Policy Statement for Biological Diversity is intended to legitimise and strengthen the SNA policies of local authorities, which have no authority under existing legislation.  Like the SNAs and the failed NPSIB of 2011, the revamped NPSIB seeks to establish a policy of ever-increasing protected areas at the expense of private homes.

‘The proposed NPSIB provides direction to councils on their responsibilities for protecting and maintaining indigenous biodiversity under the RMA.

‘The primary objective of the proposed NPSIB is to maintain indigenous biodiversity (Part 1.7(2) and (3) and Part 2.1 Objective 1 of the proposed NPSIB). Maintaining indigenous biodiversity requires, at the least, no reduction in: a. the size of populations of indigenous species b. indigenous species occupancy across their natural range c. the properties and function of ecosystems and habitats d. the full range and extent of ecosystems and habitats e. connectivity between, and buffering around, ecosystems f. the resilience and adaptability of ecosystems.’

The objective, however, is not preservation of biodiversity but restoration as far as possible to what is assumed to be the original state.

‘Native forests once covered about 80 per cent of New Zealand’s land area. About 65 per cent of our original native forest has been removed […].  Reversing the decline of indigenous biodiversity in Aotearoa New Zealand is a long-term policy objective.’

Page.12

Again, the proposal repeatedly insists on the legal right of authorities to encroach on private land; again, it claims authority from the RMA:

‘The RMA is the key piece of legislation for managing New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity outside public conservation land, including on private land’

Again, the proposal cites no authority from within the RMA. 

‘The RMA’s key provisions recognising biodiversity are outlined on the following page ‘

Page.14

These key provisions contain no reference to private land.

The Biodiversity Strategy

New Zealand’s Department of Conservation has produced a draft Biodiversity Strategy,  which is a national strategy applying the same principles as the regionally-based SNAs, and very similar in scope to the NPSIB.  The strategy demands the ongoing expansion of reserved land and/or land zoned for rewilding: this will be achieved by increased ‘tools’ (regulations)  to facilitate the taking of private land or limiting the use of private land.

DOC’s vision for New Zealand by 2070

‘Our species, habitats and ecosystems (especially those that are currently rare and threatened) are increasing, not declining, in number and extent, across private as well as public land and in the sea’

Expansion of biodiversity areas – restoring biodiversity

The strategy aims to ‘restore biodiversity’ (p. 20), without defining what is meant by this goal decision.  At the extreme, of course, all human inhabitants would depart, leaving New Zealand to revert to the avian paradise it once was.  The Agenda 21 compromise is penning human beings in high-density cities, leaving most of the country zoned for ‘biodiversity’.

What is planned is ‘a complete network of biodiversity hubs across New Zealand […].  As with the SNAs, these will be connected by corridors: ‘Eco systems will be connected from the mountain tops to the ocean depths’.  The hubs will be protected by buffer zones to allow expansion.

The Strategy reiterates the need for the government to have access to private land:

Biodiversity is core to all decisions about land and water management, including on private land’;  ‘private landowners […] are a crucial part of the system’; ‘Implement a consistent national approach to rates relief for covenanted and other protected private land’.

The end of suburbs and small towns as we know them

The draft emphasises the New Zealand love of ‘nature’: ‘Nature in Aotearoa is healthy, abundant, and thriving.  Current and future generations connect with nature, restore it and are restored by it.’ While there is a comprehensive list of outdoor activities such as sport and tramping, a notable omission is the home garden, though this provides the greatest access to nature for New Zealanders over their lifetime.  The words ‘garden’ and ‘suburb’ occur neither in the Biodiversity Strategy nor the Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity.  New Zealand is described in the Strategy as an urbanised society:

New Zealand is one of the most urbanised countries in the world.  There is significant opportunity to restore nature in cities and integrate it into urban planning, which will, in turn, help reconnect urban dwellers with nature.

Page.52

This falsely conveys an impression of a people living in high-density cities like Singapore, nothing like New Zealand cities with their preponderance of single-use dwellings and private yards.

The language and goals of the draft Strategy echo those of the American Wildlands Project, which aims to turn 50% of the United States into reserve land largely off-limits for human beings, connected by corridors to allow bison to roam the continent, and with large buffer zones (exposure of the Wildlands Project led to the United States refusing to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity).

Department of Conservation Empire Building

Biodiversity should be ‘core to all decisions about land and water management’. To enforce this, and to facilitate taking or imposing restrictions on private land,  more powers need to be given to local and central government.  There are repeated references to the need for improved ‘legal and regulatory frameworks’.

‘A mix of regulatory and non-regulatory tools should be used to achieve the best outcome, recognising that incentives, regulatory guidance and backstops are important elements of an effective response.’ 

Page.29

As a consequence, the Department of Conservation will be involved in all decisions involving land and water use.

To be continued…

If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.