Introduction
Purpose
This report presents a snapshot of:
- the extent of council effort and expenditure on biodiversity
- the extent of biodiversity protection.
The report is not a policy document.
The information presented here is drawn from material collected to assist the Minister for the Environment to make decisions about a National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity.
This paper also constitutes a report back to councils and other agencies, including Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) National Trust and Nga Whenua Rahui, whose contribution informed the report.
Background
Most of New Zealand's remaining unmodified habitat is in remote mountainous areas, on offshore islands, in small lowland forest stands, or in other fragmented patches in lowland and coastal areas. Much of this habitat in mountainous areas and on islands is protected within extensive public conservation areas managed by the Department of Conservation (DoC). However, other scarce habitats (such as lowland and coastal forest remnants, lowland grasslands, wetlands and dunelands) are not in public conservation land. Conservation of these ecosystems and habitats relies on conservation by private landowners and the support and activities of councils. Private land often has a vital role in the protection of New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity.
At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 an historic set of agreements was signed, including the Convention on Biodiversity, the first global agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Under the convention governments are required to develop national biodiversity strategies and action plans and to integrate these into broader national plans for the environment and development. New Zealand ratified the convention in 1993 and produced the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (2000) [MfE (2000)The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.] to reflect its commitment. The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy sets out national goals for conserving and sustainably using New Zealand's biodiversity. At a general level, government agencies and organisations are guided by the principles of the strategy but it does not prescribe in detail how the specified actions are to be undertaken.
A key point highlighted in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (p. 126) is that the conservation of all New Zealand's significant indigenous natural vegetation requires protection on both public and private land.
New Zealand's public conservation land does not contain the full range of our ecosystems. How we manage the ecosystems and indigenous species outside of protected areas, on crown land not managed for conservation purposes, ie. private land and in freshwater environments is critical to halt the decline of New Zealand's biodiversity. Distinctive habitats and ecosystems in these areas continue to be at risk of declining condition and loss of their indigenous components.
To address the issue of the decline of indigenous biodiversity the Government has put together a broad package of initiatives, including:
- the biodiversity condition and advice funds
- increased government funding for national programmes to assist landowners and increase the extent of formally protected areas (Nature Heritage Fund, Nga Whenua Rahui, and the QEII National Trust covenanting programme)
- enhancing capacity in local government (Action Bio-Community, as part of this, aims to build local capacity in biodiversity management) [Action Bio-Community (ABC) is a project sponsored through Local Government New Zealand and the Ministry for the Environment's Sustainable Management Fund.]
- amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), which clarify the lead role of regional councils and the important role of territorial authorities in biodiversity conservation
- the preparation of a draft National Policy Statement on Biodiversity.
A national policy statement is a document prepared under the RMA. The Minister for the Environment can prepare a national policy statement to provide direction to local authorities on a matter of national importance.
This report will contribute to decisions on a National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity.
History of the joint project
This project is a response to the Minister for Environment's request that local government demonstrate how its activities and expenditures are addressing the loss of indigenous biodiversity.
The Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation and Local Government New Zealand all have interests in the conservation of New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity. There has been much discussion around the issue and content of a National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, but that discussion has been limited by the lack of good-quality information. This lack has prompted this information-collecting exercise, which aims to:
- collect and integrate currently fragmented information and data on local government biodiversity activities
- present a national picture of local government activities in relation to biodiversity conservation
- report on the contribution of local government in managing biodiversity on private land
- help the Minister for the Environment make decisions about the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity. This work may also act as a benchmark against which future progress can be monitored.
Representatives of Local Government New Zealand, DoC and the Ministry for the Environment agreed to co-operate in gathering information in four areas to complete this exercise:
- a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of the extent to which New Zealand's environments are represented in areas under legal protection
- a national local government biodiversity survey
- in-depth case-studies of three councils
- a review of biodiversity provisions in plans.
This would enable an assessment of the gap between what exists now in terms of biodiversity (and the activities in place to protect and manage it) and what might be needed in the future. The information may also give an indication on progress since the Ministerial Advisory Committee's final report in 2000.
Structure
The report is structured as follows.
The Introduction indicates what the report contains, including its purpose, history, background, scope, structure, audience, definitions of terms, and methodology.
The first section examines council efforts to address biodiversity issues by presenting the results of a national survey on local government activity that impacts both directly and indirectly on indigenous biodiversity. These findings are reinforced by more in-depth case studies.
The second section presents an estimation of the extent to which the full range of New Zealand's indigenous vegetation is represented in areas that are legally protected.
Finally, the appendices provide more detailed information (including maps) to supplement the discussion in the text.
Audience
This report is primarily written for the benefit of the contributing councils and survey participants, without whom the work could not have been attempted or completed.
Methodology
The project was overseen by a working group comprising members of each of the participating agencies in the partnership. Because of the different component parts of the project, a number of different methods were employed.
Local government biodiversity survey
The information for the assessment of local government activity in the area of biodiversity protection included consideration of actions, both direct and indirect, that impact on biodiversity outcomes. Much of the information for this assessment was obtained from a Local Government Biodiversity Survey which was distributed to all councils requesting quantitative information on key activities relating to biodiversity management.
Pest and weed control activities undertaken for biosecurity control also make a major contribution to biodiversity outcomes, so a separate survey covering biosecurity aspects of council activity was sent to all regional councils via the Regional Biosecurity Managers Group.
The survey produced high-level national information about council activity and effort. The survey was sent to all 86 regional district and city councils and responded to by 77 councils (ie. a 90% response rate).
Case studies
The national survey was necessarily broad in its approach. To provide more in-depth analysis three regional case studies were undertaken. The aim was to provide financial and attitudinal data with some analysis of the range of instruments being used by councils for biodiversity management. While we appreciate that this information comes from only a very small number of councils, these councils were chosen in an attempt to be as representative as possible. Within the time frame and resources available we sought to show a council with a low funding base managing a large amount of indigenous biodiversity, and one with a high funding base managing smaller amounts of biodiversity. Other criteria included ensuring one unitary authority in the study and councils from both the North and South Island. As a result, the regions selected for analysis were:
- Waikato
- Northland
- Marlborough (unitary authority).
Within these regions the primary focus was the regional council, with additional information gathered from districts within the region, where time permitted. The information for the three case studies was compiled from one-to-one interviews with key council staff on site and supplemented afterwards by phone and national survey information. These discussions examined the instruments, both direct and indirect, being used for biodiversity conservation and a financial analysis of the range of council activities that contribute to biodiversity outcomes. In addition to the discussions, the financial assessment used information obtained from the councils':
- 2003 annual reports
- 2003/2004 annual plan
- 2004/2005 draft Long Term Community Consultation Plan (LTCCP).
Review of biodiversity provisions in plans
This review gathered information from current regional policy statements and district plans, particularly information on the nature of existing rules dealing with indigenous biodiversity. This was a desktop exercise that involved analysing all policy statements and district plans. All 86 council plans were reviewed.
The following aspects of district plans were summarised:
- the type of approaches adopted, eg. voluntary measures, schedules of significant sites with rules, general vegetation clearance rules.
- the criteria being applied to define significant areas and habitats
- the extent to which plans differentiate and prioritise categories of significance
- the extent to which plans make provision for biodiversity that is not significant, eg. for amenity reasons.
- monitoring provisions for indigenous biodiversity.
Assessment of the extent to which New Zealand's environments are represented in areas under legal protection
The following data and classification systems were used in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to analyse the extent to which New Zealand's environments are represented in areas under legal protection: [Due to time constraints or a lack of digital data, data about council covenants and reserves (eg. covenants via consent notices, water catchments with biodiversity values etc), Forest Accord covenants and areas being managed to protect biodiversity values outside legal protection schemes were not included in the analysis.]
- mapped (digital) QEII National Trust, [The QEII data excludes 505 covenants approved but awaiting registration, equalling 18,724 ha. Only registered and surveyed QEII covenants were included.] Nga Whenua Rahui and DoC data [These datasets (DoC covenants and Nga Whenua Rahui covenants) are not complete nationally.] for covenants on private land and protected areas on public conservation land managed by DoC.
- Land Environments of New Zealand (LENZ) - a national classification of ecosystems mapped across New Zealand's landscape. For this analysis LENZ Level II which maps 100 different environments nationally was used.
- the Land Cover Database 1 (LCDB1) - a satellite image of New Zealand's land cover from 1996/97 - was used to classify and map 18 different land cover classes nationally, including the extent of indigenous vegetation remaining.
By overlaying mapped covenant areas and protected areas on public conservation land on the LENZ classification (also mapped) we are able to show the extent to which legally protected areas represent the full range of New Zealand's ecosystems. By overlaying this same information with the LCDB1 we can show the areas remaining in indigenous vegetation.
An explanation of LENZ, the LCDB1 and methods used in the GIS analysis are included in Appendix 1.
Terms used
Biodiversity - for the most part participants in the various surveys and interviews were invited to take a broader view of biodiversity to the one they might have been familiar with or indeed as defined in section 6c of the RMA. Councils in particular were asked to consider in the widest sense what they were doing to make a difference to sustaining New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity (eg. any work undertaken in freshwater, wetland and riparian areas, pest and weed control, practical guidance and support to private landholders, etc). Participants were also encouraged to consider work that had both a direct and indirect impact on biodiversity outcomes.
Protection - while we have assumed that legal protection is an indication of conservation status, we also know that active management on private land contributes to biodiversity outcomes but might not necessarily be legally protected. At the national level we could not capture information about biodiversity conservation activity on unprotected land and as such we are under-reporting.
Activity - again participants were encouraged to take a broad view, and so 'activity that impacts on indigenous biodiversity' could include such things as identification of important areas for biodiversity, specific council programmes and initiatives, any support offered to private landholders in their management of biodiversity on private land, compliance, biosecurity provisions in plans and expenditure.
Private land - this is land in private ownership, ie. not public land managed by the Department of Conservation or any other public body.
