• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

A Snapshot of Council Effort to Address Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land

Executive Summary

Introduction

Council Efforts to Address Biodiversity Issues

Legally Protected Areas for Indigenous Biodiversity

Appendix 1: Tools - Descriptions and Maps

Appendix 2: Pest and Weed Expenditure - Additional Information

Council Efforts to Address Biodiversity Issues

Capacity

There are 12 regional, four unitary and 70 district councils in New Zealand and they vary considerably in area and population. Of the district councils, 26 have populations less than 20,000, 24 (and the four unitary councils) have populations between 20,000 and 50,000 and 20 have populations greater than 50,000. In addition, council areas are not in proportion to the size of their populations. This variation affects the size of the task of biodiversity protection and the ability of councils to carry out their functions. Consequently there is wide variability in the capacity of local communities and their councils to address biodiversity issues.

The results of this project clearly reveal that regional councils are providing significant leadership for biodiversity in their regions. Many are working with landowners and communities to protect and restore biodiversity values.

When it comes to district and city councils the picture is not so clear. These councils are diverse and have adopted a wide range of approaches to biodiversity management, from active to limited involvement. This is reflected in the efforts and types of activities undertaken, but also in the quality and effectiveness of district plan provisions. Some councils are actively targeting specific sites or focus areas for the protection of natural values, and this is providing the impetus for more covenants.

While many district councils have the capacity to engage in proactive biodiversity work on their own, a significant number have relatively low population bases and large geographical areas with significant competition for limited resources. Ecologists within councils provide technical advice and expertise, both internally and to external stakeholders.

When asked who provides the majority of ecological advice within the council, of those who responded to the national survey:

• 21% indicated that council staff provide this
• 35% stated that external consultants provide most of it
• 31% use a combination of in-house expertise and external consultants
• 13% indicated 'Other', which includes advice gained from DoC, QEII and other councils.

Local authorities use a wide range of measures to fulfil their legislative obligations and maintain the mandate given to them by their constituents, including:

• the development and implementation of strategies and plans
• collecting information, including the identification of areas of importance for biodiversity
• provision of financial assistance, including contestable funding for landowners
• biosecurity activity
• enforcement action.

Strategies and plans

Many councils have established goals for biodiversity, which can be formal or informal. In the national survey 71% of respondents reported they have a strategy for biodiversity. Of these:

• 60% have a formal document
• 10% describe their strategy as informal
• 29% responded not applicable and 1% gave no answer.

The Local Government Act 2002 provides a broad mandate for local authorities to involve themselves in economic, social, environmental and cultural issues. The Act is outcomes-focused, meaning it requires local authorities to plan for and report on specific and measurable results in communities and their environments.

The main instrument the Local Government Act 2002 uses to promote sustainable development outcomes is the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP). LTCCPs are important documents because they provide a framework for the direction and priorities for each local authority. The advent of the new Local Government Act 2002 and its emphasis on sustainable development has sharpened the focus on maintaining biodiversity as a highly relevant - even critical - outcome for local authorities.

In the national survey, of those councils responding:

• 45% have a biodiversity outcome as part of their draft 2004 LTCCP
• 54% do not have biodiversity outcomes as part of their 2004 LTCCP
• 1% were undecided.

Note that some council LTCCPs had outcomes that were not biodiversity-specific but focused on the balance between the built and natural environments or had outcomes for the physical environment.

Part of the joint project involved in-depth desktop analysis of all regional policy statements and district plans prepared under the RMA. Information was summarised about the following aspects of regional policy statements and district plans:

• the types of approaches adopted (eg. voluntary measures, schedules of significant sites with rules, general vegetation clearance rules and the percentage of plans adopting these approaches)
• the criteria being applied to define significant areas and habitats
• the extent to which plans differentiate between categories of significance
• the extent to which plans make provision for biodiversity that is not significant (eg. for amenity reasons).

Regional policy statements use a variety of techniques to identify significant areas and habitats. The most common technique - employed by six of the 16 councils - is to use criteria that are the same as, or very similar to, criteria used under DoC's Protected Natural Areas programme.

Approximately 55% of the district plans examined (42 of 77 [Note - Auckland City Council has 3 sections to its plan, Marlborough District Council has 2 sections to its plan] ) included criteria for defining areas of significant vegetation and significant habitats. Most of these used general criteria, although 12 district plans were more specific about how at least some of the criteria were to be applied. Often this included details about the habitats of specific species that are to be protected.

Approximately 45% of the district plans (35) do not include any criteria for identifying significant areas or significant habitats. Most of these, however, have identified significant areas and habitats within the district plan. Three district plans have neither criteria nor identified areas, while some district plans have extensive criteria and have identified specific areas.

Sixteen of the 77 district plans specifically refer to Maori values (eg. habitats for taonga species) as a criterion for defining significance. It should be noted, however, that areas of significance to Maori are often dealt with more broadly within tangata whenua sections.

Seventeen district plans (approximately 23%) differentiate between categories of significance. Generally this classification separates the areas into those with outstanding, high, high-to-moderate, moderate and potential significance. This differentiation did not generally translate into different rules.

Fifty-five district plans use some mechanism to identify sites within the plan. Mechanisms used include (Figure 1):

• a schedule - 18 district plans
• planning maps - 14 district plans
• schedule plus maps - 21 district plans
• overlay ['Overlay' refers to where a base map was used with an overlay of sites.] - three district plans.

In addition, four district plans referred to a register that would not form part of the district plan.

Councils also protect indigenous vegetation and habitats through the provision of protection mechanisms. These include general clearance rules, rules applying to scheduled areas, zoning, voluntary methods and financial incentives. Several councils adopt more than one approach.

• A large majority of district plans (72 out of 77) have rules covering the clearance and disturbance of areas of significant vegetation and significant habitats. Four district plans contain no rules for the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.
• Forty-five district plans have general clearance rules to cover areas and habitats not specifically identified as significant within the district plan. Thirty have no general clearance rules.
• A total of 12 councils adopt a zoning approach. For example, Hauraki District Council is working towards developing conservation zones. These zones will also have specific rules that relate only to the designated zone.
• Twenty-three councils stressed the importance of encouraging voluntary methods for protecting indigenous vegetation and habitats. This approach was coupled with an extensive awareness raising and education programme mentioned by 16 councils.
• Twenty-three councils outlined provisions to deal with the existence of biodiversity on private land. Councils adopt a number of approaches here, including financial incentives, rates relief and promoting the use of covenants.

Identification of areas of importance

A key issue emerging from the project is the value of good information and good information exchange. Councils that have access to good and useful information do so because they have conducted investigations, enabling them to identify significant natural areas.

In the national survey, councils were asked about their ability to identify where indigenous vegetation was located in their area. Of those who responded:

• 77% could identify areas of indigenous vegetation in their area
• 18% could not identify the location of indigenous vegetation in their area
• 5% could only partially identify the location of indigenous vegetation.

Councils maintain landowner contact lists for various reasons. Some use them to liaise with landowners who have significant areas of indigenous vegetation on their land. Some councils have databases to facilitate consultation and get landowner approval for entering land, etc. Landowner contact details are also kept for significant natural areas (SNAs) on private land. Other councils have lists, but they are not comprehensive. When surveyed about keeping contact lists of owners of land which has been identified as important for biodiversity outcomes in their areas:

• 36% of respondents maintain contact lists for owners of such land
• 61% did not maintain such a register
• 3% had registers for some of the areas identified but felt the scope of these was limited.

Money spent on biodiversity

The total amount invested by councils on biodiversity is difficult to quantify. It is often a combination of money spent on activities specifically identified as contributing to biodiversity and on activities not specifically targeted at biodiversity protection or enhancement but contributing nonetheless to the achievement of some biodiversity gain.

Expenditure on biodiversity - case studies

Funds can be spent on activities that impact directly or indirectly on indigenous biodiversity. The results of a financial review that estimated the level of spending that impacted on indigenous biodiversity are summarised in Table 1 below. This table indicates the level of resource spent on biodiversity for the 2003/04 year for the three case study councils, based on financial information provided by these councils. The councils were then asked to estimate what percentage of this amount benefits biodiversity.

Table 1: Estimated level of 2003/04 funding by case study councils that impacts on biodiversity

From Table 1 we can see that money spent on pest control, both animal and plant (ie. rows one and two), accounts for the majority of money spent that directly benefits indigenous biodiversity. For the 2003/04 financial year:

• Marlborough District Council estimated that $0.56 million directly benefited indigenous biodiversity
• Northland Regional Council estimated that $1.00 million directly benefited indigenous biodiversity
• Environment Waikato estimated that $1.65 million directly benefited indigenous biodiversity.

Pest control expenditure

Plant and animal pest control plays an important part in maintaining New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity. Although landholders have primary responsibility for pest and weed control on their land, all regional councils control animals and weeds that have been identified as pests in their regions. The majority of animal pest control work is done for the control of bovine TB. Much pest control work undertaken for agricultural advantage has indirect benefits for biodiversity.

The National Biodiversity Survey asked biosecurity pest managers in the 12 regional councils and three unitary authorities (Tasman covers biosecurity for Nelson City Council) specific questions about pests and weeds. Fourteen councils responded. These questions were designed to highlight the link between biosecurity management and biodiversity conservation.

When asked how many plant pest and animal pest species each council actively controls through poisoning, trapping, regulation etc, the respondent councils indicated that the plant pests they actively controlled varied from 15 to 178, while animal pests controlled numbered between four and 25.

The council budget range for pest control is presented below in Table 2.

Table 2: Council budget range for pest control for the 2003/04 financial year

The range of council expenditure on pest control for both plant and animal pests is considerable (see Appendix 2, Table iv for more detail).

When asked whether pest and weed control funding specifically targeted pest and weed threats to biodiversity, 86% of respondents indicated that their funding was so targeted. This expenditure ranged between $23,500 and $3,378,000 for the 2003/04 financial year, with the average being $1.06 million. This expenditure targeted between 100 and 16,000,000 ha (approximately), which gives an indication of how much is being spent on pest control that directly benefits biodiversity.

In considering how programmes for pest control are being integrated with other pest control agencies:

• 86% of respondents' programmes were aligned with DoC and other agencies, and community group programmes such as QEII
• 7% were partially aligned
• 7% were not aligned.

Bovine TB possum control is a council pest management activity that impacts on biodiversity outcomes, and of the councils that responded:

• 86% are involved in the National Pest Management Strategy for bovine TB
• 14% were not involved in the strategy because they did not have TB control issues in their area.

Of those councils indicating involvement in the National Pest Management Strategy, the anticipated regional expenditure for bovine TB possum control for the 2003/04 financial year averaged $4.1 million and ranged between $300,210 and $7,823,000 for the Animal Health Board share, and averaged $0.44 million and ranged between $5,000 and 910,000 for the regional council share (see Appendix 2, Table v for more information).

Of the money spent on bovine TB possum control, councils estimated that between 35% and 100% contributed to biodiversity outcomes.

Contestable funds

Most regional councils are successfully working with landowners and communities to protect and restore biodiversity values. Twelve out of 16 regional councils and unitary authorities have contestable funds available for landowners, amounting to an investment of $4.26 million per annum. This is comparable to the Government's contestable funding for both the biodiversity condition fund and the biodiversity advice fund. Regional councils are also involved in other activities including forums and general initiatives (up to $50,000 per council per annum).

When it comes to district and city councils there is not the same level of information available. Of the 64 councils that responded to our national survey, 20 have contestable funds (31% of respondents) totalling $447,000 in 2002/03.

Private landowners also make a large contribution to biodiversity conservation. Taranaki Regional Council, for example, estimates that for every $1 the council spends, the landholder spends $10. Initiatives by private landowners make a significant contribution to New Zealand's overall biodiversity, but there is little accurate information on how much money landowners are spending on biodiversity.

Other policy tools

There is a wide range of policy tools available to councils. Of the councils responding to the survey:

• 57% use conservation covenants
• 66% support landcare groups
• 78% use subdivision controls
• 61% help with establishing QEII covenants
• 57% include biodiversity protection in management plans and agreements
• 55% offer rates relief
• 35% have awards
• 82% provide education and advice for landowners
• 29% use other tools, which might include support for volunteer community groups, conservation trusts, waiving of consent fees, etc.

These results are summarised in Figure 2 below.

The results show that councils use a combination of policy tools and mechanisms to support biodiversity. A majority of councils use regulation through subdivision controls and support for on-the-ground activities (covenants, landcare groups, education and landowner advice).

Enforcement action

Regulation is one policy tool used by councils to protect indigenous biodiversity. Some councils are working to raise the profile of biodiversity by taking action against those who destroy significant native vegetation. Other councils take enforcement action for illegal discharges, unauthorised drainage, etc that affect indigenous biodiversity.

The national survey asked councils if they had rules relating to biodiversity in their plans and whether they take enforcement action for non-compliance. The results indicate a mix of enforcement relating specifically to biodiversity provisions and other provisions where biodiversity gains benefit. Of the councils responding:

• 84% have rules in their plans relating to biodiversity
• 16% do not have such rules in their plans
• 31% have undertaken enforcement action regarding unauthorised destruction of land identified as important for biodiversity
• 69% have not undertaken any enforcement action regarding unauthorised destruction of land identified as important for biodiversity.

Of the 31% of respondents who undertake enforcement action, that action can be broken down into:

• 7% prosecution
• 37% abatement notices
• 44% enforcement fines
• 12% other regulatory mechanisms such as Environment Court cases, restoration at owner's expense, etc.

Enforcement frequencies of the 24 councils that have taken enforcement action in the last five years are given below.

Table 3: Enforcement action undertaken by councils