EDS supports draft National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, calling for improvements

The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) has filed an extensive submission on the proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS IB) and has called for improvements to make it work better. The submission is available here.

“This NPS IB has been many years in the making,” said EDS CEO Gary Taylor.

“It is incredible that it has taken so long given the current parlous state of our environment.

“We have collectively wrought massive damage to Aotearoa New Zealand’s unique biodiversity that evolved free from predators for some 80 million years. In the relatively short 800 years of human occupation, we have cleared 80% of coastal forests, and drained and destroyed 90% of wetlands.

“Today 90% of seabirds, 94% of reptile species and 74% of terrestrial bird species are threatened with extinction or at risk of becoming threatened. Altogether nearly 4000 of our native species are in trouble – and it is expected to get even worse. If we lose these species here, they are lost globally, forever.

“It is clearly time to act, knowing what we now know about the state of our environment through regular environmental reporting by Government agencies. Those groups that are asking for delay are misleading the public by suggesting the NPS IB has been rushed. That is simply not true.

“After several earlier false starts in the early 2000s, the previous National-led government set up a collaborative process to bring the NPS IB to fruition. This was the consequence of a discussion between environmental groups and Federated Farmers that took place on the fringes of the Land and Water Forum.

“An agreement was based on the premise that it made little sense to argue the same cases on district and regional plans year after year. National direction was required. The original group expanded to include representatives from EDS, Forest & Bird, Federated Farmers, New Zealand Forest Owners Association, the Iwi Chairs Forum, and representatives from infrastructure providers (the Biodiversity Collaborative Group). Local government participated as active observers.

“The collaborative group took approximately 18 months to prepare a draft. Critical to the final outcome was a consensus that the NPS – the regulatory instrument – needed to be supported by complementary measures such as incentives – so the final package contained sticks and carrots.

“The Group’s draft was then reviewed by the Ministry for the Environment and released as an exposure draft. Overall, the draft is acceptable but needs some changes to improve its workability. These include:

• The concept of Te Rito o te Harakeke has been amended so that it risks being interpreted as introducing a balancing of human use against maintenance of biodiversity. The concept should be strengthened in line with the Biodiversity Collaborative Group’s recommendations to reinforce a hierarchy where the health of indigenous biodiversity comes first, like Te Mana o te Wai does in the NPS Freshwater Management.
• The definition of Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) is too narrow, creates implementation gaps and is probably ultra vir EDS also opposes the deletion of the graded High/Medium SNA classification, and considers that a stricter approach to protection is warranted in the absence of such classification.
• The relationship between the NPS IB and the NPS Freshwater Management creates a lacuna for protection of indigenous biodiversity and habitats that straddle freshwater and terrestrial environments – unless remedied this will likely result in significant adverse effects on such species.
• Biodiversity offsetting and biodiversity compensation limits are an essential part of the effects management hierarchy and should be set out upfront in the NPS IB to eliminate debate over their relevance.
• The NPS IB currently provides no direction about how adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity will be managed on Māori land, or if they will be managed at all. This is likely to result in extensive litigation and community conflict at the local level and is an abdication on the part of Government of its responsibility to provide leadership.

“EDS now awaits the gazettal of the NPS IB later this year, hopefully with the changes we have recommended.

“Once the Natural and Built Environments Act replaces the Resource Management Act, the NPS IB will fold directly into the proposed National Planning Framework and provide much needed direction that can help turn the adverse statistics around over time,” Mr Taylor concluded.

The EDS submission was prepared by Barrister Madeleine Wright and EDS staffer Shay Schlaepfer.