Protecting Significant Inherent Values
Assoc. Prof. David Norton
School of Forestry
University of Canterbury
1 June 2004
Issues covered in presentation
• Goals for high country SIVs
• Consequences of different management actions
• Alternative methods for achieving SIV protection
Conclusions
• With respect to SIVs, the current tenure review process does not:
– Clearly define goals
– Assess costs and benefits of different management options
– Consider other tools for meeting CPLA objectives
• Management of SIVs in the high country needs to be based on clearly defined,
realistic and achievable goals
• The costs and benefits of different management options (including land tenure)
need to be considered during each tenure review if SIVs are to be protected
• Whole farm covenants provide a viable alternative to the current tenure review
model for sustaining SIVs
Goals for high country SIVs
• CPLA includes range of objectives that the Crown wishes to achieve
• But no guidance on desired outcomes (goals) for SIVs themselves, despite
their protection being an overriding objective under the CPLA
• No goals for SIVs outlined during tenure review, although status quo (ie.,
tussock grasslands) often implied as a goal
• Increasing emphasis on restoration of native woody ecosystems (e.g., Central
Otago District Plan hearings)
• However, absence of clear goals means it is not possible to determine what
the appropriate management is that is required to sustain SIVs CPLA (1998)
Part 2, Section 24
Issues to consider in setting goals
• History of high country ecosystems
• Role that pastoral farming plays in maintaining present ecosystems, especially
tall tussock grasslands
• Diversity of high country environments (one goal does not fit all)
• The current distribution of native biodiversity (especially the lack of woody
elements)
• The current distribution of non-native biodiversity (especially the abundance of
woody elements)
• Dynamic nature of high country environments
• Pre-human vegetation of inland basins and ranges of Central Otago and South
Canterbury (after McGlone 2001)
• Goals need to be realistic and reflect both history of high country ecosystems
and current conditions (including the diversity of high country environments)
• If tussock grassland is the goal, especially at mid-altitudes:
– need to recognise former woody vegetation cover and potential for exotic woody plants to
dominate
• If native woody vegetation is the goal:
– need to recognise the lack of seed sources over much of the high country
• Consequences of lack of goals?
– No objective basis for determining SIVs or their management (including tenure)
– Inability to audit success of SIV management (including management by the Crown)
– Loss of native biodiversity values (and other values)
Consequences of different management actions
• Range of management actions possible
– Intensification of farming activities
– Status quo
– Modification of farming activities
– No farming activities, but Crown implements active management
– Passive management in absence of farming by the Crown
• In tenure review no assessments made of consequences of different actions
for indigenous biodiversity
• Therefore not possible to determine what the “best” management action is to
protect SIVs (the CPLA objective)
• Therefore not possible to determine if Crown has secured a sound return from
its investment in tenure review process
Biodiversity responses to management actions
•
Recent research highlights range of biodiversity outcomes under different
management scenarios for high country ecosystems
• Outcomes differ between different areas of the high country reflecting
•
•
•
•
differences in environmental conditions (e.g., rainfall) and disturbance history
Early exploitative pastoralism still influences high country ecosystems today
Biodiversity responses are still poorly understood and are likely to be different
in different parts of the high country
Some form of a cost-benefit analysis should be a central consideration in
determining the most appropriate future management of high country
ecosystems, especially the summer grazing tussock grasslands
But need to link such an assessments to clearly defined goals for these
ecosystems
Alternative approaches for achieving SIV protection
• CPLA objectives state:
– “To enable the protection of the significant inherent values of reviewable land—
•
(i) By the creation of protective mechanisms; or (preferably)
•
(ii) By the restoration of the land concerned to full Crown ownership and control;”
• “or preferably” has been largely interpreted to mean “always”
• This bias based on:
– failure to clearly define goals for SIV protection
– failure to consider consequences of chosen and alternative management actions to
achieve SIV goals
• Consequence is that alternative approaches largely ignored
Whole-farm covenants as an alternative
• Covenants have been successfully used to protect indigenous biodiversity on
private land throughout NZ (1837 QEII covenants now cover 65,808 ha)
• Different types of covenant – the most successful being QEII National Trust
(others occur under Reserves and Conservation Acts)
• Voluntary agreements that are legally binding on title in perpetuity
• Developed jointly by land owner and covenantee
• Have yet to be applied at whole-farm scale, but offer alternative to simple land
tenure split which isn’t sensitive to either the full range of economic or
biodiversity values
What would a whole-farm covenant involve?
• Management plan for property
• Clearly defined visions and goals
• Good knowledge of property both with respect to biodiversity values, economic
potential and other values (including constraints to these)
• A spatial framework that allows for land-unit specific management planning
including short-term goals and performance indicators
• Regular monitoring and ability to alter management and goals
• Consideration of interactions with adjacent lands
• Willingness to consider wider range of values than traditional farming has
involved, including a wider range of economic activities
Costs and benefits of covenants
•
Costs
– some land units may be too small to be economic (and hence a need to
merge land units)
– willingness to forego some traditional freedoms to meet the constraints of
the covenant (e.g., burning)
– need to collect information to establish the covenant and in regular
monitoring effects of management
•
Benefits
– potential for a diverse range of economic uses (especially if the underlying
tenure is freehold)
– no imposition of artificial boundaries on ecosystem processes
– economic incentives for conservation management (e.g., weed control)
– building on an established ethic of stewardship and capturing the farmers
knowledge of the property
– presence of a “manager” on the property all the time
– potential to use the covenant and associated sustainable management for
“environmental” marketing of products from the property.
Conclusions
• With respect to SIVs, the current tenure review process does not:
– Clearly define goals
– Assess costs and benefits of different management options
– Consider other tools for meeting CPLA objectives
• Management of SIVs in the high country needs to be based on clearly defined,
realistic and achievable goals
• The costs and benefits of different management options (including land tenure)
need to be considered during each tenure review if SIVs are to be protected
• Whole farm covenants provide a viable alternative to the current tenure review
model for sustaining SIVs