Readers' Views
Response from the Maruia Society
The Maruia Society and MAF clearly differ on the key question of how to achieve sustainable land management. However David Rhodes, in his commentary on the Maruia Society’s views (MAF RM Update, April 1999) does make an important concession. He notes that, "In some situations, notably where economic returns are marginal and sustainable management requires up-front investment, voluntary efforts may not be sufficient."
I believe both these conditions apply in at least two of the three priority areas identified for action in the Government’s 1996 Sustainable Land Management Strategy, namely reducing the impact of agriculture on aquatic ecosystems, and mitigating the severe erosion of the hill country. It also applies in the case of protecting biodiversity habitats on private land.
Available information suggests that while investments in erosion prevention plantings, riparian management and fencing off indigenous vegetation and habitats do confer some on-farm benefits, these are generally not good investments from a farm business point of view. Especially where farm incomes are at a low ebb, it would be surprising if such investments were widely made, regardless of exhortations and minor incentives from regional councils.
Editorial comment in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (53:4 pp 300-3, 1998) notes that "research findings from numerous studies… demonstrated information-education-technical assistance approaches have consistently been unsuccessful in motivating land owner-operators to adopt conservation production systems at the farm level." The survival of such approaches as the near-exclusive policy formula used in New Zealand reflects the ascendancy of political ideology over empirical evidence and results-focused pragmatism.
The Maruia Society has written to most North Island regional councils asking for performance monitoring information on the success of their voluntary sustainable land management policies. The results confirmed that most of them have no relevant data, or even systems in place to properly measure whether their voluntary policies are working.
The scant available data are disturbing. For example, if voluntary landowner responses alone were relied on, and they continued at their present level, it would take 2000 years to stabilise eroding land in the Gisborne district. Depending on the extent of streams targeted, it could take a roughly similar amount of time to fence off and plant riparian margins in the Waikato.
The voluntary approach assumes that it is acceptable that farmers are exempted from accountability for their environmental impact. It also assumes that farmers’ property rights include the right to erode the soil and discharge contaminants into waterways. These are not sustainable positions and MAF should not be defending them.
The Maruia Society is promoting a move to a legally-enforceable set of sustainable property rights within a reasonable time period, with the on-farm investment costs assisted for the transitional period only, by cost-sharing with the wider community. This would require short-term funding of transitional incentives by central and local government. The broad specification of sustainable property rights would be achieved through national policy statements under the RMA, with the details worked out in regional plan processes.
This approach would move beyond the simple, complacent belief in voluntarism that currently dominates councils’ thinking. It would require sophisticated policy development, skilfully blending three techniques for changing land user behaviour: education, regulation and incentives.
What about the cost? In its recent State of the Environment report, Environment Waikato presents a case study of the Waitomo catchment, where soil conservation and riparian management practices achieved in three years a 60 percent reduction in the sediment load flowing into the Waitomo Caves. Terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity in the catchment was protected at the same time. The contributed cash cost was $63/ha, with the farmers contributing the land and laying out the fence battens. Everyone was very satisfied with the outcome.
Multiply that $63/ha by say 10 million hectares of lands needing treatment, and it gives you a do-able bill of roughly $63 million a year for a decade, to make New Zealand agriculture basically clean and green. It’s over to MAF, together with regional councils, to refine the figures and make a case to the Government. Let’s get on with it instead of making excuses for doing nothing.
Yours sincerely
Guy Salmon, Chief Executive
Maruia Society, 28 May 1999
Editor’s Note: On 21 June 1999 the Maruia Society changed its name to the Ecologic Foundation. Guy Salmon is now Executive Director.
SNA Confusion!
I was pleased to receive your new publication. It contained interesting, concise and well-written articles that could be taken on board quickly. This style of publication and reporting are what busy practitioners need; clever, esoteric debates on theoretical issues are fine for those whose nose is away from the grindstone!
Just a thought on Alan Reid’s article about so-called SNAs. I cannot think of a more unhelpful and misleading acronym within the jargon of RMA. SNA has wide usage but my experience is that it adds too much unnecessary complication, suspicion and confusion about the RMA’s focus on indigenous vegetation and fauna.
The use of SNA should cease:
1. It is readily associated with the Department of Conservation with its use of "protected natural area system" and links with the PNA programme. It therefore attracts all the baggage of tenure review and Crown/landowner tensions, problems with DOC data etc.
2. It is inaccurate and potentially misleading – there is no reference in s.6 (c) RMA to "natural".
"Natural" is used in s6(a) and s6(b) in relation to natural character and natural features respectively. Case law has developed in relation to these terms which may further confuse the use of "SNA". For instance, ‘natural’ is a word indicating a product of nature and can include pasture, exotic tree species… " Harrison v Tasman DC W042/93.
3. It is misleading – the Act refers to "areas of significant indigenous…" not significant areas (my emphasis). Size is not the issue. The significance of the vegetation or the habitat is what s6(c) is about. Part of the Waimakariri District, typical of lowland/plains Canterbury, is almost 100 percent modified. Single specimens of indigenous vegetation are listed in the Proposed Plan in the east of this District because they are all that is remnant.
So why do we not use "6c sites", or "indigenous vegetation sites" or ASIVs if you really want to coin an acronym. The latter two don’t reflect the fauna habitats, however it is questionable whether SNAs do either.
Good publication. Keep up the standard.
Yours faithfully
Richard Johnson, District Planner
Waimakariri District Council
Alan Reid replies
Richard Johnson makes a valid point about the use of jargon and acronyms and, given the sensitivity of section 6(c) matters, a more accurate terminology reflecting wording in the Act is probably needed.
On the other hand the term has wide usage as he himself points out. I am aware of a number of plans using the term as well as its common usage in reference to the West Coast project. In my experience, those who use the term seem to accept and interpret its meaning, in the context of s6(c), without undue suspicion, despite its shortcomings.
A further comment is that size is an important consideration. Along with other measures it can determine a vegetation association’s ability to sustain itself and habitat. However in situations such as the Waimakariri District, where land is largely cleared or substantially modified, the choice of nationally important representation may be limited to very small remnants.
Alan Reid
Senior Policy Analyst, Sustainable Resource Use Group, Wellington
Contact for Enquiries
Amber Duncalfe
Editor - RM Update
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Tel: +64 4 894 0710
Fax: +64 4 894 0745
Contact this person
