Opinion: Planners share their perspectives on the NPSIB

The proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) sets out the objectives and policies to identify, protect, manage and restore indigenous biodiversity under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

We asked planner Stephanie Styles and landscape planner James Bentley for their thoughts on the structure and implications of this proposed policy.

Q: The NPSIB would apply to any activity which directly or indirectly impacts indigenous vegetation or the habitats of indigenous species. Why do we need this new policy?

James: Indigenous biodiversity is a critical component of our landscape, and the way it is protected and managed is essential in maintaining landscape values and identity. An NPSIB would help ensure that the value of indigenous biodiversity is recognised, and that areas containing such values maintain their importance within our incredible landscapes and continue to contribute to the health and wellbeing of our society.

Stephanie: I think it is beyond debate that nationally we are facing a crisis in relation to the protection of our indigenous biodiversity; and the lack of national direction on this issue to date has only made the situation worse. The NPS is well overdue.

We need the NPS particularly to provide very clear national direction on the key issues and set a framework for a nationally consistent approach to protection and management. As a national policy statement it needs to be designed to fit its position in the hierarchy of resource management documents. So it needs to be nationally applicable and set standards to be appropriately assessed and applied at the lower levels of the hierarchy – regionally and locally – to fit the outcomes sought at a national level.

Q: Do you think the NPSIB will deliver on what it is intended to do?

Stephanie: I think the NPS will deliver many benefits, especially in the way it will give greater priority to the issue. However, I am concerned that this will inevitably lead to high levels of debate, hearings and caselaw to determine application of the provisions; and we will have years of interpretation and reinterpretation to apply the standards within each region and district in a way that works for different issues and areas. I worry that we will all get caught up in details and lose sight of the bigger picture.

Q: In this and other policy statements related to the natural environment, adjectives like “significant”, “outstanding”, “distinctive” and “representative” play an important role. But these terms are subjective by nature. Does the NPSIB adequately prescribe the attributes and criteria that determine “significance” and/or “representativeness”?

Stephanie: These words have been endlessly debated in the past through caselaw on other topics, and are now largely understood by experts — but are often hard for the public to understand.

From a planner’s perspective the key is to ensure that the ecologists, as technical specialists undertaking the assessments, are clear on what is required and are as closely aligned as possible. The best outcome for all parties is for the experts to be aligned on what is significant or not, coming from the same basis of assessment; so that there is less debate on what values need to be managed and the focus can be on whether adverse effects exist and, if so, how to deal with them.

James: I agree with Steph. Technically, these words will need to be ‘defined’ to enable a consistent methodology and approach. Within the landscape world many terms, including ‘outstanding’ and ‘natural’ have been discussed and refined and generally gained consensus through numerous court decisions. Getting agreement to these will be critical.

Q: What’s the most positive likely outcome of the NPSIB?

Stephanie: The most beneficial outcome of the NPS is the ability to put the debate over the issue aside and have a nationally applicable document on which to rely at all levels. It will ensure that regional and district Councils don’t have to keep reiterating that this is an issue and each individually trying to manage biodiversity but are able to rely on national direction and support.

Q: What’s been missed, or overlooked? What would you change?

Stephanie: It is not clear to me how much work was undertaken to understand the actual implications of the NPS on landowners. It appears that there could be very significant impacts on some people, as demonstrated through the recent reactions to the proposed NPS from those on the West Coast who have been going through years of debate around wetlands and are very worried about the impact of these proposed changes. Do we know enough about the impacts of the provisions to properly weigh this impact against the benefits? Without such information it appears possible that the sheer cost (both financial and emotional) of dealing with this will cause landowners to walk away from projects that could actually achieve a net gain for biodiversity values because they perceive the risks to be too high.

James: There will be a need to balance the requirement for protection to deliver biodiversity objectives against circumstances where change within important areas may enable broader landscape benefits. For example, it may be prudent to remove a small lower value portion of a protected area for greater biodiversity gain at a landscape scale.

Q: Are there certain sectors or industries that will be particularly — or disproportionately — impacted by these policies? How so?

Stephanie: The rural / farming sector will be particularly affected by the NPSIB, especially those operating in areas that have been highly modified (and so have little remnant indigenous biodiversity) such as lowland plains; or in areas of known high biodiversity values, such as the Canterbury high country. Any changes to their operations that could impact on biodiversity values will see a new level of assessment which at the least will involve cost and uncertainty, and at worst will stop change that is necessary to ensure the continued viability of the farming operation. Farming practices change in response to many factors and viability of farming includes the ability to ensure that ‘additional’ activities such as pest and weed control can occur which directly contribute to biodiversity values.

Councils, too, will be particularly affected by the need to undertake extensive assessment processes to identify significant natural areas which is a time consuming, expensive and controversial process. Many Councils have been through years of debate on this issue already and some are yet to resolve the issues under the current provisions. A change of approach requiring more assessment will be difficult within many communities.

James: Again, I agree with Steph. Our rural sector will need to understand the consequences of this NPS, especially as it relates to land use practices. Specifically, the farming sector will need to understand the implications of the NPS on their land, and how they use it. Managing indigenous biodiversity values could be seen positively within this community if appropriately and consistently applied. There is also potential for other sectors to be significantly affected (e.g. mining and transport) where there is no flexibility to change identified areas in a way which may promote broader biodiversity and associated landscape benefits.

For further information please contact Stephanie Styles or James Bentley