One of the more interesting debates emerging from the Government’s replacement of the Resource Management Act has received surprisingly little public attention. It is not about whether native bush, wetlands or outstanding landscapes should be protected. Most New Zealanders would agree that they should. The real question is much simpler:
Who should pay for that protection?
Recent debate over amendments to the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill has highlighted two very different perspectives.
Environmental organisations argue that weakening biodiversity protections risks accelerating the loss of indigenous habitats, particularly on private land. Federated Farmers, meanwhile, argues that if society wishes to preserve these areas for the benefit of everyone, it is unreasonable to expect individual landowners alone to bear the financial cost.
Both arguments have merit.
For many years, environmental regulation has often required private landowners to leave areas undeveloped or manage them in particular ways because they contain significant natural values. Native bush, wetlands, riparian margins or important habitats may all attract restrictions designed to protect biodiversity or landscape values.
The public benefits from those protections. Native birds continue to have habitat. Rivers remain healthier. Landscapes retain their character. Outdoor recreation benefits from healthier ecosystems.
The landowner, however, may lose development opportunities, productive land or future income.
That raises a legitimate question of fairness.
If conservation delivers a public benefit, should the public contribute towards its cost?
Equally, there is another side to the debate. If councils are required to compensate every landowner affected by environmental regulation, will some simply avoid protecting environmentally significant areas because they cannot afford to do so? Recent estimates suggest potential compensation costs could range from millions to billions of dollars depending on how such provisions are applied.
Neither outcome is particularly attractive.
One places almost the entire burden of conservation on individual landowners. The other risks making environmental protection financially unattainable for local authorities.
Good environmental policy is rarely found at either extreme.
Private landowners have long played an important role in protecting New Zealand’s natural heritage. Many have voluntarily fenced waterways, restored wetlands, planted native vegetation and controlled pests without any legal requirement to do so. Others have accepted restrictions in the wider public interest.
Likewise, society has a legitimate interest in ensuring nationally important biodiversity is protected for future generations.
The challenge is finding a balance that recognises both interests.
Rather than framing the issue as farmers versus conservationists, or property rights versus environmental protection, the discussion might better begin with a more constructive question:
If conservation benefits everyone, how should everyone contribute to its protection?
That is not simply a legal question. It is a question of fairness.
As Parliament continues its consideration of the replacement resource management legislation, it would be unfortunate if the debate became dominated solely by ideology. The more enduring question is how New Zealand can protect its natural heritage while maintaining a system that is fair both to the wider community and to those whose land contains the very environmental values the country wishes to preserve.
Good conservation has a cost.
The real debate is not whether that cost exists.
It is how fairly we choose to share it.
Every NZer benefits from a healthy conservation estate, even if only indirectly.
So all of us should pay in some way.
The farmers’ argument is lightweight; they know they’ll never be made to pay environmental protection costs alone. It’s often the other way – West Taupo farmers are paid not to pollute the catchment near Lake Taupo.
According to the website Freshwater for Life:
” … in the Rotorua district the public is paying $19 million to 20 farmers to reduce nitrate pollution by around 40 tonnes of N per year. In Taupo, there is a similar deal costing the public $190 million to reduce N by 170 tonnes per year. This is a cost of approximately $56,000/tonne N/year (if the fund is spread over 20 years).”
Good think piece and well put.
I lived on my large section for 30 years and whilst all around razed the native vegetation to create subdivisions at great economic benefit, myself and my neighbour thought otherwise and chose to retain our beautiful native bush areas – mine was over 3/4 of my total section size, my neighbour not much less. we were surrounded by new developments but for 15 years or more our two hillsides stood out as beacons of what the bush could look like.
Our reward came via a mail-drop. The Council in its wisdom had decided that as these two sections were composed of the last vestiges of pristine native bush in the whole area the are we occupied was to be rezoned conservation-hill (if I remember correctly)
So, the price for our diligence in conservation was to effectively have our lands confiscated – this even before SNA was invented. I could no longer even go and cur a path or fell a diseased tree without consent – which now cost money!!!
I can see why some landowners are suspicious – I don’t blame them!!