INCENTIVISING PRIVATE LANDOWNERS TO RESTORE BIODIVERSITY IN TAIRĀWHITI: ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GISBORNE DISTRICT

COUNCIL

JULY 2017

Prepared by Rachael Trotman (WEAVE Ltd), with Taryne Papuni

www.weavingchange.nz

Page 2

CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 10

3. Biodiversity in Tairāwhiti ................................................................................................................ 11

3.1 What is biodiversity? ............................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Impact of land use changes .................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Regulatory context and resourcing ....................................................................................... 12

3.4 Covenants and protection management areas .................................................................... 13

3.5 The region’s biodiversity outlook ......................................................................................... 15

3.6 Opportunities - changing land use ........................................................................................ 17

3.6 Social context ........................................................................................................................ 19

4. Motivating landowners – drivers and opportunities ..................................................................... 21

4.1 Factors affecting landowner biodiversity awareness and motivations ................................ 21

4.2 Disincentives and harmful practices ..................................................................................... 23

4.3 Changing mindsets ................................................................................................................ 23

5. Private landowner incentives – types, best practice, effectiveness .............................................. 24

5.1 Summary of key incentive types ........................................................................................... 24

5.2 Assessment of landowner incentive schemes ...................................................................... 26

5.3 Best practice for incentive programmes ............................................................................... 27

5.4 The most effective incentives for landowners ...................................................................... 28

6. Insights from other councils ........................................................................................................... 29

6.1 Consider specific options with Māori ................................................................................... 30

6.2 Target staff resourcing and approaches ............................................................................... 30

6.3 Take ecosystem approaches ................................................................................................. 32

6.4 Provide good data, information and expert advice .............................................................. 33

6.5 Emerging practices underline the importance of collaboration ........................................... 33

7. Tairāwhiti perspectives .................................................................................................................. 34

7.1 Māori Perspectives................................................................................................................ 35

7.2 Further Tairāwhiti perspectives ............................................................................................ 40

8. Implications .................................................................................................................................... 49

Page 3

8.1 Funding and expert advice are critical .................................................................................. 49

8.2 Improve information and identify priorities ......................................................................... 50

8.3 Collaborate with Māori ......................................................................................................... 50

8.4 Broker collaboration to widen the resource pool ................................................................. 50

8.5 Focus on the positive ............................................................................................................ 50

9. Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 51

10. References ................................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix One: .................................................................................................................................... 55

Threatened environment classification Gisborne .......................................................................... 55

Appendix Two: .................................................................................................................................... 56

Covenant statistics .......................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix Three: .................................................................................................................................. 57

Auckland Council criteria for assessing effectiveness of incentive schemes ................................. 57

Appendix Four: .................................................................................................................................... 58

Potential ecosystem map of Gisborne ............................................................................................ 58

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank all interview participants for their time and thoughtful

contributions to this project.

Page 4

KO TE MANA KO TE HAUORA O TE WHENUA, KO TE HAUORA O NGĀ

AWA, KO TE HAUORA O TE IWI

HEALTHY LAND, HEALTHY RIVERS, HEALTHY PEOPLE

Waiapu Accord, 2014

“THE MAJOR PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD ARE THE RESULT OF THE

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAY NATURE WORKS AND THE WAY

PEOPLE THINK.”

Gregory Bateson

Page 5

SUMMARY

Local authorities in New Zealand face a conundrum. They have statutory responsibilities to protect

land, water and biodiversity, but lack the capacity and collateral support to uphold them:

The severity and scale of the native biodiversity and ecosystem issues they face are

immense (deforestation, erosion, poor water quality, loss of native species and habitat)

Responses tend to be piecemeal and only address part of the problem, such as riparian

planting for water quality, or pole planting for erosion

Private property rights and economic drivers tend to trump the needs of ecosystems

Legislative and regulatory mechanisms to protect biodiversity on private land are weak

Current non-regulatory (voluntary) incentives for biodiversity are poorly resourced

The agencies with responsibilities for these issues are grossly under-resourced for the task

(such as the Department of Conservation, councils, QEII Trust and Ngā Whenua Rāhui)

The state of monitoring and information on biodiversity is patchy

Acceptance of the urgency for more sustainable land use and to scale action to strengthen

native ecosystems is low, but growing.

Mindsets and mechanisms to protect and restore biodiversity in New Zealand need to change.

In Tairāwhiti, extreme loss of biodiversity as a result of human activity has occurred since the

1880s. Around 23% of native cover remains across its 839,000ha (in some areas less than 10%).

Only 0.005% of Tairāwhiti’s land is protected by covenant (4,589ha).

Much of the remaining indigenous biodiversity in the region is on private land, and its protection

and restoration will depend on action by private landowners and community groups. Gisborne

District Council (GDC) wants to more effectively support private landowners to protect and grow

biodiversity in Tairāwhiti, and this report explores how this can happen.

The report combines literature on non-regulatory incentives for private landowners around

biodiversity, with insights and approaches from other local authorities in New Zealand, and the

perspectives of Māori landowners, relevant agencies, landowners and those who work closely with

farmers and landowners.

While Tairāwhiti’s biodiversity challenges are varied and significant, GDC’s financial and staff

resources are limited. Current biodiversity provision centres on GDC’s regulatory roles, alongside a

contestable fund of $30,000 per annum for private landowner conservation projects, some staff

advice and expertise, and limited pest and weed control. This lack of biodiversity resourcing needs

to be overcome, through collaborative effort with landowners and the private, community and

philanthropic sectors.

Page 6

Biodiversity on private land is a significant piece of a much larger, complex biodiversity picture in

Tairāwhiti. Interviewing key stakeholders raised a host of biodiversity issues and needs for GDC to

consider. It also revealed gaps in the current GDC approach to biodiversity, due mainly to a lack of

resourcing and strategic clarity. A Biodiversity Strategy for the District is planned for 2018.

Key messages from the four strands of information guiding this report are presented below.

MOST EFFECTIVE COUNCIL INCENTIVES

FOR PRIVATE LANDOWNERS ACCORDING

TO LITERATURE (IN ORDER OF PRIORITY)

MOST EFFECTIVE INCENTIVES AND

STRATEGIES FOR MĀORI LANDOWNERS IN

TAIRĀWHITI

1. Grants for private landowners and community

groups

2. Expert knowledge and advice

3. Facilitation of collaboration and networking

4. Provision of free and subsidised resources

(e.g. traps and native plants)

5. Suspensory loans (paid back if the property is

sold)

6. Awards, profiling and recognition

7. Events

Providing grants is considered most effective in

motivating private landowners to protect

biodiversity on their land, alongside easy access

to expert knowledge, information and advice

tailored to their situation.

Increased access to funding and resources

(this is the top priority, the rest have no clear

order of priority)

Iwi/Māori involvement in developing

biodiversity strategy and actions

GDC to improve performance in terms of its

statutory responsibilities and cultural

awareness of staff

Relationship building between GDC and Māori

and bringing together of Māori and scientific

knowledge

Council support for biodiversity education and

wānanga

Support for biodiversity related economic

development and social enterprise

opportunities, such as Manuka, honey, native

plant nurseries, carbon farming and

traditional medicines

Page 7

APPROACHES, INSIGHTS AND ADVICE

FROM OTHER COUNCILS

PRIORITY INCENTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR

AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS

Work collaboratively to develop biodiversity

priorities and a roadmap towards them

Provide good biodiversity maps, data and

evidence and share it effectively

Work with the willing and target privately

owned land owners, based on these

priorities

Provide on-site biodiversity knowledge and

advice to landowners – this is resource

intensive but necessary and invaluable

Broker collaborative biodiversity efforts,

especially around pest control (where joint

resourcing, scale and maintenance is

needed to be effective)

Work holistically at a catchment scale,

bringing together land, water and

biodiversity issues

Support landowners to develop farm or land

environment plans – these plans provide a

means for councils to achieve biodiversity

gains with landowners

Develop a catchment based and District wide

strategy for biodiversity

Provide quality information on biodiversity,

priorities and assistance available

Provide an expert advisory service to

landowners and community groups

Focus on protecting existing high priority

biodiversity

Work closely and effectively with iwi on

biodiversity as a key strategy

Build community and political will for change, by

showcasing great work, normalising positive

behaviours and getting behind leaders and

innovators

Subsidise and reward planting, pest and weed

control

Broker joint ventures and resourcing for pest

control and integrated biodiversity efforts

Grow the resource base for biodiversity, within

council and externally, including through

philanthropic and private sector investment

Work with others to accelerate sustainable land

use change

Drawing these threads together, recommendations for GDC to incentivise private landowners to

protect and restore biodiversity, in order of priority, are as follows.

1. Create an online space that puts existing Tairāwhiti biodiversity information, funding and other

assistance available, and links to useful resources for landowners and the wider community in

one portal. This could be the GDC website or a community based one, and should be kept

updated and widely promoted.

2. Create and promote an environmental advisory and support service for iwi, landowners and

community groups. These GDC staff (and potentially DOC and QEII staff) would be available to

go on-site to discuss biodiversity, land and water issues in a joined-up way. Supporting people

to access funding and resources for biodiversity would be part of this service. The level and

models of support offered would need to be worked out, including the role of Farm

Environment Planning, catchment plans and so on (see for example the Taranaki, Southland

Page 8

and Waikato case study examples). This team would also work to uphold GDC’s statutory

biodiversity responsibilities, help bring Mātauranga Māori and science together and inform

council decision-making on biodiversity.

3. Grow the GDC Natural Heritage Fund over time into a substantial fund, through the council’s

long-term plan, philanthropy and private sector contributions. Change the name of this fund

(Kaitiaki Fund, for example), open it up to community groups and use some of it to leverage

joint ventures and support the development of economic opportunities and social enterprises

around biodiversity (native nurseries, pest control, fencing etc).

4. Increase the level and quality of information on indigenous biodiversity in Tairāwhiti, to inform

the setting of priorities, collaborative effort and the allocation of precious resources. Quality

monitoring of interventions is also needed to gauge their utility.

5. Discuss with iwi/Māori landowners interest and potential in partnering strategically to protect

and restore biodiversity. New GDC biodiversity initiatives should closely involve iwi and hapū in

Tairāwhiti.

6. Increase resources and collaborative effort for animal pest and weed control, on private and

public land. The control of plant and animal pests (and other risks such as biosecurity threats) is

a core dimension of biodiversity management across the District. The aim is to protect the full

range of ecosystems and habitats to provide them the best chance of survival over time (Willis

2017, forthcoming).

7. Work with iwi, agencies, philanthropy, the private sector and community leaders to facilitate

the development of a ground-up Biodiversity Traction Plan. Grow the resource base and

collaborative effort to deliver on the identified priorities in this Traction Plan.

8. Investigate sustainable land use1 and impact investment options for Tairāwhiti, and get behind

those who are already walking down this path.

9. Partner with QEII, Ngā Whenua Rāhui and DOC to increase covenanting and active protection of

significant sites of biodiversity on private land.

10. Wrap positive communications and good news stories around all of the above. Showcase

inspiring iwi, landowner, community and GDC biodiversity action.

As a Unitary Authority, GDC has statutory responsibilities to protect and maintain indigenous

biodiversity. The sense from this research is that biodiversity has taken a back seat in GDC to

pressing erosion and water quality issues.

An increased commitment and investment in biodiversity by GDC, mainly in terms of staff capacity,

is needed to more effectively motivate private landowners to do more to protect biodiversity in

Tairāwhiti, and to leverage other funding, resources and collaborative effort for biodiversity gains. 1 This includes for example native forestry, carbon farming, organic farming, horticulture and viticulture and various forms of “ecoagriculture”, that can deliver sustainable agricultural production, biodiversity and ecosystem services and rural livelihoods (Scherr and Neely 2007).

Page 9

1. BACKGROUND

The serious decline of New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity has been described as our “most

pervasive environmental issue” (State of the Environment Report, 1997). This holds true for

Tairāwhiti and restoring biodiversity is vital for the District. Healthy native ecosystems are central

to improving water quality, addressing erosion and improving soils, protecting native species and

adapting to climate change pressures and severe weather events. Indigenous biodiversity also

underpins socioeconomic prosperity and the wellbeing of communities into the future.

Most land in Tairāwhiti is privately owned, including 28% in Maori ownership. This means that

much of the remaining native biodiversity is in the stewardship of private landholders, including

rare and threatened ecosystems, species and habitats.

Gisborne District Council (GDC) wants to understand what will motivate private landowners to

protect and improve biodiversity on their land and how it can most effectively support them to do

that.

Currently, GDC provides an annual $30,000 fund called the Natural Heritage Fund2 for private

landowners, rates relief for covenanted land, and some staff expertise and information regarding

biodiversity. GDC also has regulatory roles and undertakes very limited pest and weed control on

private land.

This report examines these questions:

What will motivate and assist private landowners to protect and improve biodiversity?

How can Gisborne District Council most effectively support landowners in this area?

Recommendations will inform the design of an incentives programme to protect and strengthen

biodiversity on private land in Tairawhiti. GDC has recently developed a brochure3 on funding and

assistance available for biodiversity and a revamp of the GDC website around biodiversity is

planned later in 2017. A Biodiversity Strategy is scheduled for development in 2018.

The report begins by summarising the current biodiversity picture in Tairawhiti. It then presents:

the range of private landowner incentives currently open to council

insights and approaches from other councils

perspectives from people in Tairawhiti on most effective private landowner incentives.

The report ends with implications and recommendations arising for GDC.

2 See http://www.gdc.govt.nz/natural-heritage-fund/. Applicants need to cover half of the costs of their project and the fund ‘matches’ the rest. 3 See http://www.gdc.govt.nz/biodiversity-on-private-land/.

Page 10

2. APPROACH

This report has been developed using information from four key sources. These are described in

Table One.

Table One: Four Information Sources

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

A scan of council approaches and

incentives

An online review of other the approaches taken by

other councils to support private landowners to

improve biodiversity

Phone interviews with biodiversity staff from

Taranaki, Southland and Waikato Regional Councils.

A national literature scan of

effective ways for local authorities

to motivate and assist private

landowners to protect and

strengthen biodiversity on their land

A small-scale literature scan of New Zealand approaches,

sourced from:

Local authorities in New Zealand

The University of Auckland database

Online articles and websites.

Interviews with iwi/Māori

landowners

Taryne Papuni undertook face-to-face interviews with

seven iwi/Māori landowners and a representative from

Ngā Whenua Rāhui, which supports Māori landowners to

covenant their land.

Interviews with GDC and groups

who work with private landowners

and/or who have related

responsibilities

Rachael Trotman undertook interviews with:

Ten GDC staff

One GDC Councillor

Representatives from the Department of

Conservation, QEII, AgFirst, Longbush Sanctuary and

the Tairāwhiti Environment Centre.

The focus across these research methods was on the most effective motivators and incentives for

private landowners to protect and grow biodiversity in the Tairāwhiti context. The research is also

focused on local government rather than central government incentives.

Page 11

3. BIODIVERSITY IN TAIRĀWHITI

3.1 WHAT IS BIODIVERSITY?

‘Biodiversity’ refers to the rich diversity of all life based

on its variety and inter-connectedness4. Biodiversity is a

Pākehā term that reflects Western rather than Māori

cultural values (see section on Iwi/Māori perspectives).

When habitats and ecosystems are cleared, polluted or

degraded, there are flow-on effects across the whole

ecosystem. The interdependence of plants, organisms,

birds, fish and animals and their habitats is disrupted,

affecting the whole system and its many parts in different

ways.

The significance of the impact on today’s communities

and future generations of degraded biodiversity is

generally poorly understood. Public awareness of the

extent of human modification of land and water and of

what is happening environmentally in Tairāwhiti also

needs to be raised.

3.2 IMPACT OF LAND USE CHANGES

The Gisborne District covers around 839,000 hectares (ha), 596,000ha of which are steep hill

country, with 71,000ha flat or gently rolling land. Around 42% of Gisborne’s land is in pastoral

farming (mainly sheep and beef) and 20% is now planted in exotic forest.

There have been three major periods of land use change in Gisborne in the last 150 years5:

1. The conversion of indigenous forest to pasture during the 1880s to 1920s

2. Reforestation of some pastoral hill country (1960-1985)

3. Reforestation in the 1990s following Cyclone Bola (1988). Cyclone Bola continues to leave a

legacy in the district.

4 See http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/biodiversity/. 5 Trends identified by Dr Mike Marden (Landcare Research) at the Tairāwhiti Freshwater Conference held in

Tolaga Bay in May 2017.

“Biological diversity, or

‘biodiversity’ for short,

describes the variety of all

biological life —plants,

animals, fungi, and

microorganisms — the genes

they contain and the

ecosystems on land or in

water where they live. It is the

diversity of life on earth.”

New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, 2000 (p1)

Page 12

Since 1990, piecemeal harvesting of the exotic

forest estate has occurred (mainly pine).

Landcare Research’s Threatened Environment

Map (Appendix One) shows areas where

indigenous vegetation has been cleared and/or

where only a small proportion of what remains

is legally protected. The Gisborne Map shows

that many of the district’s environments are

either chronically threatened (10-20%

indigenous cover remaining) or acutely

threatened (less than 10% remaining). The

2007 report Protecting Our Places6 refers to

the ‘slippery slope’ for biodiversity when levels

fall under 20%:

“The Slippery Slope is the zone of rapid

decrease below the 20% threshold. Each

increment of further loss takes a greater

proportion of remaining biodiversity with it. As

the amount of habitat reduces, the

susceptibility to loss of species increases

exponentially” (Ministry for the Environment

and Department of Conservation 2007).

3.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT AND RESOURCING

The Gisborne District Council is a Unitary Authority, responsible for both regional and district

Council functions. The Council manages air, soil, water, the coastal environment and land use in

urban centres, rural areas, and open spaces on behalf of the district.

Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (Section 6), Councils are required to provide for the

protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous

fauna. Sections 30 and 31 of the Act cover the functions, powers and duties of local government

and explicitly provide for the establishment of plan provisions related to maintaining indigenous

biological diversity.

6 See http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/protecting-our-places-detail.pdf.

According to the 2016 State of the

Environment Report for Biodiversity

and Biosecurity in Gisborne:

23% of the region’s landcover is

native vegetation

Only 25ha of intact original forest

remains on the Gisborne plains

Wetlands are the most threatened

ecosystem, with only 1.75% remaining

Only 7% is of Gisborne’s land area is

identified in the District Plan as a

Protection Management Area

(indicating highest value native

vegetation)

Only 0.1% of this 7% is protected by

covenant, either via QEII Trust or Ngā

Whenua Rāhui for Māori land.

See http://www.gdc.govt.nz/state-of-our-

environment-report/

Page 13

Major issues exist nationally around adequate resourcing for biodiversity enhancement. The

Department of Conservation is focusing its limited budget on species led programmes and

conserving representative ecosystems.

A report is soon to be released on the role of Regional Councils in the future management of

biodiversity in New Zealand (Willis 2017). This outlines in detail the current complexity of

legislation, roles and management responsibilities for biodiversity and can inform GDC’s future

approach to managing biodiversity in the region.

3.4 COVENANTS AND PROTECTION MANAGEMENT AREAS

Covenants gift portions of privately held land for future posterity, without transferring ownership.

They can play an important role in supporting biodiversity by restricting land use and preventing

the loss of indigenous vegetation. There are four main types of covenants in New Zealand (Murray,

Bade and Seabrook-Davison 2014):

1. Department of Conservation Act 1987

2. Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Act 1977

3. Ngā Whenua Rāhui (for Māori land)

4. Reserves Act 1997

Conservation covenants via QEII and Ngā Whenua Rāhui are the most common mechanism used by

landowners to voluntarily protect biodiversity. They covenants are the only monitored regulatory

mechanism for protecting significant biodiversity on private land at present7. Communities can

however set up their own covenanting system, see for example Banks Peninsula Conservation

Trust8.

Increasing the number of covenants in the Tairāwhiti region could play an important role in

reducing biodiversity loss. Challenges here include:

The limited capacity of the QEII Trust mechanism - around five new covenants occur via

QEII annually, and only 4,589ha (or 0.005%) of land in Tairāwhiti is under registered

covenant (see Appendix Two). 9 This is made up of 147 covenants, with the largest being for

1,103ha and an average covenant size of 31ha (median size 9.1ha). Northland is the region

with the greatest number of covenants (668), followed by Waikato (613). Due to staffing

limitations, the QEII Trust does not have capacity to proactively engage with landowners.

As well as requiring strong commitment, there is a common belief that covenants devalue

land or are akin to ‘giving land away’. At present there is little information or accessible

7 The Department of Conservation provides covenants but these are not enforced or monitored. 8 See http://www.bpct.org.nz/our-projects/conservation-covenants.asp.This Trust has been covenanting land on Banks

Peninsula since 2001, working with landowners who wish to protect biodiversity and leave a legacy for future

generations. To date the Trust has 54 registered covenants with a further 10 in progress. 9 See http://www.openspace.org.nz/

Page 14

opportunity to gain any economic return from covenanted land, which is a major

disincentive to covenant.

In terms of District Plan regulations, Protected Natural Areas were identified in the 1980s by

Landcare Research and DOC, identifying ecologically significant areas as part of the Protected

Natural Areas (PNAs) programme. These areas collectively represent the best of the range of

natural ecological diversity that has survived in the region.

GDC selected the best PNAs to become as Protection Management Areas (PMA), which are subject

to a set of specific rules in the District Plan around activities that affect them (District Plan, Chapter

4).

Figure One shows the land in Tairāwhiti identified as a Protection Management Area (shown in

red), for which varying levels of protection and maintenance take place, from intensive pest control

and fencing from stock, to no management at all. Of this 58,000ha only 975ha are protected by

covenant.

Protection Management Areas provide a clear target for proactive biodiversity protection efforts by

GDC.

Figure One: Protection Management Areas

Page 15

3.5 THE REGION’S BIODIVERSITY OUTLOOK

The Tairāwhiti region has a number of significant biodiversity challenges, which are summarised

below.

EROSION AND WATER QUALITY

The erosion problem in

Tairāwhiti is well known,

with 26% of Gisborne

District's land susceptible

to severe erosion,

compared with 8% of all

land in New Zealand. As

well as lowering water

quality by contributing

large amounts of sediment

to river systems, erosion

harms the natural and

cultural values of the land

and the coastal environment. It also affects the productivity of rural land, with related socio-

economic and environmental impacts. Poor water quality and loss of native fish species due to

deforestation, sedimentation, nutrient loading and ecoli contamination from stock is a huge issue

for the district.

PEST CONTROL

A major focus has been protecting the District’s bovine TB free status. Council staff report that the

focus is moving to species pest control for biodiversity, focusing on mustelids, rats, rabbits (to a

lesser extent), pigs, deer, goats and the management of hunting, including in forestry areas.

WEEDS

Weeds are an issue across the district and the onus is on private landowners to address weeds on

their property. GDC monitors agricultural weeds such as Nodding Thistle that affect rural economic

production, and seeks to contain it. GDC uses GPS to locate key weeds such as woolly nightshade

and creepers and visits problem sites quarterly. Education is a big focus for weeds, linking and

supporting groups on the ground and referring people to funding sources. Bio-control is sometimes

used by GDC to support weed control. GDC also provides some support for the greening of urban

areas such as Kaiti Hill, and for restoration projects such as the Te Wherowhero Lagoon.

Page 16

NATURAL HAZARDS

The Gisborne district is susceptible to regular high-intensity

weather events that accelerate soil erosion and flooding.

These weather events are likely to be more extreme and

frequent. For a mid-range global greenhouse gas emission

scenario, a 1-in-100 year event now could become a 1-in-50

year event by the end of the century. The forecast for

Tairāwhiti is accelerating drought, sea level rise and changing

agricultural patterns.

Forestry now covers 20% of the District and can have major impacts when clear felling occurs10.

This is compounded when severe weather events occur in areas of recent forestry harvest. Large

areas of the Poverty Bay Flats (formerly wetlands) and parts of Gisborne City are vulnerable to

liquefaction in a major earthquake and there are flooding concerns for these and other areas.

LOSS OF NATIVE VEGETATION COVER

As noted, the last mapping of biodiversity in Tairāwhiti occurred over 20 years ago and resulted in

7% of the district’s private land being identified as having significant ecological value. Since that

time, major changes have happened in terms of forestry and since 2008, the Council has approved

the clearance of 2650.3ha of native bush, including 165.8ha of Protection Management Areas11.

The amount of native bush cleared privately is unknown.

DIVERSE APPROACHES REQUIRED

Tairāwhiti has very different catchments, including the Poverty Bay flats, hill country farms and the

East Cape, with its focus on honey, manuka and native reforestation. Tairāwhiti also has many

kilometres of coastal areas of biodiversity, including 10km of dunes in central Gisborne. Forestry

generates big income for the district but has major environmental and socioeconomic costs (see

footnote 10). This range of different ecosystems requires a diverse range of approaches to support

and strengthen biodiversity.

10 A July 2015 GDC report outlines issues and options for the management of woody debris and forestry slash from clearfell forestry operations, Future Tairawhiti Committee, go to http://www.gdc.govt.nz/agendas-and-minutes-2/ and search under Forestry, July 2015 for this report. 11 See http://www.gdc.govt.nz/state-of-our-environment-report/.

Damage caused by high intensity rain in a clear felled forestry area

Page 17

3.6 OPPORTUNITIES - CHANGING LAND USE

NATIONAL CONTEXT

Increasingly, people across New Zealand are seeking to make smarter use of land that benefits

whole ecosystems, including people. This is a broad canvas involving, for example:

Greater numbers of smaller producers

Producing higher value products (e.g. a hill country Gisborne farm that is producing ‘eco-

lamb’ through farming biologically12)

Campaigns that promote buying local and growing regional food self-sufficiency

Native forestry

Patch harvesting of forestry rather than clear felling large areas

Organic and biodynamic farming, horticulture and viticulture

Creating new enterprises from native flora and fauna

Reviving traditional and indigenous land practices

Active restoration of land and waterways.

The 2017 OECD report on New Zealand’s Environmental Performance notes that our current

economic growth model, based largely on exporting primary products, is taking too high a toll on

the environment and needs to change. It recommends using our knowledge and innovation to

export higher value products and decoupling economic growth from natural resource use13.

TAIRĀWHITI CONTEXT

Tairāwhiti is abundant with examples of people pursuing different land uses and innovative

approaches to improving biodiversity, including Hikurangi Enterprises (see case study).

To account for climate change in Tairāwhiti, Dr Marden from Landcare Research states that there is

a need to improve landscape resilience by planting existing erosion hot spots such as gullies, and

steep, treeless hill country areas with a high erosion susceptibility (May 2017). Unless pastoral

12 See this country calendar documentary of the Tombleson family (21 minutes), August 2016 Country

Calendar: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/country-calendar/episodes/s2016/e24. 13 OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: New Zealand 2017, see http://www.oecd.org/environment/oecd-

environmental-performance-reviews-new-zealand-2017-9789264268203-en.htm

“The bottom line is that more trees - not less - will be required to prevent the more

vulnerable parts of the Tairāwhiti region from ending up in the sea.”

Dr Mike Marden, Landcare Research (2017)

Page 18

areas are future-proofed against erosion, the loss of soil and productivity will in time force a change

in land use to forestry (exotic or indigenous).

A diversification from the current radiata monoculture to a mix of exotic and indigenous forest

species will be required to reduce the risk of disease and insect infestation. A practical solution for

low productivity areas already partly reverted is to interplant with indigenous timber tree species.

The planting of manuka for honey, oil and carbon affords a practical solution for land that is

currently unproductive (Marden 2017).

On the East Coast the economics of farming are

challenging given its isolation. However, ‘smart’

forestry, for example planting Manuka and

Kanuka, accelerating the honey enterprise,

carbon credits, fishing and small-scale

ecotourism were noted as areas of opportunity.

Exploring land use changes triggers the need for

alternative funding sources. Such funding

sources may include collective funding models

and impact investment, where investors seek

social and environmental impact alongside

economic returns.

Pioneering impact investment work is

underway in the Upper Waipa Catchment in

Waikato, led by the Waikato River Authority,

Waikato Regional Council, Maniapoto Māori

Trust Board and Envirostrat. This work is

investigating land use options that will improve

environmental and social outcomes and have

the potential to attract national and global

impact investment.

In June 2017 the feasibility study on sustainable

land use and impact investment opportunities

for the Upper Waipa Catchment will be

completed. The findings of this study could be helpful for Tairāwhiti and may be used by GDC and

other stakeholders to undertake similar work in Tairāwhiti, which could have the following

elements.

CASE STUDY: LAND USE

INNOVATION IN

TAIRĀWHITI

Hikurangi Enterprises is working with East

Coast farmers and landholders on:

Kanuka cultivation

Planting natives for carbon credits

Exploring carbon farming economics

Developing a carbon farming

cooperative

Developing a rongoā farm to grow

medicinal native plants that can be

used to supply traditional healers and

for bioactive extracts.

They are also researching the potential for

regenerative agriculture using traditional

Māori knowledge, to create employment

for locals and improve biodiversity and

water quality.

Page 19

Figure Two: Exploring sustainable land use – elements to include

3.6 SOCIAL CONTEXT

People come and go, but the land remains. The clash between private property rights and the

needs of native ecosystems is one that local and central government seek to mediate.

Some farmers in Tairawhiti are struggling to make a living and can feel blamed by the wider

community for land and water degradation. Farmers clearly see costs associated with biodiversity

such as weeding, planting, fencing and maintenance, while for many the returns for investing in

biodiversity are less clear.

SUSTAINABLE LAND USE

IDENTIFY SUSTAINABLE LAND

USE OPTIONS IN DIFFERENT

CATCHMENTS, WITH LOCALS AND

STAKEHOLDERS

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS: CURRENT AND

POTENTAL

LOCAL CONTEXTS: MINDSETS,

STRENGTHS AND NEEDS, LEADERSHIP

GOVERNANCE AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES: IWI,

COUNCIL, INDUSTRY, BANKING

INCENTIVES TO REWARD LOW IMPACTS AND

MAXIMISE POSITIVE OUTCOMES

Page 20

For some landowners the bottom line will always be dollar return per stock unit and per hectare

and interviewees for this research were clear about this. The general feeling was that greatest

biodiversity gains on private land will be made with those

who are open and willing and those who have the

wherewithal to act, from awareness to financial

resources.

Several people noted a mind-set that ‘technology will sort

it out’ (biodiversity loss and ecosystem failure), or that

some farmers equated biodiversity with fencing, and a

perception that biodiversity is ‘of little use’ to their farm.

Overall, there was a sense that “It comes down to bottom

lines; if it doesn’t affect incomes and bottom lines then

people will be willing to support it [biodiversity]”.

At the same time, people are feeling the winds of change

and farmers in particular are expecting to see new

requirements around freshwater quality and erosion

control. Severe weather events are increasing awareness

of climate change and changing weather patterns, and

the need for ecosystems, including communities, to be

able to adapt and cope.

There are also many good things happening in Gisborne

that people wanted to see shared more – such as weka

reappearing in places, and initiatives such as the Uawanui

Project14. There were calls to promote areas where

positive results can be seen as flagships, and to

proactively bring together local knowledge and technical

knowledge.

14 See http://gisborneherald.co.nz/lifestyle/2413491-135/coast-mission-wins-green-award.

“The costs and perceived

burdens of heritage

conservation, which

ultimately benefits the wider

community, often fall to

private owners (Graham

Spargo Partnerships 2007,

Petry 2011). A problem arises

if private landowners are

unable or unwilling to

conserve heritage assets. This

can occur if landowners are

unable to pay for

maintenance of the asset on

their land or if they are

unaware of the heritage

values associated with the

asset”

Murray, Bade and Seabrook-Davison, 2014

(p1)

Page 21

4. MOTIVATING LANDOWNERS – DRIVERS AND OPPORTUNITIES

4.1 FACTORS AFFECTING LANDOWNER BIODIVERSITY AWARENESS AND MOTIVATIONS

Interview participants from this research who work with farmers and other landowners note huge

variation in perceptions of biodiversity and its relative value for their land. Attitudes towards

biodiversity sit on a wide and complex spectrum – including those with little to no awareness or

interest, those actively resistant to improving biodiversity on their land, and those who are

implementing inspirational biodiversity efforts, sometimes against great odds.

Some of the key factors affecting landowner motivation for participation in biodiversity initiatives

are outlined in Table Two.

Table Two: Factors influencing landowner awareness and motivations

INFLUENCING FACTOR

DESCRIPTION

Land tenure and ownership

This includes individual private landowners, shared ownership structures

including family farms and trusts, Māori land holdings and

incorporations, iwi and hapū holdings, managed farm stations and

commercially owned or leased land for forestry and farming. There are

Māori owned blocks of land in Tairāwhiti with over 2000 shareholders.

Tenure affects intention to retain the land, what the land is used for and

commitment to ecologically improving the land.

Single or multiple ownership

This ranges from one person having decision-making power on their land,

to complex governance structures where multiple people have decision-

making power. Understanding motivations and decision-making

processes around biodiversity in shared ownership situations can be

challenging.

Land type: urban, rural, coastal

Different biodiversity needs and possibilities exist in different parts of

Tairāwhiti. The Poverty Bay Flats are a vastly different ecology to

Gisborne Central, the East Coast or steep hill country farms. Resident

mindsets about biodiversity and individual and collective responsibilities

for biodiversity may also differ in different areas.

Land history Land history encompasses its ecological heritage (wetlands, waterways,

type of vegetation and species), and its sociocultural heritage. This can

Page 22

INFLUENCING FACTOR

DESCRIPTION

include, for example, land that has witnessed battles and other historical

events, is wāhi tapu or home to significant cultural values, or is

considered a district wide taonga or treasure such as coastal areas and

Rere Falls and Rockslide.

Current and potential land uses

How the land has been used in the past for economic return, how it is

used now and how it might be used is key to affecting motivation around

biodiversity.

Individual values, culture and ecological awareness

Personal and cultural values, different levels of interaction and

relationship with nature and experiences of the natural world are

embedded in us all. These all influence, consciously and unconsciously,

people’s motivation to act to support biodiversity.15

Durpoix (2011) examined attitudes of farmers towards the natural environment and native forest in

particular, and how these relate to pro-environmental behaviour on farms. Farmers’ direct

experience and relationship with nature, knowledge of ecology and family influence were found to

be particularly pertinent factors affecting pro-environmental behaviour (2011 p254).

The existence of native forest near their own land can also encourage pro-environmental attitudes

in farmers with native forest fragments of greater than 1ha (ibid). This research also found that

farmers with native forest on their land tended to hold more holistic environmental attitudes (pii).

Other factors mentioned by people interviewed for this

research that can motivate people to protect and improve

biodiversity on their land, via a covenant for example, were:

Those who wish to leave a legacy for future generations

Those for whom money is not an issue

Those who care for plant, insect, fish, bird and animal

life and wish to encourage it

Landholders with children who leave home to study

related subjects (e.g. environmental management), who

then return home and influence their family

Those seeking to farm or undertake horticulture in a

more ecologically friendly way

Landowners motivated to take action to provide habitat

for a species they love, such as bees, tuna/eels, falcon

and tui.

15 See for example work on the ecological self in fields such as deep ecology and ecopsychology that explore the relationship between people and the rest of the natural world. Te Ao Māori includes the belief that people are part of nature rather than the pinnacle of it (see diagram on page 4).

“A group of farmers

in Whangara started

a pest control project

and noticed bird

numbers increasing.

This encouraged

them to embed pest

control into their

normal work.”

Jamie Foxley, Local Vet

Page 23

4.2 DISINCENTIVES AND HARMFUL PRACTICES

A range of disincentives to protect biodiversity exist. Over winter, some farmers push cattle into

bush and rivers to feed them. Bush blocks can be a valuable source of feed in times of economic

struggle, and this is a disincentive to fence native vegetation.

There is a view that rules (the ‘stick’) will be the only things that will make some landowners act to

protect biodiversity. Another concern was that weeds such as blackberry can ‘take off’ when

riparian areas are planted and/or fenced from stock.

Some current practices mentioned that harm biodiversity included:

Hunters letting deer and pigs loose

Nutrient loading from fertilisers and phosphates

Draining of swamps and wetlands

Creating dams

Forestry companies creating sediment in waterways when forests are felled

Straightening streams with diggers and causing sediment in waterways through dumping

loads of earth in and around waterways.

4.3 CHANGING MINDSETS

While some councils across New Zealand have

great technical information and expertise to

support landowners around biodiversity, all local

authorities are grappling with how to shift mind-

sets and behaviour to improve biodiversity on

private and public land - especially given low

levels of resourcing and ineffective legislative

mechanisms. Hearts and minds need to be

engaged to bring about the level of biodiversity

action needed.

Getting behind anchor organisations to engage

communities and support community-led action

is a good tactical approach for councils, as it can

be difficult for council to get traction with

landowners given their regulatory roles.

Other opportunities to support behaviour change

are explored in Section 7.2.

“In our community we have

amazing people, also a spectrum of

those who are uninterested and

can’t see the value of wetlands and

biodiversity. Our biggest challenge

is changing that mind-set. Social

science will make the difference.

We have a lot of the ecology but

we don’t understand how to

change behaviour. That will make

or break it. No-one’s got

solutions.”

Environment Southland

Page 24

5. PRIVATE LANDOWNER INCENTIVES – TYPES, BEST PRACTICE, EFFECTIVENESS

5.1 SUMMARY OF KEY INCENTIVE TYPES

Local authorities in New Zealand have a lot of discretion in how they can improve biodiversity

outcomes, through incentivising voluntary behaviour. A voluntary approach puts the onus on

landowners, encourages personal responsibility and seeks to balance the public and private

benefits of biodiversity outcomes, which are often contested (Murray, Bade and Seabrook-Davison

2014 piv).

In 2014, Auckland Council commissioned a literature review of options to incentivise heritage

conservation on private land, including natural (environmental) heritage, historic places and

buildings (Murray, Bade and Seabrook-Davison 2014). The review identified four types of

incentivising tools and discusses each in detail. Table Three presents these tools, along with a

description and examples.

“Incentives create a balance between the costs borne by private owners and the

requirement of the Council to preserve heritage for the public… The literature

stresses the importance for incentives to only support voluntary actions.

Incentives are intended to provide the impetus for change in behaviour, by

providing both ‘seed resources’ (money, advice, materials) and on-going support

(mentoring, education and advocacy). The design of an incentives tool-kit… is

crucial for success.”

Murray, Bade and Seabrook-Davison, 2014 (pp5-7)

Page 25

Table Three: Range of biodiversity incentives for private landowners

TYPE OF INCENTIVE DESCRIPTION AND/OR EXAMPLES

1. Regulation through rules in statutory plans, with legal processes to ensure compliance

Incentivising landowner practice through regulation and legal

compliance. Examples include legislation and statutory plans such

as District Plans. Regulatory mechanisms are not the focus of this

report.

2. Fiscal incentives through rates

Incentivising landowner practice through rates-related financial

incentives, including targeted rates remissions on land, rates freeze,

rates holiday, rates postponement and differential rating.

3. Market based incentives

Grant schemes for individual landowners and community groups,

loan schemes and free or subsidised resources such as plants, pest

and weed control. Grant scheme examples include GDC’s Natural

Heritage Fund, Environment Southland’s Environmental

Enhancement Fund and Northland Regional Council’s Environment

Fund.

4. Non-financial incentives

Providing technical advice and support, information, events,

awards/recognition, support for networking and advocating for

certain behaviours, support to access funding.

The types of grants used in New Zealand for biodiversity protection are (EPHC, 2004):

Entitlement grants – given to any owner whose property meets pre-set eligibility criteria

Discretionary grants – where applicants compete for selection, with grants only given to

worthy applications. This is the most common form in New Zealand (McClean, 2013)

Performance grants – strict criteria define types of conservation projects that would be

supported

Capital grants (small scale) – gifting of resources such as pest control, plants and weed

disposal facilities.

Increasingly, grants are structured as a public-private partnership or a match fund, involving

investment from both parties, either through direct monetary contributions or through in-kind

contributions, such as time and labour. It is acknowledged that public money should not be used to

support private individual’s interest only (Graham Spargo Partnerships 2007). Grants schemes

usually provide only a token contribution towards conservation costs, but offer important moral

Page 26

support, and may make the crucial difference between a project being implemented or abandoned

(Pike 2006).

This literature review also highlighted:

The possibility of councils working with landowners to raise philanthropic and private

funding

The importance of flexibility in the design of incentive schemes

The desirability of a strong monitoring component to ensure that the desired outcomes are

achieved through incentive funding.

5.2 ASSESSMENT OF LANDOWNER INCENTIVE SCHEMES

The 2014 Auckland Council review of incentive options evaluates in detail the advantages and

disadvantages of each set of incentives identified under categories 2-4 in Table Three. Their core

findings are summarised below.

In New Zealand, they find that rates reduction schemes for biodiversity protection tend to be

poorly advertised, underutilised and unclear about their nature and extent. Rates relief may not

achieve protection unless it is accompanied by a covenant guaranteeing long-term protection. They

find a strong argument for rates relief on covenanted land, or land set aside for conservation

purposes (Murray, Bade and Seabrook-Davison 2014 p14).

Rates relief usually offers token amounts of compensation to landowners and is not enough to

cover landowner costs of actively managing biodiversity. It does however offer the Council another

‘string in its bow’ and is important to retain. It also has relatively low transaction costs to the

Council and there is flexibility in the design of rates remission policy.

GDC set up the Natural Heritage Fund partly because it considered rates relief not to be an effective

motivator for biodiversity protection. Participant feedback in this research was also that rates relief

is helpful but not a major motivator for landowners.

Giving recognition for private landowner efforts to protect and improve biodiversity through

awards, media promotion and events is often undervalued but can provide a catalyst for

community interest in, and political support for, heritage conservation (EPHC 2004 p28).

Other relevant findings from this 2014 literature review are:

Having a range of incentives in operation at any one time is desirable

Incentives should focus on voluntary action

Targeted incentives for landowners and community groups raise the value of biodiversity

throughout the community

Incentives should treat all biodiversity as an asset rather than a cost or a burden for

landowners

Page 27

Simplicity, user friendliness and ease of administration are key to the success of incentives

programmes.

5.3 BEST PRACTICE FOR INCENTIVE PROGRAMMES

This literature review identified nine principles of best practice for incentivising biodiversity on

private land (Murray, Bade and Seabrook-Davison 2014 p33):

1. Alignment with the Regional/District Plans – incentives that are clearly linked to local

priorities

2. Accountability and transparency in process – to ensure accountability to ratepayers that

effective and efficient use of public funds is being made, with clear goals for funds allocated

3. Targeted outcomes/priorities – target incentives for priority biodiversity outcomes

4. Practicality and ease of administration

5. Flexibility in design of policy

6. Proactive focus on asset maintenance

7. Effective monitoring of outcomes

8. Accessible to applicants

9. Meaningful benefit for applicants and recipients.

“The challenge in designing incentive policies is to balance the ‘variable mix of

altruistic motivation and material self-interest’ (Benabou and Triole, 2006). It is

considered good practice to use a combined ‘sticks and carrots’ approach, whereby

non-regulatory incentives (financial or non-financial) provide the inducement to the

desired conservation outcome, as prescribed in the rules or regulatory plans (the

“stick”). Farrant (1999) emphasises that incentives and regulation need to act in

concert with each other, much like bricks and mortar. Without incentives, the

desired outcomes of regional and district plans are unlikely to occur (Rogers &

Dwyer 2013: 7).”

Murray, Bade and Seabrook-Davison, 2014 (p9)

Page 28

5.4 THE MOST EFFECTIVE INCENTIVES FOR LANDOWNERS

CRITERIA TO ASSESS EFFECTIVENESS

Auckland Council commissioned a multi-criteria analysis in 2014, involving a literature review, a

series of workshops and participation from an expert group of heritage officers at Auckland Council,

covering natural, cultural, historic and built heritage. These experts scored different heritage

incentive schemes against a set of 20 criteria, which were focused on outcomes the schemes were

designed to achieve. The 20 criteria are listed in Appendix Three, which were weighted and ranked

into five categories:

1. Strategic use of best practice (30%)

2. Supporting landowner behaviour (29.2%)

3. Strategic outcomes (18.6%)

4. Financial and economic leveraging (13%)

5. Administration ease (9.2%).

MOST EFFECTIVE INCENTIVES BY TYPE

The results of the Auckland Council criteria assessment process produced a rank order of how

effective each scheme is in achieving voluntary conservation, relative to each other. It should be

noted that whilst the schemes were scored in isolation, in reality these schemes complement each

other and work in tandem. The top five highest ranked schemes were as follows.

1. Grants of up to $10,000 for individual landowners

2. Providing technical knowledge and expert advice (this closely followed grants up to $10k)

3. Grants of up to $10,000 for community groups

4. Grants of up to $1,000 for individuals

5. Grants of up to $1,000 for community groups.

The remaining incentives were ranked in the following order (small rates remission for many

properties was ranked least effective):

A mentoring system and facilitating networks - Council mentors landowners and facilitates

collaboration with other individuals or groups to provide support and share information

Provision of free and subsidised resources such as plants, herbicides, pest animal traps,

weed bins or weed disposal. Resources are tailored to help the applicant, rather than a pre-

determined list of 'in and out' tools

Suspensory loans - a grant-related loan, e.g. for fencing, with repayment set at a sliding

scale (e.g. $10,000 grant to be repaid in full if property sold within a year, half to be repaid

if sold after 5 years, no repayment required if sold after 10 years)

Awards and recognition - recognition of good environmental practice through prizes or

endorsement (accreditation) of work

Page 29

Events - planned celebrations, awareness raising, information sharing and connecting

Low-interest loan - the loan is provided by a commercial lender and the interest rate gap is

funded by the Council to get the rate under commercial levels

Ring-fenced interest loan - a dedicated fund, from which applicants are given a loan that is

repaid into the fund (similar to an acquisition fund)

Rates remission - large rates remission for few properties

Rates attachment (a form of loan, repayable with instalments through rates)

Providing technical information

Rates remission - small remission for many properties.

From this analysis, providing grants funding, technical knowledge and expert advice are the most

effective incentives to support private landowners to improve biodiversity.

Loan schemes are usually given to groups and are uncommon in New Zealand due to administrative

and legal requirements (ibid p22), which do not mean that loan schemes should not be explored.

Overall, providing information and expert advice and assistance is recommended by the Auckland

Council review, in conjunction with other financial incentives such as grants. This service builds

goodwill between council and landowners, ensures they are well informed, allows for council staff

input and can be a highly effective incentive (ibid p26). If people and relationships drive change

then building relationships between council and landowners through this mechanism is important.

6. INSIGHTS FROM OTHER COUNCILS

In terms of biodiversity, local authorities in New Zealand can feel overwhelmed, with resources

available paling in comparison with the scale and severity of biodiversity issues their regions are

facing. Strengthening biodiversity requires a holistic approach and on-going resourcing and

maintenance regarding weeds, pests and biosecurity threats.16 Building goodwill and forming

relationships with landowners can be challenging for council staff given council’s regulatory roles,

yet a few skilled staff can make a real difference working alongside landowners and community

groups.

Identifying and bringing priority areas of biodiversity under legal, managed, or otherwise

sustainable protection is a key goal for councils. Few councils however provide long term, on-going

support for landowners, and examples of creative rates relief mechanisms - such as rates freezes,

16 Myrtle Rust is the latest biosecurity threat to reach New Zealand’s shores, with potentially radical implications for honey production and horticulture, for example. See http://www.mpi.govt.nz/protection-and-response/responding/alerts/myrtle-rust/

Page 30

rates holidays or facilitating short-term loans that can be repaid via rates for biodiversity protection

- are rare. Some lessons, suggestions and examples from other councils are summarised below.

6.1 CONSIDER SPECIFIC OPTIONS WITH MĀORI

There are few council landowner incentives that integrate mātauranga and tikanga Māori. In its

work to develop an incentives framework for natural, historic, built and cultural heritage, Auckland

Council identified options to pilot projects between landowners and mana whenua (mainly in the

context of protecting cultural heritage on private land). Options included:

A kaitiakitanga grants fund

Wānanga and networking events

Monitoring and management of sites by iwi

Involvement of iwi in decision making for particular sites.

6.2 TARGET STAFF RESOURCING AND APPROACHES

Having staff with a biodiversity focus who can work well with

landowners, stakeholders and communities, can be the key to

councils making an impact on biodiversity on private land. Staff

need to be strategic and relational to build collaboration and

relationships. A few highly skilled staff can broker big impacts,

alongside landowners and communities.

It takes highly skilled facilitation and leadership to get large,

significant biodiversity projects funded and underway, though

examples of such projects are growing, such as the Cape to City

project in the Hawke’s Bay, a multi-agency pest control and

restoration project. Northland Regional Council provides an

online Pest Control Hub, works with communities on pest control

in key areas and seeks to grow community action around animal

pests via Community Pest Control Areas.

“It’s a huge job. You

can take a scattergun

approach with the

willing, but to make a

difference for

biodiversity itself you

need to target.”

Taranaki Regional

Council

Page 31

Several case studies are provided below, which highlight the important role of council staff and

prioritising staff time to work with willing landowners and priority sites.

COLLABORATIVE RESOURCING OF A BIODIVERSITY COORDINATOR IN WAIKATO

In Waikato, the Waikato Regional Council, four territorial authorities and DOC jointly fund a

Biodiversity Coordinator, with DOC hosting the position. The staff member has an email network

of 500, runs community workshops and two biodiversity forums a year. There is an 0800 phone

number to reach the Coordinator. The role also involves connecting landowners and groups with

funding and assistance available, and going to farmers and advising them on biodiversity

opportunities on their land.

The message to GDC from this Coordinator was to have people who can respond and go out to

farmers and landowners, to stand on their land and advise how to improve biodiversity. They

need to have mana in the community and be able to relate to famers:

“Farmers always say come and see us. Give us a bit of resource to help. We need to acknowledge

and value what they are doing already.”

WORKING WITH THE WILLING IN SOUTHLAND

In 2007 a desktop exercise identified 3000 sites on private land with high biodiversity value (High

Value Areas). Landowners are contacted directly to see if they are interested in protecting their

land. If so, independent contractors do a rapid ecological assessment, grade the site out of 50 and

make recommendations. Environment Southland works with the willing and hasn’t prioritized the

3000 sites, but plans to in several years to help target cold calling of landowners.

Page 32

6.3 TAKE ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES

Staff within councils tend to operate in silos within

environmental, economic, social and culturally focused

teams, with variable levels of interaction and

collaboration. Taking holistic approaches to issues is

challenging in this context. Staff working on water

quality may not work closely with those in charge of

weed and pest control, biosecurity issues, erosion and

iwi relationships. Taking a place-based, catchment

based, holistic approach, instead of issues-based

approaches, can help overcome these issues (see

Hikurangi Takiwa Trust and 6.5 below for examples).

WRAPAROUND APPROACH IN TARANAKI

In Taranaki, Farm Environment Plans, Riparian Plans and a Possum Self Help Programme for

private landowners have been around for 25 years. Taranaki Regional Council’s ecosystem

prioritisation programme called Key Native Ecosystems (KNE) began in 2008.

They have an inventory of KNEs (regionally significant sites) and are working their way through

supporting landowners to protect and manage them. If a site meets KNE criteria officer hours

are allocated to do a five year Biodiversity Plan with the landowner.

If the landowner is willing to covenant and sustainably manage their land they can access

tiered funding and assistance over five years, with the goal being to covenant. Each year 12-14

biodiversity plans are created and 20-30 new KNE sites are identified. The three councils in the

area all contribute financially to this approach.

In 10 years 101 Biodiversity Plans covering 4000ha have been created. Relationships with

landowners have been built through longstanding programmes, which fuels the site led KNE

work. This approach costs $700 to $800k a year including officer hours, plus the costs of the

possum and riparian programmes.

“Water is overshadowing

everything, it is hard to make

whole systems connections

[between land and water]”

Environment Southland

Page 33

6.4 PROVIDE GOOD DATA, INFORMATION AND EXPERT ADVICE

Local authorities in New Zealand provide variable levels of land and water based information and

data for their regions. Examples include Environment Southland’s map-based data, in which people

can zoom in to any site http://envdata.es.govt.nz/. There is however a lack of data on how effective

various incentive mechanisms are and few councils collect baseline data when new incentives

begin.

In general, councils are advised to:

Support people to become aware of biodiversity on their property

Have clear biodiversity priorities and a roadmap towards them.

6.5 EMERGING PRACTICES UNDERLINE THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLABORATION

In 2017, Waikato Regional Council is starting an innovative, collaborative biodiversity programme,

based on learning from a 2016 pilot in the Waihou Catchment called ‘Source to the Sea – Te Puna o

Waihou ki Tīkapa te Moana’. Key lessons from this pilot were17:

Grassroots support and local ownership of biodiversity initiatives is critical - communities

will value the work much more if they are involved

One-on-one, site-specific advice from knowledgeable people is extremely helpful to

landowners who are implementing biodiversity initiatives on the ground

The farm planning process, if done well, has the ability to achieve multiple objectives

(integrating biodiversity, water, soil and farm profitability); both for the farm business and

the environment, and to remove some of the red tape for landowners wanting to make a

positive change in land use

Modelling and mapping of ecological networks provides an important scientific basis to the

process. It can and should be used to support the development of a community-based

biodiversity vision – it is a case of “science on tap, not science on top”

Marae-based engagement opened up significant cultural opportunities to the programme

linked to ecological restoration and a commitment from Ngāti Hinerangi, one of the local

iwi, to formalise the partnership with the project partners

17 See https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/environment/natural-resources/biodiversity/indigenous-biodiversity-programme for more

on this Waikato biodiversity programme and Source to the Sea reports. This link will also take you to several

short DVDs with landowners sharing their approach to improving biodiversity on their farms.

Page 34

Identifying key partners and investing time to engage with them and to build their capacity

to be involved in biodiversity management is critical to success. This process can be time

consuming but is a key building block of a successful process.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) has developed a Biodiversity Accord, bringing key parties

together to develop and implement collaborative action for biodiversity. HBRC also has a system

where it does an initial knock down for pests and weeds and the landowner is supported to

maintain them. This is reportedly having some good results, with birdlife returning to some areas.

The Gold Coast Council in Australia offers a range of options for landowners, from one-off site visits

to identify flora and fauna and advise on pest control (Bushland Health Checks), to a tailored

management plan for significant sites, grants funding and voluntary conservation agreements. The

latter could be an appealing option for landowners in Tairāwhiti and of interest to GDC.

7. TAIRĀWHITI PERSPECTIVES

This section summarises the views of the local people interviewed, including iwi/Māori

representatives, GDC staff, agency representatives, landowners and those who work with

landowners. The general impression was of a culture of few rules and a lack of awareness of rules

and voluntary means to protect biodiversity. There was support for incentives and voluntary

approaches for landowners to protect biodiversity and a feeling that rules can create disincentives.

There was also some feeling that current fines and consequences are too insignificant to stop poor

or illegal practices.

Farmers and landowners are aware of changes around freshwater regulation being possible and

there is a perception that GDC is prioritising water quality. A good message from GDC would be to

prioritise and address land, water and biodiversity restoration together, in a holistic, catchment-

based way.

Māori perspectives are shared below on how GDC can incentivize and support Māori landowners to

restore biodiversity. This is followed by feedback from other Tairāwhiti locals on what people feel

would effectively motivate private landowners to protect and grow biodiversity.

“Imagine if plants, animals and people all worked together and were going in a

positive direction. It requires a different way of thinking. The environment is a huge

advantage to us if we don’t stuff it up”.

Page 35

7.1 MĀORI PERSPECTIVES

“Māori believe that the land is taonga tuku iho18. Biodiversity is inclusive of the people not just the

native flora, fauna and habitats. It is the oral traditions and traditional uses of plants and animal

species (eg rongoa Māori).”

This section shares the views of a Nga Whenua Rāhui representative and seven local Māori who are

actively involved in governance, administration, management and ownership of whenua (land)

across Tairāwhiti. They are representative of the social, cultural, spiritual, economic and

environmental aspirations of their whānau, hapū, iwi and marae.

Hapū and iwi are committed to improving biodiversity and realizing their aspirations of

kaitiakitanga and cultural revitalisation.

Around 28% of land in Tairāwhiti is Māori owned. Restoring biodiversity and upholding Treaty of

Waitangi principles in the district will require GDC to work proactively and effectively with Māori.

From the discussions held, seven key kaupapa emerge for GDC to consider. Each of these are

discussed in this section of the report.

(1) WORK TO UNDERSTAND AND INTEGRATE TE AO MĀORI

“Council’s role is to work with us! To ensure that our vision and actions are always shared, not just

what the council wants. Align plans to Waiapu koka huhua – shared vison “Healthy land, healthy

river, healthy people” and the 100 year restoration plan.”

“Have an appreciation that Māori have their own sciences. Bring both pākehā and Māori knowledge

together.”

“The land is a part of me and I am a part of it.”

The Māori view of biodiversity is much more than the protection of indigenous ecosystems and

species. It is the ability for Māori to exercise cultural practices, traditional knowledge and use of

their natural resources. Mātauranga Māori and cultural revitalisation must be included as a central

part of any biodiversity plan for Tairāwhiti.

A key message was that GDC needs to recognise, understand and integrate Mātauranga Māori

values and practices if it wants to work effectively with Māori to restore biodiversity. GDC can help

to bring Māori and Pākehā knowledge together:

“Facilitate home grown solutions to home challenges. Work alongside iwi; the vision should be

shared and include local knowledge and oral traditions, along with a pākehā scientific perspective.

Invest in research and innovation.”

18 An heirloom, something handed down, cultural property, heritage (Māori Dictionary).

Page 36

(2) PRIORITISE BIODIVERSITY AND UPHOLD STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES

“Resource your staff more so they can do their job effectively!”

There was a perception that biodiversity is not prioritised highly enough by GDC. GDC needs to lift

its resourcing and commitment to biodiversity and to implement stronger biodiversity goals and

focus into its District Plan. People spoke of the need to remove unhelpful and complicated council

processes and procedures (red tape). There was a desire for GDC to review current policies,

decisions and practices to ensure alignment with GDC obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi and

other joint agreements. There was also a desire to see a better planning and resourcing of pest and

weed control. New GDC staff roles suggested were a Māori Environment staff position/s and a

Biodiversity Education Officer for the East Coast.

There is major dissatisfaction with some of councils’ policies

and practices concerning the granting of resource consents.

One example is the establishment of rubbish dumps along the

ancestral river Waiapu. This was viewed as being culturally

insensitive and to contravene the council’s obligations in terms

of the Treaty of Waitangi and more recently the 2014 Waiapu

Accord.

(3) COMMUNICATE, SUPPORT AND SHOWCASE

“What does the environmental planning unit and pest management unit actually do at GDC?”

Although council has some funding and staff advice to help improve biodiversity with private land

owners and community groups, the majority of people are not aware that this exists.

In 2017 council released a pamphlet called “Conserving Our Biodiversity”, outlining funding and

assistance available. Increasing information and support available could occur through social media,

online and local iwi radio stations Te Reo Irirangi o Ngāti Porou and Turanga FM.

Showcasing and supporting positive landowner and community-led biodiversity projects is another

need (see case study below). The Titirangi project was considered to be highly successful and well-

coordinated, which involved schools and the local community in native replanting. There is interest

and support for this kind of project to happen on the East Coast.

(4) COLLABORATE AND BUILD RELATIONSHIPS WITH MĀORI

“Māori landowners have their preferred GDC staff and are quick to be discouraged by unfamiliar

staff who do not have an understanding or appreciation of the Māori way”.

Māori are wary of being “told” what to do with their lands. This reflects a history of being told to

clear land for farming and horticulture; to plant pine and now to replant natives again. Building

“Council has huge

mana here. Council has

the power to change

the way forestry

operates.”

Page 37

better relationships with Māori landowners, trusts, hapū and iwi can be achieved through their

meaningful involvement in strategic planning, development and implementation.

There is a level of scepticism about council’s motives in wanting to improve biodiversity. GDC can

work more effectively with iwi and Māori landowners through:

Deliberate dialogue between parties to understand Māori biodiversity values

Including Tairāwhiti iwi and Māori landowners in the creation, development and

implementation of strategies towards improving biodiversity.

(5) FACILITATE BIODIVERSITY EDUCATION, WĀNANGA AND TRAINING

Providing GDC support to fund and facilitate marae-based wānanga around traditional and cultural

uses of natural resources, in collaboration with whanau, hapū and their associated marae, would be

a clear incentive towards improving biodiversity for Māori. Opportunities to include local whānau,

hapū and iwi in localised wananga or education initiatives are important. These are also

opportunities for GDC staff to improve their cultural awareness and get out amongst the

community.

(6) INCREASE FUNDING AND ACCESS TO RESOURCES

The key to improving biodiversity is increased access to and

availability of funding and resources (trees, heavy machinery and

training) and materials (fencing, environmentally friendly

pesticides). Uncomplicated access to funding is desired. Long-term

support is needed to develop, maintain and manage areas.

Funding that is fair and accessible to all for biodiversity is sought, along with assistance with making

funding applications. Pest management needs to be resourced sufficiently.

“We are land rich

but cash poor.”

Page 38

(7) INVEST IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY

Biodiversity projects are labour intensive and long-term in

focus. A clear incentive for Māori is that employment be

kept within the local community and not outsourced.

Focusing on social enterprise, creating local employment

and support for education through wānanga on marae and

in schools is important:

“Stop out sourcing local jobs. Local landowners could be

paid instead!”

The demand for native trees for riparian planting is huge. The creation of a native nursery based on

the East Coast is an opportunity to keep up with demand, as well as providing employment

opportunities for locals. Other incentives that GDC could provide or facilitate of interest to Māori

landowners were:

Small grants and awards

Increased support to identify areas of biodiversity

Provision for access to heavy machinery and equipment – to clear gorse, create paths,

access

High tech options such as spraying by drone

Creation and support for biodiversity pilot projects

Help with business planning and developing an environmental plan

Marae focused water monitoring

More robust communications systems and sharing of information

Create more innovative incentives.

Generally, meaningful and long-term incentives were sought that help whānau, hapū and iwi to

restore whenua. The case study below is one example of a Māori Trust seeking to improve

biodiversity.

“Develop strategies that do

not lock up biodiversity but

preserve it whilst living

alongside.”

Page 39

OMAEWA/TIKITIKI A13 AHU WHENUA TRUST

The Tikitiki A13 Ahu Whenua Trust was established to restore and develop whenua (land) for the

financial and cultural benefit of the owners. Omaewa (the ancestral name of this whenua) is

located near Tikitiki town ship on SH35 Te Araroa. The trust has undertaken a number of projects

assisted by GDC’s Natural Heritage and Nga Whenua Rāhui funds.

The block is currently under a 10-year lease for the purpose of restoration by one of the trustees

and his family under Toikairakau Trust. Seventeen hectares is under Whenua Rāhui kawenata

(covenant), 9 hectares is leased to a local farmer for grazing while the remainder of the block,

around 22 hectares, was completely covered in gorse.

Through a series of Wānanga held at local marae, the Trust provided opportunities for local

whānau to learn about traditional and cultural uses of native plants and fresh water species

including raranga (weaving), rongoā Māori (traditional local medicines), māra kai (food gardens)

and kai (food).

One barrier the trust has encountered is GDCs rates remission process (red tape). The trust had

successfully applied for rates remission in 2015 but are yet to see the remission applied.

This case study highlights positive work by Māori landowners towards improving biodiversity and

the benefits that can be realised from collaborative projects, which include partnerships with the

Crown, local government, landowners and farmers.

It also demonstrates the importance of on-going funding to support biodiversity restoration

projects and identifies the need for an effective rates remission process that is uncomplicated

and timely.

Page 40

7.2 FURTHER TAIRĀWHITI PERSPECTIVES

Participant interviews with GDC staff, key agencies, landowners and communities during participant

interviews identified regional priorities, opportunities and practices that GDC could consider to

strengthen biodiversity in the region. These are summarised below.

(1) PRIORITISE PROTECTION OF EXISTING BIODIVERSITY

Feedback from interview participants identified the top priority in Tairāwhiti as being the

protection of existing biodiversity. Participants wanted GDC to set a goal to increase the area of

biodiversity under protection, which could be achieved by a range of interventions, such as

excluding stock, removing weeds and animal pests, working with forestry companies and others to

protect Protection Management Areas, and wrapping sustainable protection around existing

significant biodiversity. Their ideas to better protect existing and priority biodiversity sites are

presented below.

PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR STOCK EXCLUSION FROM COVENANTED LAND AND PRIORITY BIODIVERSITY SITES

“Cattle are the biggest issue for biodiversity protection – get cattle out of there [significant

biodiversity areas].”

“Hotwires around riparian margins are a good option. Lots of farms have bush and would exclude

stock if there was funding to do that. Best bang for buck is to fence off stuff that’s [already] there.

Sheep and cattle are nothing compared to deer and stoats.”

“Need to get deer out of covenanted land, we have seen an increase in feral roaming deer, we could

work with QEII to deer fence covenanted land.”

QEII Trust’s perspective was that the biggest return on investment is installing cattle-proof fencing

and removing cattle from priority areas such as wetlands, bush and cliff areas. In the Hawke’s Bay,

fencing in covenanted areas is funded through a combination of funding sources (one third each

paid for by the council, QEII and the landowner). Another QEII suggestion was to put deer and goat-

proof fencing around covenanted land (noting that this can be hard to achieve in some areas due to

topography). Some would like to see GDC commit to helping to fence and manage pests on QEII

and Ngā Whenua Rāhui covenanted land.

INCENTIVISE PUTTING MORE LAND INTO COVENANTS, RĀHUI AND OTHER PROTECTIONS

As the main means to legally protect existing biodiversity on private land, there were calls to put

effort into growing the 4,589ha currently protected via covenants and Rāhui. This would mean

DOC, GDC and QEII working together to share costs and support landowners on priority sites to

covenant their land.

There is also an opportunity in the short-term to review District Plan regulations relating to

biodiversity, for example, reviewing and reducing the 500m2 current permitted allowance to clear

Page 41

vegetation in Protection Management Areas. Active monitoring of the status of PMAs is also

advocated.

SUPPORT WEED AND PEST CONTROL ON COVENANTED LAND AND PRIORITY SITES

Supporting those with covenants and priority biodiversity sites to proactively care for their land via

weed and pest control was another suggestion put forward by interview participants. Incentivising

trapping networks in key areas, such as along rivers, and developing trapping networks via phones,

were also suggested. Rates rebates were another incentive suggested to support weed and pest

control.

DEVELOP NEW, MORE FLEXIBLE AND ATTRACTIVE BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION OPTIONS

“Need to create an economic benefit from having PMAs and covenants, the QEII model is wrong.”

A further suggestion was for GDC to advocate for more flexible and high impact biodiversity

protection models that:

Provide appropriate opportunities for economic return, or are subsidized

Are more appealing to landowners

Are more accessible to landowners.

(2) OTHER REGIONAL BIODIVERSITY PRIORITIES

Other biodiversity priorities identified by research participants included, in no order:

Structured riparian planting (planting around waterways) and keeping stock out of

waterways

Planting on erosion prone land

Weed control

Pest control

Protecting soil

Protecting key locations and taonga such as Rere Falls and Rockslide

Create linkages, corridors and habitat

Growing current areas of significant biodiversity.

(3) PROVIDE QUALITY INFORMATION ON BIODIVERSITY AND BIODIVERSITY PRIORITIES

As noted, most councils have surveyed their territory and identified sites of significant biodiversity

and areas where potential exists to prioritise the protection and growth of biodiversity. This

surveying has not occurred in Tairāwhiti since the 1980s, though a map of wetlands and wetland

regeneration potential is underway. Some of the participants interviewed in this research called for

Page 42

better surveying of biodiversity and a map to be developed to

show biodiversity priority areas and opportunities across all

land, both public and private.

Building on work undertaken for the Department of

Conservation (Singers and Rogers 2014), in November 2016,

Nick Singers and Colin Lawrence compiled a ‘Potential

Ecosystem Map’ of the Gisborne District, based on an

assessment of what the vegetation of the District would look

like if it was previously unsettled and people arrived today (see

Appendix Four). This map can be used to show landowners

what their land would have looked like before human

modification, to guide biodiversity enhancement efforts -

especially planting. Retrolens19 also provides an online source

of historical photos of Gisborne that would be of interest to

landowners and communities and inform people about what

has happened to land over time.

Related to good data and information about biodiversity in the

region, it is also important for councils to be clear on their roles, and how they support landowners

to protect and improve biodiversity. Good examples can be seen from the Bay of Plenty Regional

Council and Marlborough District Council.

(4) PROVIDE EXPERT ADVISORY SERVICE

Key perceived roles for GDC were to provide quality information about biodiversity (what it is, the

biodiversity picture in Tairāwhiti and how GDC and others can help), alongside an advisory service

to support those wishing to conserve biodiversity. Specific roles GDC could play were suggested as

follows:

GDC could provide a land information service identifying land history, Māori connections

with that land, its indigenous ecosystems and what biodiversity actions would be most

restorative for that land

GDC could assist people to access external funding and provide funding application

wānanga.

A good practice resource to advise landowners in dealing with practical issues on farms would also

be useful. Much of this information exists, but would need to be collated for the Gisborne context.

Where possible, advisory resources should address issues such as:

Managing blackberry and other weeds

Planting waterway areas and steep slopes

19 See http://retrolens.nz/.

“Take a catchment

approach and do an

analysis of how each

catchment works.

Waimata River is a chute

– the key to managing

that River is managing

the headwaters. For each

catchment work out an

intelligent strategy for

biodiversity”.

Page 43

What to do with areas by streams excluded by fencing

How to avoid planted riparian margins becoming weed infested

Options for excluding stock from steep, erosion prone areas.

Supporting farmer-to-farmer discussion and advice on these issues was seen as another key role

that GDC could play.

(5) SUPPORT MANA WHENUA TO EXERCISE KAITIAKITANGA

“Ngāti Porou has land with constraints. GDC can help them pursue their goals, through high-end

tourism, ecological and cultural enterprises. The East Coast receives little benefit from tourism now;

this could change through supporting for example cycle ways, cultural history tours, and local

people with vision and drive. GDC can get behind the activators.”

Biodiversity protection and enhancement provides a positive and proactive platform for GDC to

engage with Māori. Post-Treaty Settlement, local iwi are private landowners of large estates. A

Local Leadership Body is currently being developed in Turanga, which is a governance body of iwi

that GDC can liaise with on these issues.

In the short or medium-term GDC can focus on effective iwi engagement and on supporting iwi to

develop their biodiversity plans and long-term strategies, as well as meet consent requirements. Iwi

and GDC are both permanent landowners, hold large tracts of land, take a long-term view and are

motivated around biodiversity. With the right support and approach significant gains could be

made by GDC and iwi working together on biodiversity in Tairāwhiti.

The Māori Land Service consulted with Māori

through wānanga across Aotearoa at the end of

2016 on what services it should provide, and how

these should be provided. One of the calls from

the Gisborne wānanga was for the Māori Land

Service to be a one-stop-shop for all matters to do

with whenua, provided by Māori, for Māori land.

GDC could partner with the Māori Land Service to

support this aim.

Biodiversity motivators for Māori include those things that will support cultivation of food habitats

and sources, arts and cultural practices such as weaving, tukutuku and marae restoration, and

biodiversity for cultural purposes, protection of native species and for hunting and fishing.

“We need vision, advice and

opportunities and to get past

barriers, so that we can get to

solutions for whenua”

Te Puni Kokiri 2016, (p6) - Report Back on the

Proposed Māori Land Service Wānanga

Page 44

(6) ACCELERATE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

“Data doesn’t change minds, people need experiences and visual information.”

“Don’t beat people up or come to people with ‘this is a huge problem’. Come in with ‘Hey guys can

we work together, this is a cool place, let’s make this the best place in New Zealand’. Use the carrot

not the stick and appeal to common sense. Make it ‘their’ idea, focus on what everyone wants, bring

out the knowledge in the community, work to create the best outcome for everyone. Work with

human nature.”

Participants offered a range of ideas around how to engage people in biodiversity protection and

positively change behaviour. A summary of these ideas is outlined in Table Four.

Table Four: Community engagement and behaviour change

STRATEGY FOR CHANGE IDEAS AND EXAMPLES

Inform and run campaigns (include a species focus)

Run campaigns and inform people about what’s going on. Join up the

dots. Run campaigns such as ‘bring tui back’

The public love species, this is a key lever for biodiversity. Share how

to create small habitats

Provide real world examples and key contacts, and different

approaches and options for different contexts (e.g. those with means,

group owned land, those with QEII or Ngā Whenua Rāhui covenants,

community trusts etc.)

Show the value and benefits of biodiversity

Target and educate contractors and enforce consent conditions

Work with helicopter pilots who are spraying, diggers who are

straightening creeks and creating or digging out dams, and those who

are draining swamps and wetland areas

Form a relationship and educate the organisations contracting this

kind of work

Put the responsibility on operators to operate on the conditions of the

consents gained, to avoid extra spraying and dumping of loads. Ensure

that diggers and pilots know the rules, consent conditions and liability.

Engage, showcase and influence

Take funders and decision-makers out into the district to see what’s

going on – show them some covenanted areas and what could be

achieved

Develop Citizen Science and other mechanisms to engage children and

young people in the natural world – “chase bats not Pokemon”

Page 45

STRATEGY FOR CHANGE IDEAS AND EXAMPLES

Have a dedicated, clearly identified team in council that engages with

individuals and communities on biodiversity and water. This needs to

be on the GDC website and promoted.

Peer-to-peer influence and skills exchange

Have a strategy of peer influence, with landowners engaging other

landowners, respected farmers engaging farmers and so on.

Work with those who work with farmers (vets, farm advisors,

accountants etc.) and support them to refer, advise and provide

information

Skills exchange – support the development of a network of skilled

people in biodiversity and fund them to share their skills and

knowledge around the region.

Get behind community leaders, those with the energy to create

change.

Work with the willing and support leaders

Find the willing via events such as the Farm Environment Awards

Seek out those who are quietly doing good and support them to

influence others

Some people who are doing great biodiversity work want to stay out

of the limelight (several large Māori land blocks were mentioned),

until their shareholders demand it.

(8) REWARD GOOD PRACTICES AND BEHAVIOURS

Scouting for creative ways to reward good practices and biodiversity supporting behaviour was

suggested as a useful role that GDC could play. A common theme was the need to make it easy and

attractive for people to weed, trap animal pests, plant and protect soil and waterways. Some ideas

and examples were given as follows:

Exchange possums and other animal pests for native plants, traps and connections to the

volunteer pool

Undertake some collective trials in high priority areas with willing communities to remove

deer, stoats, rats or weeds

Work with government and industry to create rewards for quality carbon offsetting

Provide funding to support a seed saving and eco-sourcing network, hosted on an

appropriate website

Support people to have beehives and to create habitat for native fauna

Support the creation of native nurseries as social enterprises (GDC has an existing nursery

focused on erosion planting)

Make connections between biodiversity, native species habitat and food sources such as

tuna/eels and whitebait. Demonstrate opportunities to generate food by improving habitat

Page 46

for koura and tuna. The Inanga Spawning Project20 is a good example of this, and “species

have a major power to motivate people”.

(9) JOINT VENTURES

“It would be good to have taskforces around issues in particular places such as the Flats and the

hills.”

In terms of biodiversity, collaboration is required to make a significant impact. A coordinated

animal pest control programme was proposed as a key initiative in priority areas.

Predator Free NZ was noted as a new entity receiving significant national funding. The Department

of Conservation has reportedly put forward four areas in Gisborne that could benefit from this

funding.

Another proposal is to take integrated approaches to priority catchments, working with

landowners, council, communities and agencies to collectively improve ecosystem strength,

including land, biodiversity and water outcomes.

(10) INSPIRE, ACTIVATE, CONNECT

People in Tairāwhiti would like to see more sharing to highlight the leadership and great work going

on environmentally in the district. Some of GDC’s funding and/or staff time could be dedicated to:

Investing in and supporting leaders (examples offered included the Uawanui Project,

Wairaki Catchment, Codstock Fisheries)

Sharing stories of alternative land use that offers economic returns alongside the benefits

of protecting and conserving biodiversity

Showcase case studies of demonstration farms, land and water projects

Have an annual or biannual focus on an issue of broad interest, seek good local examples

and ask other agencies, such as Beef and Lamb, to help showcase them

Promote and support iwi and hapū aspirations

Bring groups together such as the Biodiversity and Biosecurity Forums, and facilitate

landowner forums on particular issues

Activate dune care groups and promote urban planting of flora that supports bees and

native insects.

20 See http://www.gdc.govt.nz/inanga-spawning-project.

Page 47

(11) GDC TO LIFT ITS GAME

PROACTIVELY IMPLEMENT REGULATIONS

According to its own State of the Environment Report (2016), since 2008 the Council has approved

the clearance of 2650.3ha of native bush, including 165.8ha of Protection Management Areas.

Possum control operations are not sufficiently resourced to meet targets. Monitoring indicates

higher levels of trapping and poisoning are needed to successfully bring possum numbers in bush

areas down to the densities required.

A priority for QEII Trust is that GDC does not allow people to ‘spray biodiversity out’. GDC is

required to check for a covenant when a consent to spray fertilizer or weed killer is made, but

should also check whether spraying is absolutely necessary and ensure that banned sprays are not

used. QEII Trust would also like GDC to actively protect PMA areas and not allow spraying next to

those areas. Enforcing consents and monitoring that consent conditions are adhered to could also

be stepped up.

LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND OPERATE MORE STRATEGICALLY

A key role for GDC noted by interviewees is to lead by example. People consider that GDC needs to

identify who to talk to and strive to act in a more joined-up way (rather than taking piecemeal

approaches to working with landowners).

To work more strategically, GDC will need to clearly identify biodiversity priorities and increase staff

resources to act on them.

Farm Environment Plans (FEPs) are a mechanism for GDC to consider using to protect and improve

biodiversity. Landowners on Overlay 3A land (eroded land) are required to produce an FEP with

GDC. For other landowners, FEPs are voluntary but can be a useful means to create change

(12) GROW THE RESOURCE BASE

Growing the $30,000 council fund and other funding

available to support biodiversity was a clear call from those

interviewed. The GDC fund could be leveraged to co-fund

with others (mainly philanthropic and private sources). The

case for building this fund to tackle biodiversity collectively in

the District could be made individually to funding sources

and via joint forums such as the Funders Forum. There was a

suggestion that the GDC fund could be a match fund

involving one third contribution from the landowner, one

third from GDC and one third from philanthropy or private

sources.

“Unless there are clear

economic returns from

biodiversity it is very

tricky. Any offer to help

fund, fence and plant will

be valuable.”

“We need a bigger fund.”

Page 48

GDC also has a Discretionary Assistance Fund, which could be used to trial different biodiversity

approaches.

GDC could also explore the potential to set up one or more funding mechanisms for community and

public investment in biodiversity gains, from online campaigns for specific outcomes or more

general options such as bequeathing.

(13) ALTERNATIVE LAND USES AND SHIFTING THE ECONOMICS

“Support mixed farming models, we need to help people get an income from their land,

make that easier rather than hard. Focus on income generation in rural areas. Get

behind honey.”

“We need to change our land use.”

Exploring and getting behind sustainable land use alternatives in the district is a major area of

potential for GDC. GDC could investigate how to shift economic incentives and disincentives to

reward good practices and discourage poor practices. Some of the areas that GDC could facilitate

investigation include:

Discussing opportunities with the Ngāti Porou Honey Company regarding extension to the

peri-urban area

Working collaboratively to develop a long-term Manuka honey industry

Growing natural water sources

Exploring mixed models of land management and options for economic returns from

sustainable land uses such as carbon credit schemes, which are considered to have major

potential in the region.

Page 49

8. IMPLICATIONS

Providing more effective incentives for private landowners to protect and restore biodiversity is just

one piece of a large biodiversity puzzle for GDC. GDC is rich in information and staff expertise, but

low on staff numbers and financial resources. Harnessing people power and collective resources to

support struggling ecosystems and species are possibly the greatest levers that GDC have to impact

on biodiversity in its district.

Many farmers and landowners in Gisborne are motivated to address erosion issues and to improve

water quality. Linking biodiversity enhancement with these pressing issues and working at

catchment scale will be key to success in Gisborne.

There are some key themes emerging from the four strands of information drawn together in this

report. These are summarised below as recommended initiatives, approaches and practices for

GDC to consider to promote and protect biodiversity in the region.

8.1 FUNDING AND EXPERT ADVICE ARE CRITICAL

The comprehensive review by Auckland Council of private landowner incentives for biodiversity and

other heritage conservation found that grant funding and expert advice are the top two most

effective incentives for private landowners and community groups. This was echoed by other

councils, iwi, agencies and stakeholders – landowners want to be able to access knowledgeable

“Biodiversity has been a low

priority for too long.”

“No single financial incentive or other

policy tool offers a ‘magic wand’

solution; rather, a combination of

complementary tools produces the

best results. Ideally, a comprehensive

heritage program incorporates strong

financial incentives; advisory services

for owners; a planning regime that is

sympathetic to conservation

outcomes, or at least neutral; and a

strong focus on community

promotion, information and

demonstration”

EPHC 2004, (p38)

“We know we need to protect

our land, water and air to make

sure it is clean and clear. We

want to encourage biodiversity

and sustainability in our towns

and rural areas…”

Our Vision for the Future, Gisborne

District Council (2012)

Page 50

people, funding and useful resources to combine with their own. This means GDC growing its staff

capacity for biodiversity, as well as considering the range of mechanisms it employs to advise

landowners and promote good practices.

8.2 IMPROVE INFORMATION AND IDENTIFY PRIORITIES

Without high quality information and informed priorities for biodiversity protection and

management, GDC, landowners and communities risk causing more harm through well-intentioned

but misguided or siloed action. Scientific knowledge, mātauranga Māori and local knowledge are all

needed to support effective community and landowner engagement, grow financial (and non-

financial) resources, support collective action and deliver biodiversity outcomes.

8.3 COLLABORATE WITH MĀORI

Like GDC, iwi and Māori landowners are rich with land and people, but cash poor. Both are

interested in long-term, intergenerational biodiversity outcomes, and bring different values to land,

water and biodiversity than many private landowners. There is a lot to be gained in the right people

from within GDC connecting with iwi leaders and other Māori landowners to pool ideas, resources

and efforts.

8.4 BROKER COLLABORATION TO WIDEN THE RESOURCE POOL

Building collaborative efforts and growing the resource base in key areas is a critical role for GDC.

These key areas include animal pest control, weeds and supporting sustainable land use change.

Philanthropy and the private sector are increasingly seeking to tackle pressing environmental

challenges. Exploring impact investing, where private investors seek social, environmental and

financial returns, offers broader partnership opportunities for GDC.

8.5 FOCUS ON THE POSITIVE

Being positive, and focusing on what people want - such as bringing native birds, fish and wildlife

back - rather than what they don’t want (erosion, pests and weeds), can be an important tactic to

change minds and behaviours. Positive behaviour change initiatives centre on showcasing good

practice, supporting private landowners, iwi and community groups who are the shining lights for

biodiversity in the District and inspiring wider behaviour change.

Page 51

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for GDC to incentivise private landowners to restore biodiversity, in order of

priority, are as follows.

1. Create an online space that puts existing Tairāwhiti biodiversity information, funding and other

assistance available, and links to useful resources for landowners and the wider community in

one portal. This could be the GDC website or a community based one, and should be kept

updated and widely shared.

2. Create and promote an environmental advisory and support service for iwi, landowners and

community groups. These GDC staff (and potentially collaborative DOC and QEII staff) would be

available to go on-site to discuss biodiversity, land and water issues in a more holistic/joined-up

way. Supporting people to access funding and resources for biodiversity would be part of this

service. The level and models of support offered would need to be worked out, including the

role of Farm Environment planning, catchment plans and so on (see for example the Taranaki,

Southland and Waikato case study models). This team would also work to uphold GDC’s

statutory responsibilities, help bring mātauranga Māori and science together and inform

council decision-making on biodiversity.

3. Grow the GDC Natural Heritage Fund over time into a substantial fund, through the council’s

long-term plan, philanthropy and private sector contributions. Change the name of this fund

(for example to the Kaitiaki Fund), open it up to community groups and use some of it to

leverage joint ventures and support the development of economic opportunities and social

enterprises around biodiversity (native nurseries, pest control, fencing etc.)

4. Increase the level and quality of information on indigenous biodiversity in Tairāwhiti, to inform

the setting of priorities, collaborative effort and the allocation of precious resources. Quality

monitoring of interventions is also needed to gauge their utility.

5. Discuss with iwi/Māori landowners interest and potential in partnering strategically to protect

and restore biodiversity. New GDC biodiversity initiatives should closely involve iwi and hapū in

Tairāwhiti.

6. Increase resources and collaborative effort for animal pest and weed control, on private and

public land. The control of plant and animal pests (and other risks such as biosecurity threats) is

a core dimension of biodiversity management across the District. The aim is to protect the full

range of ecosystems and habitats to provide them the best chance of survival over time (Willis

2017, forthcoming).

7. Work with iwi, agencies, philanthropy, the private sector and community leaders to facilitate

the development of a ground-up Biodiversity Traction Plan. Grow the resource base and

collaborative effort to deliver on the identified priorities in this Traction Plan.

Page 52

8. Investigate sustainable land use21 and impact investment options for Tairāwhiti, and get behind

those who are already walking down this path.

9. Partner with QEII, Ngā Whenua Rāhui and DOC to increase covenanting and active protection of

significant sites of biodiversity on private land.

10. Wrap positive communications and good news stories around all of the above. Showcase

inspiring iwi, landowner, community and GDC biodiversity action.

21 This includes for example native forestry, carbon farming, organic farming, horticulture and viticulture and various forms of “ecoagriculture”, that can deliver sustainable agricultural production, biodiversity and ecosystem services and rural livelihoods (Scherr and Neely 2007).

Page 53

10. REFERENCES

1. Alsop, Peter and Te Rau Kupenga (2016), Mauri Ora: Wisdom from the Māori World, Potton

and Burton, Aotearoa New Zealand.

2. Benabou, R., Triole, J. 2006. Incentives and Prosocial Behavior. The American Economic Review.

96:5 1652-1678.

3. Department of Conservation, New Zealand Biodiversity Action Plan, 2016-2020, see

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/conservation/new-zealand-biodiversity-action-plan-2016-

2020.pdf.

4. Department of Conservation, The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, February 2000, see

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/conservation/new-zealand-biodiversity-strategy-2000.pdf.

5. Durpoix, Dorothee (2010), Farmers' attitudes and behaviour towards the natural environment:

a New Zealand case study, PhD Thesis, Massey University, see

http://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/2192.

6. Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) 2004. Making heritage happen: Incentives

and Policy Tools for Conserving Our Historic Heritage, Adelaide: National Environment

Protection Council Service Corporation.

7. Farrant, G. 2009. Incentives – the Auckland Experience, Incentives for Historic Heritage

Workshop, 10 August, Historic Places Trust National Workshop Property Council New Zealand.

8. Graham Spargo Partnerships (2007), Built Heritage Management in Wellington City: Financial

and Other Means to Appropriately Manage Built Heritage.

9. Landcare Research (2011), Recommended monitoring framework for regional councils

assessing biodiversity outcomes in terrestrial ecosystems.

10. Marden, Dr Mike, Landcare Research (2017), Land Use Trends in Tairāwhiti: The good, the bad

and the ugly, Presentation to the Tairāwhiti Water Forum at Tolaga Bay, 4 May 2017.

11. McClean, R (2013). Incentives for Historic Heritage Toolkit, Wellington: New Zealand Historic

Places Trust.

12. Murray, Dr Catherine (2014), Heritage Incentive Schemes Multi-criteria Analysis, Market

Economics, prepared for Auckland Council’s Heritage Unit.

13. Murray, Dr Catherine, David Bade and Mark Seabrook-Davison (2014), Review of Heritage

Incentives for the Auckland Council, Market Economics, prepared for Auckland Council.

14. Ministry for the Environment and Department of Conservation (2007), Protecting Our Places:

Information about the Statement of National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened

Page 54

Biodiversity on Private Land, see http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/protecting-our-

places-detail.pdf.

15. Ministry for the Environment and GP Publications (1997), The State of New Zealand’s

Environment, see http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/state-new-

zealand%E2%80%99s-environment-1997.

16. OECD (2017), OECD Environmental Performances Reviews: New Zealand 2017. OECD

Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/environment/oecd-environmental-performance-

reviews-new-zealand-2017-9789264268203-en.htm.

17. Petry, B. 2011. Incentive Options Commonly Promoted By Heritage Supporters, Auckland:

Salmond Reed Architects.

18. Rogers, L. & Dwyer W. 2013. Incentives for Heritage Protection Handbook: A national guide for

Local Government and the Community, Melbourne: The Heritage Chairs and Officials of

Australia and New Zealand.

19. Pike, D. 2006. Financial Incentives for Heritage Preservation on the North Shore, North

Vancouver, Canada: North Shore Heritage Preservation Society.

20. Scherr, Sara J. and Jeffrey A. McNeely (Eds) (2007, Farming with Nature: The Science and

Practice of Ecoagriculture, Island Press, Washington.

21. Singers, Nicholas J. D. and Geoffrey M Rogers (2014), A Classification of New Zealand’s

Terrestrial Ecosystems, science for Conservation 325, Department of Conservation,

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/sfc325entire.pdf.

22. Singers, Nicholas (Ecological Solutions Ltd) and Colin Lawrence (Serpentine Mapping Ltd)

(2016), A Potential Ecosystem Map for the Gisborne District.

23. Te Puni Kokiri 2016, Report Back on the Proposed Māori Land Service Wānanga, see

http://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/whakamahia/Māori-land-service/.

24. Willis, Gerard (2017, forthcoming), Biodiversity and the Role of Regional Councils, Stage 2 of a

Thinkpiece on the Future of Biodiversity Management in New Zealand.

Page 55

APPENDIX ONE:

THREATENED ENVIRONMENT CLASSIFICATION GISBORNE

Page 56

APPENDIX TWO:

COVENANT STATISTICS22

22 See: http://www.openspace.org.nz/Site/Publications_resources/Annual_statistics_maps_and_graphs.aspx.

Page 57

APPENDIX THREE:

AUCKLAND COUNCIL CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF INCENTIVE SCHEMES

This table shows the criteria used to assess various incentive schemes for Auckland Council and

how they were grouped for weighting purposes (Murray 2014, p14).

GROUPING CRITERIA WEIGHTING

Strategic use of best practice

Can have a robust, transparent and accountable process

Can provide support across multiple heritage values

Relates directly to expenses for heritage work

Complimentary with other incentives

30%

Supporting landowner behaviour

Process is easy for potential applicants

Has the potential to foster innovative solutions

Landowner can feel their effort/actions are recognised

and validated

Can inspire or motivate other landowners

Potential to promote heritage in the community

Contributes to a network of expert/property owner

mentoring and information sharing

29.2%

Strategic outcomes

Promotes sustainable/long-term heritage outcomes

Reduces barriers to successful heritage outcomes

Demonstrates long term commitment from Council

Provides for emergency work

Can be easily targeted to specific heritage types,

priorities or outcomes

18.6%

Financial and economic leveraging

Encourages the economic use of heritage

Can provide a substantial amount of funding for

significant/ flagship projects

Leverages support from other sources e.g. external

agencies, private industry

13%

Administration ease

Administration is manageable, practical and easy for

Council

Can be easily monitored for effectiveness

9.2%

Page 58

APPENDIX FOUR:

POTENTIAL ECOSYSTEM MAP OF GISBORNE

Source: Singers, 2016.