Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The CPLA, the RMA, and the loss of residual indigenous species habitat in the eastern South Island
Susan WalkerNew Zealand Plant Conservation Network conferenceCanterbury Horticultural Society Rooms57 Riccarton Avenue, ChristchurchFriday 8 October 2010
Co-incidence/concurrence in eastern South Island
Threatened plant distribution
Land reform (tenure review) under the CPLA
Indigenous vegetation clearance and loss under the RMA
Thanks!
Information, data, and photographsDavid Barrell, Warren Chinn, Joy Comrie, Iain Gover, Nick Head,
Bill Lee, Di Lucas, Ian Lynn, Colin Meurk, Tony Perrett, Stuart Reynolds, Geoff Rogers, James Shepherd, Anne Steven, Marta
Treskonova, Emily Weeks
‘Above Hawkes Bay’ (www.abovehawkesbay.com) and Geoff Rogers for oblique aerial photographs
Threatened plant distribution (elevation zones)
No. Th
reate
ned
pla
nts
National distribution (de Lange et al. 2009)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Coastal & Lowland Montane Subalpine & Alpine
Category 1. Nationally critical
Category 2. Nationally endangered
Category 3. Nationally vulnerable
Threatened plant distribution (elevation zones)
No. Th
reate
ned
pla
nts
Canterbury’s Threatened plants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Coastal & Lowland Montane Subalpine & Alpine
Category 1. Nationally critical
Category 2. Nationally endangered
Category 3. Nationally vulnerable
Threatened plant distribution (elevation zones)
No. Th
reate
ned
& A
t R
isk
pla
nts
Canterbury’s Threatened & Declining (i.e. Category 4)
plants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Coastal & Lowland Montane Subalpine & Alpine
Category 1. Nationally critical
Category 2. Nationally endangered
Category 3. Nationally vulnerable
Category 4. At Risk
20 Threatened40 At Risk(23% of Canterbury’s ‘Threatened’ and ‘At Risk’ plants)
plus4 Data Deficient(11% of Canterbury’s ‘Data Deficient’Plants)
Threatened plants of the Mackenzie Basin floor
'Foothills' environments (Lenz Level I E)
(mainly moriane landforms, with kettleholes)
'Plains' environments (Lenz Level I N)
(reworked outwash & braided riverbed )
Threatened, At Risk and Data Deficient flora
33 species grasslands & shrublands
31 species wetlands & their margins and turfs
Land reform (tenure review) under the CPLA
High country land reform
‘Tenure Review’ Commenced ~1992
Splits lease land between private and
protected tenure
~20% of the South Island
Approx. 350 crown-owned long-term pastoral leases (median size
4,500 ha)
39% protected (DOC)
55% privatis
ed without
a covenan
t
May 200566 leases since 1992328,350 ha affected
5% privatised with
a covenan
t
1% retained
as Special Lease
39% protected (DOC)
55% privatis
ed without
a covenan
t
May 200566 leases since 1992328,350 ha affected
5% privatised with
a covenan
t
1% retained
as Special Lease
All land allocated in Tenure Review
Gra
zing
(8%
)
43% protected (DOC)
50% privatis
ed without
a covenan
t
September 200790 leases (from 1992)490,500 ha affected
6% privatised with
a covenan
t
Threat classification for land environmentsCategory Category Criteria Category Name
1 <10% indigenous cover left
Acutely Threatened
2 10–20% left Chronically Threatened
3 20–30% left At Risk
4 >30% left and <10% protected
Critically Underprotected
5 >30% left and 10–20% protected
Underprotected
6 >30% left and >20% protected
Less Reduced and Better Protected
More developable land, more threatened and less well-protected biodiversity
Assumptions
Risk to indigenous biodiversity is highest in land environments where habitats for native species
• have been much reduced in the past and /or
• are poorly protected today
Threatened environments on leases
0
500
1000
1500
Ele
vati
on
(m
)
<10% left Less Reduced and Better Protected
Richmond Pastoral Lease
Lake
Teka
po
PRIVATISED
LEGALLY PROTECT
ED
Lake
Teka
po
Richmond Pastoral Lease
Haw
kdun
Range
Upper Manuherikia
Valley
Braeside Pastoral Lease
PRIVATISED
LEGALLY PROTECTE
D
Upper Manuherikia
Valley
Haw
kdun
Range
Braeside Pastoral Lease
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
High probability of
protection
Lowprobability of
protection%
of
ind
igen
ou
s c
over
pro
tecte
d
as p
ub
lic lan
d
% indigenous cover remaining in environments
High Risk << >> Low Risk
actual
modeled
From: Walker, Price & Stephens 2008
39% protected (DOC)
55% privatis
ed without
a covenan
t
May 200566 leases since 1992328,350 ha affected
5% privatised with
a covenan
t
1% retained
as Special Lease
39% protected (DOC)
55% privatis
ed without
a covenan
t
May 200566 leases since 1992328,350 ha affected
5% privatised with
a covenan
t
1% retained
as Special Lease
All land allocated in Tenure Review
Gra
zing
(8%
)
43% protected (DOC)
50% privatis
ed without
a covenan
t
September 200790 leases (from 1992)490,500 ha affected
6% privatised with
a covenan
t
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100% indigenous cover remaining in environments
High Risk << >> Low Risk
Predicted based on(66 leases
to May 2005)
% p
rote
cti
on
as p
ub
lic lan
d
Actual (90 leases to
September 2007)
More recent data are very similarRogers & Reynolds(Department of Conservation) unpublished
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100DOC managers recommended for protection as public land
More developable landMore threatened biodiversity
Threat categories from the Threatened Environment Classification (Walker et al. 2007)
Data source: Department of Conservation, (Rogers & Reynolds) unpublished data for 69 of the 90 leases reviewed 1992-2007
Recommendations and achievements for significant inherent values in Tenure Review to Sept. 2007
LINZ achieved protection as public land
% o
f id
en
tifi
ed
sig
nifi
can
t in
here
nt
valu
es
<10% indigenous cover left
10–20% left 20–30% left >30% left and <10%
protected
>30% left and 10–20%
protected
>30% left and >20%
protected
% p
rivati
sati
on
loss
% indigenous cover remaining in environments
High Risk << >> Low Risk
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 1000
20
40
60
80
100
0-20%20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
80-100%
Leases have retained more indigenous cover than private land
Private land
Crown pastor
alleases
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Lowprobability of
clearance
Highprobability of
clearance%
pri
vati
sati
on
loss (
% c
leara
nce o
f re
main
ing
in
dig
en
ou
s c
over
on
le
ases)
% indigenous cover remaining in environments
High Risk << >> Low Risk
actual
modeled
Pre
dic
ted
% c
leara
nce o
f re
main
ing
in
dig
en
ou
s c
over
on
leases
% indigenous cover remaining in environments
High Risk << >> Low Risk
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
other
% of remaining indigenous cover on leases predicted to be cleared following
privatisation
Indigenous vegetation loss under the RMA
Indigenous vegetation loss under the RMAComprehensive data
absent!• No LCDB3!• LCDB2 grassland data
inaccurate and long out of date (~1990?)
The Mackenzie Basin floor
'Foothills' environments (Lenz Level I E)
(mainly moriane landforms)
'Plains' environments (Lenz Level I N)
(much reworked outwash)
1990 2009
Converted by 1990 Converted by 1990Converted between 1990 and 2009
Extent of complete conversion
2009
Converted by 1990Converted between 1990 and 2009
Conversion 1990-2009
Oversowing & topdressing
(41%)
Soil cultivation
and/or irrigation
(50%)
ForestryUrban/ Infrastructure
Mackenzie Basin floor
2009
Converted by 1990Converted between 1990 and 2009
Proposed 2010 on…
2009 Upper Waitaki Hearing: Irrigation application areas
Southern Mackenzie Basin floorOhau Downs
outwash plain proposed for
irrigation
Wairepo kettleholes – now an island
Pastoral leases on the Mackenzie Basin floor
1990 2010
Pastoral leases Conservation land (ex leases) overlapping basin floor
B: 2009
Converted by 1990
Converted between 1990 and 2009
Remaining leases on the Mackenzie
Basin floor
Mackenzie Basin floor
Converted by 1990Converted between 1990 and 2009
2009 Upper Waitaki Hearing: Irrigation application areas
Northern Mackenzie Basin floor
Simons Pass outwash
Irishmans Creekmoraines
Conclusions
