Ownership of land is generally part of a business, and most businesses expect a return on capital. So if you own a farm which includes native bush or scrub or herb field, you probably still have to pay rates (and mortgage) on it. Wouldn't it be nice if it earned some income. Wouldn't it be even better if it wasn't destroyed in the process of earning it's keep.
District and local councils are systematically identifying significant native ecosystems (habitats) in their areas. But farmers fear that precious habitat or significant features on their own land will be locked up without consultation or compensation to the owner. Some farmers have even destroyed that habitat in order to avoid possible future restrictions over the use of their land.
Perhaps, being a greenie, you have decided to protect and enhance the wilderness parts of your land, or even placed a permanent protection covenant on those parts. If you are lucky, the QEII trust helped you with fencing costs and perhaps the local council offered rates relief. However, the true beneficiaries, the general public and our descendants, bear little of the costs. And the direct costs carry on. Capital, rates and interest costs, pest and weed control, maintaining fencing, fire protection etc . It would be rare for such precious habitat to thrive without assistance.
Valuable habitat is not just pristine untouched wilderness (there's not much of that anyway). A significant part of our plants and animals could also be supported on reverting farmland, large gardens and mixed species wood lots/shelter belts. Some of these could even be periodically harvested in a low impact way, without seriously detracting from their habitat value.
The current publicity on a National Biodiversity Strategy highlights the need to protect and enhance our unique and precious flora and fauna by protecting their habitats. But our National conservation estate (that managed by DOC) does not evenly represent NZ's native or introduced biodiversity. Hence the importance of privately owned habitat, but many such privately owned blocks are dysfunctional in that they are often small, disconnected and unstable and the costs of protection or maintenance falls on the few. Through financial pressures, ignorance or neglect, much of the privately owned habitat will be further degraded unless there is substantial community support and coordination of resources.
Such habitat degradation can be reversed. New habitat can substantially be recreated over time, but only if individual species or local provenances are not yet extinct. But if the local council or DOC start to tell you what you can or can't do on your land, don't the hackles rise? How dare they take away your rights!
Councillors and planners take note. Rather than confiscate or restrict use of ecologically sensitive private land, how much better would it be to create a system where landowners willingly sought to protect and enhance their precious habitats so that the whole community would benefit.
A Wellington based policy analyst (and part time forester), Chris Livesey has used the Banks Peninsula situation to propose a scheme whereby environmental assets can be managed, traded and generate income for the land owner. Such a approach should be much more acceptable to landowners, because they are then willing partners and could negotiate levels of service or limit the length of contract.
The three objectives are:
Chris argues that by placing real market values on these assets, they will be better managed because the carers will be rewarded for their responsibility. There would also be improved delivery of the community conservation objectives.
Chris calls this concept Habitat Farming (HF). Similar schemes exist in several OECD countries and some elements of the HF proposal already exist with several NZ councils.
Chris' proposal is detailed but some of the elements are as follows. The community (through local councils and with science support) would identify what habitats they wanted protected, strengthened or created, and collectively pay something to the land owner for setting aside Habitat Conservation Units. This might be in the form of a capital cost (say fencing or contribution towards land value) and an income stream (eg rates rebates or direct payments.)
The largest financial returns would go to the managers of the highest value habitats (eg rarest or of most ecological value). Common or easily manufactured habitat would have a lower value
Owners who guaranteed to grow and enhance units of specified habitat (within a territory defined in a district plan) would register these in a "bank" (habitat conservation units). The units are tradeable and are subject to market values. Purchasers of those rights would be entitled to degrade other areas of natural habitat (after obtaining resource consent). The system would be managed to ensure that minimum areas of each class of habitat were protected and that more ecologically valuable habitat attracted higher points. Secure fencing, weed and pest control, fire protection etc would also attract a premium.
The length of time for which protection was offered would also be subject to contract, eg 20 years or in perpetuity. A temporary contract is reasonable, as many habitats are rapidly changing and could equally emerge elsewhere (eg regenerating shrub forest or tussock/herb field).
Legal instruments which can bind an owner to deliver on such conservation contracts already exist in the form of either encumbrances or covenants. These can be registered on land titles and can bind successive owners and occupiers.
Although Chris' concept was written around the protection of native ecosystems, perhaps it could reasonably be extended to other areas of public interest, such as conservation of landscapes or perhaps exotic biodiversity.
As a tree cropper, I'm keen on gene banking heritage fruit and nut trees, and continuous cover forestry. Try putting a community value on working farms with hedgerow corridors (wood lots) linking isolated patches of native bush, or mixed species wood lots which were harvestable but never clear felled. Surely gene bank collections of food bearing plant varieties is of national importance, because much of NZ's exotic biodiversity is scattered in private hands.
Corrections and comments welcomed - Email us
http://www.treecrops.org.nz/knowl/archives/cairnse/habitat.html
Wednesday, 27 August 2003 - Updated: 2007 August 11