‘Confidential’ areas to be made public
Council faces likely backtrack over promise to landowners
Tasman District Council faces a ‘‘very difficult conversation’’ with landowners who have significant natural areas mapped on their properties – what they thought was confidential looks set to become public knowledge.
Via its voluntary Native Habitats Tasman programme, the council got about 70% of landowners to agree to the mapping of significant natural areas on their properties.
However, that work was carried out with a commitment by the council that the mapping would remain confidential to the landowner and the council – a commitment the council is unlikely to be able to keep.
Under the proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, for which an exposure draft was released in June, the council will be required to map and publicly notify the location of all significant natural areas in the district.
Significant Natural Areas are blocks of land that contain significant indigenous vegetation and/ or significant habitats of indigenous fauna. They are protected for their high ecological biodiversity value.
Environmental policy manager Barry Johnson on Thursday
‘‘This Government hasn’t done much for farmers at all. There’s a bit of an atmosphere, a climate, of not valuing us.’’
Joyce Wyllie
Golden Bay farmer
told elected members on the strategy and policy committee that the matter was going to be ‘‘a significant issue for council’’.
‘‘The NPS [National Policy Statement] will require the council to identify all significant natural areas and map them, and include that mapping in the resource management plan for the district,’’ Johnson said.
Such a move would be counter to the agreement the council had with landowners under the Native Habitats programme that the information ‘‘will not be included in plans and that it will be kept confidential’’.
‘‘The Government has now forced our hands on that, so we’ll have to go back to all landowners and start that very difficult conversation around how we take this forward,’’ Johnson said.
After the meeting, Golden Bay farmer Joyce Wyllie said she was not aware of the requirement in the proposed National Policy Statement for SNAs to be mapped and notified, but was not surprised.
‘‘This Government hasn’t done much for farmers at all,’’ Wyllie said. ‘‘There’s a bit of an atmosphere, a climate, of not valuing us.’’
Wyllie said she was disappointed that the council had in good faith agreed with landowners that identified SNAs
would not be made public ‘‘and that agreement has been overturned’’.
‘‘More uncertainty for landowners, but I wonder what benefits policymakers see in this decision.’’
Many landowners were concerned about what requirements and costs would come with having SNAs identified publicly on their properties. Some worried they could lose control over swathes of their land and that members of the public might think they could come on to the property, Wyllie said.
If farmers had drained wetlands on their land or felled stands of native trees as had happened in the locations of many towns and cities across New Zealand, ‘‘there wouldn’t be an SNA’’ to identify.
‘‘We don’t get a lot of credit for keeping these SNAs,’’ Wyllie said. ‘‘A lot of people don’t understand we’re green as well.’’
Farmers had long been caretakers of the land, but were feeling undervalued and under pressure facing an ‘‘avalanche of reform’’ she said.
During the meeting, deputy mayor Stuart Bryant said the only point he could see in the council’s favour was that it had until 2027 to identify, map and notify plan changes that included all significant natural areas.
‘‘It’s going to be a long, difficult conversation,’’ Bryant said. ‘‘I imagine in the outlying areas that will be very challenging.’’
Motueka ward councillor Trindi Walker said it was important the council remained transparent with its communities.
‘‘We’ve got 70% of our community engaged already with us, so I think it’s really important that the messaging goes out from today onwards because anyone can read our agenda.’’
Walker said she felt ‘‘really uncomfortable’’ that many people had participated in good faith via a structure that was now being pulled apart.
‘‘I guess we haven’t moved the goalposts, but central Government have and what was a voluntary programme and by 70% of our community under a confidential agreement has been moved,’’ she said. ‘‘How do we as a council approach this monster because that’s what it’s becoming.’’
Johnson said a meeting of the Native Habitats steering group in two weeks will ‘‘to discuss how we might take this forward’’.
‘‘Next steps: What does our time frame and what does our communications strategy look like, so we can start that conversation with our communities.’’
Johnson said that while the exposure draft for the NPS was out for feedback, the consultation was around its workability only and not an opportunity to influence the policy itself.