NZ takes one more step toward complete biodiversity loss

13 comments on “NZ takes one more step toward complete biodiversity loss ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Nick C 1

   1 February 2011 at 10:12 am

   Oh come on this post is just some rather pathetic quibiling over wording (when its pretty obvious your real problem is that you just dont like National). Pretty much any document of this type which intends to set a policy direction will address and recognise competing rights. Here they are recognising the competing property rights of land owners.

   I agree that the real test will be whether they act on the statement, but you have to commend them for showing intent.

   Can you please link to the policy statement on biodiversity that labour produced so we can compare the two….. Oh wait, Labour never produced one.
   • jimmy 1.1

     1 February 2011 at 11:10 am

     Oh wait… here you go

     https://www.biodiversity.govt.nz/pdfs/picture/nzbs-whole.pdf

     Even though both you and I know you dont give a shit about facts, try page two.
     • Nick C 1.1.1

       1 February 2011 at 11:47 am

       Agh well thats the last time I make assumptions based on what Nick Smith says on his FB page 😛
       • Deadly_NZ 1.1.1.1

         1 February 2011 at 1:48 pm

         Then it’s your own fault for.

         1 Believing ANYTHING that Nick Smith says.
         and
         2 For using Farcebook as a serious place for Political comment.
         • Bored 1.1.1.1.1

           2 February 2011 at 7:53 am

           Its just as well for Nick C that the policy does not apply to him…..he too would be facing extinction. Could we add him to the list and get him to report how it goes?
   • James Henderson 1.2

     1 February 2011 at 11:17 am

     Policy is all about wording. Strong wording = setting a clear direction. The proposed NPS does not seek to redress the massive biodiversity loss that NZ has experienced, rather it seeks to maintain what’s left (i.e. not improve it) as long as that doesn’t mess with other potential uses of land. My point is that if biodiversity loss were a significant issue for this Government, it would be setting a clear and strong directive. Rather it isn’t sending a strong and clear message to improve biodiversity, and it’s other hand is withdrawing the funding and tools (i.e. urban vegetation protection) to achieve it.

     The proposed NPS is meant to be about biodiversity, other legal aspects – such as natural justice and the RMA – already recognise competing demands for land and private property rights. The intent of an NPS is to balance or enhance the consideration of a ‘national issue’ against such competing interests.

     Labour got as far as a proposed NPS on biodiversity, which was criticised as being too weak as well, and a Biodiveristy strategy, which could be considered to be a very small start on the issue. My post isn’t suggesting that labour was any better on this issue.

     I guess the best way to test this is to ask: what difference is this NPS going to make? I would suggest none as most regional and district Council policy (and section 6 of the RMA) already has stronger wording/direction than this NPS.
2. MrSmith 2

   1 February 2011 at 12:34 pm

   Nothing but Dog whistling from Smith and expect a lot more of this kind of toothless dribble right up to the election.
3. ecosocialism 3

   1 February 2011 at 1:18 pm

   Will be interesting to see what Labour Party conservation policy is. Personally I think one of the West Auckland MPs should get the conservation portfolio and build a good working relationship with the Greens conservation spokersperson.

   I wonder is National will do anything about this:

   Mining already enjoys a special status above that of other commercial activities on conservation land. http://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/all-publications/making-difficult-decisions-mining-the-conservation-estate/ – PCE ()report on mining conservation land.
   report includes:
   # Mines on ecological areas

   # Mining conservation land report

   # Ecological areas list

   # Mining operations on Department of Conservation land

   ——–
   It is also worth asking the Green and Labour responses to Department of Conservation Director General Al Morrison’s hard hitting speech last year:

   was it a call for conservation bottom lines and a prioritisation to make conservation a core issue, or a call for the comercialisation of the conservation estate by a undefunded cash strapped department at the mercy of mining companies and the like…

   http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/al-morrison%E2%80%99s-conser-vision
   Morrison says that “for all our exaltations, we keep on trashing the place”. He points to biodiversity loss: “That we are relatively Clean and Green and 100 Percent Pure, is little credit to our deliberate efforts. The brand is largely available to us because we have had relatively little time and few people … But we are as guilty as any party of depleting and degrading our natural capital.”

   The speech wasn’t just about halting biodiversity decline, though. It was about funding conservation.

   So, will he make the estate work harder for its keep, by inviting more business on to it, to generate funding?

   Ironically, that sounds more like the old mindset, than a new one, where the intrinsic value of conservation’s ecosystem services and other services is ignored, or not given much weight….
4. randal 4

   1 February 2011 at 1:31 pm

   in the immortal words of that arch right winger ronald raygun,” if you have seen one redwood then you have seen them all”.
   waste em.
   anything.
   as long as there is money in it then chop it down.
5. ecosocialism 5

   1 February 2011 at 2:12 pm

   A goal of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, written a decade ago, was to halt the decline in the country’s indigenous biodiversity, he said. But Landcare Research’s annual report, presented to Parliament this year, said intensive farming was destroying native plants at the fastest rate since European colonisation. A study last month found more freshwater fish species than ever were under threat.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/4209723/Kiwis-trash-nature-says-DOC-boss

   DoC head honcho spelled out very clearly last year the state of the environment in New Zealand…

   Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said Morrison’s speech was “brave” and challenged the Government’s “extractive” economic development strategy.

   Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson said his views were similar to Morrison’s.

   “Everywhere in the Western world we use the land, sea and the view for 100 per cent of the basis of everything to do with the economy.” He questioned whether humans had gone too far.
6. Rosy 6

   1 February 2011 at 8:49 pm

   “The cabinet paper introducing the NPS ( refer p.10 ) makes it clear that the minister will use his new powers to avoid any public hearing of the proposed NPS and make the decision on the final NPS himself”.

   Apart from DOC having to gut services, look to the private sector for profits to carry out its work this section really bothers me. We’re losing our democratic rights. Another in a already long list given that Nact haven’t even finished their 1st term in office… and labout lost support over light directing people’s choice of light bulbs!

   As as for accepting landowners are by right the protectors of diversity, pfft! – Is ‘substantial’ defined anywhere? How is ‘reasonable’ defined given that it has to be weighed up against economic well-being? This is not about improving biodiversity, it’s about recognising there is a problem but making sure it does not affect people’s rights to do what they wish on their own land and making sure it does not get in the way of economic development.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 31 January 2011 at 8:59 pm
2. Gabriella Turek: posted on 1 February 2011 at 8:16 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS