Biodiversity payment system to support farmers and NZ Inc.

Rural News / opinion

David Norton says there is a strong need for a biodiversity financing system. There is currently a significant funding gap for the work to protect and restore biodiversity which needs addressing or this crucial work won't get done

3rd Dec 23, 9:13am by Angus Kebbell

This week I caught up with Professor David Norton to discuss his latest work in the biodiversity space. He has been involved in a joint submission with the Environmental Defence Society (EDS), Pure Advantage and WWF-New Zealand (WWF-NZ) exploring a biodiversity payment system for New Zealand. This is part of the consultation on a paper prepared by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and the Department of Conservation (DOC).

EDS is a non-for-profit, non-governmental national environmental organisation. It was established in 1971 with the objective of bringing together the disciplines of law, science, and planning to promote better environmental outcomes in resource management.

So how would a biodiversity credit system work and in particular benefit farmers in New Zealand?

Norton says we don’t want to be clearing native vegetation as a general rule: “There may be some clearance like, obviously regrowth after fertilizer addition, but as a general rule, we don't want to go about clearing native vegetation, what we actually need,, and what farmers need, is they don't need rules about not clearing vegetation, they need support around understanding what they have on their farms, they need support in terms of helping them understand or supporting them in managing that biodiversity managing the threats of that biodiversity.:

"And they need incentives, financial payments to help with funding that work because it comes at a cost. And that work looking after biodiversity on farms, clearly there's a benefit to the farmer. But there's definitely a benefit to the people who are marketing our products offshore because it's part of their green story. And there is a huge benefit to everybody because that's our biodiversity, New Zealand Inc’s biodiversity. So that’s part of their our whole thing. So, to me rather than calling it a biodiversity credit, we need a biodiversity incentive or biodiversity payment system that recognizes and supports farmers, as they manage native biodiversity on their farms.”

“We don't need an indigenous policy statement that says this is significant, we'll pass a rule and we won't let you do anything. And that is the wrong way to go about it, native biodiversity needs to be managed, it needs to be looked after. And farmers need to be supported and celebrated for the work they're doing with native biodiversity. That's what I think we should be talking about, a biodiversity incentive system or a biodiversity payment system it’s not a credit, because there's no debit.”

Here are some points in the joint submission by the Defence Society (EDS), Pure Advantage and WWF-New Zealand (WWF-NZ)

The Discussion Document explores a biodiversity credit system for New Zealand. The need for it is premised on two things: indigenous biodiversity in New Zealand is in a dire state, and current public and private investment is falling short of addressing the issue. The biodiversity credit system is proposed as a mechanism by which additional funds can be channeled into ‘nature-positive’ activities.
Establishing a system that facilitates the flow of economic resources to landowners undertaking conservation activities well overdue.
It is beyond doubt that there is a strong need for a biodiversity financing system in this country. Provided key design parameters are met in a future system (no offsetting, benefits accrue in the right place, appropriate treatment of Te Tiriti interests, engagement with local communities, etc), a biodiversity credits system may have potential. Consideration should also be given to potentially better, or at least complementary, options. Work on other options, and further investigation into a biodiversity credit system, should be prioritised.

A biodiversity payment system could well indeed work in this country, something has to work and something has to change. Obviously we need timber and pine trees and other species, they will always play a role in this country for farmers and the wider economy. But we most definitely need to move away from using pine trees as a tool for off setting emissions, exotic forests for the sole purpose of carbon storage is short sighted and provides no value to rural communities nor do they support biodiversity or enhance New Zealand’s natural environment. We have the ability to use native vegetation to sequester carbon, and we have the ability to reward farmers for their efforts in doing so. Furthermore, from an NZ inc perspective and in terms of us positioning ourselves in the global market and our brand of being clean, green and grass fed, well this all ties in just nicely.

Listen to the interview with David Norton to hear the full version, and you can read the full submission here: Joint Submission on Biodiversity Credits Final (eds.org.nz)

Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

20 Comments

by Kate | 3rd Dec 23, 12:47pm 1701560822

Couldn't agree more. Used around the world and called 'Payment for Ecosystem Services' (as opposed to another "off-setting" regime).

PES would be a much better use of ETS revenue than providing for tax cuts - not to mention the decision to relax rules around freshwater management (which I find even more objectionable).

What kind of crazy government have we landed ourselves with?

EDS are in for a big fight back with this lot.

by Palmtree08 | 3rd Dec 23, 6:38pm 1701581916

Richer countries with more diverse economies in Europe seem to manage environmental stewardship payments to farmers.

NZ has probably become the most "market" focused country on the planet since the '80s. We kind of take it for granted living in the NZ bubble of free trade political/media hype.

I'm not sure how government payments to agriculture would be entertained by an industry where subsidy is a four letter word.

This government is certainly one of fossilised thinking. Quite depressing really. More depressing is living among a population that chose to give them power.

by Kate | 3rd Dec 23, 11:46pm 1701600416

I'm not sure how government payments to agriculture would be entertained by an industry where subsidy is a four letter word.

Not sure about that. Farming is tough at the moment - I guess it always has been. Good farmers deserve better from our government. The polluters should pay dearly and the good farmers/good stewards of the land and water should benefit from the ecosystems services they provide in terms of their land use.

There is so much good that a good landowner can do for the environment and for the country more generally. The past few decades which saw a massive shift to dairy conversion has only been (to my mind) because the incentives regarding land-use have all been wrong - and our "hands off" market approach has been just as harmful.

For example, our local market for insulation. Wool is one of the most sustainable, natural products I can think of. Why have we not banned polystyrene insulation? And, we subsidise it. And why are Pink Batts allowed to call themselves "glass wool"... I don't think they have anything to do with wool, do they?

So it's not simply a matter of payment for ecosystem services, such as wetland restoration; native forest regeneration; planting out the margins of waterways and so on - but to me its also steering land-use away from environmentally harmful produce and encouraging 'growing for good' products through market regulation via an environmental lens..

by powerdownkiwi | 3rd Dec 23, 12:51pm 1701561095

'Establishing a system that facilitates the flow of economic resources to landowners undertaking conservation activities well overdue.'

The problem with EDS and its ilk, is the assumption of BAU (economy as it is, payments from/to).

Unfortunately, those days are already gone. If we write a history of such NGOs, we will likely see them as ineffective consciences of a bigger System - the one predicated on economic growth. It always took precedent - indeed now is beginning to devour itself to keep itself alive - so Conservation was ALWAYS going to lose.

Real sustainability requires trading at a level well below anything we have come to know as 'an economy'.

Oh - and we should be past suggesting that we sequester carbon extracted from below-ground, in the above-ground habitat. Ecology 101 says it cannot be done.

by Kate | 4th Dec 23, 9:27am 1701635252

EDS have indeed fought some great fights in order to halt further extractive activities - as have many iwi/hapu. Our collective NGOs in NZ working in the social/environmental space deserve a whole lot more credit than you seem keen to give.

If you have such disdain for the direction of "EDS and its ilk", what NGO would you suggest is worth following/contributing to here in NZ?

Lot's of folks here would I'm sure be keen to follow it. .

by powerdownkiwi | 3rd Dec 23, 4:24pm 1701573858

Not disdain - I have nothing but admiration for their more effort than I will ever get around to.

But logic says that if the System requires resources (including energy ones) and is aimed at exponential growth, any 'win' will be temporary. As we are seeing with this new Government, as we saw with the sidelining of Canty Regional (Brownlee is a common denominator). Thus we have to ask what they are achieving, given that they are fighting parry/retreat parry/retreat? (I've just watched years of voluntary human effort going into defending the Manuherikia - good friends involved; this Govt will override ruthlessly, watch this space.)

The only possible answer is: Buying time to educate the public, enough to alter the major System (the exponential economic growth one - you cannot solve child poverty for an increasing population without impacting biodiversity). That is the only possible answer. But it hasn't happened; I'd say we peaked environmental awareness back about 1990. Now, more than ever, we're about personal consumption.

Those NGOs and those dedicated to Conservation - my echelon, really; most of my friends and my operating circle - dedicated lives to such things, and I admire, as stated. But to solve the incessant demand, we actually have to change the System. On that logic, these folk (conservation-types who have thought on, mostly) would be my pick:

https://www.degrowth.nz/

You might recognise the odd name presenting to their recent - completely unreported - weekend seminar. Solve the big Systemic problem, solve all the others collaterally.

But most of them - and I - will tell you that they don't expect to 'win' - they understand Systems and realise both the momentum, and the lack of remaining time. They all know that 96% of animal weight is now humans and their attendant livestock; wild animate mass is down to 4%; we've commandeered almost everything. They will likely tell you that the System is close to collapsing (World3 - google the graph - says soon, look at the inflection-points) and that the best they can do is educate prior; teach post-collapse skills (food-production, local leadership, Systems/logic/strategic thinking). Just how monitoring (think: N, for instance) happens in a post-collapse world, is an interesting question? Also, how will local spatial-trustees (in the intergenerational sense) fend/ward off those intent on resource-rape? Given the said collapse will take down courts, laws, rules, penalties....

by Kate | 4th Dec 23, 9:28am 1701635284

Buying time to educate the public

Trying to educate the public is a great cause, but I tend toward fighting the inept political class - making them out to be the fools that they generally are. Exposing their hypocrisy. Exposing their incompetence and lies (like the one Luxon just had to apologise for today, although he wasn't man-enough to admit it was just a electioneering slogan of untruth which he used knowingly).

The public will only respond to change when the government starts getting the incentives for change right.

Like a massive tariff on all plastic toys - same for single-use plastic containers. When I see no plastic in the drinks aisle in the supermarket, I'll know we have a government that gets it. And don't start me on synthetic nitrogen. Meantime, I have just disdain and anger towards the political class.

Public education will produce incremental change, but changes to our consumptive behaviour needs a kick in the guts through regulation to my mind. There are so many obvious opportunities to govern right for the environment.

And this lot are growing more smokers, when they had the opportunity for a smokefree generation. Sheesh.

by Xristina | 3rd Dec 23, 5:37pm 1701578245

Agreed, we need this. So many jobs for younger people could be created as part of it - particularly in the more remote parts of NZ but also in the horticulture sector as nurseries are set up to supply them with native trees and plants. It would make jobs for many but I'm pointing to young people particularly as I'm aware of work being done by multiple iwi to train young people into new sustainable jobs in this area.

by powerdownkiwi | 3rd Dec 23, 8:07pm 1701587253

You correctly identify a need to do something - in this case, planting, mostly native.

But the rest is a collection of assumptions. Have you ever pondered where money comes from? Or where it ultimately goes? Have you ever stopped to quantify 'job' or 'sustainable' (in the real sense)?

Money is conjured up on bank keyboards, as debt. That debt needs repaid, along with interest, so 'repaid but more'. That isn't magic; and it isn't virtual - although virtual trading can be seen as passing the parcel, and even adding to it, until the music stops and there aren't enough chairs (planetary resources, particularly energy resources) to make the stuff and to do the work to the stuff (extraction, processing, transporting, consuming and disposing).

Society is so far down the EROEI https://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/ scale now, that it cannot afford itself. That is why student loans, and why they have increased, and why even so, universities are going broke. That is why Health cannot afford both staff and material. That is why roading is decaying generally; the building fleet ditto; that is why decaying pipework is frequently in the news. Not to mention the need to maintain the grid, let alone upgrade it. And the Govt is income-broke - although it will attempt to screw even more out of the bottom-end in the short term.

Yet you think someone can be 'paid' - by that society, already having trouble keeping itself going - for something not directly linked to 'production'? You are dreaming; certainly in the next three years you are. Those of us who saw all this coming in the 70s, have lived lives of volunteering (partner and I planted 40 acres in trees long before carbon was a topic; we did it to redress deforestation, and purposely stayed out of the ETS - which is an attempt to 'buy more stuff', when you think it through. We've planted school, riverbanks, all sorts; not for money though). The problem IS the money system, and until at least the usury part of it goes (but perhaps more than that) conservation moves will be retreating (in the dwindling space between exponential growth and a finite planet.

by Kate | 4th Dec 23, 12:12am 1701601957

One of the DoC workers on the news tonight working on repair of cyclone ravaged tracks - explained they need 10x the number of workers on the particular project he's involved in.

We need a major, full scale youth conservation corps - paid service, just like joining the army.

by powerdownkiwi | 4th Dec 23, 11:47am 1701643671

He's likely doing it so DoC can 'make money' from charging walkers.

That's the DoC that still flies coal into huts via helicopter - so that twee tourists will be happy.....

by Jack Lumber | 4th Dec 23, 10:16am 1701638205

To pay for these ecoservices you need funds

In Europe farming is a very minor part of the economy and is paid by the massive other industries operating. We don't have these other industries and cant even afford to fund health care - the need to keep people smoking to pay for things more than demonstrates this.

Alongside this the Europeans value natural landscapes far more than we do while at the same time are very happy to manage and use them for productive uses - while in Switzerland with family they are replacing trees species with others to adapt to climate change - these aren't native species - everyone realises they need to adapt (pragmatic and science driven Swiss!!) - they are adding Douglas fir to their forests as other species fail as climate changes - try that in NZ and see how you go!!

We also have this pre determined, ingrained belief that farming is all good - Having spent last week on the East Coast of the NI its patently obvious that 50% plus of the farms need to stop and revert to native - along with areas of production forest. Having watched over the decades this land starting to regenerate to native, as it will if you just leave it, only to have a helicopter with metsulfuron fly over and nuke everything and grass and cattle wonder around again. Its resulted in sediment piled up in the ocean, rivers etc and flood risk through the roof. Until we get real nature will sort this out in its own way.

These farms/forests will go broke in the end as economics, ageing and declining working age populations mean you just cant do it. Im quite relaxed and happy to let time take its course - using this land to try and farm is but a blink in time - the forests will return in some form with or without any eco service payments.

by Kate | 4th Dec 23, 10:35am 1701639313

I agree with the fact that we have vast swathes of land in production that needs to be retired/reverted back to natural forest/vegetation.

Think of the money being spent to 'clean up' what nature has wrought on these lands and roads and infrastructure. So many severely scared steep paddocks, I don't know how any of them are actually productive - do sheep just walk around all these scarred areas? Surely much of this hill country is loss-making on a per hectare basis. I'd think many land owners would welcome some form of compensation to retire the land.

Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, but so does the money to repair and carry on struggling until the next time. I suppose waiting for the owners to go broke is an option, but the general taxpayer and the environment always end up paying the cost in the meantime. There has to be a way to keep these families in place but with much, much, much smaller landholdings in production.

by powerdownkiwi | 4th Dec 23, 11:45am 1701643507

Yes, Kate.

Keep them in place, and infill about 4 times as many with them.

It will happen anyway; better we do it in a controlled manner.

by Hans Brink | 4th Dec 23, 11:49am 1701643772

Bio diversity payments are totally unaffordable in NZ's tiny economy. There is already an ETS in place and many landowners are getting payments for retiring land. This is very evident in more remote areas.

For those wanting to live on these uneconomic farms it is just a matter of planting some faster growing exotics to keep a reasonable flow of funds coming. So long as there are trees there is bio diversity and as Jack pointed out earlier nature will sort it self out if left alone.

Strangely, economic reality will revegetate the hills. What we need to ensure is that the cycle of land clearance doesn't repeat it self in the future as happened in the 70s and 80s. Many areas that were cleared with Govt subsidies had been walked off or left to retire from the 30s and after due to the simple reason that it was uneconomic to farm.

Nothing much has changed.

by Northern Lights | 4th Dec 23, 5:17pm 1701663443

Biodiversity is affordable. The question is priorities. The recent Labour govt spent billions on paperwork and consultants for no productive gain whatsoever because they were spending the money on their supporters. Future govts will spend similar amounts of money on jobs for the boys and subsidies for their own networking buddies. The question is will any govt money be spent on anything useful to New Zealand's future.

When dreamers with practical organisational skills and life experience turn up good things can happen. When people with ability, life experience but no imagination turn up then the only question is which friends are going to get the money that's wasted.

In New Zealand's past bush has reverted in the back blocks but the bush lacks biodiversity because the remaining farmers run their stock through it. I went on the Wanganui river walk when I was a kid and saw the results of farm reversion from ballot farms. Most of the East Coast Bush is a leafy-green feral cattle run.

You could look at New Zealand's past and say well all we have to do is leave it alone to revert and it will be fine. You minimise the possibilities of a Haiti like scenario where locals and immigrants from third world countries start to engage in illegal logging, charcoal burning, firewood production, land clearance for subsistence farming. There is already enough trouble with hunters 'farming' pigs and deer in the bush near to where they live and gang connections to such activities New Zealand is just lucky that we can't grow palm oil palms. Once you get a commercial crop that will grow in the bush then the stripping will start. Yes, marijuana but it very small scale and mostly supplanted by P.

New Zealand needs new value added industry, but this does not seem to be a priority for any govt. It is all still laissez-faire. Many new industries and services will come from the private sector, but those generally are the results of previous govt subsidies for research. Pine tree processing, wine development, Queen Street kiwifruit farming all given a govt funded boost in their early stages that made all the difference.

Biodiversity is no different, it could be a new sunrise industry for New Zealand earning us overseas credits to help pay for the imports we will need.

by powerdownkiwi | 4th Dec 23, 7:02pm 1701669735

Sunrise industry - credits - imports

You are of the past, sorry.

We need to de-grow, do less to less.

It is the sunrise industry mindset that got us into this mess....

by Jack Lumber | 4th Dec 23, 2:49pm 1701654562

Yes you are right - rinse and repeat - as we are doing again now is utter madness but whats new - as Hans says. Theres no way you can survive on small holdings unless you want a subsistence lifestyle - and its a very remote - BUT the ETS allows you to do this already anyway and in style - we don't need anything else - its all in front of people now - get practical and pragmatic like the Europeans.

Most young people with a get up and go are gone - these areas have no young ones left - meals on wheels in Wairoa is in trouble as the people delivering them now need meals on wheels themselves!!! The populations going up - all older people retiring back who need help from where who knows!! but the council and others there are in la la land.

People will not give up there land - no matter how much money you throw at them - even the ETS with lots of money wont make them move - you need to understand the mind set - its through a very different lens you have I'm afriaid.

This has all happened before here and around the world and is happening again - as Hans says we just need to make sure no dreamers turn up in 30 years too repeat the cycle again.

You cant plan this as people wont budge. What will happen is the farms will slowly revert, the kids leave and work elsewhere - then Mum and Dad finally pass on and the farm is reverted to bush and the kids keep it for recreation or sell it off for hunting/lifestyle block or the flats to the 1 farmer left who has the best parts of 5 farms combined.

The Marlborough sounds is a classic NZ example. Back in the 50s it was all grass nearly. Now the final farms are slowly being swallowed up by the bush or sold to rich older kids, who left their family farms, somewhere, to make a real income, and being reverted to bush with a flash bach on them. The rich ones young kids are not interested in farming but more bush - whats not to like.

Going broke is a sure way to change landuse and in NZ we aren't rich enough to stop this happening.

by sheepdog | 4th Dec 23, 8:27pm 1701674879

Your making alot of assumptions Kate, most of them wrong. Hill country farming is profitable and there is alot of good operators doing well. Sure this year will be tough but all industry's have good years and bad years.

by solardb | 4th Dec 23, 1:45pm 1701650706

Thee's the landcare trust too , which has a lot of info about wetlands and drainage for farms.

as someone said , the Profit from farming the worst of this land isn't huge , i don't think huge payments are necessary . There's already plenty doing this voluntary, probably more information and moral support needed than cash .

How about an adopt a farm scheme? well part there of.

I remember sponsiring a tree or 2 in the UK, woodland trust i think it was ???