The right-wing coalition government in New Zealand on Thursday announced local councils will no longer have to comply with Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) for three years, as it aims to overhaul the country’s Resource Management Act to ramp up project approvals.

SNAs are areas that provide habitats for native plant and animal species, and provide ecosystem services to the region. They are identified by local and regional councils, who then engage with landowners on how to protect them.

However, Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard said in a statement Thursday that new SNAs would cease to be implemented as part of the Act and National parties’ coalition agreement.

“This work will be carried out as part of the government’s Resources Management Act reforms. For now, the government has agreed to suspend the obligation for councils to impose SNAs under the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Indigenous Biodiversity, and we’re sending a clear message that it would be unwise to bother,” he said.

Hoggard said SNAs identified on private property limit new activities and development, claiming they represented “a confiscation of property rights and undermine conservation efforts by the people who care most about the environment: the people who make a living from it”.

The government noted that councils will still have to protect areas with significant indigenous biodiversity due to the Resource Management Act, and that this requirement remained in place and was not affected by the suspension.

However, Hoggard said the government would be reviewing the operation of existing SNAs more broadly, including those implemented under the powers that councils have in the Resource Management Act.

He noted the amount of privately-owned land that had been voluntarily placed under separate conservation protection, known as Queen Elizabeth II covenants, had grown to 180,000 hectares.

“The impressive engagement and growth of QEII covenants – all voluntary – shows that private landowners do care about conservation,” Hoggard said.

“This government will be taking a collaborative approach with them, rather than undermining their rights.”

He argued that if local governments took away property rights by classifying private land as SNAs, there would be no incentive for landholders to act as conservationists.

“Ill-conceived regulations such as SNAs and the NPS Indigenous Biodiversity put roadblocks in place and turn biodiversity and conservation efforts into a liability,” he said.

FAST-OFF TRACK

It follows environmental groups claiming that corruption in the government’s new fast-track approval process had already been exposed.

NewsHub reported Wednesday that Resources and Oceans Minister Shane Jones was forced to recuse himself from being involved in a government decision on a possible seabed mining application under the fast-track legislation.

“I’ve stood aside from that particular project so there can be no allegation that I favoured mining or I favoured fisheries,” Jones said, according to the news outlet.

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM) chair Cindy Baxter said in a statement it was disturbing that Jones had found himself caught between two industry lobby groups.

“The mining industry got seabed mining for vanadium into the NZ First coalition agreement purely because it lobbied earlier,” she said.

“Now, Shane Jones has essentially had to admit that seabed mining is a threat to the oceans – but he’s done it for all the wrong reasons – simply because another lobby group has gotten to him first, or made him a better offer.”

Greenpeace NZ spokesperson Amanda Larsson said it was telling that Jones had backed seabed mining up until the point he realised that fishing interests behind his campaign opposed it.

“This is a clear sign that the proposed fast-track bill is incredibly vulnerable to corporate lobbying,” she said.

The government introduced the fast-track consenting bill to parliament last week.

The legislation aims to streamline decision-making processes on infrastructure and development projects that are deemed to have significant regional or national benefits.

Projects apply to joint ministers, who then refer them to an expert panel, that will make recommendations back to joint ministers who will decide if the project goes ahead.

However, the expert panel will not be able to seek public submissions and is not required to conduct a hearing. Instead it will be required to seek and consider comments from other ministers, local government, Maori groups, landowners, and other groups listed in the bill.

Appeals can be sought against project approvals, however only through judicial review.

ASSAULT

Environmental groups have slammed the legislation, describing it as an “outright assault” on nature and “deeply disturbing” in its overreach.

Conservation group Forest & Bird said the bill would override multiple conservation laws, and would give ministers unbridled personal power to singlehandedly approve or decline development as they see fit.

It also noted that the government was proposing to introduce a list of projects into the legislation at the final stages of considering the bill, too late to be considered in the select committee process or receive proper public scrutiny.

“New Zealanders are being denied an effective say over what projects should be fast tracked,” Forest & Bird Chief Executive Nicola Toki said.

“This feels like not only parliamentary ambush but a means for developers to ambush the entire country.”

Environmental Defence Society CEO Gary Taylor said there appeared to be no real constraint on which projects can use the fast-track process.

“They can even include most prohibited activities under the RMA, including those specified in the government’s own national direction,” he said.

“Developers will, of course, see the easiest route as simply lobbying ministers, who can send their favoured projects down the fast track to easy approval.”

However, the legislation was applauded by oil and gas industry lobby group Energy Resources Aotearoa, arguing it would enable more efficient consenting processes for projects.

“We believe the intent of the bill strikes the right balance between encouraging investment while maintaining the right checks and balances to protect the environment and iwi rights,” it said in a statement.

On Thursday, 10 New Zealand scientific societies, representing thousands of biodiversity scientists, published an open letter to the government decrying the fast-track legislation, saying it would come at the cost of the country’s natural environment, ecosystems, and biodiversity.

By Mark Tilly – mark@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***