Farmers who reserve some of their land for native bush are watching in dismay as their conservation partner, the QEII National Trust, runs short of cash.
So serious is this problem, the trust is warning that few if any new conservation measures will be launched in the next financial year.
This situation is being condemned as an absolute disgrace by Federated Farmers.
The QEII National Trust exists to deal with a serious conundrum: almost a third of New Zealand’s land area is overseen by the Department of Conservation (DOC), though its $765 million dollar budget is not nearly enough to deal with such a large area. But even if DOC could fulfil its mission, what about the 70% of land that is privately owned. Should that be ignored?
The QEII National Trust was set up half a century ago to help farmers plant or preserve forests and wetlands on their properties by assisting them with the cost. The rationale was that many farmers love their land and would like to preserve some of it in forest for amenity or environmental reasons, even if it meant less land was available for grazing. But some of the cost of an obvious social good should be met from the public purse.
Over the years, the Trust has established over 5,000 protected areas, ranging from small backyard patches to huge swathes of high country. These covenants are mainly on farms and cover more than 180,000 hectares of land. But paying for them is getting harder all the time, and could bring the establishment of new covenants to a halt.
“Our baseline government funding of $4.28 million has not increased since 2015, despite rising costs and a 28% increase in the number of new covenants over this time,” the trust said in a statement in December.
“We were lucky to secure some Jobs for Nature funding to allow us to increase our new covenanting work over the last few years, however this is now coming to an end with no replacement funding source on the horizon.”
As a result, warns the trust, new projects could grind to a halt.
“Continuing to support landowners of existing QEII covenants is our first priority, so we may have to pause or significantly reduce our new covenant work until additional funding can be secured.”
This development angers Federated Farmers.
"The QEII Trust has a stellar track record of working with landowners to permanently protect special areas of bush, wetland and biodiversity," its vice president Colin Hurst says.
"It’s an utter disgrace that QEII’s base government funding has remained unchanged for a decade, despite rising demand for its help.
"In real terms, that’s a huge cut in funding."
The trust has traditionally worked by helping with the cost of things like fencing and predator control, so that special areas of bush and wetland are protected for future generations, in perpetuity. Hurst says voluntary initiatives like these preserve the environment more effectively than regulations such as the previous Government’s rules on Significant Natural Areas (SNAs).
The current cost of QEII covenants to farmers is unclear. But a study last decade by Waikato University put the loss of production at farms of $443 million to $638 million in the first four decades of the scheme. In addition, farmers were spending about $25 million of their own money each year on pest control and other costs.
"QEII represents farmer commitment, and great bang for buck, for conservation,” Hurst says.
"The Government needs to step up its contribution to keep up the pace.”
The Ministers of Agriculture and Conservation were approached for comment. The Agriculture Minister said it was a conservation matter, but the office of the Minister of Conservation, Tama Potaka, has not responded to requests for comment.
Meanwhile, comments in the trust’s last annual report by the Chairman Alan Livingston, shows its problems are not being exaggerated.
“A deepening concern of my predecessors has been the unsustainability of QEII’s current financial model,” Livingston wrote.
“I am troubled that this remains the case, with no apparent relief on the horizon. Our Jobs for Nature projects have been successful and productive, but this funding is due to end in June 2025 and that revenue reduction will likely bring QEII’s unsustainable financial situation to a head."
15 Comments
Continuation of the jobs for nature scheme would be the best outcome.
Yes, that was a great initiative. I was hoping a first step towards a Conservation Corps. Need a change in government to get that kind of enlightened thinking.
When the Labour government announced its COVID stimulus package, 6 environmental NGOs got together and recommended the following projects be advanced - and indeed, Funding the surveying and protection of nature on private land (QEII expansion) was one of them; here's the full list:
• Electrification and expansion of the rail network
• Direct funding for a nationwide upgrade of water, sewage and stormwater infrastructure
• Insulating every under-insulated property in the country
• Cleaning up legacy waste sites
• Investing in electric transport including buses and EV charging networks
• Establishing a dedicated fund for the transition to more sustainable agriculture
• Funding the surveying and protection of nature on private land
• Substantially increasing regional and national pest and weed control
• Creating a Conservation Corps to work with DOC for improved conservation outcomes
• Transforming fishing by funding the transition to low impact, sustainable fishing methods and digital monitoring
• Installing new solar and wind capacity and upgrading the electricity grid
• Support for rooftop solar and household batteries
• Expanding cycle ways and safe, active transport”.
Borrowed and printed $100 billion. How many got ticked off?
8/13 got new funding - a start - but bear in mind these were Labour government initiatives, many of which National canned and/or will not renew the initiatives once the current additional baseline is spent.
I've italicized those which got a start/boost at the time.
Perhaps in the case of Open Spaces Trust, direct cash may be more applicable, worthy as that scheme is.
The main requirement for new QEII covenants in my experience is capital rather than labour - the cost of legal covenants, then fencing, weed and pest control and so on.
Although most field staff now are part-time contractors, so may be a need to move to full time employees as the number of covenants grows.
They are, overall, a great organisation, with great people. As a covenant owner they have been incredibly supportive alongside Fish & Game. A source of wisdom as well as funding. And covenants are a fantastic mix of voluntary participation, protection of private property rights *and* protection and enhancement of native biodiversity.
Double their funding.
What about bridleways like the UK where people can access these pockets of magic at a cost. User pays type system.
Administration is the problem. Who would enforce and collect an access fee?
Also, a relatively small proportion of these covenants would be of interest to the general public and/or feasibly accessible, in my experience.
Trouble with people is their presence has a bad habit of ruining things. Infact there'd be a good argument to suggest the areas should be predator free fenced, to keep the worst of lot out, the two legged ones.
Token payments just adds another layer to admin.
We have friends who farm in England where people have the right to roam with dogs. The amount of stock including horses being terrorized by dogs and humans is shocking.
"The rationale was that many farmers love their land and would like to preserve some of it in forest for amenity or environmental reasons" Stop the funding and you'll get close to zero done by the farmers
And what exactly do you do for conservation in perpetuity?
QE2 covenant land is privately owned. But the land owner may not use that portion of their farm business land for agricultural purposes. It is locked up in perpetuity for the benefit of NZ.
Maybe there is enough protected bush now and we should be looking at restoring wetlands?
The scheme includes wetlands, it’s not just areas of vegetation.
Yeah there is a small QE2 bit of bush on a block of land we bought recently. The fences were buggered and cattle walked in and out but the joker who checked it was more concerned about thistle spray drift. So do we fix the fences? even though it looks like it has been like this for years.
Of course we will fix it up in due course.
Compliance, to my mind, should be done by local councils - as they forego rating on that land which is put in trust. Hence, they have the incentive to suspend / re-rate the land if no longer achieving the conservation benefit.
My guess is, your experience is quite common. Quite amusing that spray drift was the main concern - were there cattle in the area when he/she visited?
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.