Fish & Game: Wetland conservation gains hindered by regulations

Fish & Game NZ chief executive Corina Jordan. Photo / Melissa Waite

Existing regulations are not working to maintain existing wetland areas and are hindering the creation of new wetlands, Fish & Game New Zealand says.

Fish & Game said in a statement the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater regulations (NES-FW) made the enhancement and restoration of wetlands more difficult while failing to protect existing wetlands.

The organisation said it had helped drive abouty $22 million in investment in restoring wetlands, mainly on private rural land in partnership between hunters and landowners.

Chief executive Corina Jordan said Fish & Game NZ wanted a review of the NES-FW wetland rules.

“We have been providing significant free consultancy services to help communities and farmers secure consents; however, many landowners are walking away from projects to create or restore wetlands on their properties because of the amount of additional red tape and costs the regulations have introduced.”

She said this was “an absurd outcome”.

“Wetlands not only provide habitat for indigenous and valued introduced species but are also a key tool in farmers’ toolkit to address losses of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus from the farm, as well as supporting climate change adaption and mitigation.”

Jordan cited an example where one owner with nine wetlands told Fish & Game NZ about the challenging process required to gain consents to carry out routine maintenance of the canals and more than 125 ponds on their properties.

Previously, these enhancement activities had been fairly straightforward to work through, she said.

Another farmer received a $25,000 estimate from a regional council for a resource consent and environmental assessment to increase the size of a wetland on their property, Jordan said.

“That’s simply cost-prohibitive and is inhibiting potential conservation gains on private land.

“We’ve had people say it’s easier to get consent for intensive winter grazing than it is to build a wetland.”

The NES-FW wetland requirements were hard for regional councils to implement, in particular those with a strong focus on building, restoring, and enhancing wetlands, Jordan said.

Regional councils were also interpreting the NES-FW differently, so while overall, there was a move to more consents and red tape, there were wide differences in the conditions being imposed on landowners, she said.

Now, discretionary resource consents are needed for wetland creation when previously this was permitted, with no consent required.

Quarrying activities have gone from often being non-complying to discretionary (less restrictive) in wetlands.

As a result, it had become harder to create wetlands and easier to destroy them, Jordan said.

Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Corina Jordan on The Country below:

“We need to introduce Permitted Activity criteria so that regional councils and organisations such as Fish & Game can work with farmers and communities to restore and enhance wetlands and gain funding for projects.

“Signage, boardwalks and small structures such as mai mai under the size of 10sq m should also be permitted activities.”

Jordan said there were “huge opportunities”, particularly on private land, to create, enhance or develop more wetlands.

“These habitats benefit not only game birds but all creatures and avian species dependent on that habitat to survive, such as the endangered Australasian bitter.”

While there had been “some tweaking” of the regulations, major impediments remained, she said.

“There is shared frustration between Fish & Game and many farmers around the all-encompassing NES Regulation 55 regarding general conditions on natural inland wetland activities, coupled with challenges even interpreting the definition of these habitats.

Jordan said wetlands were vital in maintaining healthy ecosystems.

“We need regulation that supports and encourages the creation and maintenance of wetlands and makes it easier to work with farmers and communities to put wetlands back — not confusing regulations and costly barriers.”