The early phase

Biodiversity protection as a way of thinking about nature conservation began to gain currency in official circles in New Zealand because of two lines of influence: one was international; the other came from within the scientific community and the Department of Conservation (DoC).

In the 1980s the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) had begun to focus on biodiversity loss. In June 1992 a Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was opened for signing at the UN Convention on Environment and Development (the “Earth Summit”) at Rio de Janeiro481_{. New} Zealand was a signatory to the Convention, and ratified it in 1994. Article 6 of the Convention,

479 _{———, "Weaving Resiliance into Our Working Lands."} 480 _{Ibid. P.7.}

481 _{For the background and context for the CBD see B Burhenne-Guilmin Glowka L., H. Synge, A Guide to the}

6: Biodiversity policy

General Measures for Conservation and Sustainable Use, called on governments to “develop

national strategies, plans or programmes” and to “integrate…the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies". Australia and the United Kingdom had produced nationally based biodiversity strategies by 1993 and officials in Wellington were aware of these examples.482

At the same time domestic influences emerged. First, in DoC, departmental biologists and ecologists advocated a change to the basis of nature conservation priorities, from species orientation to placing greater emphasis on habitat and wider ecological functioning and protection.483 _{Second, as a new} department created in 1987 (see Chapter 3), DoC’s internal policies and programmes continued to draw on the priorities and norms that had existed prior to 1987.484 _{DoC had wide responsibilities but} in a time of fiscal constraint it had a reducing budget.485 _{Consequently, the idea of biodiversity} decline and biodiversity protection provided a theme that could potentially unify internal

conservation programmes and at the same time assist in justifying ongoing government investment in conservation efforts. DoC, and the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), were looking to create new strategic directions and policies following the government structural and institutional re-

organisations of the 1980s. In DoC’s case these took the form of internally generated priorities based on ecological conservation. They were expressed in a draft statement of intent labeled Atawhai Ruamano: Conservation 2000 that introduced the idea of biodiversity protection and ecosystem restoration as strategic departmental priority.486

Actions flowed from these lines of influence. First, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), assisted by DoC, received Cabinet agreement in 1993 to ratify the CBD. Officials recommended that “a New Zealand strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity might be

482 _{Copies of the Australian and UK Biodiversity strategies, both produced by mid-1993, are on early DoC}

Biodiversity files. See DoC file BDY0001 Volume 1.

483 _{S. R. Halloy, "Situation and Aspiration of Biodiversity Research and Resources in New Zealand," (Wellington:}

MORST, 1992). Memo Geoff Park to Jane Sheldon,July 1993. DoC file BDY0001 Volume 1.

484 _{For example, DoC’s early animal pest programmes owed much to the policies and priorities of the NZ Forest}

Service. While some of these were ecologically based, there was an underlying prioritisation based on forest protection as a production resource. Young, Our Islands, Our Selves: A History of Conservation in New Zealand. Pp.213-214. DoC, "Atawhai Ruamano/Conservation 2000," (Wellington: Department of Conservation, 1993).

485 _{The conservation/recreation budget in 1987 for DoC seems to have been thirty per cent lower compared to}

its combined parent departments (Young, Our Islands, Our Selves: A History of Conservation in New Zealand. P.211). In its first year DoC overspent its budget and had to undertake a major downsizing. See “A short history of the Department of Conservation: 1987-2007 - A rocky start”, http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/about- doc/a-short-history-of-doc/ (accessed 6/8/2012).

486 _{DoC, "Atawhai Ruamano/Conservation 2000." Atawhai Ruamano was an evolving strategy to establish goals}

for the Department across all its work streams: biodiversity: historic heritage; visitor services; kaupapa atawhai; public awareness; and internal capability. A final biodiversity section was not published until 1995. The MfE equivalent to Atawhai Ruamano was Environment 2010, although it was less internally generated, containing considerable Ministerial direction and personal drafting, as well as input from public submissions. Lindsay Gow pers com. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/ser1997/html/chapter4.9.html (accessed 5/7/2013).T. Bührs, Bartlett, R.V., "Strategic Thinking and the Environment," Environmental politics 6, no. 2 (1997). P.84.

6: Biodiversity policy

desirable”, and that an ad hoc working group of officials convened by both MFAT and DoC would consider “implementation issues”. The departmental recommendation to Cabinet said that ratification had no immediate financial implications.487 _{DoC’s International Section sketched out a} draft strategy, proposed to seek cabinet approval, and planned completion by late 1995.488 _Second, within DoC, an emphasis on protection of indigenous biodiversity and in-situ management rather than sustainable use or ex-situ options emerged from internal debates between the department’s policy units.489 _{The Department used Conservation Week in July 1994 to promote publicly its ideas} about the decline of indigenous biodiversity. At the same time DoC chose, deliberately it is claimed, to separate the issues of biodiversity protection from access to genetic resources.490_{Also at the same} time, DoC advocated that addressing decline in indigenous biodiversity deserved a high place in New Zealand’s wider environmental policy priorities, a view supported by MfE. Protecting indigenous habitat and biological diversity and representative examples of all indigenous ecosystems, and enhancing the net total area of New Zealand’s remaining indigenous forest and vegetation became one of the five main goals of the government’s environmental strategy, Environment 2010. The document said the government would produce a national strategy on biodiversity and prepare a national policy statement under the RMA on biodiversity.491

The various strands of development towards a biodiversity strategy, and advocacy by the Department, might suggest a strategy would have developed quickly. For example, DoC’s

international section had hoped to have a document completed by late 1995, but this didn’t occur. Why it didn’t happen in the period between 1993 and 1995 is not exactly clear. Evidence on the files and the views of one participant suggest that possible reasons are the lack of a clear Cabinet

mandate (which might suggest DoC didn’t make full use of the formal policy system), lack of (or not giving priority to) financial resources necessary to develop a strategy, or a degree of incoherence

487 _{Cabinet paper CAB (93) M32/7. DoC file BDY0003 Volume 3. The statement about no immediate financial}

implications may have been correct at the time but financial implications emerged later.

488 _{“The Minister was expecting a document-type strategy”,Minutes of Biodiversity Strategy Group; 27 April}

1994. DoC file BDY0001 Volume 2

489 _{See paper produced by DoC’s biological diversity working group, P. Lawless, Stephens, T., "The Task of}

Conserving Biodiversity in New Zealand," (Wellington: Department of Conservation, 1994). and C. O'Laughlin, Warrington, T., "Conservation Strategy for Sustainable Land Management Covering Lands for Which Doc Is Responsible," (Wellington: Department of Conservation, 1994). In-situ and ex-situ conservation of species was covered in Articles 8 and 9, and sustainable use in Article 10 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). DoC’s choices may also be attributed to its legislative mandate, which interprets conservation in preservationist terms. See Conservation Act 1987, S.2.

490 _{Cabinet committee paper CIE (94) 253. See DoC file BDY0003 Volume 1. Access to biological genetic}

resources was the subject of Article 15 of the CBD. Transferring responsibility to the Ministry of Commerce proved fortuitous later, given Maori concerns about the commercialisation of indigenous biodiversity genetic resources. These concerns were part of the Wai 262 claim. See Footnote 495. Having the Ministry of Commerce take responsibility was claimed to be deliberate on DoC’s part. Hamish Rennie pers com.

491 _{MfE, "Summary of Environment 2010: A Statement of the Government's Strategy on the Environment,"}

(Wellington: Ministry for the Environment, 1994). And ———, "Environment 2010 Strategy: A Statement on the Government's Strategy on the Environment." A draft of Environment 2010 had been put out for public comment in 1994 and the biodiversity goals and actions were essentially the same in both documents.

6: Biodiversity policy

between various policy branches within DoC.492 _{Furthermore, in May 1995, DoC senior management} and the Minister of Conservation became diverted to responding to a major disaster when a DoC- built viewing platform collapsed in Paparoa National Park killing fourteen young people. This event destabilised leadership. A consequential reorganisation resulted in some key staff associated with development of a biodiversity strategy leaving the department.493