Further Research - Conclusions and Implications

Chapter 6 Conclusions and Implications

6.4 Further Research

This research was only able to look at a small sample of biodiversity compensation conditions and these were limited to active concessions of particular activity types on New Zealand’s South Island. These limitations have constrained the findings of this research. The implication of this is that there is still room for a broader nation-wide study, and/or a study which involves a larger sample size of compensatory conditions. Several variables, which were investigated during the course of this research and which had a statistically insignificant yet observable correlation with compliance, would benefit from such further analysis.

This research has paralleled Part 1 of the research undertaken by Brown (2014). To facilitate an even greater cross-policy comparison Part 2 and 3 of Brown (2014), which looked at the implementation of, and stakeholder perspectives on, ecological compensation under the RMA, should also be repeated under the Conservation Act. Such a comparison would highlight what social, cultural, and institutional dynamics lead to better biodiversity outcomes and improved compliance.

This research has focused on compliance with biodiversity compensation measures, however, compliance is not necessarily the same thing as ecological success (Bull, Suttle, Gordon, et al., 2013;

Matthews & Endress, 2008; Quintero & Mathur, 2011). The focus on “compliance” in this study was because compliance is much easier to measure. Measuring the outcome of a biodiversity

compensation measure (whether the measure sufficiently compensated for the losses to biodiversity) is much more complex (Bull, Suttle, Gordon, et al., 2013). Research on this topic, however, is essential. Such research would establish the extent to which biodiversity compensation measures actually benefit biodiversity and whether appropriate exchanges are occurring (Breaux et al., 2005; Brown, 2014).

In addition, more research is required on the appropriate design of biodiversity compensation and offset measures. The concept is still riddled with complications which are undermining its use as a tool to prevent biodiversity decline. Social drivers, for instance, which cause compensation measures to be unfair for biodiversity require detailed investigation. In New Zealand, more research is also required into understanding what “no-net-loss” actually means at a site and landscape scale against regional and national biodiversity protection objectives. Research into accounting for time-lags between biodiversity losses and gains, into comparing projects with different time profiles (e.g. short term pest control as compensation for the loss of virgin forest), and into the appropriate use of out- of-kind offsets and compensation measures is also required. In terms of application, no research has yet been done looking into the use of biodiversity compensation under the Crown Minerals Act. The use of biodiversity compensation measures in the marine environment has also never been

evaluated.

There is a plethora of research which could follow on from this study. The ideas mentioned here do not represent an exhaustive list. Whilst this research has provided new insight, it has also

demonstrated that significant improvements are required if biodiversity compensation is to help mitigate the biodiversity crisis unfolding in New Zealand today.

Appendix A

Field Assessment Sheet

Field visit – Compliance Assessment

Concession number: Site address:

Condition number(s): Date:

Time:

GPS/ map reference:

Concessionaire supervision? Y N

Concessionaire contact details:

Activity type: Habitat Type:

Visitations by general public: Low Medium High

Activity description:

Site description:

Compliance scale Description

0 – No compliance No level of compliance apparent with the stated

condition

1 – Low level of compliance Minor or insignificant achievement of compliance

2 – Medium level of compliance Significant level of compliance with the stated

condition, but falls short of full compliance

3 – Satisfactory compliance Acceptable compliance that is within a practical

margin of error and minor flexibility

Compliance score: Notes: