By Leigh McKenzie
Central government recently brought in a new National Policy Statement under the Resource Management Act 1991 to protect Highly Productive Land. The purpose of this new policy is to protect high class soils for food and fibre production for the future as it is a non-renewable resource. The new policy is to direct new housing developments and subdivisions away from Highly Productive Land.
The subdivision of land for urban development and lifestyle blocks has been encroaching on and diminishing the usefulness of Highly Productive Land in New Zealand. Highly Productive Land in the new policy, refers to land with high class soils and suitable land-use zoning for primary production. The policy uses local council’s existing land-use zones, but the policy is to prevent future subdivision and housing developments in these precious areas of productive land.
As an organisation promoting food production in tandem with protection of soils, this new National Policy Statement is intriguing. Will the new policy help our cause for sustainable food production? How might it affect small-scale market gardeners who we want to support? Does it allow for access to equitable housing, including options such as tiny homes? How does it fit with increasing pine plantations? This article strives to answer these questions.
The Issue
Figure 1: Map of Highly Productive Land protected by the new National Policy Statement 2022. Source: Landcare Research (2022) ‘Baseline Highly Productive Land’, URL: https://ourenvironment.scinfo.org.nz/maps-and-tools/app/Land%20Capability/lri_luc_hpl, accessed 28/11/2022.
About 15% of land in Aotearoa New Zealand (3,830,000 hectares) is estimated to be highly productive. In the last 20 years, over 35,000 hectares of Highly Productive Land has been lost to urban or rural residential development, and the new Urban Development Policy (2020) encourages more. Furthermore, lifestyle blocks under 8 hectares occupy more than 170,000 hectares of Highly Productive Land. This National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land requires the country’s most productive land to be identified and managed to prevent inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. The policy came about following the Our Land (2018) report which analysed the pressures facing New Zealand’s most productive soils.
How It Works - Implementation
The policy is now part of the Resource Management Act 1991, which means that all local authorities have to take it into account when approving resource consent applications and writing their plans for how land in the district will be managed. For example, if you are wanting to subdivide an area identified as Highly Productive Land for housing, then you would have to apply to your local council for permission to do that through a resource consent. The local authority would see that your proposal would interfere with Highly Productive Land being used for primary production (production from agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or forestry activities) and be unlikely to be approved. To gain approval, you would need to prove that your proposal is temporary or will not compromise the viability of using it for primary production.
Local and Regional Authorities will have three years from 2022 to identify and map Highly Productive Land. They then have a further two years to update their district and regional plans to implement the policy.
Highly Productive Land protected by this policy
Highly Productive Land accounts for high class soils, and existing Land Use Classes which are how Councils have zoned their land, therefore identifying land that is available and suitable for primary production.
In Otago, where I am writing, the new policy is expected to protect 3,080 hectares of Highly Productive Land with Land Use Class 1 (most versatile multiple-use land, minimal limitations, highly suitable for cropping, viticulture, berry fruit, pastoralism, tree crops, and forestry), 47,320 hectares of Highly Productive Land with Land Use Class 2 (very good multiple-use land, slight limitations, suitable for cropping, viticulture, berry fruit, pastoralism, tree crops, and forestry), and 343,300 hectares of Highly Productive Land with Land Use Class 3 (moderate limitations, restricting crop types and intensity of cultivation, suitable for cropping, viticulture, berry fruit, pastoralism, tree crops, and forestry).
Impact on small-scale market gardeners
The policy directs that Highly Productive Land should be used for land-based primary production. Also for activities that address public health and safety, encourage indigenous biodiversity, or are small-scale or temporary and have no impact on the productive capacity of the land. This is great for small-scale market gardeners as it means less land that is good quality for growing on will be snatched up for housing subdivisions. However, if a small-scale grower wants to buy a smaller parcel of land, the land is less likely to be subdivisible. As long as the grower can prove the viability of the small parcel of land for primary production, then the subdivision would be allowed by this policy.
One complication to consider is the implication for land access. This policy prioritises large sections of land which could make it less accessible, as it would come at a higher upfront cost due to the scale. This leads to the same questions in equitable land access for small-scale growers that our organisation wants to address.
Implications for housing
If you wish to subdivide your Highly Productive Land, or rezone it for urban development or rural lifestyle, you will need resource consent or undertake a plan change. In the case of subdivision, you will need to demonstrate that the productive capacity of the land will be retained, or that existing permanent or long-term restrictions on the land mean it is no longer viable for land-based primary production and therefore not fit for primary production.
Since tiny houses are temporary/not permanent, it seems they may be allowed on Highly Productive Land under this policy. The policy also allows for supporting infrastructure for primary production such as sorting sheds. Good news for our small-scale growers!
However, there is an exemption in the policy where local councils are allowed to rezone Highly Productive Land for urban development if there is no other option possible for the objectives of the Urban Development Policy (2020) to be achieved, and if the benefits of using it for housing outweighs the long-term costs of losing the Highly Productive Land.
This seems like a risky exemption to have in the policy, as the Urban Development policy is written to allow free building development on land, outwards and upwards. If a council can find that rezoning is the way to go, it might be easy for them to justify and therefore compromise the integrity and strength of this policy for protecting our precious soils.
What about primary production practices that degrade soils?
There is increasing concern in New Zealand that productive land is being taken up for pine plantations. Village Agrarians supports all work to address climate change, but pine plantations are not an approach we endorse. The lack of biodiversity that these plantations are able to host is at odds with creating a sustainable future, not to mention the devastating impacts of clear-felling if the forests are eventually harvested. The downfalls of pine plantations makes this question worth investigating.
This policy protects Highly Productive Land for land-based primary production. In the policy, land based primary production means production from agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or
forestry activities that are reliant on the soil resource of the land. In other words, it does not really restrict the kind of primary production that Highly Productive Land can be used for, so it seems pine forestry will be allowed to resume on Highly Productive Land.
Although the policy does not restrict the use of Highly Productive Land for pine plantations or other primary production practices that deplete soils, it does have clauses that encourage indigenous biodiversity, and for councils to consider cumulative adverse effects of activities on Highly Productive Land. This may mean that other activities such as horticulture and indigenous biodiversity would be prioritised over more intensive primary production like pine plantations and conventional farms, but these practices that can deplete soils are not inhibited by the policy.
Conclusion
To conclude, this policy gives legal gravity to protecting our most productive land. It is great to see the government giving importance to and taking action to protect our precious soil resources for primary production. Giving this non-renewable resource legal recognition is a great step forward for sustainable land management.
This new national policy means that highly productive land is protected for the future. However the policy could have consequences for equitable land access for small-scale growers by prioritising large sections of land, making it more expensive to access. This leads to the same challenges Village Agrarians has identified for achieving more equitable land access.
The policy also has an exemption which allows Councils to rezone land for urban development if there is no alternative for providing sufficient housing. Housing has been pushed via the Urban Development Policy 2020 in order to address the housing crisis, which is critical, but we can’t afford housing at the cost of our non-renewable resources for food security.
Pine plantations are still allowed on Highly Productive Land by the policy, but it does require councils to encourage indigenous biodiversity and consider cumulative effects of the activity that Highly Productive Land is used for. This may mean that other activities would be prioritised over pine plantations, but they are not inhibited by the policy.
The policy doesn’t prevent Highly Productive Land from being used for practices such as monocultures or intensive grazing which would deplete the value of the soils it is intended to protect. We would like to see the policy go a step further and actually protect the soil by disallowing these activities on it, since they have already identified that it is valuable.
Overall, this policy seems to be a positive outcome for protecting our soil resources. However, it comes with the caveat of potential issues for equitable land access, and urban development. If urban development can still be justified, it can go ahead. It also seems too permissive around the kinds of practices allowed on these valuable soils. The policy seems promising, but only time will tell whether it works to create meaningful positive change!
