Inconsistent use of term 'biodiversity' frustrating

I get frustrated by frequent use of the term "continuing loss of biodiversity" being used to justify various decision-making and planning.

What does it mean?

Does it refer to indigenous, exotic or both?

It is variously used to describe either or both.

The Government recently produced a draft national policy statement for indigenous biodiversity. It began by listing quite specific ecosystem types, which I have to assume are legitimately under threat.

Although why "inland outwash gravels" are important escapes me. This occurs every time a significant slip occurs in the catchment of a mountain stream, and the result is usually a thicket of Californian thistles.

However, it then goes on to require councils to identify and regulate wide-ranging areas of indigenous vegetation and habitat of fauna (which may well be on developed and productive land with exotic species).

Little recognition is given to whether the ecosystems are rare or under threat. This wide-ranging approach is a nonsense.

Councils have neither the resources nor the wish to buy fights with their ratepayers.

The rule-and-regulate approach simply deters private landowners from applying the proactive management necessary if values are to have a sustainable future.

New Zealand needs to get far more strategic and specific in its approach.

Most of our remaining indigenous vegetation is in infinitely better condition than it was in the 1940s, when it was being decimated by deer from the west and rabbits from the east, with pigs and goats also contributing in many areas.

Let's recognise the progress that has been made.

Approximately 50% of the South Island is already managed by the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, regional and district councils, Queen Elizabeth II covenants and community groups and individuals which manage land for its indigenous conservation values.

For example, Mt Aspiring Station manages 7500ha just for its conservation, recreation and landscape values, but this would not appear on any official listing.

However, the nation does not have the resources to sustainably manage the area it has without continually adding to it.

Sure, some areas of indigenous vegetation are being modified, but mainly tussock, shrub land or bracken, of which large areas are already well protected by legislation.

We need to accept that enough is already protected, except for some discrete ecosystems, usually in the lowlands or coastal.

The aspect where we are still losing ground is with our native fauna (birds, reptiles and insects). The problem here is not lack of habitat. It is lack of control of predators such as stoats, ferrets, rats, mice, cats, dogs, possums and hedgehogs.

Many of our fauna can thrive in exotic vegetation and even in urban gardens, if it were not for predators. Even where some plant species such as mistletoe and rata are under threat, it is possums causing the damage.

There has been some belated recognition that predators are the real threat, but it has taken too long to implement programmes to combat this.

Resources for indigenous conservation management are limited for the foreseeable future. Therefore, we need to get far more strategic about how we get best value for these limited resources.

If Government policy is intelligent, it will motivate private individuals and community groups to contribute to conservation management.

Crude, blunt Resource Management Act rules which deter landowners, but do nothing to promote proactive sustainable management, are not helpful.