|
Grants Subcommittee
22 November 2016
|
|
Part
A Reports
Dunedin Biodiversity Fund - Applications to
the September 2016 Funding Round
Department: Community and Planning
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The
September 2016 round of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund opened on 1 September
2016 with applications closing on 30 September 2016.
2 A total
of 11 applications were received. The total funding amount that has been
requested by the applicants ($36,268.72) is more than the funding available for
the funding round ($30,000).
3 All
applications have been assessed in relation to the fund criteria and the
prioritisation criteria to assist the Committee in considering the applications
and allocation of grants.
4 The
purpose of this report is to assist the Committee in considering the
applications and allocation of funding by providing an assessment of the
applications against the fund criteria and prioritisation criteria.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Committee:
a) Considers the
recommendations for the allocation of the grants: and
b) Decides on
the allocation of the grants across the applications received to the
September 2016 round of the Biodiversity Fund.
|
BACKGROUND
5 The
September 2016 round of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund opened on 1 September
2016 with applications closing on 30 September 2016. For this round of
funding, $30,000 is available for allocation plus any savings from the previous
funding round. 11 applications were received, with four involving
projects adjoining or within Areas of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV), QE
II covenants or other protected land. Full copies of the applications are
included in Attachment 1.
6
Funding
Criteria
7 The
Dunedin Biodiversity Fund was established in August 2007 with the following
purpose: “To maintain a network of viable habitats and ecosystems in
Dunedin by encouraging and supporting those landowners who are committed to
protecting, enhancing and managing indigenous biodiversity.”
8 Funding
is to be allocated on a cost sharing arrangement of 50:50, with the Council
funding up to half of the project cost and the applicant making a contribution
to the costs. The maximum total grant that can be allocated under the
fund is $5,000. Projects must be aimed at:
a) conserving or
protecting indigenous biodiversity by fencing and permanently protecting areas
through covenanting; and
b) management of
indigenous biodiversity for restoration and enhancement of biodiversity
values.
9 To be
eligible for funding, applications should meet the following criteria:
· have
a protective covenant registered on the title of the land (or be entered into
as part of the funding application) and/or be identified as an ASCV on Schedule
25.4 of the Dunedin City District Plan (or be entered into as part of the
funding application);
· meet
the Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV) criteria within the Dunedin
City District Plan;
· not
be planted with exotic vegetation once protected unless provided for in an
agreed management plan;
· exclude
stock from the area to be protected unless provided for in an agreed management
plan; and
· be
accompanied by a management plan.
DISCUSSION
10 Table 1 in the
attached document assesses the eligibility of each application in relation to
the fund criteria outlined above.
Prioritisation
Criteria
11 Provision has been
made within the fund in the event that the funding requested exceeds the amount
available. The September 2016 funding round is over subscribed. In
the first instance, the fund gives priority to sites identified on Schedule
25.4 of the Dunedin City District Plan as ASCV’s over non-scheduled
sites. One project involves work in an ASCV and four involve work in a QEII covenant.
12 The following
criteria are provided to enable the Committee to prioritise applications:
a) Significance
of the site. This will include consideration of the District Plan
criteria and the National Priorities for Biodiversity Protection
b) The sustainability
of the project, that it is long-term and enduring environmental outcomes
c) Contribution
towards achieving the vision and goals of the Dunedin City Council Biodiversity
Strategy
d) The natural
values that will be protected by the project
e) The urgency of
the project
13 To assist with the
priorities outlined above the following provides a brief description of the
Biodiversity Strategy and the National Priorities for Biodiversity Protection.
Vision and Goals of
the Dunedin City Biodiversity Strategy
14 The Biodiversity
Strategy was adopted in August 2007 and established the following two part
vision:
a) Dunedin is a
city where: The community works together to understand, enhance and celebrate
the value of biodiversity in Dunedin for the benefit of current and future
generations.
b) Dunedin is a
city that: Maintains a network of viable habitats and ecosystems
extending from the alpine zone of the inland Rock and Pillar Ranges to the
harbour, coast and islands.
15 Three goals support
the vision:
a) Goal 1 –
Increase community involvement and responsibility in biodiversity
conservation.
b) Goal 2 –
Establish and monitor the state of biodiversity in Dunedin.
c) Goal 3 –
Reverse the decline and enhance Dunedin’s unique indigenous biodiversity.
National Priorities
for Biodiversity Protection
16 In April 2007 the Ministry of Conservation and the Ministry for the
Environment released a ‘statement of national priorities for protecting
rare and threatened native biodiversity on private land’. The
statement provides a national perspective, aimed at assisting councils in
planning and decision-making by identifying the types of ecosystems and
habitats most in need of protection. The following four national
priorities for biodiversity protection have been set:
a) National
Priority 1: To protect indigenous vegetation associated with land
environments (defined by Land Environments of New Zealand at Level IV) that
have 20 percent or less remaining in indigenous cover. Land Environments
of New Zealand (LENZ) is a national classification system used to map areas
that are similar to each other. LENZ identifies areas with similar
environment or ecosystem character known as ‘land environments’,
using 15 climate, landform and soil variables that can influence the
distribution of species. This tool provides the basis for identification
of threatened environments on a national basis when enhanced with the land
cover database, land tenure and level of protection.
b) National
Priority 2: To protect indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and
wetlands.
c) National
Priority 3: To protect indigenous vegetation associated with
‘originally rare’ terrestrial ecosystem types not already covered
by priorities 1 and 2.
d) National
Priority 4: To protect habitats of acutely and chronically threatened
indigenous species. Acutely and chronically threatened species are
determined by the New Zealand Threat Classification System. Acutely
threatened includes species listed as nationally critical, nationally
endangered and nationally vulnerable. Chronically threatened includes
species listed in serious decline and gradual decline.
17 It is noted that the
threat classification system has changed since the National Priorities were
released. As a result the category of acutely threatened has been
replaced with threatened. While chronically threatened is part of
‘at risk’.
18 The Proposed
National Policy Statement (NPS) on Indigenous Biodiversity was released in
January 2011 for submissions. A summary of submissions has been released
and is being considered by the Ministry for the Environment. At this
stage no further decision has been made on the NPS. The NPS recognises
the amended threat classification systems that relate to National Priority
4. When the NPS has been finalised consideration will need to be given as
to whether there is a need for any changes to the Biodiversity Fund and
prioritisation criteria.
19 All
applications have been assessed against the funding prioritisation criteria and
have been arranged in order of priority to provide the Committee with an
initial overview of priority (See Table 2 in attached documents).
Conditions
of Grants
20 All successful
applications will be subject to conditions, which will form part of an
agreement between the landowner and the Council. It is noted that the
Committee may impose additional conditions where considered appropriate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
21 Following
consideration of the fund and prioritisation criteria recommendations are made
below for the applications.
Applications that
meet the funding criteria in part – projects on sites within or adjoining
an existing covenant, ASCV or other protected area
22 Applications by
Blueskin Farms Ltd, Orokonui Ecosanctuary, WB and DM Baguley and the Otago
Tramping and Mountaineering Club involve work
carried out on ASCVs or covenanted land. It is recommended these applications
receive funding in full:
a) The
application from Blueskin Farm Ltd 2016-13 involves the construction of
some paths through the QEII covenant and the removal of a number of large
eucalyptus and wilding pines. The applicant has previously received funding
from the Biodiversity Fund. This is part of an ongoing project that is aimed at
restoring the biodiversity values of the covenant.
b) The
application from Orokonui Ecosanctuary's 2016-15 involves the provision
of supplementary feed to native birds that reside in the sanctuary and the
creation of labels for rare native flora. The applicant has previously received
money from the Biodiversity Fund.
c) The
application from WB and DM Baguley 2016-18 involves the fencing of a
QEII covenant to provide protection from livestock.
d) The
application from the Otago Tramping and Mountaineering Club 2016-21
involves the control of pest plant and animal species. Funding is requested to
pay for a contractor to carry out pest plant and animal control as well as the
purchase of herbicide for ongoing work carried out by volunteers. The applicant
has previously received funding from the Biodiversity Fund
Applications that
meet the funding criteria in part
23 Applications by Mac
Robertson and Helen Chitty, Rupert Ray, Alan Paterson, Springwater Ag, John and
Shona Chapman, Dunedin Environment Centre Trust and Alister Young meet the
fund criteria in part. It is recommended that funding be granted in part
or whole to these projects:
a) The
application from Mac Robertson and Helen Chitty 2016-11 involves the
control of pest animal species. This application is part of an ongoing project
that is attempting re-establish the original vegetation cover of
podocarp-broadleaf forest. The applicant has previously received money from the
Biodiversity Fund.
b) The
application from Rupert Ray 2016-12 involves the revegetation of an
urban site. This work will be carried out on land adjacent to 2016-14.
c) The
application from Alan Paterson 2016-14 involves the revegetation of an
urban site. This work will be carried out on land adjacent to 2016-12.
d) The
application from Springwater Ag 2016-16 is for planting along waterways
and open drains around the property. The project will be staged over several
years.
e) The application
from John and Shona Chapman 2016-17 is to fence off minor waterways on
their property, remove hawthorn and replant with natives. The applicants have
previously received funding for work carried out on other parts of their
property.
f) The
application from the Dunedin Environment Centre Trust 2016-19 is for the
ongoing restoration of the Kaikorai Estuary. The applicant has received funding
for this work previously.
g) The
application from Alister Young 2016-20 is for extensive planting over a
9.3ha paddock. The project is already underway, though there is still a
considerable amount of work required.
24 The
September 2016 round has been oversubscribed. Eleven applications have been
received, with all of the applications meeting all or some of the fund
criteria. Four applications involve work carried out in ASCVs or covenants. All
applications are consistent with the purpose of the Dunedin Biodiversity
Fund.
25
OPTIONS
26 Not applicable.
NEXT STEPS
27 The next funding
round will be advertised in April 2017.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Garreth Kyle - Research and Monitoring Officer
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Anna Johnson - City Development Manager
Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and
Planning
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a
|
Biodiversity
Applications September 2016
|
15
|
|
b
|
Attachment to Officers
Report September 2016
|
211
|
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose
of Local Government
This decision/report/proposal relates to providing a
public service and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.
|
|
Fit with strategic
framework
|
|
Contributes
|
Detracts
|
Not applicable
|
|
Social Wellbeing Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Economic Development Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Environment Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Arts and Culture Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
3 Waters Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Spatial Plan
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Integrated Transport Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Parks and Recreation Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Other strategic projects/policies/plans
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
N/A
|
|
Māori Impact
Statement
There are no known implications for tangata whenua
|
|
Sustainability
The outcome of the projects carried considered in this
report will contribute positively to the long-term sustainability of natural
environment of Dunedin
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
N/A
|
|
Financial
considerations
A total of $36,268.72 has been requested by the applicant.
There is $30,000 allocated for funding in the September 2016 round of the
Biodiversity Fund. The allocation of funding is decided by the Grants
Subcommittee and will be restricted to the funding available. Fund available
for allocated have been budgeted for.
|
|
Significance
N/A
|
|
Engagement –
external
N/A
|
|
Engagement -
internal
N/A
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
N/A
|
|
Conflict of Interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
There are no implications for the Community Boards
|
Dunedin Biodiversity Fund - Final Reports on Completed
Projects
Department: Community and Planning
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 To
provide a summary of the grants that have been completed since the April 2016
funding round.
2 Nine
project reports have been received from recipients of the previous funding
rounds of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund. The final reports are presented
to satisfy the grant conditions and outline how the projects were completed.
There is a total of $911.56 in unclaimed funding from the six projects
completed since the April 2016 subcommittee meeting.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Committee:
a) Notes the
Dunedin Biodiversity Fund – final reports on completed projects
|
BACKGROUND
3 All
successful applicants to the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund are required to enter
into a formal agreement with the Dunedin City Council on receipt of the grant
which specifies conditions that must be met in accepting the grant. The
conditions require applicants to provide a final report on completion of the
project to satisfy release of grant monies. Six final reports have been
received since September 2015.
4 The
Dunedin Biodiversity Fund was established in August 2007 with the following
purpose: “To maintain a network of viable habitats and ecosystems in
Dunedin by encouraging and supporting those landowners who are committed to
protecting, enhancing and managing indigenous biodiversity.”
DISCUSSION
5 The April
2010, April 2011, September 2013, April 2015, September 2015 and April
2016 funding rounds approved grants for the following projects that have
now been completed:
a) Tim Ritchie and Sherrill Passau 092013-06 received
$5000.00 towards Otane/Maori Head restoration project.
b) Helen and Shaun Murphy 2016-07 received $481.51 towards
purchase of pest control equipment.
c) Peter Cooke and Anne Moore 2015-01 received $432.22
towards pest plant and animal control.
d) Save The Otago Peninsula 092015/14 received $5000 towards
Smiths Creek Restoration Project.
e) John and Moira Parker 2016-5 received $1459.38 towards
purchase of supplies for pest control.
f) Waitati Beach Society 2016-03 received $2000 towards the
revegetation of sand dunes at Doctors Point.
g) Blueskin Farm Ltd 2016-08 received $5000 towards the
fencing of remnant vegetation.
h) Shane Riley 042011-07 received $2376 towards restoration
of the Waikouaiti Estuary.
i) Shane Riley 042010-07 received $2066.52 towards
restoration of the Waikouaiti Estuary.
6 The
documents received indicate that all the above projects have been successfully
completed consistent with their applications. Invoices presented for the
projects are within the funding amounts requested and granted, with some less
than the grant amount.
Unclaimed
Monies
7 Following
the release of grant money for the above projects there is $911.56 in unclaimed
monies.
8 This
money is available for allocation for September 2016 funding round.
Conclusions
9 All
projects have been undertaken consistent with the approved applications and have
been completed successfully, contributing to the purpose of the Dunedin
Biodiversity Fund and the protection, enhancement and management of
biodiversity in Dunedin.
OPTIONS
10 <Enter text>
NEXT STEPS
11 Unclaimed monies
will be distributed through the next funding round.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Garreth Kyle - Research and Monitoring Officer
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Anna Johnson - City Development Manager
Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and
Planning
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose
of Local Government
Biodiversity enhancement fits with the purpose of local
government.
|
|
Fit with strategic
framework
|
|
Contributes
|
Detracts
|
Not applicable
|
|
Social Wellbeing Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Economic Development Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Environment Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Arts and Culture Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
3 Waters Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Spatial Plan
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Integrated Transport Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Parks and Recreation Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Other strategic projects/policies/plans
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
The biodiversity fund contributes to biodiversity
enhancement which is a goal in the environment strategy and spatial plan.
|
|
Māori Impact
Statement
N/A
|
|
Sustainability
Biodiversity enhancement contributes to sustainability
goals.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
None
|
|
Financial
considerations
None
|
|
Significance
Low
|
|
Engagement –
external
N/A
|
|
Engagement -
internal
N/A
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
N/A
|
|
Conflict of
Interest
N/A
|
|
Community Boards
N/A
|
