|
Grants Subcommittee
20 November 2017
|
|
Dunedin Biodiversity Fund - Applications to
the September 2017 Funding Round
Department: Community and Planning
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The
September 2017 round of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund opened on 1 September
2017 with applications closing on 30 September 2017.
2 A total
of nine applications were received. The total funding amount requested by the
applicants ($38,450) is more than the funding available for the funding round
($30,000).
All applications have been assessed in relation to the fund
and prioritisation criteria.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Subcommittee:
a) Considers the
recommendations for the allocation of the biodiversity grants; and
b) Decides on
the allocation of the grants across the applications received to the
September 2017 round of the Biodiversity Fund.
|
BACKGROUND
3 The
September 2017 round of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund (the Fund) opened on
1 September 2017 with applications closing on 30 September 2017. For
this round of funding, $30,000 is available for allocation plus any savings
from the previous funding round. Nine applications were received, with
six involving projects adjoining or within Areas of Significant Conservation
Value (ASCV), QE II covenants or other protected land. Full copies of the
applications have been circulated to the Grants Subcommittee in
advance.
Funding
Criteria
4 The
purpose of the Fund is: “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.”
5 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.
6 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
7 Table 1
in Attachment 1 assesses the eligibility of each application in relation to the
fund criteria outlined above.
Prioritisation
8 The
September 2017 funding round is over subscribed. Provision has been made
within the fund in the event that the funding requested exceeds the amount
available. 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.
9 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 will have 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; and
e) the urgency of
the project.
10 To
assist with the priorities outlined above the attached document provides a
brief description of the Biodiversity Strategy and the National Priorities for
Biodiversity Protection.
Conditions
of Grants
11 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.
GRANT
FUNDING ASSESSMENTS (Recommendations)
12 Following
consideration of the fund and prioritisation criteria, recommendations are made
below for the applications.
Prioritisation
Applications that
meet the funding criteria in full
13 Applications by
Graham Parker, Orokonui Ecosanctuary, Otago Peninsula Biodiversity
Trust, Initial Volco Trust, Rhys Millar and Landscape Connections
Trust involve work carried out on ASCVs or covenanted land
and meet the funding criteria.
14 It is therefore
recommended the following applications receive funding in full:
a) The
application from Graham Parker 2017-12 seeks funding to continue
research into karearea that is hoped to assist conservation management of the
species in Otago. The application is detailed and is accompanied by a report
produced following the first phase of the project, which the Biodiversity Fund
contributed to.
b) The
application from Orokonui Ecosanctuary 2017-13 seeks funding to
construct 20 nesting boxes for South Island kaka. The project will also involve
monitoring the use of the nest boxes. The population of kaka at the
Ecosanctuary is the only one known on the east coast of the South Island. The
cost per box is estimated at $260. As a follow up to the application, a
schematic of the kaka box was requested and is attached (Attachment 2) as
developed by Zealandia in Wellington.
c) The
application from the Otago Peninsula Biodiversity Trust 2017-14 seeks
funding to carry out research into the possum control in sector 5. The research
will help establish baseline data as well as examine the attitude of local to
predator control. A very detailed application has been provided.
d) The
application from Initial Volco Trust 2017-15 seeks funding to buy
tubestock for revegetation around cleared parts of the QE2 covenant. The plants
will be supplied by Hendrick Koch’s nursery at Manuka Farm. The
application is not detailed and the applicant has previously received funding
from the Biodiversity Fund.
e) The
application from Rhys Millar 2017-16 seeks funding to fence off and
revegetate an area of regenerating indigenous vegetation along-side a waterway.
It will provide a connection between two pieces of QE2 covenant. The
application is detailed and well thought out. The applicant has previously
received funding from the Biodiversity Fund.
f) The
application from Landscape Connections Trust 2017-17 seeks funding to
setup an education outreach project with schools in Purakaunui, Waitati and
Sawyers Bay. This is a costly project and the applicant is seeking money from
multiple sources, including Speights, MBIE and Curious Minds. The application
to the Biodiversity Fund is the first application among these. The applicant
has previously received funding from the Biodiversity Fund for a different
project. There is project brief attached to the application.
Applications that
meet the funding criteria in part
15 Applications by Rakesh
Pandey, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and Springwater
Ag meet the fund criteria in part. It is recommended funding be
granted in part or whole to these projects:
a) The
application from Rakesh Pandey 2017-11 seeks funding to control gorse
and wilding pines from a site owned by the applicant. The aside from the gorse
and wilding pines present the other vegetation at the site is not apparent from
the application. It is proposed that revegetation will occur following the
successful removal of pest plant species. No detail on the proposed species was
included, though an expert will be consulted. The applicant has previously
received money from the Biodiversity Fund for pest animal control.
b) The
application from Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 2017-18 seeks
funding to monitor and protect seabirds at the DCC reserve at Lawyers head. The
project will involve monitoring four seabird species located at the reserve,
conducting predator control and setting up public display panels. This work
will be complemented by replanting carried out by the Parks and Reserves
Department at the Dunedin City Council. The application is very detailed and is
associated with a site specific management plan produced by the applicant.
c) The
application from Springwater Ag 2017-19 seeks funding for revegetation.
The project involves the revegetation of greenfield sites in the immediate
vicinity of the farm sheds. The application is extremely brief, largely
referring to a previous application, which is only slightly more detailed. The
application is accompanied by a planting plan created by a consultant. Funding
is requested for the second stage of revegetation. The Biodiversity Fund
contributed toward the first stage.
OPTIONS
16 No
options are presented as this is an information report for committee
consideration
NEXT STEPS
17 The 18 applicants
will be notified of the decision. The next funding round will be in April
2018.
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
|
Assessment of
Applications in terms of Fund Criteria
|
18
|
|
b
|
Schematic of the Kaka
box
|
23
|
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose
of Local Government
This decision 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
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
|
Māori Impact
Statement
There are no known implications for tangata whenua.
|
|
Sustainability
The outcome of the projects considered in this report will
contribute positively to the long-term sustainability of the natural
environment of Dunedin.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
There are no implications.
|
|
Financial
considerations
A total of $42,097.17 has been requested by the
applicants. There is $30,000 allocated for funding in the September
2017 round of the Biodiversity Fund. The allocation of funding is
decided by the Grants Subcommittee and will be restricted to the funding
available. Funds available for allocation have been budgeted for.
|
|
Significance
This decision is considered to be of low significance in
terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
|
|
Engagement –
external
There has been no external engagement.
|
|
Engagement –
internal
There has been no internal engagement.
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
There are no known risks.
|
|
Conflict of
Interest
There are no identified conflicts of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
A number of the grants relate to Community Board areas
i.e. Peninsula and Waikouaiti Coast.
|
|
Grants Subcommittee
20 November 2017
|
|
Dunedin Biodiversity Fund - Final Reports on
Completed Projects
Department: Community and Planning
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 This
report provides a summary of the grants completed since the April 2017 funding
round.
2 Eight
project reports have been received from recipients of 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 $1,190.01 in unclaimed funding from the eight projects completed since the
April 2017 Grants Subcommittee meeting.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Subcommittee:
a) Notes the
Dunedin Biodiversity Fund – final reports on completed projects.
|
BACKGROUND
3 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.”
4 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
that 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. Eight final reports have been
received since April 2017.
DISCUSSION
5 The April
2013, April 2015, April 2016, September 2016 and April 2017 funding rounds approved
grants for the following projects that have now been completed:
a) Emma Gowing
received $2,412 towards revegetation and fencing. There is $1,174.23 left over
from this application.
b) Lloyd McGinty
and Sally Dicey received $1,000 towards maintenance of previous revegetation.
c) Graham Parker received $4,975 toward
karearea research.
d) The Orokonui
Ecosanctuary received $3,000 towards supplementary feed for rare native birds.
There is $15.78 left over from this application.
e) John Chapman received $1,225
toward the fencing of remnant native forest.
f) The Otago Tramping
and Mountaineering Club received $3,000 towards the control of pest plant
species.
g) The Orokonui
Ecosanctuary received $5,000 towards the development of an innovative predator
control system.
h) Otago Peninsula
Biodiversity Trust received $5,000 towards the Sector 4 Hotspot Operation.
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 two less
than the grant amount.
Unclaimed
Monies
7 Following
the release of grant money for the above projects there is $1,190.01 in
unclaimed monies for distribution in the September 2017 funding round.
Conclusions
8 All
projects have been undertaken consistent with the approved applications and
have contributed to the purpose of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund and the
protection, enhancement and management of biodiversity in Dunedin.
OPTIONS
9 Not
applicable as this report is for noting.
NEXT STEPS
10 There is $1,190.01
to be distributed in 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
This report relates to providing a public service and it
is considered good-quality and cost-effective. 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
There are no specific impacts for tangata whenua.
|
|
Sustainability
Biodiversity enhancement contributes to sustainability
goals.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
There are no implications.
|
|
Financial
considerations
There are no financial implications. The grants are
within the allocated budget.
|
|
Significance
This decision is considered to be of low significance in
terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
|
|
Engagement –
external
There has been no external engagement on this report.
|
|
Engagement -
internal
There has been ongoing liaison with Council’s
Biodiversity Officer in Parks and Recreation.
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
There are no known risks.
|
|
Conflict of
Interest
There are no identified conflicts of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
There are no implications for Community Boards, although a
number of the grants are within Community Board areas (i.e. Peninsula and
Waikouaiti Coast Community Boards).
|
