We don't want extinctions happening on our watch so let's take a closer look at the data that shows the decline.
The best source of national data (native vegetation and species) is housed on MfE and StatisticsNZ websites, and the best source of regional data (native vegetation) can be found on the LAWA website.
Read more from Federated Farmers here.
At this point we encounter a difficulty. The data available does not support the claimed crisis.
Let's start with native vegetation.
At the national level, LAWA reports that between 1996 and 2012, New Zealand's land cover remained "relatively stable".
The biggest shifts were reductions in pasture, closely matched by increases in pines.
Changes in native landcover were less than 1 per cent (0.6 per cent to be precise). In the most recent period for which data is available (2008-2012), the change in native landcover was negligible (0.2 per cent).
The picture is very similar at the regional level.
For example, in the Greater Wellington region, indigenous forest has remained stable at more than 200,000 hectares, and indigenous scrub was stable through to 2012 at around 70,000 hectares.
Smaller categories (tussock grasslands, herbaceous freshwater vegetation) were also stable at around 3-4,000 hectares each.
Arguably the more interesting statistics come from the recent Beef + Lamb NZ survey which found around one quarter of native vegetation is on sheep and beef farms.
Or from the QEII National Trust reporting the ongoing and increasing demand for covenants over special places on farmland, currently heading up towards 200,000 hectares.
The main impediment to more covenants is resourcing to cater for the ongoing backlog of applicants, plus support for the active management needed to stay on top of weeds and predators.
What about native species? For that we rely on DOC threatened-species classifications.
DOC tells us New Zealand has around 14,000 native species. Of these, around one-third are "data deficient" (no threat classification), around one-third are "not threatened", and around 20 per cent are "naturally uncommon".
That leaves 5 per cent classified as "vulnerable or declining" and 5 per cent classified "endangered or critical".
In the top risk category, 500 "critical" species are potentially teetering on the brink, of which the biggest group (over 200 species) is "vascular plants".
DOC also assess which species have improving or worsening conservation status. Over the last 10-15 years, 99 per cent of species have no change in conservation status.
A few are improving (mainly our birds, mainly due to active predator management); and 1 per cent are worsening. Again the "vascular plants" dominate this list (61 of the 86 species with worsening status).
So, from 14,000 native species, the data suggests we have a priority group of "vascular plants" dominating both the 'critical" species and the 'worsening' species.
This immediately begs the question who are they and where are they so we can prioritise the investments to bring them back from the brink.
Here the trail runs cold. Other than a few words about kauri dieback, myrtle rust, and the inability of some plants to survive in the presence of possums or other browsers, the DOC threat classification report is silent on where these species are, what is happening with them, and what we need to do to turn them around.
The proposed NPS is also strangely silent.
This does not bode well for the 1 per cent of species whose trends really are going the wrong way.
When the next category after "critical" is "extinct", slogans are no substitute for substance.
We can dream up any number of heavy-duty top-down regulations.
But if MfE fail to come to the table with concrete data on the critical species, their own grim prognosis may well come true.
Back to the farmer meetings. MfE are asking for submissions by early March; and Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb NZ have scheduled a dozen farmer meetings through February.
Find out more information, on venues and times here.
