This page last modified 16 August 2000
News releases on conservation estate
September 1992. 'Public Access', No. 1.
National parks are an internationally
recognised concept that depend, with only a few exceptions overseas,
on public ownership of outstanding natural lands, and administration
by the highest competent national authority.
As Bing Lucas, former NZ Director-General of Lands observed in
1971--
"The national park idea, both world-wide and in New Zealand, was born out of a conflict situation; conflict between use of outstanding natural areas for private profit or their reservation for public use and enjoyment" (P.H.C. Lucas in 'The origins and structure of national parks in New Zealand. Department of Lands and Survey, 1971).
Lucas also observed that--
"as at Yellowstone [the world's first national park established on 1 March 1872], it was concern at possible conflict between private use and reservation of land that led to the establishment of Tongariro as New Zealand's first national park."
Te Heuheu Tukino, paramount chief of the Ngai Tuwharetoa, gifted a core area of 6518 acres to the Crown in 1887 for a national park. In the words of his adviser, Lawrence Grace, the area should remain tapu from private hands, "...a tapu place of the Crown, a sacred place under the mana of the Queen...to be the property of all the people of New Zealand."
"Freedom of access to national parks is a cardinal principal of New Zealand park administration...[the parks] serve as sanctuaries for native bird and plant life and provide man with recreation and inspiration, [and] are a trust we hold for posterity" (R. J. MacLachlan, Chairman National Parks Authority in 'National Parks of New Zealand.' Government Printer, Wellington. 1974).
Most of the outstanding system of national parks we have today,
being the envy of many other nations, is the result of decades
of unceasing effort and pressure on Governments by conservation
and recreation groups and individuals. What we now have was not
easily won against the ever assertive forces of private interest
and exploitation.
The present National Parks Act embodies the twin concepts of preservation
and public use. The formula struck is the result of decades of
democratic process that should not be lightly discarded or made
inoperable by the creation of private interests with proprietary
interests over the parks.
The principles of preservation in perpetuity, and preservation
of 'intrinsic values' (value in and of itself), have been increasingly
advanced in legislation since the 1950's. The concepts are now
embodied in the Reserves, Conservation, Environment, and Resource
Management Acts, as well as the National Parks Act. This reflects
New Zealand's growing ethical field of view to the environment
in contrast to what has historically applied. Exploitive or utilitarian
views based solely on cultural outlooks that only humans and their
material needs have intrinsic value, have, in these special places
at least, lost legislative prominence.
Our national parks have long been very special places to our nation.
Their survival dictates that they require the retention of the
highest degree of protection from human avariceness and political
amnesia.
September 1992. 'Public Access', No. 1.
Last year a precedent was established
for the transfer of Conservation Areas into private ownership.
This involved 5000 hectares of Raukumara Forest Park on the flanks
of the East Capes' Mount Hikurangi which was transferred to Ngati
Porou. The handing over of ownership did not arise from either
a Waitangi Tribunal recommendation or because the land had been
wrongly acquired by the Crown. The transfer was made to restore
the mana of Ngati Porou.
Public objection requirements for land disposals under the Conservation
Act were by-passed by use of section 436 of the Maori Affairs
Act 1953, which apparently overrides all other statutes including
the National Parks Act.
Section 436 stipulates that land acquired by the Crown for a public
purpose may be revested in Maori owners when it is no longer required
for that purpose. In this case the Ministers of Forests and Conservation
were satisfied that covenants, easements, and a Walkway registered
on a freehold title would provide greater 'conservation benefit'
than continuing public ownership and control. Covenanted areas
are managed by a joint Ngati Porou/DOC committee with no public
involvement and no oversight from the East Coast Conservation
Board. It is now claimed that the Maori owners have rejected the
covenant provisions and are not allowing the public on the mountain
(Southland Times 22/7/92).
Unfortunately covenants and easements lack security for the conservation
or public access purposes for which they are established. They
can be varied or extinguished at any time, without any provisions
for public notification or objection . Walkways can be closed
to the public at any time at the request of the landowner. These
mechanisms are no substitute for direct public ownership and control
over land that the Crown has either retained or acquired ownership
for public purposes.
Commercial pressures
Increasing financial restraints and Government under-funding has
forced DOC in to revenue generation from the conservation estate
as a means of paying for essential operations. This has now become
big business for DOC. It has created a conflict of interest for
DOC as grantor of such activities, being recipient of concession
fees from private operators, as well as the official protector
of the natural resource.
The dualism of 'commercial player' and land guardian has been
latched on to by private commercial interests who are strenuously
lobbying Government to leave the money-making to them. Existing
public facilities of huts and tracks are being coveted (ODT 28/7/92).
These have already been paid for from the public purse. The Routeburn
Track and other 'Premier Tracks' are the most attractive for private
takeovers. If private interests are made responsible for track
maintenance there is immediate scope under the Conservation Act
to charge the public for use of these. Only DOC is precluded under
the Conservation Act from charging for the use of tracks and paths
(section 17). The principle of access to and use of conservation
areas being free of charge and therefore freely available to all,
has become extremely vulnerable under this commercial onslaught.
Private commercial interests have also mooted pushing the Mount
Cook National Park boundary up to the Mueller Range and selling
the Hermitage area, on a freehold basis, to commercial interests
(ODT 17/6/92). Such areas would therefore become exempted from
any national park restraints on development and liable to great
changes to its physical and social character; being detrimental
to national park values.
DOC's 'Draft Strategy for Managing Tourism' ventures beyond its
statutory mandate (as confirmed by Crown Law Office opinion) of
'allowing' tourism, into what can be construed as encouraging
tourism by giving weight to tourism while ignoring its duty to
'foster' recreation. With restrictions on overall use in sight,
and prospects of rationing by entry systems, it is apparent that
DOC's encouragement of commercial enterprises in parks will be
at the expense of future availability for the non-commercial recreationalist.
In that supposed bastion of private enterprise, the USA, our Minister
of Conservation last year recorded his observations of a very
different trend in park management--
"One of the interesting trends in US park management is the current strengthening in public policy, and the reinforcement of the federal government's role in running the parks process. There was no talk of privatisation, and they seem to be much tougher on the private sector than we are...the fact that [a business opportunity] may be a good business idea and a chance to make money does not determine the outcome" (Hon. Denis Marshall. 'Terra Nova', August 1991).
March 1993. 'Public Access', No. 2
Pressure is mounting from the
tourism industry for charges for everyone to enter public conservation
areas. This is seen by its proponents as the most effective way
for DOC to increase its revenue to cope with increased tourism
pressures.
It is however these same advocates that have unilaterally decided
that 3 million visitors should be generated by the year 2,000.
Government has already granted $35 million to achieve this target
but no extra funding for DOC to manage the onslaught. Such matters
have been recently discussed within the Conservation Tourism Liaison
Group, comprising top executives of the tourism industry, concessionaires,
and several members of the Conservation Authority.
The industry is concerned that degradation at pressure spots could
"kill the goose that lays the golden egg," but seems
prepared to overlook the fact that the problem areas are relatively
few and are largely the result of their own activities and promotion.
Recreational use over the vast majority of the conservation estate
remains manageable.
The industry view is that "natural resources are under managed
not over used," and by inference can never be overused. We
presume that the management envisaged is the construction of more
and larger heavy use facilities --that is changing the physical
nature of our protected areas. This is the time-in-memorial conflict
between the demands of industry and the ideals behind our national
parks, etc.
There does not seem to be much enthusiasm for advocating a portion
of the $1.2 billion tax-take generated by tourism last year to
be added to DOC's budget-night allocation. It seems that everyone
visiting the conservation estate may be forced to suffer from
the excesses of the tourism industry and the irresponsible neglect
of Government.
Conservation Authority member Les Hutchins has circulated a paper
titled 'Is it time for the user to pay for access to New Zealand's
Conservation Estate?' While canvassing the 'Taxation/Vote Conservation'
issue and expressing a preference for this option, he raises the
spectre of the ubiquitous plastic card and electronic gates giving
access to facilities including huts and perhaps even roadside
walks. Mr Hutchins believes that a charge of $NZ100 for an entry
card would not be unreasonable. He may be correct for most visitors
from afar who can afford to migrate around the world visiting
tourist destinations. But what about the rest of us who happen
to call New Zealand home, a high proportion of whom have more
modest horizons and means? Mr Hutchins expects a lively debate.
PANZ suggests that there be no debate; like a similar suggestion
for user-pays beaches in NSW the idea should be buried --rapidly.
DOC to 'foster' tourism?
The Conservation Tourism Liaison Group is also pressing for the
removal of the distinction in the Conservation Act between 'tourism'
and 'recreation.' DOC is currently charged with "fostering"
recreation and "allowing" tourism. The Group considers
that 'tourists' are also recreationalists, which is correct, but
chose to confuse 'tourists' with 'tourism.' The latter is an industry
with a huge potential for incongruous development and despoilation
of natural areas. The recreational activities of the tourist are
quite distinct from the industry that services them. However the
industry believes the distinction is unfair; they want the "fostering"
of tourism.
The existing wording in the Conservation Act is quite deliberate
(s 6(e)) and a realistic recognition of the likely adverse impacts
on the environment if tourism were to be consciously encouraged
within protected natural areas. The working balance is bad enough
now with DOC neglecting recreation and becoming increasingly compliant
to the demands of industry.
May 1994. 'Public Access', No. 4
"The department's vision
for the future has conservation playing an appropriate role in
support of an economic environment based on sustainable management
of New Zealand's natural resources".
DOC's briefing to incoming government, November 1993.
And so in one sentence the Department of Conservation has changed
the purposes of public lands in disregard of their legislative
duty to preserve such areas in perpetuity and for public inspiration,
enjoyment and recreation. Inevitable consequences of such a receptivity
to economic goals, ahead of protection and public need, have been
offensives by the tourism industry seeking access user charges
as a way of funding park development. This sector apparently sees
New Zealand's parks merely as raw material for generating private
wealth. Domestic users are been asked to subsidise tourism growth
ambitions through payments in addition to taxation, diminished
recreational opportunities, and displacement by more lucrative
overseas visitors.
29 April 1994. 'The Dominion'.
A move to charge walkers on
main walking tracks would be abhorrent to most people, according
to Public Access New Zealand.
Spokesmen Brian Turner and Bruce Mason were responding to a suggestion
by Conservation Authority member John Davies, of Queenstown, that
the Conservation department charge people $25 a head to walk the
Routeburn, Kepler, Abel Tasman, Heaphy and Milford tracks.
The charge would produce $1 million a year to provide for maintenance
and replacement of facilities, Mr Davies told a meeting of the
authority in Wellington this week. He intended to put a motion
on the charge to the authority's August meeting.
Mr Turner said the charge ran contrary to the feeling of most
track users. "If this kind of thing occurs, then increasing
numbers of people will find it more difficult to get access,"
Mr Turner said. "The minute you start making charges you
set up a kind of exclusivity. Large numbers of New Zealanders
visit parks because they don't have to fork out large sums of
money to do so," he said.
Mr Mason said the proposal showed how much the tourist industry
had been allowed to capture the management of public lands.
3 May 1994. 'Nelson Evening Mail'.
By Kirsty Fyfe
The Nelson Conservation Board is "utterly opposed" to
charging people to walk to the Heaphy and Abel Tasman tracks and
the proposed idea is illegal, according to chairman Bill Winstanley.
Mr Winstanley was responding to a suggestion by Conservation Authority
member John Davies, of Queenstown, that the Conservation Department
charge people $25 a head to walk the Heaphy, Abel Tasman, Milford
and Routeburn tracks.
Section four of the National Parks Act 1980 provided for public
freedom of entry and access to the parks, Mr Winstanley said.
New Zealanders have fought hard for that legislation and will
jealously guard its provisions of free access. By comparison the
Queen's Chain debate might be thought to be restrained."
Charging for access was not in the interests of New Zealanders
and "entrepreneurs like Mr Davies, who live off tourism,
should be told so", he said. "If tourism is making so
much money for the country and tourists are paying so much in
GST, why can't the tax advantages from the enterprise be fed into
maintaining the conservation estate?"
Mr Winstanley said the New Zealand Tourism Board determined a
target of three million tourists by the year 2000 back in 1989
but it was not until this year that a parliamentary enquiry was
initiated into whether New Zealand could sustain that number.
"Only now is the tourism board looking for ways to fund the
growth almost entirely reliant on the under-funded conservation
estate."..."One must question whether a major increase
in tourism is in the long-term interests of New Zealanders."
May 1994. 'Public Access', No. 4
Parliament's Commerce Select
Committee has commenced an inquiry into the New Zealand Tourism
Board. The terms of reference are to ensure that strategies and
facilities are in place to ensure that New Zealand's conservation
estate can meet international visitor arrival projections, and
that "the full income-earning potential of the estate will
be realised", within environmentally sustainable limits.
PANZ has submitted to the committee that the terms of reference
must be amended to include opportunity to comment on the appropriateness
of increasing numbers of international visitors, and on the continuation
of Government funding to achieve that end. We are dismayed that
$100 million of public money has already been spent on tourism
promotion without the public being given the chance to first comment
on the social and environmental impacts arising from increases
in visitation to public lands.
Otago Conservation Board chairman Prof Alan Mark has said that
conservation board members were "incensed" by a tourism
board push for tourism growth which paid little regard to the
effects on the environment. "They put out some very glossy
brochures pushing tourism virtually without condition. "They
expect everybody else with an interest in conservation or a concern
about tourism to fall into line". The Department of Conservation
had to manage national parks and other natural attractions primarily
for conservation, with tourism allowed as a secondary consideration
where it did not compromise the environment, Prof Mark said.
The conservation board's submission urges the tourism board to
consider that as well as being physically limited in the number
of visitors they could carry, natural areas also had "social"
carrying capacities. The presence of too many other people could
spoil the wilderness experience that drew many tourists to the
areas, Prof Mark said (Otago Daily Times, May 4, 1994).
November 1994. 'Public Access', No. 5
In September DOC released this
document with the aim of "promoting discussion and obtaining
feedback to enable DOC to set the broad direction it should take
in managing the provision of appropriate visitor services without
compromising conservation values".
This follows the release of a joint New Zealand Tourism Board-DOC
paper 'New Zealand Conservation Estate and International Visitors'
last year which looked at whether New Zealand's major natural
attractions and walking tracks have the capacity to cope with
projected increases in international visitors of 3 million by
the year 2000. Predictably, this industry-driven review recommended
more back country track development, and regulation of use, so
as to accommodate greater numbers of visitors. In part, commercial
activity is seen as a way to "enhance the revenue base of
DOC".
The tourism industry, without consultation with the domestic users
of such areas, and with help from massive government subsidies,
has actively promoted increased visitation in fulfilment of its
own growth projections. The authors of the Tourism Board-DOC paper
see the conservation estate as merely a "backdrop of nature"
for the "adding of attractions and activities...which is
the key to maximising the economic benefits from tourism".
They conclude that "with careful planning, management, sensitive
development of facilities and services, and appropriate investment,
the conservation estate can meet the growth projections for international
visitors". The development they have in mind are more "Milford
Track style developments which have composite guided walks, meals,
accommodation and transportation options [which] add [$] value
to the natural attractions".
DOC's visitor strategy is more of the same. The summary of the
paper starts by defining "visitors" to include the clients
of concessionaires as well as the recreational public. This is
consistent with reoccurring fudging by the Department and industry
of the legislative distinction between 'recreation' and 'tourism'.
DOC is charged under the Conservation Act with "fostering"
recreation but only "allowing" tourism. Clients of concessionaires
are an inherent consequence of a tourism industry. If you "foster"
such visitors you also "foster" the industry!
The overarching principle adopted by the strategy is that "the
provision of appropriate visitor facilities and services...will
be in order to meet visitor preferences and protect these areas".
There is no weighting suggested as to which objective has greater
weight, whereas the legislation clearly establishes that protection
must take precedence. As 'visitor' is inclusive of industry, it
will be the industry's preferences that will prevail. As a concession
to the natural environment, "some areas will be protected
to ensure that they remain in a natural state". DOC is currently
charged with preservation of most areas under its control.
Access
"Access over areas managed by the Department should normally
be free of charge...". Such a principle completely ignores
existing statutory guarantees that there shall be free public
access. It is a statement of departmental intent which challenges
a fundamental precept behind public lands. PANZ believes that
public access must always remain free of charge. Payment for services
and use of facilities is a separate matter.
"...access may be controlled to ensure safety of visitors
or to protect the environment". Safety considerations are
advanced as a basis (pretext) for curbing public access. Such
a principle conflicts with a 'visitor safety and heath' principle
which is-- "the department will provide visitors with information
on the types of risk present. But elements of risk will always
be present in nature and visitors are responsible for their own
decisions." The latter sentiment recognises a basic tenet
of the freedom of the hills and is one PANZ heartily endorses.
Experience from around the country suggests that 'protection of
the environment' is increasingly used as a basis for restricting
public access to the outdoors through discretionary judgements
by DOC staff. PANZ is of the view that protection of the environment
is the primary consideration for most areas of public lands, however
where control or exclusion of public use is genuinely necessary
this should be done through a special status being created for
particular areas. In the very small number of areas where prohibition
or control of public access is necessary, 'special areas' in national
parks, nature reserves and wildlife sanctuaries can be gazetted.
Such a process is 'transparent' and open to public review.
There is no necessity to create broad discretions for officials
to play 'God' with personal liberties.
For many decades outdoors' people have served the community through
the Search and Rescue Organisation and safety education. We don't
need cash-strapped DOC bureaucrats making value judgements that
impinge on individual freedoms, overseen by an industry primarily
driven by the pursuit of profit and commercial advantage.
An indicator of changing attitudes comes from within the farming
community where increasingly 'the environment' is being used as
a pretext for barring public access, particularly when farmers
are involved in commercial walks or wildlife viewing.
User pays
"The Department will generally charge for facilities and
services provided to specific visitors or groups of visitors.
However, a discount may be offered in some circumstances. As a
facility or service becomes more exclusive to a particular visitor
or group of visitors they will be required to pay more of the
costs involved".
Private sector
"A variety of organisations, both commercial and non-commercial,
will provide facilities and services for visitors that meet conservation
objectives and appropriate standards". The Department is
opening the door to commercial providers of such things as public
walking tracks on public lands. A loop-hole in the Conservation
Act would allow non-DOC providers of tracks to charge for public
access, whereas there is an express prohibition on DOC from doing
so.
Treaty Partnership
"The Department will consult with iwi and develop working
relationships/partnership to ensure that visitor activities, facilities
and services are in harmony with Maori conservation goals".
This policy highlights the discrimination and disadvantage non-Maori
are liable to suffer from DOC's misguided 'partnership' policies.
It is the conservation goals specified in the Conservation, Reserves,
and National Parks Acts that must continue to moderate public
use, not the goals of one particular sector interest.
Suggestions for increasing funding for visitor services
These include charging for access to road end sites, extending
the range of visitor charges, extending the range of services
and facilities, seeking more revenue for conservation from Vote
Tourism (not from Vote Conservation), and introducing a arrival
charge for international visitors. A notable omission is any suggestion
of higher charges for commercial concessions!
Copies of the Visitor Strategy are available from DOC's Visitor
Services Division, PO Box 10-420, Wellington. Submissions close
on Monday 16 January 1995.
The thrust towards commercialisation of public lands is in large
part driven by inadequate funding for DOC, and partly by an avaricious
tourism industry. Yet the Minister of Conservation refuses to
publicly acknowledge that the Department's budget has been cut
four years in a row. There has been a 20 per cent cut in real
terms since DOC's inception in 1987. If that were rectified, many
of the threats above would disappear or subside.
November 1994. 'Public Access', No. 5
In September (1994) the Ministry
of Commerce released a commissioned report from Ernst and Young
(accountants) which proposes that DOC charge "market rates"
for tracks, entry, and facilities. The charges would be "to
assist preservation of the whole conservation estate". The
proposals were spurred by the department's current funding crisis.
In a commentary on the proposals, DOC's Director of Visitor Services,
Andrew Bignall, was reported as saying "visitors should pay
more for services provided". "He emphasised that market
rates would apply only to the great walks and only during the
off season" (ODT, 1/9/94). What Mr. Bignall did not say is
that there are no limits on which tracks become "great walks",
and the 'seasons' are undefined. Some obscure and lightly used
tracks have suddenly been developed and promoted as "great
walks".
PANZ believes that the ideology of access and entry charges over
public lands must be rejected in total. There is no room for compromise.
If the principle becomes established, the pressures on DOC, and
from the commercial sector, will be so great that there will be
no limit to the application and scale of track or other access/entry
fees. Use of the outdoors will be rationed by the ability to pay.
June 1996. 'Public Access', No. 7
The following is (slightly edited)
correspondence between the Director-General of DOC (Bill Mansfield)
and the Secretary to The Treasury (Dr Murray Horn) which was originally
leaked to the news media in March this year. The exchange between
the two gives a direct insight into the privatisation mentality
of the Government's chief economic advisor. To the credit of the
hard-pressed head of DOC, Mr Mansfield stands up well and presents
a timely exposition on why we have public lands. He reminds Government
that it has obligations to us, the owners of these lands, that
cannot be properly discharged by private interests.
The forore in response to the Treasury push to fund DOC through
land sales coincided with the Business Roundtable's publication
'Moving into the fast lane' which proffered: "the size of
the (conservation) estate is excessive and should be significantly
reduced. Most scenic and recreational activities should be privately
provided and funded". Coincidence?
PANZ has sent to Dr Horn our 1994 paper 'Private
management of the 'public interest'?', being a review of mechanisms
for conservation, public recreation and access over private land
compared to public ownership and control. This is our answer to
his statement "it is not clear to me why conservation lands
could not be managed under private ownership provided there are
appropriate covenants to preserve the essential conservation values."
Covenants are toothless, insecure excuses for protecting the public
interest. This probably explains privateers' enthusiasm for them.
Bill Mansfield to Dr. Murray Horn
8 March 1996
"...The Department of Conservation administers a large portfolio
of lands, which are held in public ownership and management in
order to provide a range of public benefits. Those benefits include
biodiversity protection, water and soil management, recreation,
scenic and amenity values, and historic heritage protection. Incidental
to those core benefits, the estate also provides significant economic
benefits (e.g., from tourism, sphagnum harvesting, honey production,
grazing, fishing, water and soil protection).
Any one piece of estate is likely to be providing a multitude
of different benefits. Even if some of those benefits cease because
of management deficiencies (e.g., some species disappear because
of the forests become impoverished because of possum damage),
the piece of estate will continue to provide the other benefits
(e.g., public recreation, scenery, water and soil). In fact many
of the public won't even be aware of the loss. Taking the land
out of the estate means that all the benefits are lost or no longer
guaranteed, and it is unlikely that the new owner of the land
will be any better placed to deal with the problem.
In addition to losing the immediate benefits, once land leaves
the estate the public lose the potential to regain conservation
values as techniques change. For example, the Department is now
carrying out rodent and predator eradication programmes on many
islands which only a few years ago were seen as having few or
no wildlife benefits. These islands will become some of our most
valuable pieces of estate. If your proposal had been adopted five
years ago, islands such as Tiritiri Matangi and forests such as
Trounson kauri forest which are now key elements in new programmes
and are seen by most of the public as core parts of the estate
would have been abandoned and sold because they had management
problems which could not at that stage been tackled.
Nor is it cost effective to make frequent movements of land in
and out of the estate in response to changing management circumstances.
The opportunities to purchase the types of land which are good
additions to the estate are not necessarily frequent, and land
prices are rising all the time, and may also rise further to reflect
the changed situation in relation to management problems. The
situation with islands illustrates this very well. The market
price has changed dramatically over the last few decades as technology
has reduced the problems of living on an island and the type of
people wishing to own islands has changed, and few islands come
onto the market because turnover is relatively low.
In addition, as we have previously discussed, the costs of conservation
work are not related to the size of the estate. In some areas,
a larger estate area can in fact result in reduced management
costs (e.g., with some species work and with some visitor services
work where spreading the visitors can reduce the costs). Costs
tend to be related not to size but to the nature of the land.
Small isolated reserves tend to have higher weed control costs
than beech forest, while beech forests have higher wasp problems.
In addition, the areas with a high priority for expenditure and
which have high management costs are frequently the areas with
the highest value. If the estate were to be reduced in size, and
that reduction was done on a value basis the Government's likely
expenditure would probably be only minimally affected..."
Horn to Mansfield
15 March 1996
"...I think that it is important to recall the basis of the
issues we are currently discussing. Judge Noble, in his report
on the Cave Creek tragedy, noted that while the responsibilities
of the Department of Conservation had increased over the years,
it was his understanding that the funding for the Department had
decreased over time (in fact total funding levels have remained
roughly constant in real terms over the Department's life, but
similar concerns have been expressed by stakeholders nonetheless).
This has given rise to a general perception that the Department
is under-funded. Ministers have asked us jointly to consider this
question and to identity options for managing the risks to the
Government.
I have not said that the Department is under-funded. Rather, I
have accepted your views on this as a starting point and asked;
if this is true, what are the options? and what will make a significant
difference in managing the pressures faced by the Department in
the medium to long term? As you noted at our meetings, running
down investment in training and deferring maintenance is not sustainable.
At our meetings, we have discussed management responses ranging
from re-prioritisation within baselines and seeking internal efficiency
gains through to increasing third party revenues. In these discussions
you have indicated that you think there is little value in pursuing
these management options...In these circumstances, it seems to
me that we need to think laterally for our solutions.
One possible solution might be to reduce the extent of the conservation
estate, by dropping areas of low conservation value. This would
allow the Department to focus its available resources to maximise
conservation values over the remainder of the estate and deliver
its services in a professional manner. I note that your Minister
discussed this approach with the Conservation Authority yesterday.
I do not share your pessimism that taking land out of the DoC-managed
conservation estate "means that all the benefits are lost
or no longer guaranteed". First, shedding responsibility
for lands with low conservation value may free up resources that
deliver higher conservation benefits elsewhere in the estate.
Second, there seems to be an increasing interest in privately-managed
conservation lands, and the voluntary/non-Government sector has
always been an important contributor to conservation goals. It's
not clear to me why conservation lands could not be managed under
private ownership provided there were appropriate covenants to
preserve the essential conservation values. This seems worth exploring.
Your point regarding the relationship between the size of the
estate and management costs is largely an empirical question.
In any rationalisation of the estate, It is not so much a matter
of reducing the size of the estate "on a value basis"
but determining the required size and so of the Crown conservation
estate in the first instance by identifying assets that must be
kept in public ownership (because of contracting problems, or
other factors). Of those assets, the Government should hold only
those of the highest net level of conservation value. In doing
so, we would clearly rely on DoC's advice on what parts of the
estate should not be alienated.
We should evaluate these Ideas in some depth and possibly test
them in practice. There may be other ideas that we should explore
jointly, but your earlier advice to me was that the more traditional
management approaches are unlikely to generate the outcomes that
Ministers are seeking within approved baselines. We need to cast
the net wider for solutions..."
Mansfield to Horn
25 March 1996
"...Notwithstanding that the Department's funding may or
may not have remained roughly constant in real terms over the
last 9 years, it is clear that the tasks expected of it has increased
considerably over that time. This is not because of extensions
to the conservation estate, but rather new responsibilities under
the Resource Management, Forests Amendment, and Health and Safety
in Employment Acts which create extra work and impose higher standards
on the department. What is becoming even more clear, though is
the fundamental task in conservation required in New Zealand is
even larger than we have fully realised. This arises from a better
appreciation of the irreversible effects of pests and weeds in
some ecosystems, further analysis of the status of wildlife at
risk, and the burgeoning numbers of visitors to the estate.
I think we are in agreement that, faced with this knowledge, we
must review the options and that running down investment in training
and deferring maintenance are not sustainable.
I want to make it clear that I am committed to pursuing the kinds
of efficiency gains which we have discussed... The department's
record in pursuing efficiencies and third party revenue over its
9 years of existence speaks for itself. The point which we have
been trying to make (and which has been accepted previously by
the Treasury in dealing with base funding) is that remaining efficiency
gains, reprioritisation, and likely increases in third party revenue
by themselves cannot be considered sufficient to approach the
levels of additional funding required to carry out the department's
responsibilities. We have, I believe, made it clear in supporting
material in this year's Budget round that, if we are to avoid
canopy collapse in the natural forests in our care, restore the
regenerative capacity of natural areas menaced by other pests
and weeds, take considered recovery action for native species
threatened with extinction, and provide assurance of visitor safety,
then funding increases significantly beyond any ability to reprioritise
are needed.
It is a matter of concern to this department that you and your
staff have a view that conservation values can be readily protected
despite loss of public ownership. Experience dictates that, where
there are some magnificent examples of "private" conservation
by dedicated individuals on their own lands, these are the exception
and may well not be inter-generational or survive change of ownership.
Covenanting of conservation values on private land is often the
only recourse when owners are unwilling to sell, but it is not
the preferred option where values on large areas may well be subject
over a period of time to conflicting management objectives. Once
compromised conservation values prove difficult, if not impossible
to restore.
Fragmenting land ownership does not facilitate considered management
action against pest and weed species, as any regional council
will attest. Any large scale use of covenants to preserve conservation
values on lands alienated from Crown ownership will necessitate
concerted monitoring to ensure values are not lost, but by the
time loss of value is detected it may well be irreversible. There
is also no evidence that the private sector is likely to be prepared
to pay the management costs associated with pest and weed control
to maintain and restore values where management effort is most
needed. The park lands most attractive, for example, to the tourism
sector, are not generally the sites of highest unit cost in management,
other than in dealing with visitor impacts.
These are the realities of our business. I would not want you
to conclude that I am opposed to disposal of areas of low conservation
value...Equally, I would not want you to be left with the view
that any divesting of conservation lands is a serious candidate
as a source of savings. In reality, the upfront administrative
costs of disposing of conservation land are high. Cost drivers
include public notification process, section 40 investigation
(offer back), protection mechanism for Maori interests, plus normal
administrative disposal costs (i.e. surveys, local authority fees,
legal, valuations, District Land Registration fees, estate agents,
marketing and site clearances). For the funding needs already
tabled this year, the shedding of conservation lands to provide
savings would have to go way beyond any level that the public
or the Government would be likely to support.
"The bottom line is that if the Government wants to seriously discharge its obligations in conservation to the public owners of the estate, and meet its international obligations as custodians of important elements of world biodiversity then adequate funding needs to be provided from the public purse. Conservation spending is a minor element of the expenditure of Government and always likely to remain so, but can be said to be a core obligation which is important to the long-term well-being of the people."
DOC Gazette, May 24, 1999
"As I travel around the country I hear a wide variety of terms used within and outside the Department (of Conservation) to describe the land we administer. No one manages to get all the way through "lands administered by the Department", so a myriad of other phrases are used to describe the lands and areas we administer.
Some of those phrases are of real concern to me, in particular "DOC land" and "DOC estate". They convey a sense of ownership which is misleading and I know can be offputting to people outside the Department.
I'd like to start hearing (and seeing) 'public conservation land' and 'public conservation areas'. These are a short and accurate way to describe the land and areas (like marine reserves) which we administer and most importantly, spell out that the land belongs to the public".