This page last modified 17 September 1999
Directory
20 December 1994
Department of Conservation
P O Box 10-420
Wellington.
In the November 1994 issue of our newsletter 'Public Access"
(No 5), we published a commentary on your visitor strategy. This
is reproduced below. We wish this to be our submission. We would
also like the opportunity to be heard in support of our submission.
"In September DOC released this document [Visitor Strategy]
with the aim of "promoting discussion and obtain 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 the 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!
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".
[Copies of the Visitor Strategy are available from DOC's Visitor
Services Division, PO Box 10-420, Wellington. Submissions closed
on Monday 16 January 1995].
22 April 1994
Commerce Committee
House of Representatives
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON
Dear Committee
Public Access New Zealand is a charitable trust dedicated to the
protection and improvement of public recreational opportunities
over public lands and waters. We enjoy widespread public support.
We have had considerable feed-back of concern from supporters
throughout New Zealand that the purposes of the public conservation
estate are being perverted by the tourism industry, Government
promotion of tourism, and by the budgetary starving of the Department
of Conservation in its ability to cope with the demands. We believe
growing pressures from the tourism sector are to the actual and
potential detriment of the environment and of public opportunities
for recreation. Your terms of reference are clearly part of that
process. We strongly take issue with your terms of reference.
You are concerned about strategies and facilities to support increasing
numbers of international visitors, with particular reference to
the conservation estate, which appears to exist solely for the
purpose of realising "its full income-earning potential".
We suggest that the committee closely examine the purposes of
protected areas legislation, in particular the Reserves, National
Park and Conservation Acts. The objectives stated in the terms
of reference for the inquiry are not supported by this legislation,
in fact we believe them to be ultra vires these enactments. For
instance the Conservation Act (section 6) specifies that areas
under that jurisdiction must be managed to foster recreation and
allow tourism. The predictable consequences of the terms of reference
clearly reverse that ordering of priorities.
A consequence of increasing international tourism in our protected
areas is the displacement of New Zealanders who recreate in these
areas. That displacement occurs through modification of the environment
by the development of expanded or new facilities, consequent increases
in user charges, and loss of attractiveness through crowding and
other changes to the recreational setting. It can also cause direct
depletion of recreational resources due to commercial hunting
or fishing pressures. Use and enjoyment of public lands will end
up being determined by the ability to pay; a position clearly
consistent with other government social-economic policy, but one
we are adamantly opposed to.
Moves to 'protect' the environment by way of the development of
more 'Great Walks' and other facilities, only spreads the damage
and consequent displacement of recreational users. We are not
attracted to the hard-paving of tracks as a solution to environmental
degradation. While more people may be able to walk on a hard surface
little different from that of Queens Street Auckland, the recreational
experience has been greatly impaired.
As a recreational planning professional I am acutely aware that
fostering recreation requires a much wider perspective than getting
the maximum number of people in a given area. A wide diversity
of recreational opportunities within each activity, such as walking,
requires the maintainance of a diversity of social and physical
settings--at the same time placing primary emphasis on protection
of the natural environment. The strategy outlined by the terms
of reference is completely antagonistic to such considerations.
Maximum use and the realisation of "the full income earning
potential" of our parks etc., will result in loss of attractiveness
and diversity of the opportunities for public recreation.
We believe 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.
WE SUBMIT THAT the terms of reference be amended to allow inquiry
into the appropriateness of promoting greater international visitation
to the conservation estate, and to allow consideration of possible
impacts on recreational opportunities.
We SUBMIT THAT the terms of reference be further amended to state
that any strategies for the promotion of international tourism,
and development to facilitate such on New Zealand public lands,
can only be undertaken within the provisions of the administering
statutes for each particular area.
If the committee is willing to consider changes to the terms of
reference we wish to appear before it. We can then produce amendments
to that end. If not, we do not wish to appear.
Please advise us if the committee wishes to hear submissions on
the terms of reference.
Yours faithfully,
Bruce Mason
Trustee
14 July 1993
Director-General of Conservation
P O Box 10-420
WELLINGTON
Dear Sir,
Public Access New Zealand Inc is a registered charitable trust
formed last year. PANZ's objects are the preservation and improvement
of public access to public lands, waters, and the countryside,
plus the retention in public ownership of resources of value for
recreation. We draw support from a diverse range of land, freshwater
and marine recreation and conservation interests which collectively
represent between 220,000 and 270,000 people from throughout New
Zealand. There are seven national organisations and eighty six
regional and local groups which support PANZ plus several hundred
individuals.
The range of activities undertaken by our supporters includes--
bathing (beaches), beach use, bird watching, boating, camping, canoeing (river), caving, conservation (nature), cycling, diving, environmental information, fishing (freshwater), fishing (salmon), fishing (sea), fishing (surf casting), four wheel drive vehicles, guiding (fishing), guiding (hunting), horse riding, hunter training, hunting (deerstalking), hunting (duck), hunting (game bird), ice climbing, jet boating, kayaking (river & lake), kayaking (sea), mountain biking, mountaineering, natural history, orienteering, outdoor education, photography (landscape), photography (underwater), picnicking, rafting, rock climbing, sailing, search and rescue, skiing (cross country), skiing (downhill), swimming, trail riding, tramping, walking, whitebaiting (recreational), and wind surfing.
We believe that this is the broadest grouping of outdoor recreational
interests in New Zealand.
PANZ is supportive of the creation of Walkways in the countryside
which extend public walking opportunities provided that existing
recreational opportunities and rights are not diminished. The
very diverse range of recreational needs of society, as reflected
by the activities of our supporters, dictates that a single-minded
approach by public agencies to public recreational needs could
be very detrimental to wider community needs.
The main benefit arising from the creation of Walkways has been
the creation of rights of public foot access where these did not
previously exist over private lands. There is minimal benefit
from Walkway creation over public lands, as rights of access generally
exist and the provision of walking tracks can occur without the
necessity of gazetting official 'Walkways'.
In a welcome recognition of this fact the draft policy sets as
a priority the establishment of new Walkways over private land.
PANZ is supportive of this emphasis.
However in a major departure from logic the policy then goes on
advocate the establishment of Walkways over unformed legal roads.
In contradiction to the well established legal fact that public
roads, formed or unformed, are public rather than private property,
the policy proposes "facilitating access through private
land over unformed legal roads."
Under common law every one has the unhindered right of passage
along public roads by whatever means they choose. There can be
no greater right than this. As there is the ability to restrict
and close public access under the Walkways Act, including at the
request of adjoining landowners, implementation of the new policy
will do the opposite of 'facilitate" access.
The draft policy treats roads as private property: "walkways
over private property and unformed legal roads will be planned
in consultation with land owners to minimise interference with
farming or other commercial operations."
Adoption of the new policy is likely to lead to incremental restrictions
to public access, which will not only have the potential to limit
rights of walking access along roads, but will directly discriminate
against all other forms of user.
PANZ supports the policy emphasis on establishing Walkways over
private property, and in conformity with this policy request that
the policy be amended to avoid the use of public roads as Walkways.
We appreciate that the Walkway Act permits the use of unformed
roads. What we ask for is that the authorities exercise their
discretion, by way of policy, not to do so.
We would like the opportunity to be heard in support of this submission.
20 May 1993
The Regional Conservator,
Department of Conservation,
P.O. Box 5244,
DUNEDIN.
Dear Mr Connell,
Public Access New Zealand wishes to support the offer of ownership
transfer to the Department of Conservation.
This is a unique opportunity to preserve a continuous corridor
for public recreational use and enjoyment that must not be lost.
Public use may not be immediate, but the potential is great: the
existence of a level route through Central Otago could make it
an attractive long-distance cycle route.
The Feasibility Study demonstrates that the costs and 'risks'
are relatively slight relative to the potential public benefits.
We are of the view that a strip should be retained in public ownership
rather than have easement arrangements, however licences or leases
to adjoining landowners for grazing purposes would be acceptable.
There is no need for private ownership to allow use. Talk of transferring
ownership to adjoining farmers is merely a sop to their interests;
there has been approximately 100 years of disturbance to stock
etc from rail use and during rail maintenance without complaint.
What possible extra disturbance could there be from low public
use?
Other points--
Yours faithfully,
Bruce Mason
Trustee