Comments
Tēnā koe,
As I write this on 6 July, a rainfall gauge in Dunedin reports 160mm of rain in the last 48 hours. Conservation lands and the Department of Conservation are a key tool that we have in terms of adaptation and resilience. Reducing our climate actions is the opposite of mitigation, and we cannot afford to do so, looking beyond the purely economic lens to the one where we need a planet that is hospitable to humans.
With respect to public conservation land: apparently the Minister has received the message that it must not be sold, following public outcry. Nevertheless, such land is a taonga, and enabling its use for commercial purposes despite its conservation value will ultimately prove harmful from a stewardship point of view. The existing setting, where conservation is primary, and recreation and tourism are allowed where not inconsistent, is the appropriate one. I say this as a dedicated user of our recreational conservation land, having spent many days in the backcountry of Aotearoa and of other countries. Conservation must come first.
I also oppose the related change to the role of the Department of Conservation in enabling the economic exploitation of our conservation lands to the greatest extent practicable.
On the topic of visitor amenity areas: I support development of essential visitor amenities, but visitors should not be the primary focus of development efforts in fragile areas with high conservation value. I am aware that where there is high visitation, as observed in places in North America where I am from, there does need to be e.g. toilets—but not really restaurants or hotels. A good starting point is requiring that “the amenities and services proposed to be provided could not be reasonably be located outside of the parent land”; this requirement should be the most important one.
I oppose charging international visitors for the use of paths and tracks. I am a permanent resident, and thus theoretically subject to this fee if I spend more than 6 months a year outside of New Zealand; but how would this be enforced? In general, this is what the already-substantial International Visitor Levy is for, and now we want to charge visitors even more? (I support an accommodation tax, but not a fee for use of conservation areas). I’m also concerned about the cost of administration of such a scheme. It doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
Finally, I oppose any provisions that, in effect, weaken the Government’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Internationally, conservation efforts have sometimes been harmful to indigenous rights by outlawing traditional lifestyles and uses of land. “Considering” impacts on the rights and interests of Māori is insufficient; in this country, the Government really must give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Recommendations
I strongly recommend that the Conservation Amendment Bill be withdrawn in full. The Minister’s promise to remove the most contentious provisions about sales of the conservation estate do not suffice.