Who stands guardian?

The Department of Conservation states as its function the management of the country's natural and historic heritage assets for the greatest benefit and enjoyment of all New Zealanders, "by conserving, advocating and promoting natural and historic heritage so that its values are passed on undiminished to future generations".

It also claims that its "vision" is to protect New Zealand's natural and historic heritage.

The Conservation Act describes its chief obligations as being to manage land and other natural and historic resources; to preserve as far as practicable all indigenous freshwater fisheries, protect recreational fisheries and freshwater habitats; to advocate conservation of natural and historic resources; to promote the benefits of conservation; to provide conservation information; and to foster recreation and allow tourism to the extent that use is not inconsistent with the conservation of any natural or historic resource.

Given the department's recent record with respect to a number of significant commercial projects in Otago to do with natural-resource use, the question is rightly being asked as to whether it is acting consistently within its legislative charge.

The latest such proposal, effectively to have the right to produce electricity by damming the Nevis River, has seen the department and its minister assume a position that may enable the project to proceed, seemingly in contradiction of its "vision".

It is reported that the department has accommodated the prospect of the river being dammed for electricity generation in tenure review arrangements being negotiated over the land in question.

Furthermore, the existing water conservation order from 1991 over the river does not ban such dams.

It is difficult to see how the department can maintain that the destruction of the wild state of this river, one of the very last in this condition in Otago, could possibly meet its legislative obligation to "preserve as far as practicable all indigenous freshwater fisheries, protect recreational fisheries and freshwater habitats".

A "neutral" position, at best, is simply not good enough.

The department is undoubtedly in a difficult situation when confronted with meeting its legislative obligations as well as accommodating the expectations - indeed, the demands - of its political masters.

There was certainly a sense of outrage throughout Otago when it was learned that the Clark government had ordered a "whole of government" support firstly for TrustPower's $400 million Mahinerangi wind farm, and secondly, for the proposed $2 billion Project Hayes wind farm in Central Otago, thus effectively muzzling any potential stance by the department to oppose the projects in defence of its Conservation Act onuses.

In fact, as it turned out, the justification of all-of-government support for these projects was claimed under a different act, the Resource Management Act, on the basis of "national benefit".

In effect, the Crown was itself not offering an impartial opinion on behalf of all citizens on "power" or "preservation", but taking sides and in so doing gelding the department's Conservation Act duty "to advocate conservation of natural and historic resources; to promote the benefits of conservation".

Further damaging public suspicions that the department had become the lapdog of political ambition, rather than a staunch defender of the need to preserve what remains of the natural environment, were reinforced by the secret financial arrangements it had entered into with various project developers prior to conclusive public hearings, and for which - after several embarrassing disclosures - its officials were subsequently ordered to ensure greater "transparency".

The fact that the department signed an agreement in 2007 for $175,000 from Meridian Energy Ltd if Project Hayes went ahead, providing the department did not submit against the development and Meridian accepted mitigation measures to protect the environment of and around its wind farm, certainly further undermined the department's credibility, despite its defence that it was following a pragmatic, commonsense course (and has claimed similarly in other projects).

The public has expectations of the department, expectations that have been and continue to be fostered by it, that it exists to function as the de facto voice, so to speak, of the very large number of New Zealanders who want the environment protected and preserved, so far as is possible, from the march of industrialisation and urbanisation.

Herein lies the conflict: the department may argue that these expectations are unrealistic when it is obliged to also adhere to government policy.

But the department has a unique advocacy role which, as recent events have shown, is being submerged in the interests of fulfilling political demands and in non-public deal-making.

These are, in our view, highly damaging to the department's advocacy role and to its public duty.

After all, who or what organisation will stand for the environment and speak for all the sincere individuals and the invariably ill-funded and poorly-resourced "amateur" dissenters who, in the face of corporate and political hunger and power, can be dismissed as mere "hijackers" of process and thereby face a real threat of bankruptcy for their impertinence?