On a sunny day in the back country, the low sun filters through the yellowing trees under a dome of bright blue sky. White crystals sparkle from branches, a swamp harrier circles, a thin skin of ice covers a tarn.
The cold is not strong enough yet to form a solid layer of ice. It’s just a veneer, a superficial covering. This is when it is most dangerous, something not to be trusted.
The metaphor can be extended to the government’s revamp of the conservation system. On the surface, it has the odd thing to commend it, but below there are other influences afoot.
It’s hard to get away from the feeling these changes are designed more to boost the government’s coffers than to do more for conservation itself, improve conservation land and support those whose work is vital to protect our unique flora, fauna and landscapes.
A breakdown of our conservation land reveals quite the jigsaw puzzle. About one-third of New Zealand’s land area, around 9 million hectares, is protected conservation land, of which about 8 million ha is managed by the Department of Conservation. The 13 national parks comprise about 2.8 million ha of that, and there are also 32 conservation parks and thousands of individual scenic, historic and scientific reserves.
Another roughly 2.7 million ha is stewardship land, accounting for about 30% of all conservation areas. Such land which has lower conservation value can be disposed of from the estate or swapped for other land with higher value.
The government is using these what it sees as hindrances — though others would consider them checks and balances — to sell its Conservation Amendment Bill.
Conservation Minister Tama Potaka says it is time to speed up decisions around concessions, given tourism on such land brings in about $5.3 billion each year and more than 1600 businesses in these areas make a huge contribution to regional and local economies.
He argues the Conservation Act, which came into force in 1987, is creaking badly and a new National Conservation Policy Statement will give much clearer and more consistent direction on conservation land.
Unfortunately, Mr Potaka’s press release on the Bill fails to fill us with a great deal of confidence these transformations are being made mainly for the sake of conservation and the environment. The tone instead seems to focus on money.
Even the order of the statement’s heading is revealing, putting the Bill will ‘‘boost economy’’ ahead of saying it will ‘‘protect nature’’. Further down it says the changes will ‘‘modernise how conservation land is managed, support economic growth, and improve environmental incomes’’.
There will be ‘‘less red tape, faster approvals, and more investment into biodiversity, tracks, huts, and visitor infrastructure’’. Up to 40% of concessions will apparently go through without needing individual approval, due to getting rid of ‘‘unnecessary rules’’.
The minister says the reforms will support jobs, improve visitor experiences and protect ‘‘the places New Zealanders value’’. Again, environment seems to come last in the list.
Concerns have been raised about how easy it may make it to exchange or sell conservation land, with Labour saying the Bill should not be used to support National’s economic strategy. Green Party spokeswoman Marama Davidson told Stuff the government would be ‘‘bringing in the bulldozers’’.
One move we support is the plan to introduce an extra international visitor access charge of between $20 and $40 per person for trips to particularly sensitive and highly visited locations, such as Milford Sound, Aoraki/Mt Cook and the Tongariro Crossing.
This is expected to raise about $62 million a year, with the money going back into conservation and biodiversity protection, tracks, huts and other infrastructure for all.
As long as this is the case, and it is directly targeted towards what the minister says, then that is a good thing. The pressure on these visitor sites, especially somewhere such as Milford Sound with limited access in and out, is already significant and still rising.
The last thing we want is for their pristine nature to be ruined by overcrowding.
