National Parks plan review amid growing tourism, endangered species
Friday, 16 February 2018
If you're a tramper, a hunter, a mountaineer, angler, a photographer or nature enthusiast of any form – in short, a Kiwi – listen up.
The policy that guides how our national parks are managed is up for review for the first time in 13 years, and change could be on the way.
At a time when the almost half of the population is worried about rapidly growing tourist numbers, the concern tourists are being put before wildlife, climate change and threatened species, the future of national parks is an important issue.
According to experts, ideas to be considered in regards to park management include capping visitors, introducing fees, restricting development and stopping the loss of 'quiet places'. It's about nature coming first, they say.
**READ MORE:
* Biodiversity under the microscope
* Half a million hectares of publicly land gone
* The last of the southern men**
The group reviewing the General Policy for National Parks (GPNP) is the Conservation Authority (CA). The policy guides how the National Parks Act 1980 is interpreted and applied. The CA is described as 'a national statutory body that provides strategic policy advice to [the Department of Conservation] and the [conservation] Minister.
In a document outlining the review, the CA states: 'The 'world' for conservation management has changed significantly since [the 2005 review]: for example, Treaty settlements are largely completed; rapid growth in tourist numbers; partnerships with business and philanthropy to attract new investment for conservation; Internet enabled technology to support improved visitor awareness and experience; and, new legislation and heightened accountability for health and safety.'
The CA says 'maintaining the balance of what is 'sacrosanct' about national parks whilst also moving with the times and expectations of today's (and future) society will be a challenge for the (review) committee'.
Reviewing the policy was agreed upon in August 2017. It was expected it would take about 12 months from October 2017 with an aim to adopt the new policy by the end or 2018.
CA chairman Dr Warren Parker told Wilderness Magazine in late January the review wouldn't have open public consultation and that people could email their opinions to the authority.
On Thursday, Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage was contacted about the review but had not been briefed on it and could not comment, her press secretary said.
The next day, Friday, a CA spokesman said Parker did not want to comment on the review until Sage had been briefed. They were meeting on Saturday to discuss the terms of reference for the review and its scope.
Forest and Bird regional manager, Otago and Southland, Sue Maturin, said it was disappointing the review had not been publicised.
'We would still like it to be opened up for public consultation . . . because it doesn't sound like it will be a minor tinkering it sounds like they are wanting to do a bit more of an open review.'
Parker told Wilderness the CA was looking at 'a more flexible approach park management'.
Both he and Maturin said much had changed since the last review.
'Things have got much worse since 2005. We've got more and more species that have become more and more threatened and we've just got massive pressure from visitors in some of the real hotspots,' Maturin said.
'What we've been worried about is that there may be some people that might be thinking that this might be an opportunity to weaken the policy, to open up the national parks for more and more development because that's the way we've been seeing the pressure happening over that last few years.
'What the policy must do is to enshrine that philosophy that we go to national parks on nature's terms and we manage people to benefit the environment.'
Maturin said a 'clear and unambiguous policy' which bound decision makers, the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation was important.
Regardless, the NPA and the policy were already strong – 'visionary' work the country could be proud of.
She did not think a full review of the policy was required.
'All the management strategies and decisions on concessions have to adhere to the general policy as well as to the National Parks Act.
'The policy is pretty good. It needs a bit of tinkering to make sure that . . . it is made stronger and make sure that its strengthens the philosophy that is already enshrined in the national parks act where nature comes first and the wellbeing of the park is more important than their development.
But Forest and Bird still had concerns about the outcome of the review.
'We see that there is so much pressure on our national parks from visitors wanting to go there and people wanting to set up gondolas and new roads and private lodges and provide for more and more visitors to fly into the remote places . . . The policy needs to be strengthened to avoid all of those adverse impacts.
'The policy has got to reflect that national parks are places where nature thrives and it is revered and where people can go to enjoy the natural quiet. It's kind of the main purpose and we don't want to see that undermined at all.'
WHAT IS THE REVIEW COMMITTEE CONSIDERING?
The review committee - comprised of CA members Mark Christensen – the convenor, David Barnes, Mita Harris and Sandra Cook – identified four issues that need to be addressed.
- What is the extent for change – should this be a revamp, or back to first principles?
- What is the future operating context in which the GPNP will be applied; and how can this be accommodated whilst meeting legislated requirements?
- Can the post-Treaty settlement context for Maori be more effectively reflected in the GPNP?
- Who 'owns' the GPNP? Under the National Parks Act 1980 (NPA), as this identifies the role of the Authority, and how they might access resourcing for the review.
WHAT DO THE EXPERTS SAY?
Experts from a range of industries that in some way rely on national parks told Wilderness Magazine about changes they wanted to see. Some were dramatic.
Tourism advisor Dave Bamford said there should be 'legal provisions for charging fees at specific under-pressure sites to help pay for facilities and environmental management'.
He also wanted to see improved legal provision for limiting commercial activities in the parks and the provision to cap visitor numbers to certain sites.
University of Otago law professor Dr Jacinta Ruru said the review was 'an ideal moment for New Zealand to listen to the conservation visions of tangata whenua', from which there was much to learn.
Ken Bradley, a veteran of 50 years' work in the Fiordland National Park, called for a restriction on visitor numbers and proposed a booking system for popular sights.
Federated Mountain Clubs president Peter Wilson wanted, among other changes, to see a section on climate change added to the policy and 'strengthened guidance on limits and restrictions to recreation to ensure [the Department of Conservation] consults widely before imposing them on New Zealanders using national parks.'
Publisher and conservationist Craig Potton rallied against the 'loss of quite places'.
'Mechanised transport' that was becoming more common saved time, but destroyed a 'sense of space and the wonder that goes with the vast expanses of our parks,' he wrote for Wilderness.
'The revision of the General Policy needs to strengthen the philosophy of meeting nature largely on its own terms and point to pragmatic planning tools to exclude ground- and water-based transport from our parks (except on formed roads) and roll back the use of airborne vehicles. If we do not, our wild places will continue to shrink.'
OUR NATIONAL PARKS:
New Zealand has 13 national parks covering more than 30,000 square kilometres.
The largest is the Fiordland National Park and the majority – 10 – are in the South Island.
The first National Park was created in 1887, when Te Heuheu Tukino gifted to the nation the summits of Tongariro and Ruapehu, which became Tongariro National Park.
They're administered by the Department of Conservation.