- The Department of Conservation (DoC) is $1.65 billion short every year on what it needs to cover its responsibilities – and that’s just for biodiversity
- Conservation Minister Tama Potaka is driving a series of proposals to swell DoC’s coffers, including higher fees for popular huts and campsites
- Environmental advocates say an overhaul is needed, but are nervous about what squeezing money out of public land will mean for protecting nature
The days of freebies and cheapies on public land are looking increasingly numbered as the Government looks to overhaul the conservation system and inject much-needed cash into the Department of Conservation.
Proposals include new charges for access and carparks at popular sites, more commercial activity – such as forestry – on public conservation land (PCL), and higher fees for using PCL for commercial and recreational users alike.
Department of Conservation (DoC) officials have even suggested charging for the use of toilets, or a new conservation tax to add to fertiliser and pesticide sales, though so far the Government has shown no appetite for these.
The problem is that the gap between DoC’s budget and the budget it needs is well over $1.5 billion a year. And it’s widening on the current trajectory, making its biodiversity work and the upkeep of the visitor network fall increasingly behind.
Conservation Minister Tama Potaka has called the proposals the biggest shake-up in decades, and environmental advocates agree that the system needs an overhaul.
But they’re nervous about how moving towards squeezing money out of public land – including more tourism and more commercial activity – will affect the environment.
“The system is broken at the moment and needs a fundamental shift,” said Deidre Koolen-Bourke, senior policy researcher for the Environmental Defence Society.
But looking at PCL through a making-money lens is a “huge shift in values”.
“It’s really abrasive. What checks and balances are going to be in place? Is it going to be science-based evidence and informed decision-making, not political or economic? Will clear safeguards and accountabilities be in place?
“I don’t think there’s enough awareness of the conflicts and tensions. That’s what’s missing at the moment. Hopefully, that will come through strongly in the public consultation.”
Iwi are also nervous about changes that could be inconsistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles in terms of access to taonga, while a potential backlash awaits from those priced out of nature experiences, which some say should be free to all New Zealanders as an inalienable birthright.
What will change for the average nature-lover remains to be seen. Who pays, for what, and for where are to be decided next year, following the current consultation process.
‘Not financially sustainable’
Potaka wants DoC to be financially sustainable by 2026, but the abyss between the amount of money it has and what it needs is growing wider, exacerbated by hefty bills after extreme weather events.
“Cyclone Dovi in 2022 cost $12m for repairs to visitor infrastructure, and Cyclone Gabrielle caused an estimated $90m worth of damage to conservation assets,” an August Cabinet paper on Potaka’s conservation priorities says.
A third of New Zealand is conservation land, which DoC stewards with less than 0.5% of core Crown funding – about $650m a year. Most of this (83%) comes from the Crown, while most of the rest comes from the international visitor levy (IVL, 7%), concessions for using PCL (3%), and hut and campsite fees (3-4%).
Government demands for fiscal restraint saw DoC shed about 130 jobs this year, scale back its climate change work, and slash some biodiversity programmes, though DoC leaders told a select committee this week this was being done in a way that didn’t jeopardise outcomes.
DoC spends roughly half of its annual budget (about $330m) on ecosystems and biodiversity.
But this amounts to only about 15% of the $2.3 billion DoC needs to undertake all the work it wants to do (Potaka has told the Herald the $2.3b relates only to biodiversity).
“Native wildlife is at serious risk of extinction; 94% of our reptile species, 82% of bird species, 80% of bat species, 76% of freshwater fish species, and 46% of plant species either face extinction or are at risk of being threatened with extinction,” an August Cabinet paper on Potaka’s conservation priorities says.
A third of DoC’s budget is spent on managing 4000 concessions and on its visitor network including about 1000 huts and nearly 15,000km of trails.
But there’s a huge funding deficit ($300m in capital funding and $40m a year in operational funding) for huts and buildings’ maintenance, with an estimated 70,000 hours of deferred maintenance work.
DoC can maintain only 70% of the network on current funding, so almost a third is neglected.
So bleak is DoC’s financial footing that National’s election promise for a new 80km Great Walk at Waiau - Toa/Molesworth has been quietly sidelined as not a priority.
Potaka has asked DoC to focus on “high value” work. For the visitor network, this means neglecting the remote backcountry, though this is being mitigated by partnering with stakeholders, such as hunting groups or Federated Mountain Clubs.
What it means in the biodiversity space is unclear. Will it mean a green light for a $1500-a-year fence to safeguard a paddock with a dozen threatened plants, instead of spending $483,000 to kill a stoat that might eat up to 30 kakapo on a remote island?
“Nature is complex,” Forest & Bird chief executive Nicola Toki said.
“This idea of picking winners to fight over scraps of conservation funding is just plain wrong.”
Making more moolah
Potaka’s August Cabinet paper about growing revenue outlines four ways including more foreign and domestic tourists, greater use of PCL for “commercial operations including forestry”, higher fees for that use from commercial as well as recreational users, and “carbon capture” including more native trees and restoring wetlands.
Some of the new proposals have been announced, including charging for car parks at popular sites and raising the IVL from $35 to $100.
Public feedback is being sought on access fees for five iconic destinations – Aoraki National Park, Franz Josef Glacier, Milford Sound, Cathedral Cove, and the Tongariro Alpine Crossing – which would see those on day trips charged for the “private benefit” they gain.
“I believe there is an opportunity to grow the financial contribution from users to better reflect the private benefits they receive,” Potaka said in his Cabinet paper, noting that this is common practice for popular sites in the United States, Canada and Australia.
He trimmed the list for public consultation to five sites, down from eight identified by officials, adding that charging iwi for access “will likely be contentious”.
“Many iwi and hapū have ancestral connections to PCL, and rights and interests in the land,” he said in his paper.
“There may also be expectations of revenue-sharing and partnerships, or expectations to be able to charge for access to land which has been vested in iwi and hapū. DoC has strong requirements under section 4 of the Conservation Act to give effect to the principles of the Treaty [though this is being reviewed in accordance with the National-NZ First coalition agreement].”
Mining companies underpaying for the privilege
Public feedback is also being sought on increasing commercial activities and how concessions – which include commercial operations on PCL such as guided Great Walk tours, or ski fields – are managed.
DoC charges commercial operators well short of market rates for the privilege of using PCL, while processing fees would need to jump five-fold for DoC to fully recover associated costs.
Potaka also wants mining operations to pay rental fees (there are about 80 mining access arrangements on PCL), which could bring in up to $2m a year based on a rent/royalty ratio, or charged as a share of revenue.
“It is standard practice in Australia and Canada to pay rent for mining activities on public land,” he said in the paper.
He has also ordered work on raising the bond that mining companies pay for remedial work, which does not “reflect the actual cost of damage not remediated”. Treasury figures indicate that all the coal mining royalties last year didn’t cover the $3m cost of repairing the damage by a single coal mine on the West Coast.
Straterra chief executive Josie Vidal said the mining industry was aware of the proposals and Straterra “will be making a submission in due course”.
Other ways to make more money include more retail sales, higher prices for popular huts and campsites, and PayWave terminals at popular trailheads to enable cashless donations. Work is also being done into a “biodiversity credit market”, selling carbon credits in the Voluntary Carbon Market, and building up wetlands and native forests to earn money in the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Potaka’s paper made no mention of a conservation tax, or charging visitors for using firewood, BBQs, toilets or hot showers, which officials raised as options earlier in the year.
Is making more money compatible with protecting nature?
The Environmental Defence Society, like the minister, wants DoC to have secure and consistent funding, and an overhauled system that includes higher concession fees and market rates for businesses using PCL.
“Concession fees aren’t even enough to cover about a third of the cost of processing the application,” Koolen-Bourke told the Herald.
“They don’t cover the monitoring, compliance, or reporting. A levy based on profits of 2.5% would give you over $20 million in extra revenue, a 100% increase on what it is now.”
And those concessions are on a first-come-first-served basis, with little regard to how the activity aligns with conservation values.
The potential revenue from all the proposals, if implemented, could swell DoC’s coffers by up to $200m a year. This would be a 30% boost to its annual budget, enabling a host of additional work.
But it would still leave DoC more than a billion dollars short of what it needs, while shaking up the values that have underpinned conservation for decades. These are enshrined in the 1987 Conservation Act and include protecting nature, fostering recreation, and allowing tourism.
“When the legislation was put in place. they made a really clear decision then to separate commercial and economic considerations from conservation ones,” Koolen-Bourke said.
“That was really intentional because we had a past of commercial interests: logging of native forests, mining, sale of assets. DoC should allow tourism but it’s not DoC’s function to promote it, and only when compatible with conservation values and protection.
“We’re nervous about valuing conservation in terms of how much money it can generate. The ‘economic opportunity’ view is a big change in values.”
Potaka believes these reforms can be done in a way that not only fills DoC’s coffers, but enhances its conservation work. “Delivering for conservation” remains one of his two bottom lines in overhauling the management system (the other is upholding Treaty settlements).
But Forest & Bird has said Potaka resembles a Minister of Commercialisation rather than Conservation.
“I worry about the wool being pulled over New Zealanders’ eyes in terms of a slippery slope to privatisation without the requisite checks and balances, and I don’t think anybody wants that,” Toki told the Herald.
”I worry about New Zealanders being able to access the environment, or people being priced out of being able to visit their own backyards.”
Growing revenue from third parties should be the “icing on the cake” in addition to Crown funding, she said. The estimated value of conservation-related tourism is about $4b a year, so the Crown’s $550m-a-year investment in DoC “makes no sense”.
“New Zealanders have an expectation that our natural heritage will be protected by Governments of the day, whoever they are. The amount of money we invest in our environment is vastly inadequate,” Toki said.
“Our nature is who we are, and that’s the story we’ve sold to the world. We shouldn’t be cutting funding to the core and then trying to pick winners with the crumbs that are left.
“We need to value and invest in nature as the lifeblood of our primary industries, the source of our freshwater and productive soils, carbon sinks, natural infrastructure systems, and incredible wonders that are cherished by Kiwis and tourists alike.”
READ MORE:
Paid parking trial planned for Franz Josef Glacier, Aoraki/Mt Cook and other South Island spots
From rural marae to New York to Cabinet: Tama Potaka’s path to politics
Derek Cheng is a senior journalist who started at the Herald in 2004. He has worked several stints in the press gallery team and is a former deputy political editor.
