Features...

Outdoor Recreation Rights - And Wrongs

Beware of tourists bearing gifts to outdoor recreation, advises Green Party conservation spokesperson Metiria Turei
The debates simmering in the outdoor community about the future policy direction of recreation include the relative rights and responsibilities of foreign tourists versus New Zealanders, whether New Zealanders are ‘visitors’ on our own public land, and balancing competing recreational interests. For now though, I would like to examine the uneasy relationship between non-commercial recreation and commercial tourism.

For some time, I have been concerned that the boundaries between public and private interests are being blurred. Of course, there will always be overlap: tourists will recreate, and recreationalists often use tourist services. However, each enjoys a different status under the Conservation Act (1987). Section 6(e) defines one of the functions of the Department of Conservation: “To the extent that the use of any natural or historic resource for recreation or tourism is not inconsistent with its conservation, to foster the use of natural and historic resources for recreation, and to allow their use for tourism.”

To my mind, this statute is making a clear distinction with those two verbs, 'foster' and 'allow' respectively. The wording implies a priority of recreation over tourism. Essentially, law-makers back in the 1980s were building in a degree of protection for recreation, one that envisaged an advocacy role whenever conflict arose – that is, DoC is to be proactive in respect of recreation, but reactive regarding tourism: One is encouraged, the other permitted. My interpretation of the Act is that recreation – the right to enjoy our ‘commons’, whether for hunting, adventure or just contemplation, and accepting responsibility for managing our own risks – enjoys a statutory protection.

Tourism is treated differently. Whatever its benefits to the local or national economy, commercial tourism is not the ‘business’ of the Department: DoC allows tourism where this is compatible with conservation and recreation values, or at least it should. Concessions are required for commercial tourist activities on conservation land, and these are designed as a management tool to prevent adverse effects, including effects on recreation. The Government’s latest draft Tourism Strategy 2015 touches briefly on this: “Tourism concessionaires will have to continue to invest in technology and procedures that minimise the effects of their product on conservation values, and the recreational experiences of other visitors to the conservation estate”.

However, many DoC strategic documents fail to recognise that the Act was drafted to protect recreation from potential conflicts with tourism. A draft West Coast Te Tai o Poutini Conservation Management Strategy is currently out for consultation. My attention was drawn to a statement in it that defines recreation as including commercial tourism. It states that, “the term ‘recreation’ encompasses the full range of activities undertaken by people for leisure purposes, including commercial tourism, and the experiences they gain through these activities”.

Feeling concerned about this conflation of recreation and tourism, I asked Conservation Minister Chris Carter whether this was in line with his interpretation of the Act. Surprisingly, his reply was “yes”. It seems he considers that recreation encompasses commercial tourism and does not see this as potentially problematic.

Taken together, the West Coast CMS and the Minister’s endorsement suggest that the statutory mandate to advocate for recreation is being eroded. When recreationalists and tourists are lumped together as ‘visitors’, there will be consequences for management decisions: when conflict arises the Department will have to decide whether to ‘allow’ or to ‘foster’ visitors.

Obviously, ‘allowing visitors’ could make recreational users feel tolerated rather than encouraged – or even unwelcome on public land. Where tourism and recreation are at odds, the economic clout of tourism may well win the upper hand, especially when it can offer to make a financial contribution to biodiversity work as a way of sweetening its deal. It would be equally disturbing should DoC read its mandate as the active promotion of commercial tourism on conservation land, and thus spend more of its precious budget facilitating tourist operations. One example would be increasingly elaborate visitors’ centres aimed at serving bus-loads of tourists, rather than the needs of the general public.

Of course, we have not completely gone down that road yet. There are examples where a commercial tourism proposal has been declined or altered due to its impact on recreation values. I should also acknowledge that recent years have seen welcome funding injections, and much work done to enhance recreation opportunities for both front and backcountry users.

In conclusion, I hope many readers will sympathise with my concern that the statutory protection of recreation is at risk and I hope you also wish to see this debated openly. Following last year’s Recreation Summit, the Government intends to prepare a ‘NZ Outdoor Recreation Strategy’ to guide future policy and planning. Recreationalists need to be alert and persuasive: Tourism has industrial weight and a financial incentive – we must rely on power of argument, and depth of motivation. We have much to lose if the conservation estate is subtly privatised.

The Green Party believes that DoC should continue to carry out all of its biodiversity, advocacy and recreation roles as intended by the Act. I invite further debate in this magazine – including from DoC and the tourism industry – and welcome feedback directly.