Trying to find a way forward on freedom camping

For residents living near one Nelson reserve, the solution to the problems posed by freedom camping came when the campers were banned.

But that’s not a workable option in many of the places where tensions have been raised by the activities of some of those who don’t want to pay for their accommodation.

In the case of the Edward Baigent Memorial Scenic Reserve, near Nelson, the fight to ban freedom camping went on for more than a year. A Tasman District Council bylaw has now brought a ban into force, and a locked gate has barred entry to vehicles since December 18.

The concerns of nearby residents echoed those of people living near some other freedom camping sites around the country – pockets of excrement and toilet paper left by some visitors, campfires posing a risk to surrounding native bush, use of a stream to wash dishes, clothes and bodies, damage to a replanted area, and some locals feeling intimidated by the presence of so many campers.

Freeloading freedom campers can also be a problem for operators of commercial camping grounds.

James Garthwaite has been leasing the Curio Bay Camping Ground, south-east of Invercargill near the Catlins Forest Park, for just three months and is having difficulties with people who use his facilities without paying.

Southland Mayor Gary Tong said the council was waiting for changes to the Freedom Camping Act, which was passed for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Under the law, freedom camping means to camp, other than at a campground, within 200 metres of an area accessible to vehicles or the mean low-water springs line of any sea or harbour, or on or within 200m of a formed road or a Great Walks track.

The law covers land controlled or managed by councils and the Department of Conservation.

Freedom camping is allowed unless specifically restricted or prohibited in an area. Councils can’t impose a blanket ban, and are only supposed to make bylaws under the act if they are needed to protect an area, the health and safety of people visiting an area, or access to an area.

Had the National Party been reelected, it had several changes it planned to make to the rules. One of those was to restrict freedom camping by people who don’t have self-contained vehicles to areas within easy walking distance – about 200m – of toilet facilities.

Councils and DOC would also have been able to issue instant fines to rule breakers. If the fine wasn’t able to be paid on the spot, it would become the responsibility of the vehicle owner, including rental car companies.

But since National didn’t get back into government, it’s now a problem for new Tourism Minister Kelvin Davis. He has said some areas were under pressure from the volume of freedom campers and he would work with Cabinet colleagues to address the issue.

The law enables councils and DOC to specify areas where freedom camping is only allowed by people travelling in a vehicle that’s fully self-contained.

According to the New Zealand Government website, for a vehicle to be self-contained: ‘‘You’ll need to be able to live in it for three days without getting more water or dumping waste.’’

That means the vehicle has to have a toilet, fresh water storage, wastewater storage, and a rubbish bin with a lid. The national standard covering self-contained vehicles has been tightened recently, so that to comply from February 1 motor caravans and caravans must have a toilet that can be used inside the vehicle, even when the bed is in place.

New Zealand Motor Caravan Association chief executive Bruce Lochore said the new rules were a ‘‘significant jump’’ and would target small vans that were not properly equipped for staying in areas without public toilets.

The Responsible Camping Forum, a group representing local authorities, rental vehicle companies, and other interested parties, was also pleased with the tougher standard.

The forum, at a meeting arranged by Tourism Industry Aotearoa, decided the best approach to sorting out the problems with freedom camping involved ‘‘information, infrastructure and infringements’’.

A statement outlining the approach raised the possibility stronger measures might be needed to ensure freedom campers who didn’t have self-contained vehicles camped only where toilet facilities were available.

Work was also considered necessary on the infringement regime because, for one thing, the arrangement for collecting fines from international visitors was not effective enough.

The forum also commissioned a review of the research into freedom camping. Published last April, the review found 22 gaps in what was known about freedom campers. So, for example, there was strong evidence that freedom campers tended to come from Australia, Britain, central Europe and New Zealand, but there was no evidence of how many freedom campers weren’t tourists – for example, seasonal workers and the homeless. There was also no comprehensive information about how many freedom campers were New Zealanders.

According to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, based on its International Visitor Survey, the estimated number of international visitors who did some freedom camping had grown strongly.

From around 10,000 a year early this century, it was up to about 60,000 annually from around 2010-2015. It had shot up to well over 100,000 in 2016, but that could be a rogue result due to the small sample size.

Total estimated spending by freedom campers was put at $380 million a year, although the 2016 surge was also a factor in the amount. Freedom campers spent more than the average for international visitors but they also stayed longer, so their spend per night was lower.