Can’t see the trees for the tourists
At first, I chuckled at the cartoon depicting the substitution of intensive dairying with intensive tourism ( Slane, June 24). It was very clever, as both industries have a big impact on the environment. But just as there are only a few dairy farms that cause exceptional problems, there are only a few tourists who spoil our wonderful country. My smile faded as I began to see a danger in this cartoon’s comparison.
Here are some other comparisons to consider (dairy figures from Ministry for Primary Industries statistics and tourism numbers from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment): national dairy herd 5 million versus tourist total 3 million; dairying-land use 1.8 million hectares versus tourists roaming the Department of Conservation’s 8 million hectares and the rest of the country; annual methane emissions per cow 70-120kg, about the same as driving a car 12,500km; national dairy-herd effluent the equivalent of that from 75 million people; dairy employs 49,110 people versus tourism’s 188,136; dairy export revenue $12.2 billion versus tourism’s contribution to GDP of $12.9 billion.
In a one-to-one comparison, a dairy cow provides roughly $2440 of export revenue a year versus $3150-4300 per tourist; one dairy cow has an impact on the environment equivalent to 15 tourists who choose to use no facilities during their stay; one dairy cow spends 365 days on the land a year versus a tourist’s average length of stay of 19 days.
Bring on the transition: replace intensive dairy with intensive tourism. It will be nothing like the cartoon depicts. Mary Sutherland (Papatowai) It’s taken a while, but Nathan Guy has caught up (well, almost) with reality in conceding that dairying has reached its sustainable limit. Given the shocking state of some of our waterways, many would say it is well past that.
Smaller dairy herds and lower stocking rates would bring many benefits, such as: reduced inputs of fertiliser and supplementary feed, cutting costs to farmers and offsetting the impact of lower production; reduced demand for and pollution of water; a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; giving a “cleaner, greener” dairy industry the potential to market its products at premium prices as sustainable and “free range”.
Continuing with the present production methods risks a backlash from consumers in wealthy countries who increasingly want to buy sustainably produced food.
We also need to promote New Zealand as a niche high-value tourist market and nurture our environment accordingly. In defending intensive, polluting agricultural practices, farming leaders have a tendency to say “it’s either the economy or the environment”. Well, in New Zealand, the environment is the economy. Tony Bevin (Raumati Beach) Tourists come to visit us essentially to get a glimpse of how the world was before over-population and pollution blighted it. They come for the clean, green countryside; to drink for the first time directly from a stream; to see a track free of rubbish; and marvel at our blue skies and blue lakes.
I am recently back home after a trip around South Island tourist spots. It is clear that numbers are already beyond what can be managed without spoiling both the experience and the environment.
We must learn from our dairying mistakes and say, “Enough.” Hold the numbers and have a proper plan before letting them increase. My suggestion is to do this by a tourist levy at the point of entry into the country.
It could be called a “Clean Green Insurance Levy” and be set at whatever works – say $150 for starters. The levy should state that it includes ACC (which has always been free for visitors) and would give visitors a stake in our environmental protection. They could be given passes for DoC national parks and backcountry huts. The fund would
have to be earmarked for infrastructure, local authorities and DoC.
Remember, too, that today’s freedom campers are tomorrow’s big spenders; they should feel welcome and valued. John Moore (Nelson)