Concessions ‘failing conservation’

Concessions paid by tourism companies operating within protected areas are failing to support conservation efforts.

This is the finding of new research by Victoria University, which suggests the Department of Conservation (DOC) is spending roughly a third of its budget subsidising tourism, but receiving little in return.

In contrast, only 9 per cent of DOC’s annual budget comes from the tourism industry, which includes concessions from operators, tourist user fees, donations and sponsorships.

Sustainability expert Valentina Dinica, who conducted the research, said the relationship had to be reversed if Kiwis hoped to save protected areas and stall the decline of 2800 threatened species.

‘‘New Zealand’s biodiversity is in crisis – tourism is not,’’ she said.

The research, conducted from 2009 to 2014, showed the amount DOC spent maintaining and upgrading tourism facilities was increasing – a trend, Dinica said, that had continued unabated.

‘‘If you look at the legal framework, biodiversity conservation is legal objective No 1 for DOC. Tourism is No 4, but we don’t see this ranking reflected in the budget.’’

Dinica said the key to addressing the imbalance was for the government to increase the demands placed on tourism operators working in protected areas.

‘‘Concession contracts generally specify what businesses must not do in order to avoid harming nature. But there are no specifications of what businesses should do to help with biodiversity conservation.’’

Too much emphasis was placed on partnerships with big players like Air New Zealand, to the detriment of gains to be had from smaller concessionaires, Dinica said.

‘‘We should use financial instruments, such as tourism taxes, national park entry fees and a wider range of user charges,’’ she said.

‘‘New Zealand citizens and residents could be excluded, or

"There are no specifications of what businesses should do to help with biodiversity conservation." Sustainability expert Valentina Dinica

charged at lower rates, to recognise their contribution as taxpayers,’’ she said.

‘‘Some countries raise as much as 80 per cent of the funds needed for conservation from such sources.’’

Dinica said there had been a ‘‘persistent lack of political willingness by New Zealand governments’’ to introduce any such financial tools.

Conservation Minister Maggie Barry said she had been encouraging DOC to evaluate and tighten up its concession process.

‘‘That means taking a more commercial approach to contracts, not just in a financial sense but also to ensure good biodiversity and conservation gains as part of DOC’s partnerships work,’’ she said.

Barry said ‘‘a suite of changes’’ were being worked through around how the Department of Conservation made sure it received appropriate levels of revenue for facility upkeep and conservation contributions.

‘‘We also intend to introduce differential charging, which will see overseas visitors pay more for facility use than New Zealanders ... the money raised from this will go directly into biodiversity and recreation work, as revenue from concessions does.’’

In May, the Government announced the establishment of a $102 million tourism infrastructure fund, alongside an extra $76m for DOC.

The additional funding was ring-fenced for developing tourism infrastructure and developing new national walks.

None of the funds were able to be used for conservation.