Heritage Department at the Crossroads

Forest and Bird, Volume 16, Issue 3, 1 August 1985, Page 32

Heritage Department at the Crossroads

As you read this, the Government either will have made or is about to make some of the most far-reaching decisions on environmental administration in New Zealand’s history. The Society regards the setting up of a Heritage Department (for want of a better name) as the most important goal of the environmental movement for decades. The Heritage proposal should see: @ Better management of already protected lands, forests and waters. @ Better stewardship of the thousands of hectares of publicly owned Crown lands and forests which now little used and are likely to be allocated for more intensive uses. @Stronger and more cohesive advocacy of protection values to the Government when it wants to allocate public resources. @ A more rational integration of conservation and development outside development departments. @Greater accountability of decision makers — for environmental, economic and social matters. The Forest Service and its allies have been fighting hard to keep control of native forests — farmers too are worried about changes in management of Crown leasehold lands which don’t have freehold rights. Their arguments against the Heritage Department are: a good past record of the Forest Service(!?), possible high costs, disruption of careers and the difficulty of passing the necessary legislation this year. We believe these arguments lack substance and do not focus on the decision-making principles behind the Heritage department proposal. In response, the Forest Service has proposed two alternatives: Instead of the minister making allocation decisions they suggest that the Crown Estate Commission could be delegated to do the job — an unwise move, since ministers should be responsible to ensure greater accountability. They also suggest that there should be a Forest and Land Development Commission to oversee the management of native forests and leasehold lands. This would create the problem of the leasehold and forest developers ganging up against the conservation representatives on_ this Forest and Land Development Commission — the Commission would then have the ungainly appearance of a threeheaded monster. The second option proposed by Forest Service is a replay of the Forests and Lands department merger, with the same unsatisfactory roles for the two

commissions as above. This merger failed two years ago and needs to fail again. The Society is seeking an institutional framework within which lands can be cared for properly and protection values are not swamped when allocation decisions are made. Let us hope the Government maintains its election pledge when it meets later this month.