Queen Elizabeth II National Trust

Forest and Bird, Issue 266, 1 November 1992, Unnumbered Page

Queen Elizabeth II National Trust

~*~ HE QEIl NATIONAL Trust has been in the business of protecting landscape features, forest remnants, wetlands and archaeological and geological features a 1977. The protection 1s

ame Lh through open-space covenants signee with private landowners. Grants from the Forest Heritage Fund have enabled the trust to clear a backlog of covenant applications which it had been unable to process because of a lack of resources to assist with fencing, survey and legal costs, and also to continue processing new covenants. ci wo ite establishment the trust

eee oie hare Sticke has registered over 570 protective covenants covering 23,000 hectares, with another 470 proposals for 60,000 hectares proceeding towards registration. Most of the protected areas are in the developed — and more visible — lowland regions of the country which are poorly represented in the Crown conservation estate. The main benefit to a landowner of an open space covenant is that while the land 1s protected in perpetuity, the owner retains title to the land. "As far as the community is Ri yes te eet Manager + un

TO) GS) Oe te ttetaty Mer ees eeerteet ee Porteous, "the main benefit is costeffective conservation — covenants cost considerably less than purchase — and that the owner is an on-site ‘manager’ for the protected area’. The trust, like the Forest Heritage Fund, is never short of potential applicants. "Despite the recession and falling farm incomes, the demand for covenants continues to grow, perhaps as a flow-on effect from an increased

public awareness of the need for conservation, or because more family farms are being put on the open market rather than passing automatically to the next generation," says Tim Porteous. 1. enact has lobbied government

for an increase in its annual base allocation of $1 million. The level of this allocation is such that all forest covenants approved by the trust require funding from the Forest Heritage Fund. The double-handling involved in securing support from the fund is a source of frustration for the trust hy ok a Sy te eam] pate: Dae

CNG EE ee et been in excess of 90 percent. Once approved by the trust, cases are submitted to the fund’s committee resulting in delays and extra paperwork. The trust is quick, however, to acknowledge the usefulness of the fund, "Without it the trust would be sn the awkward position of turning down virtually all landholders," says Porteous. "Voluntary protection 1s a powerful conservation tool and has developed a considerable momentum over the last ten years. To stifle that eER GE er ae ery « CPOE Tt oles

8 AS ais Caos Reena ST Ga HES TEE would be most Increasingly, branches of Forest and Bird are giving valuable financial assistance by contributing to the costs faced by a landholder in fencing areas off to exclude stock. In many cases this support has allowed a proposal to proceed which otherwise woul have faltered.