Keeping "them" honest

Forest and Bird, Issue 268, 1 May 1993, Unnumbered Page

Keeping "them" honest

National President

Gordon Ell

HE GOVERNMENT IS presently choosing people who will advise on the management of conservation lands for the next three years. These are the 17 regional conservation boards on which quite a number of Forest and Bird members have given dedicated service. The system represents much of the public input into the formation of policy for parks and reserves. It is disturbing, therefore, to see it suggested that the government would like the size of the boards reduced from 12 to eight members. There is already too much work to do properly. What is needed is more, rather than less, opportunity for public input. The Department of Conservation talks a lot about public consultation, particularly of its responsibility to consult with tangata whenua as laid down in its Act. Yet it is often accused of going its Own way in the face of Maori and wider public opinion. The conservation boards are a vital balance in a process of open government. Simply put, such community advisory boards are a way of keeping "them" honest. Conservation boards are instrumental in the development of conservation planning — the so-called conservation management strategies for each region, in which the boards have a legal role. To suggest that their resources should be further constrained is not likely to help conservation. Already there are arguments over Maori representation. Generally there is a minimum of three members, and often more, to provide a Maori dimension to each board. In practice many Maori members feel bound to be representatives of their tribe and where there are more tribes than members within a board’s region, then others claim not be "represented"’. Even if a mooted 50:50 partnership in managing public lands were politically acceptable this problem would remain. The remaining nine seats (five if boards are to be reduced in size) represent the wider community — not just conservationists but local government, tourist operators, farmers, hunters, anglers, skiers, trampers, scientists, women’s groups and all the others interested in the department’s management of 30 per cent of New Zealand’s land area. Add to that the parochial interests of various local communities within a far-flung region and the present system already seems unlikely to satisfy many. If DoC is to increase its credibility in the community it needs to win the support of local people. There are already several instances where Maori communities have sought a closer involvement in the management of adjacent public land because of their traditional ties with it. Arguments for a similarly enlarged role are also voiced by predominantly non-Maori-communities. Conservation boards represent the only way for many interests to affect policy directly. The boards are run on a financial shoestring. The work is often difficult and requires a financial sacrifice by most members and a large amount of personal commitment and dedication. Such bodies need more support rather than less, if the interests of conservation are to be properly served.

The opinions of contributors to Forest & Bird are not necessarily those of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society.