Two threatened depts hand document to Govt

Press, 20 August 1985, Page 41

Two threatened depts hand document to Govt

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Two Government departments under threat from the proposed restructuring of environmental administration — the Lands and Survey Department and the Forest Service — have just handed the Government a confidential document setting out their joint position. Called “An Integrated Approach to the Management of Lands of the Crown,” it sets out some alternative proposals to rebut those contained in the “Environment 1986” report. This report was the result of the deliberations of the working party on environmental administration, and contains recommendations for big changes — including the controversial proposal for a conservation department, the so-called Heritage New Zealand. In May-June, the two departments made separate representations to the Government on “Environment 1986.” This new document is intended to be an addendum to the two earlier reports, and has been developed by the two departments as “their preferred option” for implementing Government

environmental policy as it affects the management of Crown lands.

They seek “integration” rather than the “separation” for which they criticise “Environment 1986.”

“We firmly believe that such a strategy (to integrate conservation and development) for rural lands of the Crown can operate in a manner which satisfies the Government’s conservation goals and its requirements that State-owned trading agencies adopt a more commercial approach to these activities,” they said.

“Lands of the Crown cannot be neatly packaged into precise areas on the ground, identifiable for single-pur-pose end-use and management.”

Land management was a continuum ranging from very strict preservation at one end to intensive development at the other end; in between, land management involved varying inputs aimed at preservation or development. At best, any division of land areas for management purposes could only be done on a grouping which identified whether the lands tended towards the preser-

vation or development ends of the continuum. In their proposal, the two departments made a division on the basis of land that was predominantly orientated towards conservation and land that was orientated towards development.

They then set out the details of a structure.

In the Lands and Survey Department, the changes would not be significant, they said. But in the Forest Service, where managers had traditionally had very wide-ranging land management responsibilities, the changes would be substantial.

The structure proposed by the two departments assumes that the portfolios of Lands and Forests will continue to be held by the one Cabinet Minister. There would then be a Crown Estate Commission, needing to meet only infrequently, that would make a recommendation to the Minister whenever a conflict arose as to whether land should be allocated for conservation or development. Next would be a Nature Conservancy Council, a body of citizens acting as the umbrella co-ordinating

body for Nature conservation values. Its main function would be to identify priorities for the development of policy on protected natural areas, as well as overseeing operations in protected natural areas. Next, at the development end of the land management continuum, would be Lands and Forestry Boards — both with a commercial approach to development. Whether as corporations, or whatever, they would have substantial executive powers delegated to them similar to those of the Railways Corporation or Air New Zealand. There would be a cluster of quangos (quasi-autonom-ous non-Government organisations) with specific functions round the edges of the two main boards.

Recognising the policy commitment to improve the management structure for conservation, the two departments proposed that Nature and historic conservation responsibilities be brought together in a Conservation Division in the Lands and Survey Department.

Although this document has not been seen by many

outside the Government and its top officials, it is being criticised within the conservation movement.

Any changes to the two departments as constituted at present would be more apparent than real, although the quangos would be given broader powers. In the Forest Service, the Environmental Forestry Division would become the Nature Conservation Division; in Lands and Survey, the National Parks and Reserves Division would become the Conservation Division and have the Wildlife Service and other bits and pieces tacked on to it. It would still leave an apparent duplication of work in two separate departments, doing roughly similar work but overseen by a common quango. This does not go far enough to satisfy the authors of “Environment 1986.” Rather than have separation, and a degree of duplication, they would rather have these functions all put together as proposed in the report of the working party on environmental administration — in fact, the proposed Heritage New Zealand.