Pattern emerging over forest fees

Press, 31 May 1986, Page 6

Pattern emerging over forest fees

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

A pattern seems to be emerging in attitudes as to whether the user should pay for entering and enjoying forests, according to Mr Bob Stephens, senior lecturer in Economics at Victoria University, Wellington. That pattern already had an economic logic provided:

• Basic services and entry for recreational uses were free;

• Costs were recovered through fees and charges for more specialised highcost services or for specially provided services wherever the users could pay;

• It was cost-effective to collect the fees: • Fees were charged for comparable services elsewhere or usage was for commercial gain; • Zoning regulations specified usage but where one use precluded other users; and

• Where providing environmental benefits reduced the commercial benefits of production forestry.

Mr Stephens said this emerging patterns might be of little use to those agencies required to act commercially.

The new Ministry for the Environment was likely to have to raise a considerable proportion of its revenue directly from the public, while the increase in tourism was

leading to significant pressure on resources and staff run by the Department of Conservation. There was an increasing realisation in Government departments that the extra funding they needed would have to be generated by themselves, and user fees were the only mechanism, he said.

Most New Zealanders would resist any notion of entrance fees. There would be a degree of bitterness and resentment at having to pay to enter

forests because of a “penny-pinching and money-grabbing” Government, with further unpopularity for the Minister of Finance.

That left only fees for specific users and commercial uses, Mr Stephens said.

A cost recovery fee on commercial users would leave most of the profits in the hands of the entrepreneur as attributable costs would be small. However with large

profits “fly-by-night” operators would be attracted. Monopoly pricing by the Government would be just as odious.

He said what was left would be a fixed levy system, a percentage of gross turnover, with the percentage increasing as the service became more selective.

The label used, a recreation service fee, was important. It indicated a fee for the provisions of facilities; not a basic fee for entry to the forest.