Forest & Bird » Threats & Impacts

National Parks and major Conservation Lands being used for Treaty Settlements

(12 posts)
  • Started 1 year ago
  1. Tawaki
    User Profile

    I have waited for any conservation comment from members or the Forest and Bird Society about the Prime Ministers announcement 2 weeks ago that title to Te Urewera National Park would not be handed to Tuhoe as part of their Treaty Settlement.

    There has been a deafening silence perhaps because the whole issue makes liberal New Zealanders feel uncomfortable.

    I had thought that this Government was sticking by the Government's before it's long held decision that the only "small, discrete and special areas" of conservation and reserve land were being considered for title transfer as part of the Treaty settlement process.

    Apparently this is no longer the case. Title to major areas of Scenic Reserve and Conservation Land are being handed to Iwi almost at will by Treaty Settlement Minister Chris Findlayson and his officials at the Office of Treaty Settlements. This is a secret process.

    Forest and Bird Nominee on the NZ Conservation Authority Linda Conning has some awareness of the scale of these transfers. She visited me recently and briefed me about the scale of loss of public conservation land through this process. It is enormous.

    Moreover because other iwi have "relativity" clauses in their Treaty Settlements and the Government doesn't want to hand over cash, the handing over of conservation land is a soft and cheap option. First Te Urewera, perhaps next Tongariro and then what South Island National Parks will go?

    Officials in DOC will be well aware of the scale of the existing and proposed privatisation of conservation lands and are probably horrified by what is going on but are powerless to stop it or to even make it public. This issue desperately needs to be aired publicly.

    We need a response from the Minister of Conservation outlining just what is going on with the public lands that she is supposed to be caretaking for all the people of New Zealand.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. Kaipara
    User Profile

    What is needed is an article from the nationwide perspective on what is happening with Treaty Settlements regarding reserve land.

    In Kaipara, the 630ha Atuanui-Mt Auckland Scenic Reserve is being included in a treaty settlement with Ngati Whatua o Kaipara ki te tonga.

    This reserve was one of the first created in NZ in 1885 (at the same time as Hauturu/LBI) as the Mt Auckland Stewardship Area and has survived being a Forest Service Reserve and then more recently a DOC Scenic Reserve. It is the largest area of coastal lowland native rainforest on the west coast between the Waitakere Ranges in the south and the Waipoua Forest in the north, and contains significant botanical values, including several rare native plants.

    While the proposed change of ownership for the Deed of Settlement was made public in local media in January in an article about the Kaipara treaty settlements in a local newspaper, I'm not aware of any media reporting on the bigger picture of reserve loss for Treaty Settlement, either regionally or nationally.

    In the case of Atuanui, the change of ownership settlement proposal is subject to the Crown condition that it remains a Scenic Reserve (under the terms of the Reserve Act 1977) and that public access is retained. I'm not sure that this applies to other reserves in other treaty settlement deals. Nor am I confident that the change of administration from Crown to iwi, sufficiently protects public access rights under the Reserves Act. Once iwi have ownership, they also have significant powers as administrators of the reserve.

    I'd be very interested to hear the terms of other reserves included in treaty settlement deals around the country, and the extent of this nationally.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. horoeka
    User Profile

    I don't necessarily have a problem with public conservation land being used in treaty settlements.

    Years before Geoff Park died he told me this would be a huge issue for the next generation for conservationists to face and come to terms with. His research on the WAI 242 claim had made him realise that the large majority of public conservation land was stolen or got through underhanded means.

    Using terms like 'privatisation of conservation lands' assumes they were rightfully in the public/Goverment/Crown hands to begin with. This language has the potential to feed into misconstrued situations like the first round of the Foreshore and Seabed fiasco.

    Settling historic injustices is going to be a challenge and will require give and take on all sides. You can be sure that Maori will point out how much they have 'given' by choice or not.

    Some hapu and iwi aren't seeking financial compensation - they want their land back - or at least as much as possible - and who can blame them? Where I am in Northland, some of these DOC reserves also include burial and/or massacre sites and locations where people lived for many hundreds of years.

    As local Ngati Uru people have said to me 'We can do a better job than what DOC have done'. You can see photos in the latest F&B mag of the pohutukawa collapse in Whangaroa Harbour that they are referring to. It is hard to argue with that if we're looking at conservation outcomes.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. Kaipara
    User Profile

    For anyone wanting more information on Treaty Settlements, try the Office of Treaty Settlements' website that outlines processes etc at

    www.ots.govt.nz

    If you use the search funtion on the website, you can retrieve PDFs of documents such as offer letters to iwi, by searching under a keyword, such as 'Kaipara' etc

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. matata
    User Profile

    I'd assume that F&B concerns would lie with protecting the intrinsic natural values of any area by maintaining statutory protection...I can't imagine that underlying ownership is something which F&B would be concerned about getting into, especially if the area is of special significance to Iwi.

    The issue is more about the govt using the conservation estate as an asset to trade.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. Kaipara
    User Profile

    Yes agree absolutely that is the issue and the OTS website has info on what is being traded if you delve in there.

    If negotiations are at the Agreement in Principle stage, then negotiations are underway and open to input from interested parties.

    If there has been a Deed of Settlement then the deed is done and any reserves listed in the settlement are legislated to be either acknowledged or transferred to the respective iwi.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. wilderness
    User Profile

    "I'd assume that F&B concerns would lie with protecting the intrinsic natural values of any area by maintaining statutory protection...I can't imagine that underlying ownership is something which F&B would be concerned about getting into, especially if the area is of special significance to Iwi."

    I disagree.

    F&B should care very deeply what the underlying ownership of New Zealand's public protected conservation lands should be even if we get assurances that their statutory protection will remain the same with a transfer of ownership(not that this is practically possible).

    Public Conservation land including our National Parks, Scenic Reserves, Wildlife Refuges and Conservation land are all treasures that belong to all the people of New Zealand both present and of the past and future generations. They are managed in trust for us by the Conservation Department. That Department and its Minister are directly accountable to all the people of New Zealand through Parliament and subject also to statutory supervision of DOC's management of those conservation lands through the NZ Conservation Authority and regional Conservation Boards.Iwi are represented on the Authority and those Boards as a statutory right.

    Former DG of Conservation Ken Piddington repeatedly referred to these conservation lands as being "taonga" or treasures that were not for sale to anyone. he showed great foresight in his understanding of this.

    Surely that principle of treasures belonging to everyone is one of the major reasons why there has been such widespread`public concern about proposals put forward by the Government and mining companies to annex parts of our highly protected conservation treasures for mining exploration.

    It isn't sufficient to receive soothing assurances from mining companies or from spokespersons for iwi that they will safeguard the intrinsic values of conservation lands that they are entrusted with.

    The fundamental issue is that we have a democratic process that we all participated in that made these places special treasures that are the heritage of every New Zealander. Forest and Bird played a key role in that process and cannot just role over when that principle is thrown away.

    If we are to erode that conservation heritage, it has to be through a democratic process that is equal to the way in which these areas were first protected. They should not be eroded through secret negotiations and empowering legislation passed in haste by the government of the day to get a deaql with iwi or with mining interests.

    The original agreement for use of conservation land in treaty settlement, formulated under both National and Labour, was that the only areas of Conservation Land that were to be used in Treaty settlements were only to be small, discrete, special areas such as Urupa or other sacred sites where there was consensus that they were of immense importance to Iwi.

    This cautionary principle has operated successfully for more than 15 years. It operated right through the major Ngai Tahu settlement of 1998 without being compronised. There is no good reason why it should be abandoned now to allow widespread trading in conservation land to take place just because National is in coalition with the Maori party and wants to achieve Treaty settlements on the cheap.

    Forest and Bird as an organisation needs to stand up and make that position crystal clear to the Government and to the people of New Zealand. In doing so it is not expressing an "anti iwi" viewpoint any more than it is expressing an "anti mining" viewpoint. It is simply standing up for the conservation principles that all members of Forest and Bird subscribe to.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. matata
    User Profile

    That sounds like protecting intrinsic values to me.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. matata
    User Profile

    And about the govt using the conservation estate to trade being the issue of concern.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. auckland anne
    User Profile

    Interesting article from today's Herald about Foreshore and Seabed Act changes...http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10651967

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. auckland anne
    User Profile

  12. auckland anne
    User Profile

    And another interesting article on the same topic http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10651487&pnum=0

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.