La configuración de la ciudad a inicios de los años

The Visitor Strategy also contains guidelines for managing tourism concessions on

conservation land24. In the Strategy, ‘tourism’ is interpreted as synonymous with commercial recreation: ‘if [visitors] use and pay for facilities and services provided by the private sector, then tourism can be said to be taking place’ (ibid. p. 38)25. As noted in Chapter One, this is the interpretation of tourism which is adopted in the present study – ‘tourists’ are defined as individuals who use facilities and services provided by the private sector during their

wilderness trip, and ‘independent visitors’ are people who do not make use of such services.

24

A concession is an official authorisation granted to conduct commercial operations in an area managed by the Department.

25

Despite making this distinction between tourism and independent use of the conservation estate, the Visitor Strategy does not distinguish between the two visitor groups (tourists and independent users). This omission has caused a significant amount of controversy and criticism amongst outdoor recreation groups.

The Conservation Act 1987 states that one of the key functions of the Department of

Conservation is to ‘foster’ recreation and to ‘allow’ for tourism. This indicates that tourism is a valid use of New Zealand conservation land, but at the same time, it implies that recreation is different from, and should have priority over, tourism. The complexity of this issue is amplified by the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between

‘tourism’ and ‘recreation’ (or ‘tourists’ and ‘recreationists’). Much of the current tourism and recreation literature states that the demarcation line between the two has become extremely fuzzy (see, for example, Bodewes 1981; Crompton & Richardson 1986; Hall & Jenkins 1995). Jansen-Verbeke & Dietvorst (1987) stated that ‘in the perception of the individual at least, the distinction between recreation and tourism is becoming irrelevant’ (p. 263), and Pigram (1985, p. 184) argued:

Little success has been afforded to those attempting to differentiate between recreation and tourism and such distinctions appear founded upon the assumption that outdoor recreation appeals to the rugged, self-reliant element in the population, whereas tourism caters more overtly for those seeking diversion without too much discomfort.

Despite this, some researchers (e.g. Hall & Page 2002; Shaw & Williams 1994) maintain that the distinction is still important. A number of (often very vocal) outdoor recreationists in New Zealand give strong support to this view, and maintain that there is no comparison between the two. In their eyes, recreationists visit independently and use their own skills and

initiatives, while tourists pay a commercial operator to ‘do the hard work for them’ (see, for example, Round 2006; Spearpoint 2007). These individuals believe that tourist activities are different from traditional, independent recreation, and some argue that tourism should not be permitted in wilderness. There has also been significant debate over whether New Zealanders can, or should, be considered tourists when they visit conservation land. Many Kiwi outdoor recreationists believe that they should not, because they are visiting their own country (again, see Round 2006 and Spearpoint 2007). This perspective is consistent with the definitions proposed by Hall (1995) and Helber (1988), who believe that tourism involves an infusion of new visitors and ‘new’ money into a region, whereas recreation typically refers to leisure activities undertaken by the residents of that particular region. This is a complex issue which it is not possible to explore thoroughly in this thesis. I will return to it in more detail in Chapter Three.

Although this thesis focuses solely on independent use of the New Zealand wilderness, the issue of tourism in wilderness was mentioned frequently by respondents. Because of this, it is important that the reader has some knowledge of the conditions under which tourism is

policy framework for managing tourism concessions on conservation land. The specific provisions for concessions in remote and wilderness areas of Fiordland National Park will be presented in Chapter Five.

2.6.1 Concessions

Concessions are required for all commercial and business activities that are undertaken on conservation land (DOC, 2005c). Concessionaires pay fees for the privilege of obtaining commercial or other benefits from public land. The way the fee is charged depends on the type of activity and the current market rates (ibid.). The concessions system helps to ensure that concession activities are compatible with the Department of Conservation’s primary aim of protecting the land and other resources. It also helps to ensure that services and facilities are appropriate, and that other activities do not conflict with visitor enjoyment (ibid.). Concessions fall into two categories: recreation/tourism concessions and non-recreation concessions. Tourism concessions include accommodation facilities, transport services, commercial education or instruction activities and guiding operations. Non-recreation concessions include activities such as filming, grazing and telecommunication facilities. All concession activities are required to be consistent with the current Conservation Management Plan or the Management Strategy for the area, and any negative effects on the environment must be minimised (DOC, 2005a). The majority of concession applications are initiated by an individual or a company, although occasionally some opportunities are publicly tendered by the Department of Conservation (Parr 2000).

Tourism concessions fulfil an important role in helping the Department to provide a range of recreation opportunities for visitors (DOC 1996). Various Acts of Parliament direct

concessions management and also give the Department legal authority to charge concession fees. They make it illegal for commercial operators to run a business in such areas without authorisation, and contain offence provisions in them which allow the Department to

prosecute (ibid.). The main piece of legislation is the Conservation Act. Under part 3B of the Act, the Department of Conservation is given the legal authority to control or restrict

concessionaire activities. This has meant that limits have been placed on the commercial use of some areas. (Parr 2000).

The Conservation Amendment Act 1996 introduced the requirement for applicants to identify the possible effects of their proposed activities, and to suggest ways in which any adverse

effects can be reduced (DOC 1996)26. The decision about whether to accept or reject a proposal is very much based around the level of detail in this assessment (Parr 2000). A consequence of this is that the Department of Conservation has frequently lacked the information necessary to decline concession applications (due to a lack of visitor use and impact monitoring). This has led to a proliferation of commercial activities on conservation land, and has resulted in criticism from conservation advocates over the Department’s apparent ‘weakness’ in the face of pressure from the tourism industry (Chamberlain 2003).

2.6.2 The Visitor Strategy and concessions

The Visitor Strategy (introduced in section 2.5.2) was one of the main responses to increased pressure on public conservation land from international tourists (Molloy 1997). Among other things, the Strategy provides direction as to how the various pieces of concession legislation are to be administered. Section 3.3 of the Strategy outlines the issues relating to tourism concessions management, and states the Department’s goals and guiding principles for this area. The important role of commercial operators in helping the Department to manage a ‘range of recreational opportunities in different settings’ (DOC 1996, p. 22) is acknowledged, and concessions are described as having ‘significant potential for providing satisfying visitor experiences’ (ibid. p. 41). In relation to the concessions allocation process, the Strategy states:

Where the impacts of increasing visitor numbers to a site are unknown, the Department will adopt a precautionary approach until such time as it is clearly demonstrated that increasing visitor numbers pose no significant problem

(DOC 1996 p. 41)

A primary condition for any concession application is that it must be consistent with the current Conservation Management Plan or Strategy for that area (DOC 1996). These documents are therefore extremely important in giving guidance for the concessions allocation process. The Visitor Strategy notes that some strategies or plans may ‘provide specific guidance on the type of commercial operations that are appropriate in different areas’ (p. 42). Until now, however, guidance has tended to be given in the more general form of overall management objectives for the area, and very few existing plans or strategies provide adequate guidance or direction about what is an appropriate level or type of commercial activity in an area (Parr 2000). Management objectives are often ambiguous and non-specific, leaving the decision over whether or not to allocate a concession up to the individual

processing the application (D. Kula, pers. comm. September 2004). This style of management has been heavily criticised in recent years for being inappropriate and inadequate

26

This is termed an ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ (EIA), and is carried out by the applicant as part of the concessions application process (DOC 2005c).

(Chamberlain 2003). With reference to existing tourism policy and legislation, Les Molloy27 claimed that:

…these fine policies are being steadily eroded and compromised by sectors of the tourist industry and DOC’s inability (or unwillingness) to stem the pressures – all to make the mountain climb quicker and easier for tourists on tight time schedules

(Molloy & Potton 2007, p. 315)

Largely as a result of these criticisms and concerns, some of the more recent management plans (for example the Fiordland National Park Management Plan 2008) now stipulate the types and levels of use of commercial tourism activities that are acceptable in particular areas. This development has been welcomed by some conservation and wilderness protection

advocates, but it has also caused a significant amount of controversy amongst those who would prefer to see further development of the tourism industry rather than increased wilderness protection.