Editorial: An answer to our lost camp spots

Opinion

A world of increasing complexity and sophistication has not dulled our attachment to the humble camping holiday. Indeed, the path of progress seems to have added to the appeal. Figures suggest that the popularity of camping grounds is increasing, and that for about a third of New Zealanders they are now the preferred destination.

Over the past three years, however, some 20 private camping grounds, many in prime coastal locations, have closed after their owners accepted multimillion-dollar offers from property developers. With bach prices also soaring, the great beach holiday has become something of a threatened species.

It is welcome, therefore, that the Department of Conservation has been asked to assess the extent of the problem, and that the Government appears ready to make more public land available for camping if necessary.

In this regard, New Zealand is in an extremely fortunate position. A third of its total landmass, including 6000km of coast, is owned publicly and managed by DoC. The department's main focus is the preservation of our natural heritage, not recreation, but there seems to be no reason some of that land cannot, with due sensitivity, be developed for camping.

This, however, does not appear to have been the Government's original impulse. It was somewhat dismissive when, during last year's election campaign, the National Party pledged to safeguard the "classic Kiwi camping holiday" by creating 25 new camping grounds on DoC land. Conservation Minister Chris Carter said that it was "not a bad idea" but that DoC' s present focus, using an allotment of $349 million over the next decade, was on upgrading tracks and huts.

Now, at least, the Government appears to see the merit in National's concept. Mr Carter acknowledges that the loss of family-friendly camping areas, especially on the coast of the North Island, has become a worry. Encouragingly, he also seems willing to adopt National's idea of tendering concessions for camping grounds to private operators.

This would not break new ground. Of the 250 campsites currently administered by the department, some half-dozen are run by the private sector. Making use of the expertise of private operators is, of course, only sensible. Many of DoC's camping grounds are somewhat more rudimentary than private facilities. It is fair to assume that with reasonable leasehold arrangements, many of these, and any new camping grounds, would feature improvements - hot showers, modern toilets, games rooms and the like - that enhanced their appeal to families.

That would also be an obvious way to reduce the taxpayer funding required for the development of new camping grounds. DoC's investigation of partnerships with local government, community groups and trusts will, hopefully, bear similar fruit. And all these strands could be the catalyst for revitalising the camping industry. It may also lead to further rationalisation, following the department's decision to close four camping grounds in 2004. The sites were deemed to be either too close together, prone to flooding or to have had too few visitors.

Safeguarding the country's natural heritage will always involve a matter of balance. As much as land should be conserved, so should it be accessible and be able to be enjoyed. That need not mean great swathes of road or other inimical developments. Done correctly, it will result in some of the country's most cherished land receiving the maximum appreciation. And the traditional summer holiday remaining intact.