Jan Wright: Time for a rethink on tenure review

The high country of the South Island is a special place. As a teenager I kayaked on Lake Heron, and can still recall the silence. Many New Zealanders feel a similarly strong emotional pull from those great mountain valleys and basins.

It is also important to our economy. All New Zealanders need to sit up and take notice of what's happening there.

Many hectares of the high country are owned by the Government, but leased to run holders - the high country sheep stations that carry merinos. Over recent years, many of these leases have been terminated in the process called "tenure review".

When a farm is reviewed, some of the land stays owned by the Government and some goes to the farmer.

My investigation into the environmental effects of the high country tenure review has led to an independent report to Parliament. In it I raise a number of concerns and issues that require action.

These actions are in the form of recommendations to ministers and agencies, and address both the process and the wider environmental issues. I discuss several of these recommendations below.

To give some historical perspective, tenure review of high country pastoral leases was widely supported in the early 1990s. Now the reverse seems true.

It has achieved a lot - a more diversified economy, a way forward for properties where traditional merino farming is not working any more, greater access to the high country and new high country conservation parks.

But there are problems and it's a good time to make a fresh start. I am particularly worried about water quality - it's an issue that's been falling through the cracks.

The usual result of a review is that the lower land goes to the farmer and the higher land goes to the Department of Conservation. If the lower land is fertilised and running stock right beside a lake or river, that starts off the process of water pollution with increased concentrations of phosphate, nitrate and pathogens. The clarity of the high country lakes cannot be taken for granted.

We only need to look at the huge investment by central and local government in the restoration of some North Island lakes to confirm that we don't want Tekapo to end up like Rotorua.

Prevention is cheaper than cure. That's why I make a recommendation for the introduction of rules to control discharges to these special high country lakes.

I'm also worried about the spread of weeds such as broom and pine. On a recent visit I was shocked to see the out-of-control spread of wild pines. They looked to me like an ugly, unshaven chin. Not the image we promote to tourists and trading partners.

And it's not just the effect on ecology and landscapes. Trees obviously soak up water when they grow and if the catchment areas that contain our hydro stations become covered in trees there will be less water available to generate clean electricity. And even the most urban Aucklander should care about this. My concern over this issue has led to my recommendation that sufficient funding for a sustained weed eradication programme should be provided.

Another area of interest relates to balance within the conservation estate. The Department of Conservation has planned 22 high country conservation parks. That leaves less money for other conservation priorities - lowland forest, wetlands, dunelands and marine parks.

I'm keen on the best spend for the conservation dollar which is why I have recommended the strategy of developing so many high country parks should be reviewed.

There's no doubt that many of these issues are complex. And when looking ahead it's clear that one size doesn't fit all.

There are many more options available than the simple split between two extremes we've seen dominate until now. Rather, there are lots of middle ways - covenants on private land, light grazing on conservation land, farm parks and special leases. Some of these options exist already - albeit rarely.

Many of those anxious about the impacts of tenure review are concerned about its incremental nature, namely that little by little, significant change is occurring. This concern is valid.

A long-term plan to provide oversight is missing. For this and for other reasons I have recommended the creation of a time-fixed High Country Commission.

The cost of such a body would be small compared with the expenditure Government has already made on tenure review. A small investment today in the right solutions will pay big dividends in the future.

We are only a quarter of the way through the process, but there's still time to make changes. And that is what I am asking the Government to do.

* Dr Jan Wright is Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.