PoO today was minded to check out a bit of conservation legislation and wonder why it is not likely to be as effective as a rahui.
It’s a section of the Conservation Act 1987 and deals with the closure of conservation areas.
Click to view
Click to view
The legislation was winkled out after PoO had been left confused by an RNZ report headlined DOC, Iwi Hope To Clear Up Confusion Over Rāhui
The report said:
A 10-year rāhui following Tongariro’s devastating wildfire is causing confusion according to the Department of Conservation.
The weekend blaze torched almost 3000 hectares in the national park.
Local iwi, Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro, placed an immediate rāhui preventing public access to the fireground and walks in and around Whakapapa, which lifts on Monday 17 November.
So far, so good (so long as you happen to be of a compliant disposition and don’t question the authority of a tribal poobah who insists on the need for a rahui).
The RNZ report gelled with a One News report which said:
The Tongariro Alpine Crossing, and other popular walks at Tongariro National Park, will reopen on Monday following a devastating fire last week.
But the RNZ report went on to refer to “a second decade-long rāhui” which “ wasn’t about keeping people out, but reinforcing a focus on restoration”.
Spokesperson Te Ngaehe Wanikau said restoration was about the spiritual, emotional and physical wellbeing of Tongariro.
“We’re being very strategic in placing this rāhui. Our biggest fear is two weeks, two months down the track everyone forgets about the fire, and we’re left with a landscape of weeds.
“Instead, we’re reinforcing a focus on restoring Tongariro. It’s a rāhui for people to come together, pool resources and heal.”
He said iwi still expected people to walk on tracks.
PoO was heartened to hear this but wonders what would happen if the iwi expected people to keep off the tracks – or stay away from other sections of the park.
Wanikau went on to say
“… we’re looking to a future where people will come here just to be a part of the healing of the maunga.”
It’s a pity RNZ didn’t clarify what Wanikau and/or the iwi is expecting.
Is it enough for people just to come and walk through the park? Or are visitors expected to help with restoration work?
Whatever is intended, it has government support because:
Department of Conservation (DOC) operations director Damian Coutts said DOC supported the restorative rāhui and looked forward to welcoming people to help with the recovery.
The One News report quotes Coutts, too.
He said that while it would take some time to assess and repair the damage, access to huts and tracks was almost back to normal.
Mangatepopo Track would remain closed until further notice, but all other tracks and huts would be ready for visitors to enjoy from this morning.
Coutts reiterated: “It won’t look quite like it did before.”
“From the scorch marks on the pou Te Ririo, to the blackened landscape, it’s a sobering view. We’re inviting people to visit respectfully, to come back with a sense of awe and compassion for this place.”
How great must the sense of awe and compasson be to pass muster as respectful?
One News mentioned the rahui, too:
A rāhui placed over the area would be lifted by hāpu with both sorrow and joy, said Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro spokesperson Te Ngaehe Wanikau.
“The mamae we feel for our maunga is deep. Tongariro has carried our stories, and our identity for generations, and seeing the land scarred has touched many hearts across Aotearoa. For some, returning to the Crossing will be like a pilgrimage, a time to stand with the maunga, to breathe with him again, and to acknowledge the journey ahead.”
A second rāhui, placed for the wellbeing of the mountain, would remain in place for the next ten years.
Mangatepopo Rd and the carpark required repairs, with the carpark closed and transport to the crossing limited to shuttle pickup and dropoffs.
Neither the RNZ nor OneNews report explained what people might do without causing offence and what is flatly prohibited during the 10-year rahui.
Nor did they explain why the Department of Conservation was deferring to an iwi process which incorporates mystique and spiritualism.
The department manages most of the country’s public conservation land, including national parks, reserves, forest parks, and other areas.
And PoO had been led to believe DOC can close entire parks or parts of them (e.g., specific tracks, huts, or zones) under several legal authorities, depending on the reason, duration, and type of closure.
Our attention was drawn to the Conservation Act 1987, Section 13, which we reproduced above.
This is the key provision for closing conservation areas (which include many DOC-managed lands, and applies alongside or in conjunction with rules for national parks):
While the Minister holds the formal power for most closures under that section of the Conservation Act, DOC (via the Director-General and staff) has broad operational authority to implement temporary or emergency closures quickly to protect people, wildlife, or the environment.
Fair enough.
But permanent or controversial closures surely should require a more inclusive process than compliance with iwi requests. Public consultation should be necessary, and ministerial involvement called for if need be.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment