Local's plea for Mackenzie gets unhelpful reply

Recently I wrote to the Hon Kate Wilkinson, asking her to protect the beautiful brown Mackenzie Basin with all its precious native plants and animals. Her reply was so bad I find it hard to believe it was from our Minister for Conservation!

I said, "I don't want it to become another Canterbury Plains with giant pivot irrigators turning it bright green. We do not have enough water in Canterbury to do this and continue to have water in our towns and existing farms....Please make it a priority to protect this fragile landscape and the endangered plants and creatures it sustains. It is loved by Kiwis and tourists from around the world, and we will all be the losers if this unique, natural part of New Zealand is destroyed."

The reply I received was not quite what I had expected from the Minister for Conservation.

Quite rightly she stated, "Protection of the basin's landscape and biodiversity is possible through a mixture of both local and central government action and landowner initiatives."

Then strangely the Hon Minister went on to state that local government wasn't able do this, and said, "The Government is well aware that the agency responsible for the management of land and water, and the protection of biodiversity, namely Environment Canterbury, has not been up to the task in addressing issues you raise. For this reason it has implemented legislation to address the issues – replacing the councillors with a group of commissioners."

Hang on a moment there, the Creech report said that ECan was doing a good job of protecting biodiversity and the management of land!

Kate Wilkinson then went into detail about the consents process and tenure review, stating that in granting consents it is taken "into account the protection of the inherent values of the land - in particular those associated with indigenous plants and animals, natural ecosystems and landscapes - and the desirability of the consent in making it easier to use the land for farming purposes."

At this point I had to skip to the end of the email to ensure that the email really was from the Conservation Minister, the person charged with protecting our land, water and biodiversity.

Clearly there are some contradictions in the messages being delivered here. ECan had to be got rid of and replaced by commissioners because they weren't protecting biodiversity, yet the Conservation Minister is stating, "The desirability of the consent in making it easier to use the land for farming purposes" is a key factor.

I would question if that is protecting let alone promoting biodiversity. The email finished with the following, "The Government is committed to continuing the tenure review programme, and will explore and evaluate all alternatives, to enable sustainable farming and effectively protect the basin's unique values."

I have no doubt that New Zealand farmers can farm sustainably, as the Sustainable Winegrowing New Zealand organization is proving. What I do question is the ability of farming going hand in hand with protecting the Mackenzie Basin's unique values, whilst maintaining biodiversity and the conservation values of our Minister for Conservation.