A recent study has apparently put a dollar value on Fiordland National Park - NZ$228 million per year, to be precise. Given that it only costs $9 million to run, this makes the land extremely valuable. No wonder the Libertarianz’ policy is to privatize the park. The government and most left-wing and environmental groups would be horrified at this,of course. But it makes sense that the national parks should be in the hands of those who value them the most, and as our policy states, this can be done by
issuing tradeable ’shares’ in state-managed parks and forests, allowing those who value particular areas or particular rights to swap, share, club together or trade in order to get either a property right in a park, or to sell their share and get a cheque.
593,000 people visited Fiordland NP last year - that is a huge market. And contrary to leftist fears, private ownership would not result in exploitation and pollution - pollution would breach property rights, and the most profitable use would be as a pristine tourist attraction. That’s the beauty of allowing the free market, rather than the state, to protect the natural environment: it’s all about incentives. Property rights solve the tragedy of the commons, and remove politics from decision-making, putting land in the hands of those who value it.
Private national parks are not unprecedented. NGOs like Ancient Forests International and philanthropists like Douglas Tompkins have been instrumental in setting up private parks throughout the Americas, notably in Chile. Parque PumalÃn covers thousands of square kilometres, and is the largest park of its kind. It is located at a similar latitude to Fiordland NP, with similar primeval Gondwana-remnant forests. And in an effort to overcome local opposition, Tompkins has attempted to integrate the park into the local economy:
Small farms with productive activities such as animal husbandry, cheese making, eco-tourism, wool handicrafts and organic gardens are simultaneously park stations and visitor information centers. In this way both conservation and a productive contribution to the local economy are achieved.
If in the future PumalÃn makes a $228 million contribution to the local economy, the opposition and the fear for “sovereignty” will probably melt away. I suspect the park will be better managed than Chile’s state run parks, too. While I don’t agree with Tompkins’ radical “deep ecology” philosophy, I wish him all the best with his plans. And I hope New Zealand policy makers recognise the success of such private conservation initiatives. Privatize the parks!
The pictures are of Milford Sound, from Luke’s trip to Fiordland in 2002.
An interesting concept Phil, but ultimately one which I do not believe will be decided upon by North Islanders. When we have some form of South Island Independence it will more than likely be the local assembly which makes the final call on the ownership and management of such parks and resources.
However as far as Fiordland is concerned, neither of the above alternatives is probably really necessary in the short term. Removing control of National Parks from the inept management of failed and politically motivated organisations such as DOC, and placing it with an accountable national trust board with adequate local representation, will more than likely suffice.
There is merit, I believe, in your illustration of the effectiveness of the profit motive in preserving things of intrinsic value; in the same way, the best way to ensure the survival of the kiwi and other endangered birds, may be to allow people to farm them.
But the use and exploitation of National Parks must still, I believe, be ultimately answerable to the expressed will of the majority of voters in the relevant jurisdiction, however that may be constituted.
I do like this blog. It appears magnitudinally more cerebral than many others on offer where NZ politics and related matters are concerned. Do keep it up.
Left by Newt on October 8th, 2006