80% native birds threatened - commissioner

  • http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/93174325/native-birds-in-desperate-situation-with-80-per-cent-threatened-commissioner
  • The report's at http://www.pce.parliament.nz/our-work/news-insights/native-birds-in-desperate-situation-says-environment-commissioner I've just finished reading it and it's mostly a good report, imho, especially on the state of birds. The strange part is conclusion 10.6 (border levy and increased user pays recommendation). In the context of the whole report, it seems to have come completely out of left-field. The report is not clearly about funding or expenditure. There's no significant analysis about funding prior to this conclusion, yet the report ends by saying a border levy should be imposed on visitors to New Zealand because supposedly more money is needed, after which the report then asserts that a levy is a good way to do it. It also advocates more user pays for the recreation side, general logic being that if recreation is more self-funding then a larger portion of Vote:Conservation can be assigned to Natural Heritage. 10.6 includes isolated statements like the following: "The cost of administration and compliance is frequently raised as a criticism of user pays on the conservation estate. There must be ways of addressing this using modern technology." Given the lack of further explanations and analysis, I just find it puzzling because I've thought about this a lot and I struggle to see ways that compliance, in particular, can be managed efficiently and effectively, even with modern technology
    This post has been edited by the author on 4 June 2017 at 23:31.
  • This topic branched to "funding from tourists" on . Explore the branch (23 messages).
If this post breaches forum rules, please flag it for review.
Forum The campfire
Started by waynowski
On 31 May 2017
Replies 1
Permanent link