ERO 025-1257 Responses to…

ERO 025-1257
Responses to your questions:

"Support a successful transition": "Success", as your policy states, relates to harmonizing Conservation Authorities responses to business queries and proposals. In your terms, a successful transition therefore requires simply setting benchmark requirements for all EXISTING conservation authorities to use when responding to requests in various areas. This allows for each authority to decide on staffing levels appropriate to their jurisdiction, and would be more efficient than a large body with far too many local situations to assess. To support business requirements, there are other avenues which will yield equal results without depriving local areas of their ability to have meaningful representation.

"opportunities from a regional approach": As above, opportunities are manifold for businesses, but not for local landowners who might not have a regional representative either physically close or locally aware when a contentious issue arises. It is obvious that money is driving this policy, and those without money will see their potential input and influence decline as decision-making becomes more remote from their community.

"governance suggestions": My philosophy has long been that we are going about this backwards. It makes more sense to change political boundaries to match watersheds than the other way around. Knowing that wars over adequate clean water will increasingly be waged, encouraging citizens to frame their health and existence around the availability of their most fundamental need helps us all to keep our focus on "conservation" in a way which a remote large supervising body can never do. Given that New Zealand, among others, has given rights to a river, this further underlines my point about where power should ultimately lie. At the very least, each river requires its own board composed of representatives who own land and live within its drainage basin.

"maintaining transparent budgeting process": Given my comments above, this would not be a problem if authority is limited to a river system whose drainage area corresponds to political boundaries. If this is treated in the same manner as education levy, Conservation Authorities will have to submit a mill rate based on their needs. This cannot change: given local governments wish to restrain spending, the setting of Conservation levies must be independent of local government budgets. Like all responsive bodies, they will have to defend their budgets in carrying out their mandates, or else their representatives will be replaced at the next election.

"relationships with local communities": Here is where I must share that my relationship with Upper Thames RCA over the past nearly 50 years has always been positive. They have been unfailingly helpful with any concerns, including a number of site assessment visits, supplying seedlings, explaining the limits of their mandates, maintaining conservation areas, sponsoring information sessions, and so forth. This speaks well for their ability to respond efficiently, and it has been a pleasure to get to know many of them personally. This relationship does not need strengthening, and I have seen too many initiatives, from regional government to regional health boards to regional school boards, which has not added any value to the social life of our community, and may arguably have contributed to deterioration of such. I am also not aware that our local Authority has impeded development in any substantive way.

In summation, this policy will add nothing to conservation oversight, understanding and maintenance, but will have the desired policy effect of encouraging citizens to further disengage from involvement in local quality of life issues. There is no way of putting lipstick on this pig.