Welcome to our place

Taking liberties: Freedom campers on Christchurch’s Sumner Beach.

The possibility that international visitors travelling around New Zealand in campervans without facilities may be having a detrimental effect on our environment has led to heated debate. Travel writer Jill Worrall, who is familiar with both the New Zealand and overseas tourism scene, enters the debate.

Tourism is New Zealand's largest export industry, surpassing even the dairy industry in terms of foreign exchange earnings. Combined with the domestic market it generated more than $21 billion in the last financial year. One in 10 Kiwis works in the tourism industry.

So there is no doubt that encouraging international visitors to come to New Zealand is vitally important for our economy. Last year more than 2.4 million tourists came here and that number is expected to grow.

So, good news all around really, or is it? Just how many tourists can a relatively small country with a vulnerable natural environment sustain before we start to damage irreparably the very aspects of New Zealand that make it so alluring and unique?

I do not know the answer to that but the kerfuffle recently over the perceived impact some "freedom" campers may be having in Otago-Southland suggests that maybe it is time we all gave this topic more thought.

Over the past two years I have been fortunate enough to travel extensively around the South Island with overseas tourists. It is a fascinating process to see one's own country through the eyes of visitors. We are all, of course, thrilled and full of national pride when our visitors are stunned by our natural landscapes and impressed with our friendliness. I for one, however, became increasingly twitchy during these travels about stops in rest areas, scenic lookouts and the like. Step a few paces away from the car and some places smelt like many a developing world toilet and toilet paper festooned our native flora.

There is nothing scientific about my observations but I will stick my neck out and say it sure was not like that 10 years ago. That is not to say overseas visitors are solely to blame, of course – our own population has grown, too. But so has the availability of campervans minus any toilet or washing facilities.

It is all very well to say we must not discourage these travellers, but at the same time surely we cannot allow this situation to continue. But how to stop people "going" in our great outdoors?

Are our commercially run camping grounds charging too much for these campervans to park up overnight and use the toilet facilities? I am sure they would say no. If this is true, do we really want to be encouraging tourists on such a tight budget who at the same time do not want to take buses and use backpackers' lodges?

Bhutan, a small Himalayan kingdom, also with a reputation for its pristine environment and what is more a vulnerable traditional culture, certainly does not.

Want to freedom camp in Bhutan? You can't. You can trek certainly but only with a trekking team. And everyone who visits Bhutan must pay a minimum of US$200 (NZ$287) a day, which covers everything from transport and accommodation to meals and guide services.

About a third of this money goes directly to the government.

The result is a low-volume, high-income and lower-impact tourism.

It is the Bhutanese way – if you cannot afford to come, well, there are other countries to visit, such as Nepal, where almost uncontrolled tourism has encouraged rapid deforestation, pollution and significant impacts on local cultures.

The wise Bhutanese have seen this and decided on another tack.

Is there any way we could generate more income to provide more tourist facilities such as toilets; to increase the Department of Conservation's coffers so that it can help cope with the increasing numbers of visitors to national parks and to maybe create more of its great (and very inexpensive) camping sites?

About 30 per cent of overseas tourists visit at least one national park during their stay and for some years now it's been overseas visitors who have dominated on some of New Zealand's great walks – for example, 67 per cent of walkers on the Milford Track are non-Kiwis and there is a similar proportion on the Routeburn. Why should they not contribute to the protection and enhancement of our national parks and other scenic reserves?

As DOC's funding has already been cut I cannot see the Government providing any more money. So what is wrong with a visitor tax? Charge everyone maybe $20 on arrival or departure and tag the money for national parks and local authorities based on the number of visitor numbers they attract. I can almost feel the ripples of horror as I write that. But I believe that much negative reaction to this idea comes from a rather New Zealand-centred perspective. We do not want to charge tourists to visit our national parks, for example, because it is not how we do things.

Maybe our environment is suffering because we have being naive in comparison with global tourism practices. Are we being taken advantage of by some tourists wanting to experience our most precious assets on the cheap? I am not suggesting we exploit our tourists as does happen in many places overseas, but equally we should not allow the reverse either.

Is it time for a reality check on whether this "no charge" approach is sustainable in the future? In Kenya if you want to visit certain national parks as an independent traveller it is going to cost you US$40 per day and then a further US$10 to use a camping ground. There are plenty of other precedents for just such a case. Almost anyone who visits the Great Barrier Reef with a commercial operator will have had A$4.50 (NZ$5.84) added to their ticket cost. This is an environmental management charge aimed at assisting in the care of the reef. I have been fortunate enough to go out to the reef many times and have never heard anyone complain about this. Why would they when the purpose is so obvious.

In some countries, a visitor tax is thinly disguised as a payment for a "visa on arrival". These often involve a simple handing over of cash in exchange for a sticker or stamp in one's passport. There is certainly no in-depth scrutiny of one's suitability. And when the amount is relatively small in comparison with visitors' overall costs it is no deterrent to travel. No-one who is already planning to spend thousands of dollars simply getting to New Zealand, is going to be deterred by the thought of a $20 charge, no matter what it is called.

What about the argument that we do not want one rule for tourists and one for locals?

When I take groups to India, for example, I accept that my Kiwis are going to pay about $23 for their ticket into the Taj Mahal. The locals pay about 60 cents. That is how it is. Visit Egypt and there is a different price for Arabs and non-Arabs. You will be paying to get into their museums too, as you do just about everywhere else. Maybe it is time we moved into line with the rest of the world – if you are a tourist you are going to have to pay for the privilege of visiting another country's unique and precious attractions. That approach certainly has not damaged tourism growth in countries such as Bhutan or Egypt. It need not damage ours.

- © Fairfax NZ News