The following analysis by Liz Melling is a must read for all Kangaroo Island residents, and all its property owners. The author exposes clearly that an ad hoc “Authority” (keyword, this…), unelected and rather shadowy, nevertheless endowed with vast power by the State government, plans to shatter the present balance between tourism and the conservation of the island’s unique nature.
Clearly, the very nature of Kangaroo Island and its quality of life are at stake here, and this is left to be decided at the hands of a group which either knows too well what it’s doing, or simply does not understand much of what it is being brought to do…
Just ponder the following comment made by KIFA, it summarises the mindset of its blind-alley approach: “That said, Kangaroo Island is a big place with very few people, if every person on earth was given one square metre, the planet’s entire population would fit on it.” [sic!]
Right… “Make room! Make room!“, eh?
Links to articles related to the matter can be found at the bottom of this fundamental article (highlighting by the webmaster).
– Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island
*****************
Some reflections on “paradise” and the future
May, 2012.
An article written by Liz Melling, and previously published in a local newsletter.
Most Island people are, I believe, unaware of the fundamental changes to process that have occurred with the establishment of KIFA, the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority, changes that have remained unchallenged by Council and by the KI community. The two main recommendations of the report, drawn from a host of research papers and discussions with representatives of various organizations and identities, are set in very narrow economic mind-terms.
To improve the Kangaroo Island quality of life the KIFA has only two strategies. Within 10 years they will:
– double the number of tourists coming to the Island, and
– double the farm-gate output.
These recommendations are now being implemented.
Interestingly, the report also recommended that major planning approval vested in the Minister is informed solely on advice from KIFA. KIFA will also fund and manage TOMM for 5 years and use this as a tool to measure the success of its own outcomes.
This Authority, KIFA, has therefore vested in it the main say on all major developments on Kangaroo Island, as well as control and management of the only feedback tool, TOMM – which was originally an independent and more holistic model for a wider section of our community than it now appears to be.
There are a number of assumptions that the report makes which also need to be challenged.
The concept that doubling tourism numbers leads to an improvement in the quality of life of most Islanders is subjective and highly speculative to say the least. No evidence is available to quantify what “quality of life” means to the community, but it is certain that it is not simply economic. It could well have unintended impacts on currently held common community values such as “Living in a beautiful natural environment”.
The words retreat, remote, natural, peaceful and pristine are all terms used in either Council’s own Development Plan or the KI Tourism Strategy plan; yet a doubling of tourist numbers and the allied increase in population would seriously challenge the maintenance of those values.
A classic case study for this is the township of Queenstown in New Zealand. bungee jumping, jet boating, parachuting in the Sounds and helicopter ridesare promoted and eagerly sought after by a range of international and domestic tourists who come there for that excitement, the wow factor.
However, most of those activities would be just as exciting in any setting, and do not need placement in pristine environments or areas of great environmental value.
Unfortunately these activities impacted negatively on tourism operators who deal in environmental, wildlife, natural or scenic values. Wilderness or marine environment experiences become difficult to promote if wow or adrenaline activities are promoted under council development plans.
A doubling of businesses operating at marginal levels and the introduction of parasitic tourist operations is a real risk to existing businesses on Kangaroo Island. Instead of achieving higher incomes K.I. businesses could end up at operating at increasingly marginal levels, their turnover negatively affected by “leech” and “wow”operations and competing businesses of a similar nature. Unless the community and the council have significant power in controlling development and in promoting those developments seen as beneficial to the community and in line with all its values, then we are as a community at risk of losing what we value most.
A Major Development Approval system where the Minister implements state planning outcomes and is advised by only one source, the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority, should be viewed with some caution. This is particularly so because the Futures Authority has a narrow viewpoint but a lot of leeway in advising the Minister to approve developments which double tourist numbers over a ten year period – without any apparent consideration of longer term impacts. It is then even more critical that the feedback to the Authority is independent and that TOMM committee is broad-reaching in its investigation and analysis of the effects of tourism on the social as well as the economic fabric of our community.
Had a wider and more inclusive group been involved in formulating the “Paradise Girt by Sea” recommendations, I believe the outcome would have been enlarged in scope and more socially and environmentally inclusive. This lack of broadness in listening to and interpreting a wide range of previous research is an issue. Let us not forget that this is an Economic Report drawn up for the Economic Board. It has been acted on by Government and has become almost by default the vision which will drive what Kangaroo Island society and community will become.
While there is a lot of practical economic sense in this report and it is wide ranging in its considerations of the economic challenges facing the island, these are not the only challenges to any community. “Good jobs and good pay” are important but we need to look carefully at what jobs and whose jobs, and to analyze costs as well as the benefits. This report argues the case for an economic solution – the report reflects only this point of view.
This comment drawn from the section on social and economic development in “Paradise girt by Sea” is a case in point:
“Quite obviously, these decent KI jobs and good KI incomes depend wholly on maintaining and preserving the islands wilderness and wildlife, its unspoilt solitude, its clean island pure environment. Too many people too soon could imperil the very environmental amenity that makes the island so appealing. That said, Kangaroo Island is a big place with very few people, if every person on earth was given one square metre, the planet’s entire population would fit on it.”
This comment falls far short of a reasoned and considered response to the impact of increased tourist numbers on Kangaroo Islands community. It trivialises the environment as an appealing amenity, a viewpoint and an opinion which many in this community would not share. This narrowness of interpretation, both in research and methodology, is a reflection of what the report was intended to be – an economic response. It is a very real concern that it has become, by default, the vision maker for our community. This should not be the case. As a community and as a council is this economic solution all we want? Why should we have double tourist numbers to get a better airport, better roads or wharf development at Kingscote?
The political decision has been made that tourism numbers will double in the next 10 years and that the Futures Authority will oversee, facilitate and in some cases fund those changes. It is again a hidden assumption that an improvement in infrastructure like the airport, the roads and the wharf area must be linked to a doubling of tourists and the rather fickle income that they bring. That is not the only way to fund such improvements and I question our continuing drive to accept tourism as the means by which we improve the quality of our infrastructure and for that matter the quality of our lives.
This decision is particularly disturbing in its implications for the environment. The only recommendation that pertains to the management of this large increase in tourist numbers for public parks is “that more formal and informal consultations should take place between local Kangaroo Island Parks management and KIFA”.
Without proper consideration of the impact doubling tourist numbers will have on the park system, and without the provision of adequate resourcing, the public park system will clearly become more commercialized and less available to those with lower financial resources. The private system benefits through increased money flow or profitability while the public system is further eroded in its services due to this commercialization.
Vesting Major Development Approval in the Minister and KIFA to facilitate the growth of “high end” accommodation and services, is a strategy clearly identified in both the report and the KI Strategic Tourism Plan as a major thrust. This process also enables large-scale monied or contentious developments to engage directly at a ministerial level through lobby groups and deputations. There is no opportunity for engaged local community input.This approval process does not allow proper community debate or discussion around the increase of “high end” tourism developments which will surely be located in our most pristine and wild environments.
Separating the community from the approval process and effectively silencing the conservation, humanist and social voices of our community whilst devolving power to business interests can only lead to a fracturing of social life, to stress, dissent and dissatisfaction. This is not an improvement in the “quality of life”.
What needs to be addressed includes:
– Direct and engaged community input to fast track development and the development of managed forums and productive engaged community debate around tourist developments their positioning and profile.
– Common ground agreement about the exclusion of business and tourist development particularly those of a parasitic nature or those that do not directly benefit the island lifestyle, values and community.
– Support and resources for the improvement and maintenance of our natural ecosystems in the marine environment and on private and public lands; increased funding for public parks rather that the commercialization of services to cope with increased demand.
– International business and commercial operators who use Parks SA: a revision of their cost to the park system and an end to the subsidization of business and overseas visitors as part of their business to be charged at cost for their use of those services. At present international visitors are subsidised by taxpayers money. Any organisation which uses parks for commercial purposes should pay a fee which reflects costs.
– An independent, autonomous TOMM and a restructured committee allowing increased community input-particularly in the area of health, environment and conservation values.
Get involved, read the report and have your say.
Written and authorised by Liz Melling, May 2012
“The Wallaby Run”
Pelican Lagoon,
Kangaroo Island.
See also:
KIFA’s narrow objectives are those of government and tourism developers — Cr Walkom, 2014.05.18
“A 2005 enquiry into the financial sustainability of local government in South Australia, determined that Kangaroo Island Council was unsustainable, due to its large land area, extensive road network, low population and high tourism visitation. A long term financial plan adopted by council includes a rate increase of 2% above CPI for the ten years from 2010.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Island)
I know that Council have approached the state government many times with ideas to improve the island economy so I would have thought that anything which brings the prospect of an increase in the island’s income would be welcome. The establishment of KIFA does at least show that the state government realises that there is a problem on the island which needs to be addressed. I for one would like to avoid having to pay more rates for fewer services every year.
The author’s comparison of KI with Queenstown is very relevant – both places are somewhat remote and both are areas of outstanding natural beauty. (I should state that I only know Queenstown by reputation – I have been to Milford, but so far have missed out on the delights of Queenstown.) But I really don’t see that the introduction of a few “wow” factors to KI would go amiss. In fact we already have some – the Tourism Kangaroo Island website lists quad bikes, sandboarding, kayak tours, marine tours and swimming with dolphins.
We don’t have any fast-flowing rivers so white water rafting is unlikely to take hold as it has done in Queenstown; and we don’t have deep ravines with bridges from which bungy jumping can be conducted. What would be wrong with skydiving and microlight flights? I saw skydiving at Taupo this year and wouldn’t have noticed it if it had not been pointed out; and enjoyed a microlight flight at Bright, Vic without apparently upsetting locals of any number of legs. Might make a bit of money for the airport, too. Incidentally, it would be nice to know the source for the statement that “these activities impacted negatively on tourism operators who deal in environmental, wildlife, natural or scenic values”.
And whilst on the subject of the airport – sorry, but no-one is going to provide us with improved facilities of any sort unless they are going to be used.
The author states “A doubling of businesses operating at marginal levels and the introduction of parasitic tourist operations is a real risk to existing businesses on Kangaroo Island.” without telling us what she considers a “parasitic” (or “leech”) operation to be. Sorry again, but business is business and our existing operators may need to respond to some new challenges – they do have the advantage of knowing the turf so should be off to a good start.
I accept that the statement that the world’s population would fit onto KI is silly and not terribly relevant. However, it does indicate that there is plenty of room for alternative activities. Let’s have a few alternatives that our visitors can do when they need a break from nature.
Let us not condemn KIFA’s activities until we know what results they will bring. I feel that the author makes too many assumptions. Let your glass be half full and not half empty.
I do, however, share the author’s concerns about how KIFA is operating. There has been almost no involvement of the community and it would be good to know what is going on – we do live here and can expect to be affected by their recommendations. Of course, there is at least one contributor to this blog who suggests that Council should be replaced by an administrator – maybe they have been!