This symposium has been called to discuss how the public conservation lands and waters should be developed and managed.

The topics set out in the programme are as varied as they are interesting. Many are clearly for specialists. I do believe however there is a gap. It is a gap that is frequently missing from the discussion about conservation and that is to talk about how conservation can contribute more towards the prosperity of New Zealand. What part does conservation have to play in our economy?

I am going to use my time to address that topic.

Why is it that the conservation economy is not a concern that occupies much, if any, time at conservation symposiums?

The obvious answer is because that is not how we think about conservation.

This point is underscored by my department's driving legislation.

The Conservation Act defines conservation as: "...the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for the appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations".

The only direct benefit statement in the Act is to concede that, provided it is not inconsistent with their conservation, the department can use these resources to foster recreation and allow tourism.

So tourism is the only economic contribution from conservation recognised in the Act, and then only in the context of the somewhat restrictive notion of "allow".

Intrinsic, or ethical, values are the primary reason in the Act for conservation.

On that basis, New Zealand has built a $400 million conservation department that is responsible for managing one third of the land, the seabed and foreshore, protected marine areas, and, all marine mammals, native animals, birds and freshwater fish and pest animals.

That is a considerable achievement. It is the basis on which a high level of public support for conservation as a public good has been built.

But in addition to that, if there is an economic benefit, then we should know about it, welcome it, and manage for it, because it strengthens the justification for public and private spending on conservation. It does so by shifting support for conservation from being a social cost to a social investment.

I am talking here about ecosystem services such as water, soil, climate regulation and pollination. These are the services that underpin any economy and determine prosperity. That is so for any economy. It is particularly evident for an economy dependent on farming and eco-based tourism. And it is more particularly so for a country whose point of difference is not price or volume but rather brand value based around world-class environmental standards. The 100 percent pure, clean green brand.

There is little dispute that farming and tourism remain the cornerstones of the economy. I strongly believe that agriculture will play as important a part in NZ's future as it has in the past. The extraordinary new opportunities that have been opened up in our FTAs with China and with South East Asia indicates clearly NZ has a major role in providing foodstuffs to the huge emerging Asian middle class.

Essentially, we are a virtual water exporter. Of the 3% of the planet's water resources that is not salt water, 2/3 of that is locked up in snow and ice. Of the remaining 1 percentage point that is liquid fresh water, 70% globally is used in agriculture. This is a huge strategic advantage to us and highly sophisticated agriculture is an essential part of NZ's economic sustainability. The absurd ‘80s debate about agriculture being a sunset industry is dead, in my view.

However, this strong pro-agriculture perspective does not imply business-as-usual.

First, we need to manage better our abundant water supplies. That is another whole agenda and is deeply complicated.

Second, and more generally, recognition that a central role for agriculture does not just mean ‘business as usual' was well made by both the Prime Minister John Key and Agriculture Minister David Carter when, last month they commented on a new 10-year strategy launched by the dairy industry.

"It is important that farmers step- up and take leadership on meeting some of the environmental challenges that will shape the future of your industry," Mr Key told the farmers. "These challenges include protecting the quality of fresh water resources, responding to global climate change, and ensuring today's natural farming resources are kept in good condition for the farmers of the future. Improving your environmental performance shouldn't just be seen as an issue of compliance with central and local government priorities. Rather it should be seen as an integral part of your future business success."

Mr Carter reminded farmers he was Associate Minister of Agriculture 10 years ago and "since then the biggest change has been a global shift in concern for environmental sustainability".

"The dairy industry needs to understand this concern, because to ignore it is not an option. The dairy industry needs to accept ownership of its environmental performance."

While farming was the context for those comments, the problems and the solutions do not lie with farmers alone. The same challenge could be put to other business sectors, public entities, community groups and households. Managing for a clean, pure approach to environmental management is a New Zealand incorporated issue.

That is the broad scope of environmental management. Conservation sits within that and has a specific role to play. We too need to explore our role in these issues beyond the exclusive appeal to charismatic birds, pretty places and happy trampers.

The most easily understood connection between conservation and the economy is through tourism. Tourism is almost 10 percent of our economy. International visitors spend $8.8 billion a year and account for 18 percent of New Zealand's export earnings.

John Key, the first Prime Minister to also be Tourism Minister, recently set out his vision for tourism. He had this to say:

"Our environment is a huge part of our brand. Climate change awareness, resource shortages, and intolerance of environmental degradation are playing a growing part in the choices that tourists make - especially those from wealthier markets.

"The Government will work to protect the resources that tourism providers rely on - clean air, clean water, and unique landscapes."

New Zealand is, and always will be, known largely for its natural environment and the things that derive from that, such as outdoor adventure, cultural identity, fresh food and quality wine, a peaceful country and safe place to visit. That is what people come to see; the public conservation land, with its national parks and distinct landmarks and wildlife.

That means that my department manages a significant part of the asset base for tourism and the infrastructure it relies on. When the department was established over 20 years ago about 850,000 overseas visitors came here a year. That has grown by almost 200 percent to 2.5 million. DOC plays a central role setting safety standards and regulating for quality and quantity in the tourism industry. This is critical in ensuring that the tourism industry operates sustainably, and that the best possible balance between tourism business needs and conservation is reached.

Tourism focused on marine mammal experiences, for example, must be monitored and controlled to ensure the animals are protected and the business opportunity endures. Likewise numbers must be controlled to ensure tourists attracted by the marketing of a remote wilderness experience get what is promised.

A study by Butcher Partners in 2003 showed the department spends $9 million a year managing the Fiordland National Park. The private sector builds tourism businesses around that and together we generate 1600 jobs and $196 million a year in spending in Southland and the Queenstown Lakes District.

Figures from 2004 show that tourist operators in the Tongariro National Park generated almost 1900 full-time jobs in the Taupo-Ruapehu district. Their customers benefited the local economy to the tune of $60 million. That amounts to $4 dollars injected into the local economy for every one dollar the tourist operators received.

The good economic news is repeated in regions and local economies the length and breadth of New Zealand. For example, a number of farmers along the Otago Rail Trail are now reporting earning as much and more from that tourist development as they are from farming. The role that this sort of initiative has on community, economic, cultural and conservation development is something this government, and DOC, believes we have a role in supporting.

Another example is in Rodney District Council, where a report of 2002 showed the Leigh Marine Reserve north of Auckland attracts 260,000 visitors to the area and $12.5 million in direct spending. A repeat in 2008 showed the spend had increased to $18.6 million; not a bad return from a mere 518 hectares of sea.

The work DOC does now helps to underpin an industry that has a significant impact on our way of life and standard of living.

But DOC's core work is protecting New Zealand's special places and unique biodiversity. So if a case for the conservation economy is to be made, it must encompass that core work of protecting species and places.

The logic is simple enough. Healthy natural biodiversity means healthy ecosystems, and healthy ecosystems deliver well-functioning ecosystem services. Together, these things form natural capital.

Natural capital means the quantity and quality of natural resources available, including those services that lie at the base of economic activity and determine prosperity and poverty alike. These ecosystem services are such things as water yield and quality; soil regeneration and stability; air purification and carbon stocks; pollination; nutrient cycles; fish stocks and other resources of the ocean.

The problems associated with reduced and degraded natural ecosystems and overuse of the ecosystem services they provide to sustain human life can no longer be ignored. Internationally, they are driving poverty and reducing prosperity. We are no longer dealing with forecasts. The issues of climate change are a present danger, not a future risk. And the rapid loss of biodiversity, associated with increasing demand for natural capital, is imposing costs.

There is a robust case that spending public money on restoring, protecting and managing for healthy natural biodiversity is an investment in those well-functioning ecosystem services that lie at the base of any economy. What we don't know in most cases is precisely what that value is. But it certainly is not zero.

Biodiversity has positive economic value and removing or degrading it, threatens the ecosystem it supports and the ecosystem services that flow from that.

That fact, unquantifiable though it may be, is central to New Zealand's point of difference in a harsh trading world. I have spent almost my entire professional life on international trading issues. I know only too well how important maintaining a point of difference is. You can negotiate any number of trade agreements, but in the end freedom of access only provides the chance to convince consumers to buy your product in preference to another.

The demand for consumer goods, and food in particular, that is a product of sustainable environmental practices is growing. And consumers are becoming increasingly sophisticated; unwilling to accept claims that cannot be sourced and validated.

Mr Key commented that the dairy industry's new strategy is happening in the context of "...a world in which consumers are increasingly aware of carbon footprints, climate change and environmental performance". New Zealand has to respond to this, and it is well-placed to do so.

Treasury Secretary John Whitehead commented recently that for all the problems that the world recession brings, there are opportunities.

"Longer term being a primary based economy may hold us in good stead. But this does mean that we will need to think harder as a country about natural resource and environmental issues and how these link with productivity and growth. For example, the allocation of freshwater will be one of the most important things to get right over the next few years, in terms of land use, our quality of living and our country brand."

He concluded: "This is a time to invest in our futures and those of our children. That's in keeping with our values as a nation and it's ultimately how New Zealanders, over time, will be better off".

He is describing, in part, the conservation economy. I want to see New Zealanders encompass it, so that they come to appreciate that conservation is not only in our hearts and minds, but is also the lungs of our economy.

There is always a danger in public comment of being caricatured. When I talk of the ‘conservation economy', the danger here is that some will incorrectly read into that phrase a lack of appreciation of the traditional and intrinsic conservation values - running the whole gamut from the preservationist view (and there must be a place in this wonderful country for the preservationist view to hold sway) to more mainstream public views.

But in trying to highlight the very considerable economic stake NZ has in conservation, my real purpose is to broaden the long term level of public support for conservation. One of the first things the Department gave me when I became Minister was a book by David Young - ‘Our Islands, Our selves: a History of Conservation in New Zealand'. I read it with great care and great interest. And one of the things that struck me most was a passage in that book that said ‘the best investment you can make in conservation is to invest in an educated public'.

I agree strongly with that. And the more the general community understands the economic stake it has in conservation, the more solid the future is likely to be.

Thank you.