Site Protection

Site Protection

Protecting archaeological sites is not only about the future of our interest, it is protecting heritage, particularly where that heritage is open to the appreciation of the general public.

Public Heritage Lists

Site protection through lisiting and scheduling is an option. The following table is from Law and Greig 2004. The different options have their own strengths and weaknesses. They are not mutualy exclusive.

Type of list	Protection	Disadvantages / Weaknesses
World Heritage listing	Enormous moral suasion.	Will only ever cover elite sites. Only one site a year may be nominated. Enforcing legal protection would be expensive.
HPA Registration	Moral protection,  more likely to be protected in RMA plans, must be considered in RMA consents, and HPA notified of consent applications which affect registered sites.	Takes time and effort – will only ever cover important  sites / groups of sites or sites perceived to be under threat. Can be misunderstood as conferring protection.
RMA Plan Schedules	Considerable legal protection.	Local Authorities need a defensible process for the sites being scheduled. The opportunity to have sites included only arises when Plans are reviewed.
Local Government Heritage Inventory	No legal protection but will ensure sites are advised in LIM reports and may form the basis of RMA Plan schedules.	Requires a sustained effort by the TLA to create and maintain an inventory.
Coverage by the HPA archaeological site definition	Opportunity for Legal protection exists via consent process if sites will be affected by any activity.	Reactive. Despite the consent processa lot of sites are lost because they were not known / not valued. Limited to sites covered by the HPA definition.
NZAA SRS record	No legal protection via SRS, but makes it much more likely the HPA will be applied if site meets legal definition. Forms one source of information for local government heritage inventories.	Information is rarely sufficient to directly feed a heritage inventory.

Physical Site Protection

Kevin Jones publicaiton on protecting sites is recommended (Jones 2007)

Covenenants and Trusts

New Zealand Coastal Trust [nzcoastaltrust.com nzcoastaltrust.com] The New Zealand Coastal Trust was established in 2008 to promote the preservation and protection of the coastal environment through voluntary mechanisms. A prime focus of the Trust is to become a party to restrictive covenants and land management agreements which will preserve coastal land, and protect it from subdivision and development, in perpetuity. The need for the Trust was identified through cases where land protection covenenants resulting from subdivisions were held by local authorities but not enforced, or were relaxed after further subdivision proposals were made by new owners.

References

Kevin L. Jones 2007 Caring for archaeological sites Practical guidelines for protecting and managing archaeological sites in New Zealand. Department of Conservation On Line ISBN 978–0–478–14259–4

Garry Law and Karen Grieg 2004 Protecting archaeological heritage through public heritage lists Archaeology in New Zealand 47(2)99-107. See also a letter from Kevin Jones in the subsequent issue.