Site Protection

Site Protection

Public Heritage Lists

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.

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.