OPINION: It is good that Wellington City Council has put its preferred option for the future management of Zealandia out for public consultation.
It is most unfortunate, however, that The Dominion Post entered the debate with an editorial (Sanctuary trust must face reality March 29) that lacks perspective.
It is quite wrong to suggest the trust expects the council to "perpetually serve as an ATM machine". Zealandia is the only major council-partnered attraction that is striving to cover its own costs, and it is well on the way to achieving that.
Its funding request is for $700,000 - not $950,000 - for each of the next three years, reducing steadily thereafter.
The visitor centre concept was to help fund the conservation project and extend the visitor and educational experience. This is hardly revolutionary. Other attractions - like Te Papa and the zoo - have similar revenue-generating activities to help cover operating costs.
The difference is that Zealandia was expected to be self-supporting, even in its first year of operations. The business case for the centre, with its ambitious forecast visitor numbers, was developed in partnership with the council, who voted unanimously for it.
No-one, of course, predicted the global financial crisis or the earthquakes which depressed the economy and took such a toll on international and local tourism just as the centre opened.
Despite that, the visitor centre has not failed nor is it "bleeding money", as the editorial states. Notwithstanding the economic climate, visitors to the sanctuary increased by 42 per cent in the centre's first year of operation, and the centre is making a positive cash contribution to the conservation and education work.
International visitors have grown by 35 per cent in the past seven months, reflecting Zealandia's growing brand presence in international markets. Overseas visitors and media consistently rate it as a 'must-see' attraction. The model is working, just not as quickly as predicted.
The trust did not simply look to the council for a solution: it worked hard to close the gap with new marketing initiatives: Sirocco's (kakapo) visit, the takahe release, a baby tuatara nursery, a free shuttle from the city, free guided tours and ranger talks, extended opening hours, the hosting of 26 weddings, among others.
As a result the shortfall has reduced. Zealandia's ask has accordingly reduced to $700,000 for the next three years, just $100,000 more than it would cost the council to manage the land, which it owns, without the fence, animals or buildings.
BY CONTRAST, the zoo, while undoubtedly an asset to the city, has never been expected to fund itself. It is not economically sustainable.
The zoo is asking for a further $59 million of ratepayers' money over the next 10 years. Its annual grant this year is $2.8 million.
Ratepayers pay $14 per visitor to the zoo, compared with 43 cents per visitor to Zealandia.
Inevitably questions of public good arise. Do ratepayers really get that much more benefit from the zoo than they do from Zealandia, whose 'products' in the form of tui and kaka spill over into the city's gardens?
The editorial also rightly sings the praises of Otari Wilton's Bush and the Botanic Gardens, both also destined to merge with the zoo. In fact both organisations oppose this, and neither sees any potential synergies or savings to be made.
As the editorial notes, the proposal is also anathema to many of the 450 Zealandia volunteers who currently care for the sanctuary, whose time is worth about $900,000 a year. If, as the editorial suggests, the council takes over tending the valley, it would also bear that additional cost.
Volunteer time is but one of the huge donations made to Zealandia.
Over the last 17 years we've raised $16 million (not including council funding). In the past year, we've raised $400,000 and pared costs back to the bone. Staff and managers are all 'hands-on', with a strong volunteerism ethos. It is hard to imagine how a council- controlled organisation would fare running a community project of this nature.
So where are the savings to be made from the proposed 'super' CCO and what do these organisations really have in common? Your article suggests Zealandia could grow visitor numbers by using the "zoo's marketing know- how and database". In fact Zealandia and the zoo could hardly be more different, in terms of target markets, products, supporters, objectives, culture and relevance to Wellington's reputation as an 'eco-friendly' city.
The Zealandia vision, once thought barely credible, is now being proposed as a national vision, as described in the final lecture of our trustee, the late Sir Paul Callaghan. It is difficult indeed to see how the council's proposal to merge Zealandia with the zoo could either support and advance that vision or set the sanctuary on a sustainable economic footing.
Catherine Isaac is the chairwoman of the Karori Sanctuary Trust.
