NZCA Submission

The NZCA reviewed the latest iteration of the National Conservation Policy Statement (NCPS) proposals and provided the following feedback to the Department of Conservation.

Concern regarding the theme of the document

Firstly, we consider the theme for the NCPS “modernising the conservation system” is a misleading title. The proposed document is more of an enabling document, promoting economic development over conservation values. The proposal will reduce the role of the NZCA and Conservation Boards, and therefore the public voice in statutory planning and advisory functions is much reduced.

It is not clear how the proposed actions will result in better conservation outcomes or how they will ensure that biodiversity is protected under the new system. As the system is shaped, optimising conservation outcomes should remain a focus, and it would be helpful to demonstrate through the NCPS how the proposed changes will improve conservation outcomes.

We again reiterate our disappointment in the lack of engagement with the NZCA, Conservation Boards, Iwi and the public in the formulative stages of preparing this policy, which we consider is reflected in the design of the changes where the authorising role of the NZCA on GPNP and CMSs is proposed to be removed in favour of the Minister.

We believe that the feedback that we and others have provided previously, especially the ENGOs, and the PCE in their submissions on the Modernising Conservation Land Management document, has been largely ignored.

Concern regarding the proposed change to the model

The NZCA understand the desire to reduce the complexity that currently faces policy and management planning. However, this proposed system change was developed with no apparent process that reflects the learnings and values systems of conservation that have developed over the last century or so. Additionally, tangata whenua values and engagement in recent decades has also been ignored.

The objective of 'simplicity' is appealing to mono-culturalists and mono-ideologs but conflicts with diversity and plurality of values, approaches, visions and efforts. DOC and government in general should be doing everything to encourage more people to engage in conservation, and we believe that this policy will lead to disengagement of the public with no ability to voice feedback. The proposed changes undermine rather than strengthen engagement with communities.

We continue to argue that the exclusion of the NZCA from the development of this national policy, combined with the removal of the NZCA’s current statutory role in approving General Policy, CMSs and National Park Management plans is deeply concerning. These are very significant changes to longstanding conservation policy and management practices in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Removing the NZCA and Conservation Board from the process removes a level of expertise and oversight, and valuable community voices in the development of the NCPS and Area Plans. This policy will make the Minister responsible for both decision making on concessions and setting the new NCPS and area plan framework. Retaining the approval of the NZCA and/or Conservation Boards would help to align the system with governance best practice principles and provide a valuable check and balance.

Particularly concerning is the proposed removal of public submission and hearing processes in the statutory planning process. These processes give the public a voice in the management of the very special lands and waters that make up our national parks, reserves and conservation areas. They also inform the process, with public submissions often providing key information regarding values, including in relation to biodiversity, recreation, tourism, and cultural heritage.

More clarity is needed on the proposed changes

There is little information in the paper about how concession applications will be managed, other than exempt or pre-approved concessions. This is of importance to people that have a commercial / business interest on the Conservation estate. It is important that businesses are able to secure long-term concessions on commercially reasonable terms, to encourage and support sustainable investment in public conservation land, producing better visitor experiences and ultimately better conservation outcomes.

Neither the NCPS nor the area plans will contain detail of any applicable limits on access to public conservation land, group sizes, frequency, times of access etc. Instead, it is proposed that matters such as these will be managed through bylaws, concession conditions and congestion management tools such as booking systems.

The NCPS and area plans must be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances, and it is not yet clear how they will be constructed in a way that achieves this. Current plans have proved too inflexible to adapt to technological advances and changing environments, stymieing growth and innovation. This is an opportunity to build a system that can respond to change, to encourage innovative thinking in relation to activities on PCL and ensure that the framework remains fit for purpose over time.

Area plans, and identification of values

This aspect of the proposal appears to be aspirational in nature. Over successive decades, the Department of Conservation has not been provided with the resources to ensure it can keep existing CMSs up to date and current. The Authority have only been asked to approve eight CMSs in the last 12 years, and many are now well overdue for review. Yet it is proposed that within 12 months, with no extra resources, DOC will prepare detailed area plans for the entire country.

Experience would suggest that this is most unlikely to be achieved, or that the quality and detail of those area plans produced is unlikely to be to the level envisaged and required.

The proposal reveals little regard for the complex site-based consultation and levels of local understanding that will be needed in determining the location of each zone, including any adjacency effects. This lack of consideration also suggests the Department may lack the necessary skills and/or capacity to determine these, especially at the pace of establishment (12 months) for the first set of Area Plans being established.

It is proposed that area plans will describe the specific natural and cultural heritage values of protected areas and species, to a level that will enable assessment of the impacts of proposed activities, and application of the principle of active protection. However, biodiversity is cryptic, and values are not universally known, documented or recorded across public conservation lands and waters.

The level of information required to support robust assessment of impacts of activities, particularly large-scale development proposals that are not ‘exempt’ or ‘pre-approved’ is, for many parts of the country, unlikely to be able to simply be rolled over from an existing, out of date, CMS, or other desktop sources.

Identification and verification of values, at site, is fundamental to robust impact assessment. This is particularly so with proposals for developments (concessions, mining etc) within protected public conservation lands.

It is for this reason that an ‘assessment of environmental effects’ (under the RMA and Conservation Act) is required to include ‘such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment’.

If the description of values in area plans is to be used to assess concession applications, or other development proposals, it will be essential for the values, including biodiversity values, to be described in sufficient detail so as to enable robust analysis and assessment of the effects of all manner of possible applications.

Generic, high-level descriptions will not be informative, enable proper assessment of applications or facilitate suitably informed decision making. As noted, area plans are likely to cover large and varied land and seascapes.

We urge that the department:

• Establishes an external expert panel to set out a full range of likely issues and options including undertaking a peer review of current Department best practice for determining the location of these zones.
• The Department ensure determination of zones is based around a precautionary principle so unexpected negative effects to conservation values can be avoided.
• Ensure that robust local consultation through the use of conservation boards, iwi and/or the community underpins any process.

Land classifications and visitor zones

Breaking up Conservation land into various ‘visitor zones’ implies a foundational purpose of conservation lands is to be a recreation site for different visitor demographics. The Act is clear that recreation and tourism is only to take place if associated activities are not inconsistent with the land’s management for conservation purposes.

It is recommended that the classification be changed from ‘visitor zone’ to ‘visitor activities zone’ so that the department’s focus remains on management of the effects that may come from any visitor activities, rather than as sites established for different recreation and tourism demographics.

The paper lists five generic “economically significant activities” (at the bottom of pg. 8). All can vary significantly in scale, intensity and effect. Within any zone, what may be appropriate at one scale, may not be at another scale. Similarly, cumulative effects of multiple activities also need to be considered.

All of the five listed activities are likely to be inconsistent with a wilderness zone classification, and dependent on scale, may also be inconsistent with back country or remote zones.

Exempt and pre-approved activities

All proposed “pre-approved” activities should have standardised conditions that cover matters such as group sizes (to manage cumulative effects), fees (to contribute to maintenance and upkeep of facilities utilised). Some areas will have limited carrying capacity or opportunity for additional concessionaires and so should be excluded from pre-approved opportunities.

Transportation needs to clearly state this applies only to road-based transport

Consideration for the use of huts on commercial guided overnight on formed tracks needs reviewing. The current example suggests operators will be to guide and/or on-sell ‘DIY guided experiences’ on Great Walks public huts (like the Milford Track), and/or establish ‘Great Walk-lite’ versions of guided walks on popular tracks (for example the Young/Siberia, Brewster Hut etc) with commercial volume from a few operators quickly able to ‘book out’ across much of a season whole huts.

Drones can have a significant adverse effect on other users and are likely to be inconsistent with expectations on all public conservation lands and waters, other than perhaps in an urban zone setting. They should not be pre-approved, or exempt, except possibly for bona-fide conservation management purposes.

Pre-approved collection of rocks must not enable removal of or damage to geological features (including fossils) within protected areas.

Clearly specifying the scale or intensity of pre-approved and exempt activities will be essential if the system is to work as intended.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Section 4 requirements

After reviewing the paper, we have come to fully appreciate the Section 4 of the Conservation Act (s4) impacts and the flawed assessment approach within the regulatory impact statement. While the Minister and DOC have indicated that they’re not revising s4, we believe they are deliberately narrowing its applications:

• s4 currently operates as an overarching principle requiring all decisions under the Conservation Act to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The reform proposes to codify s4 obligations into specific processes (management planning, concessions, and land exchanges/disposals).

Compliance with these codified steps is deemed “sufficient” by DOC and the Minister to meet s4 obligations.

This narrows s4 from a system-wide interpretive principle into a checklist of statutory requirements:

• The proposed model may reduce the breadth of judicially recognised protections under s4 (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki v Minister of Conservation), by channelling the Treaty duty into a series of codified steps rather than preserving it as a high-level, overarching interpretive principle.

Treaty partners are likely to view this as narrowing s4, converting it into a compliance checklist for specified processes (management planning, concessions, land exchanges/disposals) rather than a principle that informs all decisions across the system.
The paper argues that codification offers certainty for decision-makers and concessionaires, reducing litigation risk and delays.

However, efficiency gains will come at the expense of Māori rights, weakening the intent of s4 as a guiding Treaty standard. It requires/ed more in-depth assessment and engagement.

International commitments

The Authority believes that the NCPS must recognise New Zealand’s international commitments. Our biodiversity policy won’t just be judged domestically; it will also be seen in the context of the promises New Zealand has made internationally and the expectations of our trade and investment partners.

Specifically:

• Global agreements: NZ has adopted the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including the 30x30 target. Linking the NCPS to this shows how domestic policy contributes to global commitments.
• Trade and markets: Key partners like the EU, UK and US are embedding biodiversity standards into trade rules and due diligence laws. Weak policy risks undercutting exporters and the “NZ Inc” brand.
• Investment credibility: Investors are being pushed to consider nature-related risks. A credible NCPS signals that New Zealand is addressing this, which helps maintain confidence.

Concluding comments

Overall, the process has been unsettling for the NZCA due to the lack of public and iwi engagement and sidelining of the statutory bodies like NZCA and Conservation Boards in the development of this policy.

While we agree that enabling policy, plan and concession processes to be harmonised, and the stated objective of increasing economic returns from conservation lands is understandable, the rushed process and focus on ‘opening’ access, use and commercial use of public conservation land has the potential for outcomes that overlook the big issues of biodiversity loss, lack of resourcing and the need for comprehensive legislative review.

The NZCA have been advocating for change to the system for a number of years, and have sought genuine engagement, we are not convinced the system proposed is sufficiently well thought through to deliver the outcomes needed.