Submission on EDS Draft Report: Restoring Nature – reform of the conservation management system

Overview Statements

1. The New Zealand Conservation Authority (Authority) acknowledges the significant effort undertaken by EDS to prepare a comprehensive report on the Department of Conservation (Department), the legislative framework, and the complex statutory and administrative functions that extend across one third of the land area of NZ, plus responsibilities in the marine space.
2. We acknowledge the source documents that contribute significantly to the reports detail, albeit we note the report focus is not uniform across what is a very broad brief. However, the report provides a very good compilation of the conservation management system and issues of an aged legislative framework.
3. The authors could perhaps reflect on the purpose of their report: it is not clear to us if they are attempting a manifesto to be pragmatically implemented by the present Minister of Conservation, or making a bold statement that sets ideal but unachievable goals. We suggest it leans towards the latter, but that we would be better served by the former. Should this be the case, the report must become acceptable to the entire outdoor constituency or no politician will consider it, for, as Jean-Claude Juncker put it, “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it”.
4. The second shortcoming of the report is that it neglects to propose a new definition of ‘Conservation’, or at least one that would be broadly acceptable. In New Zealand, ‘Conservation’ is already and irretrievably linked in many people’s minds to the Conservation Act 1987 (Act), in good and bad ways, but always with existing knowledge and, especially, history. It is evident even within the Authority that ‘Conservation’ has a wide range of meaning, ranging from ‘Tikanga’ through ‘Recreation’ to ‘Tourism’ as well as conservation of species and habitat. The discussion on the “Conservation System” and “Conservation Legislation” in Part One is, overall, solid, but it is a central failing of the report that having asked, “What is conservation?” (p18), it then omits to propose a new definition. Without a new definition that can be broadly adopted by all nature conservationists, Māori, recreationalists, and tourist operators, it will be hard to gain traction. “What is conservation? “is the paramount question asked by recent Ministers of Conservation, recreationalists and ourselves and, without an accepted answer, it is hard to see how progress can be made. Whether we like it or not, the other question that must be answered unequivocally is, who ‘owns’ the land (including its resources), meaning, who manages it for who?
5. That the Department and many governments could make no headway with widespread 1080 poisoning until recently, despite the science clearly showing it efficacy, provides a salutary lesson to us all.
6. The Authority provide comment on aspects of the report that it has direct experience in and consider the detail contained in the full report requires more time than has been allotted for feedback to EDS.

NZCA Feedback on the Report

7. Pg 8-13: The Introduction does not acknowledge the fact that NZCA was a key player in commissioning the report that EDS released in April 2023, which came about because of the Authority’s reports to the Minister of Conservation in December 2020 and April 2021. The EDS 2023 report – framed here as their “independent review of the conservation management planning system” – did not address the Terms of Reference they were contracted to address and strayed into territory already covered by the Options Development Group, established to examine potential options for the reviews of the Conservation General Policy and the General Policy for National Parks.
8. We feel that the level of misrepresentation/ incorrect recollection of history must be pointed out. The Authority has been trying to get movement from the Department on conservation management planning for years – and has been actively seeking pathways to make this happen. The EDS report did not assist the specific areas we wanted to have addressed.
9. Pg 11, last para – “Government subsequently acknowledged…”: the need for law reform has been writ large for years and discussed in many fora – it was not the result of the work of EDS. Eugenie Sage, early in her term as Minister (2017-20) spoke very frankly about the inadequacies of the Wildlife Act and the Conservation Act (to name just two) in an address to an Australasian ecology and taxonomy conference– and there have been others speaking about this for years. In the early 2000s the Authority discussed the need for reform of the Wildlife Act, the Marine Reserves Act, and issues with the Conservation Act.
10. Pg 18: Fundamental reform and the associated risks – this is well expressed.
11. Pg 23: footnote 85 – should be 2023 not 2021.
12. Pg 24: issues about indigenous, non-indigenous species and also freshwater fisheries– these are important issues and the report does tease these out well.
13. Pg 28: valuable to highlight the public interest elements in the Reserves Act.
14. Pg 32 and elsewhere: useful discussion about natural and historic heritage vs resource – value in reconsidering language used.
15. Pg 33-34: also useful teasing out differences between “ecological integrity” and “ecological health” and relative merits/issues associated with this language.

Chapter 5: Climate change

16. A focus on climate is essential for the Department and NZ as a whole – and there were some very good examples in this chapter and useful material teasing out components/issues. However, we were very surprised that this chapter did not mention IPBES and all the work that has been underway since ca. 2010 with its establishment in 2012.
17. There are real risks to biodiversity with some climate ‘solutions’ that are being proposed – these joint crises (climate and biodiversity) need to be dealt with in tandem. NZ needs to make best use of resources and research enabled by IPBES (and other international and national agencies).
18. As far as we could see there is also no reference to the work in NZ and elsewhere on nature-based solutions (e.g. driven by IUCN, IPBES, etc) – these will be essential for future planning and conservation/restoration/enhancement in NZ. Currently, the legislation is very challenging for some types of restoration work and is not factoring in future scenarios/enabling time-critical responses where needed, etc.

Chapter 6: Introduced species management

19. The section dealing with introduced species needs very careful rethinking to make it palatable: Prime Minister Helen Clark’s government may largely have been unenthusiastic about establishing the Game Animal Council, but they did so for political reasons that the authors could contemplate further. The simple fact is that many New Zealanders enjoy shooting exotic ducks and deer, and catching trout. This is regardless of the environmental damage these introduced birds, animals, and fish cause.
20. Further, it is not likely that even in the time of any new conservation legislation that these species will be eradicated from our public conservation lands. The authors need to finesse their approach to these species.
21. The report fails to properly address “deer stalking” and “deer hunting”. For some people, these activities are for subsistence existence, while for others they are recreation. Even the Game Animal Council struggles to accommodate the wide range of reasons people hunt animals. Not addressing these issues detracts from the value of the report, and suggesting that the Game Animal Council be disestablished without proposing a workable replacement will win few supporters in that influential camp.
22. It is always worthwhile testing ideas with real-life cases: on Stewart Island/Rakiura, one can find at Mason’s Bay more blackbirds than native birds; how should these non-native species be dealt with under the existing legislation or any proposed legislation dealing with introduced species that also will have to deal with deer? It is not clear to us that the suggestions presented in this report can adequately deal with blackbirds in national parks and at the same time deal with runaway deer populations.
23. Pg 100: we strongly agree with the green box – that there is scant legislative provision for protection of plants or the control of invasive ones – this can be applied to land, freshwater and marine environments.

Chapter 7: Tourism management

24. In recent times, it has become somewhat evident that the Department has been at a loss as how to treat recreation. The word clouds generated from the texts of the National Parks Act 1980 and Marine Reserves Act 1971 (Figure 2.2) and Te Mana o Te Taiao (Figure 2.4) all omit “recreation” and—while it may seem trite to say so—“fun”. Fun shouldn’t be underestimated: while skiers on Whakapapa may enjoy the semi-natural environment of the ski slopes within the national park, they are there primarily for fun and not to commune with nature; alpine crag climbers at Homer want adrenaline not scenery, though they do appreciate it when resting. Some hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders go into our outdoors each year to recreate and any conservation legislation will necessarily have to deal with recreation.
25. The report dances around addressing “recreation” other than acknowledging a ”…strong element in the Reserves Act’s protection of the ‘public interest’ is in providing for the ability of people to use and enjoy natural areas including for recreational activities, their educational value and to appreciate their aesthetics”. This is an extremely serious shortcoming and if the report is to enjoy widespread support, it will need to properly engage with recreationalists and recreation. To leave recreation in the report as some understudy of tourism is inadequate.
26. In passing, a study of Hansard shows that the words ‘foster’ and ‘allow’ in section 6(e) of the Act, i.e. “..foster recreation and allow tourism..” were deliberately chosen. There is an implicit hierarchy here, albeit one that the Department has always been reluctant to allow, placing public recreational activities over pecuniary gain. In fact, there is nowhere else in the Act that even allows that making money is sufficient reason to undertake an activity on Conservation land. The Department has always argued that it is impossible to differentiate tourism from recreation (e.g. departmental planners Page 4 of 9complained that they could not differentiate between a guided mountaineering party (tourism) and a non-guided mountaineering party (recreationalists) in Mt Cook/Aoraki National Park), but this reflects a lack of administrative will rather than anything else. The report would benefit from addressing such issues.

Chapter 9: Conservation management planning

27. Pg 142-143: agree with green boxes on these pages – these are views that have been expressed by NZCA.
28. Pg 147-8: we are very nervous about a Conservation Policy Statement (as outlined here) that would be approved by Minister – we need something more stable and less vulnerable to party politics. In addition, this hierarchy will require amendments to both the Act and the National Parks Act 1980.

Chapter 10: Funding conservation

29. Some good and important issues raised here. It would be useful to put the budget for the Game Animal Council alongside the budgets for the Authority and Conservation Boards in figure 10.2 (this is pointed out on page 186 – but worth highlighting in this section as well).

Chapter 11: Conservation institutions

30. Some good points about the alignment of management boundaries and Boards - 11.1.4 – green box (b) (Pg 161).
31. We are not sure about 11.2.4 green box (e) – we have seen the negative impacts of regional fiefdoms in the past – there needs to be a level of consistency and national oversight – alongside good local relationships.

Kura Taiao Council (pages 167 – 169)

32. The recommendation for a Kura Taiao Council (source; Waitangi Tribunal Report on Wai 262) would involve reshaping of the Authority to separate out functions that relate to iwi and hapū, Māori. The resulting national Māori entity would have the same characteristics that any national body representing Māori; of disconnecting the mana, role and function of whānau, hapū and iwi in their respective areas of mana and authority. The bespoke Treaty settlement mechanisms very much reflect hapū and iwi engaging in and exercising rangatiratanga over their traditional areas, and negotiating outcomes that are relevant to their particular place, resources and traditions.
33. It is unclear how a national Māori ‘authority’ would satisfy the need to recognise kaitiakitanga at the flax roots level, honour the diversity and aspirations of hapū and iwi at place and address the difficulty of decision making involving respective maunga, awa or whenua and the whakapapa that aligns to place.
34. It would seem that the Kura Taiao could only be an artificial stepping stone toward mana motuhake that hapū and iwi seek in the restoration of their mātauranga and connection to their wāhi taonga, and partnership at place with the Department.
35. In any case, it is for Māori to comment on the suitability of a Kura Taiao national body and whether it would meet their expectations in terms of Treaty rights and interests. It is noted the functions of the Kura Taiao Council are recommended as provision of advice, policy, oversight and review, research, and support of iwi and hapū. However, what may not have been considered by EDS is that the membership of the Authority that carries out many of the functions proposed for Te Kura Taiao has increasing levels of Māori membership, up to and beyond 50% in fact, reflecting the increased engagement and attention to s.4.
36. The benefit of mixed membership of the Authority with an emphasis on strong Māori membership is that the integration and giving effect to Māori values and interests benefits not only iwi and hapū but builds partnership and commitment across the conservation sector. It also reduces the potential for division and misunderstanding.
37. The ‘report’, while dated December 2023, does not appear to take into account the new coalition government’s policies, aspects of which would seem to be counter to the concept of national Māori bodies, preferring it would seem partnerships at place with iwi and hapū.

Kura Taiao Boards

38. The report’s suggested formation of ‘Kura Taiao Boards’, on the other hand, could have some potential in that they could be more closely reflective of the local level hapū and iwi structure or frameworks, and hence less an artificial imposition on mana motuhake of mana whenua. Equally, as with the Authority example of increased Māori membership and leadership, the integrated model but with stronger Māori membership on the current conservation boards has merit that is worthy of consideration.
39. The current structural arrangements of the Department which fail to align conservation board areas with departmental operating areas adds a level of complexity that must have a compounding effect on management planning processes when boundaries misalign.

General statement

40. Similarly, to have a two Board structure with Kura Taiao Boards as well as Conservation Boards, seems to introduce a layer of potential complexity and confusion. We would recommend that it seems much better to strengthen the Boards, enable better representation, and address issues through the Boards – with local solutions.
41. There needs to be “institutional innovation” but the green box on page 164 didn’t give us any sense of clarity about how things would work.
42. Use of the word ‘interests’ – we feel EDS is misinterpreting this (e.g. page 178 in relation to membership of Conservation Boards). We read “interests” as meaning “skills, knowledge and expertise” – so it is not clear why EDS is making this distinction.
43. At present we give much wider scope to considering the balance of appointments including membership of Māori, gender, rural/urban, as well as geographic spread –these are not mentioned by EDS

Section 11.5: New Zealand Conservation Authority

44. Pg 179-182: agree with analysis and comparison with Nature Conservation Council. Staffing levels mentioned in paragraph 2 on page 182 would certainly make a difference for us all.
45. Pg 182-183 - 11.5.2: again, there is confusion on the part of EDS as to what “interests” mean. This section seems to see members of the Authority as direct representatives of the nominating bodies whereas in fact they are nominees with relevant experience, skills, and knowledge, drawn from different sectors, all with relevance to conservation.
46. To regard the Authority as being made up of stakeholders is a gross misrepresentation we feel. The description of the Authority being a stakeholder representative model does not accurately reflect the role of independent advisor to the Minister and Director-General. The Authority functions in a professional manner, some members are drawn from nominations of a range of stakeholders where individually they are required as Authority members to act to achieve the best outcomes for conservation. The interests of the nominating body do not influence decision-making, but the experience and knowledge a member may have from their associations may assist in informing discussions and decisions.
47. The suggestion that the Royal Society of New Zealand and Forest and Bird could (grudgingly) deserve representation on the Authority because of their “historical advocacy” shows there are serious flaws in this thinking:

• Royal Society of New Zealand, Federated Mountain Clubs and Forest and Bird recommend members to the Authority, not to act as representatives of their organisations, but because of their knowledge, understanding and awareness of the social context of the material put before the Authority to consider. These members are better considered as subject matter experts with considerable institutional memory.
• Allowing any organisation to continue to have a right to recommend appointments because of their “historical advocacy” is illogical. While past efforts may well be an indication of future efforts, it is a fallacy to assume that past performance alone provides a guarantee of future performance.
• That the authors could overlook (or snub) Federated Mountain Clubs’ historical advocacy would seem to confirm the dismissive view the authors would appear to hold towards recreation. Federated Mountain Clubs has achieved notable success in making both conservation and recreation gains in our public lands, beginning with opening the Hermitage area to the public in 1937, to the creation of six conservation parks arising from a campaign they initiated and was launched with Forest and Bird in 2005, through to the lead it took in quietly but effectively advocating for aerial 1080 earlier this century in support of the PCE’s efforts. To imply through omission that FMC should not continue to make a recommendation to the Authority because they have little or no “historical advocacy” is unjust and unfair.

• We consider that the depth of understanding, institutional memory, and awareness that members appointed to the Authority by the Minister on the recommendation of Forest and Bird, RSNZ and FMC in aggregate provide a richness to discussions at, and decisions by, the Authority and that losing any of these special appointments would be to the detriment of the Authority. Further, it would be naive to expect that, even in New Zealand, there is no political sway in the Minister’s considerations of whom he or she appoints to the Authority. Recommendations by politically neutral entities such as Forest and Bird, RSNZ and FMC leaven such effects in a positive manner.

48. Pg 185: we were puzzled by this table as we had discussions and meetings with Ministers in which a number of issues were traversed that are not reflected here. Sometimes our independent advice is given in meetings where the material discussed is not minuted in detail – but nonetheless, independent advice is provided and acknowledged by the Minister – and similarly there have been occasions where ministers have sought our views in discussions about some key topics.
49. Pg 186: what do you mean that the Authority doesn’t have our own secretariat? The servicing team (Executive Officer and two staff) do other things apart from servicing the Authority – is the idea that this would be outside the Department? It is perfectly reasonable for the Department to provide appropriate independent secretariat services from within the Department.

11.5.5: Recommendations for reform

50. We strongly disagree with the transfer of approval functions from the Authority to Ministers. There is too much vulnerability to party political issues – the conservation system needs, as much as is possible, a focus on long-term outcomes and multigenerational aspirations and futures. We think the Authority is much more capable than Ministers would be of addressing both the detail and specific issues in the planning system as well as big picture concepts and national consistency.
51. With respect to the Minister assuming the sign off for CMS s/ NPMPs, this seems a little ambitious; Ministers in recent years have not generally held their portfolio for any length of time, and often hold additional ministerial roles besides conservation, which can dilute the time and attention the Minister can apply to conservation matters. For example, there have been five Ministers in the last five years, with each minister taking a time to get up to speed and be able to fully exercise the ministerial function. In such a scenario, progressing functions such as approving management plans would default to staff of the department and Minister’s office. Compared to, for example, the Authority whose members are appointed for three-year terms, with duties to approve CMS and NPMP’s. The reduction in the rate of approvals in the last 7 years relates to the inability of the Department to conduct reviews within the 10-year plan lifetime. This failure to adhere to the 10-year review target has been of significant concern for conservation boards across the country, an issue compounded by departmental business planning and management planning being disconnected.
52. We believe there may be value in considering some of the functions previously held by the Nature Conservation Council – but this would require much greater resourcing.
53. We consider the Authority already is an expert body – and we have the capacity across the membership to tap into resources and other expert information to inform our discussions and decisions. In the list of expert body members there is no reference to tourism or recreation, both of which are highly relevant to the work of the Authority.
54. It appears that the proposed introduction of the Kura Taiao Council in the EDS plans means that Māori membership of the Authority was reduced in priority – yet it is critical as far as we are concerned that the insights and voices of Māori are part of the Authority – it could not function without Māori membership. This should not be placed solely in relation to matauranga, as seems to be implied in the green box on page 187, and also in the table on page 196.

Chapter 12: Modernizing [sic] the conservation system

55. Pg 200: we agree with the shift to “protection, restoration and enhancement”; agree with the shift from historic “resources” to “heritage”; agree to importance of indigenous vs non-indigenous; agree with importance of health/wellbeing/mauri/mana (although there are a number of hooks with all of these terms….).
56. However, we are concerned about the narrowness of focus – lack of recognition of the role of the conservation estate in recreation, New Zealanders perception of themselves and where they come from, importance for tourism, etc.
57. The report is virtually (totally??) silent on specific issues that relate to marine environment and conservation/protection etc. There are many similar issues that are facing terrestrial/freshwater and marine, but there are also highly specific issues affecting coasts and oceans and marine biodiversity /ecosystem health – impacts of land-use practices, extractive uses, impacts of climate change, etc. There seems to be no vision of scale, and how integrated mountains to sea, or catchment to marine systems, conservation would be addressed.
58. Pg 201-202: Kura Taiao Council – there is no mention of the relationship with the Authority. This seems extraordinary. It appears that EDS is advocating for a series of different layers/elements within the conservation system to be working separately and without the connections that would strengthen the system. We are baffled by this approach, and we don’t think this will deliver Te Tiriti centred outcomes.
59. Pg 202: we consider something closer to Option 2 for the Boards is preferable to Option 1.
60. Pg 203: we strongly disagree with the statement “adjusted away from a model based on stakeholder or interest group representation” – this is a misrepresentation by EDS of the current situation that needs to be challenged and corrected, as stated above.
61. Pg 203-204: Functions of the Authority – largely OK except the removal of functions
62. Pg 204-205: strengthening Boards – we agree with much of this although we are somewhat concerned about the vision presented here of governance functions –regulatory, advisory, social. If the governance responsibilities of Boards are increased this place a much greater burden on members and would potentially preclude some people now making valuable contributions.
63. At present the financial support is insufficient, and because of this and the essentially volunteer nature of the Board membership, some people are unable to participate. Clarity about the roles is needed – but it seems important to have the breadth and depth of local interests reflected if possible – and not to make the Boards a place solely for professionals. Local knowledge and experience at place are so valuable on Boards.
64. As stated earlier, the EDS report does not include recognition of other criteria that are really important to the consideration of the membership of the Boards (e.g. gender, urban/rural, geographic). The issue of “new-New Zealanders” and other ethnic voices being heard, and communities drawn into conservation, is also not referred to in the report.

12.2.1: New national documents

65. We agree that the General Policies need to be updated – but we are not convinced by planned approach.

12.3.5: Threat Management Framework

66. This may have some merit – if it deals well with threats to biodiversity (all biota –particularly plants and animals) – and there is much needed alignment between conservation and biosecurity approaches at national and regional levels.

12.3.8: New Scientific Advisory Committees

67. We are uneasy about elements of this. It seems EDS is removing some key expertise from within the Department. At present the Department is underfunded in some areas –in-house teams with sufficient expertise and capacity for scientific and technical advice are a great strength – not only for specific issues but providing a platform that can be applied across various departmental applications/actions.

• At present the NZTCS process uses advisors outside the Department.
• Species recovery teams need to have expertise based in the Department with external advisors where needed.

68. ‘Advisory’ Groups suggest they have no teeth, no influence other than advising – and it is not clear that they would be able to have any greater influence on policy development and implementation than staff within the Department.
69. Yes, increasing technical and scientific capacity in the Department would be valuable, and yes, enabling contracting of expertise in areas where the Department doesn’t have the necessary skills at hand is important – but we are not convinced advisory committees are the way to go.
70. A preferable option may be to have review panels established (as needed) to critique, for example, specific plans, species status assessments, impact or risk assessments, and thereby enable improvements. If this was coupled with a monitoring function this could be both a way of incorporating professional and knowledge development for the Department and checks on the system and on the implementation of plans.

12.4: Modernising Protected Area legislation

71. It is extremely disappointing that there is no inclusion of marine protected areas in this section and in the Appendix. In our opinion there is a need for scenic reserves, nature reserves, scientific reserves, climate adaptation reserves, wildlife management reserves, etc in the marine area (coastal and ocean areas).
72. With sea level rise already a major issue affecting both biodiversity and ecological functions on our coasts, as well as cultural and historic heritage, we are puzzled that the protection of the intersection of marine and terrestrial environments is not acknowledged, both on existing conservation lands and waters as well as more broadly.

Other

73. In passing, we note that Jeff McNeill’s name cited as “McNeil J, 2016, ‘Different meanings of ‘nature’ for New Zealand’s Conservation institutions’, Policy Quarterly 12(1): 3” is incorrectly spelt (there are two Ls in McNeill). See Footnotes 88, 105 and pp 24, 227.