The government is proposing conservation law changes that would make it easier to sell off some types of land.
The proposed Bill also adds a new responsibility for the Department of Conservation to recognise and enable, as much as possible, “economic opportunities” from use and development of the resources it manages.
Submissions on the Bill close on Thursday 2 July.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.
Dr Marie Doole, Independent researcher and consultant, Director of Mataki Environmental, comments:
“The Conservation Amendment Bill smooths the path for the development and disposal of land that has been managed for conservation purposes in New Zealand for decades. Such a risky proposal should have been treated with far more caution, forethought and analysis than this Bill demonstrates has occurred. Reform of this scale simply shouldn’t be rushed like this. It does seem to me that the government may have underestimated the loyalty New Zealanders feel to public conservation land and its ongoing protection.
“Private interests have leveraged considerable economic benefit from public conservation land for decades, often paying crumbs for the privilege. So, some of the changes that allow for better charging models will be welcome in some parts of the country. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely the benefits of the handful of positive improvements will offset public concern and discord over the bulk of the changes. Of greatest concern is that an economic mandate is proposed to be given to the Department, that isn’t just enabling of economic activity, it requires DOC to ‘enable’ use and development ‘to the greatest extent practicable’. This is an astonishing mandate for a core conservation agency when combined with dropping thresholds for disposal.
“That is not to say that there are not some significant issues with our aging conservation statute books. For example, the creaking regulatory system has some long-standing enforcement-related deficiencies that are out of scope. In that sense it is a missed opportunity for some really sensible improvements.”
Conflict of interest statement: The expert has declared they have no conflicts of interest.
Dr Stephen Espiner, Associate Professor in Parks, Recreation & Tourism, Lincoln University, comments:
“The Conservation Amendment Bill 2026 proposes significant reforms to this nation’s conservation laws, promising to streamline planning, foster economic growth and generate revenue, while retaining protections for the highest value conservation areas.
“However, in limiting its focus to short-term economic opportunities through further development on public conservation land, the proposed Conservation Amendment Bill appears to ignore the immense economic value that these areas already provide – in health and wellbeing benefits to local communities and the eco-systems services such as clean air and water, carbon sequestration etc., which underpin any society’s current and future health. Any sale or disposal of public conservation land needs to consider the risk of diminishing these benefits.
“More specifically, there are valid concerns emerging about some of the areas that may be eligible for sale or disposal. While national parks may be exempt, it should be emphasised that conservation lands in New Zealand are a network of areas reflecting diverse purposes, interests and opportunities. National parks may be off the table, but many other areas are equally valued by local recreationists including by the nation’s trampers, hunters, mountain-bikers and dog walkers. The proposed Bill appears (quite rightly) to protect areas determined by the Minister as important for conservation of threatened species or ecosystems, but does not appear to consider existing (or potential) recreation values.
“Finally, while the Bill’s proposal to charge international visitors for access to some conservation land will be met with broad support from the New Zealand public, details are yet to emerge about the cost effectiveness of revenue collection systems, logistical feasibility and how to handle the inevitable non-compliance. One thing is certain: a complicated system will not be welcomed by visitors, DOC rangers or tourism operators.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Over the course of his career, Stephen Espiner has worked on a number of consultancy projects for DOC, councils and tourism bodies.”
Dr Hamish Rennie, Associate Professor of Planning and Head of Department of Environmental Management, Lincoln University, comments:
“Some of the proposed amendments are merely bringing the Act up with the times and make sense (e.g. electronic notification).
Functions of the Department
“Section 6(ea) is fundamentally wrong. It goes well beyond providing for “appropriate” development of conservation areas, which is what is claimed in the pre-amble. Instead, the key criteria will change from prioritising conservation to enabling uses that provide economic opportunities to occur to “the greatest extent practicable”. This needs to be much more tightly constrained or it will open the doors to the worst excesses of development.”
Loss of Checks and Balances
“The changes to the functions of the NZCA and the Conservation Boards essentially remove key checks and balances on the Minister. They transfer the approving authority from bodies independent of the Minster and the Department to the Minster.
“One of the key features of the Conservation Act is that it recognised that our natural endowment is always at risk from short term political actions. The establishment of the NZCA and the regional Conservation Boards provided a really important check on the power of any particular government to wreak irreversible harm on that natural endowment during its potentially short term tenure in power. The role of this independence has increased in importance as the current coalition Government, with its powerful minority coalition members, has systematically dismantled other checks and balances.
“This change must be rejected if our conservation policies and plans are not to go the way of the freshwater policy, which changes so frequently with different governments that it is impossible to implement. That will be the fate of the National Conservation Policy if the approval power is transferred form an independent body to the Minister.”
Policy and Planning Structures
“From a policy structure perspective a single National Conservation Policy makes sense. But I have some concerns about the single area plan.
“One of the problems for DoC has always been its lack of sufficient funding to meet all its responsibilities. Consequently, many plans are outdated and there needs to be mechanisms requiring updates. A single plan should be easier to find and implement than the existing multi-tiered approach. However, the intent behind the current system was that it would engage the local communities in management planning of their reserves. It gives them a sense of ownership.
“For instance, a marine reserve management plan gets support from the local management committee and that carries through to enforcement. Voluntary community driven enforcement can be quite effective. At present, lack of resourcing means that this model is not working as effectively as it should. However, a single regional plan is much more removed from communities. It is likely to have much less social licence at the local level. This may lead to much less local monitoring and enforcement.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No conflicts of interest.”
James Russell, Professor of Conservation Biology, University of Auckland, comments:
“The Department of Conservation estate is the outcome of the 1987 merger of the conservation and wildlife functions of five former government agencies. As an outcome of that, the collection of land inherited for management by DOC is an eclectic mix of land-uses.
“A small minority of this is certainly not high conservation value land, and conservation land use is not a one-size-fits-all model.
“A great diversity of uses of conservation land have long taken place, falling across a spectrum including preservation, recreation and economic development. However, we cannot conserve what is not there any longer, and preservation is far cheaper than restoration.
“Conservation requires incorporating intangible environmental values which are too easily externalised in privatised economic relationships and so the Crown, in partnership with mana whenua, are by far the best-placed for responsible conservation management and decision-making in Aotearoa. This is all the more so true when considering that conservation is best achieved when land managers can act at scale.
“The early 20th century Western view of wilderness protection simply locking land away from humans is no longer fit for purpose where threats such as invasive species and climate change know no boundaries, and so management of the conservation estate must be both strategic and affordable. But fundamentally I expect New Zealanders would now expect our conservation estate to not be diminished in land area, as unfortunately occurred in the mid 20th century during widespread native forest logging.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Professor Russell is a senior advisor to the NEXT Foundation and Zero Invasive Predators, and has received funding from the Department of Conservation.”