Submission on the Conservation Amendment Bill

A welcome backtrack on the proposed changes to disposing of conservation land 

We have filed our submission on the much-talked-about Conservation Amendment Bill (Bill). Last week, the Minister for Conservation confirmed that they would be removing the proposed changes to land disposal in the conservation estate. We welcome this change, and the Government's responsiveness to the clear public voice on this matter - and in particular the leadership of the Environmental Defence Society and Forest & Bird on this matter.

But issues remain, particularly the embedding of ‘economic opportunities’ as a central tenet of the Conservation Act 

However, there are still broader issues with the Bill, particularly regarding the intention to embed “economic opportunities” in the Conservation Act. The proposed new section 6(ea), would add the following as a function of the Department of Conservation: 

“[to] recognise the economic opportunities that arise from the use and development of land and other natural resources and historic resources managed by the Department and to enable this use and development to the greatest extent practicable under this Act and other enactments.”

This framing is repeated in proposed s 13D (setting out the purpose of National Conservation Policy Statements) and in 13H (which sets out the purpose of the new Area Plans), and cross-referenced in the proposed new purpose for concessions under the Conservation Act in proposed s 14(1).

The risk that the addition of s 6(ea) would elevate what is ‘practicable’ for the economic opportunities arising from the use and development of land and other natural resources above what is ‘practicable’ for conservation. Putting aside the impacts on conservation that are ably discussed in a number of other submissions, an elevation of economic opportunities also fails to recognise the potential impact of such development on public conservation land that acts as a carbon store or sink. 

This also builds into an overarching concern with the Bill - that elevating the focus on economic opportunities could lead to further degradation of the natural environment. This would reduce nature-based solutions' ability to support both climate mitigation and adaptation, for example, in relation to flooding and erosion. Unsustainable use of natural resources and habitat fragmentation increase ecosystem vulnerability to climate change. 

The Conservation Amendment Bill cannot be considered in a vacuum 

These changes cannot be viewed in isolation. One pertinent example is looking to New Zealand’s Paris Agreement targets (nationally determined contributions). Domestic decisions affect how much of NDC1 is met through domestic mitigation, which in turn determines the volume of offshore mitigation required to meet New Zealand’s NDCs (which Treasury recently estimated as costing between $4.4 to $5.0 billion). Any amendments to the Conservation Act that would allow economic development that risks releasing carbon from carbon stores, or that could enable economic activity that generates GHG emissions, would increase the abatement gap for both NDC1 as well as future NDCs.