Government proposals to “modernise” the management of conservation land are pitched as a way to unlock economic growth. But at what cost to tangata whenua, and our collective national inheritance? asks Melanie Nelson.

 

Public conservation land is the backbone of our country. These protected areas of unique ecosystems and species are a source of inspiration and identity to many, not to mention the basis on which New Zealand markets itself to global tourists.

For Māori, of course, conservation land is something more again. It’s ancestral land, indivisible from iwi and hapū identity, where tūpuna and taonga reside, and whakapapa emerges.

Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Waitangi Tribunal described the significance of public conservation lands to Māori in the Wai 262 report:

Māori place enormous value on the conservation estate, at two levels. First, it is not only a vast landscape by New Zealand standards; it is also where most of the surviving taonga places can be found . . . And although it is owned by the Treaty partner, every inch of it is tribal territory. Landscapes and landforms evoke the old stories, and they in turn evoke whakapapa.

However, the government’s Modernising Conservation Land Management proposal may put at risk parts of the conservation estate and some aspects of tangata whenua involvement with it.

The proposals seek to “unleash economic growth” on conservation land, enabling the sale or exchange of up to 60 percent of it, as well as shifting decision-making away from communities and affecting Māori interests.

Erasing the Treaty?

The conservation estate covers roughly one-third of the country — approximately 8.5 million hectares — and includes national parks, conservation parks, reserves, and other protected areas.

It’s complex terrain for whānau, hapū and iwi. Much of it was appropriated unjustly by the Crown, and modern conservation management has largely excluded tangata whenua, drawing on Western values instead.

There has, however, been gradual change in recent years. Initiatives include maunga and awa becoming legal entities, co-governance and co-management arrangements, and increased consultation and employment opportunities. These have somewhat improved Māori access to, and management of, their ancestral lands.

Many of these initiatives emerged from Treaty settlement processes, while others are due to increased understanding and implementation of Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

This clause applies to all conservation legislation listed on Schedule 1, and requires everyone acting under those laws to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

But Section 4 is under review as part of the government’s review of Treaty clauses in legislation. Not only that, but detailed changes to Section 4 are also planned as part of the government’s proposals for “modernising” how conservation land is managed.

A bill incorporating proposed changes to the Conservation Act is now being drafted, which the government intends to pass into law before the 2026 general election.

Paving the way for disposal of conservation lands

Currently, the bar is set extremely high to sell or exchange public conservation land — sale or exchange is limited to areas of no or low conservation value.

The government wants to significantly change that threshold.

It proposes making two-thirds of conservation land eligible for sale or exchange if it is determined to be “surplus to conservation needs”, or to “support other government priorities”.

While the proposal doesn’t include proactive land disposal, the risks inherent in the suggested law change are clear.

Land which the government would now like to make eligible for sale or exchange includes forest parks, conservation parks, scientific reserves, historic reserves, recreation reserves, scenic reserves, and stewardship land.

Stewardship land comprises one-third of the conservation estate, and is a holding category for land yet to be assessed and classified. It is often framed as being of no conservation value, but actually contains many areas with outstanding characteristics.

An assessment of stewardship land on Te Tai Poutini/West Coast, for example, found that only two percent of that land was eligible for disposal under the current rules.

 Under the new proposal, the only land classifications which would be ineligible for disposal are national parks, nature reserves and wilderness areas, and also sites with World Heritage or Ramsar designation.

For the remaining lands, some 60 percent, a key issue is how “surplus” and “other government priorities” are understood by the government, and how the planned tests to protect conservation values and other factors in disposal decisions are constructed.

There is a risk that land which the government perceives to be a liability could be portrayed as providing more conservation benefit if sold and the proceeds invested in conservation. Or that retaining a single representative sample of an ecosystem or iconic landscape, or only a sole remnant of habitat for a particular species, is considered enough to meet conservation priorities. In which case, all other locations containing these things could potentially be defined as “surplus” to conservation needs.

Could iwi regain land deemed surplus?

At first glance, this law change appears to provide the opportunity for some conservation lands that were withheld from Treaty settlements to return to iwi.

Many Treaty settlements contain a Right of First Refusal (RFR) to conservation land if sold, ranging from specific sites to broader clauses. However, an RFR doesn’t necessarily apply to land that is being exchanged, rather than sold.

Former Minister of Conservation, Eugenie Sage gives the example of Crystal Valley, a pristine high alpine basin of 198 hectares in Kā Tiritiri o te Moana/Southern Alps.

This area was purchased by the Nature Heritage Fund in 2004 to remain as conservation land in perpetuity. However, Blackfish Ltd, an Australian private equity firm who own Porters Ski Area, sought to acquire Crystal Valley freehold for ski field development.

In a 2011 deal with the Department of Conservation, Blackfish received the valley land in exchange for 56 hectares the company owned on Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula.

Ngāi Tahu opposed the exchange, but were unable to invoke their RFR because it was an exchange rather than a sale.

The proposed conservation law amendments also lay the groundwork for the sale or exchange of conservation land to foreign investors, when considered in combination with the Overseas Investment Act amendments now underway.

Proposed narrowing of Section 4

The modernising conservation land proposals signal an intention to retain Section 4 but to add specific requirements to “provide clarity” about the government’s Treaty obligations as they relate to conservation.

As part of the proposed law changes, Section 4 would be amended to significantly narrow its interpretation and application.

The cabinet paper on the reforms notes that:

It is possible that many Iwi/Hapū will view the proposals as diminishing the requirements on the Crown. The proposals reflect the existing requirement for reasonable engagement but may not aspire to the level of involvement many Iwi/Hapū aspire to . . . It is also highly likely that efforts to add statutory requirements to account for Iwi/Hapū rights and interests in the competitive allocation of concessions will be met with suspicion and opposition. Iwi/Hapū may view the criteria as insufficient protection of their access to taonga and wāhi tapu on PCL [public conservation land], and their economic interests in development.

Overhauling decision-making and planning

Extensive changes to the statutory planning regime are also tabled.

The government’s proposed changes to legislation, if passed, will supersede a Department of Conservation review of its general policies, which has included extensive engagement with iwi.

The department’s general policies, and other planning documents, will be replaced by a National Conservation Policy Statement (NCPS) and Area Plans. These will identify where certain activities can or cannot take place, including tourism infrastructure and facilities, ski fields and aircraft landings, based on both the land classification and by creating visitor zone designations across all conservation land.

Currently, Te Pou Taiao o Aotearoa/the New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards are the decision-makers on conservation land policies and plans. They comprise members of the public, and also iwi as determined by Treaty settlement legislation.

But the government has stated that the conservation boards and authority are a fetter on ministerial decision-making, and proposes shifting full decision-making power on the NCPS and Area Plans to the Minister of Conservation alone.

Critics contend that ministerial decision-making must be constrained by public input through those organisations, as conservation land is held in trust for the people of New Zealand, not for the government to develop or dispose of as it wishes.

Upholding the “intent” of Treaty settlements 

The government’s proposals further suggest that Treaty settlements or their “intent” will be upheld, but that they have yet to explain how this will occur.

Treaty settlements contain many provisions for iwi participation in various aspects of conservation management, including specific roles in planning processes now subject to removal, such as co-drafting chapters of management plans and strategies.

The cabinet paper on the proposals notes:

Settled groups may consider that the proposals do not uphold their Treaty settlement commitments, particularly to their membership on Conservation Boards, Ngāi Tahu representation on the NZCA, and the role of those bodies in the approval of strategies and plans.

Yet again, there appears to be a push to narrow Treaty obligations, redefine how “the intention” of settlements is applied, and exclude any broader application of Treaty principles in context.

Changes to commercial activities — a mixed bag?

Commercial activities on public conservation land currently require a concession. Although the current legislation states that tourism is allowed on conservation land, and recreation can be fostered, it’s contingent on these activities being consistent with the overriding purpose of conservation.

When taking Section 4 into account, high priority is given to tāngata whenua values, participation and opportunities in interpreting and managing conservation.

The proposed changes include allowing a broader range of activities on conservation land, although the specific activities are not listed.

Some activities will be designated exempt or pre-approved, meaning they don’t require a concession. These include some types of guiding, events, transport, drones, filming, and research and collection activities.

The impacts of such activities will be pre-assessed against biodiversity and cultural values within land classifications, and against recreational and tourism values within visitor zones.

There are also new statutory timeframes for consultation and decision-making, and “streamlined” public notification process, among other changes.

There will be more contestable concession opportunities, and the proposed changes also “clarify that Treaty principles do not require concessions to be made contestable.” More intensive development of infrastructure and facilities will be allowed in a greater range of areas.

All of these things taken together, if passed, would affect iwi and hapū participation in impact assessment and decision-making.

Some benefits for tangata whenua?

Exempt or pre-approved collection activities would include collection of rocks, soil, water, plants and non-protected wildlife for cultural purposes.

This aspect would likely be a welcome change for tāngata whenua for whom the current legislation is a significant barrier to interaction with their traditional lands, pātaka kai and rongoā.

So there may be some benefits for iwi in the proposal, with some traditional activities legally allowed without a permit, or with fewer hoops to jump through.

Losing our strongest protections

The government has never formally responded to the Wai 262 claim, which placed a strong emphasis on the importance of Section 4. Conservation law reform to implement Wai 262 and Treaty interests is well overdue. However, the government’s proposed changes to the Conservation Act will see a narrower Section 4, which may also be impacted by the government’s Treaty clause review

Any narrowing of Section 4 is significant for whānau, hapū and iwi rights, interests and responsibilities.

As Te Rōpū Whakamana/the Waitangi Tribunal outlined:

. . . individual iwi and hapū relationships with conservation land remain tangible in ways not usually possible in more modified environments. Sometimes relationships with flora and fauna can be recreated within the DOC estate as substitutes for those that have been lost elsewhere . . . Without them, mātauranga Māori simply cannot survive.

As a nation, Te Tiriti, Section 4, and iwi rights and responsibilities are the strongest protections we have against extensive privatisation and commercialisation of the conservation estate.

The public will have the opportunity to express their views through the select committee process following the bill’s introduction.

 

Melanie Nelson (Pākehā) is a consultant on Te Tiriti specialising in conservation and the environment, and a workshop facilitator. She is also a researcher and writer publishing regularly on Substack, host of the Coherent podcast, which analyses political issues, and Weaving our Worlds, which promotes cross-cultural understanding. A licensed te reo Māori translator and interpreter, Melanie is a graduate of Te Panekiretanga o te Reo Māori / Institute of Excellence in the Māori Language, and holds a master’s degree in Māori Language Excellence — Te Tohu Paerua o te Reo Kairangi.

E-Tangata, 2025