Conservation Amendment Bill – biggest threat to conservation in 40 years

The Conservation Amendment Bill is the biggest threat to conservation in 40 years with the multiple insertions of the requirement for the Department of Conservation to promote economic development into the law.  The provision could result in mining, multiple roading proposals, new hotels, monorails, energy generation etc as the expense of our threatened species and ecosystems and a loss of landscape values.
While it is positive that Conservation Minister Potaka has announced the removal of the proposals to allow the sale or exchange of as much as 60% of conservation land this is only a policy commitment which could be reversed after the election.  So it is important that submitters to reinforce that Part 3C (Land exchanges and disposal) of the Bill should be deleted from the Bill.
It is good to see Ministers are finally listening, but this is but one of multiple serious flaws that can be found in the Conservation Amendment Bill. These include:

• the repeated focus on the purpose and national conservation policy statement to promote “economic opportunities… to the greatest extent practicable” on Conservation “land and other natural and historic resources”;
• the gutting of the powers of Conservation Boards and the NZCA and the centralisation of power with the Minister;
• the failure to protect World Heritage Areas;
• the broad visitor amenity provisions which ignore zoning within protected areas including in national parks and gives precedence to visitor amenities over threatened species and habitats;
• the absence of a provision for public consultation on the National Conservation Policy Statement and the removal of the right to hold hearings;
• the overseas visitor charging regime when there is no commitment that revenues will be new money to assist conservation;
• Extension of the time for existing consents; and
• then there are all the changes to Te Tiriti settlements without negotiation and agreement.

Other changes include limiting time frames for processing applications for concessions and removing requirements for public hearings and, worse, removal of public notification requirements for grazing licences.
Decisions can only be reconsidered once and the information basis for reconsideration is restricted to only that available at the time the decision was made.  So critical new information would be ignored.

The same promotion of “economic opportunities… to the greatest extent practicable”” wording is repeated in new section 13D(2) National Conservation Policy Statement, 13H(2) (Area Plans), and New section 14 (Purpose of Concessions).   It means that economic interests will dominate conservation which takes us back to the bad old days prior to the 1986 Conservation Act.

The Bill continues the primacy of mining on conservation land which the Government has pushed through changes to the Crown Minerals Act (CMA).  The only safeguard are those lands covered by the 4^th Schedule of the CMA.

While the legislation does need revision this is not the revision the Act needs.
Missing from the law and the Bill are:

• any unambiguous commitment to the Te Tiriti;
• any application of the precautionary approach;
• clear environmental impact assessment requirements including review;
• failure to give priorities in law to biodiversity including threatened species and ecosystems;
• outcomes of activities should be consistent with the intrinsic values of an area.

There is no sense that the Government is recognising the massive loss of biodiversity over the lass 150 years, the need to halt the loss, and restore and recover threatened species and ecosystems.  This includes the loss of 90% of our wetlands, less than 1% of mature kauri forests remain, about 30% of our biodiversity (over 4000 species) is at risk of extinction.

A Statistics NZ Review in 2023 found that “Ninety-four percent of our reptile species, 82 percent of bird species, 80 percent of bat species, 76 percent of freshwater fish species, and 46 percent of vascular plant species are either facing extinction or are at risk of being threatened with extinction.” (See Our Indigenous Species are at Risk of Extinction).

What these species need is protection not more destructive development.
This Bill should be withdrawn.  Further policy work should be undertaken with effective public consultation to develop conservation law for the future.
Where to submit: The submission deadline has been extended to close at NOON on 13 July with the Environment Select Committee.  There are links to some submission guides below but don’t wait till the 13th.
The Select Committee is due to report back on 12 November which is just after the Election.
 
Submission guides
Greenpeace submission guide

Forest and Bird –

• Conservation Bill explainer
• Save Conservation Land – Amendment Bill