A third of New Zealand’s land is in conservation estate – ‘priceless’ places vital for biodiversity, spiritual and cultural value, carbon storage, erosion control, nutrient cycling, and hazard mitigation. They also feed our spirits and draw overseas visitors to enjoy our wild landscapes.
In November 2024, the Government released two discussion documents proposing major changes to conservation law. If we want to truly value and protect our estate, we need to consider who pays and how we make up for the shortfall in financing our conservation estate.
Minister of Conservation Hon Tama Potaka’s Exploring charging for access to some public conservation land argues charging is common overseas and can help fund conservation.
DOC already raises some revenue from hut stays and other user-pays, but it isn’t enough to maintain its assets, which face a $25?million annual renewal shortfall. Half of DOC huts are more than 30?years old, and replacement costs have soared. Access fees could help secure funding for areas with high visitor demand.
More important though is the proposal to make available for exchange or disposal about five million hectares — two thirds of the entire conservation estate. This will affect everything from local reserves to conservation parks. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) has commented on these proposals, with concerns and advice, including:
?? the proposed approach to exchanging and disposing of public conservation land
?? balancing national and regional decision making with political, technical and conservation decision making
?? focusing DOC’s guiding policy documents on governing species and ecosystem conservation work rather than managing concessions
?? making better use of competition to ensure those operating on public conservation land pay a fair price.
In 2022, we assisted the Environmental Defense Society (EDS) in a multi-year reform project exploring how to modernise the system. Our worked within this broader work of EDS looked at how the DOC conservation estate was financed and provided ideas for other ways to enhance investment by recognising the values if the estate. There have been changes made by Governments since then.
But here’s a short overview of what we gleaned, starting with a summary of what constitutes our conservation estate:
- National park: The highest level of protection, considered “priceless areas” of “national importance.”
- Wildlife area: Strong protection focused on specific species or habitats.
- Reserves: Areas set aside for public benefit and enjoyment.
- Marginal strips: Buffers next to rivers, lakes, or Crown land, often retained when Crown land is sold.
- Conservation areas: Generally weaker legal protection, including sub-classes like Stewardship areas.
At the time, the EDS review revealed gaps and inefficiencies across legislation, institutions, management, and funding. Our analysis on funding did show there are promising opportunities—such as capturing more value from tourism (which the Government has subsequently implemented to a degree with increased visitor levies which is now $100 per visitor), imposing additional targeted levies, or creating carbon and biodiversity credits to help DOC manage its vast holdings. Additional funding models could aid biodiversity, which local authorities often under-resource.
Economic instruments, better regulatory incentives, and more private-sector engagement could all strengthen conservation. Impact investing also offers possibilities: the global sector could deploy trillions of dollars if long-term returns and willingness to pay for nature are in place.
Many see potential for repurposing lower-value stewardship land to generate ETS credits, thereby boosting biodiversity while earning revenue. Stewardship land covers 2.44?million hectares but hasn’t been fully assessed for conservation value, and it’s advisable to move cautiously before opening up too much.
Significant ecosystems remain in less-protected categories of the conservation estate, which can put unique biodiversity at risk if we rush or undervalue certain sites without knowing what’s there. Marginal strips, which often adjoin waterways, are ripe for environmental improvements and should remain publicly accessible.
We appreciate that change can be controversial. Kiwis aren’t traditionally used to paying for nature access. One example to ponder is the Heaphy Track: upgrades there cater to mountain bikers finishing in 1–2?days, who pay far less in hut fees than walkers taking five days. Is it fairer to have those who use special infrastructure pay more? These are the questions the Government is grappling with.
We also need to consider how this revenue supports biodiversity. In 2018, $3.8?billion in GST came from tourism, $1.8?billion of it from international visitors, while DOC’s total budget was only about $0.53?billion (it is currently lower than that and possibly decreasing). Although DOC collects income from concessions and the International Visitor Levy, most flows to the Crown and not specifically ‘tagged’ back for investment in conservation. Letting DOC keep more of this revenue could boost conservation.
DOC also can’t receive ETS credits for post-1990 forest planting. Pest management and other conservation actions deliver carbon and biodiversity benefits, but these aren’t properly accounted for. Revisiting these policies could allow DOC to generate revenue by planting indigenous forests and offsetting carbon losses from pests.
Taxes on pesticides, fertilisers, forest products, or timber (often called “polluter pays” taxes) could further fund conservation and again, are controversial. The Netherlands, as an example, raises billions of dollars annually this way.
Emerging tools like natural asset companies also hold promise, but solid valuation is needed to attract investors and achieve genuine environmental outcomes.
Ultimately, any shift in funding and management will demand careful planning and credible oversight to protect our conservation estate. For further detail, see the EDS report and submission.