Saving our conservation land means looking beyond controversies

Tuesday, 28 July 2026

Wilding pines create costly problems for DOC and for private land owners, writes Katie Acland.

Kate Acland is chair of Beef + Lamb New Zealand and a mid-Canterbury sheep, beef and dairy farmer.

OPINION: New Zealand’s sheep and beef farmers are the ultimate conservationists - we collectively hold the largest area of indigenous biodiversity outside the conservation estate. Around 25% of the country’s native vegetation sits on privately owned sheep and beef farms - something our farmers are proud of.

In most cases, these areas are not protected by covenants and farmers receive no government funding to maintain them. Some are pristine, cared for at landowners’ own time and expense. Others need ongoing investment, because fencing, weed control and predator control are costly.

When farm gate prices are strong as they are now, farmers have more capacity to invest in conservation. Anecdotally, we are hearing of more farmers looking to increase pest control and planting efforts.

In conservation terms, farmers face many of the same challenges as the Department of Conservation (DOC). Wilding pines, weeds and pests create costly problems on farms as they do for DOC, particularly in the foothills and high country.

Where farmers have the advantage over DOC is that we’re businesses, we generate an income off our asset base and when farm businesses do well, their ability to fund environmental work grows too.

I have some sympathy for DOC. It sits on assets worth reportedly $134 billion, operates with limited funding, within a system often mired in red tape, and with little ability to generate additional income from its substantial asset base.

Beef + Lamb New Zealand chair Kate Acland.

That is why the Government’s Conservation Amendment Bill matters. It will not, by itself, save a single bird or pull out a single wilding pine. But if it cuts red tape, updates the concession system, speeds up sensible decision-making and lets DOC make better use of its enormous asset base, it could help turn conservation from aspiration into action.

The bill’s core idea is simple: the conservation system should be easier to navigate, not easier to abuse. A single National Conservation Policy Statement, clearer concession processes, visitor amenity areas, targeted charges for international visitors, and more flexible tools for land exchange or disposal all make sense if the safeguards are strong and the money goes back into conservation.

Charging international visitors at selected high-use places should not be controversial. New Zealanders already pay for conservation through taxes, rates, volunteer work and, in many rural areas, private land stewardship.

If visitors come here to enjoy world-class landscapes, it is reasonable that they help maintain the tracks, toilets, car parks and biodiversity that make those places worth visiting. This happens in many countries around the world and it makes sense to introduce it in New Zealand.

The test is transparency. More income should mean better conservation outcomes and a better experience for visitors, not simply a new revenue stream that disappears into the general machinery of government.

Volunteers tackle weeds growing on the shoreline in the Abel Tasman National Park, as part of a philanthropic project run in conjunction with DOC.

The conservation estate grew considerably in the 20 years after 1998, with more than 300,000 hectares of formerly farmed pastoral lease land returned to the Crown to be managed by DOC.

In some cases, these landscapes are truly spectacular and removing farming was appropriate - in many others, the scale is vast and the DOC management budget too small to control the steady spread of wilding pines and other pests. In many areas, New Zealand’s biodiversity has been going backwards. St James Station in North Canterbury is a sobering example of a once-pristine landscape being steadily overrun by exotic tree pests.

Predator Free 2050 was a goal the whole country, regardless of political persuasion, could get behind. Its ambition remains right: fewer rats, stoats, possums and other predators means more birdsong, healthier forests and stronger biodiversity. Under current budget constraints, however, it feels increasingly distant and unachievable.

Conservation matters, but it is expensive. Fencing, pest control, weed control, track maintenance, visitor facilities, biodiversity monitoring and biosecurity are not one-off costs. They require sustained investment - people on the ground, year after year.

A recent protest against the Conservation Amendment Bill and its provision to allow the disposal of parts of the conservation estate. Katie Acland argues that land with little conservation value should not be considered sacred just because it is part of that estate.

That financial reality should shape the debate: sentiment alone will not protect native species or landscapes.

The most contentious part of the bill will be land exchange and disposal.

That concern is understandable. New Zealanders will not tolerate important ecological, cultural or recreational places being sold off by stealth. Nor should they. But if a piece of land has little genuine conservation value, it should not be treated as sacred simply because it sits inside the estate.

The Conservation Act needs to be modernised and updated to reflect where we are today.

The focus should be on transparent assessment, Treaty commitments, public confidence and stronger protection for the places that truly matter.

The conservation estate is one of New Zealand’s most prized assets. But owning an asset is not the same as looking after it.

It is like inheriting a farm and expecting it to thrive without reinvesting in fences, water and stock.

With pressure on healthcare, housing, education and every other public service, we cannot keep managing conservation as if money is unlimited. The real test of the Conservation Amendment Bill is not whether it sounds virtuous. It is whether it helps DOC deliver better-funded, better-managed and still well-protected conservation outcomes.