NZCA Statement of expectations on best practice approach

Adopted 30 June 2017
Reviewed and amended 19 August 2022

Purpose

This document provides DOC planners and Conservation Board members with clarity as to the expectations for a best practice approach for conservation management strategies (CMSs), national park management plans (NPMPs), conservation management plans (CMPs). The Authority may amend this document from time to time.

• CMSs are approved by the Authority under section 17F(p) of the Conservation Act 1987 (Act).
• NPMPs are approved by the Authority under section 48(1) of the National Parks Act 1980.
• CMPs may be sent by a conservation board under s17G(2) of the Act to the Authority for approval. The Authority may also make comments on draft CMPs prepared under specific legislation arising from Treaty of Waitangi claims settlements which specify a body other than the Authority as the approving entity.

Introduction

To achieve the highest quality statutory planning documents that provide clear guidance to the decision maker, and to ensure an efficient and timely process and to avoid delays in the approval of CMSs, NPMPs and CMPs, this Statement of Expectations sets out the process by which the Authority intends to engage on these statutory documents, along with a range of matters which the Authority considers should be addressed in these documents. 

In respect of the matters which need to be addressed (and where the Authority’s function is to approve the document), the Authority expects that they will be included in the documents at the earliest opportunity, preferably prior to when they are publicly notified, to provide the public with full opportunity to comment.

The role of the NZ Conservation Authority

In relation to CMSs, the Authority’s powers and functions in the Act include:

• approving CMSs under sections 6B(1)(b) and 17F of the Act
• reviewing and reporting to the Minister or the Director-General on the effectiveness of the Department’s administration of general policies
• advising the Minister and the Director-General annually on priorities for the expenditure of money
• investigating any nature conservation or other conservation matters the Authority considers are of national importance, and advising the Minister or the Director-General, as appropriate, on such matters.

In relation to NPMPs, the Authority’s powers and functions in the National Parks Act include:

• approving NPMPs in accordance with s 48 of the Act
• Advising the Minister and Director-General on the priorities for the expenditure of any money appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of the National Parks Act
• Reviewing and reporting to the Minister and Director-General on the effectiveness of the administration of the general policies for national parks
• Giving advice to the Minister and the Director-General on any other matter relating to any national park.

In relation to CMPs, the Authority’s powers and functions include:

• approving CMPs under sections 6B(1)(b) and 17G(h) of the Act
• Making recommendations to the decision-making body under Treaty settlement legislation
• reviewing and reporting to the Minister or the Director-General on the effectiveness of the Department’s administration of general policies
• advising the Minister and the Director-General annually on priorities for the expenditure of money
• investigating any nature conservation or other conservation matters the Authority considers are of national importance, and advising the Minister or the Director-General, as appropriate, on such matters.

CMSs, NPMPs and CMPs provide for the Department and Conservation Boards (and in the case of documents arising from Treaty settlements, the relevant iwi body or authority), to work together to prepare and provide draft documents to the Authority for approval.

For CMSs under the Act, the Authority may “make such amendments as it considers necessary” to a draft before it approves it (section 17F(n)).  For NPMPs under the National Parks Act, the Authority may require modifications to the draft it receives “in such manner as it thinks fit”.  For CMPs under the Act, the Authority “shall make such amendments as it considers necessary”. In all cases, the Authority is required to refer a CMS, a NPMP and a CMP to the Minister for comment, and must “have regard to” the views or recommendations of the Minister “before it approves” the CMS, CMP or NPMP.

There is no formal requirement or mechanism for the Authority to engage in the review process until after it has been provided with a revised draft of a document.  However, issues which are not addressed in a reviewed document provided to the Authority may result in delays to the document being approved. For that reason, it is a matter of good practice and effectiveness if the Authority engages at a level that reviews and monitors throughout the process, and particularly to provide guidance prior to the initial public notification. 

While the Authority can express a view about what things should be in a document or how provisions should be expressed, it must retain an open mind about the specific wording proposed by a Board and the Department in a document.  In this way, the Authority can engage through the process in a way which does not compromise its final decision-making obligations.

The following are some questions considered by the Authority:

Question: In considering draft documents provided to it, are the Authority’s powers restricted to the matters which are in the draft or are raised in submissions?  That is, can the Authority when requiring modifications or amendments to a draft document “in such manner as it thinks fit” add or require new matters which are not raised in any submission?

Answer:  Subject to issues of natural justice which require submitters to be consulted on a proposed amendment which was not previously in the draft document, the Authority has wide powers to require amendments to the document where it considers appropriate to do so to meet the legislative requirements, including General Policy.

Question:  What level of detail is appropriate for the Authority to consider in its review?

Answer: The relevant Acts do not specify what the level of detail which is appropriate.  However, the Authority can require modifications to documents “in such manner as it thinks fit”.  It is therefore entitled to be as detailed as it wishes.  The Authority should be guided by the scope of its functions set out in the legislation.  The appropriate level of detail is situation dependent (e.g. where a new precedent might be set such as, at present, the extent of use of e-bikes) but normally detailed analysis and documentation would be handled at Conservation Board level.  The Authority should particularly satisfy itself that correct processes have been completed in a comprehensive and credible manner.

Question: What happens if the Authority and the Board/Department (and the Minister) cannot agree on what the documents should say?

Answer: The Authority can require changes to a statutory document “in such manner as it thinks fit” before approving it.  It is the Authority’s final decision, having regard to its functions under the legislation, the purpose of the Acts, the reports and draft documents provided to it, and the views of the Minister.

Where the Authority’s expectations set out in this document are met, the Authority expects that it will be able to approve a statutory document at its third meeting following formal receipt of a draft.

Principles to be applied in drafting CMSs, NPMPs and CMPs

When drafting a CMS or a NPMP, the Authority considers that the following principles should be applied:

• The document must be consistent with and should promote the purposes of the relevant Act, the General Policies, and for a NPMP and CMP the relevant CMS. Considerations beyond the purposes of the legislation (such as the economic benefit to individuals or to a district’s economy) should not be considered.
• The document must meet the obligations set out in s4 of the Act.
• National parks have a unique status by having special legislation and a separate regime compared with other public conservation land administered under the Act.
• The document should be enabling and flexible, with objectives, policies and milestones which are measurable by the relevant Board and Department managers and which clearly state the outcomes that are intended.
• The document should contain clear provisions about monitoring and review processes to assess effects and to allow adaptive management, consistent with the relevant legislation and the Act and the General Policies. Flexibility can also be achieved by allowing for efficient partial reviews based on increased knowledge and experience.
• The Objectives, Goals and Milestones should be selected and designed so as to thoroughly and clearly represent the key tasks that the Department must undertake to deliver the agreed position in the strategy or plan.
• The document should be prepared with a separate resource/budget to support the proposed actions and there should be an annual/triennial alignment of resources to the document, reporting on to the relevant Board annually consistent with the Milestone on annual reporting.
• Provisions controlling activities should be based on sound and robust evidence.
• For potential new activities on public conservation land, and especially in national parks, and where there are limited precedents elsewhere, it is appropriate to take a cautious approach and collect robust evidence before allowing or further expanding such activities.
• The best available and most up to date data and information should be used to inform and guide decisions and priorities.
• The document should use clear, concise language and be easy to use and understand by a range of stakeholders and, as far as possible can be read as a stand-alone document.
• Descriptive and background information should be kept to a minimum.
• The use of appendices to documents (such as lists of huts, species, or management methods) should be minimised, preferably with such material only being referred to in the document with the full appendix being available on the Department’s website so that information (including maps) can be kept up to date and cross-referenced.

Specific drafting issues related to CMSs

• There should be clear links between the plan and the Intermediate Outcomes and strategic goals consistent with the following:

Policies: “Manage the [name of PCL] to achieve the [relevant] Intermediate Outcome and relevant strategic goals”.

Milestones: “Annual public reporting on the Intermediate Outcome and Stretch Goal actions for [relevant IO] in [name of relevant PCL] has commenced in Year 1”.

• In addition to general Objectives, Policies and Milestones for the CMS, the CMS should include specific Objectives, Goals and Milestones for all areas covered by the CMS which are specially protected areas under Part 4 of the Act.
• Additions to public conservation land and recategorizations of land should be dealt with in a manner consistent with the following statement:

“If any land is added to public conservation land or a specially protected area during the life of this CMS, to the extent allowed by the Conservation Act, the provisions of this CMS will apply to any such additions, and the additions will be managed in the same way as prescribed for the "place" that it will become part of.  Changes to maps within the plan are expected to be made without additional public notice and consultation”.

• Milestones should be set as 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 year goals.
• The CMS should not state that only policies and objectives have legal effect. This is potentially confusing to readers.  The entire document should be carefully drafted, and intended to guide and direct decision making, not just policies and objectives.
• Objectives, Policies and Milestones need to be clear and measurable. For example, the following objective and milestone are appropriate:

Objective: “Recognise the historic and/or heritage value of huts (identified in Appendix 15) and tracks in Otago, and its ongoing value for backcountry and front country recreation. To achieve this, work with outdoor recreation groups and the Otago Conservation Board to assist with management and retention of the network, while recognising that some parts of the network may need to adapt in response to changes in the community that uses them”.

Milestone: “A baseline report on the number and condition of huts, tracks and other visitor facility structures in Otago, and on the number and satisfaction of people using these facilities”.

In contrast, the following policy and milestone are not adequately measurable:

Policy: “Improve the ecological resilience of the remnant indigenous vegetation areas on public conservation lands and waters, by:

1. seeking supportive management of adjoining areas to minimise adverse effects, including edge effects;
2. building relationships with adjoining landowners; and
3. encouragement of community care initiatives and actions”.

Milestone: “Increased protection of the landscape and ecosystem features of the [name of PCL]”.

It is unclear from these latter examples who is to decide on the measures or targets and how they are to be determined, and how success can be measured.  These matters should be set out in the policies and milestones, or identified in policies upon which the milestones depend.

Specific drafting issues related to NPMPs and CMPs

• A NPMP should address the matters set out in Part 12 of the General Policy for National Parks.
• There should be clear links between the plan and the Intermediate Outcomes and strategic goals consistent with the following:

Policies: “Manage the Park [or relevant conservation area] to achieve the [relevant] Intermediate Outcome and relevant strategic goals”.

Milestones by end of Year 1: “Annual public reporting on the Intermediate Outcome and strategic goal actions for [relevant IO] in [name] National Park has commenced”.

• In terms of s4 obligations, NPMPs within the rohe of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu should replicate the relevant provisions of the Paparoa NPMP. For NPMPs in other areas, the Paparoa NPMP provides a useful precedent, to be adapted depending on circumstances.
• A NPMP and CMP should not state that only policies and objectives have legal effect. This is potentially confusing to readers.  The entire document should be carefully drafted and intended to guide and direct decision making, not just policies and objectives.
• Additions to NPs should be dealt with in a manner consistent with the following:

Under a description of Plan Structure: “If any land is added to the [name] National Park during the life of this plan, to the extent allowed by the National Parks Act, the provisions of this plan will apply to any such additions, with the provisions of the Place which adjoins the additional land also applying.  Changes to maps within the plan are expected to be made without additional public notice and consultation”.

• Extending pest management beyond priority ecosystem units. This should be done in a manner consistent with the following:

Milestone by end of Year 3: “The Department has prepared an analysis of the benefits and costs of extending pest management beyond the Priority Ecosystem Units to include the entire national park or some part of it.

• Additions to national parks which can proceed under section 7 rather than section 8 of the National Parks Act should be incorporated as part of the NPMP review, making it clear that the decision whether to add the land to the national park is part of the decision-making process.
• There should be policies and accompanying milestones which recognise and encourage public participation by way of volunteer engagement in conservation areas.
• Milestones need to be clear and measurable. For example, the following milestones are appropriate:

“Heritage assessments for all actively conserved historic places in Paparoa National Park are completed and available on the Department’s website”.

“The New Zealand Alpine Club guidelines for bolted and fixed climbs within the Climbing Development Area in Nīkau Place and any other authorised climbing development areas has been developed and is being implemented”.

In contrast, the following milestones are not adequately measurable in themselves and need to rely on the annual planning and reporting process:

“The ecological condition of priority ecosystem units in [name] National Park is improving (as defined by agreed measures) as a result of pest management”;

“The abundance and persistence of threatened and at-risk species, such as [name], have increased (as indicated by agreed measures) in [name] National Park”;

“Goat numbers in [name] National Park are significantly reduced in accordance with agreed targets”.

It is unclear from these latter examples who is to decide on the measures or targets and how they are to be determined.  These matters should be set out in the milestones, or identified in policies upon which the milestones depend.