Part 4: The Department of Conservation’s land management systems
4.1
In this Part, we describe:
- why land management systems are important;
- our expectations about land management systems;
- the Department’s priority setting for land management;
- the Department’s accountabilities for land management;
- the Department’s guidance for land management; and
- 2 case study file reviews.
4.2
We then set out our conclusions.
Why are land management systems important?
4.3
The Department manages land classified for different purposes under a complex framework of legal and policy requirements. Comprehensive and clear land management systems serve 3 broad purposes. They ensure that:
- capacity and resourcing reflect land management priorities;
- staff accountabilities for land management processes are clear and well understood; and
- statutory and policy requirements are complied with.
4.4
The appropriate allocation of resources ensures effective implementation of plans, programmes, and initiatives to achieve land management priorities.
4.5
The Department has staff throughout the country. Clearly defined and understood organisational roles and responsibilities in land management processes are important to ensure that there are suitable levels of accountability for land management decision-making throughout the Department.
4.6
In addition, clear guidance, access to advice and support, and central oversight of compliance is important to provide assurance that all parts of the Department comply with statutory and policy requirements.
Our expectations
4.7
We prepared expectations about the Department’s land management systems, and then assessed the Department’s performance against the expectations. We looked at the Department’s processes and procedures in:
- priority setting for land management;
- accountabilities for land management;and
- guidance for land management.
4.8
We expected that the Department’s priorities for carrying out plans to manage land would be clear at a national and conservancy level. We also expected that resource allocation at a national and conservancy level would take account of land management priorities. We reviewed the Department’s priorities as outlined in its Statement of Intent, the Director-General’s annual directions and expectations, and the approaches of the Northland, East Coast Hawke’s Bay, and West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancies in setting priorities.
4.9
We expected that roles and responsibilities for land management would be clearly defined. We reviewed the Department’s standard operating procedures and delegations framework.
4.10
We expected that the Department would have guidance in place to ensure that different parts of the organisation follow the same set of procedures when undertaking any work on land management. We expected this guidance to be followed and that there would be mechanisms for such guidance to be reviewed and updated. We reviewed the Department’s standard operating procedures, operating review system, and planning and performance review system.
4.11
We expected that any acquisition, disposal, transfer, or reclassification of land by the Department would be consistent with the Department’s own guidance, and consistent with statutory requirements. We reviewed the land transaction approaches of the Northland, East Coast Hawke’s Bay, and West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancies, and undertook 2 land transaction case studies.
Priority-setting for land management
4.12
Priorities for the Department are set through its Statement of Intent, Ministerial priorities, and a hierarchy of annual directions and expectations, including financial planning, from the Director-General to line managers.
Setting and implementing national priorities, and allocating resources
4.13
The Department sets priorities through the high-level outcomes of the Statement of Intent and Ministerial priorities, which are supported by the Director-General’s directions and expectations to line managers. The Director-General’s directions and expectations are set out yearly and are used by the 2 General Managers of Operations to outline operational priorities by high-level outcome.
4.14
General Managers of Operations use financial planning and the Director-General’s directions and expectations to direct resource allocation among conservancies. Business plans of the General Managers of Operations show how resources have been allocated to conservancies. Business plans of individual conservancies show how resources have been allocated within the conservancies.
4.15
One clear priority specifically for land is identified in the Statement of Intent. This is a joint initiative with Land Information New Zealand to set up a network of high-country parks and reserves, planned for the Department in 2005-06. Establishing a comprehensive network of high-country parks and reserves through the land tenure review process was a priority set out in the Director-General’s directions and expectations to line managers for 2005-06, and General Managers of Operations’ directions and expectations to Southern Region conservators. Resources were allocated for this purpose in the General Managers of Operations’ business plans.
Links in conservancy business plans to statutory policies and objectives
4.16
Although the Department has a broad draft ecological framework to inform how priorities could be set, conservancies set their own priorities for land through the business planning process. It was not clear to us how priorities for land in the conservancy business plans we reviewed would fulfil statutory policies and objectives for land. This was because priorities in the conservancy business plans we reviewed were not clearly linked to statutory policies and objectives for land.
4.17
The Northland Conservancy has a Strategic Directions document that is used in preparing the conservancy’s annual business plan. The document sets out strategic directions for the conservancy, and identifies priority sites and initiatives in the conservancy, and opportunities for integrating projects at those sites.
4.18
The East Coast Hawke’s Bay Conservancy has a series of strategies for specific pest management and species protection. The strategies are used with the Conservator’s directions and expectations and historic business plans to set priorities for annual business planning and work programming.
4.19
The West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancy has prepared Biodiversity Action Plans for each Area in the conservancy. Priorities in each Area are identified from relevant strategic documents and plans, including the draft conservation management strategy. Each Biodiversity Action Plan sets out priority sites within each Area, and is used in preparing the conservancy’s annual business plan.
4.20
The business planning process allows for flexibility in the way national priorities are implemented by conservancies. We recognise the need for flexibility in the process, to provide for conditions unique to each conservancy. However, in our view, it should be clear to see how business planning priorities within each conservancy are linked to statutory policies and objectives, to ensure that the policies and objectives within the statutory documents are being implemented effectively.
4.21
For greater consistency between and transparency of conservancies’ business planning and statutory policies and objectives for land, priority should be given to providing guidance to conservancies to set priorities that are clearly linked to statutory policies and objectives.
| Recommendation 3 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Conservation prepare guidance for conservancies in setting priorities within business plans that are clearly linked to statutory policies and objectives for land. |
Accountabilities for land management
4.22
The Department’s standard operating procedures for statutory land management clearly outline relevant legislative delegations and operational accountabilities in processing land transactions.
4.23
The Department’s delegations framework outlines the Director-General’s delegations to specific positions within the Department to spend cash, or incur expenses or liabilities. The General Managers of Operations, Conservators, and Community Relations Managers have been delegated responsibility to acquire land under the Conservation Act 1987 and Wildlife Act 1953, and to acquire, vest, and transfer control and management of land under the Reserves Act 1977. The General Managers of Operations and Conservators have also been delegated responsibility to purchase land under the National Parks Act 1980.
Measuring and reporting performance against management priorities
4.24
The Department regularly measures and reports on its performance against management priorities. It does so in several ways. The Operating Review System requires regular meetings between every Department employee and their manager, to provide information and feedback on how the business plan is being achieved. Operating review meetings between Area Managers and Conservators and between Conservators and General Managers are held monthly, between the Director-General and each General Manager of Operations every 2 months, and between the Director-General and other General Managers quarterly.
4.25
The separate Planning and Performance Review System requires monthly meetings between every employee and their manager. The focus of this review system is on individual performance, rather than performance against the business plan. Planning and performance reviews define and measure the results of employees against specific work plans and performance agreements.
4.26
The output agreement between the Minister of Conservation and the Director-General details the outputs the Minister has agreed to buy for the financial year, and the indicative costs. The Department reports to the Minister formally every 4 months on performance against output plan priorities and measures. In addition, the Director-General reports yearly to the Minister on the Department’s performance against annual forecasts of financial and non-financial performance.
4.27
The Department’s organisational structure shows clear lines of accountability for geographic areas of responsibility, including business, financial, and non-financial planning.
Guidance for land management
4.28
The Department’s statutory land management work – for example, land transactions – has complex statutory requirements, and needs particular processes to be followed, sufficient information, and careful attention to detail. It is important for the Department to provide staff having statutory land management roles with guidance to undertake this work, so that statutory requirements are met. Clear guidance also supports the peer review of statutory land management work, because it provides a reference for checking that steps have been followed.
4.29
All staff have access to standard operating procedures and guidance material relating to statutory land management through the Department’s intranet, and advice from standard operating procedure co-ordinators. In addition, the Department has a statutory land management self-driven training programme for new staff. The aim of the programme is to provide new staff with an introduction to the key statutory provisions affecting the administration of land that the Department is responsible for.
Compliance with the guidance material
4.30
The Department has standard operating procedures for disposing of, exchanging, gazetting, checking, and revoking land and its status. There are processes in place for standard operating procedures to be reviewed and updated regularly to incorporate corrections, best practice experience and improvements, and new developments. Staff can use electronic copies of the procedures through the Department’s intranet. Any changes or amendments to procedures are notified through e-mail and the date of change, nature, and location of changes are recorded directly in the procedure.
4.31
Guidance material for statutory land management allows conservancies to set their own requirements for reviewing their compliance with standard operating procedures. The operating review system provides an opportunity for oversight of compliance. However, there are no formal mechanisms in place within the Department to monitor compliance with standard operating procedures for land transactions. In the 2 land transactions we consider as case studies later in this Part, non-compliance with standard operating procedures may otherwise have been identified and addressed if the transactions were subject to a formal review.
4.32
We recognise the need for conservancy decision-making based on local information, expertise, and advice. However, in our view, the Department needs to formally monitor compliance with standard operating procedures when staff undertake land transactions.
| Recommendation 4 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Conservation formally monitor compliance with relevant standard operating procedures of all land transactions undertaken by conservancies. |
Land transaction activity in conservancies
4.33
We reviewed the approaches to land transactions undertaken by the Northland, East Coast Hawke’s Bay, and West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancies. We found that, although the number of land transactions were few, the conservancies took different approaches to undertaking land transactions.
4.34
We were told that the Northland Conservancy has not acquired or disposed of land since 2000. Conservancy staff advised us that the conservancy was mindful of potentially prejudicing unsettled Treaty of Waitangi claims in undertaking land transactions.
4.35
Since 2000, the East Coast Hawke’s Bay Conservancy has acquired land through:
- the Nature Heritage Fund;
- the Land Acquisition Fund;
- biodiversity strategy funds for purchases for kiwi; and
- money gifted to the conservancy to buy land.
4.36
Conservancy staff advised us of exchanges of small amounts of land for highway alignment purposes under the Public Works Act 1981, and a surplus property disposal. Like Northland, the East Coast Hawke’s Bay Conservancy was mindful of potentially prejudicing unsettled Treaty of Waitangi claims in undertaking land transactions.
4.37
Since 2001, the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancy has acquired land through:
- the transfer of indigenous forest from Timberlands West Coast Limited;
- the Nature Heritage Fund;
- the Land Acquisition Fund; and
- conservancy funds.
4.38
From 2001 to 2004, the conservancy made 8 disposals of land to private individuals. During our audit, the conservancy was considering 74 land disposals and 18 land exchanges, mostly in response to requests from private entities and individuals.
Land transaction case studies
4.39
To check compliance with the Department’s standard operating procedures, we conducted, as case studies, a file review of 2 land transactions undertaken by the Department. The first case study was an acquisition by the Department of some land at Waikawau Bay in the Coromandel (part of the Waikato Conservancy). The second case study was a disposal of land from the Victoria Conservation Park near Reefton on the West Coast by the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancy.
4.40
The Department’s documentation for the 2 land transactions was not complete or clear in terms of the decisions that were made for either transaction, and the documentation highlighted significant non-compliance with the Department’s standard operating procedures.
| Case study 1 – Acquisition at Waikawau Bay |
|---|
| In 2003, the Department bought 150 hectares of remnant coastal forest at Waikawau Bay in the Coromandel. The cost of this purchase was $3.54 million.* At the request of the Minister of Conservation, an application was made to the Land Acquisition Fund to help with the purchase of the land. The Land Acquisition Fund contributed $1 million, and the Nature Heritage Fund and the Government’s discretionary fund contributed $2.54 million to the purchase. We have considered only the Department’s contribution from the Land Acquisition Fund, as the Nature Heritage Fund and the Government’s discretionary fund are outside the scope of our audit. We note that the circumstances of the acquisition were not typical, involving both an application to the Land Acquisition Fund made at the request of the Minister of Conservation and the use of other sources of funding. The standard operating procedure for the Department’s Land Acquisition Fund sets standards for accepting applications and for urgency in processing an application outside Land Acquisition Fund Committee meeting schedules, and includes 8 evaluation criteria for assessing a fund application. Once the application has been accepted, the procedure requires the relevant conservancy to arrange payments and receipts, and to record them against the financial authority given for spending from the fund. The procedure also requires formal reports to be provided every 4 months by the conservancy responsible for the land to the fund manager on progress in spending allocated funds. It was not clear from the file documentation provided by the Department’s Head Office whether the Land Acquisition Fund Committee assessed the application against criteria in the procedure, because the recommendation to the Resource Allocation Committee to fund the application refers to only 2 of the 8 criteria. Also, the file did not show:
|
* Source: Press release by the Minister of Conservation, 27 February 2003.
| Case study 2 – Disposal from Victoria Conservation Park |
|---|
| In 2004, the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancy disposed of 25.6 hectares of land from the Victoria Conservation Park near Reefton on the West Coast for $41,000. The land had been grazed by concession since the 1920s, and the existing concession holder approached the Department in 1999 to buy the land. To dispose of the land, the Department needed to first revoke its conservation area status, and dispose of it as a stewardship area. The Department’s standard operating procedures require revocation to be considered separately from any proposal to dispose of land. In addition, the disposal needed to comply with various requirements under the Conservation Act 1987 and Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. In considering the file documentation provided by the conservancy, we found that the Department did not follow processes set out in its own standard operating procedures. The Department: • mistakenly tried to dispose of the land as a stewardship area without first revoking its status; and • while originally giving Ngai Tahu first right of refusal on the land, disposed of the land outside the statutory timeframes allowed in the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. |
4.41
In relation to the first case study, the Department told us that it departed from the standard operating procedure because the acquisition was not a typical Land Acquisition Fund purchase. The Department has amended procedures to ensure that it will be clear how Land Acquisition Fund applications are to be assessed against evaluation criteria.
4.42
In relation to the second case study, the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancy has revised its procedures to ensure that it meets Conservation Act and Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act requirements when it disposes of land.
4.43
The case studies represent only 2 transactions undertaken by the Department. However, in our view, given the extent of non-compliance highlighted by the case studies, the Department needs to review the files of recent land transactions undertaken through the Land Acquisition Fund and by all conservancies. This should identify any common deficiencies in the way these transactions are carried out, and enable the Department to improve the tools it provides to ensure that the standard operating procedures are followed.
| Recommendation 5 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Conservation review recent land transactions undertaken through the Land Acquisition Fund, and by all conservancies, to identify any common deficiencies and to ensure that the standard operating procedures are followed. |
Our conclusions
4.44
The Department has comprehensive land management systems, which include much of the priority setting, accountabilities, and processes and procedures we expected. However, in our view, these systems need to include guidance for conservancies in setting priorities that are linked clearly to statutory policies and objectives for land. There also needs to be stronger and more centralised compliance monitoring, and a review of all land transaction work undertaken by the Department through the Land Acquisition Fund and by conservancies.