Indigenous land cover worldwide has been reduced significantly due to human activities, altering the spatial distribution, prevalence and functioning of indigenous ecosystems. In Aotearoa New Zealand, less than half of New Zealand’s land area remains under indigenous vegetation cover, and spatial conservation conflicts can arise if the desire to protect these areas competes with the desire to use these same areas for other purposes such as agriculture or development. While conservation conflicts can positively influence change by providing opportunities to increase dialogue between stakeholders to influence national-level governance, they can also be costly and destructive, undermining conservation objectives while limiting economic development, social equality, and resource sustainability.

In this study, I argue that conservation conflicts are linked to New Zealand’s national land-sparing approach, where conservation and production are typically mutually exclusive land-use options, indicating a vulnerability for conflicts to arise where these geographically overlap or border. To adjust land use thinking towards an integrated approach, this research asks (1) how can we assess land use conflicts? (2) How can policy indicate sources of conflict? And (3) how can stakeholder responses to environmental policy guide conflict interventions that support a transition towards a national land-sharing approach?

To address these research questions, I performed a mixed-methods approach, quantitatively analysing publicly available spatial data (5x5km grid) to quantify and map indigenous vegetation cover, public conservation status, and agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Areas (i.e., grid cells) were considered ‘high conflict’ if they had high levels of indigenous vegetation, high rates of GHG emissions, and low levels of legal protection. In this analysis, NZ's Waikato and Northland regions were identified as being high conflict. A qualitative analysis of twelve stakeholder representatives from these regions with conservation, forestry, farming, and government interests identified four policies that indicate sources of conflicts across stakeholder groups, including the Emissions Trading Scheme, Essential Freshwater Package, National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, and He Waka Eke Noa – The Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership.

An examination of policy intentions and stakeholder responses revealed indications of conflict that can be used to resolve existing conflicts and establish more effective policy systems that influence a more holistic approach to land use governance. Present policies have relied too heavily upon regulation alone to force environmental outcomes, forcing trade-offs of production to be undertaken in an either/or approach. Instead, landowners must be recognised and rewarded for enhancing native biodiversity across productive landscapes, a process requiring comprehensive policy packages that foster a holistic approach to land management to provide long-lasting legislation, mitigation, and technical resolutions. This can be best supported by implementing the One Health framework, utilising cross-disciplinary research, and coordinating cross-sectoral collaboration to find common ground between stakeholder groups and deliver long-term legislation, mitigation, and technical resolutions to conservation conflicts.