In August 2001 the Minister for Conservation declined an application by GRD Macraes for an access arrangement to enable work at the Globe Progress Mine near Reefton. In her decision, Ms Lee said: I have considered whether potential compensation and the proposed safeguards against some of the adverse effects are sufficient to outweigh my concerns as to the loss of conservation values, consistency with the objectives of the Conservation Act, the purposes for which the land is held by the Crown and, to a lesser extent, the North Westland Regional Management Plan. I do not think they are sufficient. To my mind, my concerns as to the consistency with the objectives of the Conservation Act, the purposes for which the land is held and the loss of some conservation values in particular, outweigh any potential compensation and possible mitigation of adverse effects.' Commenting on the Minister's decision Guy Salmon of the Ecological Foundation stated that the Minister should have invited the applicant to provide a 10 000 hectare pest-free wildlife sanctuary as part of the price' for obtaining that access. However, for many people of green persuasion, it has become fashionable to say no every timethose who really have the well-being of the environment at heart, will want to look carefully at the bigger picture of environmental restoration needsThe deciding criterion: the mining company should show that its involvement on conservation land would produce a net conservation gain. That is a criterion that creates the right incentives for win-win-win solutions on conservation land.' This paper considers whether the concept of off site mitigation is one which fits within the current legal regime. Two questions arise: Can such mitigation/compensation be legally considered in access arrangements or required as a condition of resource consents? Is this a realistic option for industry to be pursuing?