Going to Court for Nature

Forest and Bird, Issue 295, 1 February 2000, Page 36

Going

to Court for Nature

Forest and Bird volunteers and staff are using the Resource Management Act to protect nature and natural values. ANDY DENNIS, EUGENIE SAGE and BARRY WEEBER report on successes.

lanning laws are an important tool for conservation. The provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 can be used for improving protection of threatened species and habitats, for preserving landscapes such as the natural character of the coast, and the general quality of the natural (and cultural) environment. As a consequence, Forest and Bird has been an active advocate for nature using provisions of the Act. These include making submissions on regional policy statements, and the provisions of district and regional plans, all required of councils under the law. Forest and Bird staff and committee members frequently attend hearings to substantiate the concerns raised in submissions under the Act. They use its provisions when opposing the granting of resource consents for activities which would have

adverse environmental effects. District and regional councils recognize some of these concerns by modifying their decisions on plans and resource consent applications. But Forest and Bird has increasingly needed to continue its advocacy for nature all the way to the Environment Court. This is the place where appeals brought under the provisions of the Resource Management Act are determined. Because the Act replaces the old planning system, it serves as the defining law controlling peoples’ ability to make changes to the environment. The increasing importance of the Resource Management Act as an instrument for environmental protection is reflected in the 22 references on plans and seven resource-consent appeals Forest and Bird currently has before the Environment Court. Ten references and

appeals by Forest and Bird have been resolved since the Act came into force in Be pe Nationally, Forest and Bird is one of the few community organisations to have made submissions on most regional and district policy statements and plans. In so doing, branches and staff have devoted a huge amount of time and energy to making submissions and attending hearings. Little of this work receives media attention or a public profile. The Society’s objective is to persuade councils to implement the Resource Management Act’s purpose of ‘sustainable management. This can be done through district and regional plans, and associated ‘policy statements’. The Society seeks policies and rules which recognize and protect indigenous forests; also wetlands, tussock grasslands, and other native ecosystems.

The Act can also be used to safeguard the margins of rivers, lakes and the coast , and to preserve the natural character of the coastal marine area out to a distance of 12 nautical miles. Important gains for conservation have resulted. Councils have responded to submissions presented by Forest and Bird, the Department of Conservation and others, by sometimes amending their plans to better recognize and protect natural values. They do this through measures such as rules controlling the drainage of wetlands

and the clearance of indigenous vegetation (see Protecting your local patch, Forest & Bird, August 1994). However, councils almost invariably also face pressure from landholders and resource users to restrict the scope of environmental protection. As a result, local authorities frequently opt for a compromise, relying on measures such as ‘education’ and ‘voluntary restraints’. Forest and Bird generally supports a more effective process of council supervision through rules and the issue of resource consents. As more councils complete the public submission and hearing process, and notify their amended plans, Forest and Bird has to decide whether the revised plan provisions are adequate to safeguard nature, or whether it should seek stronger protection through the Environment Court. While this removes the issue from the lobbying and political pressures, the time and effort involved can be expensive. There is the time in preparing for and attending court hearings, the need for (and cost of) expert witnesses and legal counsel, and the

possibility of costs being awarded against the Society if an appeal is unsuccessful. All this means that the Society’s legal subcommittee of the Executive scrutinizes every proposal for an appeal very closely. Preparing submissions and evidence accounts for a significant amount of staff and branch members’ time. Currently, Forest and Bird appeals are co-ordinated by Helen Fraser and Barry Weeber in the central office. South Island field officers, Eugenie Sage and Sue Maturin, also spend much of their time on issues related to the Resource Management Act. Executive members Keith Chapple, Linda Conning, and Peter White, and a coopted member Peter Horsley, are also heavily involved with the legal sub-com-mittee of the national executive. Many local branch members contribute their time in nature conservation by using the processes provided by the Act. In several recent cases, Forest and Bird has benefited from lawyers, scientists and other expert witnesses contributing their time and skills, either free or for a significantly reduced fee. Without such assistance many important appeals simply could not be undertaken. Unfortunately, some major cases (such as against the extensive open-cast gold mine proposed by Macraes Mining on conservation land near Reefton) could not be pursued because the cost would be too great. The case studies on these pages show that work under the Resource Management Act is a key part of important conservation campaigns. They also highlight the increasing use of mediation and negotiation to try to avoid appeals to the Environment Court. With a backlog of

more than 1600 cases the Court itself has promoted mediation and discussion. In several of the district plans referred (or appealed) to the Environment Court, Forest and Bird has managed to reach a negotiated settlement with councils and other parties, without the need to proceed to formal (and costly) court hearings.