The Decade of the R.M.A.

Forest and Bird, Issue 302, 1 November 2001, Page 32

The Decade of the R.M.A.

ERIC PYLE.

ERIC PYLE

lf New Zealand is to retain its ‘clean, green image’ we need to plan more effectively,

according to

The first 10 years of the Resource Management Act have been turbulent ones. If New Zealand is not to lose its ‘clean, green image’, then thought must be given to implementing the Act better. Among many of our natural and human environments, the Resource Management Act affects the air we breathe, the water quality at the beach, the character of the street, and the coastal environment. It can even affect the quality of the water in the tap! Developers, however, blame the Act for slowing development. Communities blame it for allowing too much development. Houseowners blame it when they can’t build something that shades the neighbours. Houseowners blame it when the person next door builds something that shades them! Ten years ago, the Resource Management Act was heralded as worldleading environmental legislation, yet major parts of it have never been used. Industry has repeatedly attacked it. Environmentalists staunchly defend it. Barely a week goes by without it being mentioned as a point of argument in the media. So what has the Act achieved, what is all the controversy about?

The Gains

There is little quantitative evidence of the environmental gains that the Resource Management Act has helped achieve. This is not a fault with the Resource Management Act. Rather, it is a failure of a critical aspect of the Act, which is to monitor our environment. The foundation on which the Act’s ‘sustainable management’ relies is that decisions are based on adequate knowledge. Each regional council and some district councils, to which day-to-day implementation of the Resource Management Act has devolved, are developing their own monitoring systems, independently. There is little coordination. Putting together a consistent national picture on the state of our environment, or even comparing the situation around the country, is well nigh impossible due to the different planning approaches and monitoring systems used. Yet anecdotal evidence suggests there have been considerable environmental gains since the Resource Management Act was enacted. Landfills around the country are now

mostly ‘consented’ (meeting environmental standards under the Act). Many others, which failed to meet the standards, have been closed. There has undoubtedly been an improvement in water quality, through better control of forestry practices and discharges of stormwater, sewage and dairy-shed effluent. Large hydro schemes are being ‘consented’ too, and for the first time their effects on the environment properly considered. In some parts of the country landowners cannot destroy native forest without first seeking approval from councils, but unfortunately this is not the case everywhere. So there have been some real advances, but getting quantitative information on these and developing a coherent national picture is difficult.

The Pains

Judging by media coverage, the Resource Management Act is a controversial piece of legislation. But when it is remembered that this single Act replaced a plethora of legislation it is probably no more controversial than the total controversy which surrounded the numerous acts it replaced; such as the Water and Soil Conservation Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Town and Country Planning Act. All the ‘controversy’ that occurred under these previous Acts is now concentrated around the one Act. If anything the controversy has been about the implementation of the Resource Management Act, not the Act itself. Patchy and often bizarre implementation by local councils makes the Resource Management Act vulnerable to criticism. Councils frequently do not give sufficient weight to considering alternatives. Some persist in accepting applications that are deficient in the necessary information base on which the act relies for its the successful operation. Implementation at a local level is a major problem. Increased guidance and assistance of local government by central Government would aid implementation.

Doing It Hard

Underpinning the Resource Management Act is the idea that local communities know best and decisions should be ‘devolved’ to local communities. Some people argue this devolution is a

fundamental tenet of sound resource management. Cynics argue it is a way for central Government to save money on the implementation of the Resource Management Act, by lumbering local government with all the costs and responsibility. This devolution of decision-making to the local level may sound like a good idea, but the reality is that there are issues that occur nationally and which are best addressed at the national level. As it is, approaches to management of issues vary around the country. Yet a cow in a stream has the same impact on the stream whether it is in Northland or Southland. The solution is the same throughout the country — fencing streams. There are many other issues that need to be tackled nationally rather than in an ad hoc, local manner. There is also the issue of social equity. Some councils are rich with trading profits and trust funds, while others are cash strapped. Those with a small ratepayer base cannot afford the investment required to follow sound practices. The real problem with the Resource Management Act is that central Government has not provided the necessary assistance to local Government to make it work properly. Local Government was given a number of extra tasks following its restructuring in the 1980s. Yet central Government has not really faced up to this fact. Sadly, it has not offered much assistance to councils to help them adapt to the brave new way of doing things under the Resource Management Act. Instead, Governments have attempted to change the legislation to sort out, what in reality are implementation issues. The difficulties with implementing the Resource Management Act will not be solved by amending the legislation.

Acting in Ignorance

The role of science and research in good planning is an important area that has not worked well. The central Government’s lack of support was most acute in this most important area. Good resource management is based on good science and information. Yet at the same time the Resource Management Act was implemented, Government turned its science agencies into Crown Research Institutes. These institutes are required to charge for services and information

which creates an economic barrier for people involved in resource management and wanting access to scientific information. The result is that good science is being published in international journals (often obscure) but is not well used by central Government, local councils or communities. This restructuring of the public science system in the early 1990s pulled out a key foundation from under the resource management system. If the Resource Management Act is to work effectively, the Government needs to ensure that the science system is able to deliver tools and information to people working with the Act.

‘Clean, green’ but mean

New Zealand’s ‘clean, green image’ is becoming increasingly important to our prosperity. Yet, at present, it’s conceivable that a local community could make a decision that puts us at risk. In these circumstances, the protection afforded by the Resource Management Act could be a huge economic advantage for New Zealand — not the constraint that many in the business sector claim it is. With the ‘clean, green image’ becoming more important, there may need to be greater central Government involvement in resource management. The idea that environmental problems are best addressed at the local level may also need revisiting. The increasing importance of the ‘clean green image’ may mean that some of the mechanisms for implementing the Resource Management Act may need to be used much more effectively. For example, more national standards, such as one for water quality, and some national policy statements may be needed. Currently we have no national standards. It could even mean, as in many other countries, a new agency might desirable along the lines of an Environmental Protection Agency to protect the ‘clean, green image’.

Looking Ahead

There is no inherent problem with the Resource Management Act. The controversy is all about some poor practice by local councils, caused by a lack of

assistance from central Government. Better implementation will require a concerted effort by central Government and a much broader approach, focusing on the whole system of resource management. This includes the development of standards, national policy statements, the training of council officers, and putting in place good environmental information systems. The science system should produce better information for those working with the Act. A recent Government report, by the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs, summarises the situation: ‘The issues that continue to arise regarding the interpretation of the Act occurred because the introduction of the Act a decade ago was underfunded.... It is a lesson sorely learned and one that must be avoided when future legislation is introduced’ The Government and all parties which work with the Resource Management Act now need to focus on ways of making it work better.

is conservation manager of Forest

and Bird, and has broad experience with several agencies concerned with resource management.