EDS Launches Major New Report On Risks And Solutions In Replacing The Resource Management Act

The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) has today
released its third and final report in a multi-year project
examining the Government’s ‘phase 3’ resource
management reforms: Replacing the Resource Management Act
– Risks and Solutions.

The report provides an
in-depth analysis of the Government’s blueprint to replace
the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) with two new statutes
and explores the risks and opportunities these proposals
present.

It explores seven key shifts that are being
proposed for the new system, including:

• Narrowing
  the scope of the system to externalities, and the
  implications for land use, urban design, and climate
  resilience.
• Proposals for regulatory takings and the
  risks of undermining public interest environmental
  protections.
• How legislative design – splitting the
  RMA into a Planning Act and Natural Environment Act – could
  fragment management and increase complexity.
• The
  purpose and principles of the new legislation, including
  weak recognition of the environment and Treaty
  obligations.
• Frameworks for environmental limits,
  strategic spatial planning, and national
  standardisation.

The report draws on
international lessons from Ireland, Singapore, the United
Kingdom and Australia, and provides detailed recommendations
for how New Zealand can design a system that both protects
nature and enables development in the right
places.

“These reforms represent the
most significant changes to New Zealand’s environmental
law in a generation. The risks are very real – but there are
also opportunities if the design is done well,” says EDS
Reform Director and report author Dr Greg
Severinsen.

“For
example:

• Environmental limits:
  Strong limits could improve on the RMA’s balancing between
  environmental protection and development – but only if set
  with the right criteria and backed by legal consequences and
  accountability. Dropping nationally set limits for
  freshwater quality would be a serious step
  backwards.
• Spatial planning: A
  promising tool, but only if constraints like significant
  natural areas and landscapes are identified upfront. Done
  well, it can also boost biodiversity and other environmental
  outcomes, as seen in
  Singapore.
• Standardisation:
  National default zones may bring efficiency and certainty,
  but New Zealand’s unique environments still need bespoke
  rules. Blanket reliance on permitted activities would cause
  major problems.

“Policy-makers need to
approach other shifts with extreme caution. For
example:

• Regulatory takings:
  Introducing a compensation regime is a very bad idea and
  would likely chill environmental regulation, overwhelm
  councils and lead to increased
  litigation.
• Splitting the law:
  Dividing resource management into two statutes risks
  complexity, duplication and gaps. The environment cannot be
  neatly compartmentalised. There are some ways forward that
  are better than others, and careful design could lead to
  less bad outcomes.
• Purpose of new
  law: The RMA has failed because it hasn’t been
  protective enough. New legislation must strengthen
  environmental safeguards, not just enable
  development.
• Externalities focus:
  Limiting the system only to externalities is short-sighted
  and would exclude crucial protections like preventing land
  contamination, safeguarding elite soils and ensuring good
  urban design.

“Much of this direction of
travel is at odds with other countries, which are
increasingly recognising that environmental protection and
enhancement are an integral part of a thriving economy and
society. The European Union’s recent Nature Restoration
Law is a case in point. Without careful attention, we will
be going from leader to laggard.

“The
two new Bills replacing the RMA are expected to be
introduced towards the end of the year, and this will be the
public’s only chance to engage. The report lays the
groundwork for people to engage meaningfully in the select
committee process.

“If we don’t get
it right this time, we may be in store for yet another round
of flip flopping when government changes. That will create
more cost, frustration and paralysis. Environmental law is a
long game, requiring stability and consensus,” concluded
Dr Severinsen.

Grateful thanks to Forest and Bird and
the Michael and Suzanne Borrin Foundation for supporting the
project.

The Report is available here.

© Scoop Media