The two bills to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA) are in their final readings in Parliament tonight.
The Planning Bill focuses on how land is used and developed, and the Natural Environment Bill provides the framework for the use and protection of the natural environment.
The SMC asked experts to comment. Feel free to use these comments in your reporting or follow up with the contact details provided. Please contact the SMC if you need additional expert suggestions. Previous expert comments on the RMA reforms are available here.
Dr Joanne Clapcott, President of the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society, comments:
“The passage of the Natural Environment Bill and Planning Bill marks a major change in how Aotearoa New Zealand manages its environment. The New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society supports efforts to make planning clearer and more efficient. However, we are disappointed that the final legislation does not adequately address concerns raised by freshwater scientists and many other submitters.
“Changing legislation does not change how rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquifers work. Freshwater systems have real ecological limits, respond to cumulative pressures and can be extremely difficult and costly to restore once critical thresholds are crossed.
“Environmental limits will be meaningful only if they are based on robust science and mātauranga Māori, backed by strong monitoring, and supported by action that prevents breaches rather than responding after degradation has occurred. We remain concerned that allowing environmental limits to be balanced against social and economic considerations risks repeating the incremental decision-making that has contributed to freshwater decline.
“The passage of the Bills is not the end of the process. Their success will depend heavily on the national instruments, regional plans, implementation arrangements and accountability mechanisms that follow. The Society will continue to contribute its expertise and scrutinise whether the new system delivers measurable improvements in freshwater health.
“New Zealand needs a durable environmental management system that protects freshwater ecosystems while providing certainty for communities and resource users. Healthy freshwater is not a barrier to prosperity; it is essential natural infrastructure underpinning our wellbeing, economy and future.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No COIs.”
Dr Steve Urlich, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Management, Lincoln University, comments:
“The Natural Environment Act (NEA) does not have a definition of ‘Environment’ in section 3, nor does the new Planning Act.
“This is important as the purpose of NEA is: “…to establish a framework for the use, protection, and enhancement of the natural environment.”
“By contrast, the Resource Management Act had the following definition, which included people and communities as being part of nature:
“environment includes—
- ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and
- all natural and physical resources; and
- amenity values; and
- the social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) or which are affected by those matters
“The “environment” now appears to comprise “natural and physical resources”, which specifically omits people and communities.
“Schedule 11 of the Planning Act also removes the RMA definition of environment from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000, replacing it to one of natural and physical resources.
“The implication is that “environment” is separate to people and is there to serve humans.
“Another important issue is the removal of regional council powers to control fishing for the protection of diverse marine habitats.
“Many are fragile being formed by living organisms. These support a profusion of life which captures and stores carbon, and provide myriad niches for many species.
“The Ministry of Primary Industries has largely failed to systematically identify and protect habitats of significance over the last 30 years under the Fisheries Act.
“Consequently, in places like the Marlborough Sounds, the seabed has been repeatedly destabilised by trawling and dredging.
“Large plumes of sediment are remobilised as the seafloor is broken up, and these plumes move elsewhere with the tides to smother shellfish beds such as scallops.
“Marlborough District Council has protected many remaining fragile habitats from bottom-contact fishing, but these safeguards may be stripped away when the NEA is fully implemented.
“The Environment Court recently found that the Marlborough Sounds is ecologically degraded.
“Resuspended sediment from fishing and unsustainable land use practices pouring in fresh new sediment loads are key drivers of this.
“It is possible that the new regulatory relief provisions in the Planning Act will make it too expense to address these issues.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I was an independent (unpaid) expert witness to the Environment Court on behalf of the Environmental Defence Society in the Environment Court decision mentioned.”