Archives: New Zealand’s Resource Management Act
(current to 1999)

If the Netherlands' environment can be compared to that of a major metropolitan area such as Los Angeles or a highly industrialized state such as New Jersey, New Zealand's environment is best compared to that of a state such as Montana or Alaska--rich in resources, few in people, with very little industrialization. About the same size as California, New Zealand has a population of about 3.5 million, mostly concentrated in a few urban areas.

New Zealand's economy is based primarily on its wealth of natural resources. Until recently, the country's main industry was livestock, primarily sheep; New Zealand also depends heavily on farming, forestry, fishing, horticulture, mineral extraction, and more recently, tourism. Its primary environmental problems are caused by overuse of these resources and from loss of native flora and fauna (due to a number of causes), rather than by the industrialization common to many developed nations.

A mountainous island nation in the South Pacific Ocean, comprised of three main islands, New Zealand was isolated from the larger land masses many millions of years ago. The islands developed a wealth of unique plants and animals, particularly birds, since there were few mammals and no snakes to prey upon them.

The Maori were the first people to migrate to New Zealand, about 1,000 years ago, from the Pacific. When they arrived, the country was about 80 percent forested; between that time and the arrival of European settlers, it is estimated that the Maori burned about one-third to one-half of the original forest and caused the extinction of some 40 species of birds (the Maori also introduced some non-native species to the islands) before achieving a sustainable lifestyle some time around the 17th century. Europeans, who began settling New Zealand about 150 years ago, radically changed the landscape, converting much of it to farm and pasture. They cut or burned much of the remaining forest; built towns, roads, and railroads; and introduced new plants and animals into the native ecosystem.

Some of New Zealand's most serious problems stem from intensive agricultural and land-clearing practices applied to wet, steep, deforested terrain. Monoculture (including sheep monoculture) and heavy use of fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, and irrigation have heavily impacted the country's soil in particular, with threats to soil ranging from erosion to flooding and loss of fertility. About 50 percent of the country's land area shows signs of erosion. Another major threat is loss of biodiversity; many of its rare native species are threatened or endangered, and the extinction rate is among the world's highest. Some of New Zealand's fisheries have been overexploited and are declining, while development and pollution have caused significant losses of wetlands.

During the 1980s and 1990s, New Zealand went through a period of sweeping reform involving economic liberalization and an overhaul of the entire government sector. With a long tradition of heavy government involvement in the economy, a top-heavy bureaucracy, and high levels of regulation, New Zealand found itself in dire economic straits following the oil crisis of the 1970s. The primary purpose of these reforms were to open up the economy and to make government more efficient and accountable.

At the same time, however, there was a drive to reform the country's resource management laws to make them not only more efficient, but also more effective in providing strong environmental protection and more open to public input. This reform was spurred in part by an earlier government's attempts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, to push a series of massive development projects such as a major dam on one of the country's wild and scenic rivers. In order to move these projects forward, the government had tried to change a number of environmental laws, including limiting the right of individuals to testify.

The public, up in arms over this attempt to restrict its input into environmental decisions, eventually voted in a more environmentally-oriented party that came into office with the intent of reforming the country's entire system of environmental law. Beginning in 1988, the resource management law reform process was intended to be a complete overhaul of existing law, which was frequently overlapping, contradictory, unclear, or riddled with gaps and which involved far too many different authorities.

The radical reform of these laws was facilitated by the fact that New Zealand has a strong executive branch that can make rapid, major changes in law; there is no constitution or federal system of states or provinces. Additionally, the deputy prime minister (later prime minister), Geoffrey Palmer, also became minister of the environment, which gave him dual authority over environmental reform, and a committee he established comprising key ministers of finance, local government, commerce, energy, and transport added force to the reform process.

To launch the reforms, the government initiated a three-phase process to:

• ask and answer the question of whether there should be a law for the management of physical and natural resources, and what should be included;
• look at options for achieving the objectives defined in the first phase and choose the best means; and
• develop specific policies and draft appropriate laws.

Each phase of the process was conducted by government but with the full participation of all segments of society. The process of public input and review was remarkably thorough, taking at least three years. The government held hundreds of meetings throughout the country, visiting all major cities, and established a toll-free number for input. There was also a great deal of ongoing discussion on television and radio. Particular attention was devoted to soliciting the input of the Maori people, environmental and community groups, and the business community.

The result was a broad-based consensus on goals and the best means for achieving them. The Resource Management Act (RMA) took effect on October 1, 1991, as the primary legislation for managing all of New Zealand's natural and physical resources. In tandem with local government reforms, the RMA replaced 57 existing resource-related laws, boiling them down into one, and whittled 800 units of government down to 93. One of the more remarkable features of this reform is that New Zealand's resource management is now based primarily on watershed boundaries rather than arbitrary political ones. The intent of the RMA is to achieve maximum environmental benefit with a minimum of regulation; the goal is a sustainable high quality of life for all New Zealanders.

The Resource Management Act

The key principle driving the RMA is the sustainable management of New Zealand's resources. This is defined in the act as managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety, while:

• sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;
• safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
• avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Any actions taken under the RMA--in effect, any decisions that may have environmental consequences--must satisfy these requirements. Of key importance is the requirement that while social, economic, and cultural objectives will play an important role in decision-making, they cannot be allowed to threaten the sustainability of ecosystems.

This definition of sustainable management has allowed New Zealand to apply the principles of sustainable development in a practical fashion to the problems of managing its own resources. The fact that the RMA does not deal with the broader social issues of sustainable development does not mean that New Zealand will avoid these questions; merely that they are beyond the proper scope of a law intended to govern national resource management.

The RMA was designed to be comprehensive, dealing with all resources, ecosystems, and the links between them, and to integrate environmental policies and actions across governmental jurisdictions and within society as a whole. The act is also intended to decentralize most resource-related decisions to the level of government closest to the problem and to the citizens who will be affected, in order to improve efficiency and accountability. In addition, the RMA recognizes the Maori people's rights over natural resources according to the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, as well as the importance of Maori principles of stewardship to the concept of sustainable management. The RMA requires decision-makers to ensure that Maori interests are taken into full account when making and implementing decisions.

Under the old system of resource laws, New Zealand was heavily dependent on prescriptive planning and regulation that restricted types of activities; under the RMA, the emphasis is instead on the effects that activities will have on the environment. In other words, rather than tell property owners that they have to build houses here or can't put a business there, the RMA has set up a process for determining environmental quality standards and ensuring that they will not be contravened; within that framework, people are allowed maximum freedom to make their own decisions regarding the use of their land. However, in the case of community-owned and/or -managed land and resources, such as water, the reverse is true: activities are not allowed unless specifically permitted.

This system produces a strict bottom line of environmental protection. For example, unless explicitly allowed by a plan or permit, no one is allowed to discharge a pollutant into water. Also, under the RMA every New Zealander is responsible for any adverse effects his or her activities may have on the environment, and is required to either avoid the adverse effects or remedy or mitigate them. Any individual or government agency can seek a restraining order against environmentally damaging activities; the public also has a right to a voice in all environmental decisions and planning.

To establish the framework for the environmental decision-making process, the RMA identifies three levels of government roles and responsibilities. The central government is responsible for setting national environmental standards and policy on matters of national significance; it is also responsible for monitoring the RMA's implementation. National environmental standards are to be technical ones related to such things as water, air, and soil quality; they will set the limits regarding what constitutes the sustainable management of resources. National policy statements, on the other hand, will express national goals and objectives for the environment, and may deal with general issues or address a specific issue or site.

The next level of government responsibility lies with the regional authorities. New Zealand's 16 regions are mostly based on watershed boundaries; regional councils are directly elected and are responsible for preparing regional policy statements. These statements assess the situation of resources within the region, identify and articulate the key resource issues and priorities, and develop strategies for addressing them and for providing sustainable management over the long term. Overall, regional statements provide the policy framework for integrated resource management.

Regional councils may also develop detailed plans regarding specific resource issues, but only a regional coastal plan is required. In addition, regional councils are responsible for monitoring the state of the environment, assessing the effectiveness of district plans and their compliance with the RMA, and monitoring compliance with permit requirements.

The third level of government is the district, which is based on communities and their surrounding areas. District authorities are required to formulate district plans to deal with issues of land use, subdivision, noise, and the effects of activities on surface waters of rivers and lakes. They must be consistent with regional and national policies and standards.

Within these guidelines, regional and district authorities have broad leeway in the creation of their policies and plans. They are free to use the best mix of tools for achieving the goals they define, including economic instruments, regulations, voluntary agreements, educational programs, and so forth. The act only requires that alternatives be considered and that outcomes be clear. This tremendous flexibility and the concomitant responsibility for outcomes means that a great deal of the effectiveness of the act will depend on these implementing authorities.

The hierarchy of plans and statements determines which activities will require permits (those that do not must still stay within the rules and standards set). Permits must be obtained if required under a plan, or if the given activity violates the restrictions of the RMA itself; some activities may be prohibited entirely, while others may be awarded permits only under certain conditions or by meeting specific requirements. Both regional and district councils issue permits, but each type deals only with the issues that lie within its scope of responsibility. However, if a resource user needs permits from both the regional and district authorities, only one hearing is required. The government has made every attempt to streamline the permitting process while strictly safeguarding environmental quality.

Essentially, if a landowner can not operate within the standards that are set, he or she will have to apply for a permit and present evidence regarding the environmental effects of the intended activities. The appropriate authority will then assess these impacts and determine if, and under what conditions, the permit may be awarded. Any person can have a voice in this process, and the act specifically encourages permit-seekers to consult the community and meet with interested parties before a hearing is conducted, to see if any differences can be negotiated. Permit decisions can be appealed to an environmental court by the applicant or any interested party.

Strict monitoring and enforcement provisions are laid out in the act. In addition to their permitting powers, the environmental courts, also known as planning tribunals, can rule on whether or not a particular regional or district plan or policy complies with the RMA and its provisions for sustainable management. Penalties for those who violate RMA standards and rules can be strict, in some cases even involving jail terms, and the directors of companies that are not in compliance may be held liable.

The Environment 2010 Strategy

In 1994, the environment ministry published the government's long-term strategic environmental plan for New Zealand, called the Environment 2010 Strategy. Environment 2010 is not a specific plan, but rather an outline of goals, vision, and direction. In addition to identifying the nation's highest-priority environmental issues and listing broad goals in each area, Environment 2010 establishes responsibilities for action among the various levels of government, Maori and NGOs, industry, and communities. It also discusses key management principles and tools to help New Zealanders achieve environmental and economic sustainability within the context of the RMA.

Environment 2010 is an important document in that it sets a national vision for New Zealand's future and clearly identifies goals, players, and actions. It clarifies the central government's responsibilities in terms of setting a clear and coherent national vision, and for linking the environmental, economic, and cultural elements of sustainability. It also addresses the international aspects of environmental policy that the RMA cannot.

However, Environment 2010 also clearly shows that New Zealand's governments since the reform era have had a tendency to focus on cost savings and economic liberalization above all else. For example, in outlining the responsibilities of regional and district authorities, the document puts its emphasis on cost-effectiveness, which sends a message about priorities to local governments.

Many of the market-based principles the document identifies--internalization of environmental costs, investing in science and research, the precautionary principle--are simply more efficient tools for achieving environmental goals. But some of the others, such as providing environmental compensation and using property rights approaches, are more problematic and seem to place greater weight on economic outcomes than on environmental sustainability. This tension between the market economy and environmental goals is currently a subject of hot political debate in New Zealand, and this document does not resolve it, though it does clearly state that "The only acceptable direction for environmental quality is upwards."

Finally, however, in laying out an "environmental management agenda" for New Zealand's future, Environment 2010 clearly shows the central government's commitment to the principles of comprehensive, integrated environmental management. The document identifies the government's five key environmental management goals:

• integrate environmental, economic, and social policies
• establish and maintain a coherent framework of law
• sharpen the policy tools
• build up the information base
• involve people in decision-making

With these five goals, the government shows that it understands what is needed to keep the RMA process on track and move the country toward efficient, sustainable resource management.

The Roles of Business, Government, and NGOs

One of the primary purposes of New Zealand's resource management law reform was to re-envision government's role in the protection and management of natural resources. Although greater efficiency in achieving outcomes and less government restriction on freedoms were two important goals of this process, the primary objectives remain the safeguarding of natural systems and resources and sustaining them for future generations.

These objectives are the responsibility of all New Zealanders, and government will continue to play an important role in working toward them under the RMA, just as it took a leadership role in driving reform. The biggest change has come in the shift from top-down, rule-laden government based on prescriptive statutory planning to a more flexible system of resource management that is outcome-driven and effects-based.

Micro-management through zoning laws and regulations is no longer the standard mode of operation; rather, the government's primary responsibility, from the national to the regional and district levels, is to create and implement a framework that allows communities across New Zealand to determine their environmental priorities, goals, and strategies. Decision-making is designed to be decentralized and participatory, responding to local conditions and concerns, and adaptable to change.

Another important role for the government is to establish environmental quality standards based on good information and science, and to define the limits beyond which sustainability cannot be maintained. Governments also bear primary responsibility for monitoring both environmental quality and the effectiveness of government policies, and to make that information public. In addition, government is responsible for enforcing adherence to environmental laws and standards. Finally, the national government provides direction on issues of national and international concern.

Responses to the resource management reform process and the RMA itself have been widely varied within New Zealand's business community. Some have opposed it from the beginning and continue to do so. However, many businesses from a variety of sectors participated in the reform process and eventually came to constitute an important part of the broad popular support for the act. Those businesses that have participated in the process realized that it was necessary to do so if their voices were to be heard. They also realized, however, that firm environmental standards and laws to maintain the country's resource base in a sustainable fashion were important to their own long-term business interests, because New Zealand's economy is so heavily resource-dependent. Additionally, they hoped that the reform process would make environmental laws more clear and fair, level the playing field so that one company or industry couldn't manipulate the law to its own advantage, and reduce the burden of government regulation on their industries.

Since the passage of the RMA, environmental awareness has risen in the business community as a whole: 73 percent of respondents to a recent survey of businesses said that the act had contributed significantly to making environmental responsibility a priority in their business. Part of this can be ascribed to the strict liability provisions of the act, including the fact that individual companies and CEOs can be fined and even jailed for environmental infractions.

But the entire process of the RMA, with its substantial public discussion and review, also helped bring environmental awareness to the fore. Some of the broader reforms, such as the removal of all government subsidies from agriculture, also served to push businesses along the path toward sustainable production; many farmers now see that it can have economic advantages, not least in capturing a share of the market for "clean, green" foods.

As a result of the RMA, some businesses and trade groups have become more proactive in their environmental policies, adopting standards and codes of practice that can be more rigorous than required by law. Examples include the national Pork Industry Board, representing essentially all of New Zealand's pork producers, which developed (in consultation with the environment ministry) high performance standards and a code of practice that all its members must meet. Likewise, the Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation developed a strict code of practice dealing with pesticides and other substances, complete with training and certification requirements.

Other businesses have developed environmental management strategies, policies, and action plans to help make their operations cleaner and more efficient. As in the Netherlands, larger companies in particular have led the way in adopting environmental policies and systems. It is easier for big companies to take on these responsibilities, but as the practices become more widespread and the government provides assistance, smaller companies will join in.

A good motivation for businesses to be proactive under the RMA is that it can often help them meet standards and satisfy community objectives while minimizing the cost and effort involved. For example, the Pork Industry Board adopted its code in order to avoid recurring litigation around the establishment of new piggeries, while the vegetable growers' code meets that industry's obligations under statutory plans. This desire to minimize difficulties by anticipating them is also a primary reason that businesses have begun to consult with communities about and participate in mediations regarding permit applications.

From the beginning of the resource management reform process, environmental, community, and Maori groups believed that the new law had tremendous potential for increasing public input into resource decision-making. These groups envisioned new forms of participation in decision-making, including consultative relationships with governments, partnerships, formal agreements (particularly between Maori authorities and government), and a strong voice in the development of regional and district plans, as well as in negotiations and hearings regarding permit applications.

To date, only some of this potential has been realized. NGO groups have been largely satisfied with the level of government consultation with them on various policies, and Maori tribal authorities have also been actively consulted. Public input into the permitting process has at times been very active, and as mentioned above, some companies have established procedures for consulting with stakeholder groups and the public before moving ahead with a permit application. However, there are still a number of barriers to effective and full public participation in the RMA's implementation. Some of these are inherent in New Zealand's current social system, while others have developed during the process of implementing the RMA; they will be discussed in further detail below.

Achievements, Challenges and Next Steps

New Zealand's far-reaching reform processes and the passage of the RMA were in themselves monumental accomplishments for any country. In essence, the country determined to make itself a test case for innovative environmental philosophy and management, cutting loose from much of its established law and custom in environmental protections. However, passage of the act was just the beginning of this process, and New Zealanders are finding that the truly difficult tasks of legal and cultural reform lie in the RMA's implementation. That implementation is not yet complete, and final judgement on the effectiveness of the new system must wait.

However, progress and setbacks in the process can be measured. The primary work of implementing the RMA is taking place on the regional and district levels, as authorities create the necessary policies and plans. As of 1997, nine district plans are fully operative, one is partially operative, 13 are before the Environmental Court, and 36 have been developed but are still being reviewed; 15 districts have not yet developed a plan.

The quality of the existing plans varies widely. Some, such as Waitakere City, the Canterbury Regional Council, the Taranaki Region, are leading the way, developing comprehensive plans based on the principles of sustainability and utilizing a broad palette of measures beyond regulation to achieve environmental goals. Waitakere, hailed as New Zealand's first "eco-city," is recognized internationally as a model for other communities. Its plan provides for overhauling suburban sprawl, promoting infill development, and creating a network of streamways and ecological corridors that includes a pilot program for restoring urban riparian habitats. Waitakere has also taken the lead in promoting water conservation as an alternative to "end-of-pipe" engineering solutions.

The Canterbury Regional Council provides another stellar example of planning under the RMA with the process it employed to develop its management plan for the South Island high country, a sensitive ecosystem with many competing interests vying for a say in its management. The key to Canterbury's success was the council's policy of wide consultation with interest groups and citizens, which emphasized early and frequent meetings with all stakeholders and a willingness to modify its approach based on the feedback received. Another important aspect of the plan's development was the use of a mediator to facilitate meetings among representatives of the key groups involved, including farmers, environmental groups, and scientists.

Other regions and districts have not fared so well; in some cases they have simply tacked on new requirements to existing policies, maintained the status quo, or created overly complicated plans. There are numerous reasons for this uneven application of RMA principles, most of which are due to legal and cultural barriers rather than flaws in the act itself. Perhaps the biggest obstacle is resistance to change within the existing authorities; New Zealand developed a culture of prescriptive planning years ago, and old habits are hard to break. Often the concepts involved in integrated environmental management practices are not well understood, and they can be daunting.

Additionally, in recent years the governments of New Zealand have been very focused on cost savings, in response to the years of inefficiency and economic decline that came before the government reforms. This has a tendency to undermine other important considerations, such as effectiveness in terms of environmental outcomes, in the decision-making processes of some authorities.

Another important obstacle is the difficulty that NGO and Maori groups are having in participating fully in the process. These groups are eager to take part and have already played significant roles, but are increasingly finding themselves short of resources. New Zealand has no system of tax-free charitable foundations to support NGOs, such as exists in the United States, and funding to these groups has been reduced by conservative governments intent on cutting spending. In challenging permits, groups may find themselves without the resources to go through the various submissions, hearings, and appeals that the companies can afford, and end up dropping out of the process. In addition, changes in the law have made the losers in legal disputes liable for the other parties' costs (in some cases they are required to put up a bond up front), which makes such disputes prohibitively costly.

Some organizations have been forced into bankruptcy by court decisions. Other obstacles have to do with shortfalls in government resources and capacities; one of the biggest of these is the lack of needed information, including data about environmental quality and information about the environmental costs of goods and services. Without such information it is difficult for government, businesses, and citizens alike to make appropriate decisions about the use of resources. However, the publication by the environment ministry of an exhaustive report on the state of New Zealand's environment in 1997 went a long way toward filling in at least part of the information gap.

Despite these barriers and setbacks, there is tremendous popular support for the RMA in New Zealand. Even though there is currently a great deal of debate over the effect of the act on property rights and free markets, there is no talk of abandoning the RMA or even substantially altering it. Its principal objectives of strong environmental protection and sustainable management are accepted almost across the board, in part because the RMA was created with intensive stakeholder and public participation. It was also the product of both Labour and Conservative governments.

There is also a growing understanding in New Zealand that implementing the RMA will take time and that its success or failure cannot be judged in a few years. The RMA represents a huge cultural change; it isn't going to happen overnight or without a great deal of debate and dissension. In fact, New Zealanders are realizing that managing the environment for sustainability is an ongoing process, not a project.

As discussed above, the RMA has stimulated a growing environmental awareness within New Zealand's business community, and some companies and industry groups are taking increasingly proactive positions in regards to their own environmental policies. In addition, the RMA has resulted in real savings in the permitting processes and other regulatory matters, both in terms of money and time.

And real progress is being made in terms of integrating policies. Effects-based air quality management is developing for the first time in New Zealand, monitoring is increasing, the use of voluntary measures is on the rise, self-monitoring is more widely practiced, and environmental decisions are being made in a much more public and participatory fashion.

Despite the difficulties that have arisen during the RMA's implementation, the act's potential benefits remain clear to most New Zealanders. The main principles, goals, and mechanisms of the RMA have been shown to be sound, although they will need some fine-tuning. The obstacles that lie in the course of a complete and effective implementation of the act can be overcome through participation, negotiation, and a commitment to the vision of sustainable management.

Buhrs, Ton and Robert V. Bartlett. Environmental Policy in New Zealand: The Politics of Clean & Green? Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Cronin, Karen. Ecological Principles for Resource Management. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment, Biological & Physical Systems Directorate, 1988.

International Energy Agency. Climate Change Policy Initiatives: OECD Countries.

“Implementing Sustainability: New Zealand’s Experience with its Resource Management Act” by Lindsay J A Gow: Acting Secretary for the Environment of New Zealand.

Johnson, Huey D. Green Plans: Greenprint for Sustainability. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1995.
Ministry for the Environment. Environment 2010 Strategy. Wellington, 1994.

Ministry for the Environment. Resource Management: Guide to the Act. Wellington, 1991.