RRI Green Planning Archives: New Zealand

Implementing Sustainability: New Zealand's Experience With Its Resource Management Act

A speech by Lindsay J A Gow: Acting Secretary for the Environment
Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand.
Delivered at the New Zealand Embassy, Washington DC.
Tuesday, 6 June 1995

Summary/Conclusion

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Bibliography

The term sustainable development stems from the 1980 World Conservation Strategy. It was given prominence in the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development "Our Common Future", the "Brundtland Report" of 1987. It is a challenging concept. In essence to make development sustainable is:

"to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (Our Common Future, p8)

The fundamental premise of sustainable development is that of an obligation to future generations and the notion that we owe them the choice to make their own decisions from the resources we bequeath them. However, there is manifest and growing evidence that the natural resources of the planet are being steadily degraded and in some cases irreversibly damaged. We therefore have not only to manage resources so future generations will have options, we must ensure our stewardship does not further degrade what they will inherit.

The Earth Summit at Rio set a challenge for nations to achieve sustainable development. To do this, people need to change their attitudes to the use of resources, and particularly to resources gained from the biophysical environment - that interconnected ecosystem of land, air, water and biological species upon which we all depend for our needs.

To help the change in attitudes, changes need to be made to the laws and institutions which influence our behaviour and our relationships with each other and with the biophysical world. In particular, the laws and institutions governing resource use need to be integrated and have common objectives which support sustainable development.

This paper tells the story of a massive change to the laws and institutions of New Zealand, a change designed to achieve but one objective: the promotion of sustainable management, a concept that will help realise sustainable development.

New Zealand, or Aotearoa as its indigenous, Maori people call it, lies in the South Pacific Ocean. It is located 1,300 miles to the south east of Australia, and some 4,500 miles south, south west from Oahu, Hawaii. It is a small country of 3.5 million people, surrounded by sea.

New Zealand is a geological and biological rarity, a relatively young island fragment detached 100 million years ago from ancient Gondwanaland. New Zealand is a mountainous chain of three main islands thrust up by the Pacific tectonic plate subducting under the Indian/Australian plate. Sitting exposed to the predominant westerlies blowing around the southern ocean, its west side is wet and windy while the east provides a range of astounding microclimates in the sheltered lee of the mountains.

More than 70% of New Zealand was once subtropical or temperate rainforest inhabited mainly by birds. There were almost no mammals and no snakes. Without predators, birds filled the ecosystem niches often occupied by other species. Many flightless birds evolved, culminating in the huge and now extinct moa. The kiwi, itself a flightless ground dweller, is a symbol of New Zealand.

The indigenous Maori migrated to New Zealand from the Pacific over a period between 800 and 1,000 years ago. They adapted to the bigger and colder land and had impacts on its ecosystems. They brought with them a number of mammals and plants (notably the dog and pacific rat).

Over the period of Maori occupation, the natural environment was significantly modified. Probably (but arguably) one third to one half of the original forest cover, especially the dry eastern landscape in the South Island, was destroyed by wildfire. Some 40 species of bird, including the moa, were made extinct, either by hunting, loss of habitat, or through the impact of the introduced Pacific rat. Maori subsistence living, totally dependent on natural resources, forced adjustments to resource use practices, where overexploitation threatened the survival of entire communities. It is estimated that Maori finally achieved a state of ecological sustainability some time around the 1 7th century.

Less than two hundred years ago European colonists arrived and settled in New Zealand. Large numbers following the signing of a Treaty with the Maori in 1840. In less than 150 years, the Europeans radically changed the landscape and its fragile ecosystems. They cut or burned much of the remaining forest and replaced it with pastoral farming, mostly of sheep. They introduced many new species of animals and plants, built railways, roads and towns and developed an economy that relies mainly on natural resources: farming (sheep, beef and dairying and now deer); forestry (once indigenous, now sustainably managed plantations of North American Radiata Pine), horticulture (including the kiwifruit); fishing (from the bountiful continental shelf); and minerals extraction (some oil, gas, and heavy metals such as gold and silver).

Applying European farming techniques to a wet, steep and deforested landscape had its adverse effects. Soil erosion, siltation of rivers, and flooding were among the major problems which resulted. Other difficulties included inadequate trace minerals in some soils, a problem later corrected by applying such minerals with fertiliser.

The combined effects of massive land clearance for farming and settlement, plus subsequent damage to some of the cleared land substantially reduced the area of indigenous forest. Fortunately, some 23% of New Zealand's indigenous forest remains, even though it has been modified by introduced species such as deer, goats, pigs and, especially, possums. Approximately 85% of this forest is now part of the protected estate and is reserved in national parks and conservation reserves. The Forests Act requires that privately owned indigenous forest be sustainably managed. In addition, some privately owned indigenous forest is protected through covenants on the land title, voluntarily agreed to by the land owners.

With farming as the major industry, and in recent times with agricultural subsidies removed, lessons have been learned about sustainable management. There are more to be learned yet. Up to 30% of New Zealand's pastoral land practices are probably still unsustainable. Non point source pollution from application of fertilisers and run off from intensive dairying has created pollution of water courses, and still poses some problems.

But sustainable management involves not just managing the principally modified ecosystems: it also requires recognizing that any resource, modified or not, is a part of a connected system of land, air, water, plants and animals. Any change to one part can have consequences on others. The laws and institutions which influence people's behaviour, and the relationships they have with other resource users, need to reinforce the imperatives of these connections. In the case of New Zealand, a major reform was needed to begin this change.

New Zealand's current system of government comprises a unicameral legislature based on first past the post election system. New Zealand's form of Government is similar to that of the United Kingdom except that there is no upper house, no "senate". The majority political party's leader becomes the Prime Minister and the executive comprises a "cabinet" of 20 or so ministers formed from majority party representatives. There is no written constitution and no federal system of states or provinces. The executive can therefore relatively quickly make major changes to laws should it decide to do so. Recently, the country decided to implement a new system of proportional representation. When this is in place (at the next election in 1996), it will probably result in coalition governments. These may change the way the executive can exercise power.

Helped by its current system of government, New Zealand has been through a period of significant change in the last ten years. The Resource Management Act was one of those changes.

New Zealand's Resource Management Act came into force on 1 October 1991. It is a major and fundamental, if not unique, regulatory reform. The Resource Management Act is based on the single and overarching purpose of promoting sustainable management. This becomes the sole objective for a law which replaces 59 resource and planning statutes including major legislation dealing with town and country planning and water and soil management.

The review of New Zealand's resource laws, which was called the Resource Management Law Reform (RMLR), began in 1988. It developed in the climate of major regulatory and institutional reform which has been a characteristic of New Zealand's public administration since 1984.

In the case of resource laws, there had been various attempts over the preceding ten years to develop a statutory planning basis for the laws dealing with water and soil management. There were also questions about over regulation in the town and country planning law. This prompted a review. Meanwhile, the laws dealing with mining were under scrutiny because of the inadequate way in which they dealt with third party, public issues. And there was an upwelling of opinion that the multifarious and overlapping laws dealing with pollution and coastal management needed clarifying and simplifying.

Consistent with a major reform process, the Resource Management Law Reform started from a zero based perspective. A three phase process was initiated, with each phase characterised by open, public debate and analysis of the issues, followed by explicit Government policy decisions.

Simply, the phases were:

Firstly, to ask and answer the question why have law for the management or control of natural and physical, including built, resources;

Secondly, and in the light of the answer to the first question, to look at options for achieving the objectives determined by the first phase; and

Thirdly, having selected an appropriate means for achieving resource management objectives, to develop specific policy and draft appropriate law.

The review revealed a number of major problems with resource management processes that were "too complex, legalistic, bureaucratic. and involving too many overlaps".

(Directions for Change, p 9). The Resource Management Law Reform was undertaken in parallel with a fundamental reform of local government. Both these reforms were reported to a single Cabinet committee, which ensured that decisions taken on each reform were compatible and complimentary.

An example was the decision to establish regional councils based on catchment boundaries and to assign them the principal responsibility for water, soil, pollution and coastal management. The reason for catchment based boundaries was to ensure effective water and related pollution management.

One of the results of the local government reform was to rationalise local government. Its many authorities, including the large number of special purpose, ad hoc authorities were reduced from over 800 to some 76.

Many issues raised through the Resource Management Law Reform were related to sustainability. In particular, the laws relating to management of water and soil resources raised major issues of integration of management across land and water boundaries, and the need to look more comprehensively at wider environmental factors and ecosystems when making decisions about these resources. Related to this was the issue of the needs of future generations and of the need to recognise and protect the intrinsic values of ecosystems. On some of these matters, different views emerged. The debate on the sustainability issue is set out in Appendix A.

Another major problem revealed through the reform was that pollution control laws were inadequate. There were large gaps, too many agencies and different laws covering pollution control for air, land, water and noise. There was no consistent integration across these different media. The results were patchy and often inconsistent. For example, solving air pollution problems sometimes led to increased water pollution.

As noted in the remarks about the mining legislation, the issue of public (third party) involvement was also important. Many of New Zealand's natural resources are in public (community) ownership and control. There was a strong public feeling that people should have a right to influence all, not just some of the management decisions relating to these resources.

During the reform process a general consensus emerged among environmental, resource user and industry groups of the need to secure higher standards of environmental protection. This recognition underpinned an awareness of a fundamental and compelling relationship between environment and development, especially in a country heavily reliant on natural resource use: that a sustainable and vibrant economy relies on a sustainable resource use base and, with this, a sustainable environment.

Achieving sustainability involves managing the environment in an integrated way. Land, air and water and the ecosystems that connect them should not be managed in a disconnected, partial way. This partial and sectoral management of what are in fact integrated systems was a major contributor to the problems of unsustainable management. The reform process also resulted in a general consensus on the need for effective integrated management.

It was from this consensus that a proposal emerged to have one consistent, integrated resource management law covering land, air and water. It was further agreed, through a process that started with one government and was completed by another, that this major new law should have but one purpose: sustainable management.

Section 5 of the Resource Management Act (see Appendix B) states that the purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The intention of this purpose is that this purpose should apply to every part of the RMA and that all decisions taken under the Act should be consistent with its purpose.

This means, for example, that all instruments under the RMA: (national policy statements and standards; regional policy statements; regional plans; district plans; and all consent (permit) decisions made under them) must be consistent with promoting sustainable management.

In essence, Section 5 (promoting sustainable management) is the single and authoritative source for all decisions under the Act

The RMA says that sustainable management means managing the use, development or protection of natural and physical resources in a way or at a rate which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well being, and for their health and safety, while achieving three things:

• Firstly, the potential these resources have to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations is to be sustained.

  In other words, the resources should not be used, or adversely affected, beyond the point where future generations (people and other species) are likely to find that resources can no longer meet their needs. An important point to note here is that it should be the responsibility of future generations to meet their own needs. They can do this by having the option of tapping the resource potential we sustain and leave for them.

• Secondly, the life-supporting capacity of the receiving environment (air, water, and soil, and the way they are connected through ecosystems) is to be safeguarded.

  This refers to the important issues of ecological sustainability and the fact that our economy and society depend, in the end, on having healthy and sustainable ecosystems. Safeguarding the life supporting capacity should involve developing indicators of ecosystem health and moving towards them. Such indicators will often reflect goals for improving ecosystems.

  Another issue, of course, is ensuring ecological bottom lines are not crossed. Bottom lines refer to the point beyond which there is an unacceptable risk of irreversible environmental damage and ecosystems or parts of them are likely to suffer irreversible effects. No decisions should bring about effects which risk such damage to ecosystems or parts of them.

• Thirdly, the adverse effects of activities on the environment are to be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

  This refers to a major part of resource management decision-making; namely where decisions relating to use and development are made. It spells out a requirement to ensure that adverse effects of use and development on people and/or the biophysical environment are minimised to the greatest extent practicable.

The definition of sustainable management encompasses the achievement of social, economic, health and safety objectives. But the wording of the Act and in particular the use of the conjunction "while" suggests that achieving social and economic, and for that matter even health and safety objectives, should not be at the expense of sustaining biophysical ecosystems.

In essence, this means that sustainable management of natural and physical resources should not be traded off for the attainment of incompatible social and economic objectives, or of incompatible health, safety and cultural objectives.

The very clearly environmental thrust of Section 5 is reinforced by the other sections in Part II of the Resource Management Act. Section 6, "Matters of National Importance", provides a list of matters which must be "recognised and provided for" in managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources (see Appendix B). These are all clearly environmental matters, or objectives relating to the way people's relationships with or access to aspects of the environment are maintained.

Section 7 (see also Appendix B) lists other matters to which particular regard must be given. Again, these are environmental values but, unlike the list in Section 6, this list includes objectives directly relating to the physical, or built, environment such as amenity values and heritage values. These section 7 matters are subsidiary to those in section 6.

Given the positioning of sections 5, 6 and 7, their content and the strength of the language used, their collective effect is to impose strong duties on decision makers to ensure sustainable management with primacy given to bio-physical (or ecological) sustainability.

Section 8 requires that decision makers shall "take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi". The Treaty is an important constitutional document in a country which has no formal, written constitution. Amongst other things, it recognises the indigenous people's (Maori) rights over and interests in natural resources such as forests and fisheries. Maori concepts of resource management are based on the ethic of kaitiakitanga (stewardship). This concept, both conceptually and in practice, reflects and implements sustainable management and development. Its recognition is therefore important in the New Zealand context. In prescribing matters of national importance, and other matters to be taken into account in promoting sustainable management, specific recognition is given to the relationship of Maori with natural resources and the concept of kaitiakitanga.

In addition, and complementing the concept of sustainable management, the RMA provides an active duty on decision makers to ensure Maori interests are fully taken into account through recognising the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when making and implementing policy and consent (permit) decisions.

The Resource Management Act does three things:

• It provides the basis for allocating access to community managed resources such as fresh, coastal and ground water, geothermal energy and water, the surface use of lakes and rivers, riverbed use, and the use of the foreshore and seabed in the coastal marine area;
• It controls the discharge of contaminants (pollution) to air, land and all water;
• It provides the means for managing the adverse effects of the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, including the built environment.

Underpinning sustainable management, the RMA provides a tough baseline for the use of natural resources. For example, and unless expressly allowed for in a plan or resource consent (permit), no one can discharge a contaminant (pollutant) into water (fresh, coastal or geothermal) or on to land in a way that may enter water. Operators of industrial or trade premises face similar restrictions for any discharges to air or to land. Unless expressly allowed, no one can deposit in, on or under any foreshore or seabed any substance which may adversely affect the coastal marine area. No one can take sand or shingle or disturb the coastal marine area in a way that is likely to damage it.

Under the Resource Management Act, every person has a duty to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment that they may cause directly or indirectly. Enforcement orders can be taken out by any person against any other person to cease any noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable activity that is likely to have an adverse effect on the environment, or to do something to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment. A person includes all private and public authorities and the Government. The provisions of the RMA have the same effect on the private and public sectors alike.

The Act is structured so that sustainable management is to be refined, further defined and given practical effect through three principal instruments. These are Regional Policy Statements, Regional Plans, and District Plans. These instruments must, as appropriate, incorporate and implement policies and standards expressed through a formal process whereby the Government, from time to time, promulgates National Policy Statements and related National Environmental Standards

Regional Policy Statements and Regional Plans are the responsibility of 16 Regional Authorities which are directly elected authorities accountable to regional electors. Regional authorities are mostly based on boundaries which include whole water catchments.

Each regional authority is required to prepare a regional policy statement. This statutory document is the key to integrated, sustainable resource management for each of the 16 regions in New Zealand.

Regional policy statements are required to state the significant resource management issues of the region and policies by which these can be addressed. They are pivotal documents which interpret and apply Part Il of the RMA (sustainable management) to the biophysical and socio-economic situation of a particular region. Through regional policy statements, the key sustainable management issues and priorities should be revealed.

By themselves, regional policy statements do not include powers to implement their policies. This is done through the system of regional and district plans, and other measures for which regional and district councils have statutory authority.

Regional plans are optional measures, except for regional coastal plans. They will focus on specific resource issues requiring more detailed policies and are the means to implement some regional policies through the power of regulatory rules (which are like ordinances). Regional councils, through regional plans, and using other measures, can deal with issues such as regional land use effects, soil conservation, water abstraction and quality, natural hazards and hazardous substances mitigation, all contaminant (pollution) discharges, and coastal management. The latter is done through regional plans but under policies promulgated in the National Coastal Policy Statement.

District plans are mandatory and cover the areas of territorial (city and district) authorities. They contain policies relating to the integrated management of the effects of land use, subdivision, the control of the emission of noise and of the effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes and, as appropriate in conjunction with other measures, rules for the management of all these things. All policies and plans must be consistent with and, as appropriate, reflect national policy statements and national environmental standards. District plans must be consistent with regional policy statements and related plans.

An important change in approach from some previous legislation, especially the Town and Country Planning Act, is that the Resource Management Act is not concerned with land uses as such, but rather with their effects on other people and/or the physical and biological environment. This approach is designed to ensure that the objective of sustainable management is achieved but, at the same time, maximum freedom is given to land users to make decisions on use of land.

This permissive approach is underpinned by the provisions of Section 9. This section changed the presumption relating to the use of private land. Basically, an owner can now proceed with whatever activities they like unless a land use plan, through effects related controls, limits these or they are excluded because of their effects. It is important to note, though, that the presumption for use of natural resources such as water is the opposite. Generally, natural resources cannot be used except in a way provided for by the Resource Management Act, including provisions in plans under it.

In many ways, the focus on effects emphasises that the thrust of the Resource Management Act is to ensure biophysical limits and constraints are defined and recognised. Within these constraints, however, those who use and develop resources should have freedom of choice.

The system of plans enables rules, including standards, to be developed. These rules should allow many activities to be permitted without consents, provided they perform within the rules. A range of consents is provided for within the Act. These allow a practical and flexible approach to sustainably managed development. Consistent with its purpose of sustainable management, the Resource Management Act provides for a standardised and integrated consent process. There are five types of consent. These are:

• Land use consent (for land use activity that requires a consent);
• Subdivision of land consent;
• Coastal Permit (for an activity including a contaminant discharge in the coastal marine area);
• Water Permit (for taking, using, damming or diverting water, except in the coastal marine area);
• Discharge Permit (for the discharge of any contaminant to air, land or water, except in the coastal marine area).

Consents are required where an activity contravenes the restrictions outlined in Part III of the Act and where a plan requires that a consent be sought. Activities are classified into several categories for the purpose of consents. These are:

• Permitted activities (where no consent is required);
• Controlled activities (where there is an entitlement to the granting of a resource consent subject to the imposition by the consent authority of specific conditions relating to the particular matters identified in a plan);
• Discretionary activities (where a plan specifies that a consent is required, subject to a partial or the full discretion of the consent authority being given to the application in accordance with criteria spelled out in a plan);
• Non-complying activities (where an activity contravenes a plan but is not prohibited);
• Prohibited activities (an activity which a plan expressly prohibits because of its adverse effects and for which no resource consent can be sought).

There is one standard process, including standard time limits, for all consents under the Resource Management Act. Section 88 of the Act requires that certain information be provided with the application including "an assessment of any actual or potential effects that the activity may have on the environment, and the ways in which any adverse effects may be mitigated". The environmental assessment is to be in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the actual or potential effects the activity may have on the environment. Guidance on this is given in the fourth schedule to the Act, and further details will be spelt out in the relevant regional and district plans.

A consent authority can require further information so as to better understand a proposed activity. Where significant adverse effects are likely, a consent authority can require an explanation of alternatives and of the consultation undertaken. A review of the information provided can be commissioned. An applicant can face the cost of the council reviewing an EIA.

Where environmental assessment is included as part of site selection and proposal design, consents tend to have fewer conditions. The number of statutory delays, objections and appeals tend to reduce where there is robust early community consultation as part of the environmental assessment. This requires an upfront expenditure in time and money. Feedback suggests that this investment reduces litigation and more importantly is resulting in community ownership of the decisions.

Trends to date show that those applicants prepared to carry out a thorough EIA as part of their decision making framework face fewer delays and less costly consents. The challenge for both applicants and councils is to ensure the process is cost-efficient and focused.

Any person may make a submission on a resource consent that is notified. The Act explicitly provides for pre-hearing meetings to clarify, mediate or facilitate resolution of any matter or issue. The outcome of such a meeting can become part of the information the consent authority must have regard to.

There is no presumption a hearing must be held. It need be held only if the consent authority considers it is necessary and where any person making a submission requests a hearing and does not withdraw the request. Strict timelines apply to setting hearing dates (no more than 25 days from closing date for submissions). Where an applicant has more than one consent from different authorities for the same matter these can be considered together. A joint hearing must generally be initiated at the applicant's request. Joint hearing committees make the decision jointly, except in special and limited circumstances.

An applicant and anyone who made a submission can appeal the decision to the Planning Tribunal (an environmental Court). The Act provides for alternative methods of dispute resolution such as pre (appeal) hearing conferences, mediation and conciliation.

In most cases, the Planning Tribunal hears appeals de novo. In other words, it rehears all the evidence and makes a decision as if it were the consent authority. The Tribunal comprises a Judge assisted by two "Planning Commissioners" who are non judicial appointees, often with experience of or expertise in the planning system. There are four and sometimes more tribunals who specialise in resource management work.

Decisions of the Planning Tribunal can be appealed on points of law to New Zealand's High Court and then to its Court of Appeal. Planning Tribunal decisions, as sometimes confirmed or changed by High Court decisions and occasional Court of Appeal decisions, provide precedential case law which performs the function of interpreting the legislation.

If an activity is a land use one, or involves the use of the surface of a river or lake, then a resource user should look first at the district plan of the relevant city or district council. If the activity involves use of water, the discharge or contaminants, the use of the coastal marine area or it may have adverse effects on soil, then it will usually be managed by the relevant regional council. Sometimes regional rules can affect land use (controls on vegetation clearance, for example).

In most cases current land use activities have existing use rights. It is only if activities are changed in nature or scale, or if someone is starting up a new activity, that a resource consent may be needed. However, it is important to be careful about things like discharges of contaminants and to be sure that they are covered by a provision in the law or a resource consent.

Generally, land use consents and consents (coastal permits) for reclamations have an unlimited term unless otherwise specified in the particular consent. Other resource consents have a maximum term of 35 years or such shorter term as may be specified in the consent (Section 123). When a consent expires it is not automatically renewed. A new consent must be sought, although consent holders can exercise an expired consent provided they are seeking a new one (Section 124). There is provision to review consents during their term. (Section 128). However, with the exception of water, coastal or discharge permits (where rules in a regional plan can change things) a review can only happen if it is specified in the conditions of a consent, or someone discovers the information made available in granting the consent was inaccurate and this materially influenced the consent decision. Consents lapse after two years if they are not given effect to (Section 125).

Applying for a consent involves costs. Applicants must bear the costs of the assessment of the actual or potential effects that the activity may have on the environment and of any further information that may be requested.

The Act provides that local authorities can fix charges for the costs incurred by the local authority in relation to receiving, processing, and granting, and for administration, monitoring and supervision of resource consents. (Section 36). Charges cannot be arbitrary. They must be either specific amounts or determined by reference to scales of charges or formulae fixed by the local authority.

Conditions can be set on resource consents. Such conditions can require a financial contribution and/or offsetting compensatory provision of land, works or services, performance bonds, covenants, actions to prevent or minimise adverse effects, and design and external appearance requirements. (Section 10~). There are specific provisions relating to how some of these conditions can be set and used. (Sections 109 - 112).

Where consent decisions are appealed, the Planning Tribunal conducts hearings de novo. In other words, it conducts a full re hearing unless the appeal is restricted (for example, an appeal against a condition.)

The Resource Management Act includes stringent monitoring and enforcement requirements (Sections 314 - 321) and these are backed up with stiff penalties. Anyone can seek an enforcement order from the Planning Tribunal to ensure compliance with the

Act, including a rule in a plan or a consent condition. Persons affected by an application for an order can, of course, be heard.

Enforcement orders are particularly relevant where significant environmental damage may occur. Interim enforcement orders can be applied for in emergency situations. Enforcement orders can require persons to cease doing something, to do something, to remedy or mitigate any adverse effect and to pay money to or reimburse another person for costs (Section 314).

Abatement notices (Sections 322 - 325) can be served on any person by an enforcement officer of a local authority. They cover generally the same range of requirements as an enforcement order only they do not require the Planning Tribunal to grant them. They are, however, appealable

The liability provisions in the Resource Management Act are stringent. In any prosecution, strict liability applies. This means that the fact that an offence happened is sufficient and that it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offence (Section 341). The onus is on the defendant to prove he or she was not responsible. Principals are liable for the acts of agents or persons acting on their behalf. Where any body corporate is convicted of an offence, directors and managers can be deemed to be guilty (Section 340). The Act sets out defences in relation to these liability provisions.

Anyone who contravenes or permits a contravention of the duties and restrictions under the RMA, or who does not comply with any Order, Notice or Direction made under it commits an offence. Penalties under the Resource Management Act are strong for New Zealand environmental law. The maximum penalties are prison for up to two years or a fine of up to $NZ200,000 and a fine of up to $NZ10,000 a day for every day an offence continues. Before maximum penalties are invoked, there would have to be significant breaches of the law and probably continuing failure to comply with Orders, Notices or Directions under it.

Compared to previous law, there is a new provision in the Resource Management Act, in section 32. It is intended to be a rigorous but workable formula that should operate as a critical check on regulatory intervention

Simply, section 32 is intended to ensure, firstly, that Ministers and local authorities are clear about the purpose of intended interventions; that is, the outcomes intended and that these achieve the purpose of the RMA. They should also be clear as to what means, including means available under other enactments such as the Local Government Act, are available to achieve the intended purpose which must always be related to sustainable management. Consideration should be given to taking no action where the Act does not require otherwise.

Secondly, an appropriate evaluation is required of the likely benefits and costs of particular means and principal alternatives. Both implementation and compliance costs must be considered. These include costs likely to be imposed on the.community, and on resource users.

This section 32 provision is designed so as to ensure that regulators are clear as to what outcome is intended, for whom and why. It is also designed to check any assumptions that regulatory intervention is the only or best way to do things, and to check the costs of intervention before a particular means or combination of means is chosen.

 Requirement to Monitor

The legislation which the Resource Management Act replaced said little or nothing about monitoring. That may be a reason why there has been a tendency to over indulge in regulation without checking whether such regulation is needed, or indeed whether it works as intended. As part of its philosophy of minimum intervention for maximum effect, and as a complement to the provisions of section 32, the RMA(in section 35) imposes a duty to gather information and to monitor the:

• state of the whole or any part of the environment (this is vital to ensure appropriate information on sustainable management is available);
• suitability and effectiveness of any policy statement or plan;
• exercise of any functions, powers or duties delegated or transferred by a local authority;
• exercise of resource consents.

Monitoring is not enforcement. Monitoring involves knowing why objectives have been set, what ends or results are expected, and when, and checking to see that the methods chosen to achieve those objectives are working as intended. Monitoring also involves continual checking to be sure that objectives are still relevant and that the costs of achieving given ends are still the best use of the resources involved.

Section 35 requires local authorities to hold relevant information so that the public can be better informed on what is being achieved, and why, and so they can better participate in the processes provided under the Resource Management Act. Together, the provisions relating to checks on regulation and monitoring should ensure that regulatory intervention to promote sustainable management is both necessary and effective.

The Resource Management Act is a significant change from the many pieces of legislation which preceded it. For this reason, a long transition of at least five years and more is provided. During this time:

• the framework regional policy statements will become operative for all regions;
• a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement will become operative
• regional coastal plans will become operative for all regions;
• other regional plans will be written and become operative;
• the current system of district land use plans will be progressively replaced by effects based plans under the new regime; and
• most of the carry over transitional provisions in the law will cease to have effect.

Until most of this happens, it will be difficult to judge the success or otherwise of the new law. However, the law has been in place for nearly four years. Notwithstanding the fact that it is still very much in the middle of the transition, some observations can be made about its implementation.

The move from the prescriptive planning of the previous law to the more rigorous and justified effects based planning of the RMA has been uneven. Whilst there are some notable innovations (such as Wellington City's new plan, which is a much simpler regulatory document than its predecessor, and Christchurch's plan, which is a leading edge example of effects based thinking) a number of the new draft plans under the Resource Management Act simply repackage old material into a new format. Unfortunately, this approach lacks the rigour needed under the RMA framework. Accordingly, identifying the issues and problems, and the policies, objectives and methods to address them, is often not clear. With this, the necessary justification for proposed rules is lacking or deficient.

To date, the use of this is mixed. In areas where there has been a tradition of effects based management (such as water allocation and quality), effects based approaches are used more and developing faster than in areas where there is no such tradition (such as land use control).

In many cases, problems such as prescriptive rules which are not effects based are being challenged through the statutory participation process. The Ministry for the Environment often leads such challenges and this process is encouraging local authorities to make revisions to a number of the problem plans.

Even so, the tradition of the land use planning system has been one of the planning of development, rather than planning for development in an effects based way. It is taking time for the professionals and local authority politicians to adjust to a new and different way of doing things.

To be fair, the RMA requires a different approach and techniques and approaches for doing this still need to be developed and shared. The New Zealand Local Government Association has established a working party to help identify, develop and disseminate leading edge resource planning techniques and approaches. The Ministry for the Environment is working collaboratively with the Local Government Association on this.

The Resource Management Act sets new requirements for receiving environmental quality standards (EQS) and related rules. An ecological approach is needed, one which recognises and measures impacts on ecosystems, not just parts of them. The development of this is difficult and necessarily slow. However, both in New Zealand and internationally, EQSs, especially ecologically based ones, are generally still a developing methodology. Whilst the RMA provides for BAT (Best Available Technology) techniques, these can only be employed where EQS approaches are not workable or cost effective. Many local authorities still prefer the more familiar BAT. The Ministry for the Environment has developed EQS approaches for some water quality and air quality issues. It is currently working with resource users and local government to establish principles and priorities for further EQS work at the national level. Work is also underway in the Ministry on developing a State of the Environment reporting and monitoring system, together with relevant environmental indicators.

There is a growing awareness, especially by practitioners but also by local government, of the need for multi disciplinary approaches. Local government and private organizations are changing their structures and systems to enable this. As with developing an effects based approach, however, it is going to take some time to establish a new way of doing things.

It is important to note that quicker decisions depend very much on appropriate and relevant information accompanying a consent application. Such information is usually obtained through environmental effects (impacts) assessments by the applicants. Where such assessments are limited and where related consultation with the affected community is sporadic or non existent, then a consent application will inevitably take much longer as a consent authority will need to require further information.

Until plans under the new system specify information requirements, the information needed for a consent application can be somewhat open ended. Sometimes councils require too much and sometimes applicants provide too much.

The number of decisions needed for resource users with multiple impacts across land, air and water has reduced from the previous law. So, too, have the potential time frames within which such decisions can be taken. In some cases, decisions for reasonably complex consents (mining developments, for example) have been obtained within six months against a previous time frame of two years or more.

Many consent (permit) decisions (in the order of 80%) use the new non notified provisions. Where a local authority considers the environmental effects of a proposal will be minor and where all affected parties have given consent, it can approve the proposal without notifying it publicly. This speeds up dramatically the time needed for a decision. Of course, such provisions limit potential involvement by third parties who may consider themselves adversely affected. There have been some legal cases where non notification has been challenged. So far, the Courts have found it to be justified.

These new instruments are receiving a lot of use. Generally, they deliver quick and authoritative decisions which increase certainty. Declarations have been especially useful in interpreting the law as it relates to particular applications.

The opportunities provided by the statute are being used heavily and generally successfully. They often result in disposing of negotiable issues before hearings are commenced. This enables a quicker, more focused and relevant hearing with a lower risk of subsequent appeals. Some major resource users (such as the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand) are developing elaborate pre-hearing consultation. So far, the Corporation has successfully involved a wide range of affected interest and community groups in its consultation over some major hydro power resource consents. The result has satisfied all parties and consents have been obtained without subsequent delays caused by appeals and other Court action.

The RMA's liability regime, together with the way the Courts are applying it, has resulted in a major increase in environmental awareness by firms and their industry organisations. Given the fact that owners, occupiers and polluters can all be liable under the RMA, a number of firms and industries have decided to take a proactive approach to better environmental management. Accordingly, environmental strategies, policies and action plans are being developed and applied, at least by the larger industries and industry groupings.

Major resource users have generally taken an enlightened and constructive view to complying with the Act. They accept the need for clear and fair policies. Many sectors (such as agriculture, energy, chemicals, petroleum, manufacturing, forestry, mining and minerals) are working to develop their own codes of practice and to ensure these comply with provisions in the new law. They are also participating directly in the development of policy, rules and standards at the national, regional and local levels. In some cases they are contributing to research and development.

A good example of proactive involvement in the RMA comes from the forestry sector. The New Zealand Forest Owners Association, in conjunction with the Ministry for the Environment and the New Zealand Local Government Association, prepared a guide entitled "Commercial Forestry and the Resource Management Act. This is designed to encourage understanding and cooperation between the forestry sector and local government. It covers forest growing, harvesting and roading issues and also includes technical material such as the New Zealand Forest Code of Practice This latter document is a good example of a strict, industry wide performance based code which is supported by related training and certification requirements.

Another example of self regulation is that of the Growsafe Programme developed by VegFed, the New Zealand Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation. This, too, has a strict code of practice supported by certification and training requirements and training courses. As with the forestry code, the VegFed one deals particularly with substances, such as pesticides, that may have adverse environmental effects. It also includes performance requirements that can be accepted as a basis for compliance with statutory plan provisions. Indeed, there is a potential symbiosis here: voluntary codes of practice can be recognised as being adequate in themselves to meet certain environmental performance requirements in statutory plans.

Appendix 3 illustrates the environmental policy of the New Zealand Minerals Industry Association. It is an enlightened, focused policy, one which is consistent with the Resource Management Act and which promotes better environmental quality.

Generally, major resource users strongly support the requirements that resource management outcomes be clearly specified, that regulation should be focused, necessary and cost effective and that procedures should minimise administrative and compliance costs.

The new law provides more explicit and wider ranging opportunities for New Zealand's indigenous, Maori people to participate in policy formulation and implementation. The advent of the Resource Management Act has sparked significant Maori interest in statutory processes, especially those dealing with water, land and coastal resources. Formal Maori tribal authorities are active in considering resource issues. Local authorities, especially regional authorities, have developed formal committees, liaison officers and other means to include Maori in policy and implementation issues. In some cases, formal understandings (protocols and charters) have been written to express the significant process and outcome issues shared by Maori tribes and local authorities.

Maori political structures are often complex. There is a natural tendency for local authorities and resource users to deal with one, often prominent or known Maori authority. Sometimes this causes problems, especially where other Maori groups who are directly affected miss out on the necessary consultation.

Another problem is the cost and time needed for adequate consultation. Whilst involvement in RMA processes is desired by many Maori, it is not costless. It takes them time and resources to represent their views adequately. In some cases, local authorities and resource users provide resources to help Maori involvement. In other cases, lack of resources is a barrier to adequate participation.

Local authorities are generally adhering to the strict timelines under the Act and producing quicker decisions. This discipline is resulting in elected members delegating administrative functions and concentrating more on policy issues. However, in some cases, requesting further information can extend the timeframes when the further information is not really needed.

The provisions of the Resource Management Act do not presume command and control regulation is necessary or desirable. The Act requires outcomes to be clear and alternative methods to be considered. So far, alternatives such as using economic instruments or voluntary and educational approaches do not seem much in evidence in the new plans. Some plans are heavily regulatory, a few perhaps excessively so. There are exceptions, however. A number of regional authorities are actively considering innovative approaches, as are some district authorities. As the experience of these develops, the traditional reliance on regulation may reduce.

There is growing evidence that the Courts are taking the provisions of the RMA seriously. Compared to the previous regime, much larger fines (so far, up to $NZ 60,000, plus costs) are being imposed. In many cases the defendants admit the offence and still receive heavy fines. There has been one suspended jail sentence (of six months) plus a fine handed out.

In a landmark case (Machinery Movers: 2NZRMA, 661), the New Zealand High Court identified the principles it would take into account in considering offences and deciding on the appropriate punishment. This decision is binding on the deliberations of the Planning Tribunal.

In considering offences, the Court will take the following into account:

• The nature of the environment affected
• The extent of the damage caused
• Whether the offence was deliberate or not
• The attitude of the accused

In relation to corporate offenders, the following will be considered:

• The size, operations, wealth and power of the firm
• The extent of any attempts to comply with the law
• Remorse of the defendant's part
• The extent of any profits realised by the offence
• The:criminal record of the firm or evidence of good character or behaviour

An independent report into this issue was commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment. It looked at a number of general and sectoral issues of concern. These covered duration of consents, recognizing capital investment, providing for national issues, charging and cost recovery, and coastal and forestry investment concerns. The report's findings are positive and constructive, especially as the report analysed a transitional situation where more uncertainty could be expected. The report concludes:

"There are few instances where the Act has caused or contributed to any fresh basis of uncertainty for investment. In those few cases, changes are possible which will improve the climate of uncertainty for investment."

The Resource Management Act underpins a new approach to environmental management in New Zealand. This approach is based on the notion of sustainable management. Central to sustainable management is the idea that a sustainable economy, especially a resource based one, is reliant on a sustainable environment.

Maintaining and enhancing environmental quality is not easy if environmental law allows major trade offs between environmental quality and development. The Resource Management Act recognizes this and sets environmental limits through specifying tough duties and responsibilities which are built on in the management system of policies, plans and resource consents (permits). For example, no one may discharge a contaminant (pollutant) into water except in ways that are provided for through the law. Everyone has a duty to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment.

Sustainable resource management requires an ecosystem approach, where decision makers consider all impacts of a proposal for the use or development of resources. Thus under the Resource Management Act, discharges of contaminants (pollutants) are to be managed in a cross media way. Impacts on land, air and water must be considered together. The decisions taken should result in the minimum adverse impact on the environment.

The new law does not presume regulation and related rule making is the only or necessarily the best way to manage the environment. It requires decision makers to be clear about environmental outcomes and use the best means to achieve them. Related to this, the law requires a focus on the effects activities have on the environment. This is designed to ensure that decision makers concentrate on environmental outcomes and, at the same time, resource users should have more freedom in how they comply with environmental rules.

In New Zealand, major natural resources users generally support the approach and requirements of the new law. They consider that environmental quality is an important part of product quality. They believe that sustainable management is an important component of being able to sustainably use resources. And they see a positive and compatible connection between environmental and economic sustainability. For these reasons, many resource users are developing their own environmentally rigorous codes of practice which will comply with and help further develop the requirements of the new law.

The Resource Management Act is new. Its provisions are not going to be fully in force for at least five years and more from its enactment. It is too early yet to judge its success or otherwise, at least in terms of measuring its impact on the sustainability of resources. But initial indications suggest that it is having an impact. There is a considerable and widespread awareness, especially by business and industry and by many in the community, of its purpose and its liability provisions. The latter of course encourage compliance with the relatively tough requirements of the RMA compared to the previous law.

The RMA is already having an effect on stopping or reducing environmental damage and exposing the environmental effects of development proposals to public scrutiny. There are going to be no more substandard landfills or new discharges of raw or crudely treated sewage or leachate into water and coastal systems. Port authorities now require permits and must complete environmental effects assessments for the disposal of dredge tailings. The energy sector must obtain consents for any projects; indeed, consents are now needed for existing hydro and thermal stations that previously did not need them.

For the first time in New Zealand, effects based air quality management is developing. Integrated management still has a long way to go but it is beginning to work: there will be no more adverse side effects on media such as water or land caused by trying to manage effects on another medium such as air. Monitoring environmental performance is increasing and self monitoring is developing. And non regulatory techniques such as information and participatory management through landcare programmes is developing.

The Resource Management Act is definitely helping to stop further degradation of New Zealand's environment. Through policy statements and plans, a start is being made on defining environmental quality baselines and setting out policies and methods for improving the state of the environment. Once more of them are in force, these policies and plans will determine access to the allocation of community managed resources and will control the adverse effects of use and development activities. This should then enable the wider objectives of the Resource Management Act to be met in a systematic way. The result should be a progressive improvement in environmental quality. This, in turn, will be an important ingredient in promoting sustainable management of natural and physical resources and, with it, sustainable development.

The Sustainability Debate

Sustainability was an early issue that was identified as a matter of some growing importance to the community. It was the subject of considerable analysis during the first phase of the review process. An early question relating to sustainability was "what are we trying to sustain in resource management? Is it the environment, society, jobs, wealth or all these things?" It was presumed that sustaining the quality of life for individuals and communities was a primary objective of sustainability. Accepting that human societies are dependent on the environment, it followed that the first step to sustaining the quality of life must be to sustain the quality of the environment.

An RMLR working paper on Sustainability, Intrinsic Values and the Needs of Future Generations (RMLR Working Paper No. 24, p 1) stated:

"Human needs, health and prosperity cannot be sustained unless the environment, which supports all human activity is sustained. This is a matter over which we have no choice; it is not a matter of preference or taste, or "values". Regardless of what they may think about "environmental issues", all humans live in a physical habitat and are dependent on the ecosystem for fresh air and water, food, warmth, shelter and clothing. On the other hand, a very wide range of choice exists as to how society might organise its development activities within these ecological limits. "

There were counter views to this. One argument against the notion of human actions being ultimately conditioned by ecological limits suggested that there were two views of sustainability: the ecocentric view, which treats sustainability as an over riding objective which should influence all resource decisions; and the anthropocentric view, which treats sustainable resource use as an outcome of a process which aims to achieve the highest value use of resources.

Difficulties in defining and applying sustainability could mean that its adoption as a fundamental base line may well result in sub optimal resource allocation and use decisions. It was argued:

"What does it mean to sustain the biosphere? Does it mean sustain at a level that humans can survive or at a level which they consider adequate given other influences on their standard of living; does "optimum sustainable yield" allow for increases or decreases in the rate of use as substitutes or alternatives to the resource are found; how are questions of limits to be determined, and in particular who is going to collect all the data necessary at central points to ensure activities do not occur which threaten any aspect of the biosphere?" (RMLR Working Paper No. 24, Part C, p 7)

The debate on and analysis of sustainability dealt not only with conceptual, but also with applied and practical issues. Issues of risk and uncertainty were considered, especially as related to the notion of irreversibility. Related issues of carrying capacity, thresholds, and sustainability as applied to non renewable resources were analysed and discussed. Case studies covering sustainability as related to groundwater, sand and gravel, soil, forestry and fisheries enabled these ideas to be considered in applied contexts.

Sustainability Central to New Law

From this work, proposals emerged for sustainability to be a central part of the purpose of any resource management legislation. In doing this, it was argued, resources should not be seen in isolation from the ecosystems of which they are simply parts. It was suggested (RMLR Working Paper No. 25, p 10) that the general purpose of such legislation should be:

"to ensure the wise use and sustainable management of natural and physical resources, to protect the integrity of ecosystems and the overall welfare of the community. "

In the discussion document produced at the end of phase one of the RMLR, (Directions for Change, p 10) the following extract summarised the views on this issue:

"Sustainability, non-human values and the needs of future generations"

Many people saw sustainability and providing for the needs of future generations as very important objectives. There were a number of definitions of sustainability, but most reflected the concept of a sustainable society being one that recognises the current and likely future ecological, social and economic implications of its practices and implements policy that minimises future regrets.

A different view is that the policy implications of the term sustainability are unclear, especially for depletable resources that cannot be sustained. For any particular resource, sustained use, conservation, depletion or augmentation (growth) are all options that could be allowed for and assessed on a case by case basis by the decision maker.

There is concern among some people that there is too much emphasis placed on resource management for the benefit of humans and insufficient attention to the natural world itself, independent of any benefit for humans. Some of these differences may not be great. Many people acknowledge that the environment sustains life and that anything which degrades the environment potentially degrades or diminishes the quality of life.

Another difference relates to government's role in looking after the present as compared with the future or the past. Some people consider that future generations are not adequately represented by current generations and that government has a responsibility to look after the needs of future generations. The Maori perspective is that the present must look to the past in order to go on into the future.

Others consider that current generations do indeed take into account the needs and desires of themselves and future generations. They argue that while this decision making may have imperfections, it cannot necessarily be assumed that government can do it any better.

Definition of "Sustainable Management"

Part II

Purposes and Principles

Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

(2) In this Act, "sustainable management" means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which 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; and
• Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
• Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Matters of National importance

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:

• The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area); wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development;
• The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development;
• The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna;
• The maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers;
• The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.

Other matters

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to:

• Kaitiakitanga;
• The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;
• The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;
• Intrinsic values of ecosystems;
• Recognition and protection of the heritage values of sites, buildings, places, or areas;
• Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment;
• Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources;
• The protection of the habitat of trout and salmon.

Introduction

The modern, technological society requires an on-going supply of minerals. In most cases these must be extracted from the ground. Mineral production is therefore an essential part of sustaining our present society.

The extraction of minerals and a clean environment can and do go hand in hand. The New Zealand Minerals Industry Association is strongly committed to ensuring the minerals industry incorporates design standards, policies and operating practices which are consistent with the protection of New Zealand's environment.

Management of Mineral Resources

• In order to obtain long term economic benefits, our activities must be conducted in a way which ensures that adverse effects on the environment are minimised and, where practicable, prevented.
• We are committed to the development of New Zealand's mineral resources in a manner which ensures that the effects of their development are environmentally sustainable. In all our operations we will seek to integrate environmental and economic considerations to achieve the greatest benefit to New Zealand.

Land Use and Environmental Planning

• We will support planning by Regional and District councils under the Resource Management Act where these plan to manage environmental effects of activities, rather than the activities themselves.
• We will participate in central government legislative reforms and national policy formulation, and in the development of regulations, guidelines and standards by government departments where they affect the minerals industry.
• We will support conservation management strategies and planning which recognizes that resource development and conservation are not mutually exclusive.

Community Involvement

• We will act as responsible corporate citizens toward the communities in which our operations are located and toward the nation as a whole.
• We acknowledge the public interest in environmental issues associated with the development of minerals and the importance of establishing mutually beneficial relationships with communities.
• We will establish and maintain regular dialogue with communities on company activities and objectives.

Environmental Impact Assessment and Project Approval

• We will adopt high standards of environmental management in prospecting, exploration, and mineral development.
• We endorse the use of environmental impact assessment procedures in the planning of minerals projects and will seek professional advice on environmental matters during project planning and operation.
• We will work with each level of government to streamline project approval procedures without adversely affecting environmental protection.

Environmental Management

• We will submit sound applications for resource consents and landowner access arrangements which incorporate measures for the protection of the environment.
• We will support the use of appropriate performance standards by regulatory agencies to mitigate or avoid the adverse effects of mineral development on the environment.
• We will participate in the setting of technically sound resource consent conditions and monitor operations to ensure compliance with environment conditions.
• We will promote an attitude of care and responsibility for the environment among our employees, including a sense of stewardship of the environment for future generations.
• We will ensure that land affected by mineral development is rehabilitated to a condition suitable to its subsequent use and in accordance with legal requirements.

Research

• We will support environmental research in order to better understand the interactions between our operations and the environment, and to provide a sound basis for the adoption of innovative environmental management policies and practices.

Education

• We will support educational programmes that raise awareness of sound environmental practices in the minerals industry.
• We will prepare and distribute educational information to schools on New Zealand's minerals and mineral industry.

Resource Management Act 1991. Published under authority of the New Zealand Government, 1994. (Note 1)

Environmental Policy. Published by the New Zealand Minerals Industry Association. (Note 2)

Pearce, D.W and Freeman, S. Department of Economics, University College London, United Kingdom. Informational Requirements for Policy Decision-makers. Environment Canada. (May 1991).

OECD. "Environment and Economics: Results of the International Conference on Environment and Economics, 18 - 21 June 1984." OECD, Paris (1985). ISBN 9264126910.

Brown, Lester R. Building a Sustainable Society. Worldwatch Institute,USA. (1981). ISBN 0393014827.

Tolba, M K. Sustainable Development: Constraints and Opportunities. UNEP. Butterworths, England. (1987). ISBN 0408008776.

IUCN. "World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development". IUCN/UNEP/WWF/FAO/UNESCO.

Bromley, Daniel W. Property Rights and the Environment: Natural Resource Policy in Transition. Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand. (April 1988). ISBN 047705837X.

Bromley, Daniel W. Environment and Economy. Basil Blackwell, Massachusetts, USA. (1991). ISBN 1557860874.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A., and Barbier, E.B. Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan Publications Limited, London. (1989). ISBN 1853830666.

The World Commission on Environment and Development. "Our Common Future." Oxford University Press. (1987). ISBN 019282080X

Daley, Herman E. and Cobb, Jr, John B. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, Massachusetts, USA. (1989). ISBN 0807047023.