Friday, March 29, 2024

Sector wary of RMA reform

Neal Wallace
Primary sector leaders remain wary of proposed changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA). Horticulture NZ fears the rush to provide more land for housing will gobble up our most productive soils, while Federated Farmers warn the proposed tight timeframe for a rewrite of the complex legislation could enable predetermined outcomes.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Environment Minister David Parker has announced plans to implement the findings of a review last July to break up the RMA into three pieces: the Strategic Planning Act (SPA), the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) and the Climate Change Adaptation Act (CCA).

Parker says the NBA, as the core piece of legislation replacing the RMA, will be progressed first. 

“Given its significance and complexity, a special select committee inquiry will consider an exposure draft of the NBA Bill from mid-year,” Parker said in a statement.

“This will include the most important elements of the legislation, including the replacement of Part 2 of the RMA.

“I expect that the complete NBA and the SPA will be formally introduced into Parliament by the end of 2021, with the NBA passed by the end of 2022.”

HortNZ chief executive Mike Chapman wants the Government to ensure protection for our most valuable soils, proffered by the draft National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land, which was launched in Pukekohe in August 2019, does not get sidelined by the reforms.

He is concerned by reports in the NZ Herald that 31,000ha of Auckland’s most productive could be lost to urban sprawl in the next 35 years.

“Part of NZ’s overall plan to house people and respond to climate change needs to be a plan to feed people fresh, healthy locally-grown vegetables and fruit, at appropriate prices,” Chapman said.

“If feeding NZers and offering them food security is not part of the country’s plan, NZ’s health statistics will get worse, and vegetables and fruit will become unaffordable.”

Federated Farmers RMA spokesperson Karen Williams fears the speed of process will exclude community input and mean the final document “leans towards predetermined outcomes.”

“This gives very little time for the community to absorb, consider and submit on the contents of the Bill,” Williams said.

“It is too important an issue to rush.

“We all want planning processes simplified and costs and times reduced, but we also want good quality legislation.

“Faster planning doesn’t necessarily equate to better planning.”

Landcare Research environmental social researcher Nicholas Kirk says the proposed reforms will mean shifting from an effects-based management system to a focus on achieving positive outcomes within environmental limits.

“These outcomes will need to be general enough to represent the enormous diversity in New Zealand’s built and natural environments, while also being specific and attainable,” Kirk said.

“When trying to achieve this balance while setting positive outcomes, there is a risk we set unambitious outcomes that fail to redress the multiple overlapping problems NZ’s built and natural environments are experiencing.”

Professor Tony Baisden of the Environmental Institute at the University of Waikato says the proposed changes will be a contrast to the RMA, which for three decades has focused on local perceptions of trade-offs between costs and benefits to manage individual activity.

Science will play a bigger role in managing the environment.

“The most clearly signalled change is the Climate Change Adaptation Act, which will enable better responses to issues known to science, such as sea level rise,” Baisden said.

“The Strategic Planning Act and other changes will presumably make the complexity of Regional Council Plans regulating the environment more comprehensible by consolidating over 100 documents into as few as 14.”

This should potentially mean less litigation and clearer, more uniform targets for science and communities to consider.

“What remains is the core functions of the RMA folded into a Natural and Built Environments Act, which still must manage the trade-off between our wellbeing and economy in built and productive environments, including agriculture, and impacts on natural ecosystems including lakes and streams,” he said.

Baisden hopes that having better and clearer points of engagement and decision-making will assist communities to contribute.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading