Dialogue: Oil wheels for smoother ride

By GARY TAYLOR

Ten years on, the Resource Management Act is still very good law. When compared with planning regimes in other countries, it's hot. It seeks environmental sustainability as the key outcome, it's a one-shop stop, and it encourages public participation.

The RMA's objective of sustainable management of natural and physical resources is a world leader. Sustainable development is a concept that is being embraced by business.But the act needs a makeover to better achieve the three compatible goals of improved environmental protection, reduced compliance costs, and informed public participation.

First, to get better environmental outcomes, reinforcing the primacy of strategic planning over ad hoc decisions is needed. The effort of getting regional and district plans right is often ignored as developers seek non-complying consents. This trend has seen huge tracts of rural Rodney, Northland and the Coromandel subdivided in spite of plans that seek to prevent such development.

Justice Robert Chambers recently put the brakes on with his Arrigato decision concerning subdivision at Pakiri Beach, in which he reasserted the importance of strategic plans. We also need laws to better protect landscapes, such as the Waitakere Ranges, the Coromandel and Bay of Islands.

Secondly, what can be done to further reduce compliance costs? The first target should be the gridlocked Environment Court. It needs more judges and commissioners, compulsory conferences to rigorously scope the issues and weed out vexatious appeals within a month of filing, shorter and more focused decisions and more mediation. All this would lead to shorter waiting times for the small number of cases - just 1 per cent of all applications - that end up there.

Developers, who often whinge about the RMA, often have themselves to blame for delays. They don't consult communities early and well enough, they fail to provide adequate information with their applications and they sometimes simply choose unsustainable projects - trying the system on and taking bad advice.

Then there are a number of instruments that are provided for that should be used. The call-in procedures for nationally important projects (such as new power stations and, arguably, motorways) are a case in point. They provide for the minister to route consents through a special process, but they've been used only once. Also, while the act provides for national policy statements, we don't have any (other than the mandatory coastal one).

Thirdly, some developers (and some councils) would prefer to keep the public out of decision-making. But the act has established a system that encourages public involvement. Unfortunately people are often overwhelmed by the process and poorly advised. The recent provision of environmental aid will allow communities to take professional advice and be more effective and targeted in their involvement.

Finally, the RMA is only half the toolkit. While there is need to stand firm, other methods such as education and incentives for improvement and enhancement of the environment must be developed. The Nature Heritage Fund could be resourced to fund land management agreements whereby private owners of important wildlife areas are given more incentive for habitat management and enhancement.

Other changes are being considered by a select committee, reporting next month. I hope they continue to build improvements on the basic framework and acknowledge the RMA as a key tool for facilitating economic growth and a clean, green New Zealand.

* Gary Taylor is an environmental consultant and a director of the Environmental Defence Society