1. Existing NPS and NES instruments are costly and lengthy to develop. There is a lack of flexibility in when and how they can be used, which limits their ability to quickly and adaptively respond to specific issues. This limits theireffectiveness.
2. Currently there are also constraints that limit central government’s ability to respond to significant and emerging resource management issues unless it amends the Resource Management Act (RMA) on an ad hocbasis.
3. There is a need to ensure that there are effective, fit-for-purpose tools in the RMA to allow central government to give direction to councils on how to develop plans for a particular resource managementissue.
4. The proposal includes three minor changes to the processes for developing NPSs and NESs which will address some issues that have previously been identified as limiting development ofinstruments:
· a combined development process for NPSs and NESs, through joint consultation, development and publication, to streamline the implementation of nationaldirection
· clarified scope for NPSs to give more specific direction about how objectives and policies should be implemented inplans
· allowing NPSs and NESs to be developed in relation to a specific area to address a local resource management issue that has nationalsignificance.
5. The following changes to NESs aim to create more flexibility, which have been identified as lacking from previous NESdevelopment:
· enabling council rules to be more lenient than theNES
· allowing NESs to specify councils may charge to monitor activities permitted by anNES
· enable NESs to specify requirements forcouncils.
6. A combined development process for NPSs and NESs will speed up development, improve integration and reduce costs (where instruments are being developed concurrently). The change will also allow the Minister for the Environment to choose to use a Board of Inquiry (BOI) process or a combined development process for both instruments. At present the BOI process is only available in developing anNPS.
7. Clarifying the scope of NPSs will enable NPSs (and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement) to include more specific direction for council plans. This will improve certainty about how these instruments can be used and allow more flexibility in theiruse.
8. Currently the RMA allows an NES to be developed in relation to a specific area or region to address a local resource management issue that has national significance. Allowing both NESs and NPSs to be developed for this purpose improves clarity about when national instruments (and notification and consultation with the public and iwi) can be targeted to a specificarea.
9. Enabling leniency would support the policy intent of an NES designed to enable development (such as the Telecommunications NES). Allowing activity monitoring charging for permitted activities would support NESs classifying more activities as permitted with greater assurance of compliance monitoring. Enabling requirements to be set for councils would increase central government’s ability to influence council actions for achieving environmental standards.
10. The proposals described are for enabling powers to be included in the national direction sections of the Act. There is no requirement that they be used. The costs will be case specific and must be assessed against benefits as part of the regulatory requirement for instrumentdevelopment.Ingeneralcostsavingscanbeanticipatedthroughuseofthese
powers. For example, developing a region specific NPS reduces the potential for an NPS to be developed for the whole country simply to target a problem in a particular area, reducing unnecessary adoption of nationaldirection.
11. The risk is that these powers are poorly implemented or used in ways that have not been anticipated. For example, a joint NPS/NES process could be used to improve speed and reduce costs, resulting in development of substandard instruments that could be improved with a slower, more deliberative process. However this is true of any process. Another example is the use of leniency in an NES in a way that decreases the ability of the standard to achieve the purpose of the Act. This risk should be mitigated by the various regulatory requirements of NPSs and NESs already required within theAct.
12. The proposals are for enabling powers only and we do not consider that other options are available to achieve the ends sought through the proposals. However, at the point where the Government considers the use of national direction there are options to achieve the Government’s aims which do not involve RMA statutory instruments, and these must be considered during the scoping process for national direction. Some of these optionsare:
Guidance to local government on issues of nationalimportance
13. One option would be for central government to issue guidance to local government on issues of national importance. This allows flexibility and updating of guidance without going through a regulatory process. This option retains local decision-making and provides ability for central government to respond to local requirements for specific outcomes. However, this option may have high costs, uncertain implementation and outcomes, does not guarantee consistency where this is a key benefit of national direction, and does not provide certainty to resource users andcommunities.
Government engagement in plan-making to achieve consistency and facilitate uptake of national priorities
14. This option retains local decision-making and provides ability for central government to respond to local requirements for specific outcomes. However, this option has high costs, uncertain implementation and outcomes, does not guarantee consistency where this is a key benefit of national direction, and does not provide certainty to resource users and communities.
15. This proposal will go some way in ensuring that the tools used to achieve alignment through the planning hierarchy are fit-for-purpose. This will contribute to the objective of better alignment and integration across thesystem.
