This paper looks at what the new resource management system in New Zealand, under the Planning and Natural Environment Acts, means for the scope and effectiveness of environmental impact assessment.
New Zealand is replacing the Resource Management Act with two statutes: the Planning and Natural Environment Acts. These will reshape the scope and scale of IA in several ways. At the project level they will make holistic, integrated environmental assessment harder. Separate legislation for land use and environment artificially divides related effects and risks jurisdictional confusion. Whole categories of effect are excluded from consideration, including visual amenity, tree protections, the impacts of fishing, greenhouse gas emissions and landscapes less than ‘outstanding’. Higher thresholds for considering adverse effects, alongside more nationally standardised rules, will further constrain the ability to address site-specific and cumulative impacts. All this risks narrowing the scope of IA precisely when environmental pressures tell us a more integrated approach is needed. On the other hand, a new requirement for spatial planning has the potential to strengthen strategic impact assessment if used properly. By considering environmental constraints, infrastructure needs and development pressures across whole regions and sectors, this could provide a platform for more strategic, anticipatory impact assessment akin to SEA conducted in other countries. It could be particularly valuable for sectors such as renewable energy or AI data centres where development may have significant cumulative implications ill-suited to case-by-case consenting. This paper considers what the new RM framework means for the scope and effectiveness of environmental IA: a step forward or back?
Greg is Reform Director at the Environmental Defence Society. He has been closely involved in New Zealand's environmental law reforms for the last decade, in private practice, government and academia.