Resource management reform

The Natural Environment Bill provides tools to deliver a cascading framework for intervention based on the extent of freshwater issues in a catchment or management unit:

1. A combination of regulatory and non-regulatory measures, including Freshwater Farm Plans, voluntary actions and catchment group initiatives when resources are not under pressure.
2. Action plans (led by councils) – for getting back within a limit when it’s been breached.
3. Resource caps and land-use controls – placing further restrictions on some activities.
4. Charging and market mechanisms for resource allocation.

Current drafting fails to deliver on this scaled approach. Voluntary methods, permitted activities and Freshwater Farm Plans are not appropriately recognised in the legislation as effective replacements to resource consents (or permits), risking duplication. In overallocated catchments, the legislation directs Regional Councils straight to caps on resources. As discussed further below, Action Plans are more regulatory than non-regulatory, and we are seeking deferral of new market-based mechanisms.

DairyNZ are proposing drafting changes that prioritise enabling low-risk farming practices.

The intent of the bills is to simplify and make the consenting system faster and easier as well as make more activities permitted so less consents are needed overall. We agree with this intent but as currently drafted the Bills do not deliver.

A key issue is that, based on current drafting an activity can only be permitted if it is low impact and not in a catchment that is considered to be overallocated.

While complying with a permitted activity rule means you would not require a consent or permit, current drafting would require some permitted activities to be registered with a permit authority.

We don’t believe all low-risk activities should require an approval via registration since this most likely will come with a processing fee, increasing the cost and administration for farmers. On the other hand, an approval is proposed to be valid for three years so could lead to some certainty for farmers. We want to ensure there is justification for those permitted activities that do require registration.

Two sets of Environmental Limits will be set as numerical values across air, freshwater, coastal water, land, and soil, and indigenous biodiversity.

Limits for human health will be set nationally – through secondary instruments like national standards.

Ecosystem health limits will be set regionally - with direction in national standards to specify methodology for regional councils to follow.

DairyNZ is advocating for robust methodologies for setting limits that will be enduring and provide certainty for farmers. We are seeking an outcomes-focused approach as a practical and effective alternative to strict numerical limits on contaminants as a proxy for ecosystem health.

The Natural Environment Bill introduces a broader range of market mechanisms to allocate natural resources and address overallocation. Consultation on what would be included in market mechanisms is not planned until 2028.

DairyNZ has significant concerns around the efficacy and impacts of market mechanisms. We do not believe additional market mechanisms should be introduced into legislation before more detail is provided.

The NEB proposes that Action Plans are used when an environmental limit is breached or nearing being breached.

DairyNZ’s view is that action plans offer a real opportunity when they are developed with farmers, communities and mana whenua and focused on delivering positive, practical and catchment scale solutions. They should form an interim step before a regulatory approach is considered.

As currently drafted, these are a regulatory tool providing regional authorities with a range of powerful tools with no checks and balances and no requirement to engage with communities.

DairyNZ is proposing changes to ensure these tools are used as an appropriate non-regulatory intervention rather than another regulatory tool.

The new system envisions a greater number of decisions being made at the national level. This makes it faster to make changes to regulation especially around standards, environmental limits, rules and settings.

As drafted the legislation gives the Government of the day significant powers to change regulations without appropriate checks and balances. Farmers need certainty in regulation. We are seeking changes to ensure any amendments at the national level are required to go through a robust process to provide an appropriate level of protection against significant or abrupt change. We also believe that Ministerial changes should be supported by reports showing appropriate analysis.

A local authority must assess the materiality of the impact of any rule that has a significant impact on the reasonable use of land. They must consider the restrictions on development potential, any constraints on the reasonable use or enjoyment of land, and land value.

Areas for relief are limited to rules dealing with:

• Land-based indigenous biodiversity, Significant Natural Areas, and sites of significance to Māori (regulated through the Natural Environment Bill) and,
• Significant historic heritage, outstanding natural landscapes and features, areas of high natural character within the coastal env, wetlands, lakes rivers and their margins (Planning bill).

DairyNZ does not believe this change will have a significant impact for dairy farmers as regulatory relief will only apply on farmland in very limited circumstances.

The two proposed Bills separate land-use planning and natural resource management. The aim is to develop a system with clear direction for decision-makers and make it more consistent and predictable for resource users.

The goals in each Bill drive the outcomes of the system. They set out what the system must achieve and what can be regulated. It is important that the goals enable the use of natural resources such as land and water for productive land uses.

The Bills propose an overarching structure that will be implemented through secondary legislation including national instruments and a combined plan for each region.

The national direction that sits under the Acts (refer to image below) heavily influence the outcomes for farmers. This detail will follow in a second phase of information in 2026.

Figure adapted from: Better planning for a better New Zealand | Ministry for the Environment

It will take time to fully transition to the new system, and the RMA will still be in force during the transition period.

A Transitional framework is included in the bills. This includes:

• Targeted changes to the RMA.
• A Transitional consenting framework.
• Regional and district plans staying in place until the new system is fully switched on.

Consents due to expire during the transition period will be extended to a date two years after the end of the period. The end date is not set and will be decided by Order in Council, once all the plans have been notified. It is likely that current consents will be extended to 2031. The RMA and all planning instruments under the RMA will cease to apply at the end of the transition period.

Some changes to consent duration are already passed into law. This is what you need to know:

• All consents expiring before 31 Dec 2027 will be automatically extended to this date.
• Consent conditions are unchanged and will need to be followed.
• Water consents are capped at 35 years.
• Renewals already lodged with a regional council will be extended to 31 December 2027.
• Farmers with an application in progress are still able to progress the consent renewal under the current RMA framework which is worth considering or may decide to withdraw their application.
• Regional councils must inform all applicable consent holders.

More information: Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Act | Ministry for the Environment