A vast gulf between local bodies’ approaches to the Resource Act
New Zealand’s local authorities are set for a battle of ideas between a couple of visions of the environment. At stake is the role of local government in our environment. At stake is the role of local government in out environmental management, and the physical nature of our living space.
Research by Open Polytechnic tutor Brendon Orr concluded that local authorities were not very environmentally aware, but that this may change.
There were emerging conflicting images of the environment, Mr Orr said. The true greens placed the environment first and wanted to restore the bush, coast and mountains. This was the ecocentric view and related to a reverence for nature. The second favoured “balanced development” and saw the environment in terms of sustainability. It was Aristotelian moderation, outdoors.
Mr Orr based this analysis on a content analysis of 1992/93 local authority annual plans. He reviewed 16 regional councils, 14 city councils and 55 district councils. He concluded: “There was a spread of perception as to what constituted environmental expenditure”. The more popular categories among the three types of local government were “environmental management, resource monitoring, policy, planning, transport, environmental health, solid-waste management, sewage and water”.
There are usually no environmental objectives or performance standards for major works such as roading, quarries, airports, housing, industrial properties, motorcamps, abattoirs, part management, testing stations, cemeteries, land development, electricity, gas, civil defence, pest destruction, noxious plants and tourism. About “90% of authorities’ commercial activities did not display environmental awareness in their goals…”
Further evidence supports Mr Orr’s contention. Examples, again drawing upon annual plans, are the content of final accounts, mission statements, chairmen’s statements and chief executive’ statements. Mayors or chairmen mentioned the environment in 19% of their statements for regional councils and 9% for district councils. Most chairmen did not think environmental matters worth attention in their plans.
Even allowing for the presence of other planning and policy documents, Mr Orr’s conclusion appears sound.
Environmental standards will become more prominent in annual plans. Submissions from the public about environmental management are increasing. Councillors debate environmental studies and resource management.
The Resource Management Act settles nothing. It provides a framework for decision-making and introduces environmental concepts but the standards it sets with the idea of “sustainability” are minimal standards.
Now the key question is: Will the goal be the technocrats’ concept of “sustainability”, or the deep-green concept of “restoration”?
The difference between the two approaches is vast. An authority that accepts the deep-green philosophy will invest in the restoration projects. It will buy strategic land, plant native trees, and place absolute prohibitions on extractive activities in critical areas such as harbours and estuaries. Its territory will become known for “greenness” and open spaces.
Authorities content with sustainability may compromise the environment’s quality repeatedly. They will attract industry, be known for their permissive rules and productivity in their areas will rise. Development will increase local authority revenue.
The environmental debate is based on the Resource Management Act 1991. The act promotes green policies and economic growth simultaneously. For example, it defines “sustainable management” as “managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety. It leaves open the possibility of adopting the greens’ call to restore the environment, instead of the technocrats’ call to pursue sophisticated compromises.
The technocrats’ perspective was strengthened by the Ministry for the Environment when it declared “sustainable management” had two aspects – to recognise the environmental costs of activities and policies in order to protect our natural and physical resources and to promote better consideration of the earth’s resources to conserve the potential of resources.
Thus, the environment is to feature as a part of a cost-benefit analysis that may employ market rates and will be oriented towards a traditional economic growth concept. Ecosystems, amenity values, social, economic, aesthetic and cultural factors are brought into the algorithm to decide whether any particular project is to proceed.
Proposals now coming before councils overwhelmingly pursue private financial gain. The Act may be used as a lever to extract compensation from private enterprise. In this way councils build funds which may be directed at environmental purposes. Such levies must also make development more expensive, and thus add to the ratepayers’ burden.
Councils with a mind to do it can restore the bush, rivers and coast and improve biodiversity. Whether they will depends on the concept of environmental management they adopt.
Published in the National Business Review, 7 October 1994