Forestry code to speed resource consents

By COLIN JAMES

The forestry industry hopes to speed up resource consents with a new code of practice - a possible forerunner of codes in other sectors.

The industry says uncertainty over the Resource Management Act (RMA) is the single most important barrier to its development.

A report to the Forestry Industry Council (FIC) estimates that in direct cost savings alone a code of practice could save an applicant nine to 18 months' processing time and $15,000 to $140,000.

Improvements in council processing could save between three months and three years in the time needed to process an application, and reduce the cost by $50,000 to $150,000.

The report says there are also savings to be made by integrating regional and district management of RMA processes and through educating industry and processing staff. There are also potential savings, unquantified, in opportunity costs.

The code of practice - being developed by consultants and financed 50-50 by the FIC and the Government, with a draft due in April - aims to sharpen companies' RMA applications so they meet environmental standards and councils' expectations and needs.

It will deal with a range of technical matters of the sort that often end up as conditions of consents. Examples are noise, dust, lighting, traffic flows and air emissions.

It will also deal with process, including pre-consent discussions with council officers to iron out potential issues and establishing relationships so that applications do not land cold on council desks.

Wayne Benjamin of the Ministry for the Environment says following the code will not guarantee a council will give a consent because, as a voluntary code, it may fall short of some councils' requirements and there may be specific local factors.

But it should cut processing times and increase the likelihood of favourable results.

A series of workshops is planned midyear to explain the code of practice to the industry, particularly small and medium companies.

The code of practice will also feed into the drive by Local Government New Zealand, the local body umbrella group, to get all councils to adopt national methods for processing consent applications. It is holding best practice workshops in May.

One possibility is that model objectives, policies and rules will be developed for inclusion in regional and district plans.

Council staff often lack knowledge of an industry like wood processing and start from scratch, instead of drawing on other councils' knowledge and expertise acquired from earlier consents.

The forest industry code may be a pilot for other industries.

It stems from a report by environmental consultant Mitchell Partnerships to the wood processing strategy group convened by Economic Development Minister Jim Anderton. Mitchell interviewed companies and council members and staff.

The report makes dismaying reading for the industry.

It found that regional plans are "mostly rules-focused, primarily aimed at permitting minor activities" and that district plans, while providing for some industry development, often treat wood processing as a "discretionary" activity.

This causes uncertainties over both timing and outcome. "Unreasonable submitters" tie up consents. Solutions are often reinvented when they have been devised for previous cases.

And there "appears to be little guidance for councils on what can be dealt with on a non-notified basis" - that is passed by the council without public submissions.

The process for dealing with submitters is too loose, Mitchell Partnerships says, "often leaving the applicant alone to try to satisfy concerns".

Moreover, "subsequent committee decisions often appear to be based on satisfying submitters rather than on promoting sustainable management of natural and physical resources", so council staff focus on issues raised by submitters.

Other findings:

* The appeal process is too long. Appeals can be related not to the merits of a case but the influence a party can bring and they are frequently brought by people without an apparent valid interest.

* The industry can help itself by being more active, educating the public and council staff about its activities, consulting sooner and selecting sites more carefully to reduce the likelihood of objections.

* There is no Government advocacy for the "social and economic wellbeing" dimension of industry development, as there is, through the Department of Conservation, for the environment.