New Year - a time both for reflection and for looking forward. It's a time when we wish others all the best, and promise to do some things differently. What has 2013 produced for conservation, and how can we build on the positives and counteract the negatives?
Regrettably, there were many negatives. Among these were proposed changes to key provisions of the Resource Management Act, and the decision to classify exploration drilling for petroleum in New Zealand's exclusive economic zone as a non-notified activity. Both measures illustrate the ongoing tensions between environment and development. The government has clearly shifted the balance in favour of development. Perhaps this is the inevitable outcome of an excessively adversarial approach to such issues, one in which there are only winners and losers: if you can't beat them, change the rules.
Although some of the planned changes to the RMA are welcome, especially proposals to reduce costs, require councils to produce an overall resource management plan, and provide for collaborative management of freshwater resources, others threaten to alter the principles of the Act in ways that could lower environmental standards. Restricting the rights of submitters and limiting the role of the Environment Court to adjudicate appeals are particularly concerning.
Restricting the right of the public to submit opinions on development proposals that could have large social costs is central to the plan to make applications for marine consent to drill for petroleum offshore not publicly notifiable, provided the applicant meets certain statutory provisions. This means no public hearings, no right to question applicants on their proposals, and no opportunity to assess the sufficiency of proposed measures to mitigate any spills.
Recognising the need for economic development, at least some of which involves exploiting natural resources, how should those of us concerned about the environment respond to these challenges? After all, our ability to fund conservation depends largely on our economic well-being. Will obdurate opposition be sufficient? I doubt it. Can we formulate a more effective mix of political action, reasoned opposition to questionable proposals and, where appropriate, compromise and collaboration? What should be the key elements of each of these pillars, and how do we ensure that they complement one another? We need to reflect on the implications of such changes.
