environmental stewardship for a prosperous new zealand · >> briefing to the incoming...

>> BRIEFING TO THE INCOMING MINISTERS

Environmental stewardship for a prosperous New ZealandTiakina te taiao kia tōnui a Aotearoa 2014

1 Briefing for Incoming Ministers 2014

Contents Overview 3

1. The New Zealand environment 6

Environmental management system 7

Roles of central and regional government 7

Informed decision-making 8

Meaningful engagement and consultation 8

2. The role of the Ministry 9

Review of the Environmental Protection Authority 10

Workflow and the Ministry’s capacity 11

Budget and efficiency 11

Key partnerships and relationships 12

3. Information and evidence on the system and the environment 13

Improving the information system 13

4. Resource management 15

On land and coast 15

Improving the system 16

In the EZZ and Continental Shelf 19

5. Climate change 21

Current targets 21

Priorities 22

6. Risks, hazards and waste management 24

Biological and chemical risks 24

Natural hazards 26

Waste and resource recovery 28

7. Priority issues for consideration 30

Environment Minister 30

Climate Change Issues Minister 31

8. Statutory responsibilities 32

Delegation of powers 32

Environment Minister 32

Climate Change Issues Minister 37

Ministry for the Environment 38

APPENDIX A: Executive management profiles 39

APPENDIX B: Ministerial-appointed boards 41

APPENDIX C: List of statutory delegations 42

APPENDIX D: Key partnerships for the Ministry 44


Overview

Environment and Climate Change

New Zealand’s prosperity depends on a healthy and well-functioning environment. Complex

social and economic drivers determine how people value, use and manage the environment

and natural resources. Decisions on water, land management and climate change do not stand

in isolation – any action on these issues has economic, social and cultural implications.

Therefore, achieving much of the government’s wider aims depend on the performance of the

environmental management system.

The causes of, and solutions for addressing, complex environmental issues sit across multiple

portfolios, such as transport, energy and primary production. Collaboration and coordination

across government agencies and between Ministers is needed to build a shared understanding

of the synergies and differences between different sector objectives. Enduring solutions will

need to be agreed collectively by Ministers.

Information and evidence

A significant opportunity for improving New Zealand’s environmental management system is

to improve our information and evidence base. The Environmental Reporting Bill and the

National Monitoring System on resource management outcomes will help New Zealanders to

have better informed dialogue on resource use and pressing environmental issues. A strong

partnership with local government, who hold much of this information, will drive the success

of these initiatives.

Resource management

Improving our understanding of the state of our environment and resource management

outcomes will support better decision-making on the use of natural resources. There is a need

to step back and assess whether the resource management and planning system as a whole

remains fit for purpose. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is part of the wider

framework for planning and local decision-making. Decision-making under the RMA has

become increasingly complex, time consuming and contentious. Capacity and capability of

local decision-makers varies widely.

In the interim, greater national-level direction and guidance will support consistency in

decision-making and remove some of the unnecessary complexities and ambiguities which

hinder RMA decision-making processes across the country. The National Policy Statement

(NPS-FM) and National Objectives Framework (NOF) to improve freshwater management is an

example of this approach. These are being implemented in stages and require continued

support for the full benefits of the approach to be realised. Aspects of the freshwater

approach can be replicated in other complex and contestable areas, such as natural hazard

management, marine and urban planning (including housing). Progressing the proposed

national template for resource management plans will increase the scope for national

direction.


The quality of resource management decisions and plans can be improved through proposed

reforms to plan-making, in particular the collaborative plan-making process. These work to

ensure decisions are evidence-based and communities are engaged early, which is critical to

improving decision-making and reducing costly litigation and uncertainty. For fresh water, this

will allow communities to meet the requirements of the NPS-FM and NOF by working together

to set realistic objectives for their local water bodies. In order to improve the efficiency and

effectiveness of plan-making, Ministers should also consider whether elements of the one-off

processes in Auckland and Christchurch could have wider and more permanent application.

The process for Board of Inquiry decisions on nationally significant projects is highly contested

and adversarial. We need to consider a range of options to make this process less adversarial

where there is no added benefit to the decision-making.

We need to continue investigating approaches for allocating fresh water to its best value use,

and addressing the rights and interests of iwi and hapū in fresh water. At least half of New

Zealand’s regions have indicated that their water resources are fully or over-allocated. Eastern

regions, such as Otago, Canterbury and Marlborough are particularly vulnerable in dry periods

and regions like Southland and Waikato have water bodies below national quality bottom

lines. This means that creating head room for intensification or new users will be contentious

and require strong leadership from both central and regional government, iwi and other

stakeholders.

Improving the way natural hazards are considered in resource management requires central

government to take a stronger leadership role, in partnership with local government.

Fundamental issues to resolve include the treatment of existing property rights and the level

of risk management and risk accountability between individuals and government.

With the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 in

place, New Zealand now has a mechanism for managing the effects of activities in the offshore

marine environment. However, the wider marine regulatory regime is fragmented and

information about the marine environment is limited. This can mean decision-making

processes are fraught and costly. To help reduce the potential for unnecessary barriers or costs

in the system the new regulatory regime needs to be assessed from an end-user’s perspective.

The provision of a statement of government direction will help guide decision-makers in

balancing environmental and economic considerations. Longer-term, better integration of New

Zealand’s fragmented management arrangements in the marine environment will be required.

Climate change

New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are small on a global scale (0.15%), however in 2011,

our emissions per capita were ranked 22nd highest in the world, and 6th in the OECD. In 2015,

the government will participate in negotiations to agree a new international climate change

agreement on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions from 2020. New Zealand faces

domestic and international pressure to make credible commitments in the face of increasing

scientific evidence that urgent and substantial global action is required.

We need to develop stable and enduring policy settings that are widely supported by society,

to transition New Zealand to become a successful ‘low-carbon society’ that is resilient to

climate change impacts. We must reduce our emissions in a cost-effective way, increase

productivity and manage risks posed by climate change. The case for action is also economic:

ensuring we retain access to export markets and we do not fall behind our competitors.


Our greenhouse gas emissions and removals data is comprehensive. We have an established

price on emissions and market infrastructure in place through the New Zealand Emissions

Trading Scheme (NZ ETS), although current settings are not driving meaningful emissions

reductions. In 2015 the NZ ETS is scheduled to be reviewed to assess whether the settings

remain suitable for delivering on government objectives.

As the impacts of climate change become clearer we will continue to refine the adaptation

framework to ensure New Zealand can effectively adapt and respond to these impacts.

Risk, hazards and waste management

The approach to regulating biological and chemical hazards needs to strike the right balance

between enabling innovation and managing risk under uncertainty. The application of

precaution is appropriate when making risk-based decisions. However, it is critical that

decision-making parameters keep pace with advances in science and technology that can alter

the risk profile of hazards. A review of the regulations that exempt organisms from being

regulated as genetically modified organisms is necessary to take account of such advances. In

addition to updating these regulations, a wider review of the new organisms regime is

warranted to ensure it is not unnecessarily stifling innovation or research.

We need a bolder approach to minimising waste in New Zealand. The range and volume of

material recovered for reuse or recycling is low, and per-capita waste disposal rates are

high. Regulating problem wastes, such as agricultural chemicals, refrigerants and asbestos,

which can pose considerable risk to human health and the environment requires priority

attention. These harmful wastes, and a proposal to shift the cost of disposal onto generators

and producers, have recently been publicly consulted. Strengthening the application of the

waste disposal levy can improve the collection and accuracy of waste data, and remove some

inconsistencies in the way it is applied. This will improve the levy’s ability to act as an economic

incentive to minimise waste.

The Ministry for the Environment

We work in partnership with others to manage New Zealand’s natural and built resources. This

includes leading the Natural Resources Sector collaborative approach to natural resources

policies and management across central government. We provide advice and information to

government and the public on the New Zealand environment and international matters that

affect the environment and climate.

The Ministry works across a highly devolved environmental management system, with local

authorities and the Environmental Protection Authority making most of the decisions that

directly influence environmental outcomes. Part of our role is to advise the government about

how environmental regimes can contribute to creating a high performing management

system.

We are Crown partners with iwi/Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi. We focus on building

trusting and durable relationships with iwi/Māori to honour and strengthen this partnership.

Iwi/hapū are growing their natural resource asset base and establishing co-management

arrangements over natural resources through Treaty settlements. The Ministry’s role and

approach to developing natural resources policy will need to change with this evolving context.


1. The New Zealand environment

Ko te whenua te waiu mo nga uri

whakatipu.

Our land and resources provide the

sustenance for our future

generations.

New Zealand has a rich but finite environment and natural resource base. The many competing

uses for our natural resources puts pressure on them and, in some critical areas, resources are

near or beyond their environmental and usage limits.

To compete in high-value markets with discerning customers, New Zealand must maintain high

environmental standards, and the quality and quantity of our natural resources. Our natural

capital base gives us a comparative advantage in this area, and this is likely to become more

valuable over time, both in exploitation and preservation. However, we also face pressure to

generate wealth from the short-term use of our resources.

As New Zealanders are increasingly aware, the cost of reversing harm to the environment is

substantial. It requires not only money, but also huge local effort, and it takes time for the

environment to respond – sometimes decades.

We need to manage our natural resources for the longer term wealth and wellbeing of our

people, by adapting and keeping pace with the changing pressures we face.

New Zealanders expect a high standard of living. The

recreational and cultural opportunities offered by the

environment are core to their identity. To meet these

aspirations we need to set acceptable levels of use that

enable us to manage resources within environmental

limits.

New Zealand’s future economic and social wellbeing will

depend, in large part, on how we responsibly manage

growing opportunities and pressures to get the best

long-term value from our natural and built environment.

We need to manage

the many competing

interests for our natural

resources to ensure we

use resources within

their environmental

limits.


Environmental management system

To get maximum benefits from New Zealand’s resources, today and in the future, it is critical

to have a robust and resilient environmental management system. Because the institutions

and the people involved in environmental management are linked in so many ways, this must

be considered as a system rather than a series of separate parts.

Water, land management and climate change are not simply environmental issues – any action

on these issues has economic, social and cultural implications. Social and economic systems

drive how people value, use and manage natural resources. Therefore, much of what the

government seeks to achieve across its wider policy programme and ministerial portfolios has

dependencies on the performance of the environmental management system.

When the interactions between these systems work well, society gets the maximum benefit

from natural resources while minimising any negative impacts. When systems are in conflict or

operate in isolation, or we ignore environmental limits, there is a risk of damaging or depleting

natural resources. A long-term, cross-sector view in decision-making is essential. This

approach resonates with the holistic way Māori consider their relationship with the

environment. The phrase “ki uta ki tai” - “from the mountains to the sea” is often used to

describe how the environment should be viewed and managed.

Some of New Zealand’s environmental regulatory regimes are no longer considered fit for

purpose, including the new organisms regimes. While in the past targeted and marginal

improvements to regulatory frameworks were considered sufficient, we now need to focus

change on ensuring the frameworks as a whole are able to achieve longer term outcomes.

Roles of central and regional government

In New Zealand, regions and territorial authorities are

largely responsible for environmental management. This

allows flexible solutions to local issues, and the ability to

reflect community views. Although the environmental

management system is designed to support this model,

there is variable capability of decision-makers and

resource managers across the country, which risks

inconsistency and variable outcomes. The capacity of

Auckland Council to manage local issues and respond to

central government expectations, for example, is hugely

different from that of a small council with a limited

ratepayer base, such as the Wairoa District Council.

Central government must take leadership to ensure that

the environmental management system continues to be effective in the face of changing

circumstances. At the same time, central government must be aware, when deciding on the

pace of change, of the diverse nature and functions of the locally-governed and -funded

organisations responsible for much of New Zealand’s environmental management. Local

government policy, including any future reform, is of key interest to the environment portfolio.

Central government must

be aware of the diverse

nature and functions of the

local organisations

responsible for much of our

environmental

management.


Informed decision-making

Decision-makers in central and local government must consider and understand

environmental limits, the potential impacts and cumulative effects of activities, and risks and

trade-offs over the long-term. This includes the potential for unintended consequences of

decisions in other areas of resource management, such as transport or housing availability.

We need robust information about the environment and the system for good decision-making.

We must understand the ongoing impacts of past decisions and the current state and trends of

our environment and the system. We can then better predict the impacts and implications of

current decisions on our environment and system.

Evidence is also essential to evaluate the results of actions and interventions (of both local and

central government), and adapt the management approach if necessary. While the

information and evidence base is currently limited (such as in the area of inclusion of

mātauranga Māori) we are working on improving it, and central government has a

coordinating role to ensure that robust information is available for decision-makers. Even so,

information will never be perfect and we need to continue to ensure decisions can be made

and resources managed in this context.

Meaningful engagement and consultation

The environmental management system should deliver a stable and enduring policy setting

focused on long-term outcomes. To do this, the policy must:

be supported by the community

recognise Māori rights and interests, and utilise

mātauranga Māori

deliver outcomes that the community wants.

Everyone involved in environmental management

must understand and be responsive to one another

to do this, while working towards common goals.

Engagement in natural resource management has

historically been adversarial. In recent years, there

has been a shift towards a more collaborative

approach to policy development, as illustrated by

the Land and Water Forum.

The process must be time and cost effective for all parties, and not reward negative

behaviours or create barriers to participation. Collaborative processes encourage agreement

on the issues, the outcomes wanted, and acceptable solutions. Engaging early with iwi/Māori

is increasingly important as we move into a new post-Treaty settlement era.

The recent and ongoing freshwater reforms are based on the recommendations of the Land

and Water Forum, which used a collaborative approach to get a high degree of buy-in from a

broad range of stakeholders, as well as engagement with the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group.

Supporting collaborative processes is likely to encourage the public participation we need.

We need quality public

participation to:

gain diverse perspectives

develop supported and

legitimate decisions

build greater

consensus in the

community.


2. The role of the Ministry

The Ministry plays a critical role in the environmental management system. We have a strong

focus on monitoring the performance of the system, including measuring the outcomes

generated for New Zealand.

We work in partnership with others to actively manage the system. This includes leading the

natural resources sector collaborative approach to natural resources policies and management

(see appendix D for the role of the Natural Resources Sector agencies). We provide advice and

information to government and the public on the New Zealand environment, and international

matters that affect the environment and climate (see appendix A for the profiles of the

Ministry’s Executive management team).

The Ministry works across a highly devolved environmental management system. We have a

key role in ensuring that the high-level system setting drives better performance. The

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and local government, amongst others, undertake

most of the implementation and enforcement of the laws the Ministry administers, apart from

climate change and waste management where we have a more direct role in implementation.

The Crown has devolved a number of environmental

management duties to local authorities; however the

partnership relationship between the Crown and Māori

has not been passed on in the same way. We have a

direct role in reflecting the Crown-Māori relationship

under the Treaty in environmental policy and resource

management arrangements.

Our legislative responsibilities span the environmental

management system. We have a role in policy and

implementation, but increasingly important are our

roles in:

providing strategic advice on how the system is

operating, and how the different actors in the

system interact

understanding the longer-term outcomes New

Zealand wants from the system, and the system's

ability to deliver these outcomes

understanding how the system interacts with wider institutions.

We have a crucial focus currently on improving the quality of, and access to, environmental

information, and building information available about how the system is performing. This is

fundamental to making the system work, and to increasing our community's understanding of

our environment and its interactions with economic and social wellbeing.

Building this information will support informed conversations nationally about outcomes,

priorities, opportunities and risks. All of this is essential to develop enduring policy solutions

that are widely supported in the community.

For Māori, their

relationship with the

environment has a kaitiaki

or stewardship role that is

enshrined in Te Tiriti o

Waitangi/ the Treaty of

Waitangi, and through a

number of Treaty

settlements, which must

be provided for in

environmental

management.


Building trusting and durable relationships with iwi/Māori is central to our role as Crown

partners to the Treaty. We are seeing continued development of the post-settlement social

and economic world with iwi adopting new leadership arrangements and greater

iwi/hapu/whanau connectedness across New Zealand and globally. Treaty settlements are

enabling iwi/hapū to grow their natural resource asset base and establish co-management

arrangements over natural resources.

The Ministry’s role and approach to developing natural resources policy needs to change with

this evolving context. We need to understand Māori perspectives, mātauranga and interests

as we approach our policy and decisions.

We administer a number of government funding schemes. Funding complements wider

Ministry policy and regulatory initiatives, and maximises our ability to achieve the outcomes

wanted. It provides an important mechanism to change people’s behaviour. These schemes

include the:

Community Environment Fund (approx. $2.9m per annum)

Waste Minimisation Fund (around $10m per annum)

Environmental Legal Assistance Fund, assistance towards legal costs for not-for-profit

groups to participate in resource management cases (around $0.8m per year)

Fresh Start for Fresh Water fund (concludes 2014)

Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund (around $2.6m per annum).

The Environment Minister has the ability to appoint advisory panels for the Community

Environment Fund, Waste Minimisation Fund and Environmental Legal Assistance fund. These

panels assess applications for funding and make recommendations to the Minister, or to the

Ministry in respect to the legal assistance fund. The Ministry provides support to these panels.

The Ministry has also entered into funding agreements with the following key stakeholders:

The Sir Peter Blake Trust: to deliver the Youth Environment Leadership Forum. We are

currently developing a new three-year agreement with the Trust.

The Enviroschools Foundation: to deliver training programmes that support young people

to contribute to ecological regeneration and the creation of healthy, resilient and

sustainable communities.

Review of the Environmental Protection Authority

The Ministry is currently carrying out a Cabinet-mandated review of the EPA, three years after

it became operational. The review has two key components:

evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the EPA, including the EPA’s governance and

the role of the Māori Advisory Committee (Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao)

reviewing the fiscal sustainability of the EPA, including a high-level assessment of its

operational efficiency and the impact of this on funding needs, and an evaluation of its

cost recovery practices.

The Environment Minister may be interviewed as part of the evaluation of effectiveness and

efficiency. The Minister will have an opportunity to comment on the draft review report, which

will summarise the findings of the review and prioritise the recommendations.

We expect the review will be concluded in December 2014. Responding to the review findings,

including budgetary matters, will be a priority for the Ministry in the first half of 2015.

http://www.epa.govt.nz/te-hautu/who-we-are/Nga_Kaihautu/Pages/default.aspx


Workflow and the Ministry’s capacity

The Ministry employs a maximum of 316 full-time equivalent staff, with expertise in

biophysical and social sciences, environmental legislation, planning and economics.

The Ministry has resourced and structured itself to be adaptable and responsive, and balances

planned work programmes and delivery of new initiatives. The Ministry regularly monitors its

capacity and capability to ensure it can continue to meet its current and future commitments.

However, as a small Ministry there is a limit to our capacity. From time to time we may need to

discuss priorities and options with you for managing the work load.

Budget and efficiency

The Ministry’s baseline funding for system monitoring, policy advice and implementation is

$54 million in 2014/15, and reduces to approximately $48 million over the forecast period to

2018/19. The higher level of baseline funding in 2014/15 reflects one-off funding to progress

resource management reform and additional funding for water reform initiatives.

In addition to departmental expenditure, we administer Crown funds of about

$95 million to fund various operations of the EPA, and government funding schemes we

administer.

Additional Crown funds of approximately $165 million are set aside for the allocation of New

Zealand units under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. These funds are subject to

significant fluctuations due to the price of carbon, and the economic drivers that influence

emission levels.

We have focused on improving our efficiency and

effectiveness over a sustained period of time. To deliver

high quality policy advice and support, the Ministry has

undertaken reviews since 2010 of management,

communications, IT and policy functions, and

administrative support, while using savings to fund

various initiatives including establishing the EPA and

funding the clean-up of Tui Mine.

We are improving planning and financial management

under a multi-year project, in response to the

Performance Improvement Framework review. We have initiated a review of the Ministry’s

outcomes framework, and the development of a strategy which will complement the

Ministry’s strategic direction.

We have strengthened accountability for budget forecasting and management.

We have implemented a Ministry-wide time recording system to ensure we have better

information for planning, and to support resource allocation decisions. We continue to use the

results of the Benchmarking Administrative and Support Services exercise to improve our

efficiency.

We are preparing our next four-year plan on the basis that the work of the Ministry and the

EPA will need to be resourced from current appropriations and baselines. We will engage with

you over the coming months to ensure the plan reflects your priorities.

We have been focused

on improving our efficiency

and effectiveness to deliver

high quality policy advice

and support.


The recent Productivity Commission report Regulatory Institutions and Practices highlighted

that there is scope for greater prioritisation of regulatory proposals, across the Natural

Resources Sector and beyond, including new legislation and maintenance of existing

regulation. This will improve the effectiveness of regulation and better allocation of

departmental and Parliamentary Counsel Office resource, and of House time. We recommend,

along with other key agencies, that Ministers consider the scope to collectively take a more

systematic prioritisation approach to regulatory proposals, as is taken in other areas of

government activity such as the tax policy work programme and government spending (the

budget process).

Key partnerships and relationships

The Ministry has a number of key partnerships to help us undertake our environmental

stewardship role, including with (see appendix D for more detail):

the Environmental Protection Authority

the Natural Resources Sector agencies

Local government

Iwi/Māori.

We also have extensive connections with business, the primary production sector, non-

government organisations and Crown research institutes.

We aim to engage our stakeholders in relevant issues, understand their perspectives, and work

closely with them on matters of common interest.


3. Information and evidence on the system and the environment

We need high quality

environmental information to

develop enduring policies to

manage the impacts our activities

have.

Five environmental domains are

reported on in a three year cycle:

Air, Atmosphere and Climate, Fresh

water, Marine, and Land.

As resources come under increasing pressure, hard choices need to be made so that resources

are not degraded or tipping points reached. Decisions made today will affect the prosperity

and well-being of future generations.

To develop enduring policies to manage the impacts our activities have on the environment,

we need high quality information about the environment, and an understanding of the social

and economic systems which drive the use, development and protection of New Zealand’s

resources. We need a robust monitoring regime to allow us to evaluate how effective

interventions are in achieving the desired outcomes for society. It will enable us to better

anticipate environmental issues before they reach the point of expensive and lengthy

remediation work.

Our knowledge of the environment and how effectively we are managing it is insufficient in

many areas. There has been a history of limited investment in environmental monitoring

relative to growing pressures on the environment. Our evidence base is patchy at best. For too

long, this has led to debate about data – whether it’s robust, and whether it measures the

right thing – overshadowing debate about environmental issues.

A significant opportunity for improving New Zealand’s environmental system is to improve our

information and evidence base. A robust evidence base is central to better decision making by

officials, businesses and the general public. It is an essential step-change towards an effective

environmental management system.

Improving the information system The Ministry has a central role in leading New Zealand’s environmental information system.

We rely heavily on local government to collect much of the data required for national decision-

making.

Several major improvements to the information system are under way, a significant priority for

the Ministry. We have reprioritised baseline funding to speed up these improvements, so the

wider work programme of the Ministry can begin to use the information.


These initiatives must deliver the main components of a good information and evidence

system, which include:

consistent and representative environmental monitoring

systems to make environmental data reusable

regular and systematic environmental reporting

information about community preferences in relation to the environment

monitoring and evaluation of the policies and institutions delivering environmental

outcomes.

We recommend you support reinstating the Environmental Reporting Bill. The Bill provides

an opportunity to establish an independent, coherent and world-class information base for

New Zealanders. This information base will reflect scientific understanding of biophysical

systems, and human interactions with the environment. It will provide the public with

certainty about the scope, quality and timing of reporting. As the system matures, this will

provide for a higher-quality debate about the challenges New Zealand faces in managing its

environment and natural resources.

National environmental reporting depends on local monitoring. We will continue to partner

with local government and research institutions to improve how environmental information

is collected, processed and accessed around the country.

For example, the Environmental Monitoring and Reporting programme was proposed by

regional councils, and is now an agreed, non-statutory national approach to collecting

consistent, representative environmental information, starting with fresh water data. Together

with new environmental monitoring standards, and national online databases (such as Land,

Air, Water Aotearoa), we expect this to significantly improve our picture of the state of the

environment. Much of this data will be directly available to businesses and the public for use,

enhancing transparency and allowing opportunities for innovation.

We are undertaking work to improve how we monitor resource management outcomes. We

need to know whether the environmental management system is effective in delivering the

best outcomes for New Zealanders. We run the National Monitoring System to gather

information about how well our environmental management processes are working (for

example, efficiency of planning and consent decisions). Efficient processes, though, do not

necessarily add up to better social and environmental outcomes. Bridging this gap is critical if

we are to design truly effective policies, tools and programmes.

We are building strategic research and evaluation projects, and monitoring and evaluative

activity into all of the Ministry’s policies and programmes. This will establish a clear and

measurable connection between interventions and their anticipated environmental, economic,

and social impacts. This will help us to outline long-term outcomes and help to direct our

efforts for evidence collection. This approach means we can be flexible in our management of

the environmental system to reflect changing environmental or societal conditions.


4. Resource management

The resource management system includes natural and built resources found on land and in

the marine environment. There are many regimes that govern who makes decisions on

natural resources and how they make them, and not all of the approaches used are consistent.

Decisions about how we use natural resources are critical to the wellbeing of New Zealanders,

so need to:

be made by the right people at the right institutional level

be based on good information

balance the range of pressures, uses and interests within environmental limits

seek to achieve desirable outcomes for all facets of society.

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental

Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act) are the main regimes the Ministry administers

in this system. Both promote sustainable management, which aims to manage the use,

development and protection of resources in a way that enables New Zealanders to provide for

their wellbeing, both now and in the future. Together these Acts manage the environmental

effects of activities on land, through to 200 nautical miles offshore, and New Zealand’s interest

in the Continental Shelf.

On land and coast

Our natural and built resources have come under increased pressure. Economic development,

together with population growth, is significantly affecting the soil and water quality in some

catchments, is putting pressure on urban environments (including the supply of affordable

housing) and is increasing competition for coastal resources.

The RMA manages fresh water, air quality, soil and coastal marine areas out to

12 nautical miles offshore. It regulates land use (including subdivision) and the provision of

infrastructure, which are integral components of New Zealand’s planning system.

The Act, and its tools such as national policy statements and national environmental standards,

are implemented through regional and local resource management plans. Decisions on

resource consents are made in the context of these plans, national tools, and objectives set

out in the Act.

Fresh water makes a huge

economic contribution. Recent

research estimated the economy

would be $8.5 billion annually worse

off if we did not irrigate.


This approach means that most decisions on resource management are made by local

government, which also has a wider planning role in areas like transport, infrastructure and

economic development.

As a result, decision-makers at all levels are increasingly required to make hard and complex

decisions. The capacity and capability of local decision-makers to manage the range of

interests varies widely, and is often stretched. Plans are often not as forward looking, bold and

clear as they need to be. Sometimes communities are not effectively engaged on potential

trade-offs in decisions and lack certainty. The different legislative requirements on local

decision-makers do not incentivise a joined-up, strategic approach to planning resource use or

development

The challenges decision-makers face in managing contested resources raises the question of

whether the existing approach is effective. Decision-making is often adversarial, overly-

conservative and litigious in nature, meaning lengthy and costly processes. The Courts have

played a bigger role in RMA decision-making than intended. Processes have become highly

legalistic, partly as a result of the complexity of decisions being made and how contested they

have been.

In response to these pressures, the RMA has been the subject of frequent, incremental

change. Legislative amendments and the introduction of additional statutes have targeted

specific processes and tensions, but have also made the system even more complex.

Improving the system

Our focus is to assess whether the resource management

and planning system as a whole remains fit for purpose.

The RMA is part of the wider framework for planning and

local decision-making that impacts on resource

management outcomes. A more effective system would

improve decision-making to achieve our national- and

community-level environmental, social, economic and

cultural outcomes.

We recommend the Ministry, working with the Natural

Resources Sector, review how and where resource

management and planning decisions are made and

provide advice on improvements to the resource

management system. This work will consider if:

the system generate the right incentives for decision makers

decision makers have the sufficient capability and capacity

the levels at which decisions are being made are the right ones

the system and its processes are operating efficiently (and could the RMA work better

with other legislation to drive a more integrated approach to planning)

the system provides the right tools and flexibility to respond to new and emerging issues.

This work will take time. Meanwhile, there are a number of steps we can take to support

improved decision-making within the existing framework.

We need to take a

more integrated

approach to planning

and deciding how we

use our natural

resources across

portfolios.


Our short-term focus for the resource management system is to improve the current decision-

making processes, and to strengthen the up-front planning through which communities’

environmental, social and economic values are identified and reflected.

In 2009, an independent group of water users, the Land and Water Forum, conducted a

stakeholder-led collaborative process that considered the reform of New Zealand’s freshwater

management system. The wide membership of the Forum gave it the ability to effectively

consider the environmental, economic and social impacts of water reform. The

recommendations of the Forum have informed the freshwater reform work. Other areas of

resource management can benefit from aspects of this approach.

Improving the provision of national direction

If we provide more national direction, the

decrease in local variation (where there is little

benefit in having this) will decrease the

complexity of decision-making, and reduce

unnecessary contestability of decisions. The

revised National Policy Statement for Freshwater

Management (NPS-FM) and the National

Objectives Framework (NOF) provide a national

structure for freshwater management that will

reduce the complexity of local decision-making

and the likelihood these decisions will be

contested. We need to reproduce aspects of this

approach in other areas, recognising this

approach takes time to develop and to implement.

We will work on increasing the extent and depth of national direction. Providing national

direction will require Ministers to determine priorities early. These will likely need to include

urban planning (including housing) and natural hazards.

We recommend carrying out proposed reforms to the RMA, particularly the national

template for plans which will increase the scope and flexibility of national direction. It will

allow for more consistency in rules, structure, methods and definitions.

We will utilise the momentum from the fresh water reform to continue to:

populate the NOF with values, attributes and national bottom lines over the next five

years

support implementation of the NPS-FM and NOF by developing best practice approaches

and guidance for collaborative planning and technical matters in partnership with

councils.

We need to continue investigating approaches for allocating fresh water to its best value use,

and addressing the rights and interests of iwi and hapū in fresh water. In many regions, water

resources are fully or over-allocated; creating head room for intensification or new users will

be contentious and require strong leadership from central government, iwi and other

stakeholders

We will work with the Department of Conservation to consider the position of the New

Zealand Coastal Policy Statement within the wider resource management context to ensure

there is an integrated planning approach across land, coastal and marine areas.


Improving decision-making by boards of inquiry

Boards of inquiry need to make important decisions on nationally significant projects, under a

process administered by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). These decision-making

processes can be the most contested and adversarial under the RMA.

We will develop legislative and non-legislative options to make these processes less

adversarial where it adds no benefit to the decision-making. This work will improve national-

level decision-making and form part of our broader work programme on decision-making.

Improving the planning framework

Improving the quality of planning under the RMA, so

that decisions are evidence-based and communities are

engaged early, is critical to improving decision-making

and reducing contestability.

Progressing proposed reforms to plan-making, in

particular the collaborative plan-making process will

help to do this. For example, the improved collaborative

process will enhance communities’ ability to meet the

requirements of the NPS-FM and NOF by working

together to set objectives for their local water bodies.

We will increase support, advice and direction to councils on plan-making across the system

to achieve a more integrated and spatial approach to planning across the RMA and other

planning regimes.

We will continue to support new plan-making processes in Auckland and Christchurch. Along

with Special Housing Areas, these new processes allow decision-making to proceed faster and

more intensively in contested urban areas.

We recommend Ministers consider if aspects of these new plan-making processes should

have wider, more permanent application to plan- and decision-making.

We will continue to produce representative economic and environmental impact studies

with other agencies, to support informed decisions about water quality and quantity limits and

management approaches.

Improving the role of iwi/Māori

We continue to support work to address iwi/Māori rights and interests in fresh water. The

Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group is working to articulate the rights and interests of iwi/ Māori in

fresh water. We expect that this will be discussed between Iwi Chairs and Senior Ministers at

the forum at Waitangi on 5 February 2015.

Progressing proposed reforms to increase and improve the role of iwi/Māori in resource

management planning processes will increase the quality of engagement at local level.

For example, we are currently engaging with iwi /hapū groups as part of an early engagement

process for potential amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater

Management 2014. The Ministry and Ministers also engaged with iwi/hapū groups as part of

the wider freshwater reform process.

We are improving the

quality of planning under

the RMA to improve

decision-making and reduce

contestability.


In the EEZ and Continental Shelf

The EEZ and Continental Shelf

area is approximately 21 times our

land area. The regulatory regime for

the marine area is fragmented and

information about the marine

environment is limited.

Sustainable management of New Zealand’s marine environment is dominated by uncertainty

in balancing environmental thresholds and realising economic opportunities. Only one percent

of our sea floor has been surveyed. Estimates of mineral reserves, particularly oil and gas, vary

widely.

The marine environment is heavily impacted by activity in other domains. Ocean acidification

and rising sea temperatures (which are the result of rising carbon dioxide levels in the

atmosphere) are significant impacts threatening the marine environment.

There is increasing competition for use in a number of marine areas, and this highlights the

disjointed nature of the existing regulations. This competition is currently evident in the

Chatham Rise, which is the spawning ground for a significant proportion of New Zealand’s

commercial fish catch, rich in phosphate nodules and encompasses areas of cultural

significance. Separate Acts and regulations govern these interests.

The wider marine regulatory regime is fragmented and information about the marine

environment is limited. This means that decisions about managing the effects of new

economic activities are complex, with the potential for costly legal challenges. Early signs from

consent hearings highlight the challenges faced by the EPA in dealing with the uncertainty of

environmental impact assessments. It is appropriate to proceed with caution, but if we want to

maintain the interest of potential investors, we need to better manage this uncertainty.

Improving the system

In the face of uncertainty, central government needs to provide leadership to advance New

Zealand’s environmental and economic ambitions for our marine space. A key part of this is

managing polarised public views about the use of the marine environment, which risk adding

further cost to development and continuing the gaps in the management regime.

As the EEZ regime moves past its transitional stage and more consents are sought decision-

making committees will come under greater pressure. We will begin developing a statement

of government direction to guide decision-making committees in considering environmental

and economic implications.

We will assess the new EEZ regulatory regime from an end-users perspective to ensure that

there are no unnecessary barriers or costs in the new system.


Improving the regulatory framework

There are more than 25 laws governing the marine area and their approaches to managing

marine resources are not always well connected. Government agencies are working closely to

ensure the current regime works as well as possible. However, in the long term this

arrangement is unlikely to be durable to face the competing demands on the marine

environment. A new marine protection regime and the use of spatial planning can provide a

more integrated approach.

A regulatory gap remains for providing protection for a representative network of marine

ecosystems in the EEZ that will help preserve our rich and complex marine ecosystem diversity.

We recommend that you support conservation proposals to establish marine reserves in the

EEZ. Establishing reserves in the EEZ will support the growing network of coastal reserves and

provide balance to development proposals and much needed information about

environmental effects. Any proposal to establish EEZ reserve areas needs to align with existing

legislation so that competing use interests such as fishing and oil exploration are considered.

Growing the marine economy

Stakeholders have shown interest in how growing competition for resource use could be

managed through a spatial planning approach. We recommend that initially, we facilitate a

discussion between stakeholders about an emerging area of competition, the Great South

Basin, to accommodate conservation and development interests.


5. Climate change

We need to develop stable and

enduring policy settings that are

widely supported by society, to

transition New Zealand to become a

successful ‘low-carbon society’ that

is resilient to climate change

impacts.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are rising both globally and in New Zealand. Global

temperatures are increasing, with projections of a three to five degree rise by 2100. The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that climate change will have

widespread impacts in New Zealand, including increased frequency of extreme events such as

flooding and droughts, and increased sea-level rise and acidity in our oceans. This will threaten

coastal communities, cities, infrastructure, agriculture, human health and ecosystems.

The impacts of climate change in New Zealand are already becoming evident, and more

extreme effects are projected to be felt in the future. Overall, New Zealand’s emissions are

small on a global scale (0.15%). However, in 2011, our emissions per capita were ranked 22nd

highest in the world and 6th in the OECD. Emissions intensity per unit of GDP is improving, and

while it has decreased by 29.3% since 1990, it remains higher than the OECD average.

Limiting the effects of climate change in New Zealand will require significant global action to

reduce emissions and move towards low carbon economies. We are actively involved in

negotiations to develop an effective new international climate change agreement.

It is currently unclear whether concerted global action will occur at a pace required to avert

the dangerous impacts of climate change. Regardless, we will need to adapt to the effects of

climate change that has already occurred or has been set in motion.

Current targets

New Zealand has a long term target of reducing its net emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by

2050. However, our gross emissions have increased by 25% since 1990, and are projected to

rise substantially in the time to 2050, based on current settings.

New Zealand has tabled an unconditional target to reduce net emissions to 5% below 1990

levels between 2013 and 2020, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC). Current projections indicate that we can meet this target principally, by

carbon absorbed by planted forests, supplemented with the purchasing of international offsets

and recognising surplus credits from our 2008-2012 target. It requires no change to existing

policy settings and imposes no additional costs on households, businesses or government.

New Zealand also has a conditional target of reducing its emissions to 10–20% below 1990

levels by 2020 if certain conditions are met.


New Zealand’s projected greenhouse gas emissions against its targets

This graph shows New Zealand’s:

net historical emissions

gross historical emissions

projected emissions under current settings

New Zealand’s targets.

Net emissions shown take into account any removals or emissions from afforestation or

deforestation. Not shown are the Kyoto emissions units the Government holds, or units that

New Zealand might purchase internationally which can be used against its targets.

Priorities

The fundamental groundwork for climate change policy is in place. Our greenhouse gas

emissions and removals data, including for land use and land use change, is comprehensive.

We also have an established price on greenhouse gas emissions and market infrastructure in

place through the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS). Continuing to build a

credible, robust information and evidence base will be essential to support effective decision-

making, and to overcome the challenges and realise the opportunities that climate change

presents.

We need to develop a stable and enduring policy setting that enables New Zealand to

become a successful ‘low-carbon society’, which is resilient to climate change impacts and

widely supported by society. To do this, we must:

reduce our emissions in a cost-effective way

increase productivity

manage the risks posed by climate change.

Developing a plan for a low-carbon scenario world in line with our 2050 target is important for

showing the benefits, costs and future implications of acting now rather than later.


A transition presents challenges and choices, including:

establishing a common vision for a resilient low-carbon New Zealand society

setting an optimal and realistic rate of change for New Zealand

determining the appropriate balance between domestic emission reductions and

purchase of international offsets.

2015 is an important year for international climate change negotiations. Work is under way to

support the government to negotiate an international climate change agreement that

contributes to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions from 2020. The Ministry, working

with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, will represent New Zealand in this negotiation,

to be agreed by Ministers in December 2015 in Paris. Ministers need to decide on the form and

level of our contribution prior to the Paris meeting, and have an understanding of the policies

that will deliver it.

In 2015 the NZ ETS is scheduled to be reviewed. This review will assess whether the settings

remain suitable for delivering on the two objectives of:

enabling New Zealand to meet its international obligations

reducing New Zealand’s net emissions below business-as-usual levels.

The NZ ETS puts a price on emissions and covers half of New Zealand’s emissions as the

agriculture sector currently only has reporting obligations. The NZ ETS is a sound framework

and is designed to be adjusted to suit different economic and international conditions. The

current settings and weak price signal neither incentivise behaviour change nor prepare us for

a transition to rising future carbon prices.

New Zealand needs to adapt effectively and respond to the impacts of climate change. Work

will continue to review and refine the adaptation framework as the impacts of climate change

become clearer. The framework is based on four key government tasks:

providing detailed guidance and information to support local planning for adaptation

setting clear roles and responsibilities of local and central government

investing in adaptation-related research and projects (with over $100 million invested

over 10 years from 2009-2019)

taking direct adaptation action and establishing initiatives.

As tangata whenua and kaitiaki, iwi/Māori want tenable and long-term solutions for the

management of climate change issues. We will continue to build and enhance collaborative

relationships with iwi/Māori. Their ancestral relationship with the environment, and reliance

on it as a cultural, social and economic resource, gives them a strong interest and stake in the

impacts of climate change, as well as policies on climate change. Iwi/Māori have interests in

the NZ ETS as they were provided with New Zealand Units flowing from forest land transferred

as part of the Treaty settlement process.

The causes of, and solutions for addressing, climate change sits across multiple portfolios

including agriculture, transport, energy and primary production. Collaboration across

government agencies and Ministers is needed to build a shared understanding of the

synergies and differences between different sector objectives. Enduring solutions must be

agreed collectively by Ministers. This will require strong leadership, effective coordination and

strategic collaboration at Ministerial and agency levels.


6. Risks, hazards and waste management

To manage risk in the environmental management system, we must focus on preventing or

managing the adverse effects from chemical, biological and natural hazards on communities,

the environment and the economy, while maintaining and building New Zealand’s resilience

and competitive advantage.

Biological and chemical risks

438-675 premature deaths occur

each year from hazardous

substances in the workplace.

1200-2500 hospitalisations from

acute injuries occur each year from

hazardous substances.

New Zealanders views on managing biological and chemical hazards have shifted over the past

20 years. New technology and innovative products are being developed, and we need to

understand any new or altered risk profile of these. The regulatory regime is not keeping up

with the pace of change.

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) regulates chemical and biological risks at the

national level through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. The

Ministry for Primary Industries, WorkSafe NZ, local authorities and private enterprise

undertake the management of this.

We implement international Multilateral Environmental Agreements, which include work to

manage the phase-out of harmful chemicals and the effective management of hazardous

waste.

Government needs good information to understand changes to actual and perceived risks or

hazards to society and the environment.


Public perceptions of risk are often disproportionate to scientifically-assessed risk. We need to

appropriately inform and engage the public, through open and informed dialogue with

communities on what acceptable levels of risk are, and what the future benefits could be. It is

important to consider:

these conversations are often on technically complex subjects

how decision-makers can better take into account uncertainty

local variations in risk appetite when decisions apply nationally

the different social, cultural and economic perceptions of risk.

The approach to regulating biological and chemical hazards must strike a balance between

enabling innovation and managing risk under uncertainty.

Improving the management of new organisms

We are reviewing the regulations that exempt organisms from being regulated as genetically

modified organisms. There are new breeding techniques that challenge our understanding of

what is, and is not, genetic modification. A recent High Court decision on the status of a new

technique identified problems with current regulations. The regulations have not been

updated in 16 years, and we need to ensure they appropriately reflect advances in bioethics,

science and technology. We will seek your direction for consultation on this in late 2014, and

aim to complete this review in late 2015.

We need to undertake a wider review of the new organisms regime over the next two to four

years. There is anecdotal evidence that research and development is moving overseas as

businesses view New Zealand’s regulatory response as a barrier to innovation. There have

been no full releases of genetically modified organisms in New Zealand. A wider review would

seek to understand and address systemic issues with the regime to ensure it provides for an

appropriate and necessary response to managing biological risks.

Improvement for managing hazardous substances

In response to the high non-compliance with hazardous

substances controls, the Health and Safety Reform Bill has

been developed. We are working with the Ministry of

Business, Innovation and Employment, WorkSafe New

Zealand and the EPA to progress the Health and Safety

Reform Bill. If reinstated to select committee and passed,

this Bill will transfer HSNO workplace-related hazardous

substance regulations to the new Health and Safety at Work

Act. It will also enable many of the remaining HSNO

hazardous substance regulations to shift to tertiary

legislation, to simplify requirements and improve

international alignment, making it easier for businesses to

understand how to safely manage hazardous substances.

We will create new infringement regulations and review four other regulations in 2015 to

give effect to Health and Safety reforms. We will then need to amend or revoke a further 12

regulations over the following three years. Overall, this will improve compliance with

hazardous substances controls.

75% of businesses

surveyed were not

fully compliant with a

sample of HSNO’s

eight key risk

management

controls.


Natural hazards

Recent natural hazard events

have shown us that we need to

improve the system to make our

communities more resilient.

Risks arise when people and the things they value, such as property and infrastructure, are

located in areas where natural hazard events can occur. New Zealanders are at risk from a

wide range of natural hazards, from frequent events such as coastal erosion or floods through

to infrequent but high consequence events such as earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.

Climate change is expected to continue increasing the risks associated with weather-related

natural hazards by increasing the frequency and intensity of natural hazards, in particular

floods, drought and wildfires. Decisions about the development of infrastructure and urban

areas can increase the risks from natural hazards for communities.

In recent years, New Zealand’s natural hazard risk management system has been tested by the

Canterbury earthquakes, as well as the multiple floods, storms and landslides of varying

severity that have occurred across the country. These events have shown we need to improve

the system to make our communities more resilient and able to weather these types of events,

without significant negative impacts on the local community, economy or the environment.

Councils are a vital part of the natural hazard risk management system, as they hold most of

the tools for risk management at the community level. However, councils vary in their level of

comfort for risk, as well as their capacity and capability to deal with these risks.

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and its underlying planning documents are the

main instruments used by councils to reduce natural hazard risks. These plans let communities

clearly outline where and how they would like to develop. These decisions have a significant

impact on the natural hazard risks that will be borne by the community in the future.

Improving natural hazard management

We need to improve the way natural hazards are considered in RMA decision-making by

progressing proposed resource management reforms. These proposals will require all

resource management decisions to take into account “the management of significant risks

from natural hazards” giving additional weight to the consideration of natural hazards. We also

propose changes to make it easier for Councils to decline applications for subdivision consents

where there is a significant risk from a natural hazard.

Central government must take a stronger leadership role in addressing the more

fundamental issues about property rights, risk and accountability, in order to have an

effectively functioning system.


These issues include:

local plan provisions introduced to manage hazard risks in an area focus on new activities

and structures (councils cannot use them to manage or remove existing buildings due to

existing use rights)

difficulty in determining who is responsible for a specific risk and its mitigation

scientific information used by councils to support decisions is often heavily contested in

planning and consent decisions.

To be successful in addressing these issues, central government needs to facilitate a discussion

with New Zealanders on how to best manage natural hazards risk.

We will continue to provide detailed guidance and information on current and future natural

hazards to support local planning. We will also facilitate the sharing of knowledge and

experience across councils, to build a wider understanding of natural hazards risk

management across the country.

Supporting the Canterbury recovery

The resource management and planning system has an important role in supporting long-term

recovery from natural hazard events, such as in Christchurch. We need to work with the

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and other partner agencies to further build the

planning and consenting capability and capacity of decision-makers in Christchurch. A key

focus will be to ensure that decision-making supports long-term resilience, given the altered

state of hazard management in the area.

Maintaining and building effective local governance in Canterbury is critical for the recovery.

This will be one of the considerations in the review of Environment Canterbury’s governance

arrangements, which must be completed in 2015. The regional council is playing a lead role in

a number of projects and its relationship with the district and city councils is crucial.


Waste and resource recovery

The waste disposal levy generates

approximately $25 million per year.

However, only 30% of waste is

entering levy-regulated landfills.

We have numerous waste minimisation initiatives in New Zealand, but the most economically

efficient way to deal with waste is often to bury it on land. The infrastructure and transport

required to process and remanufacture waste can be expensive and require significant upfront

and ongoing investment. This is often provided by local and central government.

New Zealanders like to think of themselves as responsible disposers of waste, but they are

generally not willing to pay the full costs of recycling.

Harmful wastes such as agricultural chemicals, refrigerants and asbestos pose a considerable

risk to human health and the environment – particularly if poorly managed. These wastes

require priority attention.

The Ministry has oversight of the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010. It has the overarching

goals of:

reducing the harmful effects of waste

improving the efficiency of resource use.

The Ministry’s responsibilities under the Waste Management Act 2008 (WMA) include:

administering the waste disposal levy

distributing the levy revenue

accrediting product stewardship schemes

overseeing the waste management and minimisation planning of territorial authorities.

Territorial authorities tend to focus on the management of household wastes and regional

councils focus on the impact of rural and industrial wastes.

Key challenges

The range and volume of materials recovered for reuse or recycling in New Zealand is low and

per-capita waste disposal rates are high. There are opportunities to capitalise on the public’s

concern and willingness to better manage waste and improve resource recovery. However, it is

important to recognise this will increase costs.


There are 12 accredited voluntary product stewardship schemes operating. These schemes

encourage any party involved in the life of a product (such as a producer, brand owner,

importer, retailer or consumer) to accept responsibility for the environmental effects of their

products, which would otherwise be borne by society (eg ratepayers, taxpayers and the

environment) rather than by the consumer or producer.

The Ministry has distributed over $115m of levy revenue for minimising waste during the last

five years. However, there is only very modest progress towards achieving the goals of the

Waste Strategy:

waste into landfills has not reduced significantly

only around 30% of waste is entering levy-regulated landfills

voluntary accredited product stewardship schemes have diverted only around 1.4% of

waste from levied landfills.

This progress is not commensurate with the high cost and effort required to establish a

product stewardship scheme. At the same time, more harmful wastes are not being managed

with the degree of priority they require.

The 2014 review of the effectiveness of the waste disposal levy noted that the current narrow

application of the levy allows some operators to avoid the levy. It also limits the levy’s ability

to act as an incentive to minimise waste.

Improving waste management

We recommend a bolder approach to waste minimisation including:

regulating problem wastes as provided under the WMA, and shifting the cost of disposal

onto generators and producers (we have recently concluded public consultation and are

preparing further advice on this area)

extending the waste levy to cover additional disposal sites not currently subject to the

levy

reviewing the role of local government and the effectiveness of the funding that is

allocated to Councils on a per capita basis and using levy funding more strategically for

projects that support New Zealand’s waste minimisation priorities

exploring links between the WMA and the RMA to tighten controls on waste disposal.

We recommend considering mandatory reporting of waste data. The current lack of

comprehensive data makes it difficult to accurately assess if we are on track to meeting the

goals of the Waste Strategy. Accurate disposal data is only collected from landfills regulated to

pay the waste disposal levy. The industry often cites commercial sensitivity as a reason not to

provide data.

The 2014 review revealed that landfill operators interpret differently which materials are

subject to the levy. The WMA must be amended to resolve these inconsistencies.

We will support territorial authorities to improve their waste management planning, service

delivery and reporting as they undertake the six-yearly process to review and update their

Waste Management and Minimisation Plans.


7. Priority issues for consideration Following the discussion above on the major policy areas for the Ministry, below are tables

detailing the priorities that require prompt consideration.

Environment Minister Improving information and reporting

Supporting the Environmental Reporting Bill to be reinstated to Select

Committee, and seeking priority for the Bill on the legislative programme.

The departmental report is currently being drafted following submissions to

Select Committee. The Committee will determine how fast the Bill is

considered and sent back to the House for its third reading.

By Dec 2014

Resource management reform

Clarifying your short-term priorities for reform of the RMA and national

direction.

By Dec 2014

Progressing regulations relating to the Resource Management Amendment

Act 2013 and network utility status for Trustpower.

By Dec 2014

Seeking cabinet approval, with the Minister of Local Government, to release

for public consultation a discussion document on the statutory review of

Environment Canterbury and options for regional governance.

By Nov 2014

Water reform

Approving the delegation of funding to develop additional attributes for the

National Objectives Framework.

By Nov 2014

Deciding to award funding to the successful applicant of a targeted

Community Environment Fund round to enhance the monitoring of

freshwater quality in New Zealand.

By Dec 2014

Deciding how to populate appendix 3 of the National Policy Statement for

Freshwater for exceptions from bottom lines for existing infrastructure.

By early 2015

Considering approaches for managing within water quality and quantity

limits, and addressing iwi/Māori rights and interests ahead of meetings with

Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group at Waitangi.

By Feb 2015

Exclusive Economic Zone

Discussing options for amending the EEZ Act. By Nov 2014

Seeking Cabinet approval for making Discharge and Dumping and Burial at

Sea regulations under the EEZ Act (introducing these regulations gives full

effect to the EEZ Act).

By Dec 2014

New organisms

Deciding on the scope and consultation for review of regulations that

determine what is exempt from definition of genetic modification.

By Nov 2014

Considering what changes may be required to the way new organisms are

regulated to improve processes, efficiencies and reduce costs.

By Dec 2014


Hazardous Substances

Deciding on the new infringement regime and other hazardous substance

aspects of the Health and Safety reforms, in conjunction with the intended

Cabinet paper from the Minister of Labour.

By Nov 2014

Considering approaches for managing importation of asbestos-containing

products.

By Dec 2014

Review of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)

Participating in an interview by the EPA reviewer, if necessary. By Nov 2014

Depending on the outcome of the review, progressing possible

amendments to the EPA’s cost recovery practices.

By Dec 2014

International negotiations

Agreeing a negotiating mandate for New Zealand for two upcoming

international meetings – on the Montreal Protocol on Substances that

Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Minimata Convention on Mercury.

By Oct 2014

Board-related considerations

Upcoming appointments to the Fiordland Marine Guardians. By Nov 2014

Upcoming appointments to the EPA, and drafting a letter to the EPA that

sets out your expectations for the coming financial year.

By Dec 2014

Deciding an application for Requiring Authority Status under the RMA. By Dec 2014

Financial considerations

Approving the October Baseline Update for Vote Environment, to be

submitted to the Minister of Finance in the coming weeks, prior to the

release of the Government’s Half Year Fiscal and Economic Update in Dec.

By Nov 2014

Climate Change Issues Minister International considerations

The IPCC Synthesis Report will be released. It will summarise three parts of

the IPCC Fifth Assessment report released by IPCC over the previous year: The

Physical Science Basis; Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; and Climate

Change Mitigation.

The release will be high profile and likely to receive media attention.

In Oct 2014

Deciding on options for New Zealand’s post-2020 contribution and options for

publicly consulting, and on a refreshed mandate for the negotiations meeting

in Lima in Nov-Dec 2014.

By Nov

2014

Attending the UNFCCC Conference of Parties in Lima, Peru. The Ministerial

meeting is expected to agree draft elements of negotiated text for the new

international agreement, and encourage Parties to commit to tabling

mitigation targets in 2015. Leading up to this meeting, pressure will be on

developed countries to step up pre-2020 ambition and financial contribution.

In Dec 2014


8. Statutory responsibilities

Delegation of powers

Under section 28 (1) of the State Sector Act, ministers can delegate statutory powers under an

Act to a chief executive of a ministry for which they are responsible.

The Environment and Climate Change Issues Ministers have delegated to the Chief Executive of

the Ministry for the Environment a number of statutory powers. The Environment and Climate

Change Issues Ministers agreed to these powers being sub-delegated by the Chief Executive.

Appendix C outlines all current delegations in place.

Environment Minister

Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014

This Order in Council, made under section 71 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011,

modifies the RMA to provide a streamlined process for the review of the existing Christchurch

district plans for the preparation of a replacement district plan for the Christchurch District.

The Minister for the Environment, together with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake

Recovery, has the following powers, functions and duties:

establish a hearings panel

make comments on draft proposals

set and amend the terms of reference for the hearings panel

grant an extension of the time limit for making decisions on priority matters

at any time, for just cause, remove a member of the hearings panel.

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act)

aims to protect our oceans from the potential environmental risks of activities like petroleum

exploration activities, seabed mining, marine energy generation and carbon capture

developments. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is responsible for marine

consent decisions under the Act.


The Minister for the Environment can recommend to the Governor-General the making of

regulations that:

prescribe requirements, methods or technical standards for:

o activities that are carried out in the exclusive economic zone or in or on the

continental shelf

o the effects of activities carried out in the exclusive economic zone or in or on the

continental shelf, including effects that occur in the territorial sea or in the waters

above and beyond the continental shelf

o assessing the state of the environment of the exclusive economic zone and the

continental shelf

prescribe requirements, methods, or technical standards relating to the discharge of

harmful substances, the dumping of waste or other matter, and the effects of the

discharge or dumping

prescribe requirements, methods, or technical standards for emergency dumping of

waste or other matter

requiring the holder of a marine consent to gather information and keep records relating

to the exercise of the consent and to supply information to the Environmental Protection

Authority

prescribing forms

prescribing the amounts of charges payable or the method by which they are to be

assessed or calculated, and the persons liable to pay the charges.

In general, the Minister cannot direct the EPA in relation to the exercise of their functions

under the Act. However, the Minister can direct the EPA in certain matters in relation to the

processing of a joint application with the Resource Management Act 1991, such as directing

that a joint application be referred to the Environment Court instead of the EPA if the Minister

considers the application is a matter of national significance.

Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011

The Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 establishes the Environmental Protection

Authority (EPA) to carry out specific functions and duties set out in this Act and a range of

other environmental acts.

The Minister for the Environment oversees and manages the Crown’s ownership, policy and

regulatory interest in the EPA. This includes appointing the EPA Board and approving the

Board’s appointments to certain committees (see appendix B for current Board membership).

As a Crown Agent the EPA must give effect to any policy direction given by the Minister. There

are some specified limitations on the ability to direct the EPA in respect of decision making

under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, certificates of compliance

under the Resource Management Act, and marine consent decisions under the EEZ Act.


Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010

The Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government are jointly responsible

for the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water

Management) Act 2010.

Relevant powers and responsibilities include to:

remove and appoint Commissioners

amend the Commissioners’ Terms of Reference

approve the imposition of moratoria on water consents

undertake a number of actions related to Water Conservation Orders in Canterbury.

Waste Minimisation Act 2008

The aim of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 is to encourage waste minimisation and a

decrease in waste disposal in order to protect the environment from harm and to provide

environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits.

The Minister for the Environment has the following powers, functions and responsibilities:

to review the effectiveness of the waste levy in 2011 and subsequently every three years

to determine, in consultation with the Waste Advisory Board, priority products that will

be subject to mandatory product stewardship schemes

to develop guidelines about the contents and expected effects of product stewardship

schemes for priority products

to grant government accreditation to voluntary and mandatory product stewardship

schemes

to approve funding of projects that promote or achieve waste minimisation

to appoint a person to collect the waste levy from landfill operators

to set performance standards for the implementation of waste management and

minimisation plans prepared by territorial authorities and recommend, through an order

in council process, that territorial authorities amend their waste management and

minimisation plans

to set the terms of reference for the Waste Advisory Board, request nominations for

members and, in consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs, appoint between four

and eight members to the Board (see appendix B for current membership)

to seek the advice of the Waste Advisory Board on various matters including developing

guidelines about product stewardship schemes

to recommend to the Governor-General the making of various regulations relating to

priority products, accredited product stewardship schemes, the operation of the waste

levy and waste minimisation schemes (for instance, container deposit schemes and take-

back services for products)

to recommend to the Governor-General the making of regulations relating to the

collection of records, information and reports regarding waste management and

minimisation, to enable, for instance, statistics to be compiled, the waste levy to be

accurately calculated and to monitor territorial authority spending of levy money.


Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005

The Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005 establishes the

Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area (FMA), including eight marine reserves. It also

establishes the Fiordland Marine Guardians and implements measures to assist in the

preservation, protection, and sustainable management of the marine environment and

biological diversity.

The Minister for the Environment has the following functions:

appoint the Fiordland Marine Guardians (see appendix B for current membership)

provide direction to the Fiordland Marine Guardians relating to their procedures

initiate reviews to determine the effectiveness of the management of the area.

A protocol between the Fiordland Marine Guardians and all management agencies (the

Ministry for the Environment, Department of Conservation, Ministry for Primary Industries and

Environment Southland) sets out how integrated management of the FMA will be achieved.

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO) aims to prevent or manage

the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms, including genetically

modified organisms within New Zealand. The EPA is responsible for the operation and

implementation of the Act.

The Minister for the Environment has responsibility to:

approve Board appointments to any decision-making committee

decide whether an application fits the limited circumstances, in respect of specified

significant effects, that would justify calling in the application to be decided by the

Minister, using the EPA as advisors rather than the EPA making the decision.

Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996

The purpose of the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996 is to protect human health and the

environment from adverse effects resulting from human activities that may deplete the ozone

layer and to phase out ozone-depleting substances as soon as possible. The Act also gives

effect to New Zealand’s obligations under the Montreal Protocol. The EPA implements the

regulations associated with the import and export of ozone-depleting substances.

The Minister for the Environment is responsible for reviewing the reduction timetables for

ozone-depleting substances and for annual reporting to the House. The next review of the

reduction timetables is scheduled for 2016.

Resource Management Act 1991

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is the principal legislation through which New

Zealand’s land and coastal environment is managed. It sets out the general framework for the

management of air, water, soil, biodiversity, the coastal environment, noise, subdivision and

land use. The Ministry administers the RMA, with most decision making under the RMA

devolved to local authorities or to Boards of Inquiry appointed by the Minister for the

Environment for nationally significant proposals (supported through the EPA).


The Minister for the Environment is responsible for:

recommending making national policy statements and national environmental standards

deciding whether to make a direction and refer a proposal of national significance to a

Board of Inquiry or the Environment Court for a decision

recommending that an applicant be approved as a requiring authority or as a heritage

protection authority

deciding whether an application to make or amend a water conservation order be

referred to a special tribunal, and deciding whether or not to recommend that a water

conservation order be issued

monitoring the effect and implementation of the RMA (including any regulations in force

under it), national policy statements and water conservation orders

monitoring the relationship between the functions, powers and duties of central

government and local government

monitoring and investigating matters of environmental significance

considering and investigating the use of economic instruments.

The Minister for the Environment has additional powers to:

investigate and make recommendations on the exercise or performance of local

authorities’ functions, power or duties

direct a regional council to prepare or change a regional plan to address a resource

management issue in a region or direct a territorial authority to change its district plan to

address a resource management issue

direct a regional council to commence a review of the whole or any part of its regional

plan or direct a territorial authority to commence a review of the whole or any part of its

district plan

request a local authority, heritage protection authority or requiring authority to supply

information at no cost to the Minister, if they hold that information and it is related to

their functions, powers or duties under the RMA

recommend the governor-general makes regulations for a range of purposes, as outlined

in section 360 of the RMA.

The Minister for the Environment has limited powers to:

appoint people to carry out the functions of a local authority if you consider that it is not

performing to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of the RMA

make grants and loans to assist in achieving the purpose of the RMA.

Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act 1988

The Imports and Exports (Living Modified Organisms) Prohibition Order 2005 controls the

export of living modified organisms as necessary to fulfil New Zealand’s obligations under the

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 2000. The Minister for the Environment has the power to

permit the export of living modified organisms.


Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941

The Minister for the Environment has powers (though no obligation) under the Soil

Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 to make grants and loans for fencing, planting and

other work to prevent soil erosion.

Climate Change Issues Minister

Climate Change Response Act 2002

The Climate Change Response Act 2002 puts in place a legal framework to allow New Zealand

to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to meet its obligations under the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change. It also establishes the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Minister for Climate Change Issues has the following functions and responsibilities under

the Climate Change Response Act which must be exercised:

consult with iwi and Māori representatives before making recommendations on such

matters as the development of certain regulations and gazetting of targets

review targets made through regulations under the Climate Change Response Act

following the release of any Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Assessment report.

The Minister for Climate Change Issues has the following powers, functions and responsibilities

which may be exercised, to:

make regulations on a wide range of matters in relation to the Emissions Trading Scheme,

including the selling of New Zealand units by auction

exempt certain people or activities from the Emissions Trading Scheme

direct the issuance of New Zealand Units into a Crown holding account in consultation

with the Minister of Finance

notify the Crown’s intention to issue and sell, or allocate freely, New Zealand units

direct the Chief Executive in relation to the Chief Executive’s exercise of power, and

performance of functions, under Parts 4 and 5 of the Act

initiate a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Emissions Trading Scheme at

any time

initiative a review of the operation and effectiveness of the synthetic greenhouse gas levy

at any time

make targets.

The Minister of Finance also has powers which may be exercised under the Climate Change

Response Act in relation to the Emissions Trading Scheme.


Ministry for the Environment

Environment Act 1986

The Environment Act establishes both the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

and the Ministry for the Environment. The Act aims to ensure that, in the management of

natural and physical resources, full and balanced account is taken of:

the intrinsic values of ecosystems

all values which are placed by individuals and groups on the quality of the environment

the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

the sustainability of natural and physical resources

the needs of future generations.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s role is to provide independent review

of the environmental management system. The Commissioners functions include:

investigating the effectiveness of environmental planning and environmental

management carried out by public authorities

investigating and advising on matters through which the environment has been adversely

effected

reporting to the House of Representatives or Select Committees, at their request

undertaking and encouraging the collection and dissemination of environmental

information

encouraging preventative and remedial measures for the protection of the environment.

The functions of the Ministry for the Environment include:

advising the Minister for the Environment on all aspects of environmental administration

gaining information to support advice to the Government on environmental policies

advising the Government and other public authorities on:

o the application of Acts the Ministry is responsible for

o procedures for assessing and monitoring environment impacts

o pollution control and the co-ordination of the management of pollutants in the

environment

o identifying and reducing the effects of natural hazards

o controlling hazardous substances

facilitating and encouraging the resolution of conflicts in relation to policies and proposals

which may affect the environment

promoting and assisting effective public participation in environmental planning

carry out other functions conferred on the Ministry by any other Acts.


Appendix A

Executive management profiles

Dr Paul Reynolds – Secretary for the Environment

Paul joined the Ministry for the Environment as its Chief Executive in July, 2008. Before that he worked

at the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (1998-2002) as Chief Policy Adviser and then, from

2002-2008 was Deputy Director General (Policy) at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Before arriving in Wellington, Paul had a scientific research career, first with the then Department of

Scientific and Industrial Research (1985-1992) and after that with the Crown Research Institute,

HortResearch (1992-1998). He holds a PhD in biochemistry from the University of Otago.

In addition, Paul is currently Deputy Chair of the board of the Leadership Development Centre. He is

also Chair of the Advisory Board to the Victoria University of Wellington School of Government.

Guy Beatson – Deputy Secretary, Natural Resource Policy

Guy’s responsibilities include policy advice on resource management, environment and economy and

climate change.

Guy began his policy career in the Treasury and worked in senior policy roles for several governments

internationally. In 2001 Guy joined the Ministry of Economic Development as Chief Economist.

Subsequently he was appointed by the Ministry as its Economic Counsellor at the New Zealand High

Commission in Canberra, Australia.

Guy graduated from the Australian National University in 2005 with an Australia and New Zealand

School of Government Executive Master of Public Administration. He also holds a Masters degree in

economics from the University of Canterbury.

Mark Sowden – Deputy Secretary, Organisational Performance and Operations

Mark’s division is responsible for developing and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to operate

the Ministry. The division is also responsible for corporate functions and operational aspects of the

Ministry, including administering contestable funds.

Before taking on the Deputy Secretary role, Mark was Director, Natural and Built Environment Policy at

the Ministry, where he led reform programmes on water, resource management and marine issues.

Before this, Mark spent most of his career at the Treasury where he held a mixture of externally and

internally focused roles.

Mark has worked on a number of different subject areas in addition to environmental policy, including

macro-economic and fiscal policy, labour markets, welfare and public sector management, as well as

three years running the Budget process. He has a Masters in Commerce from Canterbury University.


James Palmer – Deputy Secretary, Sector Strategy

James is responsible for developing strategy and building relationships across the natural resources

sector, in particular working with other agencies through established forums, such as the regional

council chief executives' environment forum.

Prior to this role James was Director Strategy, Systems and Science Policy at the Ministry for Primary

Industries and Director Strategy at the former Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Between 2005 and 2008 James served as Chief of Staff to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and

Fisheries, and earlier as Senior Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Prior to this he worked as

a policy advisor across a range of portfolios, including an internship in the British Prime Minister's

Strategy Unit.

James holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Otago University and was a recipient of the Chevening

Hansard Scholarship to the London School of Economics.

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga (Ngati Porou) – Tumuaki / Deputy Secretary, Kaahui Taiao

Te Raumawhitu is the Tumuaki for the Ministry and leads Kaahui Taiao. Kaahui Taiao provides strategic

advice on Māori and Treaty of Waitangi issues relating to environmental and resource management

policies. Kaahui Taiao also works with the Ministry to build strong strategic partnerships with Iwi/Māori.

Te Rau has a legal background, and has held various positions in the private and public sector. He has

been heavily involved in his iwi’s development, and prior to joining the Ministry was involved in the

Ngati Porou Treaty Settlement. Te Rau has also held numerous governance positions, and in 2011 was

appointed to the Board of the Broadcasting Standards Authority - the first Maori appointment in the

Board's 21 year history.

Te Rau holds a law degree from Auckland University.

James Palmer, Mark Sowden, Dr Paul Reynolds, Guy Beatson, Te Raumawhitu Kupenga


Appendix B

Ministerial-appointed boards

Board Members Finish

Environmental Protection

Authority

The Minister is required to

appoint no fewer than six, and

no more than eight, persons as

members of the EPA.

The EPA currently has eight members.

Kerry Prendergast (Chair) 31 May 17

Kevin Thompson (Deputy Chair) 1 Jul 15

Andrew von Dadelszen

(resigned, replacement post-election)

1 Jul 16

Kura Denness 31 May 17

Tim Lusk 1 Jul 16

Nicki Crauford 1 July 16

Taria Tahana 31 May 17

Gillian Wratt 1 Jul 16

Fiordland Marine Guardians


appoint no fewer than five, and

no more than eight, persons as

members of the Fiordland

Marine Guardians.

The Guardians currently has eight members.

Malcolm Lawson (Chair) 1 Nov 14

Stewart Bull 22 June 17

Jonathan Clow 1 Nov 16

Jerry Excell 1 Nov 16

Ken Grange 1 Nov 14

Anne McDermott 1 Nov 15

Rebecca McLeod 1 Nov 16

Mark Peychers 1 Nov 16

Waste Advisory Board


appoint at least four, but no

more than eight members to the

Waste Advisory Board.

The WAB currently has eight members.

Rob Fenwick (Chair) 21 Aug 16

Cynthia Bowers 21 Aug 16

David Carter 21 Aug 16

Gareth James 25 Jun 17

John Pask 22 Nov 15

Tina Porou 21 Aug 16

Sheryl Stivens 25 Jun 17

Trevor Stuthridge 21 Aug 16


Appendix C

List of statutory delegations

Act Delegator Delegate / Sub-

delegate

Provision Summary of powers and functions and duties Date

Hazardous Substances

and New Organisms Act

1996

Minister for the

Environment

Secretary for the

Environment

Section 68 Only relating to the power to consider and decide that an application for

approval made under the Act has:

(a) no, or only minor cultural, economic, environmental, ethical, health,

international, or spiritual effects; or

(b) no, or only minor, effects in an area in which the Environmental

Protection Authority lacks sufficient knowledge or experience.

7/10/13

Waste Minimisation Act

2008

Minister for the

Environment

Secretary for the

Environment /

Director, Operations

Section 15(3) To seek further information from the manager of a product stewardship

scheme or any other person likely to be significantly affected by the

scheme, before deciding to accredit a Product Stewardship Scheme.

7/10/13

12/1/11

Public Finance Act 1989 Minister for the Environment

Secretary for the Environment /

Director, Operations

Section 7C Power to make funding decisions under the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund.

28/8/13

2/9/13

Secretary for the Environment / Deputy Secretaries

Directors / Managers

Section 7C Power to incur expenses in accordance with non-departmental appropriations for Vote Environment to give effect to funding decisions made under the various decision making mechanisms for each appropriation.

28/8/13

3/2/14


Act Delegator Delegate / Sub-

delegate

Provision Summary of powers and functions and duties Date

Climate Change Response

Act 2002

Minister for

Climate Change

Issues

Secretary for the

Environment

Section 77 With respect to fishing allocation:

To give notice inviting any persons to apply for an allocation.

To make preliminary determinations and determinations in accordance

with an allocation plan and to give notifications to the applicants for

determinations.

25/1/11

Section 78 With respect to fishing allocation:

To revoke and replace determinations made under section 77 being

determinations made in accordance with an allocation plan.

Section 79 To amend or revoke any direction under section 77(8)(d) or give a new

direction under s78(8)(d) as the result of a new determination with respect

to fishing allocation.

Section 161D(5) To give notice requiring further information from persons who provided

information in response to a notice under section 161D(1), and specify the

dateby which the further information specified in the notice must be

provided.

Section 161D(6) To give notice requiring information from persons who fail to comply with a

notice under sections 161D(1) or 161D(5) and advising such persons that if

they do not provide the information they will be ineligible for an allocation

of New Zealand units.


Appendix D

Key partnerships for the Ministry

Environmental Protection Authority

The EPA was established on 1 July 2011 to provide a consistent regulatory approach over a broad

range of environmental issues at a national level. It is a Crown entity, and operates under

legislation and regulations for which the Environment and Climate Change Issues Ministers and

the Ministry have responsibility.

The EPA’s main functions are concerned with:

national consenting under the Resource Management Act 1991 and other national resource

management processes

regulation of pesticides, fireworks, explosives and other hazardous substances

regulation of ozone-depleting substances, certain chemicals and hazardous waste controlled

by international environmental agreements

regulation of new organisms, including (amongst others) genetically modified organisms

administration of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, including the New Zealand

Emission Unit Register and allocation of New Zealand units

marine consents under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental

Effects) Act 2012.

Along with local government, the performance of the EPA is integral to the effective operation of

New Zealand’s environmental management system. The Ministry works closely with EPA staff. We

monitor the implementation of legislation and regulations by the EPA, and its organisational

activities, to ensure it is operating effectively.

The Natural Resources Sector

No one agency can tackle the large challenges and opportunities posed by natural resource issues

on its own. The Natural Resources Sector (NRS) enables central government to take a strategic

and integrated approach to natural resources policies and management. This collaborative

approach is increasingly important as we consider very complex and difficult issues.

The Ministry collaborates on key issues and aspects of organisational development with

government agencies that have interests in natural resources and environment. The core NRS is

comprised of ourselves and:

Ministry for Primary Industries

Department of Conservation

Land Information New Zealand

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Te Puni Kokiri

Department of Internal Affairs.


We lead the NRS and host the secretariat that supports the NRS work programme. By bringing

together the expertise and perspectives of each of these agencies, the NRS can collaborate on key

policy issues to improve the quality of our advice, and share services to improve the efficiency and

effectiveness of how we operate.

The NRS has also prepared a briefing, setting out key trends, challenges and opportunities in

natural resource management and use. This briefing aims to support Ministers in understanding

the dependencies and intersects across their portfolios as the basis for shared action. Engaging

early with other Ministers will be really valuable to progressing natural resource-related policies.

Local government

Our relationship with local government is integral to our ability to lead and influence

environmental stewardship, as local government is responsible for much of the day-to-day

resource management.

Our role is to support, partner and collaborate with local government, to work towards the best

outcomes for society. Particular areas of focus for us include:

building the evidence base to inform durable local decisions

building the capability of local government decision-makers

monitoring how local government performs.

To achieve the best outcomes, we must also work with other central government agencies that

influence local government, to ensure the decisions we make at the national level are consistent

and aligned.

We bring regional councils and natural resources agencies in central government together

through the Chief Executives' Environment Forum. The Forum aims to:

maintain a strong working partnership between central and regional government

support leadership in areas of mutual interest

undertake joint strategic planning and programmes of action

encourage open discussion of environmental issues.

Iwi/Māori engagement

The Crown and iwi/hapū both have an interest in managing and developing natural resources. We

recognise, and commit to reflect, the particular responsibilities of the Crown under the Treaty of

Waitangi and the special kaitiaki role that Māori play in environmental policy and resource

management arrangements. We recognise the environmental expertise held by Māori, and aim to

engage with iwi/hapū in order to help us to develop more robust and effective policy.

We have developed valuable relationships with iwi/hapū while working on policy related to

resource management, fresh water, climate change and the exclusive economic zone. The

establishment of the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group and the Climate Change Iwi Leaders Group

have helped facilitate the relationship between Ministers and iwi leaders.

We are involved in negotiating resource management related aspects of Treaty settlements and

implementing obligations under these agreements, alongside the Office of Treaty Settlements.

Our aim is to ensure that settlements provide appropriate natural resource related redress but do

not conflict with, or undermine existing natural resources policy objectives. The Ministry currently

has relationship agreements with 29 iwi, with around 70 further negotiations in development,

which will bring new relationship and work obligations for the Ministry (and wider NRS).

environmental stewardship for a prosperous new zealand · >> briefing to the incoming...

Documents