The 1991 New Zealand Resource Management Act established an effects-based planning system intended to safeguard the biophysical resource base. The act and its subsequent practical implementation are deconstructed using an ecological modernisation framework. This demonstrates that many of the key policy instruments of the act can be accommodated within an ecological modernisation discourse. However, elements of discursive democracy introduced by the legislation have subsequently been impaired by technocorporatist legal formalism. This has prompted considerable debate about the perceived high process and compliance costs and the restricted public scrutiny of effects-based compliance in the new planning system. The reduced emphasis on socioeconomic effects within land-use development plans has impeded the promotion of sustainable spatial development strategies, frustrating attempts to deliver the ‘superindustrial ecological switchover’ sought by proponents of ecological modernisation. Recent legislation to extend the strategic powers of local government may help resolve this issue.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongB, 2001, “The Resource Management Act 1991: Has it delivered on its objectives?”Resource Management JournalIX(3) 8–11
2.
BartonH, 1998, “New Zealand double-think: Many a slip between intention and reality”Planning Practice and Research13(4) 453–458
3.
Benson-PopeD, 2004, “Improving the RMA 1991: a paper presented to Cabinet”, cabinet minutes 30 October, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington
4.
BerkeP RCrawfordJDixonJEricksenN, 1999, “Do cooperative environmental planning mandates produce good plans? Empirical results from the New Zealand experience”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26643–664
5.
BlowersA, 2000, “Ecological and political modernisation: The challenge for planning”Town Planning Review71(4) 371–393
6.
BostonJMartinJPallotJWalshP, 1996Public Management: The New Zealand Model (Oxford University Press, Auckland)
7.
BrodnaxRMilneJ, 2002, “The New Zealand Waste Strategy: Towards zero waste and a sustainable New Zealand”Resource Management JournalX(2) 23–27
8.
BührsT, 2000, “The environment and the role of the state in New Zealand”, in Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand Eds MemonP APerkinsH C (Dunmore Press, Palmerston North) pp 27–35
9.
DavoudiS, 2000, “Sustainability: A new vision for the British planning system”Planning Perspectives15123–137
10.
DayMBackhurstMEricksenNCrawfordJChapmanSBerkePLaurianLDixonJJefferiesRWarrenTBarfootCMasonGBennettMGibsonC, 2003District Plan Implementation Under the RMA: Confessions of a Resource Consent (University of Waikato, Hamilton), http://www.waikato.ac.nz/igci/pucm/Linked%20documents/ReptoGovt2.pdf
11.
DixonJ, 2005a, “New Zealand”, in Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning Eds JonesCBakerMCarterJJaySShortMWoodC (Earthscan, London) pp 158–173
12.
DixonJ, 2005b, “Enacting and reacting: Local government frameworks for economic development”, in Economic Development: the New Zealand Experience Ed RoweJ (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 69–86
DryzekJ S, 1987Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy (Blackwell, Oxford)
15.
DupuisADixonJ, 2002, “Intensification in Auckland: Issues and policy implications”Urban Policy and Research20415–428
16.
EasonVvan RoonMDixonJ, 2005, “The challenge of implementing low impact urban design and development requiring a transdisciplinary approach”, paper presented at the International Conference for Integrating Urban Knowledge and Practice, Gothenburg, Sweden, 30 May–3 June
17.
EricksenN JBerkeP RCrawfordJ LDixonJ E, 2004Plan-making for Sustainability: The New Zealand Experience (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
18.
FreemanC, 2004, “Sustainable development from rhetoric to practice? A New Zealand perspective”International Planning Studies9307–326
19.
GleesonB, 2000, “The politics of consent notification”, in Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand Eds MemonP APerkinsH C (Dunmore Press, Palmerston North NZ) pp 115–122
20.
GrundyK JGleesonB J, 1996, “Sustainable management and the market: The politics of planning reform in New Zealand”Land Use Policy13197–211
21.
GunderMMouatC, 2002, “Symbolic violence and victimisation in planning processes: A reconnoitre of the New Zealand Resource Management Act”Planning Theory1124–145
22.
HajerM, 1995The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
23.
HassallJ, 2002, “Chasing the wild geese: The use and misuse of the permitted baseline”Resource Management JournalX27–30
24.
HinchliffeSBlowersAFreelandJ, 2003, “Sustainable environmental futures: Opportunities and constraints”, in Environmental Responses Eds BlowersAHinchliffeS (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 237–280
25.
HuberJ, 1982Die verlorene Unschuld der Ökologie: Neue Technologien und superindustrielle Entwicklung [The lost innocence of ecology: new technology and superindustrial development] (Fischer, Frankfurt am Main)
26.
JacksonTRobertsP, 1997, “Greening the Fife economy: Ecological modernisation as a pathway for local economic development”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management40617–633
27.
JacksonTRobertsP, 1999, “Ecological modernisation as a model for regional development: The changing nature and context of the Eastern Scotland Structural Fund Programme”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning161–75
28.
JänickeM, 1992, “Conditions for environmental policy success: An international comparison”, in Environmental Policy in Europe: Assessment, Challenges and Perspectives Eds JachtenfuchsMStrubelM (Nomos, Baden-Baden) pp 71–97
29.
JordanAWurzelR K WZitoA R (Eds), 2003‘New’ Instruments of Environmental Governance? National Experiences and Prospects (Frank Cass, London)
30.
KisslingCBachelsM, 2000, “Towards holistic transportation planning in New Zealand”, in Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand Eds MemonP APerkinsH C (Dunmore Press, Palmerston North) pp 309–320
McDermottP, 2000, “The cost of environmental planning: Implications of the Resource Management Act”, in Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand Eds MemonPAPerkinsH C (Dunmore Press, Palmerston North) pp 48–63
33.
MemonP APerkinsH C, 2000, “Environmental planning and management: The broad context”, in Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand Eds MemonP APerkinsH C (Dunmore Press, Palmerston North) pp 11–20
34.
MfE, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington
35.
MfE, 1999Your Guide to the Resource Management Act: An Essential Reference for People Affected by or Interested in the Act
36.
MfE, 2000What Are The Options? A Guide to Using Section 32 of The Resource Management Act
37.
MfE, 2001A Guide to Preparing a Basic AEE
38.
MfE, 2005aThe Resource Management Act: Two-yearly Survey of Local Authorities 2003/2004
39.
MfE, 2005bResource Management Act 1991, as amended 2005
40.
MillerR (Ed.), 2001New Zealand Government and Politics (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
41.
MolA, 1995The Refinement of Production: Ecological Modernisation Theory and the Chemical Industry (van Arkel, Utrecht)
OPCE, 1998The Cities and Their People: New Zealand's Urban EnvironmentOffice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington
44.
OPCE, 2002Creating Our Future: Sustainable Development for New ZealandOffice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington
45.
OwensSCowellR, 2002Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process (Routledge, London)
46.
PerkinsH CThornsD C, 2001, “A decade on: Reflections on the Resource Management Act 1991 and the practice of urban planning in New Zealand”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28639–654
ReidM, 2005, “The LGA 2002—where are we at?”, Local Government Legal Forum, 7 April Auckland, copy available from LexisNexis Professional Development, PO Box 2399, Auckland
49.
RFBPS, 2002Breaking Down the Barriers: A Guide to the Resource Management Act 1991The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, Wellington Central Office, Level One, 90 Ghuznec Street, PO Box 631, Wellington
SkeltonPMemonA P, 2002, “Adopting sustainability as an overarching environmental policy: A review of section 5 of the RMA”Resource Management JournalX1–10
52.
UNECE, 1998Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention) (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva)
53.
UptonS, 1991Third Reading Debate on the Resource Management Bill (Debates 516) (House of Representatives, Wellington)
54.
UptonSAtkinsHWillisG, 2002, “Section 5 re-visited: A critique of Skelton & Memon's analysis”Resource Management JournalX10–22
55.
WealeA, 1992The New Politics of Pollution (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
56.
WillisG, 2003Drafting Issues, Objectives, Policies and Methods in Regional Policy Statements and District Plans report prepared in conjunction with Enfocus Ltd, copy available from the Ministry for the Environment, Wellington
57.
WilsonVSalterJ, 2003A Guide to the Local Government Act 2002 (Brookers, Wellington)
