- Farmers won key concessions in New Zealand’s proposed resource management reforms.
- Industry groups welcomed more flexible environmental limit-setting and the removal of market-based allocation tools.
- Freshwater Farm Plans and rules for farms in over-limit catchments remain contentious.
Industry groups DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ) said changes made to the Natural Environment Bill and Planning Bill through the select committee process represented a significant improvement on earlier versions.
One of the most significant changes welcomed by both organisations is the recognition of food and fibre production within the goals of the Natural Environment Bill.
“The recognition of food and fibre production in the goals of the Natural Environment Bill is an important and welcome change,” DairyNZ chair Tracy Brown said.
B+LNZ similarly described the inclusion as a “significant and welcome improvement”.
More pragmatic
Both organisations also welcomed changes to the framework for setting environmental limits.
The reported-back legislation clarifies that limits can take a range of measurable forms, including narrative or outcome-based limits.
Decision-makers must also consider environmental, social and economic expectations, existing resource use, naturally occurring processes and levels, and cost-benefit analyses when establishing limits.
DairyNZ said the amendments should help prevent unrealistic environmental targets from being imposed without regard for local circumstances.
“Recognising food and fibre production, allowing measurable narrative limits, and requiring decision-makers to consider naturally occurring processes, existing resource use and cost-benefit analysis should support a more balanced and workable system,” said Brown.
However, both groups also noted that further refinement of the legislation was needed.
B+LNZ said the legislation still allows environmental limits to be established that may not always reflect what is scientifically robust, economically realistic or practically achievable, while much of the detail will ultimately be determined through future national policy direction.
Allocation tools removed
The farming groups also welcomed the removal of comparative permitting and market-based mechanisms for allocating natural resources.
DairyNZ described the removal of “untested allocation mechanisms” as a sensible decision that would provide greater certainty for farmers and support long-term investment.
B+LNZ likewise welcomed the decision to remove market-based mechanisms for allocating natural resources.
Both organisations also supported the reinstatement of controlled consents, while B+LNZ noted improvements had been made to permitted activity processes.
Freshwater Farm Plans unresolved
Despite welcoming the changes, both groups identified Freshwater Farm Plans as an area requiring further attention.
The select committee introduced an auditable category for farm plans, meaning not every plan would require certification and auditing.
However, B+LNZ said concerns remain around implementation, including situations where a high-risk activity on a small part of a property could trigger certification requirements for an entire farm.
DairyNZ said the legislation still lacks a clear statutory pathway allowing certified Freshwater Farm Plans to replace consent requirements where farm-specific risks can be effectively managed.
“A key test of the new system will be whether Freshwater Farm Plans can reduce reliance on inefficient rules and repeated consenting, rather than becoming another layer of regulation,” said Brown.
Further concerns
The organisations also raised concerns about how existing farming activities will be managed in catchments where environmental limits have already been exceeded.
B+LNZ expressed concern over provisions requiring councils to give preference to resource caps when attempting to bring catchments back within environmental limits.
It said catchment management was complex and required multiple tools rather than relying primarily on resource caps, which it said can be expensive to implement and dependent on uncertain modelling.
B+LNZ also highlighted concerns that councils could be required to establish ecosystem limits across additional domains, including biodiversity, soils and coastal waters.
According to the organisation, extending limit-setting requirements into these areas risks increasing planning complexity and compliance costs for farmers.
The group further questioned why sectors such as infrastructure, municipal discharges and aquaculture appeared to have statutory pathways for operating where environmental limits are exceeded, while farming does not yet have equivalent provisions.
Both organisations said they would continue engaging with ministers, officials and parliamentarians as the legislation progresses.
