RESEARCH ZEALAND NEW GeogmDher (1) 2004: 18

The Resource Management Act 1991 and the Practice of Environmental Governance in New Zealand: The

Example of Lake Taupo

STEPHEN McKENZlE

Introduction ABSTRACT

On 1 October 1991 the Resource Management Act 1991 came into force. The enactment of this legislation was supposed to herald the start o f a brave new world in environmental governunce in New Zealand. Since that time the Act has never been far from controversy in the popular press and in the academic literature. The paper briefly reviews the debates in the academic literature about the Act and argues that the debates could benefit from a theoretically informed analysis of the impact of the Act on specific environmental initiatives. This paper draws on the Lake Taupo Water Quality Project to illustrate how this type of analysis may uncover practical, relevant and interesting insights for law reform, policy making and practice hidden by conventional discourses on the Act.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen McKenzie is a solicitor and a doctoral candidate in the School of Geography and Environmental Science a t the University of Auckland.

stephenm@xtra. co.nz

O n 1 October 199 1 the Resource Management Act 199 1 (Rh4A) came into force. This new statute was supposed to herald a brave new world in New Zealand planning. Innovations introduced by the Act included the legislative recognition of the principles underpinning sustainability, the unification of resource management under a single statutory umbrella and the establishment of an integrated system of planning instruments to guide regional and local planning throughout the country. The RMA provides regional and local planning authorities with the power to regulate resource use within their jurisdictions but also encourages the use of market-based and other non-regulatory methods to achieve policy outcomes.

The Act has never been far from controversy during its short lifetime. Numerous pages of geographical, planning and legal journals have been dedicated to exploring the Act’s genesis, the various political influences underlying it, the interpretation of its key provisions and its potential impact on environmental, economic and social outcomes. Despite this controversy there have been few serious attempts to analyse the impact of the RMA on the practice of environmental governance, the complex art of cwrdinating action to achieve particular environmental goals in a turbulent economic and social context (Jessop, 1997a).

This paper aims to fill this gap by showing how a theoretically informed analysis of environmental initiatives can shed light on the impact of the Rh4A on environmental governance and environmental, economic and social outcomes. The paper is in four parts. Part one discusses some of the controversy surrounding the RMA. The second part brings together theoretical tools that are capable of analysing the multifaceted influences that shape environmental governance initiatives. Part three discusses the evolution of the which is designed to maintain Lake Taupo’s water clarity from threats posed by increasing nitrogen inflows into the Lake. The fourth part brings the theoretical framework and the Lake Taupo Water Quality Project

together with the goal of reassessing the impact of the Act on environmental governance in New Zealand.

Debating the Resource Management Act 199 1

Tracing the debate on the RMA in the geographical, planning and legal journals highlights extensive concern with evaluating its potential impact, understanding how it is supposed to work and its implications for legal and planning practice. It is hardly surprising that the Act has generated significant controversy given its potential for revolutionary impact o n legal a n d p lanning practice.

One of the most interesting debates concerns the balance struck in the RMA between neoliberal and environmental interests. The planning literature reveals two dominant views. O n the one hand, Gleeson, Grundy and Memon (Memon and Gleeson, 1995; Grundy and Gleeson, 1996) state that the RMA is the product of an uneasy compromise between competing political agendas of neoliberalism and environmentalism. They argue that it tends to privilege neoliberalism, shifts the policy emphasis from a balanced consideration of social factors to economic efficiency, favours biophysical sustainability over social considerations, could result in regressive socioeconomic outcomes and may render sustainability ineffective as a planning objective. O n the other hand, McShane (1998) argues that the RMA imposes unnecessary restrictions o n the market, unreasonably interferes with private property rights and threatens the achievement of economic efficiency. i n assessing the Act most of the commentators focus on the relative merits of neoliberal planning. Policy recommendations tend to privilege either the market or regulation as the appropriate means of responding to environmental problems. Not surprisingly Glesson, Grundy, and Memon argue that regulation is the most appropriate, if not the only, response to environmental problems (Memon and Gleeson, 1995; Grundy and Gleeson, 1996) while McShane provocatively claims that it is time to abandon regulation and reinstate the primacy of the market “before the economy finally grinds to a halt, unemployment rises even further and people lose their faith in our democracy” (McShane, 1998: 69).

The debate in the planning literature has parallels in the debates over the interpretation and implementation of sustainable management as defined by section 5 of the Act. This debate began when Fisher (1991) argued that it was possible to interpret sustainable management in two ways. O n the one hand, sustainable management may be viewed as establishing an environmental bottom line. A particular activity could be considered sustainable only if it did not affect the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, provide for the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations and avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment. O n the other hand, sustainable management may be viewed as requiring a balancing of environmental, economic and social considerations. A particular activity might be considered sustainable if its economic or social

benefits outweigh the costs to the environment, on ecosystems and for future generations.

A number of authors responded to Fisher by offering their own opinions as to how sustainable management should be interpreted based on unique normative criteria. Wheen (1995), for example, is firmly of the view that long- term environmental considerations should be given priority over short-term economic considerations. There are “some kinds of environmental degradation [that] are intolerable, no matter how much current human benefit is to be derived from a proposed [activity]” (Wheen, 1995: 182). In contrast, Harris (1993) favours an approach that provides room for balancing environmental costs against social and economic benefits. Absolute bottom lines are inappropriate because “situations will inevitably arise where a rational assessment of competing interests will overwhelmingly support a compromise of the so-called environmental bottom lines” (Harris, 1993: 68). Finally, Grundy (2000) argues that a holistic interpretation of section 5 is desirable because consideration of social, economic and environmental considerations must be an “intimate part of any serious attempt to operationalise the concept of sustainable management” (Grundy, 2000: 7 l).‘

In developing their arguments most of the commentators focus on interpreting the words used in section 5 of the RMA. There is a tendency to assume that legislative or judicial clarification of the meaning of sustainable management will translate into consistent environmental, economic and social outcomes. Normative judgments are made on the basis of whether or not the author believes that the section tends to promote a preferred concept of sustainability. Policy prescriptions tend to involve recommendations to amend the section to entrench a preferred interpretation of sustainability or to solve perceived problems with the interpretation and implementation of a particular concept of sustainability.

These debates have focussed attention on the political influences underlying the RMA, the contested nature of sustainable management and the potential of these factors to influence environmental, economic and social outcomes. The debates do not, however, fully explore or explain the impact of the Act on environmental governance. As a result commentators tend to make judgments about the Act based on their own views on neoliberalism, environmentalism and sustainability. Policy prescriptions tend to be limited to consideration of amending the Act or re-prioritising regulatory and non-regulatory responses to environmental problems. To a certain extent this is not surprising given the focus of the debates, the interests of the researchers, the tools employed to analyse and interpret the Act and the lack of concrete experience with the legislation in the years immediately following its enactment.

Yet any balanced normative assessment of the impact of the RMA requires more than this and, in particular, a fuller understanding of the impact of the Act on the multifaceted processes of environmental governance within particular spaces of engagement. This, in turn, requires the employment

RESEARCH ZEALAND NEW GeogmDher M) (1) 2M34: 2o

of analytical tools sufficiently sensitive to the institutional context and to the day-today processes of environmental governance. These could, and should, provide a lens to interpret particular environmental planning initiatives post 1991.

A theoretical framework for analysis

Several researchers based largely within economic geography have attempted to investigate and explain the contested processes of economic governance in Western capitalist democracies. This effort has produced a rich vein of literature on the transformation of economic governance under neoliberalism. One of the most important and interesting themes is the evolution of a theoretical framework that employs a combination of the regulation approach, governance, state theory and discourse-theoretic approaches as a lens for interpreting specific economic governance initiatives (MacLeod, 1997; Jones, 1998; MacLeod and Goodwin, 1999). This theoretical framework has recently been extended to interpret the complex and contested processes of environmental governance (e.g., Bakker, 2000).

The framework provides a starting point for the analysis of the impact of the Rh4A on the practice of environmental governance in New Zealand. I t combines a series of philosophically consistent theories and approaches that have proven their usefulness in interpreting the transformation of economic and environmental governance in Western capitalist democracies. In this way the framework avoids the problems associated with unreflective attempts to understand the social world through the application of inconsistent and spatially inappropriate theories (Larner and Le Heron, 2002: 754; see also Jones, 1998: 968 on the dangers of ‘cafeteria political economy’).

This particular combination of theoretical approaches, in addition, provides a set of tools that are capable of analysing the multifaceted influences that shape specific environmental governance initiatives. The framework is sensitive to institutions, politics and the interrelationships between the two (Wood and Valler, 2001). It helps to move beyond legal analysis that concentrates on interpretation of statutory language and policy evaluation that concentrates on assessing the impact of administrative organisations, legislation and policies on environmental outcomes.

This theoretical framework should not, however, be viewed as a panacea for the interpretation of environmental governance in New Zealand. It has been developed as a means to view and relate the stories of particular environmental governance initiatives and draw insights into the multifaceted processes of environmental governance. Alternative theoretical choices might produce insights consistent with, or hidden by, this theoretical combination.

Regulation, governance, politics and d’ iscourse

The regulation approach attempts to understand why contemporary capitalism survives despite its myriad of

internal contradictions Uessop, 199713; MacLeod, 1997). It goes beyond an interest in the functioning of the market to analyse social and political structures that secure economic growth. In order to understand these structures the regulation approach introduces a series of intermediate concepts. The most important of these concepts are regime of accumulation and mode of regulation. A regime of accumulation is a particular form of production and consumption that is reproducible over a long period. A mode of regulation is a non-necessary combination of organisational ensembles, procedures, norms, habits, conventions, laws, customs, state policies, governing networks and other social institutions that secure a regime of accumulation (Jessop, 199710). A complementary regime of accumulation and mode of regulation may emerge from social and political struggle to secure, in a particular space and for a period of time, the conditions for a period of relatively stable economic growth (MacLeod, 1997).

The regulation approach has often been criticised because of its tendency to divide capitalist development into periods of stability and periods of crisis. As a result, this approach tends to privilege structure over political struggle. This is particuiarly so during periods of relatively stable economic growth (Jessop, 1997b). In response there has been increased interest in examining the relationship between regulation and governance focussing on how governance operates in periods of stability and crisis. Here modes of regulation can be seen as defining the parameters within which environmental governance operates within a particular space for a period of time. Governance ideas eschew a rigid divide between state and market in favour of a broad repertoire of mechanisms, including networks, strategic alliances and public-private partnerships, that can be tailored according to the nature of the problem at hand and the goals to be secured. This repertoire can be used in combination with juridical-political regulation and the market. Goals to be achieved and the combination of co-ordinating mechanisms employed to achieve them are continually subject to modification through ongoing social and political struggle and reflection (Jessop, 199710; 2000).

In this way the regulation approach and governance ideas open up space for the consideration of the institutional and political nature of environmental governance. State theory and discourse-theoretic approaches help to examine this phenomenon further by providing tools for analysing the social identities, meaning systems, interpretive frameworks and discursive strategies employed by actors in contests over the goals and mechanisms of environmental governance (MacLeod and Goodwin, 1999).

State theory emphasises the way in which “political, intellectual, and moral leadership is mediated through complex ensembles of institutions, organisations, and forces operating within, orientated toward or located at a distance from the juridical-political state apparatus“ (Jessop, 1997a: 52; 1990). This theory focuses the analysis on understanding the way in which the balance of political forces translates particular problems into projects for state action. It also promotes investigation into the way in which “their solution

is mediated through the specific, structurally inscribed, and strategically selective nature of the state” (Jessop, 1995: 30; 1990). The state is a hybrid and complex system that is simultaneously a generator of political action, a site of political action and a product of political action rather than a unified sovereign power (Jessop, 1990).

Discourse-theoretic approaches build on this view by investigating how actors create and recreate interpretive frameworks and meaning systems through discourse. Hajer (1995) employs such an approach to analyse a global environmental governance issue. He defines discourse as “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorisations that is produced, reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (1995: 44). He goes on to focus on the ways in which diverse groups of political actors with different values and interests form coalitions around specific sets of story lines, policy vocabularies and ways of understanding the world. The political power of a coalition is derived from the accessibility of its story lines and policy vocabularies. A common story line provides the glue which keeps the discourse coalition together, reduces the complexity of the debate and provides a common language through which actors give meaning to physical and social realities (Hajer, 1995).

Regulation, governance, politics and discourse take place within specific spaces of engagement. Attention must be paid to the complex interrelationships between actors located at different scales and the to the political importance of scale (MacLeod, 1997; MacLeod and Goodwin, 1999). Environmental politics may be as much about the construction of appropriate scale of governance as it is about the determination of environmental goals and responses to environmental governance problems (Brenner et al., 2003).

T h e Lake Taupo Water Quality Project

Lake Taupo is internationally renowned for its clear blue waters. In mid-1999, Environment Waikato (Waikato Regional Council) staff identified its water clarity as being under threat from increasing nitrogen concentrations. In response to this problem Environment Waikato began to develop the Lake Taupo Water Quality Project (LTWQP). The Project is of interest because of the international importance of Lake Taupo, the number of regulatory agencies with responsibility for management of the Lake and surrounding catchment, the importance of the Lake to Maori, the variety of stakeholders that may be affected by the Project and the complex nature of the issues that must be resolved if the problem is to be effectively addressed. In addition, the Project involves an attempt to use legislation to address an environmental, economic and social problem in a sustainable manner. The purpose of the following discussion is to elaborate some of the key political and strategic moments in the Project’s history.

The LTWQP has evolved through four distinct phases. The initial science phase involved the in-house development

of a policy response to the nitrogen problem, the public launch of the programme, initial public meetings held in June 2000 and a comprehensive review of the science used to support the programme.

Environment Waikato initially intended to develop a regulatory response centered on a variation to the Regional Plan, with the aim of establishing controls on the use of nitrogen within the catchment. Although the public in general did not seriously question the need to protect the Lake, the farming community questioned the scientific basis for action and the necessity of a regulatory-based response. Environment Waikato recognised that the project would stand or fall on the robustness of the science. The Council resolved to review the scientific justification for action.

The subsequent policy development phase occurred after the completion of the scientific review and involved a second round of publicity and consultation including the release of an issues and options paper in October 2000 (Environment Waikato, 2000). At about this time the local farming community recognised that Environment Waikato was committed to controlling nitrogen inputs to the Lake. Some negative press coverage portraying farmers as environmental villains forced the farmers to recognise that their opposition was unlikely to succeed and could even backfire. They switched tactics and formed an interest group named Taupo Lake Care (TLC) to negotiate with the Council.

Taupo Lake Care claims to represent 80 percent of all private landowners within the catchment. Its members include representatives of the various Tuwharetoa Economic Authorities that own and farm a considerable portion of the land within the catchment. This strong mandate, coupled with a willingness to work with, rather than against, Environment Waikato, enabled TLC to take a key role in the policy development phase and even to obtain funding from the Council to support research on nitrogen friendly farming and alternative land uses. The focus of the strategy progressively shifted from a regulatory response to a comprehensive package of measures including the purchase and retirement of privately owned land. Other elements included research o n alternative land uses and the identification of new market opportunities, grants to support land-use change and the reassessment of existing land-use options. As well, existing sewage systems were to be progressively upgraded and environmental education programmes launched. Undoubtedly, TLC played a key role in getting these non-Rh4A options into the Project.

This transformation from a regulatory project to a comprehensive land management strategy did not come without cost. It was apparent that central government support was required if the strategy was to succeed. There were two major reasons for this. First, central government is a major landowner in the catchment. Both Landcorp and Corrlands (part of the Department of Corrections) farm significant areas. Second implementation costs far exceeded Environment Waikato’s ability to pay. Obtaining buy-in from Wellington involved a multifaceted approach that

RESEARCH ZEAIAND NEW GeogruDher 6o (1) 2004: 22

included the development of a working relationship with the Taupo District Council and the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board, a series of high level meetings between central, regional and local government politicians, invitations to central government politicians to visit the Lake and talk with stakeholders and meetings between central, regional and local government officers. These events occurred through the latter part of 2002 and in early 2003.

At about the same time as Environment Waikato raised the water clarity issue (mid-1999) the Fifth Labour Government was elected. This election heralded a new approach to governing based on the principles of sustainable development. The new Government clearly stated that it was committed to providing national leadership on sustainable development and to working in partnership with regional and local government, Maori and other stakeholders to implement this goal. This resolve culminated with the January 2003 release of a New Zealand Sustainable Development Strategy that identified water quality and the protection of waterbodies of national importance as key priorities (New Zealand Government, 2003). With this document, the government effectively signaled its intention to back the Lake Taupo Water Quality Project.

The New Zealand Sustainable Development Strategy and the Lake Taupo Water Quality Project converged in July 2003 when the Government announced a formal partnership with Environment Waikato, the Taupo District Council and the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board to protect Lake Taupo from the effects of excess nitrogen. This announcement was followed in November 2003 by a statement to the effect that the Government would contribute $36.7 million towards the implementation of the strategy. The establishment of the Lake Taupo partnership altered the dynamics of the project by signaling the centralisation of decision-making in the four partners. TLC was relegated to stakeholder status - another body to be consulted over any future policy proposals. At the same time, the Tuwharetoa Economic Authorities transferred their mandate to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. This move significantly reduced the power of TLC.

The finalisation of the partnership was marked by the November 2003 launch of a public discussion document on the proposed strategy (Environment Waikato, 2003). Currently, Environment Waikato intend to notify a variation to the Waikato Regional Plan in July 2004.

Interrogating environmental governance in New Zealand

The geographical, planning and legal literature tends to view environmental governance under the RMA as a technical process that is highly circumscribed by the rules contained in the Act. It is often assumed that policy-making and planning is strongly shaped by the concept of sustainable management and that policy makers are primarily concerned

with implementing this legal concept (for a notable exception see Perkins and Thorns, 2001).

The theoretical literature, however, suggests that environmental governance is an inherently political process. Political contests over the environment shape, and are shaped by, the institutional and spatial context within which they take place. The outcome of a specific environmental governance initiative depends on the non- necessary combination of institutions, actors, their discursive and material strategies and tactics and material nature within a space of engagement (MacLeod, 1997; Jessop, 199713; Jones, 1998; MacLeod and Goodwin, 1999). This theoretical conception of environmental governance as a political process appears to be borne out at Lake Taupo. The history of the LTWQP reflects unpredictable and multiple institutional and political influences. The Project has been shaped by a variety of actors employing a wide variety of political strategies, political tactics and discourses. Critical strategic moments in the evolution of the LTWQP include Environment Waikato’s decision to address the problem of increasing nitrogen concentrations in the Lake, the farming community’s decision to form TLC and work with Environment Waikato and the Council’s decision to look beyond the RMA and develop a package of measures to deal with the problem. The Fifth Labour Government’s independent adoption of sustainable development as a guiding policy principle, its formal commitment to the Project and the development of the four-way partnership between the Government, Environment Waikato, the Taupo District Council and the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board are other critical points in the Project’s history.

This history does not, however, deny the significance of the RMA. The Act is part of the context within which political contests over environmental governance are played out and clearly shapes the path taken by initiatives such as the LTWQP. The RMA gives Environment Waikato a mandate to manage Lake Taupo and enables it to control land use within the Taupo catchment for the purpose of maintaining water quality in the Lake. Earlier legislation did not contain similar powers and it is doubtful whether the nitrogen problem would have been placed on the political agenda if the Act did not contain these provisions. In addition the RMA contains specific procedures that govern Regional Plan changes. The various actors involved in the LTWQP recognise that this situation provides them with a means to challenge any proposed variation to the Waikato Regional Plan in the Environment Court. Some actors have deliberately employed the threat of an appeal as part of their political strategy. They have made it quite clear that they are willing to challenge any proposed variation if they are dissatisfied with the scope of the rules to control nitrogen inputs to land or outputs from land in the catchment. A successful challenge to the proposed variation may threaten the effectiveness of the entire Project.

This situation has several important implications. First, policy prescriptions designed to address environmental problems that are based solely on amendments to the

legislation or regulation are unlikely to be successful. The RMA is only one institutional influence on the outcome of environmental governance problems. It provides a framework that enables the development of policies and regulations for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The legislation should not be viewed as a guarantor of a particular environmental outcome. The most that can be expected is that the processes embedded in the Act may encourage progressive outcomes that are ecologically sustainable and protect individual livelihoods as well as the fabric of communities. The actual outcome of a particular environmental initiative depends on the unique combination of extra-statutory institutional and political factors present in particular spaces of engagement. The process of institutionalisation of a particular environmental ethic and any associated environmental governance initiatives involves much more than simple legislative amendment. Of course, legislation is open to criticism and amendment if it can be shown that it tends to produce regressive environmental, economic and social outcomes. The LTWQP shows that the RMA is, at least, capable of opening opportunities for addressing complex environmental problems in a manner that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable.

Second, contests over environmental governance are not simply shaped by the concept of sustainable management. The LTWQP may have begun life as a proposed variation to the Waikato Regional Plan under the RMA but it quickly evolved into a sustainable development initiative. Closer attention to the discourses employed at Taupo shows that key actors in the process are primarily interested in matters that are of pressing concern to them such as “is there a problem?”, “who is responsible for the problem?”, “what can be done about the problem?”, “how does this affect me?” and “who pays for the solution?”. The discourse is notable for the absence of any discussion of competing conceptions of sustainable management. To a certain extent this is not surprising given the difficult, of relating esoteric arguments over sustainable management to the immediate concerns of actors confronted with practical environmental, economic and social issues. If, however, the proposed variation to the Waikato Regional Plan is challenged in the Environment Court then the rules of the political contest will change and legal discourses will become relatively more important.

Tnird, policy makers need to pay more careful attention to the institutional context and political dynamics surrounding environmental governance. Policy makers need to develop strategies that are based on enrolling key actors necessary for the success of environmental governance. It is essential that they build relationships with key actors, are sensitive to their concerns, talk in a language they understand and are willing to adapt their initiatives to accommodate the valid concerns of key actors. In particular, they need to think outside the regulatory square established by the Rh4A. Many of the key actors credit the success of the LTWQP to

Environment Waikato’s ability to read the political dynamics of the situation, build strong relationships and tailor its policy development strategies accordingly.

Conclusion

The theoretical framework presented earlier provides a powerful tool for understanding the impact of the RMA on environmental governance. It helps to redirect the focus of analysis from the traditional concern with the history, structure and wording of legislation towards an analysis that recognises the multifaceted and often unique influences on the processes, practices and outcomes of environmental governance within particular spaces of engagement. In particular, it encourages consideration of the institutional and spatial context within which environmental governance takes place, focuses attention on the day-to-day politics of environmental governance, and highlights the complex interrelationships between context and politics. The law no longer takes priority. Instead it becomes just one of many potential influences that shape environmental governance initiatives and legal regulation becomes one of many potential means of dealing with environmental problems.

These theories also transform the criteria against which particular environmental legislation is judged. Traditional legal or planning analysis tends to be concerned with determining whether the structure or wording of an Act is likely to achieve a particular environmental outcome. The use of these theories encourages sensitivity to the wider political dynamics inherent in the processes of environmental governance, cautions against making normative judgments without nuanced analysis of concrete environmental governance initiatives and encourages researchers to ask questions about what is going on in particular spaces of engagement and the reasons why particular initiatives have followed a particular path. The law should be assessed on the basis of whether it opens political space for the consideration of environmental governance problems and provides political space for the resolution of these issues in a manner that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. The law should not be treated as a guarantor of a particular conceptualisation of sustainability. Likewise criticisms of legislation should not be read off from a consideration of the political influences underlying the development of the legislation.

Use of these theories also encourages a review of traditional policy prescriptions and uncovers important implications for practice hidden by traditional legal planning discourses. Conceptualising the process of environmental governance in New Zealand as a political process shaped by a particular institutional and spatial context implies that policy responses must be more sophisticated than simple recommendations to amend the law or to regulate. Policy makers must be sensitive to the institutional and political dynamics within and

RESEARCH ZEALAND NEW Geogmpher 6o (1) 2004: 24

between particular spaces, develop strategies to enrol key actors in environmental governance and adapt and

accommodate the valid concerns of key actors. This is, of course, easy to say but hard to do.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisors Willie Smith and Richard Le Heron, Environment Waikato and the two anonymous referees for their useful commknts on earlier drafts of this paper. The views expressed are, of course, entirely my own.

Note

’ For its part the Environment Court, after avoiding the issue for some years, has decided to adopt a conceptualisation of sustainable management similar to that advocated by Harris (Skelton and Memon, 2002). The essence of this is captured in the following passage from the Court’s judgment in North Shore City CouncilvAuckland Regional Council(0kura) [ 1997) NZRMA59. In this case the Court makes it clear that decision-makers must consider all relevant factors in determining whether a particular activity promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical resources:

the application of section 5 ... involves consideration of both main elements of section 5. ... The method of applying section 5 involves a broad overall judgment of whether a proposal would promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. That recognizes that the Act has a single purpose. Such a judgment allows for comparison of conflicting considerations in the scale or degree of them, and their relative significance or proportion in the final outcome.

Skelton and Memon (2002) hail this approach as a new third way of interpreting sustainable management that will ensure that environmental, economic and social factors are taken into account in decision making.

References

Baker, K. 2000: Privatizing water, producing scarcity: the Yorkshire drought of 1995, Economic Geography, 76( 11, 4-27. Brenner, N., Jessop, B., Jones, M. and MacLeod, G. 2003: State/Space: a Reader, Blackwell Publishing, London. Environment Waikato 2000: Issues and Options for Managing Water Quality in Lake Taupo, Environment Waikato, Hamilton. Environment Waikato 2003: Protecting Lake Taupo: A Long Term Strategic Partnership, Environment Waikato, Hamilton. Fisher, D.E. 1991: The Resource Management Legislation of 1991: A Juridicial Analysis of its Objectives in Brooker and Friend. Resource Management Act

Grundy, K.J. 2000: Purpose and principles: interpreting section 5 of the Resource Management Act, in Memon, P.A. and Perkins, H.C. eds, Environmental

Grundy, K.J. and Gleeson, B.J. 1996: Sustainable management and the market: the politics of planning reform in New Zealand, Land Use Policy, 13(3),

Hajer, M. 1995: 7’he Polttics of Environmental Discourse, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Harris, B.V. 1993: Sustainable nanagement as an express purpose of environmental legislation: the New Zealand attempt, Otago Law Review, 8(1), 51-

Jessop, B. 1990: State 7’heq: Putting Capitalist States in their Place, Polity Press, Cambridge. Jessop, B. 1995: 7’he future of the nation state: erosion or reorganisation, Lancaster Regionalism Group Working Papers (Governance Series) 50, Lancaster

University, Lancaster. Jessop, B., 1997a: Thegovernance ofcomplexityand the complexityofgovernance: preliminaryremarks onsome problems and limits ofeconomic guidance.

in Amin, A. and Hausner, J. eds, Beyond Market and Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 95-128. Jessop, B. 1997b: Survey article: the regulation approach, The Joumai of Political Philosophy, 5(3), 287-326. Jessop, B. 2000: Governance failure, in Stoker, G. ed, The New Politics of British Local Governance, MacMillan Press, Houndmills and London, 11-32. Jones, M. 1998: Restructuring the local state: economic governance or social regulation, Political Geography, 17(8), 959-88. Larner, W. and Le Heron, R. 2002: The spaces and subjects of a globalising economy: A situated exploration of method, Environment and Planning D: Space

MacLeod, G. 1997: Globalizing Parisian thought-waves: recent advances in the study of social regulation, politics, discourse and space, Progress in Human

MacLeod, G. and Goodwin, M. 1999: Space, scale and state strategy: rethinking urban and regional governance, Progress in Human Geography, 23(4), 503-

McShane, 0. 1998: Land Use Control undm the Resource Management Act: A Think Piece, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington. Memon, P.A. and Gleeson, B.J. 1995: Towards a new planning paradigm? reflections on New Zealand’s Resource Management Act, Environment and Planning

New Zealand Government 2003: Swtainabk Development for New Zealand Programme of Action, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Wellington. Perkins, H.C. and Thorns, D.C. 2001: A decade on: reflections on the Resource Management Act 199 1 and the practice of urban planning in New Zealand,

Skelton, P. and Memon, P.A. 2002: Adopting sustainability as an overarching environmental policy: a review of section 5 of the RMA, Resource Management

Wheen, N.R. 1997: The Resource Management Act 1991: A “Greener” Law for Water, New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 1, 165-98. Wood, A. and Valler, D. 2001: Turn again? Rethinking institutions and the governance of local and regional economies, Environment and Planning A, 3317).

1991, Brooker and Friend, Wellington, 1-19.

Planning and Management in New Zealand, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 64-73.

197-211.

76.

and Society, 20(6), 753-74.

Geography, 21(4), 530-553.

27.

B: Planning and Design, 22(1), 109-24.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(5), 639-54.

Journal, 10(1), 1-10.

1139-44.