Ecological compensation is an example of a trade-off whereby loss of natural values is remedied or offset by a corresponding compensatory action on the same site or elsewhere, determined through the process of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Ecological compensation actions are often criticized for having low levels of compliance: meaning that they are achieved only partially or not at all, while development activity proceeds with much greater certainty. Our research investigated compliance with 245 conditions relating to ecological compensation across 81 case studies across New Zealand under the Resource Management Act 1991. Our research shows that present tools and practice in New Zealand are not adequately securing the necessary benefits from ecological compensation requirements, with 35.2% of requirements not being achieved. Significant variation in non-compliance with ecological compensation occurs between different activities, applicant types and condition types, while critical variables within the planning process influence levels of compliance. Our research demonstrates the importance of understanding the nature of non-compliance and of providing a consistent and robust decision-making framework for the consideration of ecological compensation in practice.

In 2016 the Environmental Defence Society embarked on an analysis of compliance monitoring and enforcement of environmental law in New Zealand (Brown, 2017). The responsibilities for ensuring that the aspirations of law and policy are met with respect to the environment are shared across a wide range of acts and several agencies. Different agencies operationalise compliance in different ways, affording it different priority and thus achieving different outcomes.  This article summarises the key findings of the project and briefly canvasses the primary groups of solutions. New Zealand’s environment would benefit from a far more robust approach to achieving regulatory outcomes and this requires injections of resourcing and capability into our enforcement agencies and dissolution of prevailing political influences.

New Zealand is world-renowned for its nature – its lush forests, spectacular mountain landscapes, wild and scenic rivers, beautiful coastlines and extraordinary biodiversity.  This natural heritage is the foundation of New Zealand’s identity and its branding, and the premier attraction for the tourism industry. It provides habitable environments, contributes to economic production and assimilates wastes, and is an important source of great enjoyment, health and well-being (Roberts et al., 2015). Nature contributes to the success of the nation’s fishing, farming, forestry and tourism industries, which provide about 52% of national export income (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 2013). But these values and the well-being and prosperity they enable are being diminished and degraded  at an alarming rate.

Biodiversity offsets are proliferating globally, and are commonly offered or required in a development context to address residual impacts on biodiversity. Regulatory requirements for mitigating or offsetting ecological harm are now commonplace, with more than 60 countries having introduced relevant policies (ten Kate and Crowe, 2014; Madsen, Carroll and Moore Brands, 2010). Biodiversity offsets are commonly framed in policy as opportunities to reconcile the competing interests of economic development and environmental protection, and are also viewed as a crucial means of internalising environmental costs and achieving conservation goals. On the other hand, a mismatch in certainty between the guaranteed losses from development activity in exchange for uncertain gains for the public interest commonly offered or required in a development context to address residual impacts on biodiversity. Regulatory requirements for mitigating or offsetting ecological harm are now commonplace, with more than 60 countries having introduced relevant policies (ten Kate and Crowe, 2014; Madsen, Carroll and Moore Brands, 2010). Biodiversity offsets are commonly framed in policy as opportunities to reconcile the competing interests of economic development and environmental protection, and are also viewed as a crucial means of internalising environmental costs and achieving conservation goals. On the other hand, a mismatch in certainty between the guaranteed losses from development activity in exchange for uncertain gains for the public interest in  nature creates significant risk, exacerbated by often poor compliance, poor ecological outcomes and often superficial analysis of exchanges (Pilgrim et al., 2013).