The New Zealand Resource Management Act: an exercise in delivering sustainable development through an ecological modernisation agenda

Abstract

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.

Clean and green? A governance analysis of waste management in New Zealand

“…However, it did not advocate curtailing consumption, stating that New Zealand needs to ''produce more with less'' (MfE 2002, p. 3) and claiming that, ''we [as a society] don't have to avoid the products and services we normally use'' (MfE 2002, p. 19). This emphasis on product efficiency ties in with other analysts' summation of New Zealand's commitment to ecological modernisation in its environmental policy (Carolan 2004, Jackson andDickson 2004).…”

Fragmentation or Evolution? Understanding Change Within the New Zealand Environmental Movement

“…This framework legislation introduced rights and responsibilities for government agencies at all levels and placed greater responsibilities on local government. The legislation also set down rights regarding participation and consultation, but these were shaped by the technocratic nature of the RMA (Jackson & Dixon, 2007). The approach of this legislation demonstrated a change in the nature of the relationship between the movement and the state from one of exclusion to a more ambiguous situation (Downes, 2000).…”

Ecological modernization versus sustainable development: the case of genetic modification regulation in New Zealand

“…In contrast to the breadth and scope of sustainable development, ecological modernization3 emerged in the context of First World states in the 1980s as a ‘modernist and technocratic approach to the environment that suggests there is a techno‐institutional fix for the present problems’ (Hajer, 1995, p. 32). For governments confronting the dilemma of the assumed conflictual relationship between economic growth and environmental protection, EM has become the policy approach of choice in interpreting and implementing the goal of sustainable development (Murphy, 2000; Huber, 2000; Jackson and Dixon, 2007). The discourse of EM suggests that, by judiciously mixing regulations and market‐based instruments to correct market failure, EM will lead to both economic growth and environmental protection (Svedin et al , 2001; Dryzek, 2005).…”

“…These institutional innovations have given New Zealand a reputation as a world leader in environmental policy (Bührs and Bartlett, 1993; Bührs and Christoff, 2007), with an explicit commitment to sustainable development (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC, 2003). At the same time, a number of recent studies (see, e.g., Jackson and Dixon, 2007; Ministry for the Environment, 2008) suggest that current weak regulatory approaches and a concern with short‐term economic growth are failing to embed sustainability within New Zealand quickly enough to offset New Zealand's environmental impacts.…”