5 Applications to New Zealand
In this section we look for evidence of MBIs being used in New Zealand. Discussions were held with the Auckland Regional Council, Environment Canterbury, and the Otago Regional Council. The issues facing each Council are different. The Councils also differ in terms of the expertise and resources available to them. Although coverage is limited the cases do point to fundamental problems with governance if indeed sustainable development is a goal.
5.1 Policy integration
If government wants to promote sustainable development then it is imperative that policy is integrated at the central level of government. A very cursory look at the listed functions of two ministries finds evidence of activities that directly relate to sustainable development. Because of the cross cutting nature of sustainable development it will span a number of government agencies. For example, setting fuel specifications would touch on The Treasury, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Economic Development, Ministry of Health and Ministry for the Environment.
Sustainable development appears as an outcome in the Ministry of Economic Development’s (MED) statement of intent. It recognises the importance of the micro-economic foundations for growth and the Ministry’s prime role is to ensure that these foundations evolve to facilitate economic development. Economic policies are seen to contribute both to a higher rate of economic development and to sustainable social and environmental outcomes. Two intermediate outcomes underpin the over-arching outcome. The first is that regulation of economic activity is effective and low cost and the second that regional development, business growth and innovation are actively facilitated and encouraged.
The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) reports on the state of the New Zealand environment and the way that environmental laws and policies work in practice, and advises Government on action necessary to improve environmental management. Significant areas of policy are resource management; land, air and water quality; waste, hazardous substances and contaminated sites; protection of the ozone layer; and climate change. The Ministry notes that most of the responsibility for day-to-day environmental management rests with local government, particularly the regional councils and that an integrated approach to environmental management provides a sound framework for developing policy and providing advice. The Ministry also offers advice on the environmental implications of other Government policies, such as Treaty of Waitangi settlements; and contributes to interdepartmental work on biological diversity, marine environmental issues, energy and transport. The Ministry consults with local government, resource users, resource managers, and others likely to be affected by changes in policy or legislation, and provides information and advice to assist them.
Clearly these two ministries are responsible for policy advice as it relates to sustainable development. Both offer advice on national policy issues such as climate change. Interestingly, the MfE reports on the state of the environment and advises government on action necessary to improve environmental management. The MED is quite explicit in its mission regarding the compliance costs of regulation. Who should lower levels of government, or business, approach when seeking action? The increased need for horizontal co-ordination reduces incentive intensity at this level of governance and adds to co-ordination costs. The cost to lower units of government will increase with the number of supra units of government that need to be convinced that (national-level) intervention is necessary to achieve sustainable development. The emergence of units in central government ministries undertaking environmental analysis is reminiscent of the “green dots” that reforms in the 1980s sought to amalgamate.
5.2 Achieving clarity of purpose
Skelton and Memon (2002) provide a review of section 5 of the RMA and reflect on the experience of adopting and applying the concept of sustainability as the basis for an environmental statute designed to help resolve conflicts over allocation and resource management. Although section 5 uses “sustainable management” the definition encapsulates in their minds the concept of SD as laid out in the Brundtland report (WCED, 1974). During the policy development phase of the Act, the biophysical perspective – “environmental bottom line” was promoted by government and officials. One of the difficulties associated with section 5 is that practitioners and elected councillors have taken a view that differs from that accepted by the courts. Even if parliament thought it was moving away from an anthropocentric view to prescribing environmental bottom lines, this was not to be. The courts have taken the view of an “over all judgement” approach. Judgements “… allow for a comparison of conflicting considerations in the scale or degree of them, and their relative significance or proportion in the final outcome.” (Skelton and Memon, 2002:8). This suggests a weight be given to the various elements of sustainable management in the context of a particular case. Furthermore, Skelton and Memon (2002) suggest that it is inappropriate to single out in advance any particular elements of the meaning of sustainable management and give it some kind of primacy over others. Thus it puts the onus on decision-makers to take into account the diverse values that groups place on the environment as a basis for decision-making.
The above analysis has implications for sustainable development. First, the notion of environmental bottom lines approximates an operational meaning of strong sustainability. It would appear that the courts are interpreting the statute as requiring an overall judgement to be made. This suggests trade-offs – spatial and intertemporal – and provides an opportunity for the use of total economic value within the decision-making process. Furthermore, the above interpretation suggests an anthropocentric as opposed to ecocentric approach to value. The Courts’ interpretation of section 5 of the RMA does not prevent the implementation of MBIs. In recognising the need for a balance the Courts’ have provided an outer-envelope for the use of MBIs. However, we will see that the potential to use MBIs is severely limited.
