Resource Management Reform: Greater Integration of Maori Perspectives
by Rachel Devine, Rachel Devine
Published: September, 2020
Submission: October, 2020
Related Articles in
Latest Firm's Press
Many are aware that in July the Resource Management Review Panel (Panel) suggested a suite of reforms that include repealing the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and replacing it with a new Natural and Built Environments Act (NBEA) and a new Strategic Planning Act (with spatial plans), a new Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act. Our summary of the reforms is available online.
We have identified three things you may not know about this upcoming reform programme that are likely to be of interest to organisations interfacing with the resource management system in future. They are:
This article is focused on the third point.
Greater integration of Maori perspectives
The Panel’s recommendations seek to provide great recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Tiriti) and tea o Maori (Maori world view) in all aspects of the resource management system. These range from incorporating Maori values in decision-making through recognition of tikanga and Te Tiriti,national oversight, more effective iwi partnership arrangements, and funding to empower iwi and hapu to protect the environment and improve outcomes for people.
Whether these recommended changes become meaningful relies on the willingness of the next government to effectively implement them with appropriate funding.
Recognition of tikanga and Te Tiriti in purpose and outcomes
Part of the recommended new purpose of the NBEA is to recognise the concept of ‘Te Mana o te Taiao’. This is the concept of safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of natural resources (as is already recognised in the RMA) and literally translates to the mana of the environment. The Panel intends that the use of this language is to help recognise our shared environmental ethic in a systematic manner.
The Panel’s recommendations for a new resource management system is strongly focused on outcomes. Instead of ‘principles’ to be considered by those exercising functions and powers under the NBEA they must provide for specific outcomes relating to tikanga Maori (and other matters,like the natural environment and climate change). These goals are supported by environmental limits or bottom lines.
Specifically, the Panel recommends that those exercising functions and powers under the NBEA must provide for the protection and restoration of the relationship of iwi, hapu and whanau and their tikanga and traditions with their ancestral lands, cultural landscapes, water and sites; protection of wahi tapu and protection and restoration of other taonga; and recognition of protected customary rights. This approach is stronger than that taken in the RMA.
Greater Te Tiriti requirements and national oversight
The Panel recommends that those exercising functions and powers under future legislation be required to ‘give effect to’ the principles of the Te Tiriti, rather than ‘take into account’ the principles as is required under the RMA.
A national policy statement is recommended to further guide how the principles of Te Tiriti are to be given effect to. The Panel recommends that the national policy statement identify the key principles of Te Tiriti in the context of resource management issues so that it may assist with integrated management of natural and cultural resources. This national policy statement could provide further clarity on a national level on integrating matauranga Maori (Maori knowledge) into the resource management system.
The Panel also recommends a Maori Advisory Board to assist with the development of this national policy statement. The Maori Advisory Board would also advise and audit central government agencies and local authorities on how they give effect to Te Tiriti in a resource management system context. This is intended to overcome passive responses that central and local government have had to obligations in the past.
Partnership between mana whenua and local government
There can be debate in about the definitions of Maori groups used in the RMA and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. The Panel’s response to this issue is to replace the definitions of ‘iwi authority’ and ‘tangata whenua’ with a new definition for ‘mana whenua’, meaning ‘an iwi, hapu or whanau that exercises customary authority in an identified area’.
The Panel envisions a more strategic role for mana whenua in planning – a move toward ‘partnership’ with local authorities, rather than consultation. Recommendations to achieve this include:
The Panel recognises that it may be appropriate that resource management functions be delegated between mana whenua groups. It recommends that the Maori Advisory Board be required to maintain records of such groups.
The Panel suggests it would be helpful for, but does not require, mana whenua to have an iwi management plan, which would form the basis of discussing a partnership with local government. Iwi management plans may be particularly useful for establishing who is the mana whenua responsible for various parts of the environment in a particular area.
Changes to funding recommended to make integration meaningful
The Panel recognised that the most significant barrier to mana whenua involvement under the RMA is that underfunding their role in the system. Although the RMA has had a large number of provisions designed to provide for Maori interests, these have not been implemented meaningfully and it has been difficult for Maori to effectively achieve outcomes.
Consequently, the Panel recommendeds the implementation of numerous funding and support options as essential to achieving better outcomes. These range from significant, meaningful funding (from both central and local government) to capability building assistance. The Panel also proposes a principle in the NBEA or Local Government Act 2002 to specify that ‘where Maori undertake resource management duties and functions, and these duties or functions have public benefits, the reasonable costs incurred should be provided for’. This approach will make it explicit that mana whenua do not have to bear the costs of engaging in the system and should empower mana whenua to recover costs and incentivise local government and participants in the system to engage with mana whenua in a sensitive and efficient manner.
As with all of these recommendations, follow through on these recommendations will be needed to ensure the intention behind the Panel’s recommendations is achieved.
Link to article
Related Articles in
- October 2020 Nickel Report Post Summary
- Round and Round Florida (and Georgia) Go: An Update on the Florida-Georgia Water Wars
- Got COVID-19 "Claims": Recent US EPA Enforcement under FIFRA Emphasizes Compliance Demands on Pesticide Product Supply Chains, Especially for Products Claiming to be Effective Against Coronavirus
- Get Right with OSHA on COVID-19 or Get Fined
Latest Firm's Press
WSG Member: Please login to add your comment.