‘There is a tide’: An examination of the evolution of New Zealand Coastal Policy Statements

New Zealand Geographer

(2008)

64

, 144–153 doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7939.2008.00138.x

© 2008 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society Inc. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Blackwell Publishing Asia

Original Articles

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

Applied Article

‘There is a tide’: An examination of the evolution of New Zealand Coastal Policy Statements

David Gregory

Environment Canterbury, PO Box 345, Christchurch, New Zealand

Abstract:

In this paper the proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is set withinthe context of its Resource Management Act legislative framework and in terms of theevolution of the fundamental influence of policy statements on coastal management in NewZealand. This discussion is coupled with an examination of the development of strong policydirections in the proposed statement and the potential impact of giving effect to thesepolicies on the regional and unitary authorities tasked with this responsibility.

Key words:

coastal environment, coastal planning, coastal policy, Proposed New Zealand

Coastal Policy Statement, Resource Management Act.

There is a tide in the affairs of men,Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;Omitted, all the voyage of their lifeIs bound in shallows and in miseries.

Julius Caesar, Act 4, scene 3

In 1991 New Zealand introduced a land-mark piece of environmental legislation – theResource Management Act (RMA). Unusualfor its time internationally, this act reflected ashift from zone-based planning towards aneffects-based approach to managing resourcesand environments including land, air, freshwaterand coasts (Rosier 2004). The coast holds aunique position under the RMA compared toother environments: that is, guidelines for itsmanagement are further outlined in the NewZealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS),the only mandatory national policy statementunder the act. Its contents, as prescribed bySection 58 of the RMA, are outlined in Box 1.

The first NZCPS was gazetted in May 1994and is now past its use-by date. Changes to theparent Act, the development of the firstgeneration of Regional Coastal Plans and therise of new issues for coastal managementhave left it in somewhat of a backwater. In

addition, NZCPS 1994 Policy 7.1.1 states thatthe statement will be reviewed by an independentperson or persons no later than nine yearsafter its gazettal. The Proposed NZCPS 2008(PNZCPS) is the fruit of that review process.This paper discusses the PNZCPS as part of awider reflection on the usefulness of nationalpolicy statement tools in environmental man-agement as well as on the process of evolvingmanagement guidelines. The RMA providesfor national policy statements to express issuesrequiring a national approach and to lead thesubordinate planning documents and strategiesin developing local solutions within the nationalframework. As such, this examination of therole of the existing and proposed NationalCoastal Policy Statements should be of inter-est to those in the fields of coastal planning,management and research within New Zealand,and to the developers and users of environ-mental regulations and laws internationally.

History and authority of the NZCPS

The original NZCPS was prepared in a possiblymore hopeful time, when it was assumed that

Note about the author: David Gregory is Senior Resource Management Planner with Environment Canterbury. Hehas worked in coastal management in the United Kingdom and New Zealand for 30 years.

E-mail: [email protected]


145

© 2008 The AuthorJournal compilation

© 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

the almost new RMA was ‘an enabling act’.On this basis, the NZCPS was not so much aprescription for action by local authorities, asan expression of advice, almost fond hopes, forthe coastal environment. As such, it lackedprecision and was open to a wide range ofinterpretations. The Minister of Conservationhad the task of judging whether the localauthority plans which were subordinate to theNZCPS were, or were not, ‘not inconsistent’with the governing document. A number ofEnvironment Court cases indicated that attimes complete silence on the subject of theNZCPS by a local authority could be ‘notinconsistent’ with the NZCPS: that is, subordinateplans need not mention the NZCPS at all!

The PNZCPS may well shape the coastalresearch requirements of regional and districtcouncils for many years to come. What givesit so much potential influence? Section 56 ofthis RMA says that ‘The purpose of a NewZealand coastal policy statement is to statepolicies in order to achieve the purpose of thisAct in relation to the

coastal environment

ofNew Zealand’

(

emphasis added). Section57(1) goes on to say: ‘There shall at all timesbe at least one New Zealand coastal policy

statement prepared and recommended by theMinister of Conservation’. Of itself, this infor-mation might not convey any more authoritythan any other national policy statement.However, there is a clearly defined hierarchyof authority in relation to the NZCPS asillustrated in Figure 1.

A discussion of the authority of the NZCPSrequires an examination of statutory plans.The 13 regional councils covering NewZealand are required to prepare regionalpolicy statements (RPSs) to provide ‘an overviewof the resource management issues of theregion and policies and methods to achieveintegrated management of the natural andphysical resources of the whole region’ (RMA1991, s59). These RPSs are bound to ‘giveeffect’ to the NZCPS (RMA 1991, s62). In turnregional and unitary councils must prepareRegional Coastal Plans. In words echoing thatof Section 57(1) the RMA states ‘There shall atall times be, for all the coastal marine area ofa region, one or more regional coastal plans’(RMA 1991, s64). These must ‘give effect to’both the NZCPS and the RPSs. The key termhere is ‘coastal marine area’ (CMA). Within thisarea, from mean high water springs (MHWS)

Box 1 Contents of New Zealand coastal policy statements (RMA 1991, section 58)

A New Zealand coastal policy statement may state objectives and policies about any one or more of the following matters:(a) National priorities for the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment of New Zealand, including protection from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.(b) The protection of the characteristics of the coastal environment of special value to the tangata whenua including waahi tapu, tauranga waka, mahinga maataitai and taonga raranga.(c) Activities involving the subdivision, use, or development of areas of the coastal environment.(d) The Crown’s interests in land of the Crown in the coastal marine area.(e) The matters to be included in any or all regional coastal plans in regard to the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, including the specific circumstances in which the Minister of Conservation will decide resource consent applications relating to –

(i) Types of activities which have or are likely to have a significant or irreversible adverse effect on the coastal marine area; or(ii) Areas in the coastal marine area that have significant conservation value.

(f) The implementation of New Zealand’s international obligations affecting the coastal environment.(g) The procedures and methods to be used to review the policies and to monitor their effectiveness.

(i) national priorities for maintaining and enhancing public access to and along the coastal marine area;(ii) the protection of recognized customary activities.

(h) Any other matter relating to the purpose of a New Zealand coastal policy statement.

146

D. Gregory



to the outer limit of the Territorial Sea (12nautical miles), the regional or unitary authorityhas detailed planning control.

A further element of statute which setsRegional Coastal Plans apart from other plansprepared under the RMA is that it is theMinister of Conservation who gives finalapproval for a Regional Coastal Plan and notthe council that produced the document. Thisgives the Minister a degree of influence regardingthe form and content of the plan which noother government department or body possesses.This influence extends even to the ability todisregard a finding of the Environment Court,as the extract in Box 2 illustrates.

In turn, district councils must preparedistrict wide plans which are subordinate, thatis, they must give effect to the NZCPS at a

national level and the RPSs at a regional level.However, as Figure 1 illustrates, the authorityof district councils with regard to the RMAends at the landward side of MHWS. Thisrather elusive boundary marks the administra-tive division between the district council andthe regional council. It will be appreciated thatusing such a shifting line as the dividing pointbetween the application of one set of planningpolicies and rules and another, creates problems.While this is less so on stable and rocky shore-lines such as Banks Peninsula, for low gradientsandy shorelines subject to episodic change,it becomes a distinct issue, not least for anyparty wishing to undertake development insuch an area.

This difficulty is compounded when it isrealized that the RMA alters the onus for

Figure 1 The position of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement in relation to the coast and to regional anddistrict plans (modified from Environment Canterbury 2005, p. 4). MHWS is mean high water springs and MLWS ismean low water springs.

Box 2 Ministerial approval of regional coastal plan (RMA 1991, schedule 1.19)

(a) Prior to his or her approval of a regional coastal plan, the Minister of Conservation may require the regional council to make any amendments to the plan specified by that Minister.(b) The Minister of Conservation may not require a regional council to make an amendment to a regional coastal plan that is in conflict or inconsistent with any direction of the Environment Court, unless the Minister made a submission on the provision concerned when the provision was referred to the Environment Court.


147



development on either side of this line. Putsimply, on the dry side of MHWS, the RMAallows most activities unless they are controlledby a rule in a plan, usually a District Plan.However, step across to the wet side of theline and the presumption changes. Seaward ofMHWS, most activities are not allowed, unlesssanctioned by a rule in a regional coastal planor by a resource consent (Box 3). Takenliterally, this means no sandcastles! The effectof such restrictions in relation to regionalcoastal plans is that they have to contain aplethora of rules which seek to allow, ratherthan constrain, activities in the coastal marinearea. In addition, such rules must set tolerablelimits to the ‘adverse effect’ of any activity sothat, beyond such limits, the activity canbecome subject to detailed prescriptions tocontrol the adverse effects.

The place of the NZCPS in the hierarchy ofinfluence in relation to statutory coastalmanagement is that of second-in-commandbeneath the RMA. On that basis it should bepossible to look back on the period of existenceof the current document and review the extentof that influence. There should be indicators inliterature, in statutory plans and the decisionsmade in relation to coastal development andthe deliberations of the Environment Court,which will signal the role of the NZCPS ininfluencing coastal management. Not least of

these influences is that of the Minister ofConservation as the final authority in makingRegional Coastal Plans operative, a positionwhich should enable full compliance with theNZCPS to be insisted on. However, in retro-spect, one looks in vain for these indicators.Why should the existing NZCPS have failed inthis respect? The possible reasons are set outbelow:• The initial requirement that subordinate

plans be ‘not inconsistent’ with the NZCPS,a slippery concept at best, which has createddifficulties for all participants in judging whe-ther documents are, or are not, inconsistent.

• The NZCPS uses equivocal language lackingforce and direction, for example, ‘should’when directing action. This renders inter-pretation difficult and monitoring of itsefficacy problematic.

• The initial conception of the parent statuteas being ‘enabling’ in that it would allow thedevelopment of innovative solutions, ratherthan limiting and forcing responses. In largemeasure, it is the latter that has occurred.

• The lack of any monitoring frameworkwithin the document and externally, the lackof any commitment to monitoring.

• The lack of any traceable actions resultingfrom carrying out the policies of the NZCPS,meaning that outputs and outcomes incoastal management at a national and local

Box 3 Restrictions on use of coastal marine area (RMA 1991, section 12)

(a) No person may, in the coastal marine area –(i) Reclaim or drain any foreshore or seabed; or(ii) Erect, reconstruct, place, alter, extend, remove, or demolish any structure or any part of a structure that is fixed in, on, under, or over any foreshore or seabed; or(iii) Disturb any foreshore or seabed (including by excavating, drilling, or tunnelling) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal); or(iv) Deposit in, on, or under any foreshore or seabed any substance in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed; or(v) Destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on plants or animals or their habitat; or(vi) Introduce or plant any exotic or introduced plant in, on, or under the foreshore or seabed; or(vii) Destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on historic heritage –unless expressly allowed by a rule in a regional coastal plan and in any relevant proposed regional coastal plan or a resource consent.

148

D. Gregory



level cannot be readily attributable to theNZCPS.

• This has led to the policies in the existingdocument being regarded as lightweight whencases of contentious coastal developmenthave ended up before the Environment Courtas the decision maker of last resort. Whatlittle analysis that has been done regard-ing how the NZCPS has figured in Courtdecisions indicates that it has not provedto be a major deciding factor in the finaldecisions.In the process of reviewing the existing

NZCPS, it has become apparent that thereviewers found it difficult, for the reasonsoutlined above, to pinpoint evidence of theinfluence of the NZCPS in coastal manage-ment decisions. Although the first generationof Regional Coastal Plans is in place, it isdifficult to separate the objectives, policies andmethods within those documents that areattributable to the NZCPS from the require-ment for compliance with the RMA. It hasalready been pointed out that most activitiesinvolving use and development within theCoastal Marine Area cannot be carried out,‘as of right’ and require a consent process orallowance through the vehicle of a rule ina Regional Coastal Plan. Many plans stepthrough the classes of activity that are set outin Section 12 of the RMA and it is verydifficult to see how the NZCPS has figured inthis process. We do not, of course, possess theexperimental situation of comparison with anarea that has had no requirement for eithercoastal management or where an NZCPS hasnot existed and, in the absence of any monitor-ing requirement in the existing NZCPS, wehave only subjective experience to rely on.

The proposed NZCPS

This brings us back to the Proposed NZCPS.The structure of this new statement has beeninfluenced by many groups, including regionaland district councils, calling for greaterprecision from a reviewed document, largelyin the light of the failures set out above. Giventhat the RMA has been amended in the

interim so that the NZCPS has to be ‘giveneffect to’, it follows that there is an expressedrequirement to make it clearer what is re-quired in the action of ‘giving effect’. Thishighlights a dichotomy in the relationshipbetween local and central government. On theone hand local government generally likes it tobe clear what central government requirementsimply. On the other hand, they generally donot like to be told what to do.

A cursory comparison between the exist-ing and proposed statements will indicate amarked sea-change. The Proposed NZCPSsets out to address many of the points in thebullet-point indicators above; a tacit admissionof the shortcomings of the existing NZCPS.The 1994 version employs the more equivocal‘should’ as in Policy 3.2.1 where it states‘Policy statements and plans

should

definewhat form of subdivision, use and develop-ment would be appropriate in the coastalenvironment, and where it would be appropriate’(emphasis added). In contrast, the possiblereplacement for this policy in the PNZCPSdirects ‘Policy statements and plans

shall

identify where, in the coastal environment ...’(emphasis added) and follows this witha detailed prescription of eight subclauses.Additionally, where the existing NZCPSspeaks of the ‘coastal environment’ withoutattempting a definition, and therefore creatinguncertainty regarding what areas are affected,the PNZCPS includes a definition as outlinedin Box 4. As such, the PNZCPS attempts torelate its prescriptions for action to a recognitionof the physical processes that go on in coastalmargins. However, that of itself creates furtherproblems for those working at the Canute

1

endof things who realize that coastal processes arenot the docile creatures of statute, but tend topossess a dynamic that can erode the certaintyrequired of the law. As already indicated, theuse of MHWS as a boundary between twojurisdictions creates the same problem: thething will not stay still long enough!

The first generation of statutory plans arealready in place. They generally follow theaccepted structure of stating issues, objectivesrelated to the issues and policies for addressing

1

Canute, early ninth century Viking king of Denmark, Norway, England and part of Sweden, is famous for rebukinghis flatterers by commanding the ocean tide to stand still, in vain, to show the limits of his power.


149



the objectives, followed by methods, whichcan include rules. A significant proportion ofthe policies and methods in existing plans,particularly those in RPSs and regional coastalplans, will have been formed from the require-ment, initially not to be inconsistent with theNZCPS and, as the Act changed, to give effectto it. In many instances, the policies andmethods will have required significant backgroundstudies to underpin them. As a consequence,the development of a PNZCPS is of greatsignificance. The process of approving thisstatement has run through a lengthy consultationwith interest groups in which the documenthas evolved through a number of iterations.Subsequent to this it has received Cabinetapproval to be advertised for public submission.These submissions are made to an officiallyconstituted Board of Inquiry, who will makerecommendations to government followingfrom a hearing of those submitters who wishto present their submissions in person.

What does this all mean for coastal planning and management

in New Zealand?

Many questions will have been asked within coun-cils regarding the potential impact of the PNZCPS.Significant among these questions will be:• Do existing policy statements and plans give

effect to it as it stands?• If not, what might need to be done in the

way of background studies and plan changes?• Are the background studies feasible and

affordable?• Is it clear what has to be ‘given effect to’?• Is it an issue in this region or district?

The possible answers to these questions willinform each council’s response to the ProposedNZCPS in the form of a submission.

We have already seen the attempt at definingthe ‘coastal environment’ in Box 4. Is it likelythat councils will attempt the risky business ofdefining the inland extent of this environmentwith lines on maps, thereby inviting debate?Or await individual cases where developmentmay, or may not occur in what they haveavoided defining? In the case of the Canter-bury region, if the M

a

ori proverb Ki uta ki tai(from the mountain tops to the sea) is used,then the coastal environment incorporatesmost of the region.

Existing Policy 3.2.1 states ‘Policy statementsand plans

should

define what form of subdivision,use and development would be appropriate inthe coastal environment, and where it wouldbe appropriate’ (emphasis added). The Pro-posed NZCPS replaces this with the moredetailed prescription outlined in Box 5. Quiteclearly this represents a substantial expansionon the existing policy and foreshadows a rangeof studies that may be required to effectivelyzone the newly defined coastal environment.Of itself it appears to be a prescription forurban planning, but is confined by its owndefinition to a thin strip of coastline or, inthe case of more elevated landscapes such asBanks Peninsula, to all that area visible fromthe sea.

There is another block of policies in thePNZCPS related to ‘natural character’. TheRMA gives ample justification to thesepolicies by identifying, as a matter of nationalimportance ‘The preservation of the naturalcharacter of the coastal environment (including

Box 4 Definition of the ‘coastal environment’ (PNZCPS 2008, policy 1)

In promoting the sustainable management of the coastal environment, policy statements and plans shall recognize that the coastal environment includes, at least:(a) The coastal marine area;(b) Land and waters where coastal qualities or influences are a significant part or element;(c) Land and waters affected by active coastal processes;(d) Areas at risk from coastal hazards;(e) Coastal vegetation and habitat; and(f) Landscapes and features that contribute to the natural character, visual qualities or amenity values of that environment.

150

D. Gregory



the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakesand rivers and their margins, and the protectionof them from inappropriate subdivision, use,and development’ (RMA 1991, Part II s6a).However, the PNZCPS takes this a step furtherby setting a range of ‘national priorities’ asillustrated by the example in Box 6, whichstipulates that the integrity and functioning ofthe coastal environment must be maintained.Setting aside the question of how such tasksmight be achieved given the blunt tool of theRMA, it could be seen that the proposed newnational priorities are laudable aims and,because the policy does not employ directivelanguage, not a lot has to be done about givingit effect. However, at the tail end of the blockof policies on natural character, the Proposed

NZCPS adds a rider, Policy 37, which states‘Local authorities shall assess the naturalcharacter of the coastal environment of theregion or district and provide for its preservation,including by provisions in policy statementsand plans that address the national prioritiesin Policies 30–35’. On this basis it wouldappear that the tasks of both examining thesystems and processes that make up naturalcharacter and then preserving them, isdevolved to regional and district councilsthrough their statutory plans. To be provocative,one might ask what has to be done todetermine what ‘natural substrate composition’is in Box 6(f) and what has to be done to fulfilthe ‘national priority’ by preserving it! Wouldthat mean dredging of ports should not proceed?

Box 5 Location of subdivision and development (PNZCPS 2008, policy 14)

Policy statements and plans shall identify where, in the coastal environment(outside the coastal marine area):(a) Subdivision, and the development of subdivided land, to provide dwellings or commercial premises, will be appropriate; and(b) Subdivision and development, of specified types, will not be appropriate.In identifying these areas, while giving effect to this policy statement as a whole,local authorities shall:(c) Encourage a mixture of land uses along the coast, particularly along and near the coastal marine area, and discourage continuous urban development of the coast where it has not already occurred;(d) Generally set back subdivision, use, or development from the coastal marine area and other water bodies, to protect the open space character of the coast, its natural character, and its amenity values, and to provide for public access and avoid or reduce natural hazard risks;(e) Avoid urban sprawl, by encouraging development within existing urban areas and discouraging the agglomeration of separate urban areas;(f) Avoid ribbon development along transport corridors;(g) Make provision for papakainga and marae developments; and(h) Buffer or otherwise protect sites of significant indigenous biological diversity value.

Box 6 Example proposed new national priority guidelines (PNZCPS 2008, policy 30)

To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment, it is a national priority to protect its integrity and functioning by maintaining:(a) The resilience and productivity of indigenous ecosystems;(b) Natural landscape and landform;(c) The dynamic processes and features that arise from the natural movement of sediments, water and air;(d) Natural biotic patterns and movements;(e) Water and air quality; and(f) Natural substrate composition.


151



Still, there should be a good number ofresearch requirements flowing from this, aswell as the other elements of this policy alone.

Policy 51 ‘Identification of hazard risks’ isparticularly significant (Box 7). Subsequent tothis identification, Policy 52 sets out what localauthorities shall do to avoid ‘subdivision anddevelopment in areas of hazard risk’. It issuggested that projecting changes to coastalprocesses 100 years into the future is an exercisein futility, or at least betrays an unfoundedoptimism about modelling the largely unknown.Where we might now plan for a 1 in 100 yearprobability of say, a flood or storm, this policyappears to ask for a prediction of a state of thecoastal environment in 100 years after havingstirred in all the variable factors, includingsea-level rise ((d) in Box 7), which the policyseparates from climate change ((e) in Box 7).In addition, the government has indicated thatit is unlikely to produce ‘national guidance onthe likely effects of climate change on theregion or district’ ((e) iii in Box 7). Given this,it is probable that any council attempting tofactor in an element of climate change andsea-level rise in their planning in relation tocoastal hazards will have to argue the case inthe Environment Court, especially if they areseeking to control development in the highlyvalued coastal environment. It would seemunproductive for each council to have toconsider this in the absence of any nationalguidance on the matter.

Too many policies, too little time

There are some 57 Policies in the PNZCPS anda reasonable number of these would appear togenerate at least the requirement to re-assessall current policy statements and plans in whichthe ‘coastal environment’ might form a part.Simply assessing the likely degree of complianceof existing plans is a large task. Proceedingfrom there to the almost inevitable requirementto change the affected policy statements andplans, and to carry out the background studiesnecessary to make these changes defensible,will be time-consuming and expensive.

Reference has already been made to theproblem of trying to contain coastal processeswithin the framework of the RMA and theNZCPS, especially as we know little aboutthese processes. There are further difficultiesfor councils considering how to give effect tothe Proposed NZCPS as it now stands. Most ofthese stem from the inflexible requirement togive effect to the NZCPS and to the universalnature of the policies within the document.The directive language applies to policystatements and plans

per se

, not just to thosepolicy statements and plans where the particularfactor is an issue. To take as an example Policy14 (Box 5), policy statements and plans arerequired to ‘avoid ribbon development alongtransport corridors’ (Policy 14f). Bearing inmind that this requirement is confined to thecoastal environment, it could be questioned if

Box 7 Identification of hazard risks (PNZCPS 2008, policy 51)

Policy statements and plans shall identify areas in the coastal environment that are potentially affected by coastal hazards (excluding tsunami), giving priority to the identification of areas at high risk. Hazard risks shall be assessed over at least a 100-year timeframe, having particular regard to:(a) Short-term natural dynamic fluctuations of erosion and accretion;(b) Long-term trends of erosion or accretion;(c) Slope stability or other geotechnical issues;(d) The potential for natural coastal features and areas of coastal hazard risk to migrate as a result of dynamic coastal processes, including sea level rise; and(e) The effects of climate change on:

(i) Matters (a–d) above;(ii) Storm frequency, intensity and surges; and(iii) Coastal sediment dynamics; taking into account the most recent available national guidance on the likely effects of climate change on the region or district.

152

D. Gregory



this is an issue for areas such as the ChathamIslands, the West Coast, or even for large partsof the Canterbury coastline. While it mayclearly not be an issue for such areas, therelevant policy statements and plans are stillrequired to examine possible responses. Inaddition, the hierarchy of plans set in theRMA should trigger a domino effect of planchanges with each subordinate stage waitingfor the superior plan to be altered in order toprovide clear guidance on which way to fall.

As a further example, Policy 51 on coastalhazards, referred to above, requires policy state-ments and plans to assess the hazard risks overa 100 year timeframe. For councils with a limitedratings base and extensive coastlines, givingeffect to this policy will be a considerable burden.

To compound matters, Policy 13 on‘Amendment of policy statements and plans’states ‘Local authorities shall amend documentsas necessary to give effect to this New ZealandCoastal Policy Statement as soon as practicableand no later than five years after the date ofgazettal of this New Zealand Coastal PolicyStatement, using the process set out in Schedule1 to the Resource Management Act 1991,except where this New Zealand Coastal PolicyStatement specifies otherwise’. Apart from thefact that this policy does not make it clearwhat ‘amend documents’ actually means inrelation to the stage in the process that a planwould have to be judged to have properlygiven effect to the NZCPS, it is clear that,given the relatively ponderous pace at whichchanges can be made to statutory plans, fiveyears is likely to be an impossible target. Anumber of the policies will require considerablebackground work in order to develop adefensible plan change.

Possible solutions

The PNZCPS is part of a process of evolutionof thinking about coastal management. Thesolutions to the issues raised here are there-fore suggestions and do not purport to solvemany other issues related to attempts to ‘plan’for coastal processes, ill-defined terminologyand difficulties of interpretation.

The structure of the PNZCPS

While it is appreciated that the contents of any

NZCPS are as set out in S58 of the RMA,these provisions are not a legislative straitjacket.Although the opening sentence of RMA S58states ‘A New Zealand Coastal PolicyStatement may state objectives and policies ...’this does not appear to preclude other ele-ments being addressed, such as issues andmethods.

Given that issues have not currently beenincluded, the objectives and policies lack aclear rationale for their existence. In addition,the lack of methods leads to confusion withinthe policies, which are often uncomfortableblends of policy and methods. The blendcreates confusion as to the most appropriateagency and ways to ‘give effect’ to the pro-visions of the NZCPS.

It is considered that the clarity and effec-tiveness of the PNZCPS would be greatlyimproved by mirroring the subordinate policystatements and plans structure to which itrefers. Thus, the NZCPS would consist of:• issues• objectives• policies• methods

The intent of this is to make clear to theaffected councils and the public what centralgovernment thinks are issues for the coastalenvironment and, through objectives, policiesand methods, how these are to be addressed.Neither the existing nor the proposed NZCPScontain methods

per se.

The addition of methodsto the NZCPS is suggested in order to set outin a clearer manner how the policies are to begiven effect to. This should indicate the national,regional and local hierarchy of actions to beadopted. This should make responsibilities clearerand, in the longer term, make the policies moreamenable to monitoring because the requiredresponse and its effects on coastal managementdecisions can be traced. As already pointed out,giving effect to some of the policies will requirenational guidance and, to some extent, mayeven generate the need for additionalnational policy statements, that is, the nationallevel response to climate change. In theabsence of methods, the policies themselvesoften attempt to suggest them through theaddition of numerous detailed ‘prescriptions’for action. These become a confusing melangeof process, outputs and outcomes.


153



The universal prescription of the PNZCPS

The ‘one size fits all’ approach of the documentis likely to generate a good deal of unproduc-tive work and expenditure. Following on from(1) above, it may be more sensible to requirethat policy statements and/or plans deal withissues that are ‘appropriate’ to their area.Using ‘and/or’ allows the decision to be maderegarding the level at which the response canbe made. In some cases, it may only be neces-sary to give effect to a policy through a RPS.Given that district plans have to give effectboth to a national policy statement and a RPS,many districts will wait to see what form thesedocuments take before approving the expenditureof rates on their own plan changes.

Insufficient time

Most councils have their first generation plansin place. The RMA gives these a shelf life of10 years from the date that they becomeoperative. Many have taken that length oftime just to prepare. Requiring major changesto these documents part way through theiroperational life imposes considerable burdenson councils. In addition, if many councils enterthe market requiring extensive backgroundstudies to underpin their policy changes, it isunlikely that there will be sufficient researchcapacity to cope. It is suggested that therequirement to give effect to the NZCPS belifted from the present five years to at leasteight. Ideally it should be changed so thatcouncils are required to amend their policystatements and plans at their first review, thatis, after they have been operative for 10 years.

Conclusion

The process of review and evolution ofnational coastal management policy in NewZealand is ongoing. The influence of thecurrent policy statement in delivering im-proved management of the coast has beendifficult to determine. Its replacement with amore directive document, and one that con-tains monitoring requirements, should enableus to look back in another 10 years and pickout instances of its influence.

As an island nation, the use of the coast and

its waters are fundamental to the lives of NewZealanders – representing the regulation ofthis activity, the advent of the PNZCPS marksa pivot point and a state of uncertainty. It isclear that, if the document survives in anythinglike its current form, it will create majoruncertainties in relation to how councils canrespond. This statement will be the referencepoint from which major changes to existingstatutory plans and coastal research activitywill spring. This strength of this influence willonly become clear in retrospect, so that, onlyin looking back over the 10 year life of thispolicy document will we be able to assess whathas been ‘given effect to’.

Yet to come are the deliberations of theBoard of Inquiry and their subsequent re-commendations to Cabinet, followed by thegazetted version of the policy statement. Asthe national tool for the management ofcoasts, the new statement will shape nationalcoastal policy and research over the next 10years. During this period government is alsocommitted to the development of policy forNew Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone,policy which will need to dovetail into theNZCPS-based management framework of theCMA. In the meantime it is as if we wait on abeach for the incoming tide.

References

Environment Canterbury (2005).

Regional CoastalEnvironment Plan for the Canterbury Region

,Volume 1, Report No. R04/13/1. EnvironmentCanterbury, Christchurch.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (1994).[Cited 21 May 2008]. Available from url: http://www.doc.govt.nz/.

Proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement(2008). [Cited 21 May 2008]. Available from url:http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/MultiPage-DocumentTOC.aspx?id=45970.

Resource Management Act (1991, amended 2005).[Cited 21 May 2008]. Available from url: http://www.brookersonline.co.nz/.

Rosier J (2004).

Independent Review of the New Zea-land Coastal Policy Statement

. Palmerston North,School of People, Environment and Planning,Massey University. [Cited 21 May 2008]. Availablefrom url: http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/page.aspx?id=33968.

Documents

‘There is a tide’: An examination of the evolution of New Zealand Coastal Policy Statements