Some people may find it surprising that I have selected New Zealand as one of the countries to assess its environmental integration efforts, as it is not often referred to as an environmental leader, despite topping the Yale index in 2006. In part, the reason why New Zealand has not often been identified as an environmental leader is that it does not figure often in comparative studies of environmental performance, which are usually confined to a relatively narrow range of countries, notably the United States, Western European countries and, to a lesser extent, Japan. Moreover, there are good reasons for being sceptical about New Zealand’s claims of being “clean and green”,[1] a portrayal promoted by its government and business sector for commercial reasons. Nonetheless, in the second half of the 1980s, the New Zealand government embarked on a path of reform that held considerable promise for advancing environmental integration. Although, as the discussion below will show, later governments failed to deliver on that promise, the reforms that were undertaken can still be regarded as an example of an environmental integration pathway that emphasises institutional change rather than changes in the cognitive domain (as in the United States), or in the policy domain (as in the Netherlands).
Promising institutional change
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, New Zealand arguably went further than most countries in creating an integrated institutional framework for environmental management. Institutional-internal integration, as discussed on the Environmental Integration page, refers to the creation of institutions (rules and organisations) that promote coherence and consistency between environmental integration efforts, for instance, by integrating legislation covering different areas of environmental management (such as land use, water management, air pollution), based on common principles or goals.
Between 1984 and 1990, New Zealand’s fourth Labour government embarked on an institutional and policy reform programme that left few areas untouched. Based on the ideas and principles commonly linked with neoliberalism or the New Right philosophy, including public choice theory, New Public Management theory, and a belief in the superiority of the free market, the government overhauled the public service. It devolved much of its traditional involvement in producing goods and services to semi-independent state corporations and increasingly to the private sector through a privatisation programme. It also radically changed policies in virtually all areas. The main principles on which the reforms were based were the separation between commercial and non-commercial activities, the separation between policy, regulatory and management functions, enhanced accountability (to Ministers), transparency (reporting requirements), and efficiency.[2]
Based on these ideas and principles, the institutional framework for environmental decision-making underwent drastic changes. Much of the responsibility for environmental decision-making, previously spread over a raft of public bodies at different levels, was devolved to and concentrated in local government, including newly established Regional Councils. Over 70 environmental laws were consolidated into the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The Act introduced the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as its primary goal and provided an integrated process for decision-making on activities that potentially impact the environment. Responsibilities for nature conservation and the management of national parks, which were previously scattered, were consolidated in the Department of Conservation. An independent environmental watchdog, the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, was established to maintain oversight of the entire environmental management system and to advise on addressing possible shortcomings, gaps, and weaknesses in that system —a world-first in environmental institutional learning of a systemic nature.[3]
Despite their political-ideological basis, the new institutional arrangements held considerable promise. The premises and processes in the RMA made it compulsory for all development proposals, not just the government’s but also those initiated in the business sector, to be assessed on their environmental effects. Before, only developments undertaken or sponsored by the state had been subjected to environmental impact assessment procedures. Also, as the New Zealand state (both governments and government departments) had been a major driver of development through state-owned enterprises and government departments with development-oriented mandates (sometimes combined with environmental responsibilities that usually took a back seat), “getting the government out of business” seemed a positive step, enabling the state to keep some distance from specific development proposals and to take its environmental (regulatory) responsibilities more seriously. Moreover, the RMA provided for virtually unlimited public participation in the approval processes and the development of environmental policies by local and regional governments, which were intended to guide development in their respective areas. It also provided for adopting National Policy Statements where national-level guidance was deemed desirable or necessary. Hence, the new institutional framework appeared to advance the greening of on-the-ground (economic) development across the country, consistent with national-level policies based on the principle of sustainable management.[4]
Failing to deliver
Yet, over time, it became clear that the reform’s promise of an integrated approach to the environmental challenge was not being delivered. In practice, the implementation of the Act by local and regional councils was based on different criteria for what was considered sustainable in terms of environmental effects, including pollution. While such differences could to some extent be justified by different ecological conditions, they also led to inconsistencies, such as varying standards for air and water quality. For a long time, the central government was unwilling to introduce National Environmental Standards and National Policy Statements, as these were considered unnecessary and/or undesirable forms of government interference. By 2016, only four National Policy Statements had been adopted, two of which (on coastal policy and freshwater management) were adopted mainly for environmental reasons, and five National Environmental Standards.[5] Hence, the RMA provided very little in terms of comprehensive and integrated environmental policy, as some commentators mistakenly thought.[6] The Act established an institutional framework and was never intended to be a comprehensive environmental policy, nor was it a green plan or blueprint.[7] National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards were produced only when actual or potential problems made them necessary. Without an independent, comprehensive evaluation of environmental outcomes, it is debatable whether the Act has been conducive or an impediment to sustainable development.[8] Apart from two short-lived and weak efforts of little to no consequence, New Zealand governments have never seriously engaged with the need to develop a comprehensive environmental policy (green planning or sustainable development strategy), let alone institutionalise it.[9]
This means that environmental policy, despite the institutional reforms, continued to be developed in a fragmented, ad hoc, and reactive way. New Zealand lacks an integrated pollution control strategy. Waste management policy, which is primarily left to councils, does not encompass hazardous substances. Although governments adopted various strategies for particular issues, these were never integrated into an overarching policy.[10] Climate change policy has focused on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a limited range of sources, with solutions sought almost exclusively in carbon trading and research on mitigating methane emissions from cattle, one of the principal sources of emissions in New Zealand. Although New Zealand’s nature conservation policies arguably have been the most ambitious and integrated of New Zealand’s environmental policies, their effectiveness has been limited by the ongoing development of tourism, mining, and land-use change (notably on private land) and insufficient funding. Urban development and its environmental consequences, delegated to local councils, occurred virtually without integration with transport, energy, and climate change policies.[11] As discussed on the Environmental Integration page, the lack of integration between environmental policies creates inconsistencies and inefficiencies, limiting their effectiveness.
Reasons for failure
However, the ineffectiveness of New Zealand’s environmental policies results foremost from the failure to address the underlying sources and causes of environmental pressure that are common to many or most environmental problems. In the absence of a comprehensive environmental policy or green plan, based on an analysis of the factors that cause and contribute to environmental problems, and on overarching goals and objectives, it is also not surprising that New Zealand government efforts aimed at the greening of non-environmental policies (policy-external environmental integration), including agriculture, energy, transport, and economic policy, have been fragmented, haphazard and inadequate. Agricultural policy has facilitated the expansion of the dairy industry, among others, by subsidising irrigation and funding research to mitigate its environmental impacts, as it has been regarded as crucial to boosting exports and economic growth. But it also significantly increased the pollution of lakes and rivers.[12] The agricultural sector has been exempted from the Emissions Trading Scheme, New Zealand’s main policy instrument for reducing GHG emissions, until at least 2025, even though it is the biggest contributor, mainly because of methane emissions from cattle. The integration of environmental considerations into energy policy has been left to the market. Despite official declarations of commitment to achieving 100% renewable electricity in New Zealand by 2030, no clear pathway has been provided for reaching this goal, while expressions of commitment to promoting energy efficiency have also been largely symbolic.[13] Meanwhile, the government’s Mineral and Petroleum Resource Strategy, adopted in 2019, remains firmly wedded to the facilitation of future resource exploitation, including cobalt and lithium, to “meet our needs”, be it that the sector will need to “do some things differently”.[14] Likewise, the greening of transport policy has been lacking, with road transport (road building) being heavily favoured over public transport, and the environmental effects of the former remaining minimally regulated in the absence of mandatory fuel efficiency and emission standards. Financial incentives for purchasing electric cars were non-existent until 2021. Between 1990 and 2019, CO2 emissions from transport rose from 9 Mt to 16 MT (78%).[15]
Policies in all these areas have been underpinned by the overarching priority of economic growth. While the government established a Natural Resources Sector comprising eight government agencies and a Green Growth Advisory Group to integrate environmental concerns into economic policy, these entities operate within the context of a “Business Growth Agenda” (BGA) aimed at building a more competitive and productive economy. While natural resources (and the environment more broadly) are a key pillar for realising the Agenda’s objective of boosting exports (from 30% of GDP in 2015 to 40% by 2025), it is hard to see how this policy will not significantly add to the already significant environmental pressures and problems. As the OECD notes, “the BGA is far from a long-term vision for the transition of New Zealand to a low-carbon, greener economy.”[16] Although, in 2019, the government introduced a “Wellbeing Budget”, more explicitly targeting issues and problems (like child poverty) that affect the least well-off in society, this did not signal a departure from a commitment to economic growth (measured in terms of GDP) and the neoliberal principles of “fiscal responsibility” and the reduction of government debt.[17] While in 2020, the COVID-19 crisis led the government to significantly increase government spending to keep the economy afloat, this made restoring economic growth an even greater priority, while the commitment to fiscal responsibility (and the reduction of government debt in future years) has been maintained.[18]
What integration?
The RMA has meant little, if anything, for the greening of non-environmental institutions, such as the formal and informal rules that guide behaviour and practices in the economic arena, transportation, energy use, or agriculture. Behaviour and practices in these areas continue to be guided foremost by the rules and organisations that govern these sectors and their priorities. While all New Zealand government agencies are expected to consider (potential) environmental implications of their policies and decision, this does not imply that their priorities, goals, and practices are shaped by environmental considerations and priorities in more than a symbolic way; at best, environmental concerns are tagged on to the behaviour and practices that remain firmly focused on non-environmental goals and priorities.
On a related point, although the reforms strengthened the position of environmental agencies within the government system, they have had little influence, let alone power over, non-environmental institutions. From its establishment in 1986, the Ministry for the Environment, despite its name, was expected to “balance” the wide range of interests and views on the environment that exist within and outside government. The ministry has never been a strong advocate for environmental groups and interests. As a government department, it has, for the most part, adopted a neutral and expert-based stance on issues, resulting in mostly grey-tinted policy advice. In line with the prevailing ideology and government preferences, the ministry has held off pushing for strong regulations or ambitious standards. As its primary responsibility has been providing policy advice, the ministry has not played a significant role in enforcing rules and regulations.
In the cognitive domain, New Zealand’s environmental integration efforts have also been far from impressive. As noted above, although the RMA has sustainable management of resources as its primary objective, the meaning of this has been left mainly to local and regional councils to decide, resulting in differences in interpretation and decisions that, from an environmental perspective, have been highly contestable. No comprehensive picture exists of what sustainability in the New Zealand context means or should mean. This is not just a matter of insufficient information and scientific (and other) knowledge about the New Zealand environment, although this is a factor. Foremost, it is a matter of a lack of government commitment towards developing and adopting such a collective vision, based on widespread public input and participation.
The lack of a collective vision implies that efforts aimed at greening information and knowledge underlying decisions in non-environmental areas occur in an ad hoc and limited way. In New Zealand, the primary mechanisms for doing so are environmental impact assessment (the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE)), cost-benefit analysis, and risk analysis and assessments, applied by councils, environmental consultancy agencies, and government agencies. While using such tools may have prevented or mitigated some adverse environmental effects, they failed to account for the cumulative and long-term impacts of numerous decisions. Also, they have left the dominant cognitive frameworks that guide policy and decision-making in non-environmental areas largely untouched. In particular, New Zealand governments have done little to green the dominant cognitive frameworks guiding science and economics, which are crucial to developing visions of a sustainable future. Apart from spending money on science to advance technology-based solutions, there is little, if any, recognition of the need to change the way society predominantly views science (how it is conducted, controlled, and what goals and priorities it serves) and economics (thinking, theory, principles, and goals). As noted above, while the government adopted a vision and strategy for economic development (the Business Growth Strategy) built on the notion of “green growth”, the environment plays a subsidiary and even subservient role in these efforts, looked at primarily as a pool of resources that can be exploited more efficiently to boost economic growth. Like the governments of many other countries, the New Zealand government has remained firmly wedded to the dominant economic growth paradigm. After they emerge, environmental problems are treated individually and considered solvable through technological and managerial means rather than as part of a broader environmental challenge.
In summary, although New Zealand’s efforts in institutional internal integration have been significant and have drawn attention from around the world, its performance in greening non-environmental institutions and in environmental policy integration (on both external and internal dimensions) has been much less impressive. Although the Resource Management Act provides a framework for integrating decision-making on policies and projects at the local and regional levels, it has not promoted the integration of environmental concerns into non-environmental institutions and policies at the national level. In the cognitive domain, although there has been some improvement in New Zealand’s state of the environment reporting [19], governments have expressed very little interest in developing a collective vision for a sustainable future, let alone one that integrates collective views on a desirable society. New Zealand’s experience demonstrates the limitations of partial environmental integration efforts, in this case characterised by an emphasis on institutional-internal integration, unaccompanied by moves towards policy (external and internal) integration and environmental integration in the cognitive sphere.[20]
Ongoing environmental degradation
Not surprisingly, in the absence of a strong government commitment to comprehensive environmental integration and given the limitations of integration efforts in the institutional domain, environmental pressures and problems in New Zealand have increased rather than diminished. New Zealand’s ecosystems have suffered from further degradation rather than showing improvement. This has become evident in the deterioration of freshwater quality in areas where the dairy industry has undergone significant expansion, supported by the government. This, along with other factors, has led to increased pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and groundwater.[21] Although in isolated areas, some promising results have been achieved with efforts aimed at protecting threatened species. New Zealand has one of the world’s highest rates of threatened endemic species of flora and fauna, with a worsening trend for 7% of species compared to an improving trend for 1.5%.[22] New Zealand’s efforts in addressing climate change, which are likely to have serious consequences on all three environmental dimensions (ecosystems, resources, and the human-modified environment), have not resulted in a decline in domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2014, total GHG emissions (including from agriculture) were 20% higher than 2000 levels, and 54% above 1990 levels.[23] New Zealand has one of the highest rates of emissions per capita.[24]
New Zealand’s resource base (notably land and water) has continued to be subjected to forms of development that undermine the availability of natural resources (in quantitative and qualitative terms) in the long run and that hence are unsustainable. In the agricultural sector, the trend has shifted from extensive to more intensive forms of agriculture, accompanied by concomitant increases in the use of fertilisers and pesticides, as well as energy and water.[25] While some 80% of New Zealand’s electricity supply is generated by renewables (mostly hydropower and geothermal energy), energy consumption in the services, agriculture, and transport sectors has grown rapidly. In contrast, energy intensity gains have stagnated, partly due to the transport sector’s lack of fuel efficiency standards.[26] Materials consumption, linked with private consumption, remains among the highest in the OECD and produces a growing waste stream.[27] Although New Zealand is said to have an exemplary tradable quota system for fisheries, in 2017, 16% of fish stocks were still considered overfished.[28]
On the human (modified) environment dimension, the increase in water pollution also poses growing human health risks, which have already been demonstrated by the contamination of drinking water supplies and risks linked to water-based recreation. While New Zealand’s air pollution problems are mostly confined to a range of “hot spots”, New Zealand is one of the few countries where emissions of major air pollutants have increased since 2000, that has no national standards for PM2.5 concentrations, and where the health impacts of air pollution are projected to rise. Poor insulation of some 600,000 homes also causes significant levels of disease (New Zealand has the highest rate of respiratory illness in the OECD).[29] Poorly planned and controlled urban development, particularly in the Auckland region, has led to housing shortages, congestion issues, and additional pressures on the preservation of green spaces.[30]
The scoreboard
Environmental Integration – New Zealand
| Domain Dimension | Cognitive domain | Policy domain | Institutional domain |
| Internal dimension | Sustainable management, but no collective vision; weak cognitive environmental capacity | A few weak moves towards the development of an overarching environmental policy (strategy), but to no effect | Integrated environmental legislation, but no central agency with a strong capacity for advancing EI |
| External dimension | EIA; no greening of economic thinking, science and technology (economic growth-oriented) | No comprehensive greening of sector policies; largely left to “the market”/business sector | No formal requirement for EI at the policy level; no greening of non-environmental institutions |
As summarised in the table above, New Zealand’s environmental performance falls well short of what is needed to move towards a sustainable future. In a classic case of understatement, the OECD noted, “New Zealand’s growth model, largely based on exporting primary products, has started to show its environmental limits.”[31]
References
[1] Bührs, Ton and Robert V. Bartlett (1993), Environmental Policy in New Zealand. The Politics of Clean and Green? Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press.
[2] Boston, Jonathan (1991), “The Theoretical Underpinnings of Public Sector Restructuring in New Zealand”, in J. Boston, et al. (eds.), Reshaping the State. New Zealand’s Bureaucratic Revolution. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1-26.
[3] Bührs, Ton and Robert V. Bartlett, Environmental Policy in New Zealand. The Politics of Clean and Green?; Bührs, Ton (1996), “Barking Up Which Trees? The Role of New Zealand’s Environmental Watchdog”, Political Science, Vol . 48, No.1, 1-28; Memon, P. A. (1993), Keeping New Zealand Green: Recent Environmental Reforms. Dunedin, NZ.University of Otago Press.
[4] For a discussion of these reforms, see Bührs, Ton and Robert V. Bartlett, Environmental Policy in New Zealand. The Politics of Clean and Green?; Memon, P. A., Keeping New Zealand Green: Recent Environmental Reforms.
[5] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2017), Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand. Paris: OECD, 94.
[6] Johnson, Huey D. (1995, 2008, 3rd ed.), Green Plans: Blueprint for a Sustainable Earth. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
[7] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, 94.
[8] Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2002), Creating Our Future: Sustainable Development for New Zealand, 93-96. Wellington: Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2013), Water Quality in New Zealand: Land Use and Nutrient Pollution. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, 16.
[9] Bührs, Ton (2002), “A New Zealand Sustainable Development Strategy: How Meaningful Can and Will It Be?, in S. Kerr, et al. (eds.), Green Governance: From Periphery to Power Proceedings of the Ecopolitics XIII Conference, 29 November – 1 December, Canterbury University. Canterbury: Lincoln University, 26-30; Bührs, Ton and Robert V. Bartlett (1997), “Strategic Thinking and the Environment: Planning the Future in New Zealand?”, Environmental Politics, Vol.6, No.2, 72-100; Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Creating Our Future: Sustainable Development for New Zealand.
[10] Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Creating Our Future: Sustainable Development for New Zealand, 103-105.
[11] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, Chapter 5.
[12] Gluckman, Sir Peter (2017), New Zealand’s Fresh Waters: Values, Trends and Human Impacts. Auckland: Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor; Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2013), Water Quality in New Zealand: Land Use and Nutrient Pollution. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
[13] Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (2017), Unlocking Our Energy Productivity and Renewable Potential. New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2017 – 2022. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment.
[14] New Zealand Government (2019), Responsibly Delivering Value. A Minerals and Petroleum Resource Strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand: 2019 – 2029, 5.
[15] International Energy Agency (IEA) (2021), New Zealand – Energy Transition Indicators, CO2 Emissions by Sector (Accessed: 17 December 2021).
[16] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, 117.
[17] New Zealand Government (2019), The well-being Budget, 30 May 2019.
[18] New Zealand Government (2020), Wellbeing Budget 14 May 2020 – Rebuilding Together.
[19] Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ (2015), New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Environment Aotearoa 2015. Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, 28.
[20] Bührs, Ton (2009), Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge. Albany: SUNY Press, 174-179.
[21] Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ (2019), New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Environment Aotearoa 2019. 49-51. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ.
[22] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, 75-77. Some 35% of New Zealand’s endemic species, for which the conservation status is known, are either at risk or threatened with extinction. Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ, New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Environment Aotearoa 2019, 17.
[23] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, 68.
[24] Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ, New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Environment Aotearoa 2019, 94.
[25] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, 79-81, 159-161; Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ, New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Environment Aotearoa 2019, 57-61. The use of nitrogen-based fertiliser increased by 627% between 1990 and 2015. Statistics New Zealand (2019), Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Fertilisers, Statistics New Zealand.
[26] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, 66, 122.
[27] Ibid., 72-73.
[28] Ibid., 75; Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ, New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Environment Aotearoa 2019, 84-85.
[29] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmental Performance Review: New Zealand, 81-83.
[30] Ibid., Chapter 5.
[31] Ibid., 15.