1. Blending collaborative and traditional approaches in environmental decision-making Guy Salmon Presentation to NZ Institute of Forestry 1 July 2013

2. Regional councils and water  Consulted public and set “green” objectives  But no credible means of implementation  Govt failure to use national instruments (some ad hoc funding available)  1991-2011 outcome: declining water quality  Taranaki has been an outlier

3. Regional council governance issues  Farmers = 38% of regional councilors, and control 5 of 12 councils  Tangata whenua and green perspectives thinly represented, or not at all  Low public awareness meant little power to shift the behaviour of private interests  Consultation failed to empower the public interest; created structural adversarialism.

4. Collaborative governance: Nordic model  NZ: the authorities consult then decide  Nordics: empower stakeholders to reach a consensus first  Political convention: areas of stakeholder consensus will be implemented  Lengthy, multi- stakeholder deliberations  Deep immersion in information  Science resolved in roundtable setting.

5. Advantages of collaborative governance  Speeds up the process of adopting effective policy measures for sustainable development  Creates supportive climate for implementation  Fewer appeals, less investment uncertainty, more competitiveness  Increases influence of science, rational solutions.

6. Collaborative governance – NZ experience  Early Accords: West Coast Forests, Tasman Forests, NZ Forests; Upper Waitaki  Land & Water Forum; Canterbury Water Management Strategy; Mackenzie Agreement; Auckland Transport CBG  Democratic, but needs hearings integrated  Tension collaborative vs electoral governance.

7. Regional plan-writing – LWF proposal  Transparent process for appointing collaborative stakeholder group (CSG)  CSG to draft plan with support of experts  Draft goes to hearings panel; CSG is represented  Hearings panel draft report goes to CSG  Regional council makes final decision.

8. Getting incentives right for collaborative outcome  Appeals should arise only where council departs from collaborative outcome  This creates a real incentive to collaborate  Government has rejected the LWF model – vestigial remnant only. So NZ about to miss a big opportunity to make it happen  Councils could still use the model (mostly).

9. Collaborative land management

10. Govt’s RMA proposals  Remove matters of national importance  Create un-prioritised mix of economic & environmental objectives – not justiciable  Curb CG & Court; Ministers can rewrite plans  Lift out politically-favoured projects for decisions by political appointees at EPA  Loss of accountability to the statute opens the way to procurement of political favours  Overall – collaboration out, Wellington in.

11. What now?  Many New Zealanders have tasted collaborative governance and they like it  Government may see the light  If not, a future government will...

12. www.ecologic.org.nz Thank you!