Identify the resource management issue

An issue is an existing or potential problem that must be resolved to promote the purpose of the RMA. For guidance on how to identify RMA issues, see Writing Issues and Testing issues for RMA plans from the Writing Provisions for Regional and District Plans Guidance Note. This guidance is equally applicable for issues in regional policy statements.

An objective is a statement of what is to be achieved through the resolution of a particular issue. Objectives clearly state what is aimed for in overcoming the issue or promoting a positive outcome, or what the community has expressed as being desirable in resolving an issue. Objectives tend to be positively worded and need to be clear enough to provide targets that policies should seek to achieve.

The appropriateness of an objective has a number of dimensions. The relevancy and usefulness of an objective can, and should, be assessed before policies and methods are being identified. Other dimensions such as the reasonableness and achievability of the objective can only be assessed after policies and methods have been identified. If later analysis shows that the costs of pursuing the objective are too large in relation to the benefits, the appropriateness of the objective should be reviewed, and possibly revised or discarded.

Key questions when evaluating the appropriateness of objectives may include:

Is it relevant?

• Will it address the issue in a way that achieves the purpose of the RMA?

• Does it relate directly to the issue, and address a significant aspect of the issue?

• Would achieving the objective make a substantial difference, in terms of addressing the issue and the purpose of the RMA?

Is it fit for purpose?

• What would happen without it?

• How will it guide decision-making?

• How might it otherwise add value?

• Does it comply with sound principles for writing objectives?

• How will it impact on other issues and their objectives?

Is it achievable?

• Does the council have the functions and powers and policy tools to ensure that this outcome can be achieved?

• Can the council realistically expect to influence other parties to contribute sufficiently to this outcome?

• What are the adverse consequences or inequities of setting an unachievable objective?

The checklist for issues, objectives, policies and methods and checklists for RMA plan writers provide tools for the assessment and analysis of proposed objectives.

Identify alternative Policies and methods

Policies are the course of action to be pursued to achieve or implement the objective (ie, the path to be followed to achieve a certain, specified, environmental outcome). An objective will commonly have several associated policies.

Methods are the means by which policies are implemented. While methods may be seen to be similar to a specifically worded policy, the purpose of a method is explanatory. Methods can be regulatory or non regulatory.

Regulatory methods will normally include rules in plans and conditions on resource consents, heritage protection orders, NES, enforcement and similar tools provided for within the RMA. Regulatory tools provided for in other statutes (such as the Biosecurity Act 1993, LGA, etc) will also be relevant. A rule is the only method required to be identified in a district plan.

Non-regulatory methods to achieve each objective include: research, monitoring, education, information and training, council services, incentives, voluntary agreements, land purchase, levying charges, and rules. These are not required to be included in a plan.

Section 32 does not explicitly require the consideration of alternative means. However, it does require that the evaluation shows that, having regard to effectiveness and efficiency, the proposed policies, rules, or other methods are the 'most appropriate'. This implies that some consideration of the effectiveness and efficiency of alternative provisions is required.

The first step in determining whether the proposed provisions are the "most appropriate" is to review a range of realistic alternatives. While it will generally not be possible or reasonable for all possible alternatives be identified, a range of obvious alternatives should be given due consideration.

Typically, the best approach is to assess a package of policies and methods together rather than as individual provisions. Section 32 calls for an evaluation of viable alternative approaches, and does not require a consideration of alternative ways of expressing the same general policy direction.

As a minimum, alternatives should include:

• the provisions that the proposed policies and methods are designed to replace

• the provisions/approach that any neighbouring authorities have already adopted

• alternatives identified through any public consultation or submission process

• any other provisions seriously considered during the plan development process (eg, alternatives included in any issues and options discussion document).

When identifying and considering alternative policies and methods you should:

• be open-minded about the range of policies/methods. While not explicitly required, consider a wide range of alternatives to demonstrate that you are thinking 'outside the square'

• start by identifying different types of methods, rather than approaches within each method

• consider non-RMA methods

• ensure any associated consultation asks for alternatives and risks to be identified.

Assess the effectiveness of alternative policies and methods

Determining the 'most appropriate' policies and methods requires a comparison of the effectiveness of alternatives.

Evaluating the effectiveness of policies and methods means asking which approach will best achieve the objective; or if multiple approaches would achieve the outcome, would do so most quickly or with most certainty, and at least cost with most benefits.

This requires an understanding of:

• how the policies/methods will take effect

• what needs to be done by whom and when

• what the risks are

• what factors might intercede to mean that the objective is not achieved.

Intervention logic (also known as programme logic) can be used as a principal means of undertaking such analysis, particularly in planning and evaluating programmes or other interventions. It is often described as a policy's 'theory of action' and provides a step-by-step description of how a policy intervention is intended to work to deliver the policy objective. Using intervention logic ensures the explicit disclosure of all the assumptions that are being made and all the intermediary steps needed for the policy to be effective.

Assessing the relative effectiveness may be undertaken by a combination of:

• setting out the intervention logic of each alternative

• determining which logic chain is most likely to deliver as expected

• determining which has the greatest number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties.

Once this has been done, it is often clear which alternative is most likely to be effective and which alternative has the greatest risks associated with it. The following checklist should also assist in determining the relative effectiveness of alternatives:

• ask which of the approaches:

• has the most realistic assumptions

• has the least significant risks

• is likely to have the best level of compliance and enforceability (for regulatory methods)

• best and most directly targets the ultimate outcome

• reject policies and methods that are not appropriate or identify circumstances when they are not appropriate

• review the objective if no policy or method is appropriate.

Assessing Costs and Benefits of the Alternative Policies and Methods - Efficiency

The most efficient policy / method will achieve either of the following objectives:

• the greatest benefit with the least cost

• the greatest 'amount of benefit' (eg, highest level of amenity) relative to the level of cost, where the objective is not expressed as a fixed amount.

Analysing efficiency means:

• identifying the various environmental costs and benefits of each alternative

• identifying the various social and economic costs and benefits of each alternative

• identifying who/what will face the cost, or experience the benefit of each alternative

• assessing the relative size of the costs and benefits of each alternative

• identifying all assumptions and uncertainties clearly. (If there is uncertainty, state how critical it is, what has caused it, and what further information might reduce it.)

This analysis can be undertaken for each policy and method or, more feasibly, for particular 'packages' of policies and methods that relate to a single objective. The latter can assist to keep the scale of the evaluation manageable. However, it is important to ensure that the evaluation does go beyond the consideration of an overall approach (such as zoning) to examine specific rules - particularly where these rules have the potential for significant costs and benefits.

Understanding costs and benefits

The cost and benefit analysis required as part of a s32 evaluation needs to be broad. It should not be limited to just those that fall on councils, and should include resource users, the community and the environment, and any other relevant parties. Normally a combination of social, economic and environmental costs, include:

• administrative costs 

• compliance costs

• broader economic costs

• social costs

• environmental costs.

Benefits will normally include:

• environmental benefits

• social and economic benefits

• other incidental environmental benefits.

The characterisations of costs and benefits differ for regional and district plan rules:

• A regional rule that provides for an activity that would not otherwise be permitted may provide an economic benefit of some description (and potentially some level of environmental cost).

• A district plan rule that provides for an activity often does so with the express or implied consequence of excluding other activities not so permitted. Such a rule therefore imposes an economic cost when compared to having no such rule and consequently, that all activities would be permitted. (This may not be the case when the effect of the rule is compared with the existing plan rule.)

The presumptions of s10-15 of the RMA need to be considered when determining what costs flow from regulation. The baseline for determining whether a cost or benefit arises also needs to be clearly set. In most cases, an existing rule will be the appropriate baseline where a new provision is proposed to replace it.

Assessing costs and benefits and establishing efficiency

Section 32 requires that the appropriateness of policies and methods be assessed having regard to their efficiency, rather than a more formal and prescribed Cost and Benefit Analysis (CBA).

It is often difficult to establish a monetary value for many environmental and social costs and benefits (such as effects on amenity and intrinsic values, landscape and heritage). It is theoretically possible to determine a monetary value for difficult-to-measure costs and benefits (using a variety of valuation techniques); but in practical terms such an approach is likely to be feasible for only a small number of interventions and/or a limited number of costs and benefits.

The disadvantages of undertaking a comprehensive monetisation of costs and benefits include that:

• the cost to a council would be high

• it would take too long given the size and nature of plans and

• because of the limitations of many valuation methodologies, the results could add to uncertainty and may not form a robust basis for decision-making.

Therefore, a robust evaluation of efficiency should not be regarded as requiring the full and comprehensive monetisation of every cost and every benefit. An evaluation should include a comprehensive and transparent disclosure of the full range and likely scale of costs and benefits that are quantified where possible, though not necessarily monetised. For example, the size of the benefits (eg, the extent of wetland to be protected) should be given even if a dollar value cannot be placed on the value of that wetland. Where quantification is not possible, qualitative and subjective assessment of the scale of the cost and benefit should be provided.

In determining the level of costs, you should:

• assess costs on an individual basis if they fall unevenly on individuals

• estimate individual costs based on the number of properties affected if costs are shared

• always identify the cost to each individual, and the total of those individual costs

• not include costs related to regulation outside of the RMA (as can happen when there are multiple regulatory regimes applying to a particular issue)

• count each cost once only - for example if you identify a cost for resource users, do not include it in council or community costs

• include costs that are flow-on effects. For example, a cost to a resource user of lost production might have the flow-on effect to the community where the loss of production will have a multiplier effect through the local economy.

There are a range of non-monetary techniques for assessing costs and benefits, ranging from simple ranking through to complex scoring and weighting.

One way to measure a cost or benefit in non-monetary terms is to apply value in accordance with a simple rating scale such as, for example, -5 to +5. Consultation with resource users and the community may aid in determining the 'score' given to different costs and benefits. Alternatively, the highly subjective nature of many of the costs and benefits can be acknowledged by simply rating them on a narrative 'low, medium, high and very high' spectrum.

Having some costs and benefits monetised and some not is an acceptable approach. In such cases, the monetised values should provide a benchmark for the qualitative and subjective assessments also included. Such an evaluation needs to disclose how it would rate the monetised values, which then needs to be used to 'calibrate' the subjective assessment.

As a general rule, potentially high economic and social costs will require in-depth analysis of the method's impact, possibly using a detailed, and more highly monetised cost-benefit analysis. When the costs are likely to be high, the community will also expect a clear explanation - and quantification - of the method's environmental benefits. The depth of analysis required will also be influenced by the issue's importance, complexity, and degree of 'newness'. The depth of analysis should be commensurate with the scale of the proposal.

A matrix or table can be a useful approach to demonstrate and compare costs and benefits.

The checklist for issues, objectives, policies and methods and the checklist of methods for achieving the purpose of the RMA can also be used as tools for assessment and analysis.

Example of a table or matrix to help evaluate costs and benefits

	Environmental		Social		Economic
	Cost	Benefit	Cost	Benefit	Cost	Benefit
Council
Resource User
Wider Community

 

Identify the Risks of Acting or Not Acting

The nature and scale of issues faced by councils will generally be clear. Previous experience and/or research and monitoring data could demonstrate that the issue to be addressed is real, and that its size and significance warrants the attention of proposed plan provisions.

However, in some cases the information will be conflicting, uncertain or simply inadequate to categorically demonstrate the scale and nature of the 'problem' to be addressed. This may lead to debate about whether councils should do anything or adopt a 'wait and see' approach.

In these situations the s32 evaluation must consider the risks of acting or not acting, or the 'symmetry' of risk. For example, if there is low risk associated with acting but high risk associated with not acting, then taking action is clearly the sensible thing to do. The converse applies, which is known as 'asymmetric' risk.

The concept of risk has two dimensions:

• the probability of something adverse occurring

• the consequence of it occurring.

Risk is usually expressed as 'probability times consequence' and associated with a cost - usually a severe economic, social or environmental cost. Assessing the risk of acting or not acting means assessing the probability of a cost occurring and the size of that potential cost.

Given that by this stage there should be information on actual and potential costs, risk evaluation should involve:

• determining just how certain and sufficient the information about each issue really is

• identifying those provisions which relate to any issues about which there is uncertain or insufficient information

• identifying the costs of the policies and methods proposed in relation to those issues

• identifying the costs associated with the 'do nothing' or 'status quo' option

• assessing the likelihood of those costs occurring with the provisions proposed and (separately) without the provisions proposed (ie, the cost of the 'do nothing' option)

• determining the symmetry of the risk.

The RMA requires that the symmetry of risk is taken into account rather than undertaking a highly quantified risk assessment. A simple methodology such as demonstrated in this example will normally be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with s32(4)(b) of the RMA.

Deciding which Policies and Methods are the Most Appropriate

Choosing the most appropriate policies and methods to achieve the objective requires an overall assessment of their efficiency and effectiveness.

Methods for this overall assessment can include:

• creating a matrix that records the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy and method or package of provisions as appropriate
• undertaking a relative ranking of the effectiveness and efficiency of each policy and method where a number of policies and methods have been identified as being potentially suitable
• using rating scores from 1 to 10 or ratings of high, medium or low.

Choosing the appropriate policy and method will be straightforward if:

• one stands out as both highly efficient and highly effective
• all of the policies and methods are similarly ranked, except that one obtains a higher ranking in one particular area, such as providing higher environmental benefits.

In less straightforward cases, the right balance between effectiveness and efficiency will depend on:

• the significance of the desired environmental outcome
• the level of risk
• the amount of information available or its degree of uncertainty
• the likelihood of the method achieving the desired results.

Effectiveness will have more weight than efficiency if:

• the level of risk to the environment, due to failure, is high
• the policy or method is uncertain
• there is a lack of information.

Efficiency will have more weight than effectiveness if the level of risk is low.

Review the objectives 

After completing the analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed policies and methods you should:

• return to the objectives to ensure that they are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, using information gained from the analysis of policies and methods
• review any objectives that are no longer appropriate
• ensure the policies and methods still achieve any revised or new objective.