B+LNZ, an organisation representing and supporting New Zealand’s sheep and beef farmers, has supported the reform of the 34-year-old legislation, which has become increasingly inefficient over the years.
The RMA 1991 is a key piece of legislation that sets out how New Zealand manages its environment, including soil, water, and air. It outlines the limits and guidelines shaping how the agriculture sector functions.
General Manager of Policy and Communications Rowena Hume said RM has become “more and more complex and bogged down” and was “no longer fit for purpose”.
In this sense, the organisation has supported the government’s intent to create a more streamlined and practical framework.
However, it is concerned that the draft legislation published in December could potentially lead to significant issues for the sheep and beef sector.
“The draft legislation contains many significant issues for our sector that need to be fixed,” said B+LNZ in an update published on January 29.
“This is a once-in-a-generation chance to reset how productive resources are managed and remove some of the current regulatory pressures facing farmers. It’s vital to have enduring policy that gives farmers certainty for long term investment and decision making.”
Public consultation on the bills will open till February 12. B+LNZ have called for farmers to voice out their feedback to the government.
New framework breakdown
The new framework that will replace RMA consists of two bills, the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill.
The former “focuses on the use, protection and enhancement of the natural environment. It requires councils to set environmental limits for freshwater, coastal water, soil, biodiversity, and air.”
The latter “focuses on planning and regulating use, development and enjoyment of land. It aims to simplify planning processes, make consenting faster and less costly, and enable infrastructure and development growth.”
B+LNZ emphasised that farming sits at the intersection of environmental protection and land-use development. As such, poor integration between the two bills risks increasing complexity rather than reducing it.
Given the highly technical nature of the bill, B+LNZ argued it is difficult to fully assess its impacts without seeing the secondary legislation, such as detailed freshwater policies, which may not be released until mid-2026.
It also highlighted uncertainty around governance and decision-making because wider local government reform is occurring in parallel, which could significantly affect how the new system operates in practice.
Key issues with proposed legislations
B+LNZ has highlighted several key areas of concern in the draft where it believes the government’s intentions are not fully reflected.
It highlighted concerns that the Natural Environment Bill’s directive language could result in more farming activities requiring consents, particularly in catchments where environmental limits are exceeded.
In some cases, this could mean most or all farmers in a catchment would need approval to continue operating, making things more restrictive than RMA.
The increase in regulatory burdens and uncertainty would ultimately undermine long-term investment, financing decisions and succession planning, it said.
Freshwater Farm Plans (FWFP) were another major sticking point for the organisation.
While intended as a tool to allow farmers to operate without consents, the draft legislation would require all farms over 50 hectares to have an audited plan.
B+LNZ said this represented a significant increase in compliance for sheep and beef farmers, most of whom currently do not need consents.
The organisation said it could not accept the requirement to have all farms audited FWFP.
It also raised concerns that if high-risk activities were to trigger certification on part of a farm, the entire farm would need to be certified, increasing costs without targeting actual environmental risk.
Missed opportunities for improvement
The organisation also highlighted the potential impact of environmental limits if they were set unrealistically. It argued that the limits had to be realistic, achievable, risk-based and balanced.
B+LNZ pointed to the independent research it commissioned on the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020.
It found that meeting suspended fine sediment bottom lines could require retiring around 40 per cent of sheep and beef land, costing the economy NZ$3.9bnannually, installing 13,000 kilometres of fencing at a cost of NZ$1.4bn, and planting poles on 8 percent of remaining land.
“Even after these mitigations many catchments still wouldn’t meet the bottom lines. For context, some of our national parks currently don’t meet the bottom lines. This demonstrates why limits must be realistic and grounded in regional circumstances.”
The reform would also see the use of market-based mechanisms to manage water and contaminants, but B+LNZ foresee major challenges in using these tools without proper data.
In the case of water quantity, the organisation argued that the markets would favour those who can pay the most for the rights.
Overall, it believes this would be worse for the environment, economy, and rural communities.
The Natural Environment Bill has set a goal of “no net loss of indigenous biodiversity.” B+LNZ views this as a positive step for property rights and as a constraint on councils imposing land-use restrictions to limit regulatory overreach.
However, it highlighted uncertainty over whether this goal applies at a national, regional or individual farm level.
With ongoing problems with how stock drinking water is treated in regional plans, B+LNZ expressed disappointment that the new legislation largely carries from the RMA.
It believes the new framework should explicitly make water takes for stock drinking water permitted activities to reflect their importance and relatively minor environmental impact.
