An appraisal of environmental conflict management provisions in New Zealand's Resource Management...

Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 45, No. 1, April 2004ISSN: 1360-7456, pp105–123

© Victoria University of Wellington, 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing.

UNCORRECTED PROOF

APV_230 Pages:

19

An appraisal of environmental conflict

management provisions in New Zealand’s

Resource Management Act 1991

Roy L. Montgomery and Jonathan A.H. Kidd

Abstract:

Since the 1970s a body of literature has developed inter-nationally which can be termed loosely as ‘environmental conflictmanagement’ (ECM) theory and practice. When New Zealand’s dis-parate environmental management framework was reformed duringthe 1980s a ‘superstatute’ known as the Resource Management Act(RMA), passed in 1991, was the major outcome. During the RMApolicy formulation process in the late 1980s, known as ResourceManagement Law Reform (RMLR), calls were made for better inte-gration of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR)approaches into the statutory framework. The final wording of theRMA includes specific clauses on mediation and the option of ‘pre-hearing meetings’, suggesting that ECM and environmental disputeresolution (EDR) approaches have become part of the new decision-making framework in New Zealand. Given such provisions, and thefact that it is now more than ten years since the RMA was passed, anappraisal of ECM/EDR progress to date within this statute seemsjustified. It is argued that to date very little emphasis has been placedupon early EDR intervention. This lack of emphasis, it is concluded,is due primarily to low levels of awareness and inadequate trainingand despite limitations on its usefulness in certain resource conflictsettings we suggest that there is scope for greater promotion andimplementation of EDR approaches in the local government context.

Keywords:

alternative dispute resolution, Resource Management Act, New Zealand

Since the 1970s a body of literature has developed internationally which canbe termed loosely as ‘environmental conflict management’ (ECM) theory and

Authors: Roy L. Montgomery and Jonathan A.H. Kidd. Environmental Management

Group, Environment, Society and Design Division, P.O. Box 84, Lincoln University,

Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand.

APV_230.fm 05 Friday, February 13, 2004 2:43 PM

Asia Pacific Viewpoint

Volume 45 No 1

106

© Victoria University of Wellington 2004

UNCORRECTED PROOF

practice. Although the literature will typically contain caveats about thelimitations of less adversarial approaches to decision-making where there areconflicts over fundamental values, there is an underlying assumption that thereis greater scope for negotiated solutions to some, if not all, environmentalproblems than present approaches allow. While New Zealand contributions tosuch theory and practice have not to date featured prominently, one of thekey pieces of environmental management legislation passed in recent yearsappears to reflect this support for negotiation, facilitation and mediation as anaccompaniment to conventional adjudication.

Beginning in the mid-1980s New Zealand’s relatively disparate environ-mental management framework was comprehensively reviewed and reformed.Following the drafting and enactment of new legislation such as the Environ-ment Act (1986) and the Conservation Act (1987) a ‘superstatute’, known asthe Resource Management Act (RMA), was passed in 1991 and this Actdevolved many environmental management responsibilities to the level oflocal governance. During the RMA policy formulation process of 1988–90,referred to as Resource Management Law Reform (RMLR), calls were madefor better integration of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution(ADR) approaches into the statutory framework. Recognition that the Treatyof Waitangi

1

would play a fundamental role in any future legislation prompteddiscussion of bi-cultural approaches to managing environmental conflicts.The final wording of the RMA included specific clauses on mediation and theoption of ‘pre-hearing meetings’. This suggests that ADR, and more specificallyenvironmental dispute resolution (EDR), techniques were recognised as legit-imate aids to environmental decision-making.

Given such provisions, and the fact that it is now more than ten years sincethe RMA was passed, it seems reasonable to attempt an appraisal of EDRprogress to date within this statute. In this paper the appraisal is largely discur-sive. We review key concepts from the ECM literature and trace the policydevelopment of EDR in the RMA during the RMLR process through contentanalysis of the RMLR literature. We also review post-1991 commentaries onthe RMA and refer to two indicative regional case studies undertaken at fiveand ten year intervals after the implementation of the Act. Both case studieswere supervised by the principal author of this paper.

Our commentary argues that, to date, very little emphasis has been placedupon early EDR intervention. This lack of emphasis, we conclude, is notbased on the trialing and subsequent rejection of such approaches so much aslow levels of awareness and inadequate training. We further conclude thatlimitations on usefulness in certain resource conflict settings notwithstanding,there is scope for greater promotion of EDR to all parties in the environmentaldecision-making process.

The authors acknowledge their own normative commitments to ADR andEDR in adopting this approach to appraising aspects of the RMA. We believethat such commitments do not equate to uncritical support for alternatives toadjudication. We merely wish to open up wider debate about ECM in the NewZealand context.

APV_230.fm Page 106 Friday, February 13, 2004 2:43 PM

April 2004

An appraisal of environmental conflict management provisions


107

UNCORRECTED PROOF

THE BACKGROUND CONTEXT TO THE RMA

The scale of reform that accompanied the RMA was considerable by anystandards. Some 53 statutes were repealed after the enactment of the newlegislation. The reform process was initiated by the then Minister for theEnvironment and Deputy Prime Minister, Geoffrey Palmer, a lawyer by pro-fession, who was known for his enthusiasm for constitutional reform. RMLRlasted some four years (1988–91) and resulted in the production of numerousdiscussion documents by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). More than45 publications were released during the period 1988–89 alone and these cov-ered a variety of themes, including sustainability, Treaty of Waitangi obligations,decision-making processes and public participation.

At the time, it was promoted as one of the most consultative legislation-making exercises to be conducted by any government in New Zealand. AsHayward (2000: 104) notes, the resulting statute required local authorities toanticipate the likely ‘environmental effects’ of development by establishingenvironmental bottom lines to negate adverse effects upon the built or bio-physical environment. The wave of enthusiasm that greeted the RMA, accordingto some commentators (Hayward, 2000; Memon, Dixon and Fookes, 1998:618), was based upon the potential for a more inclusive practice of environmentalmanagement, specifically with its emphasis upon renewed opportunities forpublic consultation. While other state-led reforms were perceived as beingconducted by ‘stealth’, the reaction to the RMA was ‘almost euphoric’ (Hayward,2000: 104). With regard to the ‘ethos’ of the new Act, Memon

et al.

(1998: 617)argue that positioning ‘sustainable management’ as a cornerstone philosophyin Section 5 of the RMA, rather than, say, sustainable

development

, was inaccordance with the government’s neutral stance to resource allocation decisionsand the rejection of the state’s role in social engineering. The prevailing rhetoricat the time was that local authorities should use a mixture of ‘light-handed’ reg-ulation and alternative methods to achieve environmental outcomes. Educationprogrammes (to some extent the weaker or least-used of the alternatives),incentives (such as concessions to the conditions set for resource consents or thepermits to carry out activities), and economic instruments were nominated asalternative methods (1998: 619). The RMA reflected a perceived need for localgovernment councils to provide a policy and planning framework that allowedall aspects of resource use, development, and protection to be treated in a con-sistent manner. Great emphasis was placed upon the importance of the indi-vidual as a decision-maker, whether as someone putting together an applicationto carry out an activity or as a contributor to the formulation of a district plan, orin some other capacity. The degree to which the RMA has balanced adequatelysuch considerations continues to be the subject of heated debate amongstpractitioners, politicians, academics, and free-market advocates. Critics, suchas Bührs and Bartlett (1993), have asked whether an overarching ideology ofstate withdrawal from governance underpinned the RMA and other reforms inthe 1980s. They suggested that this ideology perhaps drove change more so thana coherent environmental paradigm or an ‘ecologically rational’ agenda.



Volume 45 No 1

108


UNCORRECTED PROOF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT (ECM) IN RMLR DISCOURSES

Despite the misgivings of some commentators about the underlying motivesfor reform the RMLR process clearly created an opening for discussion of lessadversarial approaches to decision making. One of the first summary discus-sion documents,

Directions for Change

, noted that ‘Government has agreedthat opportunities for public participation in resource management should bemade more consistent; and that phase 2 should consider how more scope canbe made for negotiation and mediation’ (MfE, 1988a: 25). The document alsomooted the following: ‘A major change in existing resource managementapproaches would be to introduce less adversarial processes such as mediationand arbitration. These might be formalised in something like the family lawcourts or the small claims tribunal’ (MfE, 1988a: 28). A few months earlier aRMLR task group discussion paper on public participation had addressed, aspart of the terms of reference, the question ‘What is the relationship betweenconflict resolution and public participation?’ (Fookes, von Dadelzsen andWooding, 1988: 8).

2

The task group’s reply was one of cautious optimism:

The relationship between conflict resolution and public participation was notaddressed directly by the group, although it was implicit in most of thediscussion on ways and means to improve people’s participation. The group wascritical of the present emphasis on adversarial approaches, with formal hearingsand judicial tribunals providing a context within which lawyers tended todominate proceedings. The need for an additional step in the present town andcountry planning process, which would enable mediation and conciliation tooccur before entering the formal hearings and appeals system, was firmly stated.(Fookes

et al.

, 1988: 8).

Although non-adversarial approaches appear to be endorsed in these remarks,the extent to which the RMLR working papers and discussion documents fullyembrace the general principles, terminology and underlying assumptions ofconflict management theory needs to be examined in more depth.

As noted earlier, public participation was a key theme in the large volumeof commissioned ‘think pieces’, surveys and policy analysis documents thataccompanied the RMLR process (Fookes, 1988; Gray Matter Ltd., 1988; vonDadelzsen, Fookes and Allan, 1988). Here one could reasonably expect to havefound discussion of the merits of different conflict management and disputeresolution techniques. There was already a substantial body of literature relat-ing to the general theory and practice of conflict management.

3

The term‘alternative dispute resolution’ (ADR) was beginning to gain currency amongstpractitioners, and the idea that there were different levels of conflict within anoverall ‘sphere of conflict’, each requiring different types of intervention, waswell-established (Moore, 1986: 27). In such literature intervention options areseen to range between those that are non-directive (negotiation and facilita-tion) to those that are directive (mediation, arbitration and adjudication). Thiscan be depicted as an array.


April 2004



109

UNCORRECTED PROOF

To paraphrase the ADR philosophy, ideally and axiomatically, most partiesin conflict are able to negotiate and bargain between themselves on at leastsome level. This should, it is argued, be attempted where possible. If the par-ties cannot negotiate without assistance, then facilitation by a neutral thirdparty (or a trusted participant) should be tried. If this fails, then mediation bya neutral third party is appropriate. If this is unsuccessful, arbitration by aneutral third party is attempted, followed by adjudication if arbitration doesnot work. This pattern, from lesser to greater intervention by third parties, ispredicated upon a fundamental principle that conflict management should aidpeople in understanding their needs (issues) as distinct from their wants (posi-tions) and that when this is achieved there is greater likelihood of mutuallyagreed solutions. In other words, as a rule of thumb, conflict managers guiderather than decide. This does not mean that conflict managers must slavishlyfilter all conflict situations through a negotiation process, but it suggests a morediagnostic approach, which assumes there are at least some opportunities fornegotiation in most conflict settings.

In addition to this more generic framework of conflict resolution by the late1980s a significant body of environmental conflict management (ECM) andenvironmental dispute resolution (EDR) literature had developed. Althoughmostly drawn from experiences in North America (generally regarded as ahighly litigious Western democracy) and often focussed upon mediationinterventions in larger-scale disputes, this literature reflected awareness thatdifferent types of intervention were possible and appropriate for given situa-tions, and that, where possible, non-directive intervention should be attemptedbefore directive forms.

4

Given that there was an accessible core of conflict management theory uponwhich to draw, the framing of ‘conflict resolution’

5

and observations about whobest should lead ECM or EDR approaches seems surprisingly narrow in pub-lished RMLR discourses. The terminology used is most often ‘mediation’ or‘arbitration’, whether contained in expert commentary (Fookes, 1988: 8; MfE,1988b: 27; von Dadelszen

et al.

, 1988: 4, 10), or through the public sub-mission process (Gray, 1988: 20; Gray, McGlinchy, Vaughan, Gilliard, Rushand Day, 1989: 28). This culminated in a discussion document, actually a seriesof commentaries by three individual authors, entitled

Resource managementdisputes, part A: the role of courts and tribunals, part B: mediation

. Part Abriefly discusses the role of local government administration, especially com-missions, in the decision making process i.e., consent application-granting(Palmer, 1988: 15–20). Greatest attention is given to the possible structuresand functions of the new Planning Tribunal (1988: 21–41). It is anticipatedthat a number of guidelines would be developed that reflected the goals of theMinistry for the Environment, including Treaty of Waitangi obligations (1988:19). The author of the report on mediation in part B is at pains to distinguishbetween negotiation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication (Chart, 1988: 2–3). Chart treats mediation in a relatively broad sense (it can be both ad hoc andvery formal), but emphasises that proper training is necessary ‘so that NewZealand might avoid, or at least reduce the risk of, the extraordinary variations



Volume 45 No 1

110


UNCORRECTED PROOF

in levels of competence which can be seen in ad hoc mediations in NorthAmerica’ (1988: 21). Chart’s sanguine view notwithstanding, it is clear thatthe underlying terms of reference assume that intervention is to be the domain,principally, of a judicial body: ‘One thing clear is that mediation is not an

alternative

[emphasis in original] to judicial determination of disputes, ratherit’s [sic] potential is in providing an adjunct to the judicial process’ (Palmer

et al.

, 1988, Part B Section 1 Introduction: 1).

6

The role of local or regional councils as third party conflict managers andthe ways in which parties in resource management decision-making processescould avoid the need for intervention by either councils or courts, receivescant attention in this document. Nor do such matters command great attentionin other RMLR documentation. Ultimately, throughout the RMLR process,the framing of conflict management discussion remains relatively legalistic,suggesting a lack of faith in the ability or willingness of parties to resourcemanagement decisions to negotiate competently amongst themselves.

Such conservatism may also have been driven by the belief that resourcemanagement decisions always involve irreconcilable entrenched value conflicts.Clearly, environmental problems may exhibit degrees of ‘wickedness’ i.e.,persistence through time and multiple dimensions (Patterson and Williams,1998: 281). Campbell and Floyd (1996: 236) warn that those who espousemediation as a new form of consensus-making are unnecessarily doomed tofailure and frustration, as mediation is best seen as a process for settling dis-putes, not for resolving basic differences.

A crucial question relating to the RMA, then, is whether there is sufficientscope for EDR to be used to deal with some of the more minor disputes wherevalue conflicts are not involved. Proposals to build, say, hydro-electric dams,a matter which a statute such as the RMA is obviously intended to oversee,may quickly be ruled out as potential EDR material, but in the case of anapplication by an individual neighbour to erect a garage in a residential area itseems less clear that parties should not be encouraged to negotiate. In somerespects the latter activity is more reflective of the ‘core business’ of the RMA.The RMLR literature did not pursue in any depth the potential for EDR insituations of minor conflict.

ECM PROVISIONS IN THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

Despite relatively limited discussions of EDR during the RMLR process theRMA in its final form contained two major provisions for third party interven-tion. Both of these provisions are attached to the Resource Consent process,which, although standardised nationally in terms of basic steps and turn-aroundtime, is governed by the particular plans and policies of any territorial authority,most often the District, City or Regional Plan. The interactions betweenresource consent applications and the provisions of plans and policies thuscomprise the core to most local authority planning decisions. In the Actauthority to manage conflict, in concert with a general principal of the ADRapproach, is not limited only to courts and tribunals. Section 99 of the Resource


April 2004



111

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Management Act (1991) empowers consent authorities i.e., local or regionalcouncils, to arrange pre-hearing meetings between applicants and affectedparties after a consent application has been lodged and submissions have beenreceived:

(1) For the purpose of clarifying, mediating, or facilitating resolution of anymatter or issue, a consent authority may, upon request or of its own motion,invite anyone who has made an application for a resource consent or asubmission on an application to meet with each other or such other personsas the authority thinks fit.

(2) A member, delegate, or officer of the consent authority who attends ameeting under subsection (1) and who is empowered to make the decisionon the application which is the subject of the meeting, shall not bedisqualified from participating in the meeting if –(a) The parties attending the meeting so agree; and(b) The consent authority is satisfied that the person should not be so

disqualified.

(3) The outcome of the meeting may be reported to the consent authority, andthat report –(a) Shall be circulated to all parties before the hearing; and(b) Shall be part of the information which the consent authority shall

have regard to in its consideration of the application.

The other formal provision for intervention in the RMA is Section 268, relat-ing to the powers and duties of the Environment Court. Under the heading‘Additional Dispute Resolution’ the following is set out:

(1) At any time after lodgement of any proceedings, for the purpose ofencouraging settlement, the [Environment Court], with the consent of theparties and of its own motion or upon request, may ask one of its membersor another person to conduct mediation, conciliation, or other proceduresdesigned to facilitate the resolution of any matter before or at any timeduring the course of a hearing.

(2) A member of the [Environment Court] is not disqualified from resuminghis or her role to decide a matter by reason of the mediation, conciliation,or other procedure under subsection (1) if –(a) The parties agree that the member should resume his or her role and

decide the matter; and(b) The member concerned and the [Court] are satisfied that it is

appropriate for him or her to do so.

There is little detail on who, precisely, will or should co-ordinate the pre-hearing meetings, or what, if anything constitutes adequate standing for ‘anotherperson’ in the case of Environment Court mediation. It can be inferred fromboth sections that it is those otherwise normally acting in adjudicating roles inthe decision making process (i.e., council staff and councillors, and Environment



Volume 45 No 1

112


UNCORRECTED PROOF

Court commissioners, respectively) who are most likely to act as third partyconflict managers, providing that the parties agree. One of the central tenets ofmore purist conflict management approaches is that facilitators and mediatorsshould identify themselves clearly as third parties who are not involved in theactual decisions made; they merely enable the other parties to reach their owndecisions:

‘Mediation is the intervention into a dispute or negotiation by an acceptable,impartial, and neutral third party who has

no authoritative decision-makingpower

[emphasis added] to assist disputing parties in voluntarily reaching theirown mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute.’ (Moore, 1986: 14)

The argument for the RMA approach in New Zealand, where, in the case ofEnvironment Court mediations the mediator and adjudicator can be one andthe same, presumably rests in part upon pragmatic grounds and in part upon acautiousness about involving too many parties in a dispute or introducingparties whose legal standing might later be challenged. In pragmatic terms, ina small country like New Zealand it is unlikely that the necessary expertise fordealing with such complex conflict situations will be found far beyond theconfines of planning authorities. By the same token, such expertise, if it doesexist, could reasonably be expected to come at a cost. Most local authoritiesalready operate under financial strictures. One of the claimed benefits of non-adversarial approaches to conflict management is that these are less costlythan conventional litigation, but this is often difficult to quantify and in theabsence of reliable information most councils would be reluctant to experiment.Overtly high-cost facilitation or mediation, however beneficial to participantsat an interpersonal level, would be self-defeating for most councils in monetaryterms. Yet cynics would argue that a combination of cost-cutting imperatives,mistrust of the negotiating skills and goodwill of applicants and the publicalike, and a determination by the legal community to maintain capture of theresource management decision making process will tend to keep conflictmanagement approaches within an unnecessarily restricted domain.

As it happened, shortly after the RMA was passed, a number of MfE-fundedresearch documents were published that dealt both with the RMA and envi-ronmental conflict management theory and practice (Blackford, 1992a, 1992b,1992c), and with Maori involvement in ‘environmental mediation’ (Blackfordand Matunga, 1991; Blackford and Smith, 1993). It was acknowledged that, ingeneral terms, mediation would not resolve basic differences between parties,nor overcome systemic grievances (Blackford, 1992c: v). Mediation was, how-ever, seen as valid under certain conditions:

‘Mediation seems to be particularly appropriate for site-specific disputes.Resource managers could find this a useful tool in the resource consentapplication process. Mediation has the potential to be appropriate in disputesconcerning cultural and spiritual values at the site-specific level. The approachmay also be preferred by Maori people because face-to-face dialogue andconsensus decision-making practised on marae

7

more closely resemble alternative


April 2004



113

UNCORRECTED PROOF

dispute resolution approaches than does the judicial approach.’ (Blackford,1992c: vii)

The first remark above is noteworthy in that it implies that any resourcemanager involved in the consent process e.g., a consent investigating officer,could make use of mediation. The comment that marae protocols mirror ADRapproaches suggests that Maori have a role to play in ADR training forresource managers. Certainly, since the late 1980s the concept of the ‘hui’, amarae-based meeting that often lasts several days, and shares some of thecharacteristics of a ‘lock-in’, has become popular in New Zealand in manymanagement agencies. In any case, the main focus of discussion regardingMaori involvement at this time rested upon improving information andservices available to Maori. The main recommendations in one report were asfollows:

• The feasibility of establishing a nationalised conflict resolution informationservice for Maori be investigated

• The feasibility of establishing regional and local services that offer inde-pendent advice on conflict resolution for Maori groups be investigated

• The means by which people can find out the grounds on which Maorigroups claiming the right to participate in conflict resolution and the natureof that right be investigated

• A guide for Maori groups containing information on legislational opportun-ities for participation in resource management decision making be prepared

• Potential sources of funding enabling Maori groups to participate effectivelyin environmental mediation be investigated

• Changes to the Resource Management Act in order to provide a strongerset of provisions on mediation that would also ensure Maori effectivenessin mediation be investigated

• Guides on mediation for agencies and individuals that interface with Maorigroups e.g. government departments, regional councils, local authorities,consent use applicants, mediators, etc. be prepared

• Methods of cross-cultural environmental information exchange both inNew Zealand, Canada and Australia be investigated (Blackford and Matunga,1991: 64)

In concert with this interest in the early 1990s in furthering ECM and EDR aCentre for Resolving Environmental Disputes (CRED) was established in1993. By 1995, partly as a result of government research funding changes anduniversity restructuring, CRED had ceased to exist although its’ founder hascontinued to be a principal trainer, consultant, and professional environmentalmediator, largely on a case-by-case basis.

In summary, ECM discussion throughout the RMLR process was relativelycircumscribed. Explicit provisions for alternatives to adjudication wereincluded in the RMA (Sections 99 and 268). There were some immediatepost-RMA commentaries and institutional and policy initiatives that showed



Volume 45 No 1

114


UNCORRECTED PROOF

at least guarded support for greater use of ECM and EDR approaches. Theseinitiatives, have however, tended to be

ad hoc

in nature.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND THE RMA IN PRACTICE

Clearly, there has been some promotional activity for ECM and EDR over thepast decade. It is also important to acknowledge that with such a major pieceof new legislation one cannot expect instantaneous results in all sectors ofchange. It is a common refrain that ‘it is too early to tell’ if the RMA is a stepforward for environmental management in New Zealand. This does not mean,however, that there are no grounds for scrutinising progress to date withregard to conflict management provisions in the RMA.

A number of studies of Environment Court-directed mediation have beenconducted, most of them acknowledging a general trend towards increaseduse of the mechanisms available (Bollard and Wooler, 1998; Borrie, 2002;Mitcalf, 2001; Rive, 1997). Some have questioned the degree of active gov-ernment support and guidance for those involved in the mediation process,particularly for community groups and those with limited resources (Baylis,1999; Borrie, 2002; PCE, 1996). Most commentators have seen room for greatercommitment of resources and professional training.

Perhaps in order to meet some of the criticism about lack of central govern-ment commitment, the Ministry for the Environment launched a contestableEnvironmental Legal Assistance fund in 2001, principally for parties involvedin appeals before the Environment Court. The guidelines state that the fund‘assists groups by providing them with funding to help prepare, mediate and/or present resource management cases to the Environment Court, and in somecases the High Court and Court of Appeal’ (MfE, 2001a: 1). The downloadableLegal Assistance application form specifically asks applicants to state whethermediation has been attempted already together with details of why it was orwas not chosen.

8

The Ministry has also produced a colourful brochure entitled

You, Mediation and the Environment Court

(MfE, 2001b). While such movesare welcome they may in fact continue to deflect attention away from theECM diagnostic and practice competencies of staff in local authorities.

While there has been close interest in the workings of the EnvironmentCourt and the use or non-use of section 268 powers, the degree to which localauthorities have made use of section 99 provisions appears to have com-manded relatively little attention. Initial research, conducted after the RMAhad been in place for a few years, tended to show that typically, pre-hearingmeetings were rarely used by city and district councils, much of the uptakecoming from regional councils or particularly proactive local authorities(Carlin, 1994; Coutts and Frost, 1998; PCE, 1996; Woods, 1997).

Following a model set out by the Parliamentary Commissioner for theEnvironment for ‘opportunities for dialogue’ (PCE, 1996: 3) in the resourceconsent process Woods conducted a survey in Canterbury in 1997 of the 10district councils, the Christchurch City Council, and the Canterbury Regional


April 2004



115

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Council (now known as Environment Canterbury). Canterbury was chosen fora mixture of reasons: logistics for a student researcher; the region accountedfor more than 10% of the total territorial authorities in New Zealand, and; theregion was reasonably typical in having a large concentrated urban populationin one location and several much smaller rural districts.

9

Using a 19-page postalquestionnaire Woods divided EDR opportunities in the resource consent processinto the following categories: pre-application stage; submission period; pre-hearing meeting option, and; council hearing period.

Her research findings indicated that despite these opportunities, EDR tech-niques were not being used to the degree that many might have anticipated(1997: 2). More specifically, Woods found the following:

At the pre-application period:

• Councils believed consultation and/or negotiation was common for non-notified applications, and was expected for large applications

At the submission period:

• Councils were aware of parties getting together to resolve conflict, but thisoccurred ‘rarely’ or ‘sometimes’;

• A small number of councils had been involved in arranging meetings withparties to address conflict, and found this assisted the resource consentprocess. Those councils that did not arrange such meetings were mainlyconcerned about the effect of these meetings on council neutrality.

At the pre-hearing period:

• There was a lack of formal policy on the use of pre-hearing meetings;• Guidelines for council staff and the public were limited;• Frequency of pre-hearing meetings varied greatly between councils (from

none to 12 during a 12-month period);• Criteria for deciding whether to hold pre-hearing meetings varied greatly

between councils;• There were problems in getting all parties to participate in pre-hearing

meetings;• Some councils favoured councillors as chairs for meetings while others

preferred council staff but none used people not affiliated to council;• Extension of timeframes was not a concern if the process was assisting

parties to resolve conflict;• Most councils that used pre-hearing meetings found them useful;• All councils agreed that guidelines on pre-hearing meetings would be

useful.

At the hearing period:

• Councils were aware of conflict being resolved or clarified before the hear-ing period and this information then being used in the hearing process; and

• Councils were aware that some parties negotiated for the first time duringthe hearing period. (adapted from Woods, 1997: 54)

APV_230.fm 5 Friday, February 13, 2004 2:43 PM


Volume 45 No 1

116


UNCORRECTED PROOF

Despite the variations in uptake of EDR efforts between councils Woodsfound that there was general agreement that such techniques had a place in thedecision-making process, particularly for large-scale ‘contentious’ issues,which, interestingly seems to runs counter to the more cautious views of manycommentators. However, there were still some entrenched negative attitudestowards EDR, partly due to the perception that they placed additional pressureson the time and the resources of local authority staff (minimising exposure toconflict management training), and partly because there was a lack of clearlocal authority policy and guidelines for staff. All councils agreed that guidelines,akin in some respects to a checklist, would be useful (1997: 52).

Furthermore, local authorities did not favour using independent mediators(during any stage of the decision-making process) in part because the servicesof professional mediators were considered too costly (1997: 49). Woods alsonoted a type of double jeopardy for councils: public perceptions were thatineffective conflict management practices within the council consent processeswere already delaying decisions and increasing the workload of the Environ-ment Court (1997: 40–41). For Woods, failure to recognise the potential foruse of EDR techniques during the pre-application phase also limited thechances for participants to become fully involved in the subsequent decision-making processes (1997: 60). For a partnership (between local authorities andtheir ‘clients’) to be achieved, conflict management ‘needed to be seen as anongoing process, with discrete intervals for EDR techniques to be employed tohelp resolve conflict and give participants power in decision-making’ (1997:60). This would have provided opportunities to ‘resolve and validate conflictalong a continuum of techniques’ (1997: 64).

Overall, lack of familiarity with the basic concepts of EDR, both on the partof councils and the other parties to decision making, and overriding‘efficiency’ concerns, driven, no doubt, in some measure by Section 32 of theRMA, which explicitly requires local authorities to justify their decisions interms of efficiency, lay at the heart of its relatively poor uptake, according toWoods (1997: 73). Woods recommended greater commitment to educationof local government by MfE, more involvement of non-council and non-judicial advisory bodies, an amendment to Part IV of the RMA, and moreproactive engagement with EDR by councils themselves (1997: 74–77).

Subsequent research has tended to confirm the above findings. Bayley(1999), for example, in her study of plan formulation processes found thatlocal authorities were not using conflict management opportunities to their fullpotential, partly due to the relatively new nature of the legislation (1999: 2).The majority of councils had no formal EDR policies or guidelines, althougha few were in the process of being developed and there was widespread enthu-siasm for guidelines (1999: 54). Several local authorities saw consultation asa form of conflict management since consultation was often used to inform oradvise stakeholders (1999: 57). Bayley found that formal staff training innegotiation was on the whole minimal and was typically out-sourced from otherproviders (1999: 59–60). Where training was provided it was not necessarilyprovided for management staff, creating ‘the distinct possibility that those


April 2004



117

UNCORRECTED PROOF

actively participating in resolution activities are untrained’ (1999: 77). Never-theless, many respondents saw themselves as active participants in resolvingconflicts (1999: 73).

In what was intended in part as a follow-up study to Woods’ research in1997, Kidd (2003) derived results that reinforced many of the key findings ofboth Woods and Bayley, but his research also showed some emergent trendsand issues. Kidd surveyed the same geographic region as Woods but includeda number of other councils and practitioners. Some of these additional organ-isations, such as Taranaki Regional Council and Wellington Regional Council(now known as Greater Wellington), had a history of commitment to EDRapproaches. A streamlined survey format was used (councils could choosebetween a seven-question interview or a fifteen-question written survey) withquestions framed more in terms of conflict management capabilities within theorganisation rather than around the Resource Consent process

per se

. Thefindings consistent with Woods’ study were as follows:

• Lack of awareness in some quarters that EDR is more than just mediation;• The criteria for when to use EDR mechanisms are inconsistent;• There are very few formal in-house EDR policies;• Central government guidelines are inadequate;• Perceived contradiction between using EDR and core functions of local

authorities;• Tendency to use in-house staff in pre-hearing meetings; and• Overall workload pressures inhibited greater usage of EDR approaches

(adapted from Kidd, 2003: 84)

In terms of newer trends and emergent issues the following were identified:

• Local authorities are more receptive to EDR processes;• The scope of problems for which EDR can appropriately be used by councils

appears to be growing;• Some staff have good understanding of negotiation and facilitation aspects

of EDR;• There is better understanding of EDR as appropriate at early stages in

decision making process (e.g., pre-application stage);• Independent third parties are seen as more legitimate than in the past;• Public awareness of EDR has marginally increased but guidelines for pub-

lic and applicants and opportunities to participate remain limited (peoplecannot request what they do not know about); and

• It is acknowledged that central government agencies (e.g. MfE, PCE)have been promoting EDR from time to time. (adapted from Kidd, 2003:83–84)

In summary Kidd identifies five key issues that need to be addressed if ECMand EDR is to advance on a basis that will be less ad hoc than been has char-acteristic of the 10 years since the RMA has been in place:



Volume 45 No 1

118


UNCORRECTED PROOF

• Lack of policy and criteria (e.g., general statements of intent and evalua-tive decision-trees for when to invoke EDR);

• Lack of guidelines (e.g., protocols for meetings, how to choose venues,and whether to draft memoranda of understanding);

• Lack of training (e.g., tertiary-level courses, professional short courses,iwi-run workshops, or hui, and ‘on the job’ mentoring);

• Lack of collaboration between central and local government; and• Lack of public awareness and education. (adapted from Kidd, 2003: 94–95)

Amongst other things Kidd recommends amendments to the wording ofSections 5 (c), 17 (1) and 88 (4) (b) of the RMA to include the terms ‘negotia-tion, facilitation and mediation’ (2003: 109) as a clear signal to councils,applicants and the public at large that the RMA is a statute aimed at managingenvironmental conflict management in a non-adversarial manner. Greatercollaboration between MfE and local government is urged, including bestpractice guides drawn from other ADR settings in the present justice system,and provision by MfE of directories of independent mediators and facilitators(2003: 110). Greater encouragement for professional associations and institutesto include EDR skills in codes of practice and accreditation criteria is alsosuggested (2003: 111).

CONCLUSIONS

The preceding discussion has focussed on the introduction and level of uptakeof environment conflict management approaches within New Zealand’s statu-tory framework since the early 1990s. What conclusions, if any, can be drawnthat are of relevance beyond this particular context? One of the first appears tobe that it is not sufficient merely to create legislative provisions for ECMapproaches. Despite widespread optimism in the late 1980s that RMLR wouldusher in a new era of less adversarial environmental decision-making, progressto date, even allowing for a ‘bedding-in’ period of at least five years, has beenvery limited. A major commitment is required, both at central and local gov-ernment level, to convince people to at least try these approaches. Since the startof RMLR in 1988, and in the ten years since the RMA was passed, relativelyfew ECM/EDR-linked guidelines have been produced by the Ministry for theEnvironment. Apart from those already mentioned above and the EnvironmentCourt-focussed initiatives of 2001 discussed earlier (MfE, 2001a, 2001b), theMinistry has released a reversible format brochure aimed at bridging the gapbetween local authorities and iwi entitled Talking constructively: a practicalguide for iwi, hapu and whanau on building agreements with local authori-ties /Talking constructively: a practical approach for local authorities onbuilding agreements with iwi, hapu and whanau (n.d.). While these moves arelaudable, there is capacity for more ECM/EDR-specific initiatives, particularlysince, as research by Kidd and others has shown, local authorities haveremained critical of the lack of helpful guidance from central government onenvironmental conflict management.


April 2004 An appraisal of environmental conflict management provisions

© Victoria University of Wellington 2004 119

UNCORRECTED PROOF

A second point to emerge is the need to prevent ECM/EDR approaches andtechniques from being overshadowed or sidelined by modifications to particu-lar institutional arrangements. The results of a review of Environment Courtprocesses, entitled Reducing the delays: enhancing New Zealand’s EnvironmentCourt (2003) have recently been published by the Ministry for the Environment.Amongst other things the review emphasises the need for better distribution ofexisting guidelines, more funding for training, closer monitoring of caseloadsand best practice research to complement existing information (2003: 45).These recommendations have merit, but a singular focus on this area could beseen as merely working on the ambulance of environmental conflict ratherthan investing in preventive care. Alternative dispute resolution approaches,as Chart and others warn, should not be seen as a universal panacea but theunderlying philosophy of environmental conflict management is that directiveintervention takes place when other less directive approaches have beenunsuccessful. It is important to frame EDR in terms of a range of tools to beused along with a diagnostic view of the type of conflict at hand.

In terms of EDR research and evaluation, there is clearly room for moresystematic empirical studies of the use or non-use of EDR by territorial author-ities both in New Zealand and overseas (especially in terms of identifyingcouncils that have attempted EDR and found it to be unproductive). There isalso more potential for cross-cultural research. Blackford and Matunga havenoted that Maori already use ADR approaches in much of their decision-making. Maori are continuously involved in negotiations with central government(e.g., the current Government has a Minister of Treaty Negotiations). Perhapsiwi could be more involved in the production of guidelines and in training ofcouncil staff, councillors, applicants and the general public. Beyond the NewZealand context, the specific techniques used by indigenous peoples for man-aging conflicts could be assessed in more depth for their adaptability to dealwith resource use conflicts.

On a more general note, greater use could be made of the literature alreadyavailable. Apart from the sources already discussed, the literature on ECMand EDR theory and practice has burgeoned from the mid-1990s onwards.10

Those working in the education sector are well placed to add to the process ofmaking people more aware, whether as resource users or administrators, thatmediation, for example, is mid-way along a continuum of conflict managementtechniques that are available. Negotiation, facilitation and mediation skills areincreasingly seen as desirable attributes across a range of professions. Greaterattention to ECM/EDR approaches would, in our view, provide benefits topeople, both as individuals and as members of communities, and would notcompromise environmental principles or outcomes.

NOTES

1 The Treaty of Waitangi/ te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed on February 6 1840, by both therepresentatives for the British Crown and several Maori chiefs, or rangatira, representingvarious tribes, or iwi, throughout the country. It is regarded by many people in NewZealand as the principal constitutional document for the nation.


Asia Pacific Viewpoint Volume 45 No 1

120 © Victoria University of Wellington 2004

UNCORRECTED PROOF

2 In this paper, all references to RMLR publications by the Ministry for the Environmentare cited by individual author where authorship is explicitly identified and acknowledgedin the original documents.

3 See, for example, Burton (1987), Deutsch (1973), Fisher and Ury (1984); Folberg andTaylor (1984); Gulliver (1979), Moore (1986) and Nader and Todd (1979).

4 See, for example, Amy (1983; 1987), Bacow and Wheeler (1984), Bingham (1986), Lake(1987), Jacobs and Rubino (1987), Susskind (1985); Susskind, Bacow and Wheeler(1983), Susskind and Cruickshank (1987), and Sullivan (1984).

5 The pairing of the words ‘conflict’ and ‘resolution’ has been critiqued by a number ofcommentators in recent years (Buckles and Rusnack, 1999; Daniels and Walker, 2001).The fundamental contention by such critics is that while conflict can be managed, onlyminor disputes can ever be said to be resolved.

6 The unpaginated Acknowledgements, between Part A and B of Palmer et al. (1988),include a lengthy list of contributors, all of whom are either judges, lawyers or law groups.No lay input is acknowledged.

7 A marae is generally an area of specially designated land owned and occupied by a par-ticular iwi where meeting-house, accommodation and community facilities are provided.

8 See http://www.mfe.govt.nz/withyou/funding/ela-fund-application-form.pdf (p. 4). 9 Two district councils did not respond.

10 See, for example, Blackburn and Bruce (1995), Csutora (1997), Deister (2000), Holland(1997), Krages (1998), Litmanen (1996), Swanson (1995), Tarnow (1996) and Tow andStubbs (1997).

REFERENCES

Amy, D.J. (1987) The politics of environmental mediation, New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Amy, D.J. (1983) Environmental mediation: an alternative approach to policy stalemates,Policy Sciences 15: 345–65.

Bacow, L.S. and M. Wheeler (1984) Environmental dispute resolution, New York: Plenum Press.Bayley, J. (1999) Conflict resolution and plan formulation, unpublished masters thesis, Dunedin:

University of Otago.Baylis, C.A. (1999) Reviewing statutory models of mediation/conciliation in New Zealand:

three conclusions, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 30(1): 279–94.Bingham, C. (1986) Resolving environmental disputes, Washington, D.C.: The Conservation

Foundation.Blackburn, J.W. and W.M. Bruce (1995) Mediating environmental conflicts, London: Quorum

Books.Blackford, C. (1992a) Guidelines for monitoring additional dispute resolution processes within

the Resource Management Act Information Paper No. 39, Lincoln, Canterbury: Centre forResource Management, Lincoln University.

Blackford, C. (1992b) Mediating Resource Policy Disputes: unpublished report for the Minis-try for the Environment, Lincoln, Canterbury: Centre for Resource Management, LincolnUniversity.

Blackford, C. (1992c) A review of environmental mediation: theory and practice InformationPaper No. 34, Lincoln, Canterbury: Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln University.

Blackford, C. and A. Smith (1993) Cross cultural mediation: guidelines for those who interfacewith iwi Information Paper No. 46, Lincoln, Canterbury: Centre for Resource Management,Lincoln University.

Blackford, C. and H. Matunga (1991) Maori participation in environmental mediationInformation Paper No. 30, Lincoln, Canterbury: Centre for Resource Management, LincolnUniversity.

Bollard, R.J. and S.E. Wooler (1998) Court-annexed mediation and other related environmen-tal disputes, New Zealand Law Review Part IV: 707–19.




UNCORRECTED PROOF

Borrie, N.C. (2002) An evaluation of the use of mediation in environmental dispute resolutionunder section 268 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Unpublished masters thesis,Lincoln, Canterbury: Lincoln University.

Buckles, D. and G. Rusnak (1999) Conflict and collaboration in natural resource management,in D. Buckles (ed.) Cultivating peace: conflict and collaboration in natural resourcemanagement, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

Bührs, T. and R.V. Bartlett (1993) Environmental policy in New Zealand: the politics of cleanand green? Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Burton, J.W. (1987) Resolving deep-rooted conflict, Lanham: University Press of America.Butteriss, C., J.A. Wolfenden and A.P. Goodridge (2001) Discourse analysis: a technique to

assist conflict management in environmental policy development, Australian Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 8(1): 48–58.

Campbell, M.C. and D.W. Floyd (1996) Thinking critically about environmental mediation,Journal of Planning Literature 10(3): 235–47.

Carlin, A. (1994) Setting the table: an approach to the identification of parties for environmentaldispute resolution, thesis submitted in part fulfilment of requirements of Master of Science(Resource Management), Lincoln, Canterbury: Lincoln University.

Chart, J.R. (1988) Mediation of resource management conflicts: report prepared by Ms.J.R. Chart, senior lecturer in law, University of Canterbury, in Palmer, K.A.; Chart, J.R;McDuff, I. Resource management disputes, part A, the role of courts and tribunals, partB, mediation Resource Management Law Reform Working Paper No. 22, Wellington:Ministry for the Environment, 2–26.

Coutts, B. and P. Frost (1998) Alternative dispute resolution in resource management in NewZealand, New Zealand Surveyor 288: 14–21.

Csutora, M. (1997) The mismanagement of environmental conflicts (Hungarian companiesgradually learn how to effectively deal with environmental conflicts), The Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science 552: 52–65.

Daniels, S.E. and G.B. Walker (2001) Working through environmental conflict: the collaborativelearning approach, Connecticut: Praeger.

Deister, A. (2000) Environmental mediation strategies for success: summaries of two consensus-based cases – Florida’s Growth Management Act legislation and the Los Angeles Watershedtask force, The Urban Lawyer 32(1): 73–96.

Deutsch, M. (1973) The resolution of conflict; constructive and destructive processes. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dorcey, A.H.J. (1991) Negotiating water: conflict resolution in Australian water management,Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University.

Fisher, R. and W. Ury (1984) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in, London:Hutchinson.

Folberg, J. and A. Taylor (1984) Mediation: a comprehensive guide to resolving conflictswithout litigation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fookes, T. (1988) Public participation: options for legislation Resource Management LawReform Working Paper No. 17, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Fookes, T., von Dadelzsen, J. and C. Wooding (1988) Public participation Resource ManagementLaw Reform Working Paper No. 12, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Gray Matter Research Ltd. (1988) Public participation in policy formation and developmentconsents Resource Management Law Reform Working Paper No. 18, Wellington: Ministryfor the Environment.

Gray, A. (1988) Synopsis of submissions received in response to Directions for ChangeResource Management Law Reform Working Paper No. 21, Wellington: Ministry for theEnvironment.

Gray, A., McGlinchy, I., Vaughan, B., Gilliard, L., Rush, M. and J. Day (1989) Public submissionson People, Environment, and Decision Making Resource Management Law Reform WorkingPaper No. 32, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Gulliver, P.H. (1979) Disputes and negotiations: a cross-cultural perspective, New York:Academic Press.


Asia Pacific Viewpoint Volume 45 No 1

122 © Victoria University of Wellington 2004

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Hayward, B.M. (2000) Beyond consensus: social learning in urban planning, unpublisheddoctoral thesis, Dunedin: University of Otago.

Holland, J. (1997) Meaningful participation through negotiated rule-making of environmentalissues, Unpublished masters thesis, Wellington: University of Victoria.

Jacobs, H. and R. Rubino (1987) Environmental mediation: an annotated bibliography,Chicago: Council of Planning Librarians.

Kidd, J.A.H. (2003) Environmental mediation under the Resource Management Act 1991:regional investigations 10 years on, unpublished masters thesis, Lincoln, Canterbury:Lincoln University.

Krages, B.P. (1998) Mediation as a tool for the environmental advocate, Natural Resourcesand Environment 12 (3): 209–11.

Lake, R.W. (ed.) (1987) Resolving locational conflict, New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for UrbanPolicy Research, Rutgers University.

Litmanen, T. (1996) Environmental conflict as a social construction: nuclear waste conflicts inFinland, Society and Natural Resources 9: 523–34.

Memon, P.A., Dixon, J. and T. Fookes (1998) The origins and merits of the ‘effects-basedapproach to urban planning’: a New Zealand perspective, in Conference proceedings20th century urban planning experience, Sydney: Faculty of Built Environment, Universityof New South Wales, 616–21.

Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (1988a) Resource Management Law Reform Directionsfor Change: A Discussion Paper, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Ministry for the Environment (1988b) People, Environment, and Decision Making: theGovernment’s proposals for Resource Management Law Reform, Wellington: Ministry forthe Environment.

Ministry for the Environment (1989) Principled negotiation and environmental dispute resolu-tion with an emphasis on strategic use of facilitators and mediators, Wellington: Ministryfor the Environment.

Ministry for the Environment Manatu Mo Te Taiao (1999) Pre-hearing meetings: a practicalguide for councils, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Ministry for the Environment Manatu Mo Te Taiao (2001a) Guide for applicants: funding forlegal assistance, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Ministry for the Environment Manatu Mo Te Taiao (2001b) You, Mediation and the Environ-ment Court, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Ministry for the Environment Manatu Mo Te Taiao (2003) Reducing the delays: enhancingNew Zealand’s Environment Court, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Ministry for the Environment Manatu Mo Te Taiao (n.d.) Talking constructively: a practicalguide for iwi, hapu and whanau on building agreements with local authorities /Talkingconstructively: a practical approach for local authorities on building agreements with iwi,hapu and whanau, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Mitcalfe, K. (2001) Fronting up – mediation under the RMA 1991, New Zealand Journal ofEnvironmental Law 5: 195–225.

Moore, C. (1986) The mediation process: practical strategies for resolving conflict, SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Nader, L. and H. Todd (eds) (1979) The disputing process: law in ten societies, New York:Columbia University Press.

Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) (1996) Public participa-tion under the Resource Management Act 1991: management of conflict, Wellington:Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Palmer, K.A. (1988) Resource management disputes, Part A, the role of courts and tribunals ResourceManagement Law Reform Working Paper No. 22, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Palmer, K.A., J. R. Chart and I. McDuff (1988) Resource management disputes, Part A, therole of courts and tribunals, Part B, mediation Resource Management Law ReformWorking Paper No. 22, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Patterson, M. and D. Williams (1998) Paradigms and problems: the practice of social sciencein natural resource management, Society & Natural Resources 11: 279–95.




UNCORRECTED PROOF

Pavelka, G. and J. Chart (1992) Managing resource use disputes: instructor’s notes for effectivenegotiation and mediation, Lincoln, Canterbury: Centre for Resolving EnvironmentalDisputes, Lincoln University.

Resource Management Act (1991), Wellington, New Zealand: Published under the authority ofthe New Zealand Government, 1995.

Rive, V.J. (1997) Resolving conflict by consensus: environmental mediation under the ResourceManagement Act 1991, New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law 1(1): 201–36.

Sullivan, T. (1984) Resolving development disputes through negotiations, New York: PlenumPress.

Susskind, L. (1985) Mediating public disputes, Negotiation Journal 1(1): 19–22.Susskind, L. and J. Cruickshank (1987) Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to

resolving public disputes, New York: Basic Books.Susskind, L., Bacow, L. and M. Wheeler. (1983) Resolving environmental regulatory disputes,

Cambridge, MA.: Schenkman Books.Swanson, E. (1995) Environmental conflict and alternative dispute resolution, Edmonton:

Edmonton Environmental Law Centre.Tarnow, K. (1996) Collaborative approaches to decision-making and conflict resolution for

natural resource and land use issues: a handbook for public policy decision-making andconflict resolution, Oregon: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.

Tow, D. and M. Stubbs (1997) The effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution methods inplanning disputes, Australian Dispute Resolution Journal, 267–81.

von Dadelzsen, J., Fookes, T. and S. Allan (1988) Decision making processes and structures:two contributions to Resource Management Law Reform Resource Management LawReform Working Paper No. 19, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Woods, T. (1997) Environmental dispute resolution and the resource consent process of theResource Management Act 1991, thesis submitted in part fulfilment of requirements ofMaster of Science (Resource Management), Lincoln, Canterbury: Lincoln University.


An appraisal of environmental conflict management provisions in New Zealand's Resource Management...

Documents

Transcript of An appraisal of environmental conflict management provisions in New Zealand's Resource Management...