Submission on the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation

The Legislative Basis for the New Zealand Conservation Authority’s submission

1. The New Zealand Conservation Authority / Te Pou Atawhai Taiao o Aotearoa (Authority, NZCA) was established under the Conservation Act 1987 (Act), with members appointed by the Minister of It is an independent statutory body with a range of functions, but primarily acts as an independent conservation advisor to the Minister and the Director-General of Conservation.
2. The Authority has a role as an objective advocate on matters of national significance and interest in the conservation arena and to provide high quality independent advice to the Department of Conservation (Department, DOC) on its strategic direction and
3. The Authority has a range of powers and functions, under the Act, as well as under other conservation related Under the Act (section 6C(2)(c) refers) the Authority has the power to “advocate the interests of the Authority at any public forum or in any statutory planning process.”

NZCA Submission

4. The Authority’s submission is based on its analysis of:
   • Strengthening national direction on renewable electricity generation and electricity transmission – discussion document. April 2023
   • Proposed National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity generation [2023]
5. NZCA supports action to respond to the climate crisis through the provision for more predictable and speedier authorisation of renewable electricity projects. The NZCA is concerned, however, that the draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation (NPS-REG) does not recognise and adequately address the ongoing global and local loss of biodiversity, which is a crisis equally as significant as climate change.
6. For whatever reason, the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity has remained in draft form since 2020 (following two previous failed attempts to produce a biodiversity NPS). As a result, there is no national direction on indigenous biodiversity other than Policy 11 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (and indirect national direction relating to aquatic biodiversity under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management). The draft NPS-REG provides for the NPS-FM and NZCPS to prevail over it in the event of a conflict, but no elevation of biodiversity is similarly provided because of the failure to gazette the NPS-IB.
7. The Objective’s (2.1) only reference to environmental values is “while managing adverse effects on the environment”. This is an extremely weak direction that does not recognise that merely “managing” effects will be inadequate for many environmental
8. Policy 4 is:

Policy 4: It is recognised that REG activities may need to take place in areas with significant environment values and, where adverse effects remain after applying the effects management hierarchy, REG activities are enabled if the national significance and benefits of the REG activities outweigh those remaining adverse effects.

9. Clause 3.6 is a policy for allowing REG activities in areas with significant environmental values if gateway tests are met and the effects management hierarchy is The effects management hierarchy enables the use of compensation in any circumstance unless it is “not appropriate to address any residual adverse effects”. This is a meaningless statement. Compensation results in a net loss of biodiversity (or other environmental values being affected) because it does not require “like-for-like” actions (for example it allows the loss of habitat for a threatened native bird in exchange for enhancement of a wetland or potentially even a social or cultural enhancement).
10. Clause 3.6 includes the same “overall judgment” regarding residual adverse effects and benefits of REG as Policy 4. The national significance of REG is easily demonstrated in terms of homes supplied with electricity, dollars, jobs, and emissions reductions. The adverse effects will generally be unquantifiable. In such circumstances, quantifiable benefits will inevitably win out. Provision of such an overall judgment is not consistent with the RMA definition of sustainable management, which requires that the life supporting capacity of ecosystems is safeguarded.
11. Taken together, the effect of Objective 1, Policy 4 and Clause 3.6 is the potential for significant loss of habitat, species and ecosystems (biodiversity). This is directly inconsistent with Te Mana o Te Taiao – the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, a document that the Government has pledged to implement.
    
    
    • These provisions are also inconsistent with the “limits and targets” (and limited exemptions) proposed in t Incorporating limits to offsetting (see for example NPS-FM Appendix 6).
      
      
12. The Natural and Built Environment It is perplexing that a National Policy Statement would be proposed by Government at this point in time when it is so clearly inconsistent with legislation also being considered. It makes it very difficult for the public to ascertain the Government’s policy intentions with respect to renewable electricity and the environment.
13. NZCA opposes Objective 1, Policy 4 and Clause 3.6 and recommends that:

• • Objective 1 (b) is amended to “while protecting significant environmental values and managing other adverse effects on the environment”.
  • Policy 4 is amended to:

Policy 4: It is recognised that REG activities may need to take place in areas with significant environmental values. Effects should be managed by applying the effects management hierarchy, except where significant environmental values must be protected due to their vulnerability and irreplaceability.

• • Clause 6 should be amended by:
    • Incorporating limits to offsetting (see for example NPS-FM Appendix 6).
    • Providing that compensation “may be considered” rather than enabling it in all cases.
    • Including a clause, similar to that proposed above for Policy 4, identifying that some significant environmental values should be protected due to their vulnerability and irreplaceability.
    • Deleting the “overall judgment” between adverse effects and benefits.
    • Clarification should be provided as to the relationship between NBE “limits and targets” and the proposed NPS-REG provisions.

Privacy Statement

14. I have read and acknowledge the Privacy