Resource management reform: what does it mean for the primary sector?

Proposed legislation may not live up to government promises for the primary sector

Will the reforms reduce regulatory burden and provide greater flexibility for rural land users, or is primary industries the sector that has been ‘left out’? 

The sector left behind?

Central to the new system are overarching ‘goals’ for the Natural Environment Bill (managing the use of natural resources and protecting the environment) and the Planning Bill (how land can be used and developed).  Others in the industry have already identified the lack of recognition of primary industries and food production in the goals.

In legislation that is intended to enable primary sector growth, we would have expected to see goals that recognise the important role of the primary sector in food production and security, the importance of soil productivity and water use availability for economic development, and support for the well-being of rural communities.

This omission flows through to the mechanics of the Bills, which provide much greater focus on and recognition of other productive activities such as aquaculture and mining, only directly addressing farming in relation to:

• Freshwater farm plans, which have largely been carried over from the Parker-era amendments to the RMA; and
• Providing for government regulation prescribing requirements applying to use of models – with the example of simplified representations of systems such as farms – i.e. Overseer.

The extent of change and timeframe for transition risks sustained uncertainty for the sector

Overall, the Government is presenting these reforms as a welcome reset with clearer rules, simpler processes, more activities permitted, and a more predictable system that will prevent the sector from becoming bogged down in years-long consenting cycles.  However, the transition to this system will take time, five years or longer (see more about the transition here).

National policy direction will come next, directing how the goals must be achieved and prioritised.  This will include another iteration of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, with another major overhaul anticipated later this year.

National standards will provide requirements and technical direction for councils to develop their combined regional plans which include spatial, land use and natural environment plans. These combined plans will guide consenting decisions.

It is not until the policy direction, standards and plans are complete that the full framework will be in place.  In many regions regional plans have set a pathway to manage and, in some cases, reduce freshwater allocations and set a regime for managing nutrient discharges.  The timeframe for transition and potential overhaul of all aspects of the system risks disrupting current progress and could become problematic when ‘environmental limits’ come into force.

Strict environmental limits are proposed

Under the Natural Environment Bill environmental limits will be set by the government (human health limits) and regional councils (ecosystem health limits) to be achieved by capping resource use – the stated first preference – or via an action plan if a cap is not effective or feasible or is directed by national standards.

Limits must be realistic and achievable. While strict limits might drive improvement, this must also reflect the complex and dynamic nature of the natural environment. Farmers, communities and councils alike need flexibility to respond to unforeseen circumstances.

Government assurances that farming will be ‘permitted’ under this new system overlook that:

• ‘permitted’ activities would require an activity to be registered, a fixed fee paid, a certificate obtained from a qualified person that the activity complies and obtain the written approval of directly affected persons – which is significantly more onerous than the current permitted activities;
• activities should only be classified as permitted if there is sufficient allocation for cumulative effects without breaching environmental limits – which may exclude many water and discharge activities from being classified as permitted.

Market-based allocation unlocked

The Natural Environment Bill will unlock the ability for the government to require or enable market allocation processes including auctions and tenders for permits for natural resources such as water and impose operational requirements relating to the market allocation.

While the Bill proposes to enable market allocation, this would need to be implemented through national direction and would be highly political and difficult to implement in practice.

Market allocation would represent a seismic shift in the first-come first-served basis of the resource management system and raises broader concerns around equity, efficiency, flexibility, and mispricing.  We think the government needs to do more to demonstrate that market pricing can be fair and effective.  It is essential that allocation systems under the new regime recognise existing investment and encourage innovation and efficiency.

Enforcement will continue to have more bite

Changes to the RMA last year that substantially increased maximum fines and banned insurance cover for fines under the RMA have been carried over, with maximum penalties:

• for natural persons imprisonment up to 18 months or a fine up to $1 million;
• for companies, a fine up to $10 million.

In rural contexts where breaches may be the result of genuine accidents or unforeseen mechanical failures, these changes could lead to harsh penalties for breaches that were unintentional or unavoidable.

The current lack of direction and certainty is likely to continue for some time

The reforms reflect a shift towards more centralised direction, raising concerns that the resource management playing field will chop and change with every government cycle.  Stability will be essential for the primary sector to ride out market volatility and continue to tackle environmental challenges collectively.

As the regulatory landscape shifts, the sector enters a challenging period with a huge number of resource consents nearing expiry. The Government has responded to the looming “consent bulge” by establishing a set of transitional measures designed to maintain continuity and confidence while reducing regulatory pressure, which you can read about here.

It’s not all bad news

The shift in focus on enjoyment of property rights and reduced scope of effects that can be considered should make consenting easier, especially where amenity or cultural issues have been raised.  We can also expect that there will be less public notification of consents, with the Natural Environment Bill requiring significant adverse effects on natural resources or people to meet the notification test.  See more about the changes to consenting here.

A requirement that consent conditions must be proportionate could put a stop to simple consents being plagued with lengthy, prescriptive conditions and significant compliance burdens that don’t necessarily equate to improved environmental outcomes.

The regulatory relief framework should provide more checks and balances to identify  areas of land being protected  by planning controls, including Significant Natural Areas; Sites of Significance to Māori and Outstanding Natural Landscapes / Outstanding Natural Features.

Want to know more?

Submissions on the Bills are due by 13 February 2026.

If you have any questions about proposed changes to the resource management system and/or how to submit, please contact our specialist Resource Management team.

Related articles:

From RMA to a New Era: Transitioning to the Planning Act and Natural Environment Act
Growth on the coast – a more enabling consenting pathway for the coastal environment
Resource Management Reforms: Push play on projects or sit tight for now?
The Planning Bill: What Infrastructure Providers Need to Know