AI Policy Making Day 17: Moving on to Methods

Midjourney prompt: a robot mixing flour in a bowl to make a cake --ar 7:4

We are now at the point where we need to be determining some methods to give effect to each of the policies listed for each Chapter Topic, at each level in the hierarchy. Starting with the the Natural Environment Chapter and the Topic of 'Land', the 'District Level' Policy 1 states: "Encourage sustainable land use practices that minimize soil degradation and maintain soil health." What 'Methods' (in the context of the Resource Management Act 1991) can be employed to achieve this Policy?

The "Methods" section in a District Plan describes the specific actions, tools, or strategies that will be used to achieve the objectives and policies. The methods can be regulatory (rules in the District Plan) and non-regulatory (other strategies, plans, or activities). To achieve the policy of encouraging sustainable land use practices that minimize soil degradation and maintain soil health, the following methods could be considered:

1. **Regulatory methods:**

- **Land Use Controls:** Implement rules in the District Plan that require certain land use practices to be undertaken to protect soil health. This could include controls on vegetation clearance, earthworks, and requirements for erosion and sediment control plans for certain types of activities.

- **Zoning and Overlays:** Designate certain areas with high soil quality or erosion susceptibility as special zones or overlays, where stricter rules apply to protect soil health.

- **Conditions on Resource Consents:** Where resource consent is required for certain activities, conditions could be imposed to require the adoption of sustainable land use practices that protect soil health.

2. **Non-regulatory methods:**

- **Education and Advocacy:** Provide information and resources to landowners about sustainable land management practices that can protect soil health. This could be done through workshops, online resources, and direct engagement.

- **Partnerships:** Work with local iwi, community groups, and landowners to promote sustainable land management practices.

- **Council Programs:** Develop and implement Council programs that provide advice, support, and potentially funding for sustainable land management practices.

- **Regional and National Policy Alignment:** Ensure consistency and alignment with relevant regional and national policies and standards related to soil health and sustainable land use.

Remember, the selection of methods should be based on the specific context and needs of the district, and should be developed in consultation with the community, stakeholders, and iwi.

What are your recommended methods, having regard to the considerations set out in Section 32 of the RMA? 32Requirements for preparing and publishing evaluation reports (1) An evaluation report required under this Act must— (a) examine the extent to which the objectives of the proposal being evaluated are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and (b) examine whether the provisions in the proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives by— (i) identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives; and (ii) assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives; and (iii) summarising the reasons for deciding on the provisions; and (c) contain a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the proposal. (2) An assessment under subsection (1)(b)(ii) must— (a) identify and assess the benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the provisions, including the opportunities for— (i) economic growth that are anticipated to be provided or reduced; and (ii) employment that are anticipated to be provided or reduced; and (b) if practicable, quantify the benefits and costs referred to in paragraph (a); and (c) assess the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions. (3) If the proposal (an amending proposal) will amend a standard, statement, national planning standard, regulation, plan, or change that is already proposed or that already exists (an existing proposal), the examination under subsection (1)(b) must relate to— (a) the provisions and objectives of the amending proposal; and (b) the objectives of the existing proposal to the extent that those objectives— (i) are relevant to the objectives of the amending proposal; and (ii) would remain if the amending proposal were to take effect. (4) If the proposal will impose a greater or lesser prohibition or restriction on an activity to which a national environmental standard applies than the existing prohibitions or restrictions in that standard, the evaluation report must examine whether the prohibition or restriction is justified in the circumstances of each region or district in which the prohibition or restriction would have effect. (4A) If the proposal is a proposed policy statement, plan, or change prepared in accordance with any of the processes provided for in Schedule 1, the evaluation report must— (a) summarise all advice concerning the proposal received from iwi authorities under the relevant provisions of Schedule 1; and (b) summarise the response to the advice, including any provisions of the proposal that are intended to give effect to the advice. (5) The person who must have particular regard to the evaluation report must make the report available for public inspection— (a) as soon as practicable after the proposal is made (in the case of a standard, regulation, national policy statement, or New Zealand coastal policy statement); or (b) at the same time as the proposal is notified. (6) In this section,— objectives means,— (a) for a proposal that contains or states objectives, those objectives: (b) for all other proposals, the purpose of the proposal proposal means a proposed standard, statement, national planning standard, regulation, plan, or change for which an evaluation report must be prepared under this Act provisions means,— (a) for a proposed plan or change, the policies, rules, or other methods that implement, or give effect to, the objectives of the proposed plan or change: (b) for all other proposals, the policies or provisions of the proposal that implement, or give effect to, the objectives of the proposal.

Section 32 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) outlines requirements for preparing and publishing evaluation reports. The following methods can be used to adhere to these requirements:

1. **Define Clear Objectives**: To satisfy Section 32(1)(a), clearly define the objectives of the proposal. Ensure these objectives align with the purpose of the RMA, which is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

2. **Identify and Assess Options**: To meet the requirements of Section 32(1)(b), identify other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives. Conduct a thorough analysis of these alternatives, assessing their efficiency and effectiveness in achieving the objectives.

3. **Detail Anticipated Effects**: Section 32(1)(c) requires that the report contains a level of detail corresponding to the scale and significance of the anticipated effects. This includes environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects. Use both quantitative and qualitative methods to assess these effects.

4. **Cost-Benefit Analysis**: Section 32(2) requires a cost-benefit analysis. Identify and assess the benefits and costs of the anticipated environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects, including the opportunities for economic growth and employment. If possible, quantify these benefits and costs.

5. **Risk Assessment**: Also as per Section 32(2), assess the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions.

6. **Review Existing Proposals**: If the proposal will amend an existing proposal, Section 32(3) requires that the report examine the objectives and provisions of both the amending and existing proposals.

7. **Justify Prohibitions or Restrictions**: If the proposal imposes a greater or lesser prohibition or restriction on an activity to which a national environmental standard applies, Section 32(4) requires that the report justify this prohibition or restriction in the circumstances of each region or district where it would take effect.

8. **Summarize Advice from Iwi Authorities**: If the proposal is a proposed policy statement, plan, or change prepared in accordance with any of the processes provided for in Schedule 1, Section 32(4A) requires that the evaluation report summarizes all advice received from iwi authorities and the response to this advice.

9. **Public Availability**: Finally, Section 32(5) requires that the evaluation report be made available for public inspection as soon as practicable after the proposal is made or at the same time as the proposal is notified.

By following these steps, you can ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 32 of the RMA.

Thanks for that. As a planning professional I have a good understanding of the RMA requirements. Looking at the following District Wide Policy that you drafted earlier, please provide your evaluation of it's appropriateness in terms of s32 of the RMA: "Encourage sustainable land use practices that minimize soil degradation and maintain soil health."

In evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed policy under s32 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), we need to consider the following aspects:

1. **Relevance**: The policy is relevant as it pertains to sustainable land use, which is a core focus of the RMA. The policy's emphasis on minimizing soil degradation and maintaining soil health is directly aligned with the RMA's focus on sustainability and the preservation of natural resources.

2. **Effectiveness**: The policy appears to be effective in directing decision-making towards sustainable land use practices. The phrasing "encourage" provides flexibility for different land use activities while promoting a general direction of sustainability and soil health maintenance.

3. **Efficiency**: The efficiency of the policy would depend on the specific mechanisms that are used to encourage sustainable land use practices. If clear, practical, and cost-effective methods are employed, the policy could be deemed efficient.

4. **Clarity**: The policy is clear in its intention to promote sustainable land use practices that minimize soil degradation and maintain soil health. However, it may need additional definitions or guidelines about what constitutes "sustainable land use practices," "minimize," and "soil health" to ensure consistent understanding and application.

5. **Risk of acting or not acting**: If this policy is not adopted, there could be increased risk of soil degradation, negatively impacting the quality of land resources in the district. On the other hand, adopting the policy presents the risk of potential resistance from certain stakeholders (e.g., developers or agricultural interests) if the policy is seen as too restrictive or burdensome.

6. **Coherence with other objectives and policies**: This policy should align well with other objectives and policies that aim to promote sustainable development and protect natural resources. Any potential conflicts or overlaps with other policies should be carefully evaluated.

In conclusion, the policy seems to appropriately address the requirements of the RMA in a general sense. However, to fully evaluate its appropriateness, more specific information about the local context, the ways in which this policy would be implemented, and its interactions with other policies would be needed.

Nice summary, thanks! Can you now perform the equivalent evaluation of the following District Level Policy you drafted earlier: "**Policy 2:** Support and promote land development that is in harmony with natural landscapes, and avoids or mitigates negative impacts on significant landscapes."

Sure, let's evaluate the proposed policy "Support and promote land development that is in harmony with natural landscapes, and avoids or mitigates negative impacts on significant landscapes" in the context of s32 of the RMA:

1. **Relevance**: The policy is relevant as it directly relates to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, which are key considerations under the RMA. The focus on harmonizing land development with natural landscapes and protecting significant landscapes is consistent with the RMA's purpose of promoting sustainable management of resources.

2. **Effectiveness**: The policy seems effective in guiding decisions towards land development that respects and preserves natural and significant landscapes. The use of terms "support and promote" and "avoids or mitigates" provides a clear direction about the expectations for land development.

3. **Efficiency**: The efficiency of the policy would largely depend on how it is implemented. If the processes for identifying what constitutes "harmony with natural landscapes" and "significant landscapes" are straightforward and the methods for avoiding or mitigating impacts are practical, then the policy could be considered efficient.

4. **Clarity**: While the policy is relatively clear in its intent, it might need more detailed definitions or guidelines around what is meant by "in harmony with natural landscapes" and "significant landscapes". This would help ensure the policy is applied consistently and understood the same way by different stakeholders.

5. **Risk of acting or not acting**: If this policy is not adopted, there could be risks related to inappropriate land development that could negatively impact natural and significant landscapes. However, adopting the policy also carries risks, particularly if it is seen as overly restrictive to land development. There could be potential opposition from development interests if the policy is perceived as limiting economic growth.

6. **Coherence with other objectives and policies**: This policy should align with other policies and objectives that promote sustainable land development and protection of natural resources. However, it's important to evaluate the policy in the context of all other objectives and policies to ensure it does not conflict or create unnecessary overlap.

In conclusion, the policy appears to be appropriately aligned with the purpose and principles of the RMA. However, its ultimate appropriateness would depend on the specific context of the district, how the policy is operationalized, and how it interacts with other policies and objectives.

Nice work. Can you now perform the equivalent evaluation of the following Zone Level Policy you drafted earlier: "**Policy 3:** In rural zones, prioritize land uses that promote soil conservation and sustainable agricultural practices."

Sure, let's evaluate the proposed policy "In rural zones, prioritize land uses that promote soil conservation and sustainable agricultural practices" in the context of s32 of the RMA:

1. **Relevance**: The policy is relevant in terms of promoting sustainable management of land resources, which is a key principle of the RMA. It specifically targets rural zones, which is appropriate given the predominance of soil-based activities in these areas, such as agriculture.

2. **Effectiveness**: The policy seems effective at guiding land use decisions towards promoting soil conservation and sustainable agriculture in rural zones. The term "prioritize" implies that these considerations should be at the forefront when making land-use decisions in these zones.

3. **Efficiency**: The efficiency of the policy would largely depend on its implementation. If there are clear guidelines on what constitutes "soil conservation" and "sustainable agricultural practices", and if there are practical means to implement these, then the policy could be considered efficient.

4. **Clarity**: The policy is generally clear in its intent but could benefit from more detailed definitions or guidelines around "soil conservation" and "sustainable agricultural practices". This would help to ensure the policy is applied consistently and understood the same way by different stakeholders.

5. **Risk of acting or not acting**: If this policy is not adopted, there could be risks related to unsustainable land use in rural zones, potentially leading to soil degradation and less sustainable agricultural practices. On the other hand, adopting the policy could present risks if it is perceived as limiting certain types of land use or economic activities in rural zones.

6. **Coherence with other objectives and policies**: This policy should align with other policies and objectives that promote sustainable land use and conservation of soil resources. However, it would be important to evaluate the policy in the context of all other objectives and policies to ensure there are no conflicts or unnecessary overlap.

In conclusion, the policy appears to align well with the principles of the RMA, and specifically targets key issues in rural zones. As with any policy, the specific context of the district, how the policy is operationalized, and how it interacts with other policies and objectives will ultimately determine its appropriateness.

Can you now perform the equivalent evaluation of the following Zone Level Policy you drafted earlier: "**Policy 4:** In urban zones, advocate for land development that reduces impervious surfaces and incorporates green infrastructure to manage stormwater and reduce erosion."

Absolutely, let's evaluate the proposed policy "In urban zones, advocate for land development that reduces impervious surfaces and incorporates green infrastructure to manage stormwater and reduce erosion" in the context of s32 of the RMA:

1. **Relevance**: The policy is highly relevant for urban zones where impervious surfaces such as roads, rooftops, and parking lots can lead to stormwater runoff and associated water quality issues. It aligns well with the principles of the RMA, which include promoting sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

2. **Effectiveness**: The policy seems effective at addressing urban stormwater issues, which are a major concern in many urban areas. By promoting the reduction of impervious surfaces and incorporation of green infrastructure, it could potentially mitigate stormwater runoff and associated negative impacts on water quality and erosion.

3. **Efficiency**: The efficiency of the policy could depend on how it's implemented. The use of the term "advocate" suggests that the policy encourages certain types of development but does not necessarily mandate them. This could allow for flexibility in implementation but might also limit the policy's impact if developers choose not to follow the advocated practices.

4. **Clarity**: The policy is clear in its intent but could benefit from more detailed guidelines or definitions around what constitutes "green infrastructure". This could help ensure the policy is applied consistently and understood the same way by different stakeholders.

5. **Risk of acting or not acting**: If the policy is not adopted, there could be continued or increased issues with stormwater runoff and erosion in urban zones. If the policy is adopted, there could be costs associated with implementing green infrastructure or redesigning projects to reduce impervious surfaces. However, these costs could be offset by benefits in terms of improved stormwater management and reduced erosion.

6. **Coherence with other objectives and policies**: This policy should align well with other policies and objectives that promote sustainable urban development and water management. However, it would be important to evaluate the policy in the context of all other objectives and policies to ensure there are no conflicts or unnecessary overlap.

In conclusion, this policy aligns well with the principles of the RMA and specifically addresses a key issue in urban zones. Its appropriateness will depend on the specific context of the district, how it is operationalized, and how it interacts with other policies and objectives.

Can you now perform the equivalent evaluation of the following Area Level Policy you drafted earlier: "**Policy 5:** For areas with high erosion risk, implement stringent soil conservation measures and restrict certain types of land use that could exacerbate erosion."

Sure, let's evaluate the proposed policy "For areas with high erosion risk, implement stringent soil conservation measures and restrict certain types of land use that could exacerbate erosion" in the context of s32 of the RMA:

1. **Relevance**: The policy is directly relevant to managing natural hazards and maintaining the quality of soil and water resources. This aligns well with the principles of the RMA, which include the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

2. **Effectiveness**: The policy appears to be effective in addressing erosion issues, as it targets high-risk areas and explicitly calls for stringent soil conservation measures and restrictions on certain land uses. This could help to reduce erosion and its associated impacts.

3. **Efficiency**: The efficiency of the policy depends on how it's implemented. If the stringent measures and restrictions are carefully tailored to the specific conditions and risks in each area, and if there are effective mechanisms for enforcing these measures and restrictions, the policy could be highly efficient. However, there could be costs associated with implementing and enforcing the policy, as well as potential impacts on land use and development.

4. **Clarity**: The policy is generally clear, but it could benefit from more detailed guidelines or definitions. For example, what constitutes a "high erosion risk" area? What are the "stringent soil conservation measures" that should be implemented? What types of land use should be restricted?

5. **Risk of acting or not acting**: If the policy is not adopted, erosion could continue to degrade soil and water quality in high-risk areas. If the policy is adopted, there could be restrictions on land use and development in these areas, which could have economic impacts. However, these impacts could be offset by the benefits of reduced erosion and improved environmental quality.

6. **Coherence with other objectives and policies**: This policy should align well with other policies and objectives that aim to manage natural hazards and maintain the quality of soil and water resources. However, it would be important to evaluate the policy in the context of all other objectives and policies to ensure there are no conflicts or unnecessary overlap.

In conclusion, this policy appears to be a proactive approach to managing erosion in high-risk areas, and it aligns well with the principles of the RMA. Its appropriateness will depend on the specific context of the district, how it is operationalized, and how it interacts with other policies and objectives.

Can you now perform the equivalent evaluation of the following Area Level Policy you drafted earlier: "**Policy 6:** For areas identified as significant landscapes, strictly control land development to preserve these areas' natural and cultural values."

Sure, let's evaluate the proposed policy "For areas identified as significant landscapes, strictly control land development to preserve these areas' natural and cultural values" in the context of s32 of the RMA:

1. **Relevance**: The policy is directly relevant to preserving significant landscapes, which is a key component of managing natural and cultural resources under the RMA. This policy aligns with the purpose of the RMA, which includes safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

2. **Effectiveness**: The effectiveness of this policy would depend on how "significant landscapes" are defined and identified, and how "strict control" is applied. If significant landscapes are accurately identified and if strict controls are put in place and enforced effectively, this policy could be very effective in preserving the natural and cultural values of these areas.

3. **Efficiency**: The efficiency of this policy would largely depend on how it is implemented. Identifying significant landscapes and enforcing strict controls could potentially require significant resources. However, the long-term benefits of preserving these landscapes could outweigh these costs.

4. **Clarity**: The policy is generally clear, but some terms may need to be further defined. For example, what constitutes a "significant landscape"? What does "strict control" entail? The clarity of these terms can affect the policy's effectiveness and efficiency.

5. **Risk of acting or not acting**: If this policy is not adopted, significant landscapes could be at risk from development, which could degrade their natural and cultural values. If the policy is adopted, there may be restrictions on land use and development, which could impact property rights and economic activities. However, these impacts need to be weighed against the importance of preserving significant landscapes.

6. **Coherence with other objectives and policies**: This policy should align well with other policies and objectives that aim to preserve natural and cultural values. However, it would be necessary to evaluate this policy in the context of all other objectives and policies to ensure there are no conflicts or unnecessary overlaps.

In conclusion, this policy could be an effective tool for preserving significant landscapes, but its success would depend on how it is defined and implemented. It aligns with the principles of the RMA, but further consideration is needed to evaluate its efficiency, clarify its terms, and ensure it coherently fits with other objectives and policies.