RMA Reform 2025/2026

The Government’s intent is that more farms are permitted activities (ie don't need a consent to farm) and farmers need fewer consents.  

Note: consents have been renamed ‘Permits’ in the Natural Environment Bill, but we refer to them as consents in this document because it’s confusing that the spelling for permitted (ie not needing a consent/permit) and permitted (ie gaining a permit) are the same. 

B+LNZ’s analysis: 

• The current proposal could be worse than the RMA, with more consents (and all consents being able to be declined) and more onerous permitted activity requirements (ie registration and affected party approval) especially in overallocated catchments.  
• If a catchment’s water quality exceeds a limit, then the more directive language in the Natural Environment Bill appears to mean that all or most farmers in that catchment would need to get a consent.  

You may want to reflect these points in your own submission, along with examples such as: 

• any activities you do that are currently permitted and the impact if they become consented, restricted or phased out 
• how ongoing rule changes create regulatory uncertainty and difficulty making long‑term investment decisions – eg if you have any delayed or cancelled projects/infrastructure investments etc 
• where finance or succession planning are being affected by regulatory risk or uncertainty. 

Freshwater Farm Plans (FWFP) are intended to be a key tool allowing farmers to continue to farm without the need for a consent.

• The legislation currently requires all farms over 50ha to have a FWFP that is at least audited.
• Certification of the FWFP is triggered by high-risk activities on specific parts of a farm but high-risk activities haven’t been defined.
• Industry assurance programmes (eg NZFAP+, Tiaki plan) accepted to reduce duplication.
• To be used as an alternative to a consent. 

B+LNZ’s analysis: 

• Most sheep and beef farmers don’t require consents so requiring all farmers to have an audited FWFP (even without certification) is a substantial increase in compliance for the sector. This is not something B+LNZ could accept.  
• Where part of a farm triggers the need for certification, the whole farm will need to be certified, not just to the high-risk activity area that triggered the need for certification (eg the area of irrigation or winter grazing). We don’t see the justification as it adds cost without focusing on the actual risk. 

You may want to reflect these points in your own submission, along with examples such as: 

• showing that audit and certification costs are not proportionate to farm income but are often proportionate to the size of the property rather than the risk 
• where money spent on your farm on compliance is money not spent on trees, fencing, or erosion control 
• if you already do an FAP+ or regional freshwater plan (as part of a consent or regional rule), the need to avoid duplication and costs – and what works and doesn’t work with these farm plans. 

A limit is how much of a contaminant or harm is acceptable in the environment without causing an impact to human health or the ecosystem. 

Under the Natural Environment Bill, regional councils set environmental limits for water, air, soil, coast, and biodiversity. The limits will directly drive rules in regional plans as these plans will need to either prevent a limit being breached or get a catchment back within a limit.  

B+LNZ’s analysis: 

• Poorly set limits risk forcing farmers out of business without delivering real environmental improvements. 
• Any environmental limits under the new system must be achievable, practical, risk-based, and balanced. 

B+LNZ‑commissioned independent research on the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 national bottom lines showed that meeting suspended fine sediment limits could require:

• retirement of ~40 percent of sheep and beef land, costing the economy $3.9 billion each year
• 13,000km of fencing, costing $1.4 billion
• 8 percent of remaining land in pole planting.

Even after these mitigations many catchments still wouldn’t meet the bottom lines. For context, some of our national parks currently don’t meet the bottom lines. This demonstrates why limits must be realistic and grounded in regional circumstances.

You may want to reflect these points in your own submission, along with examples such as: 

• where limits have been set on modelled or average conditions, rather than real data and risk on your farm – eg the impact of investment in fencing, planting, and land retirement and how they have reduced risk but cannot eliminate erosion 
• what can be controlled and not controlled on farm – eg what has happened in storm events on your farm and what has helped in terms of environmental mitigations and what has not. 

The Natural Environment Bill strengthens the ability for councils to use market tools (eg allocation trading) to reduce overallocation of water and contaminants. 

B+LNZ’s analysis: 

• There are challenges for allocating diffuse contaminants such as nitrogen or sediment because of the difficulty in accurately measuring losses at the farm scale and not having the required data to operate a fair market or cap and trade system.  
• For water quantity, markets favour those who can pay the most for the water rights. 

Water quantity allocation example:

• Murray Darling in Australia: a small number of growers hold a significant amount of the water which has left other land parcels stranded and uneconomic.

Nutrient allocation example:

• Taupo and Rotorua have been through a market allocation system for nutrients – with varying degrees of success but also numerous issues. Many farmers either intensified to meet additional costs or sold due to regulatory pressure.

These outcomes are often worse for the environment, economy, and rural communities.

The Natural Environment Bill sets a goal of “no net loss of indigenous biodiversity.” 

B+LNZ’s analysis: 

• It is unclear whether this applies nationally, regionally, or at the individual farm level.  
• Councils may have to compensate landowners if restrictions significantly impact land use. This supports greater property rights and may provide a handbrake on councils imposing strict land use rules without justification, helping to curb regulatory overreach.

There are significant issues with how stock drinking water is currently being treated around NZ. Some regional council plans giving effect to national rules have included overly onerous requirements.  

This is despite stock drinking water being a critical animal welfare issue and its effects often being minor (it only accounts for a few percent of a catchment take). 

B+LNZ’s analysis: 

• The new legislation has simply carried across the wording from the previous RMA. However, B+LNZ argues the new legislation needs to address this issue and make water takes for stock drinking water permitted.