|The exclusive economic zone and continental shelf (environmental effects) Bill 2011|
Makgill, R.; Dawson, K.; de Wit, N. (2012). The exclusive economic zone and continental shelf (environmental effects) Bill 2011. Resour. Manag. J. (Auckl.) 2012: 1-6, 16
In: Resource Management Journal (Auckland). Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand: Auckland. ISSN 1178-5462, more
|Authors|| || Top |
- Makgill, R., more
- Dawson, K.
- de Wit, N.
This article looks at the The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill 2011 in light of New Zealand’s rights and obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention. It then addresses three key areas of concern including: (a) the purpose of the Bill; (b) the test for granting marine consents under clause 61(2); and (c) the precautionary approach. The writers consider that the Bill largely succeeds, in a drafting sense, in what it sets out to do (i.e. provide an effects based statutory regime for balancing environmental protection with economic development). However, the writers consider that the Bill fails to provide an adequate degree of clarity in respect of our three areas of concern. Lack of clarity in turn contributes to an overall failure to achieve a desirable level of integration with the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”). This leads to our central concern, which is that “failure to achieve integrated management will result in unnecessary complexity and costs for the Crown, applicants, submitters (whether supporters, opponents or neutral), and decision-makers” (Robert Makgill and Alastair Logan, “The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill” (2012) 789 Lawtalk 15 at 15.)