As each new environmental assessment shows, the impacts on New Zealand’s natural and urban areas are only compounding.

The government’s most recent national snapshot describes polluted rivers and coastal waters, declining biodiversity, poor air quality in some communities and greenhouse gas emissions that remain high by international standards.

Increasingly extreme weather is exposing the consequences of how we manage our land. Flooding and landslides have devastated communities, while damage caused by forestry slash during storms have brought heavy costs for people and property.

Meanwhile, New Zealand faces ever-growing demands for housing, infrastructure and economic development. Yet the regulatory system meant to manage it remains unsettled.

The previous Labour government passed legislation to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA), only for the National-led coalition to repeal it and introduce its own Planning Act and Natural Environment Act.

The new system promises to make development easier, reduce costs and delays, and improve environmental management. But environment groups warn it could weaken protections for nature and leave communities facing even greater risks.

Although the new legislation has passed, most of the changes will come into effect over the next four years. The outcome of this election, of course, may see the rulebook rewritten yet again.

A transformed policy landscape

Few areas of New Zealand’s environmental policy landscape have been untouched by the past three years of reform. But we point to key changes that have prioritised development over addressing issues outlined in successive environmental reports.

Consider safeguards for our degraded freshwater ecosystems. Following earlier court decisions requiring tighter controls on diffuse pollution from farms, the government amended the RMA to allow activities with significant adverse effects on water quality to continue, provided gradual improvements are made.

Rather than impose immediate changes that could prove costly or difficult to implement, this change aimed to give farmers and councils more time to tackle pollution. Still, it hinges on voluntary action and accurate nutrient modelling that has its own significant limitations.

In introducing its Fast-track Approvals Act to speed up consenting, the government talked of ending “a culture of no”. But while there’d been criticisms over unnecessary delays and costs for large projects, between 92% and 96% of resource consents had been granted annually over the preceding decade.

The scheme has also proved controversial for its inclusion of subdivisions and earlier declined “zombie projects”.

Environmental decision-making has become more centralised in other important areas.

The new resource management laws give ministers greater powers to override environmental limits when setting national direction. While this might help provide more consistent rules across the country, limits can change with successive governments, creating uncertainty for businesses and communities, and increasing risks to the environment.

The government has also removed some regulatory powers from regional councils to protect marine biodiversity and concentrated responsibility within the Ministry for Primary Industries, despite concerns over a long-time failure to prevent damage to ocean habitats. This could well become a focal point for post-election coalition negotiations.

Other reforms affect how costs of improving the environment are shared between landowners, councils and communities.

In Tairāwhiti, for example, highly erodible land and plantation forestry have contributed to serious damage during storms. The government has declined to fund proposed changes to land use aimed at reducing future landslides, while ministers have urged councils to consider the costs of enforcing environmental rules on forestry companies and their directors.

Read more: Election Policy Tracker: your guide to what the parties are promising during the 2026 election campaign

The damage caused by forestry and erosion in Tairāwhiti reflects land-use decisions made by successive governments. But without significant investment in changing how vulnerable land is used, communities may continue to bear the costs through flooding, landslides and environmental damage.

The Planning Act also expands provisions for regulatory relief, which could require councils to compensate landowners when planning restrictions significantly affect “reasonable land use”.

Contrary to the RMA’s “polluter pays” model, its principle is that individual landowners should not necessarily bear the full cost of restrictions introduced to restore our waterways for example. Such compensation requirements could also make environmental protection more expensive for councils.

The government’s proposed cap on council rate increases would place further limits on how councils could fund these costs, while the prospect of council amalgamations adds more uncertainty.

Meanwhile, the new Natural Environment Act favours voluntary action plans in some circumstances where environmental limits are breached or need to be restored. Some primary sector groups have welcomed the new framework, arguing it will cut unnecessary regulation and consenting costs.

While government analysis also suggests there will be less need for resource consents, we question whether environmental management will necessarily become simpler for landowners. National forestry regulations, for instance, require extensive documentation to justify why resource consent is not needed.

It’s notable to us that even the legal definition of the natural environment has changed. The RMA recognised the relationship between people and the natural world, including responsibilities to future generations. The Natural Environment Act, by contrast, explicitly excludes “humans” from its definition of ecosystems.

The new law still includes biodiversity protection among its objectives. Whether it delivers that protection will depend on the environmental limits set by ministers, how they are enforced and the resources councils have to carry out their responsibilities.

What parties are pitching

Perhaps the most significant change concerns the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in environmental management. The coalition has sought to reduce its role in government decision-making, including in the management of natural resources.

Yet our experience as researchers working on coastal areas, native and plantation forests, and rural and urban environments shows the value of relational te ao Māori approaches that recognise the relationships between people, land and water. We see these as essential to restoring damaged environments and helping communities withstand the effects of climate change.

So, what are parties bringing to the table in the environment space this election?

National has promised loans of up to $300 million to help farmers store water and would ban ring-net fishing in high-protection areas of the Hauraki Gulf. ACT wants to remove Te Mana o te Wai from resource consenting, reducing the priority given to freshwater health in those decisions.

The Greens, meanwhile, are proposing tighter environmental limits, stronger protection for the Hauraki Gulf and a phase-out of bottom trawling. Opportunity also wants to phase out bottom trawling, expand marine protected areas and move towards fisheries management based on the health of whole ecosystems.

Labour, meanwhile, has said it would amend rather than repeal the coalition’s new resource management laws, including restoring agreements that provide for iwi participation in environmental decision-making.

As New Zealanders weigh these competing approaches, there’s value in considering the Māori kaupapa of tūpuna pono – or being “good ancestors” to future generations. A healthy relationship with the natural world remains at the core of this.

From the cost of living to how best to tackle climate change, the coming election involves some big choices.

This article is part of The Conversation’s Election 2026 series: expert analysis of the major policy debates and the big challenges New Zealand’s next government will face.

Steve Urlich has received funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. He is a member of the Resource Management Law Association, the New Zealand Coastal Society and the New Zealand Marine Sciences Society.

Hamish Rennie has received research funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. He is a member of the New Zealand Planning Institute, the Resource Management Law Association and the New Zealand Coastal Society, and a Fellow of the NZ Geographical Society.