Pressure to Omit an Adverse Ecological Report
You are a consultant planner employed by a small consultancy. Your client is applying for resource consent to establish a 4.5 ha landfill on land next to a wetland. You prepared the AEE. An ecologist you engaged has reported that the wetland contains a nationally threatened plant and that the landfill's leachate could degrade the wetland. The client's project manager instructs you to remove the ecologist's report from the application and to describe the wetland as 'modified and of low ecological value'. The client says the ecologist is 'too conservative' and that the council will never check. You are a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. Your manager says the client is important and that 'everyone does this'. You have already signed the AEE as the author.
1. What should you do? Identify the ethical and statutory issues and explain your obligations.
Read the worked answer
The central issue is honesty and professional integrity. The NZPI Code of Ethics requires members to act honestly, to exercise professional judgement, and not to mislead clients, councils, or the public. Removing a report that identifies a threatened species and leachate risk would mislead the consent authority about the actual and potential effects of the proposal. Describing a wetland with a nationally threatened plant as 'modified and of low ecological value' would be a misrepresentation.
The statutory issue is also clear. An AEE must be prepared in accordance with s88 and Schedule 4 of the RMA, which require a description of actual and potential effects and a description of how adverse effects will be avoided, remedied, or mitigated. Omitting the ecologist's report would breach that duty and could amount to providing false or misleading information in support of an application.
Your obligations are personal and professional. You should not remove the report, and you should not sign or submit an AEE that you know is misleading. You should tell the client in writing that the report is material, that you cannot omit it, and that the application must address the wetland effects. You should offer to help design mitigation, such as a leachate liner, monitoring, or an offset, but not by concealing the adverse effects. If the client insists, you must decline to act further on the application.
2. If the client refuses to change the application, what steps should you take, and what are the consequences?
Read the worked answer
If the client refuses, you should escalate internally and document everything. Put your advice in writing to the project manager and your manager, explain the statutory and ethical obligations, and state clearly that you will not submit a misleading AEE. If your manager continues to pressure you, raise the matter with a more senior principal or the firm's compliance or ethics contact. You should preserve your draft and the ecologist's report, because they are evidence of the true position.
If the firm still proceeds, you should withdraw from the engagement. You may need to notify the client in writing that you are withdrawing and why. You should not hand over an AEE that you have signed if it is misleading. If the application has already been lodged with the misleading AEE, you should take steps to correct the record with the council, including providing the ecologist's report. You may also need to consider your obligations under the NZPI complaints process and, in serious cases, seek legal advice about whistleblowing or statutory reporting.
The consequences of not acting are significant. You could face a complaint to the NZPI, loss of membership, and reputational damage. The council could decline the application or issue enforcement action. The client could face prosecution for misleading information. Your manager's comment that 'everyone does this' is not a defence; it is a warning that the firm's culture may be pressuring you to compromise your professional judgement. Your duty is to the integrity of the planning process, not to the client's preferred outcome.