Skip to main content.

3 Issues for EEZ Management

3.1 Outcomes

The specific outcomes proposed for managing New Zealand’s EEZ were as follows:

  1. safeguard the integrity of EEZ ecosystems
  2. promote the sustainable management of EEZ resources
  3. encourage the development of sustainable marine industries in the EEZ
  4. enable EEZ resources to be used or protected in a way that provides for the greatest national benefit.

Question 1: Do you think these outcomes are appropriate? Can you suggest others?

Thirty-five submitters responded to this question. There was overall support for the four listed high-level outcomes. Submissions were received from all stakeholder groups except iwi.

Seven submitters across five of the sectors (local authorities; science, academic and research; fishing industry; minerals industry; individuals, other) noted that scientific knowledge of environmental “bottom lines” and the offshore environment in general is too limited to ensure the safeguarding of this environment and the ecosystems. Some proposed that the stated outcomes be viewed as long-term goals, and for interim measures to be put in place in the short term. Industries operating in the marine environment noted that a collaborative effort between all parties (e.g., industry and researchers) would be needed to gain this knowledge.

Eleven submitters across six sectors (fishing; local authorities; science, academic and research; environmental non-governmental organisations [NGOs]; individuals; others) suggested that in areas of high environmental significance the environment should take precedence over economic, social and cultural factors, to ensure that New Zealand’s obligations under national and international law are not compromised. Of these, eight specified the need for greater consideration of biodiversity, species-level and genetic-level protection, and recovery of the marine environment where it has been degraded by existing activities.

Suggested amendments to the listed outcomes included:

  • reword the first outcome to read: “protect and preserve the integrity of EEZ ecosystems” to give emphasis to non-extractive values and uses and the precautionary principle (Greenpeace New Zealand)

  • reword the second and third outcomes to read: “Any development of marine economic resources must be regulated so that the marine environment is preserved and protected” (Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Inc [ECO])

  • reword the third outcome from “sustainable marine industries” to “industries reliant on marine resources” (Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand [PEPANZ])

  • reword the third outcome to read: “ensure clear and equitable regulation of activities in the EEZ to achieve the above outcomes”, and place it after the fourth outcome (MWH New Zealand – environmental consultancy)

  • exchange “sustainable management” in the second outcome to “sustainable development” (New Zealand Seafood Industry Council) or “responsible management” (Nautilus Minerals)

  • distinguish between renewable and non-renewable resources (Greater Wellington Regional Council and Local Government New Zealand)

  • exchange “greatest national benefit” for “beneficial long-term environmental outcomes” (OMV New Zealand), or “greatest sustainable national benefit” (Greenpeace New Zealand), or “net national benefit” (ECO) in outcome 4.

Suggested additional outcomes to those listed in the discussion paper included:

  • “promote a greater understanding of the marine environment so the true assessment of impacts can be understood” (Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association)

  • “achieve effective and efficient integration of management processes within the EEZ and between the EEZ and the area of New Zealand’s territorial sea” (Taranaki Regional Council and Local Government New Zealand)

  • “description and establishment of a comprehensive set of environmental standards to be met in the conduct of off shore oil and gas activities” (OMV New Zealand Ltd)

  • “all activities in the EEZ, their possible interactions with other activities, and with the environment (chemical, physical, biological) will be controlled and co-ordinated” as an overarching principle (Mike Patrick)

  • “the need for simplicity for environmental controls in the EEZ” (Telecom New Zealand)

  • “ensure that any development is environmentally sustainable and avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse environmental, social and cultural impacts” (ECO)

  • “safeguards the integrity of Fisheries and Aquaculture Settlements” (Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd).

There were requests from all stakeholder groups for clarification and definition of terms used in the discussion paper, including: “environmental bottom-lines”, “healthy and productive ecosystem”, “greatest national benefit”, a balance between “encouraging” development and “enabling” development, “ecological functioning” and “EEZ ecosystems”.

3.2 Key challenges

Against the above-mentioned outcomes, the discussion paper identified the following key challenges that need to be addressed:

  1. gaps and inconsistencies in the operational control of environmental effects
  2. defining the environmental outcomes so that activities and their effects can be assessed consistently
  3. effects on investment certainty
  4. managing effects on other activities.

Question 2: Do you agree that these are the main problems for regulating environmental effects in the EEZ? Are there others?

Thirty-four submitters responded to this question, and overall they agreed that the listed key challenges are valid. However, 22 submitters noted additional challenges and considerations that would require addressing, including ensuring:

  • effects are correctly attributed to the activity that produced them (New Zealand Minerals Industry Association [MIA])

  • an assessment of effects considers the scale, location, cumulative effect, intensity and longevity of proposed or existing activities (Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc [Forest and Bird] and Auckland Conservation Board)

  • cross-boundary effects or activities are considered, as this could influence whether an applicant decides to locate in the EEZ or territorial sea (local authorities and Local Government New Zealand)

  • any new legislation achieves more consistent and integrated management in the offshore environment across all activities, including: co-ordinating information; monitoring and reporting; enforcing regulations; and giving primary consideration to the environmental effect rather than the cause of a disturbance (local authorities [including Local Government New Zealand], Auckland Conservation Board, Greenpeace New Zealand and University of Otago)

  • an oceans policy framework is in place before making rules, as there are no good examples of managing the marine area globally (ECO, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Greenpeace New Zealand and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand [Green Party])

  • the designation of “no take” areas; for example, on the Chatham Rise (New Zealand Marine Sciences Society).

In addition to these challenges and considerations, many submitters requested that terms used in the question be defined or clarified, as follows:

  • define: the natural background environment; the development activity; the effects of the activity on the natural environment; the effects of interacting activities; what is environmentally acceptable in terms of all activities resulting in environmental impacts in general, and in relation to monitoring and measuring the integrity of EEZ ecosystems; good environmental and ecological status

  • clarify: control of effects and control of activities; what costs and benefits New Zealand will get from the development of the EEZ; what current baseline knowledge and data are available - especially what a healthy ecosystem looks like.

The fishing industry raised concerns that in the absence of certainty about resource allocation, incentives for resource users to invest in the mitigation of environmental effects are weakened. The fishing industry also commented that there needs to be consideration of Treaty of Waitangi settlement rights and obligations. The Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association noted that it should not be assumed that the practices of large companies are entirely environmentally friendly even though some may have well-established environmental procedures.

The petroleum industry was concerned that regulations could unnecessarily hinder the responsible and sustainable development already undertaken by the industry. Submissions in this regard sought to clarify and focus the key challenges. OMV New Zealand suggested key challenge 2 be amended to read: “defining reasonable requirements for the investigation and analysis of environmental effects (applicant) and to apply sufficient expertise and consistency to the approvals process (authorities)”, and that any proposal should address discharges to air and water. Likewise, Todd Energy carried out an analysis that suggested that current regulatory “gaps” are somewhat inconsequential in environmental terms and could be addressed via relatively minor adjustments to current legislation (while acknowledging there could be regulatory gaps associated with potential new activities). Todd Energy also submitted that although greater clarity about regulatory requirements will help to improve investment certainty, there is no hard evidence that the existing regime is creating a problem in this respect.

Neptune Resources New Zealand Group (Neptune Resources) emphasised that the identified key challenges are indeed challenges to be managed, not inherent problems, and so legislative regulation may not be required. This submitter identified that problems for investors could be created through ill-informed restrictive regulations based on poor information, and recommended that government work with investors to build knowledge and an agreed understanding of environmental effects management.

Nautilus Minerals recognised that rules need to be established “ahead of the game”, and that any initial regulations and processes may need to be improved in the future. This submitter also noted that the protection of biodiversity should be addressed in an environmental impact assessment, so should not necessarily involve the establishment of a marine reserve area.

Local authority submitters generally agreed with the challenges, although they did raise several concerns. Greater Wellington Regional Council was concerned that there is no co-ordinating body to check gaps and inconsistencies, indicating the difficulty of the EEZ environment. Taranaki Regional Council considered it important to establish clear and consistent outcomes for management across all activities in the EEZ to avoid inequalities between industries or reduced investment confidence.

A common concern from local authority submitters was how the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the regulations would be carried out (e.g., funding, access to vessels, resourcing). Environment Canterbury proposed an additional key challenge: “Part 5: Managing effects on the receiving environment to establish information and knowledge in relation to the ‘receiving’ environment as a key part of achieving sustainable management”.

Submitters from the science, academic and research sector and the other category raised a common concern as to whether existing legislation adequately addresses the environmental damage caused by their respective industries. These submitters suggested, for example, that the fisheries legislation alone does not adequately address the environmental damage caused by fishing activities. They considered that non-legislative tools would be inadequate for the sustainable management of the EEZ.

Environmental NGOs, and two individuals (submitters 16 and 26) recommended that:

  • an ecosystem-based approach is required

  • the precautionary principle be fully utilised

  • passive (and non-market) values be considered alongside economic values

  • more consideration needs to be given to biodiversity protection, both at site level and more broadly within the ocean system.

These submitters also noted that industrial waste inadvertently entering the marine environment as a by-product of industry (e.g., non-retrieval of lost gear, dumping of garbage, abandonment of equipment, by-product dumping) would need addressing.

Greenpeace New Zealand commented that the potential effects of climate change on the oceans need to be considered, where information is available. This submitter suggested that there are no clear environmental indicators to guide monitoring, and that there is a lack of an effective network of marine reserves or marine protected areas. ECO suggested that policy should not give existing uses, such as fishing, a privileged status. ECO also wanted acknowledgement of the vertical migration of species in the water column when assessing impacts on the water column and ecosystems.

[ |