Skip to main content.

4 Policy Options

4.1 Overview of options

Two broad options were proposed in the discussion paper:

  • Option 1: Establish legislative mechanisms focused on filling key gaps in EEZ environmental regulation and promoting a consistent approach across statutes, including the assessment of cumulative effects. This is the preferred option.

  • Option 2: Develop an entirely new regime for managing all activities in the EEZ.

Question 3: Do you agree with this assessment? Which option do you prefer, and why?

Forty submitters responded to this question. Of these, 19 were in support of Option 1, 15 were in support of Option 2, three supported a more transitional option, and three considered that there was insufficient information to make an informed choice between the options.

Submitters from the petroleum industry who responded to this question were all in support of Option 1. Responses were spilt across Options 1 and 2 for the fishing industry. The minerals industry submitters were in support of Option 1, or Option 1 as part of a transitional approach. All of the environmental NGOs and science, academic and research submitters that responded supported Option 2. The local government sector was largely in support of Option 1, with two not considering the information sufficient to select an option.

Of the 19 submitters in support of Option 1, the support of four local government submitters, OMV New Zealand and MWH New Zealand was conditional on the option being applied consistently across all activities, and across statutes and the agencies in charge of enforcing and administering regulations. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust’s support for Option 1 was conditional on the protection of historic heritage being included in the assessment of effects. Nautilus Minerals supported a modified Option 1 for seafloor mining similar to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) process, and referenced the Papua New Guinea process for approving seabed mining. Six submitters across five stakeholder groups considered that gaps in environmental regulation were not significant enough to justify the creation of an entirely new regime, and that extending the scope of existing legislation to promote a consistent approach across statutes would be better understood. It was argued that extending the scope of existing legislation could also be more flexible given the lack of knowledge of the offshore environment.

Of the 15 in support of Option 2, Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (Green Party) noted that their support was due to the absence of a comprehensive oceans policy. The Auckland Conservation Board recommended that Option 2 include a strategy supplementing food produce for the nation and “provide for certain activities in particular areas”. Submitters suggested that some existing legislation covering activities in the EEZ does not go far enough to protect and maintain ecosystems and biodiversity. This legislation included the Fisheries Act 1996 and the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

World Wildlife Fund New Zealand (WWF) pointed to experience from elsewhere in the world, which this submitter said showed that filling gaps fails to address cumulative effects and interactions between activities. WWF suggested that this results in an unsustainable approach, which compromises biodiversity and ecosystem function, increases bureaucracy, complexity and confusion, and fails to address conflicts and identify synergies between activities due to the lack of a strategic approach. An individual submitter, Kathryn Scarlet, suggested there is a need for something more along the lines of a strategic environmental report rather than an environmental impact report.

MIA, Kiwis Against Seabed Mining Inc (KASM) and Mike Patrick, supported a more transitional approach to improving environmental regulation in the EEZ. This could include Option 1 as a short-term solution, while moving forward to a more co-ordinated approach, as offered by Option 2, in the longer term.

Greater Wellington Regional Council, the New Zealand Conservation Authority and Tasman District Council commented that there is not enough information to accurately compare all possibilities and so did not support one option over the other.

The New Zealand Conservation Authority would support either option as long as the following were addressed: the current fragmentation of management systems; a national overview is provided; a precautionary and enforceable management regime is developed; cumulative impacts and effects across all activities are addressed; environmental standards and criteria to assess activities are established; there is balance between competing uses, values, and conflicts; there is clear, timely and transparent decision-making; and the responsible agency has adequate capacity.

4.2 Preferred option

The Government’s preferred option is Option 1: “Establish legislative mechanisms focused on filling key gaps in EEZ environmental regulation and promoting a consistent approach across statutes, including the assessment of cumulative effects”.

Option 1 would involve a new regime for the consideration, approval and regulation of those activities not already covered by existing statutory frameworks. This consideration and approval would focus on the environmental effects of the activity.

Question 4: Do you think this approach is an appropriate and proportionate response to the problems?

Thirty submitters responded to this question. Of these, 14 noted that the approach is appropriate; six noted the approach is not appropriate, and the remaining 10 commented without indicating support for or against the approach. All sectors responded to this question.

The Green Party, WWF, the Forest and Bird, Greenpeace New Zealand and the University of Otago did not support the approach of Option 1 due to concerns that it would not cover all activities, and that such coverage would be required to address the challenges identified in the discussion paper. The Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association disagreed with the preferred option; in their opinion it is based on an assumption that science (without adequate funding) has obtained enough information to advise these practices. WWF considered that the approach of the preferred option was not strategic enough for current and future activities, and thus likely to require amendment within a few years.

Reference to the application of the precautionary principle was common in responses to this question. OMV New Zealand and Todd Energy considered that applying the principle was inappropriate for the offshore oil and gas industry as their effects are already known. These submitters instead proposed the application of adaptive management, whereby monitoring conditions are imposed and, if necessary, management controls are adjusted if adverse effects are detected. These submitters also proposed rules for defining thresholds for groups of activities, whereby each threshold requires a different level of environmental analysis. Neptune Resources considered that there should be minimal upfront regulation, particularly where information is limited, and that the focus should be on the active and independent monitoring of activities to build criteria for future regulation. The submitters in support of the application of the precautionary principle were a mix of individuals, environmental NGOs, others and the Green Party.

Following are some of the particular concerns and comments raised by submitters.

  • Concerned with cost recovery provisions and enforcement and monitoring provisions, if they are not based on any experience.

  • The regime needs to be transparent, flexible, incorporate adaptive management, and be able to evolve.

  • Resource allocation needs to be addressed more explicitly.

  • Whether the approach should only apply to activities not already covered by existing legislation.

  • More comprehensive environmental assessments are required.

  • There needs to be a strong governance regime, based on an ecosystem approach.

  • There is a need for integrated marine policies across the marine area.

Auckland Regional Council would support the approach of the preferred option if the appropriate integrating mechanisms were included in the legislation.

Todd Energy, Neptune Resources, MWH New Zealand, MIA and Mike Patrick all identified the need for an active, adaptive management approach to be included in the approval regime. These submitters suggested that this kind of approach would achieve long-term sustainable management, and would require the ability to change management strategies, conditions and regulations in order to adapt to a growing knowledge base.

Neptune Resources noted that lack of knowledge has created a need to learn by experimentation to determine the best management strategy. In relation to cost recovery provisions, Neptune Resources noted the risk is the potential to impose substantial administration and other costs to underwrite a new government department. In relation to enforcement and monitoring provisions, this submitter continued, informed decision-making and “pragmatic protection” through monitoring are vital, rather than going straight for enforcement.

Suggestions from submitters as to what Option 1 should involve included:

  • links to any effects on other activities or the environment inside New Zealand’s territorial sea, and the means to avoid, remedy or mitigate those effects; and demonstration of the way in which, and the extent to which, the proposal would be in New Zealand’s national interest or provide benefits to New Zealand

  • provisions for public disclosure, for public participation and input into decision-making, and for ecosystem-based management

  • development of strategic environmental assessment and policies.

KASM and the Green Party noted that a regulation framework should allow for future inclusion of the territorial sea and parts of the extended continental shelf, where the latter may be under New Zealand jurisdiction in the future. This would include or be equal to the marine provisions of the RMA. The Green Party proposed that existing users and permits be reassessed within the framework once the new regulation is in place.

[ |