New Zealand is failing to protect its vast ocean resources. We owe it to the world to act
It's a remarkable feat that a small, isolated island nation of just five million people has managed to stake a claim to one of the largest ocean territories in the world.
New Zealand's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) spans more than 4m square kilometres – an area 15 times the size of our landmass.
But these rights carry responsibilities – in particular, the obligation to manage this vast ocean territory sustainably for future generations.
As leaders gather in Nice for the UN Ocean Conference this week, the spotlight will once again fall on the future of our blue planet – and whether countries are finally willing to 'walk the talk' in the final sprint towards protecting 30% of our ocean by 2030.
We stand at a critical juncture and New Zealand must step up. Less than 1% of our country's oceans are highly protected and the damaging practice of bottom-trawling needs to be restricted.
Most New Zealanders live near the coast and understand that our ocean is a taonga – a treasure – that must be looked after. It's in our blood. Our waters are visited or inhabited by half the world's whale and dolphin species, and we have more species of seabird than anywhere else on Earth.
When it established the global system of EEZs in 1982 under the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS), the UN was clear: the long-term conservation and sustainable use of living resources must be a priority.
In return for that commitment, Aotearoa gained something huge: the full weight and support of the international community.
The reality is that New Zealand has never had – and is unlikely ever to have – the military capacity to enforce our maritime rights unilaterally. We are reliant on the backing of UNCLOS and its compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms, which uphold the rule of law over the rule of might.
In a climate of escalating geopolitical tensions and increasing focus on the Pacific, that becomes even more vital.
As northern hemisphere fish stocks continue to be depleted and fishing fleets focus southwards, we are increasingly going to need the international community to have our back.
But we also need to meet our side of the bargain. Right now, it's hard to see how that's the case.
Given our commitment to safeguard 30% of the ocean by 2030, more of New Zealand's seas must be highly protected. Our outdated marine protection legislation is no longer fit for purpose, and proposed reforms have languished over decades.
New Zealand is the only country still bottom-trawling on seamounts in the South Pacific, and twice now the current coalition government has blocked international proposals (which, notably, New Zealand had originally tabled) to restrict this damaging practice, prompting international concern.
While Australia has begun laying the groundwork for a large marine protected area between our two countries in the Lord Howe-South Tasman Sea, New Zealand has been missing in action.
And most significantly, plans to establish a vast Kermadec Rangitāhua Ocean sanctuary off the coast of New Zealand's most northerly islands have been abandoned. Had the sanctuary gone ahead, it would have brought us halfway toward the 30% protection goal and safeguarded one of the few remaining pristine places on Earth.
While there have been legitimate issues to work through to ensure that the creation of the sanctuary upholds Indigenous rights, shelving the idea entirely was the final nail in the coffin for New Zealand's ocean conservation reputation.
After all, there is a broad understanding internationally that states which benefit the most from UNCLOS – those with large EEZs – should be among the leaders in creating safe havens for marine biodiversity. Many have already done so, including the UK, Australia and Chile.
New Zealand has so far failed to follow suit.
Our marine environment is in a sustained state of decline, with pollution, rampant overfishing, and the impacts of climate change pushing fragile habitats and species to the brink.
Since 1970, some of our commercial fish stocks have declined significantly, and in places like Auckland's Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana, scallop and crayfish fisheries have all but collapsed. Despite being the seabird capital of the world, 90% of our seabirds are now threatened or at risk of extinction.
The establishment of UNCLOS has long been hailed as one of the UN's greatest achievements – and there's no doubt that New Zealand has heavily benefited from an enormous maritime jurisdiction. But such power over our ocean comes with great responsibility.
It's time for New Zealand to act, rejoin the global conversation, and start looking after our blue backyard for future generations.
We don't just owe it to Kiwis – we owe it to the world.
Rt Hon Helen Clark is a former prime minister of New Zealand, and former administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
Dr Kayla Kingdon-Bebb is chief executive of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) New Zealand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
5 hours ago
- Sky News
Spending review 2025: Cutting agricultural budget could be 'catastrophic' for nature, farmers and charities warn
The National Trust and RSPB have joined forces with farmers to warn the government that cutting the agricultural budget could be "catastrophic" for nature and rural businesses. In a letter to food security and rural affairs minister Daniel Zeichner, exclusively seen by Sky News, a dozen of the biggest rural industry organisations say they are "deeply concerned" about rumoured cuts that will be made to the agricultural budget in Wednesday's spending review. Chancellor Rachel Reeves will set out budgets for each government department for the rest of this parliament, set to end in 2029. The letter says cutting funding for existing and new environmental farming schemes will be "catastrophic" to the government's aims for the environment. "Many of the environmental features present in the countryside and enjoyed by the public will be under threat and will disappear," the letter says. "This would be a poor legacy for this government." Sir Keir Starmer's government has made getting to net zero by 2050 a key goal, already initiating several policies to restrict carbon emissions and make the UK greener since winning the election last July. However, the government shocked farmers in March when it shut down applications for the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), which rewards farmers for managing their land in environmentally sustainable ways, with just a few hours' notice as they said a cap had been reached for the year. The rural organisations say the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme payments are "critical to the government's statutory targets on environmental improvement", including the main goal of halting the decline of biodiversity. 3:26 The letter states farmers and landowners are fully committed to environmental schemes, with 77,000 live agri-environment scheme agreements, according to the latest government figures, "with millions of hectares under environmental land management". "So much good has been done by these agreements, the oldest of which has run for decades," the letter says. "The unprecedented engagement in the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) is testament to the appetite of farmers and land managers to rise to the challenge and do more." The letter finishes with: "The industry would like to have your assurances that this critical work will continue to be funded at the same level." David Wilson, a farmer for 53 years, told Sky News it took many years for farmers to get on board with the environmental schemes but they are now joined up, and reducing funding could damage years of work and be a backwards step for not just the UK's environment, but the world's. "This is ultimately about sustainability. To produce good food, you need good ecology and reducing this funding could damage the UK's ecology and our food security," he added. A return to intensive farming Alex Robinson, 39, a farmer from Gloucestershire with 424 hectares, said the schemes have been "a lifeline for nature", with birds, bees and wildflowers returning - including 14 red-listed bird species, many that had not been seen in decades. His farm's soil health is improving, which means he can grow more resilient nutrient dense crops for people to eat. If funding is cut he said he "may have no choice but to return to intensive farming methods sooner than the soils are ready for", with wildflowers and field margins becoming "difficult to justify", which will put the UK's climate, biodiversity and long-term food security "in real danger". Government will be abandoning nature Signatory Victoria Vyvyan, farmer and president of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), said: "If sustainable farming contracts are cut, government won't just abandon nature - it will abandon its own environmental and legal commitments. "The Sustainable Farming Incentive is working - for farmers, for nature, for the public, and for the Treasury. It's bringing back wildlife, cleaning up rivers, and restoring the health of our soil. "Take away the funding for nature contracts, and farmers will be pushed back to intensive methods - forced to undo years of progress. Nature will suffer as well as farmers, and on the environment, it will go against everything government claims to agree with." The letter has been signed by the heads of The National Trust, the National Farmers' Union (NFU), the RSPB, the Soil Association, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Nature Friendly Farming Network, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants and the Agricultural Industries Confederation.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
New Zealand government sued over ‘dangerously inadequate' emissions reduction plan
Hundreds of top environment lawyers are suing the New Zealand government over what they say is its 'dangerously inadequate' plan to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050. It is the first time the country's emissions reduction plan has faced litigation, and the lawyers believe it is the first case globally that challenges the use of forestry to offset emissions. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative – two groups representing more than 300 lawyers – filed judicial review proceedings against the government in Wellington's high court on Tuesday. The groups have provided the Guardian with first access to the claim, which argues the government has abandoned dozens of tools to tackle emissions, failed to adequately consult the public, and too heavily relies on high-risk carbon capture strategies such as forestry. The government's plan was 'fundamentally unambitious' and a 'dangerous regression' for the country, Jessica Palairet, the president of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ told the Guardian. 'As it stands, the government's emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country. We don't take this step lightly, but the plan needs to be challenged,' Palairet said. The plan must be robust and transparent, in line with the country's chief climate law – the climate change response (zero carbon) amendment act – she said. In 2019, the Labour government passed that landmark climate legislation committing the nation to reducing its domestic carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 and meeting its commitments under the Paris climate accords. Governments are legally required to set an emission reductions plan every five years detailing how New Zealand will meet its greenhouse gas targets. The right-wing coalition government has committed to the 2050 net zero emissions target. Its first emissions reduction plan released in December – shows New Zealand is on track to reach emissions targets up until 2030, but will not meet the targets in five years after. The government said it will address those targets in 2030. The plan also says the country is also on track to meet its long-term emissions goal but climate experts warn the government's methods could end up derailing progress. The legal claim includes two primary challenges. The first argues the government tossed out dozens of credible climate policies – including the clean car discount and a gas transition plan – and did not adequately consult the public over the changes. The lawyers also claim that the government is relying on 'high risk' methods such as planting hundreds of thousands of hectares of introduced pine trees to offset emissions, and capturing carbon underground, with few alternatives to fall back on if something goes wrong. Some experts have warned achieving a net reduction in emissions primarily through planting trees is impossible to sustain in the long term, as forests could be destroyed though fire or extreme weather and do not store carbon for ever. Dr Christina Hood, the head of energy and climate policy consultancy Compass Climate, told the Guardian the government's emissions reduction plan was 'incredibly shortsighted'. Hood said there is an assumption that as long as New Zealand plants trees, it can emit as much as it likes, but warned that was a 'blinkered' approach that ignores the future. 'In our law … there's a responsibility to meet all of the targets, not just the current one.' While New Zealand's total contribution to global emissions is small at 0.17%, its gross emissions per capita are high. The country has also been among the world's worst performers on emission increases. Between 1990 and 2018, its emissions rose 57% – the second-greatest increase of all industrialised countries. Climate scientists and environment groups are worried the government's broader environmental agenda will derail the country's ability to reduce emissions and protect its unique species. Since taking office, the government has promised to restart offshore oil and has set aside $200m of its budget to invest in gas exploration. It plans to boost mineral exports to $3bn by 2035, at the same time it has slashed funding to conservation and climate initiatives. The controversial new fast-track law that is pushing through major infrastructure projects, including mining, has been described as 'egregiously damaging' for the environment and risks a path towards a greener future. The minister of climate change, Simon Watts, would not be commenting on the judicial review, as the matter is now before the courts, his office told the Guardian. The Green Party is backing the claim because the government's plan 'is not worth the paper that it is written on', its co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick told the Guardian. Climate litigation as a form of activism is gaining momentum around the world. In 2024 the high court found the UK government's climate action plan was unlawful, as there was not enough evidence that there were sufficient policies in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Palairet hopes this case will force the government to come up with a new plan. 'The reason why we take a case like this to a court is to scrutinise and question whether the government statements match up with reality.'
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
New Zealand is failing to protect its vast ocean resources. We owe it to the world to act
It's a remarkable feat that a small, isolated island nation of just five million people has managed to stake a claim to one of the largest ocean territories in the world. New Zealand's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) spans more than 4m square kilometres – an area 15 times the size of our landmass. But these rights carry responsibilities – in particular, the obligation to manage this vast ocean territory sustainably for future generations. As leaders gather in Nice for the UN Ocean Conference this week, the spotlight will once again fall on the future of our blue planet – and whether countries are finally willing to 'walk the talk' in the final sprint towards protecting 30% of our ocean by 2030. We stand at a critical juncture and New Zealand must step up. Less than 1% of our country's oceans are highly protected and the damaging practice of bottom-trawling needs to be restricted. Most New Zealanders live near the coast and understand that our ocean is a taonga – a treasure – that must be looked after. It's in our blood. Our waters are visited or inhabited by half the world's whale and dolphin species, and we have more species of seabird than anywhere else on Earth. When it established the global system of EEZs in 1982 under the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS), the UN was clear: the long-term conservation and sustainable use of living resources must be a priority. In return for that commitment, Aotearoa gained something huge: the full weight and support of the international community. The reality is that New Zealand has never had – and is unlikely ever to have – the military capacity to enforce our maritime rights unilaterally. We are reliant on the backing of UNCLOS and its compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms, which uphold the rule of law over the rule of might. In a climate of escalating geopolitical tensions and increasing focus on the Pacific, that becomes even more vital. As northern hemisphere fish stocks continue to be depleted and fishing fleets focus southwards, we are increasingly going to need the international community to have our back. But we also need to meet our side of the bargain. Right now, it's hard to see how that's the case. Given our commitment to safeguard 30% of the ocean by 2030, more of New Zealand's seas must be highly protected. Our outdated marine protection legislation is no longer fit for purpose, and proposed reforms have languished over decades. New Zealand is the only country still bottom-trawling on seamounts in the South Pacific, and twice now the current coalition government has blocked international proposals (which, notably, New Zealand had originally tabled) to restrict this damaging practice, prompting international concern. While Australia has begun laying the groundwork for a large marine protected area between our two countries in the Lord Howe-South Tasman Sea, New Zealand has been missing in action. And most significantly, plans to establish a vast Kermadec Rangitāhua Ocean sanctuary off the coast of New Zealand's most northerly islands have been abandoned. Had the sanctuary gone ahead, it would have brought us halfway toward the 30% protection goal and safeguarded one of the few remaining pristine places on Earth. While there have been legitimate issues to work through to ensure that the creation of the sanctuary upholds Indigenous rights, shelving the idea entirely was the final nail in the coffin for New Zealand's ocean conservation reputation. After all, there is a broad understanding internationally that states which benefit the most from UNCLOS – those with large EEZs – should be among the leaders in creating safe havens for marine biodiversity. Many have already done so, including the UK, Australia and Chile. New Zealand has so far failed to follow suit. Our marine environment is in a sustained state of decline, with pollution, rampant overfishing, and the impacts of climate change pushing fragile habitats and species to the brink. Since 1970, some of our commercial fish stocks have declined significantly, and in places like Auckland's Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana, scallop and crayfish fisheries have all but collapsed. Despite being the seabird capital of the world, 90% of our seabirds are now threatened or at risk of extinction. The establishment of UNCLOS has long been hailed as one of the UN's greatest achievements – and there's no doubt that New Zealand has heavily benefited from an enormous maritime jurisdiction. But such power over our ocean comes with great responsibility. It's time for New Zealand to act, rejoin the global conversation, and start looking after our blue backyard for future generations. We don't just owe it to Kiwis – we owe it to the world. Rt Hon Helen Clark is a former prime minister of New Zealand, and former administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Dr Kayla Kingdon-Bebb is chief executive of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) New Zealand.
