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 Our outdated marine protection legislation is no longer fit for purpose, and proposed reforms have languished over decades.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
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
The global south needs more than tinkering at a conference: debt forgiveness is the only fair way
It is 2025, and the architecture of economic power remains grossly tilted against the nations of the global south. Nowhere is this imbalance more acute – and more enduring – than in the debilitating impact of sovereign debt. From the vast countries of Africa to the scattered but strategically vital small island developing states (Sids) of the Caribbean and the Pacific, debt has become a modern form of bondage – the chains that restrict growth, sovereignty and the basic human dignity of nations struggling to define their own path to development. The statistics tell an alarming story. By the start of 2024 developing countries' public debt reached approximately $29tn (£21.2tn), rising from 16% of global debt in 2010 to nearly 30%. This escalation was fuelled by a convergence of a global pandemic and rising costs internationally. Today, average borrowing costs in Africa are almost 10 times higher than for the US. Why? International credit rating agencies will point at risk in Africa but this is perception, and a myth, not reality. Africa has consistently been the least risky continent for returns on the dollar when compared worldwide. But nevertheless, the impact is profoundly immoral as global south countries face prioritising debt servicing over essentials. One-third of these fragile countries have to allocate more to servicing interest – as much as 14% of domestic revenue – than to healthcare, education or climate resilience. For decades, these countries have been trapped in a cycle of borrowing to survive and repaying to remain 'credible' in the eyes of the international financial order. But the terms of this credibility have always been set elsewhere – primarily in western capitals, behind the closed doors of international financial institutions. These institutions, under the guise of technical neutrality, have in fact driven economic ideologies that have crippled the same countries they claim to help. As a young economics student in the 1980s, it was made clear to me that the true path was Thatcherism and Reaganomics, elevated to near-religious orthodoxy, both rooted in neoliberalism. Developing countries were told to liberalise, privatise and deregulate. Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), driven by IMF and World Bank conditionalities, imposed austerity measures that gutted public services and sacrificed the welfare of millions on the altar of fiscal discipline. Healthcare systems collapsed. Schools were closed. Public sector wages were frozen and trade unions deemed to be evil. And yet, we were told to believe this was 'development'. In truth, this was not development but dependency. During the 1980s and 1990s, in Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, these policies led not to prosperity but to deepening poverty, growing inequality and social unrest. In the Caribbean alone, SAPs contributed to lost decades of growth, political upheaval, and widespread disillusionment with the promise of independence. More than a few governments were ousted as a result of electoral backlash against IMF-imposed hardship. Foreign aid – so often touted as a benevolent solution – has played a double-edged role. Far from empowering states, it has often eroded their autonomy. Much of the aid has come with heavy strings attached: contracts that must go to western contractors; conditions that require the opening of markets before local industries are ready; and monitoring mechanisms that diminish sovereign decision-making. No wonder so many African leaders prefer the Chinese offers of lending. The result has been a facade of support, what the great activists Frantz Fanon or Kwame Ture, might have called a 'pitiful mimicry' of development – where countries are forced to pursue western-centric models of skyscrapers, luxury seafront resorts denying locals access to their beaches, and white elephant vanity projects destroying the environment, while their people continue to lack access to clean water, reliable electricity, or functioning hospitals. Development, at its core, should be about expanding the freedoms and capabilities of people. It should mean children can attend school without hunger. That mothers can give birth in safe conditions. That farmers can bring their goods to market on decent roads. That communities can trade, access clean water, and benefit from the natural resources of their lands without being poisoned by extraction. But the dominant model of development, dictated by external creditors and investors, has misconstrued these priorities. In its place, we see the proliferation of unsustainable debt-financed projects, many of which serve elite interests or foreign investors rather than local communities. Loans from the IMF and World Bank have frequently funded projects that do little to enhance long-term national resilience or productivity. And these loans, compounded by high interest rates and currency volatility, are serviced partially – through austerity and further borrowing – but rarely repaid. This is by design. Debt, in this system, is not a tool for development but a mechanism of control. Across the global south, the story is much the same. Multinational corporations, often operating with generous tax concessions and little oversight, engage in resource extraction that depletes environments and communities. They argue that their share of profits is justified by their investment in infrastructure and innovation. Yet these same companies contribute disproportionately to environmental degradation – through oil spills, deforestation, over-mining and pollution – without being fairly taxed or held accountable. One-sided trade agreements perpetuate this imbalance. The rules of global commerce, whether in mining, agriculture or tourism, are rigged in favour of the north. Risk assessments by international credit rating agencies, often influenced by outdated or racist perceptions, and opaque and biased criteria, further discourage equitable investment in the south. These assessments have more to do with where a country is located than with its actual economic potential or fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, the brain drain continues. The brightest young minds of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are drawn to wealthier countries in search of opportunity denied at home, leaving behind hollowed-out institutions and leadership vacuums. Local education systems produce excellence, only for it to be exported. The voices of our nations are also muted on the global stage. Despite holding the majority of the world's population, the global south holds a minority of voting power in institutions such as the UN. Decisions that affect our future are made without our meaningful participation but with token theatre. The UN holds its future of development financing conference in Seville, Spain, next week, it should be a moment for honest discussion on how the world can come together to support sustainable development, but already the US and the UK have blocked action on tackling the unfair burden of debt. When disasters strike – whether hurricanes, earthquakes, or the slow violence of the climate crisis – the burden of recovery falls overwhelmingly on us. The loss and damage fund, formally established at Cop27 in 2022 and only put into operation in 2024, has been long championed by vulnerable nations but still remains underfunded and under-prioritised. Yet for many Sids, the climate emergency is not a future threat – it is a catastrophe now. Shorelines are disappearing. Coral reefs are dying. Agriculture is failing. Lives are being lost. It is long past time for a reckoning. The economic architecture that dominates global development discourse has failed. It has failed the poor. It has failed the planet. And it has failed the very ideals of justice and solidarity upon which the post-second world war international system was supposedly built. We need more than tinkering at the margins. We need more than an extravagant conference in Seville can deliver. We need debt forgiveness – not as a charity, but as a historical rectification. We need concessional financing with reduced interest rates and transparent, fair assessments of investment risk. We need climate reparations through robust, predictable and progressive loss and damage funds. In times of force majeure, we need aid that empowers, not aid that entraps. Most of all, we need the freedom to define development on our own terms – rooted in equity, sustainability and sovereignty. Until these structural injustices are addressed, the global south may remain poor not because of a lack of potential or ambition, but because the rules of the game were never written for our success.
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
Countries should keep their statehood if land disappears under sea, experts say
States should be able to continue politically even if their land disappears underwater, legal experts have said. The conclusions come from a long-awaited report by the International Law Commission that examined what existing law means for continued statehood and access to key resources if sea levels continue to rise due to climate breakdown. Average sea levels could rise by as much as 90cm (3ft) by 2100 if climate scientists' worst-case scenarios come true, and recent research suggests they could even exceed projections. This is particularly important for small island developing states because many face an existential threat. But as well as the direct loss of land, rising sea levels cause flooding, threaten drinking water supplies and make farmland too salty to grow on. Having waded through international law and scholarship and analysed state views and practices, legal experts concluded that nothing prevents nations from maintaining their maritime boundaries even if the land on which they are drawn changes or disappears. These boundaries give countries navigation rights, access to resources such as fishing and minerals, and a degree of political control. There is also general agreement that affected nations should retain their statehood to avoid loss of nationality. Legal experts say these conclusions are essential for maintaining international peace and stability. Speaking at the UN Oceans conference in Nice, Penelope Ridings, an international lawyer and member of the ILC, said the commission's work was driven by the 'fundamental sense of injustice' that sea level rise would be felt worst by the most vulnerable states, which had also contributed the least to the problem. Research has found that a third of present-day sea level rise can be traced to emissions from the 122 largest fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers. The Pacific nation of Tuvalu has been particularly vocal in its concerns. Sea levels on its nine islands and atolls have already risen by 4.8mm and are expected to get much higher over the coming decades. Australia was the first country to recognise the permanence of Tuvalu's boundaries despite rising sea levels. In 2023, it signed a legally binding treaty committing to help Tuvalu respond to major disasters and offering special visas to citizens who want or need to move. Nearly a third of citizens have entered a ballot for such a visa. Latvia followed with a similar pledge of recognition. At the oceans conference, the Tuvaluan prime minister, Feleti Teo, said his citizens were determined to stay on their land for as long as possible. The government has just finished the first phase of a coastal adaptation project, building concrete barriers to reduce flooding and dredging sand to create additional land. Teo noted that the US$40m scheme was 'very expensive' and it had taken years to secure money from the Green Climate Fund. He urged Tuvalu's development partners to be 'more forthcoming in terms of providing the necessary climate financing that we need to be able to adapt. And to give us more time to live in the land that we believe God has given us and we intend to remain on'. Ridings said it was now up to states to take the commission's work forward. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Bryce Rudyk, a professor of international environmental law at New York University and legal adviser to the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis), said the ILC had been very responsive to small states, which have traditionally not had their voices heard in matters of international law but are increasingly at the forefront of legal advances on climate change and marine degradation. In recent years, Aosis and the Pacific Islands Forum have both declared that their statehood and sovereignty, as well as their membership of intergovernmental organisations such as the UN, will continue regardless of sea level rise. The international court of justice, which will issue a highly anticipated advisory opinion on climate change in the coming months, was petitioned by Aosis to affirm this.
Sky News
8 hours ago
- Sky News
Prince William has had a lot to say this week - but is anyone listening?
Prince William has had a lot to say this week, attending three events about the environment as part of London Climate Action Week and giving three speeches. But I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't really heard what he had to say. The eyes of the world have, understandably, been elsewhere. Conflict, not the climate crisis, has been the primary focus of world leaders and continues to be - a problem you could say for William and all those trying to whip up momentum ahead of COP30 in Brazil, with only four months to go until the UN's climate conference in November. It was William and his team who specifically convened a meeting at St James's Palace on Thursday with the Brazilian ministers in charge of the summit and indigenous leaders from other parts of the world. With Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy security and net zero, just a few seats away, William made a call to action, saying: "We've made bold commitments: to halt deforestation, restore ecosystems, and protect 30% of land, sea, and water by 2030. "But these goals will remain out of reach unless we move from promises to action - grounded in respect, equity, and shared responsibility. "Looking ahead to COP30 in Belem and beyond, we must act with greater ambition and deeper collaboration. This is a moment for courage." When I put it to a palace source that maybe it all feels a bit futile in the current climate, with attentions firmly elsewhere, I was told there is "no change in course" - the prince always has and will continue "to use his platform to spotlight the need to restore the planet". 1:16 In the past, we've been more used to his father being more vocal. The King's involvement in London Climate Week was more fleeting, albeit involving a handshake with a giant gorilla puppet, and a discussion with the Brazil delegation in which he hinted that he would love to attend the summit in November, saying: "It's fitting it all in." Attendance by either the King or the Prince of Wales hasn't been confirmed yet, although it's looking likely William will go. He told one person this week: "I'll be in the area", with his Earthshot Prize being held in Rio in the days running up to the climate conference. But in the coming months, we do now know that father and son will be meeting with one key player, who has certainly voiced very different views on the severity of the climate crisis. 0:56 This week, it was confirmed that Donald Trump's full state visit to the UK will go ahead later this year, likely in September. His potentially disruptive presence when it came to the climate debate was hinted at on Tuesday, in front of Prince William, during a speech by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg. Mr Bloomberg, a global adviser to Earthshot Prize, said: "There's a good reason to be optimistic, lots of problems around the world, America has not been doing its share lately to make things better, I don't think. Nevertheless, I'm very optimistic about the future." The King and Prince William have worked in this environmental sphere long enough to weather the frustrations of other distractions, a lack of interest or momentum. I'll never forget in 2015 ahead of COP21, when Islamic State and Syria were dominating the news agenda, Prince Charles told me very firmly that of course there was a link between the civil war in Syria and climate change. He said there was "very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land". "It's only in the last few years that the Pentagon have actually started to pay attention to this," he added at the time. "I mean, it has a huge impact on what is happening." But as a family, they know how much their global profile and ability to get people in the room can help attract attention that others simply can't. It's easy to be sniffy about that convening power, but as one delegate at an Earthshot event put it, they have an ability to "bring people together not around politics but purpose". And in a currently noisy, fractured world, it feels like that is needed more than ever.
