Introduction
Fishing is not routinely subject to environmental assessment. Under the Fisheries Act 1996, recreational fishing can take place without scrutiny, so long as any regulations (which might impact size and bag limits or impose spatial closures) are complied with. Commercial fishers require a fishing permit (which does not address environmental matters) and rely on either sufficient annual catch entitlements from quota to cover their catch, or funds to pay deemed values for it.[1]
The lack of environmental assessment of fishing is out of step with how other activities are managed. Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) any application for a resource consent needs to be accompanied by an assessment of effects on the environment.[2] This includes activities such as marine farming, marinas and dredging which undergo detailed environmental assessments before consents are considered.
This article describes the environmental impacts of fishing, identifies gaps in how these impacts are currently managed under the RMA, the Fisheries Act, and the Marine Reserves Act 1971, and highlights concerns about current reforms which are unlikely to address these inefficiencies.
Environmental impacts of fishing
So, what is the rationale for this difference between management approaches under the Fisheries Act and the RMA? Fishing, which is widespread around the coast and in the exclusive economic zone, has profound implications for the marine environment. Targeted fish populations can be impacted, through reduction in biomass (or tonnage of fish) by 80 percent or more. In social terms, this quantum broadly equates to reducing the population of Auckland (currently 1.7 million) to just 340,000 people.
It is not just the quantity of fish that is impacted but also the size and age distribution of the population. Older fish are preferentially fished down to free up food sources for the faster growing, younger fish. This approach is designed to generate the fastest growth in biomass achievable over the long term, or ‘maximum sustainable yield’. Such manipulation of stock structure reduces its overall fecundity as larger fish have many more eggs, and the eggs are also larger, so have a greater likelihood of survival. For example, a 250mm long snapper produces around 80,000 to 300,000 eggs per season, whereas a snapper double that size produces 4.5 to 6 million eggs.[3]
Extreme reductions in populations can also destabilise food webs, including through releasing species lower down the food web from predation pressure. This has resulted in the extensive loss of kelp forests along the north-eastern coast of the North Island, in the Marlborough Sounds and elsewhere, due to large rock lobster, snapper and blue cod which predate on kina (which in turn eat the kelp forests) being fished out.
Fishing also results in bycatch, that is, the harvest of species which are not targeted. These can include protected species such as marine mammals, seabirds and coral. Such unintentional bycatch is legal, if reported, irrespective of the threatened status of the species. For example, 15 Hector’s dolphins which are an endemic and nationally vulnerable species, were reported as captured in commercial fisheries during the 2023/24 fishing year.[4]
Fishing gear can also physically damage ecologically important marine habitats, particularly when heavy gear such as dredges and trawl doors, rollers and chains are dragged over the seafloor and seamounts. Such damage occurs routinely and is poorly controlled.
Control of fishing under the RMA
More recently, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that regional councils can manage the impacts of fishing on biodiversity under the RMA.[5] This relies on section 6(c) which requires decision-makers to provide for “the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna” and section 30(1)(ga) which states that a function of regional councils is to maintain indigenous biological diversity. This is further developed in Policy 11 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) which sets out requirements for protecting indigenous biodiversity in the coastal environment, including avoiding adverse effects on threatened species and important habitats.
Regional coastal plan provisions restricting fishing activity have been applied in the Bay of Plenty, Northland and the Marlborough Sounds. The provisions have been limited to small areas but, despite this, the government has amended the RMA to further restrict their application.
That amendment, as set out in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act 2025, adds an additional requirement that councils be required to undertake an assessment of the impacts of the fishing control on fishing itself. Under the new section 32(2A) councils “must examine whether, and the extent to which, the rules would:
(i) affect the ability of local communities to take fish, aquatic life, or seaweed for non-commercial purposes; and
(ii) affect the ability of persons with a commercial interest in a species or stock to take their annual catch entitlement within the quota management area for that species or stock and have an impact on quota owners for that species or stock within the quota management area; and
(iii) affect the ability of persons with a fishing permit for non-quota management species or stock to exercise their right to take fisheries
resources under the permit; …”
This proposal, coupled with other additional processes that councils have to undertake, will likely deter them from pursuing necessary controls to manage fishing impacts in the future.
Other implications of RMA reforms
At the time of writing, the government has introduced two new Bills to replace the RMA; the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill. These are likely to pass in late 2026. The coastal marine area will continue to be managed by regional councils under the Natural Environment Bill.
There are a number of key changes within the new system that will impact on how the coastal marine area will be managed. They include:[6]
While some of these proposals may make it more difficult to achieve effective marine management (such as splitting land use planning and environmental regulation), other aspects could be positive such as a stronger framework for spatial planning, environmental limits and better tools for allocation of marine space. The content of the new National Policy Direction will be critical, including whether the ‘avoid’ policies of the NZCPS will be strengthened or weakened.
One matter of particular concern in the Natural Environment Bill is a further erosion of the ability of regional councils to include rules in a Natural Environment Plan to control the impacts of fishing on marine biodiversity. For a start, the rule must be included in the proposed plan as notified and can no longer be introduced through a submission on the plan.[7] In addition the Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries must concur with a proposed rule before it is notified, thereby providing the ability to veto fishing controls.[8]
Another concern is that streamlining the current system through stronger plans and fewer resource consents relies on having good information on the nature and location of environmental values at stake. In the marine area, the information base is patchier than on land. If care is not taken, the absence of information can be taken to represent the absence of values that need protecting.
Implications of changes to Fisheries Act
The lack of information on the marine environment is also a problem for fisheries management. The government is progressing a Fisheries Amendment Bill which has been heralded as “the most significant reforms to the Fisheries Act for decades”.[9] This aims to enable more agile decision-making on catch limits along with a range of other things.
EDS’s previous work has shown that the current process for adjusting catch limits is lengthy and resource intensive, with many adjustments lagging behind changes in stock levels.[10] For example, the table below shows that the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) for several key finfish species in northern New Zealand has not been adjusted for more than two decades.
Fishing is not routinely subject to environmental assessment. Under the Fisheries Act 1996, recreational fishing can take place without scrutiny, so long as any regulations (which might impact size and bag limits or impose spatial closures) are complied with. Commercial fishers require a fishing permit (which does not address environmental matters) and rely on either sufficient annual catch entitlements from quota to cover their catch, or funds to pay deemed values for it.[1]
The lack of environmental assessment of fishing is out of step with how other activities are managed. Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) any application for a resource consent needs to be accompanied by an assessment of effects on the environment.[2] This includes activities such as marine farming, marinas and dredging which undergo detailed environmental assessments before consents are considered.
This article describes the environmental impacts of fishing, identifies gaps in how these impacts are currently managed under the RMA, the Fisheries Act, and the Marine Reserves Act 1971, and highlights concerns about current reforms which are unlikely to address these inefficiencies.
Environmental impacts of fishing
So, what is the rationale for this difference between management approaches under the Fisheries Act and the RMA? Fishing, which is widespread around the coast and in the exclusive economic zone, has profound implications for the marine environment. Targeted fish populations can be impacted, through reduction in biomass (or tonnage of fish) by 80 percent or more. In social terms, this quantum broadly equates to reducing the population of Auckland (currently 1.7 million) to just 340,000 people.
It is not just the quantity of fish that is impacted but also the size and age distribution of the population. Older fish are preferentially fished down to free up food sources for the faster growing, younger fish. This approach is designed to generate the fastest growth in biomass achievable over the long term, or ‘maximum sustainable yield’. Such manipulation of stock structure reduces its overall fecundity as larger fish have many more eggs, and the eggs are also larger, so have a greater likelihood of survival. For example, a 250mm long snapper produces around 80,000 to 300,000 eggs per season, whereas a snapper double that size produces 4.5 to 6 million eggs.[3]
Extreme reductions in populations can also destabilise food webs, including through releasing species lower down the food web from predation pressure. This has resulted in the extensive loss of kelp forests along the north-eastern coast of the North Island, in the Marlborough Sounds and elsewhere, due to large rock lobster, snapper and blue cod which predate on kina (which in turn eat the kelp forests) being fished out.
Fishing also results in bycatch, that is, the harvest of species which are not targeted. These can include protected species such as marine mammals, seabirds and coral. Such unintentional bycatch is legal, if reported, irrespective of the threatened status of the species. For example, 15 Hector’s dolphins which are an endemic and nationally vulnerable species, were reported as captured in commercial fisheries during the 2023/24 fishing year.[4]
Fishing gear can also physically damage ecologically important marine habitats, particularly when heavy gear such as dredges and trawl doors, rollers and chains are dragged over the seafloor and seamounts. Such damage occurs routinely and is poorly controlled.
Control of fishing under the RMA
More recently, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that regional councils can manage the impacts of fishing on biodiversity under the RMA.[5] This relies on section 6(c) which requires decision-makers to provide for “the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna” and section 30(1)(ga) which states that a function of regional councils is to maintain indigenous biological diversity. This is further developed in Policy 11 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) which sets out requirements for protecting indigenous biodiversity in the coastal environment, including avoiding adverse effects on threatened species and important habitats.
Regional coastal plan provisions restricting fishing activity have been applied in the Bay of Plenty, Northland and the Marlborough Sounds. The provisions have been limited to small areas but, despite this, the government has amended the RMA to further restrict their application.
That amendment, as set out in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act 2025, adds an additional requirement that councils be required to undertake an assessment of the impacts of the fishing control on fishing itself. Under the new section 32(2A) councils “must examine whether, and the extent to which, the rules would:
(i) affect the ability of local communities to take fish, aquatic life, or seaweed for non-commercial purposes; and
(ii) affect the ability of persons with a commercial interest in a species or stock to take their annual catch entitlement within the quota management area for that species or stock and have an impact on quota owners for that species or stock within the quota management area; and
(iii) affect the ability of persons with a fishing permit for non-quota management species or stock to exercise their right to take fisheries
resources under the permit; …”
This proposal, coupled with other additional processes that councils have to undertake, will likely deter them from pursuing necessary controls to manage fishing impacts in the future.
Other implications of RMA reforms
At the time of writing, the government has introduced two new Bills to replace the RMA; the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill. These are likely to pass in late 2026. The coastal marine area will continue to be managed by regional councils under the Natural Environment Bill.
There are a number of key changes within the new system that will impact on how the coastal marine area will be managed. They include:[6]
- New goals under the Natural Environment Bill include enabling the use and development of natural resources ‘within environmental limits’ and achieving ‘no net loss of indigenous biodiversity’.
- A reworked single National Policy Direction under each Act (and national standards) – thereby replacing the NZCPS
- Environmental limits set by regional councils under the Natural Environment Act for fresh and coastal water and marine ecosystems amongst other things (but no minimum requirement for the level at which they are to be set)
- Regional Spatial Plans prepared under the Planning Act
- A Natural Environment Plan prepared by the regional council, with content largely standardised, to be incorporated into one combined plan per region (with the Regional Spatial Plan and Land Use plans)
- Greater reliance on permitted activities and fewer activity classes
- A regulatory relief framework with councils providing compensation when the impact of controls on the reasonable use of land is significant (but not in the coastal marine area unless there is private title to the seabed)
- More nuanced allocation tools
- Potentially a new national compliance and enforcement regulator.
While some of these proposals may make it more difficult to achieve effective marine management (such as splitting land use planning and environmental regulation), other aspects could be positive such as a stronger framework for spatial planning, environmental limits and better tools for allocation of marine space. The content of the new National Policy Direction will be critical, including whether the ‘avoid’ policies of the NZCPS will be strengthened or weakened.
One matter of particular concern in the Natural Environment Bill is a further erosion of the ability of regional councils to include rules in a Natural Environment Plan to control the impacts of fishing on marine biodiversity. For a start, the rule must be included in the proposed plan as notified and can no longer be introduced through a submission on the plan.[7] In addition the Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries must concur with a proposed rule before it is notified, thereby providing the ability to veto fishing controls.[8]
Another concern is that streamlining the current system through stronger plans and fewer resource consents relies on having good information on the nature and location of environmental values at stake. In the marine area, the information base is patchier than on land. If care is not taken, the absence of information can be taken to represent the absence of values that need protecting.
Implications of changes to Fisheries Act
The lack of information on the marine environment is also a problem for fisheries management. The government is progressing a Fisheries Amendment Bill which has been heralded as “the most significant reforms to the Fisheries Act for decades”.[9] This aims to enable more agile decision-making on catch limits along with a range of other things.
EDS’s previous work has shown that the current process for adjusting catch limits is lengthy and resource intensive, with many adjustments lagging behind changes in stock levels.[10] For example, the table below shows that the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) for several key finfish species in northern New Zealand has not been adjusted for more than two decades.
Changes in TACC for key finfish stocks since introduction to the quota management system[11]
In addition, there has been weak application of the environmental provisions in the Fisheries Act which require the biological diversity of the aquatic environment to be maintained, and habitat of particular significance for fisheries management to be protected, amongst other things.[12] This is highlighted by the fact that it was only in 2025 that guidance on protecting habitats of significance to fisheries management was released,[13] some 29 years after the requirement to take action was added to the statute book.
The fisheries reforms seek to address the difficulty in adjusting catch limits in a timely fashion by enabling the Minister to make multi-year catch decisions, and using management procedures where catch limits are adjusted automatically based on pre-determined metrics. These fail to address the main reason that catch settings for various stocks have remained static, which is because there is insufficient information to support scientifically robust adjustments. Deficiencies in information have resulted from prolonged underinvestment in fisheries science and stock assessments. The proposed reforms do not address this core problem but instead give the Minister more discretion to make decisions without independent checks and balances.[14]
At the same time the reforms do nothing to strengthen the management of the environmental impacts of fishing and seek to constrain. They also change the criteria on which the total allowable catch is set, enabling social, cultural and economic factors to be taken into account, rather than basing the decision purely on the biological characteristics of the stock.[15]
Providing new marine protection tools
Restricting the ability of councils to manage fishing impacts under the RMA, and the failure to adequately address the environmental impacts of fishing under the Fisheries Act, makes more urgent the need to provide for marine protection tools in other legislation. The Marine Reserves Act 1971 which provides only for no-take reserves, and only in the coastal marine area, is well out of date and not fit for purpose. Reforming the legislation has wide cross-party support being a commitment in the 2023 election policy of the National, Labour and Green Parties.[16]
In EDS’s publication, Pathways to Ocean Reform, we set out the case for a new Marine Protected Areas Act along with other oceans reforms. This would create a range of marine protection tools including marine reserves, marine sanctuaries, marine restoration areas, and multi-use marine parks. It would also provide for a collaborative process or an independent board of inquiry, to make recommendations on their creation, and place iwi and hapū at the centre of decision-making processes.[17] These decisions will need to be informed by robust information on marine areas and impact assessments of proposals.
Conclusions
Current reforms do little to address the environmental impacts of fishing activity and in some important areas will make it harder. For this reason it is even more urgent to replace the Marine Reserves Act with new legislation which broadens the tools available to manage and protect the marine environment. A more fundamental review of the Fisheries Act is also long overdue.
Footnotes
[1] Peart R, 2018, Voices from the Sea: Managing New Zealand’s fisheries, Environmental Defence Society, Auckland, see Figure 2.2 at page 10
[2] Section 8(2)(b)
[3] Parsons D et al, 2014, Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus): A review of life history and key vulnerabilities in New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 48(2), 256–283
[4] Fisheries New Zealand, 2025, South Island Hector’s dolphin bycatch reduction plan: Annual report 2023/24, Fisheries New Zealand, Wellington, at page 4
[5] See Attorney-General v Trustees of the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust [2019] NZCA 532
[6] Ministry for the Environment, 2025, Better planning for a better New Zealand: Overview of New Zealand’s new planning system, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington
[7] Natural Environment Bill, clause 113
[8] Planning Bill, Schedule 3, clause 12
[9] Hon Shane Jones, 2025, ‘Fisheries reforms support economic growth’, media release, 6 August
[10] Peart R, 2018, Voices from the Sea: Managing New Zealand’s fisheries, Environmental Defence Society, Auckland, at 51-53
[11] Data has been taken from the Fisheries New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Plenary Documents which can be found at https://www.mpi.govt.nz/science/fisheries-research-and-science/about-our-fisheries-research/
[12] Fisheries Act 1996, Section 9
[13] Fisheries New Zealand, 2025, Guidance for the identification of habitat of particular significance for fisheries management and taking into account that they should be protected, Fisheries New Zealand, Wellington
[14] For a deeper dive into problems with the current fisheries reforms see EDS’s submission on them at https://eds.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Final-EDS-Submission-on-fisheries-reforms-20250410.pdf
[15] Fisheries Amendment Bill 2026, clause 10
[16] National Party, 2023, Blueprint for a better environment, National Party, Wellington, at 9; Labour Party, 2023, Manifesto 2023, Labour Party, Wellington, at 60; Green Party, 2023, Healthy Ocean Act, Green Party, Wellington, at 17
[17] For more analysis on marine protection see Peart R and D Koolen-Bourke, 2025, Protecting the sea: Rethinking marine protected areas, Environmental Defence Society, Auckland
The fisheries reforms seek to address the difficulty in adjusting catch limits in a timely fashion by enabling the Minister to make multi-year catch decisions, and using management procedures where catch limits are adjusted automatically based on pre-determined metrics. These fail to address the main reason that catch settings for various stocks have remained static, which is because there is insufficient information to support scientifically robust adjustments. Deficiencies in information have resulted from prolonged underinvestment in fisheries science and stock assessments. The proposed reforms do not address this core problem but instead give the Minister more discretion to make decisions without independent checks and balances.[14]
At the same time the reforms do nothing to strengthen the management of the environmental impacts of fishing and seek to constrain. They also change the criteria on which the total allowable catch is set, enabling social, cultural and economic factors to be taken into account, rather than basing the decision purely on the biological characteristics of the stock.[15]
Providing new marine protection tools
Restricting the ability of councils to manage fishing impacts under the RMA, and the failure to adequately address the environmental impacts of fishing under the Fisheries Act, makes more urgent the need to provide for marine protection tools in other legislation. The Marine Reserves Act 1971 which provides only for no-take reserves, and only in the coastal marine area, is well out of date and not fit for purpose. Reforming the legislation has wide cross-party support being a commitment in the 2023 election policy of the National, Labour and Green Parties.[16]
In EDS’s publication, Pathways to Ocean Reform, we set out the case for a new Marine Protected Areas Act along with other oceans reforms. This would create a range of marine protection tools including marine reserves, marine sanctuaries, marine restoration areas, and multi-use marine parks. It would also provide for a collaborative process or an independent board of inquiry, to make recommendations on their creation, and place iwi and hapū at the centre of decision-making processes.[17] These decisions will need to be informed by robust information on marine areas and impact assessments of proposals.
Conclusions
Current reforms do little to address the environmental impacts of fishing activity and in some important areas will make it harder. For this reason it is even more urgent to replace the Marine Reserves Act with new legislation which broadens the tools available to manage and protect the marine environment. A more fundamental review of the Fisheries Act is also long overdue.
Footnotes
[1] Peart R, 2018, Voices from the Sea: Managing New Zealand’s fisheries, Environmental Defence Society, Auckland, see Figure 2.2 at page 10
[2] Section 8(2)(b)
[3] Parsons D et al, 2014, Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus): A review of life history and key vulnerabilities in New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 48(2), 256–283
[4] Fisheries New Zealand, 2025, South Island Hector’s dolphin bycatch reduction plan: Annual report 2023/24, Fisheries New Zealand, Wellington, at page 4
[5] See Attorney-General v Trustees of the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust [2019] NZCA 532
[6] Ministry for the Environment, 2025, Better planning for a better New Zealand: Overview of New Zealand’s new planning system, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington
[7] Natural Environment Bill, clause 113
[8] Planning Bill, Schedule 3, clause 12
[9] Hon Shane Jones, 2025, ‘Fisheries reforms support economic growth’, media release, 6 August
[10] Peart R, 2018, Voices from the Sea: Managing New Zealand’s fisheries, Environmental Defence Society, Auckland, at 51-53
[11] Data has been taken from the Fisheries New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Plenary Documents which can be found at https://www.mpi.govt.nz/science/fisheries-research-and-science/about-our-fisheries-research/
[12] Fisheries Act 1996, Section 9
[13] Fisheries New Zealand, 2025, Guidance for the identification of habitat of particular significance for fisheries management and taking into account that they should be protected, Fisheries New Zealand, Wellington
[14] For a deeper dive into problems with the current fisheries reforms see EDS’s submission on them at https://eds.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Final-EDS-Submission-on-fisheries-reforms-20250410.pdf
[15] Fisheries Amendment Bill 2026, clause 10
[16] National Party, 2023, Blueprint for a better environment, National Party, Wellington, at 9; Labour Party, 2023, Manifesto 2023, Labour Party, Wellington, at 60; Green Party, 2023, Healthy Ocean Act, Green Party, Wellington, at 17
[17] For more analysis on marine protection see Peart R and D Koolen-Bourke, 2025, Protecting the sea: Rethinking marine protected areas, Environmental Defence Society, Auckland