Natural Environment Strategy Unit, Auckland Council
By email: ibstrategy@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
29 August 2026
Introduction
The Hauraki Gulf Users Group (HGUG), formed in 2022 to advocate for public access, recreational use, and democratic representation in the management of the Hauraki Gulf, supports the fundamental objective of protecting, restoring, and enhancing Auckland’s indigenous biodiversity.
The discussion document Shaping the Future of Our Native Species and Ecosystems was circulated to our 12,000-strong contact list. The responses reveal substantial concern about the strategy's direction, emphasis, and presentation. Below are an acknowledgement and summary of the key points raised by respondents.
There is broad recognition that the Hauraki Gulf and Auckland’s wider natural environment face significant pressures. Feedback strongly supports effective conservation measures, restoration of degraded ecosystems, improved monitoring, and strengthening environmental management. Respondents expressed deep affection for the Gulf and Auckland’s native species. One noted that, having sailed the South Pacific, the Gulf is “the single best thing about Auckland” and a sailors’ and boaties’ paradise unmatched by almost any other city harbour; we owe it to future generations to conserve it.
Biodiversity Should Be the Primary Purpose
Our respondents strongly support restoring and enhancing indigenous species, habitats, and ecosystems, and achieving measurable positive environmental outcomes.
Many are concerned that the discussion document places excessive emphasis on cultural, Treaty, and governance matters that extend well beyond sound environmental management. It is recognised that mana whenua have a legitimate interest in the natural environment and should be encouraged to participate in environmental management alongside other Aucklanders and stakeholder groups. However, there is substantial opposition to Council’s proposal to strengthen Te Tiriti partnerships with mana whenua, and to the concept of a dominant role for iwi authorities and
representatives. We strongly recommend that Auckland Council reconsider this emphasis.
Evidence-Based Environmental Management
Biodiversity policy should be based on the best available ecological evidence, appropriate scientific research, monitoring, long-term environmental data, and practical local knowledge.
Several respondents were concerned that the discussion document gives significant prominence to mātauranga Māori without explaining how diverse sources of environmental knowledge will be evaluated or how any conflicts between them will be resolved. “Fisheries should be managed by sound science and not hearsay or personal beliefs or ancestry.”
The Strategy should make clear that environmental interventions will be:
The central question must always be: does this action improve biodiversity?
Effective Monitoring and Enforcement
Environmental rules are effective only when they are monitored and enforced. Respondents called for stronger policing of marine protected areas, temporary fishery closures, and objective monitoring of harvesting rather than excessive reliance on self-reporting.
We recommend implementing:
These requirements should apply consistently. A poorly enforced protected area provides the appearance of conservation rather than effective conservation.
One respondent reported a specific recent incident illustrating the problem: large quantities of mullet taken at Gardiners Gap between Rangitoto and Motutapu over the weekend of 22–23 August, with only 20 kept and the rest thrown away by local people, showing “no attitude to conservation of stock”.
A Whole-of-Community Approach
The discussion document states that successful biodiversity protection depends on contributions from mana whenua, landowners, government agencies, regional organisations, interest groups, industries, and individuals. HGUG strongly supports this broad approach: restoring biodiversity requires the whole community, and Aucklanders of every background should have an equal opportunity to participate.
HGUG supports the principle that organisations and groups should be engaged according to their capability, reliability, and ability to use environmental funding effectively. Council should mobilise the widest possible community effort rather than structuring biodiversity participation primarily around ethnicity.
Respondents strongly rejected race-based preferences, exclusive rights, or special management rights of any kind, calling instead for equal rules and access for everyone. On this basis, HGUG opposes provisions that single out mana whenua for empowerment, leadership of restoration in “their rohe,” or preferential funding pathways.
Equal Application of Conservation Rules
One of the HGUG’s strongest and most consistent messages is that environmental protection measures must apply equally to everyone. Marine reserves, no-take areas, harvesting restrictions, and other biodiversity protections should therefore apply to all people on the same basis and be enforced without exception. One observed that their own children are part-Māori and asked why they should have different rights: “We all have to protect the environment and live within the same catch restrictions.”
Respondents who are recreational divers expressed support for measures to restore local crayfish populations and other environmental initiatives, while reiterating that equal rules for all remain essential.
Several respondents support marine reserves and stronger protections, but stress that these measures must be universal and impartially enforced. HGUG believes this is an important principle. Conservation measures should not be weakened by exemptions.
The present depleted state of an ecosystem should not automatically become the benchmark against which future success is measured.
Specific feedback concerns species that naturally return to their birthplace or traditional breeding areas. The submission notes that seabirds (including petrels, gannets, and shags), seals, and some shark species can have strong attachment to traditional breeding or nursery areas. Where populations have disappeared from an area, simply protecting the remaining population may therefore not result in natural recolonisation. It is suggested an investigation be conducted into the historical distribution of native species, former breeding and nursery areas, and the potential for active restoration where appropriate.
Community Participation in Local Conservation
There is support for greater involvement of local communities in environmental work. One respondent made the useful observation that environmental problems vary significantly between local areas. On Waiheke, for example, different communities experience different weed problems.
Rather than determining every priority centrally, local communities should be supported to identify environmental problems, set priorities, and undertake practical restoration work. Council can assist through technical advice, education, small grants, pest-control resources, ecological monitoring, and coordination between neighbouring groups.
Cost, Value for Money, and Accountability
Respondents repeatedly questioned what the new strategy will cost and whether it will duplicate existing work undertaken by Auckland Council, DOC, conservation organisations, and community groups. One respondent specifically called for spending figures and cost-benefit analysis.
HGUG believes the final strategy should identify and publicise:
Funding must be directed towards programmes that produce demonstrable environmental benefits. Provisions that ask how funding and investment pathways can best support mana whenua to lead protection and restoration are opposed unless equally available to all capable community groups.
Where organisations are funded to undertake biodiversity work, they should publicly report performance.
Greater Attention to the Hauraki Gulf
Although the strategy covers biodiversity throughout Auckland, HGUG believes the Hauraki Gulf requires much more specific attention. The Gulf is one of Auckland’s most important natural assets, and people are widely concerned about the long-term deterioration of its marine environment. Over the last 2–3 decades, the Gulf's degradation and decline have progressed to a point where some see little evidence it can ever return to its former status, with one respondent claiming this is largely due to poor commercial fishing practices and land run-off.Several practical issues raised in feedback deserve explicit consideration in the biodiversity strategy:
Bottom trawling and other damaging commercial methods.
Several respondents identify bottom trawling as a major threat to Gulf habitat and state that “Trawling must stop,” calling for a complete ban on commercial bottom trawling and on dredging by both recreational and commercial fishers. While this has been partially addressed in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Protection Act, the recommendation is to go further: progressively remove all environmentally damaging bottom-contact fishing methods from sensitive areas of the Gulf and advocate to central government wherever Council lacks the necessary jurisdiction.
Respondents also urge a tougher stance on commercial fishers whose methods negatively impact the marine environment, and particularly the substrate. One view is that commercial net fishers of any description should be excluded from most of the Hauraki Gulf, with access retained only for commercial line fishers. Bottom-contact methods already cause documented habitat damage; extending stronger restrictions to all net-based commercial fishing would further reduce pressure on benthic communities, reduce bycatch of non-target species, and support recovery of the wider ecosystem.
Sedimentation and land-based pollution. An important point raised by respondents is the impact of sediment entering the Gulf from urban development, earthworks, stream erosion, and stormwater systems. Clay and sediment entering Auckland waterways can travel considerable distances before settling and smothering marine habitat. We recommend that the Council step up its responsibilities in this area. It makes little sense to impose increasing restrictions upon marine users while allowing preventable land-based degradation of marine habitat to continue.
We recommend that the Strategy establish measurable targets for reducing sediment and contaminant discharge into the Gulf.
Marine protected areas. Some respondents support significantly increased marine protection, including additional marine reserves and larger no-take areas, with restrictions shared equally by all citizens, with no exceptions.
Additionally, to evaluate the effectiveness of existing and proposed protected areas scientifically, any new protected area must have:
The emphasis should be on environmental effectiveness rather than simply increasing the percentage of the Gulf that falls within a particular regulatory classification.
Recreational harvesting. Some respondents suggested reviewing recreational bag limits and considering whether daily limits should apply per boat rather than per person.
Restrictions should be proportionate to the environmental problem being addressed and reviewed as populations recover or decline.
Rock pool protection. HGUG recommends urgently strengthening rock-pool protection. Respondents raised strong concern about intensive removal of marine life from intertidal rock pools. One noted that rock pools that teemed with life 50 years ago are now wastelands and urged a much stronger prohibition on taking or disturbing intertidal marine life. Another respondent reported contacting Fisheries about people “assaulting” rock pools on Takapuna Reef and removing sea life, only to be told the area was not in a prohibited zone.
It is strongly recommended that a ban on taking marine life should be extended to further coastal areas, consistent with the existing ban on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. The Takapuna Reef, and Rothesay, Murray’s, Mairangi and Campbell’s Bay coastline was specifically mentioned.
Mussel farms and marine environmental management. One respondent with extensive Gulf experience raised concerns about the increasing size and extent of mussel farms. The issues raised include lost floats, poor navigation markers, debris travelling through the Gulf, and risks to boating safety. While some of these matters fall outside a biodiversity strategy, aquaculture should nevertheless be required to meet high standards of environmental stewardship. Operators should be responsible for infrastructure and debris originating from their farms, and Council should ensure that the cumulative environmental effects of aquaculture expansion are robustly assessed.
Move From Strategy to Action
Another strong theme in the feedback is concern that Auckland cannot afford years of consultation, strategy development, and further planning while environmental degradation continues. Clear timelines are called for, moving rapidly from discussion to delivery.
It is recommended that the final strategy contain a practical implementation programme showing:
Genuine Public Consultation
Several respondents expressed concern that consultation may become little more than a process for endorsing a direction already decided. One shared “the concern around genuine public consultation, that with Auckland Council consultation is just a process for endorsing a plan that has already been decided.” HGUG therefore requests that Council, when releasing the draft strategy, publish a summary showing:
This would improve public confidence in the process. Respondents appreciated seeing their own thoughts reflected and felt this helped them feel part of this important work.
Plain and Accessible Communication
A considerable number of respondents found the discussion document difficult to read. Concerns included:
Some respondents suggested publishing separate full English and Māori versions rather than combining both languages throughout a single document. Others specifically questioned why terms such as Te Mana o te Taiao are used without immediately explaining that this is the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. Additional comments endorsed removing Te Reo Māori from the reports and stated that “English and Māori language should remain separate…. should not be used in the same sentence.” One respondent said: “If the Council want people to understand the strategy, they at least need to produce it in common English, and a Māori language version as well. Similarly for all signage.”
Whatever approach Council adopts, the final consultation document should be understandable to all Auckland citizens without requiring them to search elsewhere for
translations or definitions. Public engagement will be weakened if people find the strategy inaccessible.
HGUG recommends that Council prepare a concise plain-English version setting out:
Conclusion
The Hauraki Gulf Users Group supports decisive action to protect and restore Auckland’s indigenous biodiversity and particularly the marine environment of the Hauraki Gulf. However, we suggest that the biodiversity strategy will command much greater public support if it is simplified and refocused. In particular, HGUG opposes the provisions that shift the strategy’s emphasis toward Treaty partnership, empowering mana whenua, and prioritising funding pathways for mana whenua leadership of biodiversity work. Instead, we recommend that Auckland Council:
Feedback received from the Group shows considerable common ground among Aucklanders on the need to protect our indigenous biodiversity. Council should build upon that common ground. A biodiversity strategy that is scientifically credible, focused on clear environmental results, and delivers measurable ecosystem restoration through evidence-based action and strong accountability is far more likely to gain the broad community support it needs to succeed.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this feedback on behalf of the Hauraki Gulf Users Group.
Lee Short
Chair
Hauraki Gulf Users Group
