Holding Environment Southland accountable on wetland loss

ELI v Environment Southland

We are challenging Environment Southland in the High Court for its failure to take action on wetland loss.

Wetlands are home to incredible biodiversity, can absorb vast quantities of carbon, and are a natural form of flood and coastal protection. 

Less than 10% of original wetlands in Aotearoa remain. It is crucial they are protected. Under the Resource Management Act, regional councils are responsible for maintaining wetlands. 

Yet in Southland, wetland loss has occurred at an alarming rate. Half of the total loss of wetlands in Aotearoa between 1996 and 2018 was in Southland, with 2709 hectares lost. Most were from lowlands near or adjacent to the internationally significant Awarua-Waituna wetland.  

ELI’s case was heard in the Christchurch High Court in early October 2024. ELI made the case that Environment Southland failed to monitor the extent of wetlands, review the efficacy of its wetland rules, or take action to prevent wetland destruction. The judge’s decision is pending. 

Why did we take this case?

Wetlands play a vital role in New Zealand’s environment, serving as natural infrastructure for flood control, carbon storage, and protecting against coastal inundation. Wetlands are also biodiversity hotspots, home to a range of unique species. Sadly, in New Zealand, a staggering 90% of its original wetlands have been lost due to drainage and conversion for agricultural purposes. 

The extent and pace of wetland loss in Southland is extraordinary. A staggering 2709 hectares of wetlands was lost in Southland between 1996 and 2018 - half of the total loss of wetlands in Aotearoa. 

By holding governing bodies such as Environment Southland accountable for their enforcement of existing laws, we can support the long-term survival and sustainability of wetlands in Aotearoa. 

Case timeline

April 2023 - ELI filed for judicial review 

30th Sep - 2nd Oct 2024 - Case heard in the Christchurch High Court

Awaiting decision from the High Court 

 
 

Related cases

 
Previous
Previous

Challenging DOC’s failure to protect marine species from commercial fishing