|
Hokianga Accord Hui Report
Naumai
Marae
20 - 21 July 2006
Chris Jenkins and Simon Banks
from DoC’s Wellington Marine Conservation Unit presented the
Marine Protected Areas Policy and Implementation Plan (MPAIP). It
was still “work in progress” so the information supplied
to the hui had not been finalised.
DoC believes their approach to marine protection is more inclusive now than it had been in the past. The concerns regarding the problems with applying customary management tools to coastal areas had been noted. The Department’s new process was trying to address problems of the past, to get people more involved in the implementation of protected areas. The Northland Regional Council had also expressed a desire to be more involved in the initial stages of the process.
“Our legal mandate, the Department of Conservation, I am not going to hide from it, is marine reserves. That’s legally what we are supposed to get involved in, along with protecting marine mammals. But we’ve got a process that allows us to work with others. We are not against other protection mechanisms, we have to work within our legal mandate.”
It was pointed out to DoC that there is an obvious need for marine protection. New Zealand fisheries have many fish stocks that are way below Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), such as the Kaipara flounder and mullet stocks. These were two fisheries where the quota had never constrained commercial fishing effort, thereby having a major effect on non-commercial fishers trying to catch a fish for their families.
If DoC was so concerned about conserving the natural marine resources and the Ministry of Fisheries is charged with managing fish stocks to MSY then DoC and MFish should work together to implement current legislation. Once both Departments had done their jobs properly, as they were legally obliged to do, only then should they be going to the people to discuss marine reserves and the real need for them.
Without answering the question about why DoC and MFish were not actively managing the resource, DoC’s response was,
“This is a process about us (DoC and MFish) working together. The fish stocks question is something the Ministry of Fisheries would probably be best to address. The presentation we are talking about is about our agencies trying to work together to get better protection by a variety of methods. It’s the process we are going to be talking about.”
 |
The
hui pointed out to DoC that that the marine reserve process
was described as;death by a thousand cuts;
over 25 years ago, and that the department should be looking
to devise
an overall strategy
rather than pick one site to implement a marine reserve, then
another. |
It seemed to be a never-ending process
with no strategic plan to guide the process.
DoC agreed, at that time, that the strategic approach was a good idea. Nothing had changed in the past 25 years. The same process exists today, which prevents support for other marine protection initiatives.
DoC agreed that an effective strategy would be to identify:
- How a marine area could be classified as being representative of habitats
- What protection mechanisms are available; and
- How these protection mechanisms fit together
DoC believes the MPA strategy addresses those concerns.
MFish chimed in and suggested the Guardians of Fiordland management plan (GOFF) was a good example of all interests working together. Many at the hui doubted that the GOFF management plan had been well mandated and that the ‘gifts and gains’ benefited all interests in the Fiordland fisheries. Recreational fishers had had their catching rights eroded, while commercial interests maintained their catch entitlement in an agreement reached in 2004. More details about this process are online here.
MPA Policy and Implementation Plan
Simon Banks, Manager Marine Species, Department of Conservation
|
Simon
is a member of DoC's Marine Conservation Unit based in Wellington.
The Ministers of Fisheries
and Conservation had announced the Marine Protected Areas
Policy and Implementation Plan (MPAPIP) in January 2006.
It is a joint initiative
by both Ministries. Simon presented a PowerPoint presentation
that included the following information: |
|
The policy addresses the
NZ Biodiversity Strategy objective 3.6, which is, “To effectively conserve marine biodiversity using a range of mechanisms”.
The goal is to have 10% of the marine environment protected by 2010, looking towards the longer-term goal of having a comprehensive and representative network of MPA’s by 2020.
DoC and MFish were currently working on a process to determine what constituted a marine protected area and the habitat classification system.
The tools for MPA’s may include:
|
Marine reserves |
|
Fisheries Act tools including |
| |
- |
Fishing area and gear restrictions |
| |
- |
Customary management tools
|
| |
|
|
Resource Management Act tools |
|
Marine parks |
|
Cable protection zones |
The aim is to have a nationally consistent basis for planning and establishing new MPA’s. The policy development also recognised the Crown’s Treaty obligations to provide for effective participation of tangata whenua in the process.
A workshop was held in December 2005 to define the broad biogeographical regions for the inshore areas around the county. The regions and the protection standards would be included in the discussion document released to the public for feedback in mid-August. Advice would be given to the Ministers after the public consultation process.
Regional forums would be established and tasked with identifying suitable areas as MPA’s. Tangata whenua would have the opportunity to participate in these forums. The Ministers will make the ultimate decision on particular areas.
There are currently three forums, the Hauraki Gulf Forum, the South Island west coast Forum and one associated with the Sub Antarctic Islands. The Hauraki Gulf Forum had not officially formed but both departments, to facilitate the formation of the group, had carried out, a lot of work. The South Island group has been underway for around 12 to 18 months. The Sub Antarctic Forum is at the advanced planning stage.
DoC agreed that monitoring and research were important components of this policy. The DoC representatives could not give a definitive answer on whether trials would be conducted to test the ‘kina barren’ theory. This theory is often touted as a reason why marine reserves are required.
TOP
Kina Barrens
It was put to DoC that from a fisher’s perspective it would be helpful to test the theory that kina barrens were created by excessive numbers of kina eating the kelp. Also, that the kina numbers were uncontrolled, because fishermen had caught the big fish and crayfish that would normally eat the kina.
If an area was set aside and every kina was killed or removed from that area, over a period of time the kelp should regenerate, if the kina barren theory was correct. If the kelp did not recover then it would be proven that other factors are influencing kelp growth, including land run off and sedimentation.
Marine Parks
Simon explained how multiple-use marine parks had been established in New South Wales, Australia. Within those parks are fully protected no-take zones, areas with gear limitations and general use zones that allow for different types of fishing.
Questions and Answers
The focus of the MPA policy is on habitat protection rather than species protection. This implies there would be fishing opportunities in those areas. DoC was asked how mataitai and taiapure would fit into this policy, as these are area management tools that could provide habitat protection while allowing extraction.
DoC advised the protection standards process currently underway is considering all types of measures including fishing closures and limitations on a case-by-case basis. The process would also look to address the effects if the level of extraction is considered excessive and what sort of management was in place to manage extraction. Simon confirmed the MPA policy would consider areas that allowed fishing to take place.
When asked specifically about customary management tools Simon continued,
“There is not an answer to say yes. It’s a case-by-case basis. But there is certainly potential that they could form part of the network”.
There was some discussion on the percentage of marine area currently protected.
Kaitiakitanga
The following comments were put to the DoC representatives for their feedback.
In terms of marine protection, marine reserves are the highest form available to New Zealanders, as according to the law, they are no-take forever areas. This could be described as being an “adult” form of marine protection, that is, commence their existence fully mature, in the no-take form.
Kaitiakitanga on the other hand, is a time honoured - over hundreds of years - way of man living as one with and managing the resources in his environment. The Crown has statutory obligations to Maori, to have particular regard for kaitiakitanga in both fisheries management and by providing tangata whenua the opportunity to exercise their customary and management rights.
A mataitai or taiapure is an “infant” when compared to a marine reserve. The tools are not designed to be mature and fully developed at their inception. It may take one, two or more generations of tangata whenua and the community working together to change people’s attitude and how they behave in and around the sea. Once attitude and behaviour had been modified then protection would be enhanced.
It was unreasonable to expect kaitiakitanga to immediately deliver the same results as a no-take forever marine reserve. In the protection standards process marine reserves and customary tools are not comparable. Realistically, it may take 20 or 30 years for a mataitai to fulfil its potential. Education of the community as to the benefits of kaitiakitanga for our fisheries and marine environment is seen as the key to progress being made in widespread implementation of kaitiakitanga.
Tangata whenua have been expected to deliver this process with very little resourcing. In fact, there was a huge mismatch of resourcing. In the case of kaitiakitanga initiatives, too little, too late.
It was an insult to tangata whenua for Crown agencies to say that the obligations, provided through the Treaty settlement that allowed for customary management are ‘potentially’ marine protected areas.
Treaty of Waitangi
Parliament would soon be considering the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill to remove all references to the principles of the Treaty from legislation.
Sonny Tau explained,
“If ever there was a Foreshore and Seabed [issue] that Pakeha need to get onto, it is this one. We can see today, even in this discussion, where we will head without that [Treaty of Waitangi] in any of our legislation. That partnership of the Treaty of Waitangi is yours and mine. Not just mine. These forums will mean nothing if those principles are removed from legislation. Our ability to work together will have no hold, no footing.”
TOP
DoC’s Charter
Those at the hui considered themselves as being conservationists, concerned about the environment. DoC has a narrow charter and is not responsible for fisheries management. According to the legislation, marine reserves are ‘unique areas set apart, in the national interest, for scientific study’ [3]. The Marine Reserves Bill is not an act of Parliament. The current MPA strategy does not seem to fit with the current Marine Reserves Act.
Chris Jenkins, DoC’s Northland conservator agreed with the comment about DoC’s current mandate. Chris suggested the Government’s intention with the MPA strategy was to have all the agencies with different mandates working together “to make progress, to achieve what is laid out in the Biodiversity Strategy”. The Department considered the process was designed to be inclusive of all stakeholders.
Vince Kerr, a marine consultant to DoC, encouraged the Accord to continue the discussion on mataitai and more importantly to develop mataitai so these could be used as examples for the Government and the public. Then there would a range of protection tools that, in time, would be achieving their goals and the people would be celebrating their success.
“These issues are understood at the highest levels. There are people within the Department that are supporting these other concepts of protection, because we know in the Department of Conservation there are things to be gained through traditional management. We will be there on the sideline, because we don’t have the direct responsibility, but in Northland we will be there supporting whenever we can.”
Confiscation of Treaty Rights
DoC is required, under the legislation, to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including kaitiakitanga. The setting aside of areas in no-take forever marine reserves took away those Treaty rights, including the practice of kaitiakitanga.
The imbalance of resources meant DoC had access to all the information it requires, uses taxpayers money to fund its activities and yet the public have very little understanding of kaitiakitanga and therefore struggle to support the concept.
The public has had little opportunity to have meaningful input into the alternatives to marine reserves, as they are largely ignorant of the alternatives that are provided for in legislation.
The alternative to marine reserves is the time-honoured practice of kaitiakitanga allowing communities to work together for a common goal, more fish in the water and abundance for generations.
DoC accepted their Treaty obligations to tangata whenua, which they take very seriously. DoC is “supportive” of tangata whenua-led initiatives that would protect the marine environment.
DoC and MFish were encouraged to talk directly with tangata whenua as soon as they had developed their draft protection standards document, to work through the use of customary management tools to protect coastal areas. The Departments were keen to work with other stakeholders in this process, as well.
DoC was asked if the Hokianga Accord could be used as the regional Forum that DoC would consult with in the north in regards to implementing the MPA plan.
Chris’ response was,
“The detail of the regional forums still need to be sorted out. But the Forum will need to involve all of the various parties, regional councils, commercial fishers and all of the other players. So the question to you [the Accord] is, are you comfortable with that?”
Sonny’s response was, “haere mai, haere mai”.
Another issue raised by Chris was the mandate of the Hokianga Accord and that if the Forum went to a wider base, would that cause more issues when dealing with the other stakeholders? DoC would be looking for some sort of Forum but that detail had not been finalised.
Land Management Issues
The issue of poor land management was raised and DoC was asked if the MPA policy would address issues such as replanting around rivers to provide sediment traps, stopping the drainage of swamps which are the natural filtration systems and stopping the inflow of mud directly onto shellfish beds.
DoC advised they do not have the authority to stop every land development but they do get involved in advocating for the environment, at times through the Environment Court. Sometimes their stance had made them unpopular when opposing a District Plan or consent application.
DoC was strongly advised to work with Maori on this issue. Tangata whenua had a lot of collective, historical knowledge that could help DoC and MFish to achieve marine protection.
Displacement of Fishing Effort
Government agencies were fooling themselves if they thought tangata whenua would stop sustenance fishing within areas classified as marine reserves, if they were not consulted in an appropriate manner.
Even with the implementation of Marine Protected Areas people would still go fishing. The MPA strategy does not address people’s attitude or behaviour. A no-fishing or limited fishing zone would simply result in shifting fishing effort from one area to another.
With less area available to fish in, more people will concentrate their fishing area within a smaller zone, thus depleting that smaller area. This is not an outcome most people want.
Australia had paid millions of dollars to buy out commercial licences to establish marine protection for areas such as the Great Barrier Reef. DoC was asked if compensation was being considered within the overall MPA strategy.
Chris Jenkins could not answer this question as he advised he is not part of the development team but did comment,
“That is really a Ministerial decision. That’s a core political decision. The Biodiversity Strategy and the MPA Strategy are Ministerial decisions. You are talking about decisions Ministers of Government make”.
[3] Marine Reserves Act 1971
TOP |
