| Jeanette
Fitzsimons Speech to NZRFC Conference
Flames
International Hotel, Whangarei
2
July 2004
Jeanette Fitzsimons
Green Party Co-leader and spokesperson on fisheries and conservation
(Scott Macindoe read
this in the absence of Jeanette Fitzsimons)
First can I thank the many
hundreds of you who emailed me with your views on the kahawai fishery
and the proposal to introduce kahawai to the QMS. I was impressed
both by the personal experiences you recounted of how kahawai stocks
have reduced over the years and the importance that has for the
recreational sector; and also by the organisation and commitment
you had to make your voices heard in such numbers.
As you know, Greens policy
for a number of years now has been that Kahawai should remain a
recreational only species because its value is so much higher to
recreational fishers than as commercial bait. Given that the Ministry
is however determined to proceed, I have been trying to ensure that
we require commercial fishers to hold quota only for unavoidable
by-catch so that it is accounted for, but that there should be no
quota for targeted commercial fishing for kahawai. There is no place
for purse seiners in that fishery.
When I first announced that
policy to your conference in Whakatane some years ago now –
I haven't been able to work out how many – it applied to kingfish
too. Sadly, kingfish went into the QMS last year but at least with
a fairly conservative TACC. It's a huge concern that the Minister's
decision records that there is no quantitative assessment to determine
whether kingfish stocks are above or below Bmsy and that it is not
known whether the combined commercial and recreational catch is
sustainable for any kingfish stock. It's even more concerning that
this is not untypical in fisheries management generally –
we have data on which to make some sort of stab at sustainable management
for only a handful of species, and they are the most commercially
significant ones.
This is why fisheries research
is crucial. And it's why fisheries research must stay under public
control. The Greens have strongly opposed devolution of both fisheries
management and fisheries research to the industry because the fishery,
and the marine environment are public goods and research must be
managed to protect that public good.
If we haven't got enough
information to know stock levels then we have even less about their
habitats and the ecosystems they are part of. I've enjoyed reading
the reports of your office holders but have to disagree with the
comment that described marine biodiversity as "wishy-washy"
and not an acceptable argument for anything. We have some very good
recent science that shows just how crucial marine biodiversity is
to sustaining the fishery and I wan to suggest to you that if we
want to stop the decline of accessible recreational species we have
to focus a lot more on sustaining biodiversity rather than just
fish stocks.
Recent studies by Mark Morrison
and others of NIWA examined the abundance of juvenile snapper over
25 harbours and estuaries and found a remarkably close association
between snapper abundance and horse mussel and seagrass beds. They
then focussed more closely on Mahurangi harbour and found that the
three dimensional structure of the mussels and seagrass provided
refuge for very abundant juvenile snapper which were simply not
there in areas where this shelter had been destroyed.
In just my lifetime, seagrass
and particularly our intertidal seagrass are estimated to have reduced
in extent by 45%. Horse mussel beds of course don't survive dredging
or bottom trawling very well. This is one reason of course for having
substantial areas where the seabed is undisturbed.
We've recently become aware
of just how much damage bottom trawling is doing to the deep ocean
floor, particularly around seamounts. Species that have never been
described are disappearing, very slow growing creatures like corals
that are hundreds of years old are being wiped out, some of the
richest biodiversity is under threat. This is one reason why we
need the new Marine Reserves Bill – because it allows marine
reserves to be established in the full EEZ, outside the 12 mile
limit. You can't do that under the existing legislation. If that
Bill proceeds, efforts to protect marine areas will be spread across
that much larger zone and not confined to inshore areas.
Environmental protection
and recreational fishing have common cause in many areas. The Greens
have worked with the freshwater anglers to protect their rivers
from hydro development, particularly Project Aqua which would have
largely destroyed a world class trout and salmon fishery. We are
currently concerned about the Wairau which looks to be a mini Aqua.
We are very concerned that the RMA has no mandatory planning for
river catchments, which resulted in there being no plan for the
Waitaki when applications were received that totalled more than
the water that was there. We are working to get integrated catchment
management planning accepted under the RMA so that land use has
to take into account its effect on water – both quantity and
quality.
We also have common cause
with salt water fishers – ensuring sustainability of the fish
resource, protection of the right to fish for sustenance ahead of
the commercial right, protection of water quality from pollution
and land run off. The one area where there has been conflict is
marine reserves and I don't believe that is insoluble.
The question of whether we
should keep some marine areas in their natural state without extracting
anything from them is non-negotiable. It is supported by good science
and the evidence is overwhelming that when you do the size and abundance
of key species increases substantially. We cannot expect to do good
science in the future if we have no baseline to measure from –
no area which has been untouched against which to measure change
elsewhere. The need to allow some parts of the ecosystem to remain
natural is as important in the sea as it is on land.
I can understand your view
that you don't need to ban all fishing to protect a reserve and
that surely recreational fishing could still be allowed in such
areas. But the evidence is not good. Mimiwhangata has had a ban
on commercial fishing and has allowed only limited recreational
since 1984 when the marine park was created. Recent survey work
showed that there is no difference in the size or abundance
of snapper between the park and other areas, and in fact they were
smaller than at Cape Brett and Mokohinau. Nor has there been an
improvement in biodiversity generally – fishing pressure appears
to be even higher than in many areas open to fishing and this is
enough to prevent any ecosystem recovery.
There is a place for recreational
only areas, but they are just that, not marine reserves.
So as I said, the case for
some areas left in their natural state is non-negotiable and that
view is shared by almost every party. But the where and the how
is negotiable and there must be provision for local communities
to be centrally involved in the planning for their local areas.
That has not always happened in the past and the process needs to
be improved. There are many different kinds of fishing management
that can be applied for different purposes and if they are planned
as a suite of measures by a local community it should be possible
to prevent much of the conflict. We say a start to this approach
in Paterson's Inlet at Steward Island where a marine reserve and
a mataitai area have been planned together. It could go further.
Our policy has always called
for some areas to be set aside for recreational only fishing. Commercial
fishers are much more mobile. Apart from some fisheries like Paoa
and Cray they have much more ability to move around to find their
fish than you do. They have the boats and the gear to go further
out. In some places they should have to.
So we could bring together
all these measures in a local fisheries plan, designed by the community,
including those with a non-extractive interest as well as fishers.
Together we could plan where to put the marine reserve, where the
taiapure or mataitai, where the recreational only area. The chance
of illegal fishing would be so much less if the community had put
the ideas together in the first place.
This is quite a different
approach from the fisheries plans that are legislated for now. That
disgraceful process gives all the power to the commercial fishers
to design the plan, with others reduced to being supplicants. There
is no role at all for conservation in the process and recreational
and customary fishers are not well enough resourced to carry much
weight. The only voice for the marine environment and sustainability
is the Ministry which can approve or not, but not change the plans.
We need to replace this travesty of a process with genuine community
democracy. Some communities are taking steps toward such an approach
already.
This raises the crucial issue
that I seem to talk about every year – the unequal resourcing
of commercial and other stakeholders. Even the present system of
participation in fisheries management decisions requires a level
of funding you have never had, Maori have never had and conservation
interests have never had. Government support has often been promised
but never delivered. In past years I have approached the minister
at Budget time to seek funding for fisheries participation but so
far it has been declined. I will keep trying.
But if the minister is to
agree I believe you must show as an organisation that you can also
raise funds of your own. I note that every office holder's report
bemoans the lack of membership fees and complains of the difficulty
of taking part along with the deep pockets of the industry with
a total budget of $50,000 a year.
I know how hard it is to
raise funds. I seem to have spent my life in organisations that
have to do it. Perhaps you could persuade the minister to agree
to a matching funding scheme where the most your raise, the more
is offered.
I wish you a good year on
the water
TOP |
