DoC’s
Answers Submissions Issues
Great
Barrier Island Marine Reserve Proposal
22 December 2003
The following list identifies the main issues (in bold) raised by
those who objected outright or with qualifications to the Great
Barrier Island (GBI) marine reserve proposal. The issues listed
are those most commonly raised i.e. more than 15 times each.
DOC would like to provide submitters and other interested people
with the following information in response to the issues that have
been raised (or download as a PDF in links box). The department
is carefully considering the concerns raised by submitters.
Key:
black text = DoC comment; blue text = option4
comment
In this document DoC aims to dispel misgivings
expressed by the public. option4 have the following to say in response
to their comments.
1. Marine reserves take away the rights of recreational
fishers to fish.
Recreational fishers have a common law access right to New Zealand
fisheries. However, this right does not guarantee amateur fishers
unrestricted access to all waters. Statutory law prohibits fishing
in some areas e.g. the Submarine Cables and Protection Act 1996
prevents fishing in some cable protection zones and the Fisheries
Act 1996 is sometimes used to close some areas to fishing.
Too
many of the freedoms of New Zealanders has been whittled away by
laws that do not deliver.
The fisheries within New Zealand’s 200 nautical mile Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) are a public resource, the common property of
all New Zealanders, with the Government holding management rights
over them. The Government has the responsibility to look after this
country’s waters and fisheries and make decisions about their
management.
Where the Government believes areas must be free of fishing to protect
marine plants and animals, to underpin sustainable fisheries management
or to provide for scientific study, then the Government has the
power, and the responsibility, to close areas to fishing.
Note
the careful use of the word believe. No scientific evidence
defends NZ's marine biodiversity strategy which believes
that marine reserves provide the only way to protect marine biodiversity.
Fishermen and the NZ public are questioning the validity of this
belief and the urgency behind it.
When the Government wants to close areas to fishing, it also has
the responsibility to provide scientific evidence for the need to
do so. It also needs to consider alternatives and the cost to the
taxpayer and future generations. This has not been done.
2. Because of inclement weather, the north-east coast of
GBI is not over-fished and is therefore self-protecting. Fish do
not need protecting as they are not at risk.
The purpose of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 is to preserve, as marine
reserves for the scientific study of marine life, areas of New Zealand
that contain underwater scenery, natural features or marine life,
of such distinctive quality, or so typical, or beautiful, or unique,
that their continued preservation is in the national interest.
Note
the purpose of marine reserves for the scientific study of marine
life. It should be questioned why we need 10% of the territorial
sea for this purpose, or 1,600,000ha or 3000 reserves the size of
the Goat Island marine reserve of about 500ha. DoC is clearly awaiting
the passing of the new Marine Reserves Bill, now before parliament.
This changes the purpose of marine reserves to that of protecting
biodiversity and habitats. It is therefore premature for DoC to
push ahead with marine reserves before this Bill is enacted. It
may fail.
The MR Act does not require proposed marine reserve areas to be
heavily fished or, conversely, not fished at all. In addition, the
purpose of the MR Act is not to protect fish.
There
is absolutely no valid reason to protect 52,000ha of GBI marine
reserve for scientific study. This area is equally inaccessible
to scientists as it is to fishermen.
It may well be that few people currently use the north-east coast
of Great Barrier Island for recreational fishing. However, over
time, it is likely that more people will use the area as the population
of Auckland and other regions adjacent to the proposed reserve grow.
More
affluence + more people = more boats = more fishing. This sounds
reasonable, but the fact is that the total take is controlled by
bag limits and Total Allowable Catch limits. As more people use
the sea for fishing, their daily take goes down accordingly. As
more of the sea is locked up, the daily take must come down too.
3. Greater restrictions should be placed on commercial fishing,
or commercial fishing should be banned.
The Ministry of Fisheries is the Government agency responsible for
the conservation and management of fisheries in this country. The
Ministry manages commercial fishing in New Zealand under the Quota
Management System (QMS).
The
MRA1971 is a dead end and it is wrong for DoC to manage areas of
the sea when the Ministry of Fisheries holds all other trump cards
for the preservation of our seas. Within the Fisheries Act, all
options and alternatives can be considered, whereas DoC can wield
only one sledge hammer, that of total closure forever, and only
for one reason, that of doing research.
It is true that commercial fishing has a significant impact on New
Zealand’s fisheries. However, fishing is a popular recreational
activity for as many as one in five New Zealanders. Each year thousands
of New Zealanders go fishing and take large numbers of finfish,
rock lobsters and shellfish. These quantities, from a very wide
range of species, can seriously affect local fisheries (Source:
Ministry of Fisheries website).
True,
but there is wide consultation and discussion on how to do things
better.
4. Marine reserves don’t work - where is the scientific
evidence of the benefits of marine reserves?
Scientific research in marine reserves shows that marine reserves
play important roles in:
- Conserving representative samples of biological diversity,
False. None of our marine reserves have
been evaluated. They are degrading, which means loss of biodiversity
over time.
- Protecting critical sites for reproduction and growth of species,
False. None of our coastal marine reserves
has been chosen this way. Most reserves were created adjacent
to land managed by DoC or local government.
- Protecting settlement and growth areas for marine species so
as to provide spill-over into adjacent areas, False.
No studies have shown that the idea of recruitment and settlement
is actually real. In areas with more and larger predators, there
will be fewer recruits of other species and less total egg production
for all species.
- Providing focal points for education about marine ecosystems,
False. Wide-ranging education to the public
and school children is possible only in places with good access
and clear water. Very few coastal marine reserves do this.
- Providing sites for nature-based recreation and tourism, False.
Only reserves with good access and clear water do this. Most of
our reserves don't.
- Providing undisturbed control or reference sites as a baseline
for scientific research on the effects on marine life elsewhere,
and False. Most marine reserves are disturbed
by pollution from the land. None have been used as reference sites
and it is unlikely that they will.
- Contributing to increased knowledge of marine ecosystems. False.
There is little that can be learnt from marine reserves that cannot
be learnt from non-reserve areas. Many components of marine ecosystems
are not affected by fishing. Some are.
There have been many
scientific studies undertaken to determine the benefits and effects
of marine reserves, both in New Zealand and overseas. Some of the
results are outlined below.
The number of legal-sized snapper in the Leigh marine reserve in
2003 was 28 times greater than outside the reserve (Source: University
of Auckland fish monitoring report).
Goat
Island, jutting half a kilometre out in sea, provides shelter and
relatively clear deep water near snapper feeding grounds. It is
a snapper hot spot. No other coastal marine reserve has shown such
abundance, either here in NZ or overseas. Snapper abundance is measured
by the Baited Underwater Video method, which exaggerates results.
To keep mentioning the abundance factor of 28 is pure propaganda
and bad science.
The average number of lobsters has almost doubled inside Leigh marine
reserve in the last two years (Source: Coastal and Aquatic Systems
Ltd lobster monitoring report, 2003).
This
kind of propaganda and fact-twisting is unacceptable. Fact is that
the crayfish population crashed by 85% in 1998, due to land-based
pollution. To mention that it has been recovering in the 'good years'
of 2000-2002, without mentioning their demise, is pure propaganda
and bad science. Abundance of crayfish in the marine reserve in
2003 is no more than 30% of what it was for nearly fifteen years
pre-1998. Most crayfish today are very young and small due to a
single good recruitment year.
Research has shown that reserves do not “lock up” fisheries
resources. For lobster, catch per unit effort yield and costs are
the same adjacent to a reserve as in open fishing areas nearby.
Therefore, conservation goals are achieved at no cost to the fishery
(Source: Babcock, R. 2003: The New Zealand marine reserve experience:
the science behind the politics).
Unacceptably
false. The lost fishery is a cost never mentioned. Crayfish inside
the marine reserve and their increase in numbers is definitely locked
up. Fishing the line does not lower CPUE or provide higher yield
and catches to make up for the lost fishery.
Blue cod are larger inside the Long Island-Kokomohua Marine Reserve
than outside (Source: Davidson 2001).
Snapper increased in number and mean snapper size has increased
in the Poor Knights Islands Marine Reserve (Source: Denny, C. M.,
Willis, T. J., Babcock, R. C. 2003. Effects of Poor Knights Marine
Reserve on demersal fish populations. DOC Science Internal Series
142. Department of Conservation. 34p.).
True.
Immediately after complete closure, snapper numbers in shallow water
increased remarkably. Because the Poor Knights are an oasis-type
of marine reserve, they attract fish from far around. The warmer
shallow waters attract fish from the deep. The years 1999-2000 provided
unusually warm waters and record spawning. As the large fish were
not born after the total fishing ban, they must have migrated from
far afield but the sub-legal and just-legal snapper recruited after
the complete ban on fishing. Snapper migrate daily and seasonally
from deep cold to shallow warm water, presumably to digest their
food faster and to grow faster. It probably gives them a sense of
wellbeing. But please note that the warm shallows are but a very
small fraction of the total deep colds. So a high density found
here (or fished here) translates to a very low density (or take)
in the deep reefs.
In the Barbados Marine Reserve, 18 of 24 species were bigger inside
the reserve than outside.
Not
surprising. Let's stay in NZ. How many of our coastal marine reserves
show this?
In the Maria Island Reserve in Tasmania, there has been a 260% increase
in the number of rock lobsters within the reserve and rock lobsters
in the reserve produce ten times more eggs than those outside the
reserve.
Let's
keep our facts to New Zealand. Where is our rocklobster success
story, and will it last? They fled from Goat Island in 1998 due
to excessive inflows of mud, which affected outside areas equally.
In the Sumilon Island Reserve in the Philippines, research has shown
that 18 months after fishing was resumed in the reserve, the total
yield of fish was 54% less.
Not
surprising. There are no fishery regulations. Sumilon is not NZ.
5. There has been a lack of consultation.
Most marine reserve proposals involve both pre-statutory consultation
(occurs before a formal application is made) and statutory consultation
(occurs after a formal application has been made) but only the statutory
process is mandatory.
During the pre-statutory consultation for the GBI marine reserve
proposal, DOC distributed about 4,500 copies of the proposal document,
“A Marine Reserve for Great Barrier Island? – Your chance
to have a say, and questionnaire to 180 organisations, groups and
clubs and approximately 600 individuals from March 2003. DOC held
meetings on GBI, in the Auckland region and in Whitianga.
Why
a public meeting in Whitianga but none in Auckland where most users
of the proposed reserve area reside?
Articles and advertisements appeared in a number of newspapers and
magazines, including the NZ Herald, regional Auckland papers, Dominion-Post
and Barrier Bulletin. Items also appeared on the following television
programmes: Breakfast, TV One News and TV 3 News.
DoC
should supply the budget for the proposal complete with details
on the advertising component of the total.
Information about the proposal was also available on the department’s
website, at the department’s offices in Auckland, Warkworth
and GBI and its Auckland Visitors Centre.
People will have an opportunity to make their views known on the
GBI marine reserve proposal if DOC proceeds with it. The Marine
Reserves Act 1971 outlines the process that must be followed for
every marine reserve application. Each marine reserve application
must be publicly notified at least twice in newspapers. Following
notification, all interested persons will have two months to send
their objections or submissions in support in writing to the Director-General
of Conservation. The Minister of Conservation must consider all
objections prior to approving a marine reserve.
The
GBI marine reserve has clearly shown that DoC does not listen, even
though it claims to consult. It should now abandon the idea permanently
in the face of such overwhelming adverse reaction.
6. Concern about not being able to anchor in a marine reserve.
Boats can anchor in a marine reserve so the creation of a marine
reserve will not stop people anchoring or sheltering along the north-east
coast of GBI. When anchoring, skippers are encouraged to minimise
disturbance to the sea floor. In highly sensitive or heavily used
areas inside marine reserves DOC may install moorings so skippers
can anchor without disturbing the sea floor.
The
fine for uprooting kelp can be $5000 as is releasing a fish or urinating,
according to the Marine Reserves Bill before parliament. When you
have fish on board, it is up to you to prove that you did not catch
it inside the reserve. It could cost you 6 months in jail or $250,000.
Where
has DoC provided a mooring? At the Poor Knights which has sensitive
areas, they have all been removed. At Leigh they have never been
put in place. Private initiatives have been prohibited or hindered.
7. The proposed area is too big.
Many people have suggested that the proposed GBI reserve is too
large and that they wish to continue to use parts of it. DOC is
now looking closely at submissions received, and is gathering more
information on how people use the proposed area. The impact that
the establishment of a marine reserve may have on people who use
the area will be carefully considered before DOC proceeds.
The proposed GBI marine reserve covers approximately 18% of GBI’s
coastline. Currently, New Zealand has 18 marine reserves that make
up 7.34% of the territorial sea (area from the coast out to 12 nautical
miles). If the current GBI proposal became a marine reserve this
figure would increase to 7.64%.
At
present the total area preserved in 17 reserves around NZ mainland's
coast is 15,000ha. The GBI reserve would add 52,000ha or increase
its size by 350% to 67,000ha. There must be very strong reasons
to need this space for conducting marine research!
8. There are enough/too many marine reserves already.
It is Government policy to achieve a target of protecting 10% of
New Zealand’s marine environment by the year 2010 (Source:
NZ Biodiversity Strategy 2000). It is intended that marine reserves
will contribute to this target.
There
exists a conflict between the Biodiversity Strategy and the Marine
Reserves Act. There exists no scientific reason or convincing logic
to need 10% or 1,600,000ha for marine research. Many NZers are confused.
The Biodiversity Strategy (marine) is seriously flawed.
9. Locals use the area for ‘sustenance’ fishing.
Many local residents and some visitors have said they use the Whangapoua
estuary and coastal waters for gathering shellfish and sustenance
fishing and that they would like to continue this activity. DOC
is planning to discuss this issue further with residents and other
people who may be affected by a marine reserve being established.
People
living there do not have a supermarket or fish shop stocked with
fish. If you want to eat fish, you have to catch it yourself. Marine
reserves must respect sustenance fishing.
10. The area should be protected by a marine park instead
of a marine reserve.
There are two New Zealand examples that show partial protection,
such as excluding commercial fishing and placing restrictions on
recreational fishing, does not always provide a high enough level
of protection to marine areas.
Limited recreational fishing was allowed in most of the Poor Knights
Islands Marine reserve from 1981, when it was established, until
1998. In the two years after fishing was prohibited in 1998, snapper
numbers increased by 16 times. Other fish populations are now recovering
to a more natural state.
The
Poor Knights total closure has shown that fishing affected only
a single species. They showed a remarkable increase which coincided
with the La Niña phase warm waters. But there have been mass
mortalities of particularly planktivorous species in 1983, 1992
and in 2001 (El Niño phase cold waters), most likely due
to poisonous plankton blooms triggered by nutrient enrichment from
the land. In this respect even the remotely located Poor Knights
are not exempted from land-based pollution, so what does a more
natural state mean? The effect of total closure on other species
has been unnoticeable. Please note that the Poor Knights are located
at the edge of the continental shelf in usually clear waters. They
are also a natural oasis for fish. They are not representative of
our coastal marine reserves.
At the Mimiwhangata Marine Park, limited recreational fishing has
continued since 1984 when the park was created. Commercial fishing
was prohibited in the area in 1994. A long history of monitoring
of marine life since 1976 showed only a small change in populations
of fish and crayfish up to the present. In 2002 and 2003 studies
of snapper showed no difference inside compared to outside the marine
park, so even the limited amount of recreational fishing in the
park has an impact on the species that live within it.
In
marine reserves like Hahei, the abundance of snapper inside the
reserve is not impressive either, but more importantly, the Mimiwhangata
Marine Park has never been advertised adequately nor its rules enforced.
There are no signs at boat ramps announcing its presence and restrictions.
The MMP consists of a massive amount of shallow sands with narrow
margins of rocky shore and no shelter near deep feeding grounds.
It is not a snapper hot spot.
11. The Navy area is a no fishing zone already.
It is true that fishing is not permitted in the Navy zone on the
north-east coast of GBI. The Navy area was not established for the
purpose of protecting marine biodiversity but may have the effect
of doing so. If enforced properly, areas like the Navy zone on the
north-east coast of GBI can prevent most activity that may threaten
biodiversity values.
However, the Navy area does not contain many different types of
marine habitat e.g. estuary, beach, deep water reefs etc. The marine
reserve proposal that DOC has put forward for GBI includes many
different types of marine habitat in one reserve.
The
Navy area could have been a good starting point with at least 80%
of all other habitats nearby. There is again confusion as to the
purpose of marine reserves. Are they needed to do marine research,
to protect biodiversity or as an insurance for fisheries collapses?
12. Fishing pressure would increase elsewhere if a reserve was established
on GBI.
Pressure may increase elsewhere if a reserve is created on the north-east
coast of GBI. While DOC does not look specifically at the displacement
of fishing effort, this issue is partially addressed by trying to
locate marine reserves in sites that impact as little as possible
on existing patterns of use in the area.
DoC
does not have the mandate to look at the whole picture and all of
its issues. It cannot consider the alternative of a trawler ban
combined with a locally managed fishing area or marine park.
13. It would be difficult to police such an area.
Many aspects of law enforcement are difficult in New Zealand. For
example, it is difficult for police to enforce speed limits as they
do not have the ability to be on all roads at all times. This difficulty
does not mean that we should forget about law enforcement in this
country.
People
are quite willing to abide by laws that are reasonable. The fishing
community would be willing to accept reasonable fishing restrictions
and police these if tangible benefits would accrue.
The day-to-day management of marine reserves is done by DOC, often
with help from the local community. Honorary rangers sometimes assist
DOC with aspects of marine reserve management, such as law enforcement.
It is expected that DOC would cooperate with the Navy, Police, Customs
Service and Ministry of Fisheries to police the GBI reserve, as
it does for some other marine reserves in New Zealand.
Here
is a major flaw in DoC's centralised policies. Internationally it
has been shown that marine reserves are best managed locally, backed
by proper legislation. DoC must devolve the budget to the local
community. Policing is best done by fishermen and the locals. It
is also the cheapest way resulting in highest compliance.
14. Concern about being stopped within a marine reserve
with fish on board which were caught outside of the marine reserve.
Fish caught outside a marine reserve can be transported on board
a boat through a marine reserve. There is no problem with having
fish on board a boat inside a marine reserve as long as the fish
were caught outside the reserve.
The
problem is that you are deemed guilty unless you can PROVE yourself
innocent, and that you caught the fish outside (new MR Bill).
15. There needs to be a strategy to create a marine protected
areas network rather than an ‘ad hoc’ approach.
Government policy, as outlined in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy
2000, supports a strategy for establishing a network of areas that
protect marine biodiversity. DOC is currently developing a strategy
which aims to identify a network of areas that protect marine biodiversity
in the Hauraki Gulf.
Using
an integrated approach, the question is not where to put the pegs
but what other alternatives are available, and particularly what
is the problem? DoC is simply unable and unwilling to do this type
of analysis.
It is envisaged that key stakeholders and the wider community will
be involved in the decision-making processes for this strategy.
However, such an approach may take some time. For example, a strategic
approach to marine protection that was undertaken in Victoria, Australia
took approximately ten years to complete.
There
is no defensible haste. Why do things wrong today when we can do
them right tomorrow?
In the absence of a strategic approach, DOC must continue to follow
Government policy and work towards the target of protecting ten
percent of New Zealand’s marine environment by 2010.
We
are questioning this policy. Why is DoC not questioning it?
16. I use this area for customary fishing.
Some people told DOC that they use the estuary and other parts of
GBI’s north-east coast for customary fishing. DOC is planning
to discuss this issue with local iwi and hapu. It is possible that
areas of high value for customary fishing (e.g. parts of the Whangapoua
estuary) could be excluded from the marine reserve.
There is no point creating a marine reserve as fishing is not the
problem, sedimentation & pollution etc are problems and marine
reserves do not stop these
Sedimentation, introduced marine pests and marine pollution are
all threats to the marine environment. It is DOC’s view that
while management of these threats is critical to the long-term health
of the marine environment, there is no reason to delay the creation
of marine reserves when such reserves have proven benefits to marine
life.
It
is our view that this is not so. Where is the scientific
proof of what DoC views and believes? What are the proven
benefits to marine life (of all species) when DoC has not evaluated
any of the existing marine reserves for their degradation? Why should
we believe what they say in the absence of proof or even of any
investigation? What are the real costs and liabilities as opposed
to the perceived benefits?
We have not let problems with pests, weeds and erosion stop us setting
aside conservation areas on land e.g. national parks like Tongariro
and reserves like Tiritiri Matangi. As a society we can handle many
problems simultaneously. So whether it is water pollution, marine
pests, threats from fishing or marine reserves, we can deal with
them together.
Tongariro
was useless land consisting of rock and ice, most national parks
are either too steep, too wet or too dry. Inside these parks, pests
still roam uncontrollably, threatening our native flora and fauna.
We as a society have not been able to handle these problems. Conservation
does not work when some major (unnatural) threats remain. Marine
reserves cannot work in areas threatened by land-based pollution.
Only by saving the land can we save our (coastal) seas. This is
what DoC must focus on. The main problem with DoC's arguments is
that they treat the sea as if it were the land. Setting aside a
wilderness island makes sense but a marine reserve is not at all
like this. Landbased pollution does not flow uphill to soil our
national parks.
17. Marine reserves should be in an accessible area.
The Marine Reserves Act 1971 does not specify that marine reserves
be established in areas that are accessible to the public. The Act
does state that the public should have the right of entry into the
reserves so that they may enjoy, in full measure the opportunity
to study, observe, and record marine life in its natural habitat.
True,
but at least reserves in accessible places with clear water are
enjoyed, while they are degrading further.
18. Marine reserves should be in inaccessible areas, not
good recreational fishing spots.
The Marine Reserves Act 1971 does not specify that marine reserves
be established in areas that are inaccessible. However, the north-east
coast is, as many submitters pointed out, inaccessible a lot of
the time due to weather conditions and wind. It is also relatively
inaccessible due to its geographic isolation e.g. it takes at least
2 hours to travel by boat from Auckland to the north-east side of
Great Barrier Island.
It
is equally inaccessible to marine research. So what is the point
of locking it up?
19. I use the area for recreational activities such as diving,
swimming, surfing, walking, building sandcastles.
Activities like diving and snorkelling, swimming, sunbathing, walking,
surfing and building sandcastles are all permitted under the Marine
Reserves Act so people can continue to enjoy these activities if
a marine reserve is established on the north-east coast of GBI.
But
you are not allowed to take sand home inside your shoes. Floor Anthoni
wanted one spoonful of sand from the Kermadec Islands for his studies
of beaches and this was refused!
20. It is not possible to dive at the greater water depths
of the proposed GBI reserve.
Marine reserves are not established specifically for divers. The
purpose of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 does not state that marine
reserves must be suitable for diving.
True.
Marine reserves are for conducting marine research, which will need
to be done here with submersibles and remote-controlled vehicles.
By October 2003, about three months before this article was published,
DoC created a marine unit within its organisation and the above
is what they produced. Now ask yourself seriously:
-
Would you have confidence in this organisation managing 10-20%
of our seas?
- As
you can see, there exists an enormous gap in perspective between
DoC and fishermen. What do you think is the root cause of this?
- misunderstanding
- lack
of consultation
- plain
deceit
Tell Me More
For a more thorough dissection of these comments got to https://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/cons/myths8.htm
To
learn more about marine protection and the potential of marine reserves
in the right place for the right reasons go to https://www.seafriends.org.nz
TOP |
