Submission to : Department of Conservation
Cnr Liverpool St & Karangahape Road
Auckland
On: Great Barrier Island Marine Reserve Proposal
By: Leigh Fishermen's Association (Inc)
P O Box 158 Leigh
Date: 26 June 2003
Leigh Fishermen's Association objects to the marine reserves act being developed ahead of the government's Oceans Policy and the Marine Protected Areas strategy.
We strongly object to an arbitrary goal of 10% of the EEZ being protected in the absence of a more rational approach to protection that might otherwise be developed in the Oceans Policy or the Marine Protected Areas strategy.
No underlying information on our marine biodiversity - what is it? Where else is it? How does it differ from other parts?
The cable and shipping zones already incorporate the varying degrees of marine biodiversity - covering sandy beach, sand and mud bottom, the nor' west reef off Little Barrier (up to 33 metres), deep-water reefs, plus whatever other habitats are within the Great Barrier Island proposal. The cable/shipping zone adds another 4.5% of marine protected area to the gulf, and is an area that should be studied fully. We believe that far too many people are not even aware of the bans imposed in the cable/shipping zones. This area must be recognised for what it really is, and the public should be informed as to the real extent of marine protected areas already in the gulf.
No assessment of what risks exist or will potentially affect biodiversity or what range of tools are available to address those risks. No strategy on how we protect this 10%. We understand that a strategy will soon be released but will have no statutory force. No assessment of the costs and benefits of establishing a marine reserve. No overall management plan.
Proposals so far all indicate that part of the reason for proposing these reserves is to assist in the management of fish stocks. What is the purpose of this marine reserve application? Is it for maintaining fish stocks, (as is suggested several times in the discussion document)? The Quota Management System is in place for that, and all indications show it is working and that fish stocks are increasing
There are huge safety issues involved. The north east coast contains the only safe anchorages on the eastern barrier shoreline. In the event of adverse weather from the north west to south west (if the proposed reserve comes into force), it will effectively force commercial and recreational fishers alike, to travel some 12+ miles (being 1 - 3 hours travel) away from adequate shelter. This could then result in loss of life or serious injury.
Arid Cove has a designated safe anchorage position on the marine chart. We wish to know how it will affect any fisherman who may already have fish on board should they wish to seek safe anchorage.
A 'no take' reserve will not on it's own deliver the appropriate tool to protect biodiversity from all of these known threats. IT WILL ONLY STOP FISHING. Fishing and fishing related impacts are already managed under the Fisheries Act. Under the Fisheries Act there are a full range of measures that may be taken to control fishing, including excluding fishing. Therefore the Marine reserves act should not seek to duplicate what the Fisheries legislation already provides for.
Passive lockout provisions are simply not sufficient given the displacement of current rights holders within the context of a Marine Reserve. |
