| Marine
Protected Areas
Policy
Statement and Implementation Plan Consultation Meeting
21
December 2004
Meeting:
DOC Head Office
Wellington
Date:
17 December 2004
Groups Represented
DOC Chair
MFish, NZRFC, NZBGFC, SeaFIC,
TKOM, ECO, Forest and Bird, WWF
Full attendance list and
main issues raised and points discussed will be circulated by DOC.
Interim
Report
by John Holdsworth
The primary objective of
the MPA strategy is to:
Protect a full range
of natural marine habitats and ecosystems to effectively conserve
marine biodiversity, using a range of appropriate mechanisms, including
legal protection.
It is designed to fulfil
the Government's commitment to the Biodiversity Strategy which was
to establish a national network of areas that protect marine biodiversity.
The intention is to count all areas that protect marine habitats
and include them in the inventory and monitoring that is planned
for MPAs. For example cable zones which prohibit fishing and anchoring
are likely to qualify as MPAs. The Government's stated target
is for 10% of the NZ marine environment in MPA spy 2010. Depending
on what areas are included they may be quite close to that percentage
within the 12 nmile zone but not the EEZ (12 to 200 nmiles).
There was some discussion
about biodiversity as the main purpose for the policy and the suggestion
that there may be other types of MPAs for different reasons eg historic
places, fisheries management. Maybe MPA is not the right title for
the policy and process. It could be called "Marine Biodiversity
Areas" policy or something if that is the purpose.
Whether you agree with what
they are trying to do or not the overall principles seem quite reasonable:
National Priorities
A consistent approach to
protection standards
Recognition of the rights
of existing stakeholders
Using best available information
Monitoring and evaluating
of effectiveness and a formal review process
Constructively engage groups
in consultation.
Our submission will point
out some of the bits about the rights and views of the fishing public
that are not well addressed.
The devil shows up in the
detail of the next level which are, network principles and site
and tool selection principles. The number and size of MPAs required
to meet the objectives could increase enormously depending on the
system of classification of environmental types used and how a "full
range of natural marine habitats" is defined. Then the amount of
disruption to existing users will depend on the level of protection
required by the "protection standard" if the area is to qualify
as an MPA.
These issues would be discussed
at future meetings with input from a panel of experts BUT it was
very unclear who would be on the panel and how it would
be selected. What was clear is that the environmental groups are
pushing hard for DOC (and MFish) to do much more to protect the
marine environment and they quoted examples of over fishing in the
northern hemisphere and the drastic steps required there to try
and prevent the collapse of the marine ecosystem (maximum sustainable
yield is long gone as an achievable objective).
The New Zealand marine environment
is in nowhere near the state of that in Europe. In fact there are
large areas of the EEZ that are not fished or affected by other
human activity much at all. The tuna longlining is mostly between
the 1000 m and 2000 m depth contour and deep water trawling is confined
mostly to the aggregations of fish on the sea mounts. The effects
of land runoff don't extend that far offshore especially when there
is an along shore current.
There may be some useful
results from the second tier principles, such as: a more coordinated
approach to selecting areas; less reliance on ad hoc marine reserve
applications; selecting areas that are currently under represented
like sand and mangrove (instead of reef and offshore islands); and
considering the full range of management tools not just marine reserves,
to help minimise the "adverse impacts on existing users".
I think many stakeholder
groups are concerned about how these policies will be implemented.
MFish and DOC will be running separate processes. DOC is proposing
regional consultation groups with input from "expert groups". The
Minister is already claiming that these meeting will defuse some
of the anger over the current process of establishing marine reserves.
Recent history suggests that the chances of DOC and MFish working
together effectively are pretty slim and the chances of DOC regional
groups listening to recreational fishers and taking those views
seriously are also slim. There would probably have to be a shift
in attitude on all sides if regional groups are to work.
The MFish proposal is the
MPA proposals will somehow be developed within stock strategies
which are proposed to be a major shift in fisheries management toward
risk assessment and stakeholder participation and more self management
through fisheries plans. There is still quite a bit of uncertainty
as to just how they will work in practice. There is understandably
some resistance in commercial and recreational groups to using closed
areas as fisheries management tools.
The deadline for submissions
is currently 21 Jan 05 but we should know by Christmas if the Minister
will extend this by a month. It is imperative that all rec groups
submit to the MPA proposal as it is clear that perennial MPA supporters
like F&B will be aggressive in their submissions asking for
the scope to be wider and targets at least 3 fold higher. Any discussion
of the points raised here would help those drafting submissions.
To those all those that managed to read to the end - Thanks for
you patience and interest and a Merry Christmas.
TOP
|
