|
New Zealand Rock Lobster Industry Council
 PRIVATE
BAG 24-901 WELLINGTON
64 4 385 4005 PHONE
64 4 385 2727 FAX
lobster@seafood.co.nz
Department of Conservation
Private Bag
Port Fitzroy
Great Barrier Island
30th June 2003
Attention: JIM FLACK
A MARINE RESERVE FOR GREAT BARRIER ISLAND?
- This submission is made on behalf of the NZ rock lobster industry
by the NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council. The NZ Rock Lobster Industry
Council (NZ RLIC) is owned and operated by the consortium of nine
regional commercial stakeholder groups – CRAMACs –
whose membership is comprised of rock lobster industry personnel
including CRA quota share and ACE owners for each of the nine
fishery management areas, processors and exporters. The NZ RLIC
provides a coordination, advisory and advocacy service for each
of the nine CRAMACs and/or the individual industry members who
require those services.
- The underlying objective for the NZ RLIC is that its work should
add value to the NZ lobster fisheries and to the NZ lobster industry.
- “Adding value” entails enhancing fisheries; saving
money, reducing costs, and/or getting better bang for the bucks
that are cost recovered from industry by MFish; and/or increasing
industry share of rock lobster fisheries; and/or protecting against
a reduction in that share; and/or gaining better compliance with
rock lobster fisheries rules; and/or protecting access to established
fishing grounds; and/or reducing the complexity of record keeping
and reporting regulations required by the Fisheries Act.
- The NZ RLIC assists CRAMACs in maintaining and enhancing the
fisheries, the right to fish, and the profitability of the industry.
The NZ RLIC plays a “watchdog role” – routinely
monitoring national and regional politics and policies to ensure
no adverse impacts on the agreed management plans for lobster
fisheries and/or on lobster fishing. The links between the NZ
RLIC, CRAMACs, other commercial stakeholder organisations and
the NZ Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC) enable the NZ RLIC to
make timely, informed, and mandated submissions on these issues.
- The NZ RLIC does not support the current DOC proposal for a
marine reserve on the north eastern coast of Great Barrier Island.
The NZ RLIC is not persuaded that the marine reserve proposal
is of any benefit, let alone the extensive benefits alleged by
DOC. The Marine Reserves Act 1971 specifies that a marine reserve
is established for the purposes of scientific study within an
area that is so typical or unique that it requires protection.
DoC has yet to establish that any area on the Great Barrier Island
coast is so unique or typical that protection is needed, nor has
DoC indicated what scientific study is compromised by the absence
of any such area.
- In the context of the 1971 Act the selection of a site to be
declared as a marine reserve is not predicated by a deliberate
calculation as to what impact a no-take reserve would have on
fishing. Nor is it predicated by an analysis of the “least
possible opposition” factor as has been signaled by DOC
in developing the questionnaire that accompanies the January 3rd
publication “Your chance to have a say”.
- The correct process for anyone wanting to propose a marine
reserve is to conduct a biological and geomorphological study
of preferred sites to confirm typical or unique, determine whether
or not scientific study is compromised by leaving the site as
is, evaluate the threats and risks to the integrity of the special
features of any site, and if such threats and risks cannot be
mitigated by existing legislative or regulatory remedies, or if
scientific study is impossible whilst the status quo prevails,
then assemble a proposal to protect a specific area for the purposes
of scientific study.
- Having therefore identified a site or area which meets those
initial qualifications required by the Marine Reserves Act 1971,
the proponents would ideally confirm boundaries and then consult
with the community and interest groups before submitting a final
application. It is at that stage that the rock lobster industry
would evaluate whether or not the declaration of a no-take marine
reserve within the designated boundaries would constitute an undue
interference with commercial fishing.
- In the case of the Great Barrier marine reserve proposal the
questionnaire that DOC has distributed places the burden on respondents
to make a commitment to the inevitability of a marine reserve
at Great Barrier Island without DOC providing any information
as to the size and extent of the area likely to be closed to fishing
or the reasons for such a closure. By their own admission DoC
has not yet decided the boundaries of a proposed reserve.
- In the view of the NZ RLIC it is entirely inappropriate for
DoC to utilise the preferences requested of respondents to construct
a marine reserve application. The Marine Reserves Act 1971 must
be the guiding reference in the development of any proposal, not
the opinions and/or preferences of individuals who would likely
wish to avoid exclusion from their historical and traditional
fishing grounds and may answer accordingly, or the opinions of
the anti-fishing lobby who are no less self serving. The Marine
Reserves Act 1971 did not institute a popularity contest –
it did institute a process that requires accountability from proponents.
- In all good conscience the NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council
could neither support nor promote the Great Barrier questionnaire
to its constituents. There is no certainty attached to the outcome
other than that a marine reserve application will be made for
an area which DOC adjudges to be least likely to attract objections
from amateur and commercial fishermen, and therefore more likely
to be successfully implemented.
- In those circumstances the underlying requirements of the Marine
Reserves Act 1971 become secondary, rather than as rightfully
expected by the NZ RLIC, primary considerations in the development
of the formal reserve application.
- The NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council holds the view that it
is not just “local” residents and fishermen who would
likely be affected by the declaration of a non-take marine reserve.
All suitably equipped amateur fishermen and all relevant ACE owners
have the legislative right to fish anywhere within the QMA 1 and
CRA 2 management area boundaries subject to existing fisheries
regulations. There are numerous no-take marine reserves established
within the boundaries of those two management areas now, and in
our view there is neither need demonstrated nor any advantage
to be derived from any additional amateur, customary, and commercial
fishing exclusion zones.
Deception and Misrepresentation
- With respect to the information provided to interested parties
by DOC, the NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council submits that much
of it is grossly misleading, selective and incomplete. In particular
the principal discussion document – “A marine reserve
for Great Barrier Island? Your chance to have a say” is
characterised as such.
- It would be charitable to describe the misrepresentation of
the Marine Reserves Act 1971 in that document as being reprehensible,
but the NZ RLIC believes that on the evidence of the DOC brochure
it is not inappropriate to use terms such as “deliberately
misleading” and “unbelievable” in the literal
sense. The NZ RLIC extends those terms to describe comments reported
by DOC officials and their Minister in television and print media.
Fisheries – depletion and behaviour
- In no particular order of appearance in the January 2003 brochure,
and not attempting to critique all of the misrepresentations,
the NZ RLIC highlights the following selection:
- p.3 …locals are reporting that fish aren’t
as plentiful as they used to be….early feedback expressed
…concern over the decline in the island’s fisheries
…
- p.4 …most Great barrier Island locals know that the
island’s seas aren’t as bountiful now as they
were in the “old days”. A marine reserve will
help restore the balance and protect the marine taonga …for
future generations.
- So the inference can be drawn from the tone and content of
those first two pages that the proposed marine reserve has been
developed as a fisheries management tool. Similar references are
made elsewhere through pages of the brochure. For example,
- p.5 …help rebuild depleted stocks of snapper, crayfish
and other species …increase the range of fish types
…act as a breeding area and reservoir for depleted marine
species and provide a source of larvae to boost populations
inside and outside the marine reserve …protect large,
old experienced marine animals which may have important genetic
and social values not protected under fisheries rules …
- p.10 …the area is one of the last strongholds of
the giant packhorse crayfish which migrate to shallow waters
… each season
- DOC knows full well that the Marine Reserves Act 1971 is not
a fisheries management tool. DOC has misrepresented the status
of fishstocks referred to – and has certainly not provided
a proper reference to support the asserted depletion, nor any
evidence to support the alleged “benefits” claimed.
Not that it is at all relevant in a marine reserves context, but
had an honest appraisal of fishstock status been undertaken, DOC
would at least be required to cite the appropriate references.
- The NZ RLIC is confident that for the two stocks (snapper and
crayfish) noted in the DOC brochure, the reference documents (Fishery
Stock Assessment Working Group Reports and/or Fishery Assessment
Reports) would not support the claim of “depletion”
. The reference to Great Barrier being “one of the last
strongholds of the giant packhorse crayfish” is an unsubstantiated
statement and an infers an unnecessarily alarmist situation in
regard to the species. Packhorse rock lobsters are widely distributed
in NZ waters and there are numerous regulatory controls to ensure
the sustainable utilisation of the stock by commercial and non-commercial
extractive users. Those controls include an extensive closed area
to protect juvenile and breeding lobsters, size limits, bag limits,
protections on berried and moulting animals, commercial quotas
and method restrictions.
- The notion that large old “experienced” marine
animals have “important genetic and social values”
is pretty interesting, but where is the evidence? And assuming
that the notion can be reliably substantiated, why is the declaration
of a marine reserve a more effective response than a maximum legal
size restriction operated within a fisheries regulatory framework?
Maximum Size Limits (MaxLS) can result in “old, large, experienced
marine animals” accruing to the standing stock.
- DOC also has some intriguing notions about the Government’s
Biodiversity Strategy, not the least of which is the failure to
explain in the Great Barrier brochure that “marine protected
areas” are not necessarily intended to be no-take marine
reserves. However the more intriguing notion in that same discussion
(p.4) is “ ..may enable marine species to move between protected
areas – a series of safe havens within movement range of
adults or juveniles”.
- The NZ RLIC requests that DOC explain and justify the concept
of “safe havens” and migration pathways in the context
of the Marine Reserves Act 1971, or even in the context of the
oft-quoted Biodiversity Strategy.
Economic benefits
- DOC notes (p.6) that “a marine reserve can boost tourism
and service industries as it becomes established”. There
is no evidence of that offered in the Great Barrier Proposal.
With the single exception of Leigh – where a highway reconstruction
led more visitors to the coast – there are no studies on
any other NZ marine reserves that support the claim of tourism
benefits. Nor is there any evidence to even a casual observer
of economic benefits being derived from marine reserves in places
such as Kapiti, Te Angi Angi, Mayor Island, Long Island or elsewhere.
A claim for economic benefits demands some evidence of a cost/benefit
analysis – which itself cannot be done until DOC has catalogued
the range of existing activities within proposed boundaries.
- Once again, not that it is relevant in the context of the Marine
Reserves Act 1971, but can DOC please specify - what tourism benefits
are predicted for Great Barrier Island as a consequence of the
proposed marine reserve?; explain how those benefits were assessed
and evaluated; and, provide the cost/benefit analysis of tourism
in preference to existing use.
The Area of Interest
- Another quote from the DOC brochure (p.8) – The Department
…would like to protect the full range of coastal and marine
habitats …the area includes a wide range of marine habitats,
many of which are not represented in marine reserves elsewhere
…”.
- Which may or may not be correct. However the relevant issues
are – in the context of the 1971 Act – habitat that
is so typical and/or unique under threat or at risk to the extent
that a protected no-take marine reserve is useful for the purposes
of scientific study?? Can DOC therefore please explain the risk
or threat that DOC envisages for the north-east coast of Great
Barrier Island? If DOC cannot give that explanation, why the marine
reserve proposal?
Does Size Matter?
- Given that DOC proposes to declare more than 50,000 hectares
of coastal waters to be off limits to fishing, for no reasons
other than to satisfy what DOC misrepresents to be the Government’s
Biodiversity Strategy, and to satisfy its (DOC) own territorial
imperative and expand its jurisdiction – yes, size does
matter.
- Size also does matter when the Great Barrier Marine reserve
proposal is placed in the context of the existing and intended
fishing exclusions for the Hauraki Gulf region. With multiple
no-take zones including marine reserves already implemented and
DOC involved in additional proposals for Tawharanui and Tiritiri
Matangi marine reserves, the Great Barrier proposal deserves,
and has received, special scrutiny by the fishing communities.
SUMMARY
- The NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council recommends that the Conservancy
should evaluate their intentions in regard to a marine reserve
proposal in the context of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 and then
present a proper proposal for the consideration of the wider community.
The current Great Barrier proposal is little more than a self-serving
“fishing” expedition on the part of the Auckland Conservancy
and as such has elicited a well publicised acrimonious response.
- The NZ RLIC submits that DOC must provide a more thorough evaluation
and justification as to the need for no-take marine reserve, must
accord more certainty to the marine reserve boundaries and then
institute a wider and more formal public consultation process,
as required by the Marine Reserves Act.
- The quality of the community responses, including those of
the rock lobster industry, will be greater as a consequence of
being able consider a proposal containing clearly articulated
rationale, properly defined objectives, and pragmatic boundaries
that do not establish risks of non-compliance.
- The NZ RLIC contends that if the Auckland Conservancy is confident
that the site selected for a marine reserve meets the pre-conditions
of the 1971 Act then the Conservancy should be confident in the
outcome of the public consultation process.
- The DOC proposal to sequester more than 50,000 hectares of
what is currently, and has been for many, many years, an important
recreational amenity and sustainable economic generator is just
outrageous. The notion that it is "in the wider public interest"
to dispossess a generally responsible and environmentally aware
fishing community of their historical fishing grounds is unacceptable
to the NZ rock lobster industry and should also be unacceptable
to the wider community.
- The exaggerated claims made by DOC as to the potential benefits
that will be derived from the declaration of such an extensive
no-take zone are unsupported by any factual analysis. Both the
Minister and his Department have consistently recycled misinformation
and selective results of research projects in other countries
to illustrate and support their individual and corporate ambitions.
- The Great Barrier marine reserve debate is not just about 50,000
hectares, nor about poor public consultation and notice. It is
about inconsistencies in policy and principle, misrepresentation,
selective reporting, exclusion from proper process, blind adherence
to protectionist ideology, and institutional contempt for legitimate
alternative interests.
- The DOC information sheet announcing the Great Barrier marine
reserve proposal, the supporting speeches and media statements
by the Minister Chris Carter and the Auckland Conservator Mr.
McCallum, and the selective media reporting of the marine reserve
proposal and process to date by vested interests deliver all the
rhetoric but none of the answers to the issues that have been
raised by those who oppose loss of fishing opportunity in the
absence of any credible threat or risk that might justify the
declaration of a no-take marine reserve.
- The NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council does not support the proposal
for a marine reserve on the north eastern coast of Great Barrier
Island and will lodge a formal objection to any application made
for one that is not consistent with the principles and purposes
of the Marine Reserves Act 1971.
NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council
Daryl Sykes
Executive Officer
Research Programme Manager
1.CRA – Fisheries Act acronym for NZ rock lobster.
2. ACE – annual catch entitlement owned by commercial
fishermen.
3.Question: “Are there any particular areas on the north-east
coast and offshore waters that you think should not be protected
as a marine reserve?….
4. Question: “Do you support the principle of a marine
reserve somewhere on the north-east coast of Great Barrier Island?”
“CRA 2 – the model results suggest that the current
stock abundance is higher than in the 1979-88 reference period,
with exploitation rates of 20-25% in each season under current catch
levels. Model results seem robust to the range of assumptions examined
in the sensitivity trials. In particular, the effect of assuming
a higher non-commercial catch history in the model resulted in similar
current and projected stock status.” – Rock Lobster
Fishery Assessment Working Group Report – 2002 Plenary Report
(MFish)
MaxLS is one of the many input controls used in the Western
Australia rock lobster fishery.
|
