New Hopes for Marine Reserves

Forest and Bird, Issue 297, 1 August 2000, Page 34

New Hopes for Marine Reserves

JO MACKAY

After almost 30 years of campaigning, New Zealand still has only 0.1 percent of its mainland coast in

marine reserves.

explores what must be

done to meet the Government's target of 10 percent.

ew Zealand’s frustratingly slow progress in the creation of marine reserves may be about to change. The Marine Reserves Act 1971 — the key legislative tool for marine protection — is under review. Presently, the Act is the best tool we have for protecting special parts of our marine area, which is 15 times the size of our land mass. These waters cover a stunning range of biological diversity which we are only just beginning to understand and appreciate. Their values extend from fragile deep-sea coral communities to the homes of migratory fish and birds, and to many different coastal habitats.

Yet, after almost 30 years under the Act, just 0.1 percent of New Zealand’s coastal sea has been protected. Only 15 marine

reserves have been created round our mainland coasts covering areas from the warm waters around the Poor Knights to Pollen Island in busy Auckland. An exception is the Kermadec Islands, a huge reserve some 1000 nautical miles north of New Zealand, which skew the result of these sums. Its 748,265 hectares increase the protected figure to 4 percent of our coastline, but this has little effect on the New Zealand mainland. The present act operates only over the ‘terrestrial sea’ which extends offshore for 12 nautical miles from the coast. It does not apply elsewhere, in New Zealand’s huge economic zone which extends across the subantarctic and beyond. ny Forest and Bird member who has been involved in a protracted and expensive bid to get a marine reserve will appreciate there are problems in the application process. Many applications have hit snags and taken forever to get out of the water. The Government has stated that it wants to protect 10 percent of New Zealand’s marine environment by 2010 in a representative network of ‘marine protected areas’ and, for the first time, this goal appears as Government policy, in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. Barry Weeber, a Forest and Bird conservation officer involved with marine issues, says this is a step forward, ‘but the Government has work to do to achieve this. To protect a ‘representative network’ of marine environments, the Government needs to have a classification of marine ecosystem types, he says. The Department of Conservation has been working on coastal marine classifications for 10 years but still has not released them — and then there is the rest of the Extended Economic Zone to classify as well. And DoC still does not have a strategy to determine how it will choose which areas to protect, and how it will go about protecting them. ‘Because there are no ecological criteria and no strategy, we’re working blind and ending up with postage-stamp sized reserves, all close to the coast, says Barry Weeber. "We get too much opposition to anything of a decent size. ‘The Government’s target is to get 10 percent of the sea into "marine protected areas. There is a debate amongst Government departments as to whether this means marine reserves or other forms of partial marine protection, The language needs to be specific. A

marine protected area could include any bit of sea that has any kind of fishing restriction or control on it, such as fishing management regimes managed by iwi. These areas are not protected for conservation purposes and conservation outcomes are not a priority in these areas. Marine reserves are the most powerful tool for protection of ecosystems and species, generally banning all fishing. Yet provisions in the Act allow for non-com-mercial fishing at the discretion of the Minister, and this has happened. The fishing industry — and the Ministry of Fisheries — seem to baulk at any restriction for conservation reasons. But excluding fishing from 10 percent (some scientists suggest, even 20-50 percent) of the marine environment will enhance fish stocks and have a positive, not negative effect, on the fishing industry’s catch rates. That is because protected marine areas function like stud farms — they improve surrounding marine areas for fishing. Internationally marine biologists are calling for 20 percent of the sea to be established as no-take marine protected areas, by 2020, to protect biodiversity. This call is supported by New Zealand conservation groups. Ten percent is a minimum buffer amount: ‘Our big insurance against the many foolish decisions in fisheries management, as Cath Wallace of Environmental and Conservation Organisations puts it. Professor Bill Ballantine of Leigh Laboratory has been advocating protection of 10 percent of the marine environment — immediately — for at least 20 years. ‘And I’m now saying that fishermen should consider moving it up to 20 or 30 percent, in a representative network, because there’s a very good chance that that would suit them better’ Barry Weeber: "We need to get a network of marine reserves, including some of the most biologically diverse and productive areas. We should not do as we’ve done on land — protect the useless bits and wreck all the rest.’ Cath Wallace says that a rewrite of the Act is necessary, but it must be seen in the context of much broader environmental reform. ‘The wider reform is that our ethos — our attitudes to the sea, and our decisions about the sea — need to change from being almost all about allocating resources, towards considering ecosystems and safeguarding their future.’

n December 1999, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recommended in its marine report that the Marine Reserves Act be reviewed. DoC is to release a public discussion document shortly but a date was not available when we went to press. An amendment bill may be before Parliament by mid 2001. "The scope of the review is broad, says Jim Nicolson, principal policy analyst at DoC. ‘We're not looking to rewrite it, but to clarify its purpose as a protection tool? The review is considering: 1. Clarifying the purpose of the Act to reflect its use as a conservation tool. The Act was originally formed with impetus from Auckland University scientists who wanted to protect a marine area near Leigh Laboratory in lower Northland. Consequently, the Act states that reserves

Application blues strength of the present Marine Reserves Act is that anyone can apply for a marine reserve — and many have. To date, applications have come from conservation groups, recreation and science groups, residents’ associations, iwi, and the Department of Conservation. Yet, under the current set-up, there’s too much of a burden on applicants. They must first survey the area proposed, and consult with all affected parties, before presenting their application to the Minister of Conservation for consideration. This process costs applicants thousands of dollars and requires sustained voluntary effort over years. Applications can then sit in the Minister’s office for further years before a decision is made. The Minister has to consider whether there is ‘undue’ adverse effect on specified interests before accepting an application — a vague criterion. There are inevitably some objectors who don’t want to give up their use of a specific piece of coastal sea. Forest and Bird branches have submitted four applications to date: for reserves at Kaikoura, Pollen Island, Te Matuku Bay on Waiheke Island, and the coastal waters from Ata Ata Point to Glenduan near Nelson. Work on the Nelson and Kaikoura applications started in the 1980s. To date, only Pollen Island has been approved. Completed applications have cost branches between $10,000 and $15,000. Te Matuku Bay on Waiheke Island is a typical example. The Hauraki Islands branch of Forest and Bird started working towards a marine reserve in 1990. It took $12,000 and a decade of work to put the application together. ‘The big issue for a branch is to maintain the volunteer level of effort to follow it through. It takes an enormous commitment, says Peter White, Hauraki Islands branch chair. He’s not keen to do it again. ‘It needs to be made easier; the process is too long and too involved. The Government needs to be more proactive in

identifying areas and initiating processes. Barry Weeber of Forest and Bird’s central office says the Government should pick up the costs of consultation "The process of public consultation needs to be streamlined to be more effective for everyone, while not excluding anyone. It can also be difficult for a community group to engage in consultation with local iwi, who sometimes prefer to talk to the Crown. Why does an application take so long to be processed by the Minister’s office? We’re talking years here, in many cases. The previous Minster of Conservation, Dr Nick Smith, declared he wanted to approve three applications a year. He managed to get through only three in three years. ‘A lot of the objections have to be dealt with by the Minister, explains Jim Nicolson of the Department of Conservation. "The objections are often complex, multifaceted, and competing, and it’s often a judgement call as to how the Minister will treat an objection. The Act is vague. The Minister has to do a lot of thinking and there is lots of dialogue (with objectors). Sometimes negotiations stall, and rather than decline the application, the Minister will let it sit on the table. Forest and Bird’s Kaikoura application has been ‘sitting on the table’ since 1992, throughout four different governments. Professor Ballantine points out that no matter what the Act says, difficult political decisions cannot be avoided. He says the Act is ‘perfectly practical’ as it is, but the process is slow and difficult because of lack of political will. He is scathing about Government’s ability to waste time by undertaking reviews, rather than getting on with making reserves happen faster. Some problems do lie outside the Act. Political will to make difficult decisions in the face of inevitable local discontent is necessary. Barry Weeber of Forest and Bird says DoC needs to have more resources for marine protection, a proactive strategy, and should initiate more applications for marine reserves.

can be created ‘for scientific purposes’ only. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report called for the Act’s purpose to be widened to include the ability to create reserves for conservation and biodiversity protection. 2. Giving effect to Treaty of Waitangi obligations to Maori in the Act. Since 1971 the role of iwi in coastal and marine management has been recognised in other legislation. The review will consider ways to ensure the new Act appropriately reflects the Crown’s obligations in its purposes and processes. ‘While some iwi have been promoters of marine reserves, poor progress on customary fishing areas, mataitai and taiapure areas is frustrating iwi support, says Barry Weeber of Forest and Bird, ‘What we need is a process of identifying marine reserves, taiapure and mataitai that occurs in parallel? Treaty of Waitangi settlements have confirmed iwi customary fishing rights. As total no-take areas, marine reserves can conflict with those rights. For example, the High Court ruled in December 1998 that the decision to ban all fishing at the Poor Knights Reserve was unlawful to the extent that iwi were not adequately consulted over customary fishing rights. DoC is now discussing this with the local iwi, Ngati Wai. 3. A general update, to ensure marine reserves fit alongside other marine management tools, including conservation mechanisms in the Resource Management Act and the Fisheries Act. The review needs also to address quota, customary and recreational fishing interests. 4, Application and decision processes. Applying for a reserve can bring on a decade of nightmares for a group (see the Application Blues box). And the criteria to assist a Minister of Conservation to decide on an application is vague. 5. Extending the Act to cover all of the Exclusive Economic Zone. Currently, reserves can only be created from the mean high water mark out to the 12 nautical-mile zone, and so cannot protect deep sea habitats which include areas rich in biodiversity. The Act needs to extend to cover the Exclusive Economic Zone, and to cover other areas over which New Zealand has an international obligations, such as the continental shelf and the Southern Ocean. 6. Exceptions to the ‘no-take’ clause. Currently, the Act allows the Minister of Conservation to approve non-commercial fishing in a marine reserve, at his or her discretion. Barry Weeber wants to scrub this provi-

sion: he says ‘It’s crazy to allow any fishing in a marine reserve. Enabling specific non-commercial take allows the Minister some flexibility to deal with objectors. But the experience of specifically allowing sport-fishing at the Poor Knights Marine Reserve proved to be a disaster, and after 17 years of injunctions, court battles and reviews, the reserve has finally gone completely ‘no-take. Barry Weeber says the spectacular recovery of schnapper numbers at Poor Knights since the end of recreational fishing shows why reserves should be ‘no-take’. While preserving the idea of no-take marine reserves, it may be helpful to develop other types of marine protected areas, like marine parks, which allow a range of levels of impact, akin to different types of land reserves, says Barry Weeber. This may include giving legal recognition to internationally significant sites such as World Heritage Areas and coastal RAMSAR sites.

Maori Mechanisms aori customary fishing rights and iwi management of areas important to customary food gathering have been recognised by several legal statutes since 1992. * The Fisheries Act enables appointment of tangata kaitiaki, or iwi fishing caretakers, who authorise and monitor customary fishing within their area. * Mataitai reserves encompass traditional fishing grounds. They generally exclude commercial fishing, and non-commercial fishing is managed by local iwi. Establishing a mataitai involves a lengthy process of consultation with all other users of a local area. The only mataitai established to date is at Rapaki Bay in Lyttelton Harbour. Mataitai can potentially offer a mechanism to control coastal overfishing, such as depletion of paua, while still enabling customary fishing to take place. * Taiapure can be created under the Fisheries Act in estuarine or coastal waters that are of special importance to iwi for food or spiritual or cultural reasons. A taiapure is managed by a local iwi committee, which sets regulations for the conservation and management of fish, shellfish and seaweed. Commercial fishing may be allowed. Three taiapure have been established to date (establishment is once again long and complex): at Maketu in the Bay of Plenty, Palliser Bay in the Wairarapa, and Waikare Inlet, Bay of Islands.. These three mechanisms are aimed at enabling iwi Maori to control their customary fishing resource and to manage it wisely. They do have potential to offer more protection to marine life than there has been before, but they are primarily fishing arrangements, not conservation tools.