Submission on the proposed South Island Southeast Coast Marine Protected Areas

Introduction

This submission is by Fish Mainland, a recently incorporated not-for-profit organisation designed by South Islanders and Stewart Islanders. They designed Fish Mainland to be a fully functioning professional organisation that coordinates, represents and promotes the diverse interests of the 100,000+ fishers who fish in South Island marine waters, and works to restore and sustain fisheries resources to maximise fishers’ experiences and opportunities.

In the absence of any government policy, those who designed Fish Mainland developed the South Island Marine Recreational Fisheries Policy https://www.fishmainland.nz/south-island-recreational-fisheries-policy

This Policy sets out, amongst other things, key principles for managing South Island recreational fisheries. These principles highlight healthy marine habitats and ecosystems being fundamental to sustainable fisheries resources and recreational fishing, and calls for the recreational fishing sector to partner with the Crown, Iwi, other fishing sectors and interests, to resolve shared problems that threaten the health of marine habitats and ecosystems.

In so doing, we highlight the point that recreational fishers often perceive factors other than fishing as posing greater threats to the health of the marine environment, including human activities that intensify sedimentation and nutrient loading in rivers and nearshore environments, urban development, invasion of marine pest species and climate change. It is for this reason that Fish Mainland encourages recreational fishers to engage constructively on these factors while working to demonstrate their own environmental credentials.

Submission

Fish Mainland was instrumental in drafting the submission by the Dunedin-based Tautuku Fishing Club Inc. Fish Mainland fully supports this submission, as it provides a valued account of the cultural, social and economic impacts the proposed Type 1 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) would have on recreational fishing along the Southeast coastal area, including warranted concerns about safety and exacerbated conflicts with commercial fishers.

Fish Mainland also opposes all proposed Type 1 MPAs but supports the five Type 2 MPAs proposed at Tuhawaiki, Moko-tere-a-torehu, Kaimata, Whakatorea and Tahakopa and the establishment of Type 2 MPAs at Ōrau, Okaihae and Hākinikini instead of the proposed Type 1 MPAs.

Those involved with Fish Mainland have considerable knowledge and experience across the fishing sectors and MPA forum processes. We have observed the West Coast MPA forum and now the Southeast forum become prolonged and expensive processes, with both failing to resolve differences between the various interests. On that basis, we cannot support the Southeast MPA proposal as it stands, nor its process.

Fish Mainland has read Laurel Teirney’s suggestions regarding a better process that could reach the same outcomes for protection of the marine environment. As you are aware, Laurel facilitated the Fiordland Marine Guardians in following an inclusive planning process that led to enactment of legislation for managing the Fiordland Marine Area and assigning management responsibilities to the Guardians together with central and regional government.

Protection of the Southeast coastal area will require consideration of all current adverse impacts. And, recreational, customary and commercial fishing is only one activity that impacts the marine environment, and the extent of that impact may not be as significant as some of the others.

Nonetheless, the Southeast MPA proposal includes six Type 1 MPAs that would prohibit all fishing, based on simple and misleading assertions about the limited impact caused by recreational fishing, as set out in the Tautuku Club’s submission.

Fish Mainland also questions whether a prohibition on fishing by establishing Type 1 MPAs is the best way to protect the marine environment. The Fisheries Act 1996 already has provisions to manage and prohibit fishing when required for the recovery or sustainability of fisheries resources.

An alternative approach to the Type 1 MPA that could achieve the desired benefits to the marine environment (e.g. long-term prohibition on harvesting flora and fauna) is through amendment of the Fisheries Act. The aim of this amendment would be to select areas for protection based on sound biological criteria rather than the current seemingly arbitrary selection, that appears to be based on opinion or trade-offs that are often made for political expediency. As well, it could avoid locking up areas in perpetuity, which is perhaps the most contentious provision of the Marine Reserves Act 1971.

An amendment to the Fisheries Act could forego use of the Marine Reserves Act that, now almost 50 years old, is well acknowledged as inadequate and in dire need of replacement with statute that at least:

1)   recognises the role of tangata whenua because of Treaty settlements,

2)   accommodates the importance of protecting marine biodiversity per se, and

3)   provides for a greater range of protection of the marine environment.

The 2005 MPA Policy and Implementation Plan does not adequately fill the gaps in the Marine Reserves Act. Also, there is the widespread perception from recreational and commercial fishers alike that the Department of Conservation influenced this Policy to constrain harvesting, where possible. Regardless of the validity of this perception, it has created negative mental attitudes that resist proposals under this Policy approach.

For example, the Policy narrowly defines MPAs (Type 1 and 2 only) and, therefore, does not recognise the protection available within customary fishing areas established under fisheries legislation and regulations. This Policy is out of step with increasing interest worldwide in alternatives to locking up areas in perpetuity, and instead using a range of biodiversity protection and management measures, such as the protected area categories developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories 

We believe that you and your respective agencies would garner considerably more support for marine biodiversity protection if the MPA forum process:

1)   considers a fuller range of protection measures,

2)   addresses all current adverse impacts, not just impacts of fishing, and

3)   adopts an approach like that of the Fiordland and Kaikoura Marine Guardians, as noted below. 

The Marine Guardian approach is truly a local community process for change, and therefore far more likely to result in sustainable, long-term community support for decisions that emerge from it. It is the antithesis to the MPA forum that follows a government-led agenda with government appointed forum members and facilitator who are constrained in their communication and engagement by this process, and unable to explain developments and seek input from others in the local community, outside formal consultation. This results in Ministers deciding the placement and type of protection and without any clear guidance by community interests.

This approach invariably impedes development of solutions that community interests can comprehend and broadly agree to support. This begs the question, what real benefit does this approach provide for the time and money spent?

In contrast, the principles of the Marine Guardians approach comprise an inclusive, integrated working group based on each community interest selecting their own representatives according to set criteria, which government can then approve. This way, Iwi, recreational and commercial fishers and environmental interests are better placed to work together to resolve their common concerns.

The Marine Guardians have shown the ability to agree on their vision and share information about the history and trends observed in their coastal areas. They succeeded by inviting others to join them in identifying issues, negotiating solutions, compiling draft strategies, consulting with the wider community, finalising and delivering the strategy to Ministers whose agencies implemented the strategies together with Iwi and all other interests.

In our view, the fact that both West Coast and Southeast MPA forum processes have failed to achieve consensus whereas Fiordland and Kaikoura processes have succeeded, highlights the Marine Guardians’ approach works, provided the fundamental principles and success factors are adhered to.

We are confident such an approach could be adopted at this time to produce a community-supported, evidence-based plan for managing the Southeast coastal area, or at least pragmatic components within the area, in a reasonable period and without significant additional expenditure.  

Yours sincerely,

James Crossland

Acting Chair of the Board

info@fishmainland.nz