It’s time we were honest about what we really mean by marine protection
ts time we were honest about what we really mean by marine protection
It must be very frustrating for the prime minister that last-minute changes to the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill have blown up in the government’s face. The Bill, inherited from Labour, provided a golden opportunity for his government, currently facing difficulties, to, as they say in Wellington, ‘tick the green box’, and take a bow. Instead of good news and enhanced reputations, it has set off a public uproar for which it only has itself to blame.
The ‘High Protection Areas’, in question are Kawau Bay and Rangitoto / Motutapu. ‘Ring-net fishing’ is a kind of set net fishing in which large schools of fish are surrounded with a net laid out in a ring. It is usually done at night when fish are sleeping in the shallows.
Marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf is an issue which the public is genuinely concerned about. And on this issue, is well ahead of the politicians. The proposed amendments to the legislation are evidently the result of some sort of backroom deal between ministers Potaka and Jones, to enable commercial, ’ring-net fishing’ in at least two designated ‘High Protection Areas’. The changes, evidently in response to lobbying by fishing companies, in effect guarantee these companies a property right. Setting aside ministerial claims about feeding low-income people in South Auckland, these changes seen to be an attempt to lock in a precedent, normalising exploitation activity in marine protected areas.
The species targeted are kahawai, grey mullet, trevally and rig or school sharks, aka ‘dogfish’. These we are assured are ‘not so important’ ecologically. However, the complexities of the Hauraki Gulf marine ecosystem and the part various species play in it, are still not well understood. Ring-net fishing is also likely to mean the vacuuming up of schools of smaller species like pilchards, piper, jack mackerel etc. These are similarly under-rated but actually extremely important in pelagic food webs, for seabirds, marine mammals and fish further up the food chain. These ‘baitfish’ species are already seriously depleted in the Gulf.
Not surprisingly there has been a firestorm of criticism from the environmentalist NGOs, iwi, academics – and the recreational fishing lobby. I share these concerns but question the general assumption that the proposed 12 High Protection Areas are highly protected. Well they are not for marine life anyway. Interestingly, not mentioned at all by anyone in this debate, is that all twelve of the ‘High Protection Areas’ while banning commercial and recreational fishing, guarantee exclusive rights for undefined ‘customary fishing’.
Similarly with the five Seafloor Protection Areas. While these would protect the seafloor from bottom trawling, Danish seining and dredging, commercial and recreational fishing will be allowed. This would include long-line fishing, spear-fishing, crayfish potting, scallop and pāua diving and so on. All of these areas, High Protection or Seafloor Protection,17 of the 19 set out in the legislation therefore would be more accurately described as ‘partially protected.’
On land, such an approach to nature conservation would just not be credible. ‘Protection’ in a national or conservation park means the whole environmental space and the wildlife within. Why should it be any different in the sea? Genuinely protecting the marine environment should include both the seafloor and the sea above, and the biota therein.
As for customary fishing areas, I think most New Zealanders support the government making express provision for these, but they should be called what they are.
In terms of the Hauraki Gulf (curiously there is no mention at all of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, in the body of the proposed legislation), much has been made of the Submarine Cable Protection Zone. This has been cited to justify official claims that 6.7% of the Gulf is already protected. Yet it’s an open secret that parts of the cable zone, especially between Tiritiri and Rakino, have long been popular for recreational fishing – drift fishing in particular. As an example a recent video of the wreck of the liner Niagara which lies at 100m depth within such a ‘protected’ zone reveals the wreck is virtually wreathed in broken fishing lines and even nets. In fact, the true area in fully protected marine reserves in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park is less than half of one percent.
New Zealand was once a world leader in the field of marine protection, the Marine Reserves Act was an enlightened initiative of the Holyoake National Government in 1971. But 53 years on, a more educated and, one would expect environmentally aware generation of politicians seem to better at talking about ‘protection’ than actually doing it. New Zealand I understand has the fourth largest marine exclusive economic zone (EEZ) on the planet. Yet less than 1% of our EEZ has protection meeting IUCN standards – falling well behind other countries like the UK, USA, Japan, Australia, Indonesia, Chile and Russia. PM John Key’s 2016 commitment to a Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, comprising 620,000 km2, which he announced to the United Nations General Assembly, demonstrates the point. Embarrassingly successive governments, made up at one time or the other of all the political parties represented in our parliament have failed to honour this commitment. This dismal failure of the political class perhaps more than anything else has damaged New Zealand’s once highly respected reputation for nature conservation. Now it seems we will fudge our international commitment to protect 30% of our marine environment by 2030 by spinning what we mean by the word ‘protection’.
In terms of marine protection, the only really effective protection, demonstrated by numerous comparative studies, are no-take marine sanctuaries or reserves. The only fully protected areas in the proposed legislation, two of the 19, are extensions to two existing marine reserves, Ōkakari Point to Cape Rodney (Leigh or Goat Island), and Whānganui ā Hei (Cathedral Cove). This is indeed genuine protection, and actually the strongest element of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. If the government is going to amend it, then it should accept the numerous submissions calling for the increase in the size and number of fully protected marine reserves. These are the gold standard in marine protection.
Declaration of interest: Mike Lee is the chair of the Friends of the Hauraki Gulf (inc).(FoHG)
In 2021 the group launched a formal application for a 2350 ha ‘Hākaimangō – Matiatia (NW Waiheke) marine reserve’. The application was publicly notified in January 2022 and drew c1300 submissions, 93% in support including 70% support from submitters identifying as Māori. To this day the Department of Conservation has failed to provide a report on the proposal to the Minister of Conservation. FoHG submitted in support of including its proposed marine reserve in the Bill.
This srticle was published in Newsroom 22/10.24
