Fishing industry snagged by policy hooks

By IRENE CHAPPLE fisheries writer

The fishing industry believes it may suffer as the Government tries to win favour with conservation-minded voters.

Commercial fishing, which generates $1.5 billion in export earnings, has been affected by two Government decisions in two months: the moratorium on new marine farms; and the announcement of plans to widen the scope of marine reserves.

Commercial players believe the Government - intentionally or not - is stifling a healthy, environmentally responsible sector.

First, there was the two-year moratorium on new marine farms. The ban took effect from November 28 last year, before the end of submissions on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium) Amendment Bill, which close this week.

Then last week, Conservation Minister Sandra Lee announced plans for legislation this year that would allow reserves to be established in New Zealand's exclusive economic zone, which stretches 200 nautical miles out to sea, rather than just within the 12 nautical mile territorial waters limit.

While industry players acknowledge that the aquaculture and marine reserves bills are likely to be passed, many say the Government appears to be listening to unrealistic ideas and is oblivious to commercial factors.

There is consensus on the need for more control over aquaculture, but the ban is seen to be flawed. And the possibility of increased marine reserves has met widespread derision.

There is concern also that the oceans policy, launched in 2000 and still under discussion, is being pre-empted by the Government's recent announcements.

New Zealand's quota management system, commercial players argue, has already created an environmentally responsible industry. This, in turn, has been used for commercial advantage to give New Zealand fish an attractive image in large export markets.

The Seafood Industry Council trade and information manager, Alastair Macfarlane, says there is a widespread perception that the industry is being set up as a political pawn before the election.

He believes the latest announcements will prejudge the pending oceans policy. "In the absence of the oceans policy," he says, "the industry still has no clear picture of the Government's intentions about the seafood sector and its place in the economy of the oceans of New Zealand."

His statistics show the industry is the source of more than $4 billion of economic activity annually, supporting 30,000 families and directly employing more than 10,000 people. Mr Macfarlane estimates the moratorium on aquaculture will put the brakes on the growth of a $200 million a year aquaculture business, previously expanding at up to 15 per cent annually.

There is also concern among deepsea fishers that a marine reserve could be applied over a prime commercial fishing spot.

While the industry supports environmental initiatives and biodiversity, the fisheries are already extremely well managed, he says.

"Most of New Zealand's productive fish stocks are managed at levels that ensure they produce maximum sustainable yields. As they are already at their maximum productivity, it is hard to see how locking up areas from fishing will contribute to making the maximum more."

In fact, he argues, the opposite could happen. More marine reserves could force fishers into the remaining open areas, depleting stock.

The Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, which has subsidiary commercial fishing companies, controls about a third of New Zealand's fisheries quota.

It has previously declared its unhappiness with the possibility of further marine reserves and the aquaculture moratorium, and disgruntlement was clear after last week's announcement.

The commission believes the Government should put the establishment of marine reserves on hold until it completes its oceans policy.

It also throws its weight behind the natural justice argument for relaxation of the November 28 cut-off date for new aquaculture farms, which froze partially processed applications.

While the moratorium - imposed to halt a speculative rush of applications while legislation is revamped - has been widely applauded as a protective measure, many believe applications that were being processed should be exempted.

According to Craig Lawson, the commission's general manager of policy, the Government is "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut". He says 90 per cent of applications that were frozen represented Maori interests.

Collectively, a million dollars had been spent preparing reports for the applications, he says.

The commission is preparing a submission to argue that such applicants, at present in limbo, should be allowed to proceed under a good-faith proviso.

As for the touted increase in marine farms, he says there is no way of measuring the commercial impact, because so much depends on the detail. But, he says, the Government needs to invite more discussion.

"We need to ensure we have a high-quality product.

"We are not about to go out and ruin the environment."

Like Mr Macfarlane, he thinks the industry could become a "whipping boy" for the Government. He believes it could be an unintentional consequence of policies seen as attracting the environmental vote.

Eric Barratt, managing director of Sanford, the industry's major listed company, believes initiatives being mooted will cramp any industry growth.

He dismisses the suggestion of Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons that protecting 20 per cent of New Zealand's marine area will maximise fishing in the other 80 per cent.

"That figure [20 per cent] is just a nonsense," he says. "It's been plucked from the air."

There are 16 marine reserves, all within the 12 nautical mile limit - around 0.1 per cent of that area. Sandra Lee hopes decisions on up to 12 marine reserve applications will be made within 18 months.

A spokesman for Fisheries Minister Pete Hodgson says commercial interests will be taken into account as the bills go through the normal consultation process.