Dialogue: Lee seduced by green power

By DARYL SYKES*

Widespread derision and scorn would greet an attempt, in the name of conservation, to impose a total prohibition on the use of a huge area of productive land that significantly contributes to our social, cultural and economic wellbeing.

It would quickly turn to anger when the existing landowners were evicted with no compensation.

Outrage would reach a crescendo when it was revealed that many thousands of citizens would also be directly affected by the edict.

The situation would become worse for the move's proponents when its rationale was revealed to be no more than a slogan, unsubstantiated in scientific and economic terms.

Yet only a few in the seafood industry are voicing their anger following Conservation Minister Sandra Lee's proposal to exclude all commercial, recreational and customary fishing from a huge area of our exclusive economic zone.

Where is the media analysis and public scrutiny of a policy that proposes to lock up 10 per cent (or more) of the zone as no-take areas in the cause of conservation and protection of marine biodiversity?

Where is the proper cost/benefit analysis of the productive capacity loss to our fourth-largest-export earning primary industry - the seafood industry? What thought has been given to the likely consequences for other potentially valuable industries such as mining and petroleum?

The proposed amendments to the Marine Reserves Act suggest that Ms Lee has been seduced by the emotive propaganda promoted by environmental groups. She appears to be relying on arguments about the alleged benefits of overseas marine reserves where fisheries are unmanaged and fishing practices are unsustainable.

That is not the case here, where a comprehensive and rigorously monitored and audited fisheries management regime is designed to maintain and improve fish stocks, and mitigate fishing's effect on the marine environment.

The seafood industry does not argue against the concept of marine protection or protection of biodiversity.

The health and wellbeing of fisheries depend on good management of all marine resources.

The more credible and responsible approach would be to consider what the risks are and evaluate a way to manage them.

It may require many pieces of legislation and the plethora of regulations that at present govern activities within the marine environment.

The proposed expansion of no-take reserves will undoubtedly come at considerable cost to those responsibly using the marine environment, including the commercial seafood industry, which contributes to local communities, regional development, export revenue and sustainable environmental outcomes.

It is made up of tens of thousands of people who value their rights to a reasonable share of fish stocks for sport, recreation and food; and the many Maori who derive mana, prosperity and food from their commercial and customary fishing rights under the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act.

In an election year it might come down to "I fish, I vote", but I hope a more rational evaluation of risks and remedies in the select committee process will enable legislation that properly acknowledges and respects the existing rights and opportunities, and the economic benefits of sustainable use, while achieving appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment.

* Daryl Sykes, a former commercial fisherman, has had 10 years' involvement in fisheries research and management programmes here and overseas.