Marine farming high and dry

By IRENE CHAPPLE

The journey has been as long and tortuous as the roads of the picturesque Marlborough Sounds.

It is not over yet and aquaculture, the industry that proponents say could be earning $1 billion a year by 2020, is waiting by the roadside.

The growth of marine farming is being stalled by unexpected hiccups and a broken deadline on the introduction of a law reform bill.

Some farmers are growing increasingly frustrated at the obstacles hindering the industry.

The easiest date on which to hang a brief history of recent events affecting aquaculture is November 2001 - when a moratorium was imposed on new marine farms.

Faced with a rush of applications, the Government needed a breathing space while new legislation was introduced, replacing the tangle of laws ruling the industry.

Draft reforms were produced and the Government set a deadline of August 2003 to introduce the Aquaculture Reform Bill.

Under the reforms, regional councils were asked to draw up aquaculture management areas to find waterspace suitable for farming before the moratorium expires in March next year.

But, as well as complaints that councils will not be able to establish the management areas in time, the bill's progress has been stalled by a number of events, including the Waitangi Tribunal's favourable report on iwi claims over aquaculture rights, and the foreshore and seabed debate.

An extension of the moratorium is beginning to look inevitable despite the Government's desire to lift it on time.

The moratorium could not be extended without further legislative intervention to prevent the old regime coming back into force.

The Ministry of Fisheries, Environment Ministry and various politicians are tackling the issue, but they face a difficult task.

Problems arose almost immediately after the moratorium was announced.

Farmers were outraged that the blanket ban on new marine farms caught applications which had been chugging through the acceptance process for up to eight years, often at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Maori were particularly hard-hit - some iwi representatives estimated that about 90 per cent of the applications caught in the moratorium were from Maori interests.

Under pressure from the farmers, the Government relaxed the cut-off date, allowing applications lodged before November 2001 to continue winding through the process.

Farmers, most of whom supported the need for a moratorium and were aghast only at its catch-all approach, were appeased.

Then a few months later, the Waitangi Tribunal issued a damning report on the Government's handling of Maori interests in the industry.

The report, Ahu Moana: The Aquaculture and Marine Farming Report, found that the proposed aquaculture law reforms breached at least four treaty principles and had insufficient regard for Maori.

Fisheries Minister Pete Hodgson said the report did not come as a surprise but its entry into the debate created yet another hurdle for the Government to jump.

A large percentage of the aquaculture industry - estimates vary from 30 to more than 50 per cent - is already run by Maori, and they have entered the industry on the same basis as non-Maori interests.

They also sit alongside those Maori seeking recognition of their interests through the Treaty of Waitangi.

This creates the ironic possibility that the Government may end up taking from corporate Maori interests to give to those with treaty claims.

This debate, which may appear to be divided along Maori/Pakeha lines, is anything but.

Indeed, Pakeha participants in the industry generally support the Maori claims and query why the Government did not deal with the issue in detail before releasing its draft reform proposals.

The problem has become even thornier since the eruption of the foreshore and seabed debate.

The Court of Appeal decision was triggered by an aquaculture claim in the Marlborough Sounds and the two issues are linked.

The judgment appears to have slapped down Government hopes to include some sort of "process" clause in the bill to deal with the aquaculture claims at a later date.

That would have enabled the legislation to move ahead but given the Government an "out" to deal with iwi claims later.

Now, with the foreshore and seabed debate in full swing, there appears to be a commitment to clarifying both issues in tandem.

The Government does not want to introduce aquaculture reforms that could clash with later foreshore and seabed legislation.

It is a difficult situation and is, unsurprisingly, delaying the introduction of the aquaculture law reform.

The Business Herald has been told Government officials are now saying it will not be introduced until November.

The latest word is that the Government wants to incorporate an intervention clause that would give it the discretion not to renew a farmer's tenure over waterspace.

That has upset farmers who say they need security of tenure, now provided by a right of renewal, to invest in their farms.

Maori are also understood to be fighting for 20 per cent guaranteed access to new aquaculture management areas, reflecting the fishing deals of the 1980s and 1990s.

The Government will not talk about a bill that is being drafted and Ted Culley, leading the Aquaculture Council's "response team", has not seen the legislation and is therefore, to some extent, "boxing at shadows".

The industry recognises the difficulties facing the Government but cannot help but be frustrated at the reform's snail-like progress.

Aquaculture, tipped for years as a coming star among New Zealand's export industries, is still waiting to get back on the road.

Aquaculture

Includes the the farming of fish and shellfish such as greenshell mussels, oysters, salmon and paua. Species with potential for aquaculture include kingfish, rock lobster, sea horses and eels.

Earns about $312 million a year. By some estimates, could earn $1 billion a year by 2020.

Moratorium on new marine farms introduced in November 2001 to give Government breathing space while it reforms law.

Moratorium due to expire next March.