Law already adequate to safeguard marine life

By KEITH INGRAM*

The Minister of Conservation is getting out of his depth with inappropriate and incorrect remarks about marine reserves. In his enthusiasm to meet the Government's objective to turn 10 per cent of our coastline into marine protected areas, he fails to acknowledge existing marine protection mechanisms.

Equally, he fails to outline the threats that warrant closing vast areas of coastline to fishing.

The Recreational Fishing Council strongly supports protection of the marine environment. In appropriate circumstances it may be that areas of coastline should be set aside for scientific study or passive public enjoyment.

The Marine Reserves Act provides for areas of the sea and foreshore to be declared reserves to preserve them in their natural state for scientific study. Such areas may contain underwater scenery, natural features or marine life of such distinctive quality, or so typical, or beautiful, or so unique that their continued preservation is in the national interest.

The council supports this definition of a reserve. It is objective, measurable and succinct and, if done properly, can be seen and accepted by everyone as being somewhere special and different where extractive activities should be prohibited.

Yet marine reserves are but one tool to protect ecosystems and biodiversity. They cannot be allowed to become the only tool or the tool of first choice if suitable alternatives are available.

Just as a system of national parks, state forests, regional parks and scenic reserves offers different levels of protection, the marine environment also has a hierarchy of tools.

At the top of the list is the Marine Reserves Act, which is intended to protect and preserve areas for the conservation of marine biodiversity. It provides the most comprehensive protection for both species and the marine habitat.

The Fisheries Act is designed to ensure sustainability of the fisheries resource and maintain biodiversity. Fisheries plans offer a mechanism to protect, maintain or restore habitats and ecosystems that are important for biodiversity.

The quota management system allows the fisheries resource to be managed sustainably. It is viewed as world-leading by other countries that do not have managed fisheries with sustainable practices. Arguments imported from these countries to justify reserves as a tool to manage fishing should be discounted because we have an excellent and sustainable resource management programme.

Mataitai and taiapure reserves, established under the Fisheries Act, are areas set aside as traditional fishing grounds where tangata whenua have a special relationship with the area. While both Maori and non-Maori can fish in these areas, bylaws can be recommended by the tangata tiaki restricting or prohibiting fishing if they consider it necessary for sustainable management.

Regional coastal plans allow regional councils to manage areas in association (or at least consistently) with the Coastal Policy Statement. The statement makes it a national priority to preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect significant indigenous vegetation and fauna.

The Marine Mammals Protection Act is intended to protect particular species, such as dolphins, whales and seals. And the Wildlife Act establishes sanctuaries to protect particular species. Those with a marine component are usually found in inter-tidal areas. While limited in their extent, the reserves provide permanent protection.

In addition, there are a number of controlled areas, such as submarine cable and pipelines protection areas and shipping routes, that prohibit or restrict fishing.

This range of law allows for a comprehensive range of protection tools from full protection of all marine life to safeguarding specific species or customary rights in local areas.

It is important to keep this in mind when proposing a marine reserve that would, in effect, severely restrict or erode recreation and sustainable economic development.

The Conservation Minister is being misleading when he says "marine reserves will offer scientific opportunities that will benefit sustainable management of fisheries and improve the quality of fishing".

It is scientifically recognised that marine reserves are not a fisheries enhancing, management tool. We have a raft of tools under the Fisheries Act for that.

He also talks of not knowing enough about our sea life and says over 300 species are known to be in danger of extinction. No New Zealander would wish that, but let's identify the species first, then the habitat, isolate the threat, and eliminate the risk by using the most suitable tool at our disposal.

If establishing a reserve proves to be the only tool suitable, so be it. In the proper process the public would have been consulted, the costs and benefits weighed up, opportunity adjustments agreed and a marine reserve then declared.

The ad hoc manner in which the Government is allowing all and sundry to put up proposals for reserves is of great concern. Equally, the Government is funding selected environmental groups with declared anti-fishing agendas to enable them to develop reserve proposals.

When fishers object to the potential loss of access and catch, they are portrayed as the bad guys. But the amateur fishing community wants only to retain the right to sustainably harvest seafood for sustenance and recreation.

The Government has unfinished business in relation to the proper definition of amateur fishing rights. It is neither fair nor just that by closing large areas of coastline to fishing, it should proceed to deprive the amateur fishing public of opportunity before it has confirmed those rights in law.

* Keith Ingram is a board member of the Recreational Fishing Council.